Game-changing information posted later in the thread

[CakeBeret]

I've noticed several threads lately in which a poster will either

(a) post a hypothetical situation, get a couple pages of responses, and then post the "real" situation (which almost always includes information that changes other posters' opinions)
(b) makes a post that seems overly vague and then adds background information a few pages in
(c) post a very vague situation with the disclaimer that they want unbiased opinions, and will post the real situation or more details later

I thought the forum rules disallowed such situations, but I've seen a great number of these posts lately. I find it very confusing when the situation changes mid-thread.

Thoughts?

[TeamBhakta]

I have to say, it's frustrating to see threads like this one below (hypothetical and paraphrased, of course)

"I went to the store today. Some lady called me a puppy kicker. Rude, right ?"
"I agree. That's just random"
"Maybe she's senile and calls everyone a puppy kicker ?"
(Five pages later)
"In full disclosure, she did see me kick a blind lady's puppy. I just wanted to know if, in general, one should call someone a puppy kicker, regardless of what they've done."

[faithlessone]

I've seen a few of these recently - mostly along the lines of OP posts a situation where it's unclear whether they were in the wrong or not. A few pages later, after a lot of vivid discussion, they reveal much clearer details which show that they were either definitely rude, or in an impossible situation which they made the best of.

It's remarkably annoying. I wish people would make a more concerted effort to give all the background/all the details in their first post.

[Animala]

I have to say these are my pet peeves.  Particularly the ones where the majority says the same thing against the OP/situation posted and it seems like the OP tries to give more and more information to justify why the OP was right. 

I try very hard to avoid them.

[RainhaDoTexugo]

A and B can be annoying, but I try to give the benefit of the doubt unless it becomes a pattern.  Sometimes it can be hard to tell what is and isn't relevant, when you're in the middle of a situation, and I know I sometimes miss details trying to keep a post short.  When it's a pattern, or a totally blatant attempt to make the poster look better, then it gets annoying.

C doesn't bother me at all.  It seems pretty sensible, in some situations.  There's often a bias towards the ehellion in borderline situations, so I can see wanting to find out what opinions are without declaring a side yourself.

[PrincessInPink]

A and B can be annoying, but I try to give the benefit of the doubt unless it becomes a pattern.  Sometimes it can be hard to tell what is and isn't relevant, when you're in the middle of a situation, and I know I sometimes miss details trying to keep a post short.  When it's a pattern, or a totally blatant attempt to make the poster look better, then it gets annoying.

C doesn't bother me at all.  It seems pretty sensible, in some situations.  There's often a bias towards the ehellion in borderline situations, so I can see wanting to find out what opinions are without declaring a side yourself.

Just what I was about to say. To me, C is a different kind of situation than A or B. Sometimes, details can distract from the issue that the OP really wants advice on. Sometimes people will get into a discussion about some detail and ignore the main question. There can be valid reasons for not wanting to give all the details right away.

It can be hard to know how many details to include in a post when you're in the middle of a situation. A lot of times, people will go the opposite way and give way too much background or details that aren't important. That can be annoying, too.

Some people might be doing this on purpose, but I bet a lot of them aren't.