Posting Ethics

[FlyTiger77]

Discuss: Is it unethical to initiate a topic in the Lobby solely for the purpose of padding one's total post count?


Edit: Corrected capitalization of "lobby"

[Eclipse]

I'm not sure its "unethical", it's just a waste of everyone's time.  It's not like you get more money or a power-up or something for being at the top of the list.

ONE MORE FOR ME!

[Майор Хаткевич]

This probably affects cadets more often than seniors. The way that is usually kept at bay is by not having a structured forum post/grade alignment. A forum I used to be a member of went from recruit to 4 star general based on post count. You can bet all the young folks had a lot of spam posts to up their counts. Upwards of 60+ posts a day on average...

[Eclipse]

Why on earth would anyone care?

Even Whuffie is based on quality vs. quantity.

[FlyTiger77]

What, praytell, is Whuffie?

[HGjunkie]

Discuss: Is it unethical to initiate a topic in the lobby solely for the purpose of padding one's total post count?

Maybe, and maybe not!

Well, there's another post.

[a2capt]

.. posting to stir post count? 

... like this whole thread? ;-)

[HGjunkie]

.. posting to stir post count? 

... like this whole thread? ;-)

pretty much.

[Eclipse]

What, praytell, is Whuffie?

The currency of a reputation-based economy:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whuffie

Which, based on sites like FaceSpace and MyTwit, etc., is where we are headed.

[jeders]

I'm not sure but, isn't it against CAPTalk rules to post purely for the purpose of padding your post count?

[FlyTiger77]

I'm not sure but, isn't it against CAPTalk rules to post purely for the purpose of padding your post count?

Gee, I have always wanted to do this:  Cite, please?

[FlyTiger77]

.. posting to stir post count? 

... like this whole thread? ;-)

pretty much.

Hey, this is a high-level ethical discussion, thank you very much. The fact that, for no reason whatsoever, I am trying to get up to my 100th post in fairly short order had NO (ok, very little--well, maybe some) bearing on the reasoning behind initiating this thread.

[davidsinn]

I'm not sure but, isn't it against CAPTalk rules to post purely for the purpose of padding your post count?

Gee, I have always wanted to do this:  Cite, please?

Closest I could come was

   
• Members will only discuss matters on topic for the forum in which they are posting.  Members will not make blatantly off-topic posts or attempt to derail legitimate discussions. All topics must relate and be of interest to CAP members in a professional aspect.
• snip
• The administration and staff of the discussion board will be the sole judges of whether or not any conduct violates these rules.  These rules are not comprehensive and the administration or staff may deem any other behavior or content to be inappropriate as they see fit.

Emphasis mine.

What say you lords of CAPtalk?

[jeders]

I'm not sure but, isn't it against CAPTalk rules to post purely for the purpose of padding your post count?

Gee, I have always wanted to do this:  Cite, please?

Not asserting, asking. However, the code of conduct can be found here.

EDIT: sinn beat me to it by mere seconds.

[FlyTiger77]

Closest I could come was

   
• Members will only discuss matters on topic for the forum in which they are posting.  Members will not make blatantly off-topic posts or attempt to derail legitimate discussions. All topics must relate and be of interest to CAP members in a professional aspect.
• snip
• The administration and staff of the discussion board will be the sole judges of whether or not any conduct violates these rules.  These rules are not comprehensive and the administration or staff may deem any other behavior or content to be inappropriate as they see fit.

Emphasis mine.

That was where I ended up also.

My thought is that any discussion of ethics, even if done with flair and humor (or even  whatever it is that I use), is a viable discussion as ethics are one of the things that separate professions from other occupations (using the classic definition of "profession" as opposed to the colloquial).

[whatevah]

Mike and I compiled the MCOC, and I think we both look down on post count threads.  In fact, I've deleted quite a few of them.

Unethical?  Eh, not really.  Lame and annoying?  You betcha.

[Major Lord]

Unethical:

1: not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior; "unethical business practices" [ant: {ethical}]

2: not adhering to ethical or moral principles; "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a base, degrading way of life"; "cheating is dishonorable"; "they considered colonialism immoral"; "unethical practices in handling public funds" [syn: {base}, {dishonorable}, {dishonourable}, {immoral}]

I don't see how doing something pointless and harmless fits these definitions. Is there some benefit to someone doing this that I am unaware of? Green stamps? Time off purgatory? Karmic solvency?

Major Lord

[Short Field]

A sense of self-importance by being "Salty and Seasoned" even if the majority of their posts were "+5" and  :clap: ?

[a2capt]

^^ What he says.

A crapton of posts simply plussing a number, or dropping a face, and for that matter - quoting the whole dang post again just to do that - is darn near worthless, IMHO (and probably not just my own) serves no other purpose than to run the post count up, and be annoying.

[DakRadz]

The forum ranks for most of the membership are based on the number of posts you make.  There are some exceptions to this, including nonsense posts and people who post a bunch of crap just to up their post count will get their count reduced accordingly.   Based on your post count, you can earn these forum ranks:

It doesn't particularly matter if it's ethical- taken to extremes, it will be dealt with.

Capice?