Seems like some people's papers are marked already, and it will only take a wafer thin movement in what is deemed the wrong direction for an excuse to be quickly assembled.
Racists.
New forum for football talk
- Thread starter Davo
- Start date
- Status
Seems like some people's papers are marked already, and it will only take a wafer thin movement in what is deemed the wrong direction for an excuse to be quickly assembled.
Racists.
Yeah, you get the impression that's what going to happen. The mods know there's a problem and loads of the decent/old school posters seem fecked off...it's going to get confusing over the next few weeks
So this forum split won't be happening then?
No.
You might want to change your location though, or you might get the chop.
You might want to change your location though, or you might get the chop.
thread-jackers should be the first to be culled
Afro should change his location to "Member of the Spammy fan club". Infact, that's such a good idea, everyone should do it.
What?
mehro: Member of the Spammy fanclub.
Cockgobbler.
My location's always been that.
This pleases me.
Spoony, the big gay, is offline. The film talk has ground to a halt.
Spoony, the big gay, is offline. The film talk has ground to a halt.
So are there actually going to be any changes around here? I assume mods are discussing these things behind closed doors... anyway...
^this
Is there any chance that a crackdown in modding would also crack down on threads where there's about 10 posts after a joke that are just??
Sure the original post is usually funny, but reading 10 posts of a little green laughing fecker isn't exactly interesting.
^this
I might have a gander ... find out what decent films there are at the moment.
being a member of spammy's fan club should be a banning offence
agreeing with other posters viewpoints should also be a banning offence as it detracts from debate
agreeing with other posters viewpoints should also be a banning offence as it detracts from debate
When I try it is because I am an ignorant American who has only watched football for seven minutes.
Rossimania illustrates that there are problems, but I tghink the mods have a good plan now.
Spoons, want to join my candle light vigil for KFC?
I blame Robbo!
I don't
I'm starting a new forum!
I'm going to call it RedCafe 3, The Uprising. Or something to that effect.
Weaste, you can talk freely now you aint a mod (not that the mods don't talk freely), what would you have done if you remained a mod to cure the footy forums of their rigamortis?
For the record I think there are plenty of good posters and threads in there, it can just be a bloody mindfield finding them sometimes
For the record I think there are plenty of good posters and threads in there, it can just be a bloody mindfield finding them sometimes
I dunno, he could well be! The walking stick thing is because that's what a banning stick looks like:
Mine were all way bigger than those and more potent/lethal.
GB is a bit of a pussy cat really. He always used to say to me "That was a bit harsh".
What would I have done? I would have deleted everyone that regularly posts in the transfer forum over silly speculation for a start.
No, really, you can tell who the idiots are, they normally flame the football forums. I would put in a minimum 40 word rule for every post.
Haha a tad harsh sometimes a few words is enough, but I understand what you mean. It irks me if I type something of say 3 paragraphs length, and someone takes the bloody time and effort to say 'I aint reading that, it's too long'!!!
The transfer forum serves a clear purpose, it keeps them out of my way cos I don't post in there full stop, bar very few occasions (mostly when some bugger moves a thread from the footy forum to the transfer forum). But I like your way around it! Sad cos I would like to talk about a new player or transfer target occasionally, but not with the likes who post in there, and not to discuss what pissing number he'll wear when he arrives
I don't see any other way to control it or bring up the quality Brad. You cannot ban clueless people just for being clueless, everyone has a right to an opinion.
It could be done on a user group level, similar to using rep points. At the moment, rep points are used to move newbies out of the newbie into the main forums. There was only one usergroup called "full member" for the main forums. I see no reason why there cannot be multiple ones, with the higher you go the more privileges you get, like making 3 word posts or whatever.
The trouble is, who is allowed to give rep points?
It could be done on a user group level, similar to using rep points. At the moment, rep points are used to move newbies out of the newbie into the main forums. There was only one usergroup called "full member" for the main forums. I see no reason why there cannot be multiple ones, with the higher you go the more privileges you get, like making 3 word posts or whatever.
The trouble is, who is allowed to give rep points?
Could we possibly ban people who obviously set out just to flame? The Moderators here seem very liberal (and I mean that in a good way), which is often the best method because it allows people to express their views without worrying about a ban or somesuch.
However, when an infestation of idiots does take over, sometimes a more hardline is what must be done. I know that when I moderated a forum the rule, however unfair, was always old > new, and if someone came in who caused absolute chaos, even if they didn't deliberately and maliciously set out to do so, they went.
And Weaste, rather than giving people rep points to promote them to different "levels", so to speak, couldn't we give them negative rep points? Some things which are said can spark a fair amount of controversy, but arn't necessarily bad. It would be easier to give someone a "point" every time they write a post that isn't funny, insightful, clever or relevant. Accumulating points would, at certain levels, then lead to a warning (including an amusing and derogatory tagline), a temporary ban, a longer temporary ban, and then a permanent ban. Points could fade over time so that a tiny bit controversial poster doesn't get banned after six long years of service
Sorry for the length, by the way. Just thought I'd throw it out there.
However, when an infestation of idiots does take over, sometimes a more hardline is what must be done. I know that when I moderated a forum the rule, however unfair, was always old > new, and if someone came in who caused absolute chaos, even if they didn't deliberately and maliciously set out to do so, they went.
And Weaste, rather than giving people rep points to promote them to different "levels", so to speak, couldn't we give them negative rep points? Some things which are said can spark a fair amount of controversy, but arn't necessarily bad. It would be easier to give someone a "point" every time they write a post that isn't funny, insightful, clever or relevant. Accumulating points would, at certain levels, then lead to a warning (including an amusing and derogatory tagline), a temporary ban, a longer temporary ban, and then a permanent ban. Points could fade over time so that a tiny bit controversial poster doesn't get banned after six long years of service
Sorry for the length, by the way. Just thought I'd throw it out there.
Ay, sounds a tad unworkably grand that progressive reputation system
As I see it, there's a clear problem in the footy forums; I've quizzed plenty from the general who say they don't post there because dickheads make them feel unwelcome for whatever reason; the more 'valued' users if I can put it like that seem to recognise it, and the mods have made plenty enough references to how they believe it's the case. But as I said before, it's so much harder to put something from theory into practice in this situation. Not an envious position for the mods, but it's something that I feel the place needs, I've only been here what a year and already I've noticed the decline of the footy forum especially (I guess I've not been here for a pre-season without a major tournament before mind which might have some responsbility)
Could we possibly ban people who obviously set out just to flame? The Moderators here seem very liberal (and I mean that in a good way), which is often the best method because it allows people to express their views without worrying about a ban or somesuch.
However, when an infestation of idiots does take over, sometimes a more hardline is what must be done. I know that when I moderated a forum the rule, however unfair, was always old > new, and if someone came in who caused absolute chaos, even if they didn't deliberately and maliciously set out to do so, they went.
And Weaste, rather than giving people rep points to promote them to different "levels", so to speak, couldn't we give them negative rep points? Some things which are said can spark a fair amount of controversy, but arn't necessarily bad. It would be easier to give someone a "point" every time they write a post that isn't funny, insightful, clever or relevant. Accumulating points would, at certain levels, then lead to a warning (including an amusing and derogatory tagline), a temporary ban, a longer temporary ban, and then a permanent ban. Points could fade over time so that a tiny bit controversial poster doesn't get banned after six long years of service
Sorry for the length, by the way. Just thought I'd throw it out there.
Here's an idea stemming from one of your points.
Why don't we do this....
All posters in the Main Forum start on 50 points. We can be awarded reputation points for quality posts, and equally we can be awarded negative points for breaking the rules or being an idiot etc. That way, we would have the main forums regulated all the time and if a poster hits the 0 mark and gets one more negative point, then they should be demoted back to the Newbies where they have to start all over again. The rep points would be awarded either '5' or '10' points at a time either way.
Any thoughts?
Could we possibly ban people who obviously set out just to flame? The Moderators here seem very liberal (and I mean that in a good way), which is often the best method because it allows people to express their views without worrying about a ban or somesuch.
However, when an infestation of idiots does take over, sometimes a more hardline is what must be done. I know that when I moderated a forum the rule, however unfair, was always old > new, and if someone came in who caused absolute chaos, even if they didn't deliberately and maliciously set out to do so, they went.
And Weaste, rather than giving people rep points to promote them to different "levels", so to speak, couldn't we give them negative rep points? Some things which are said can spark a fair amount of controversy, but arn't necessarily bad. It would be easier to give someone a "point" every time they write a post that isn't funny, insightful, clever or relevant. Accumulating points would, at certain levels, then lead to a warning (including an amusing and derogatory tagline), a temporary ban, a longer temporary ban, and then a permanent ban. Points could fade over time so that a tiny bit controversial poster doesn't get banned after six long years of service
Sorry for the length, by the way. Just thought I'd throw it out there.
Don't apologise for the length of your posts, you make good points, and I much prefer to read through a post such as yours here than 3 word posts. This place "back in the day" used to be full of long opinionated posts. It's as if we went from being a broadsheet editorial to The Sun front page.
Hectic said:
I agree.
Although is there much point to gaining reputation points? Ie, is there a next "step up", or does gaining points just give someone a bigger licence to be a twat, because he's got more points to burn? If it's the latter, it's probably better off just being able to take them away (although they'd be slowly returned over time -- say if you drop below 50 then every week you get 1 point back).
And I'd set the number at more like 30. Still enough scope to forgive the odd outburst, but even some of the real shitters wouldn't get caught with a stash of 50 points in the bank.
And the newbie forum should require 400 points or so for promotion methinks
I was promoted on eight posts, and look at the shit I've been spouting Seriously, though, anyone can write something good eight times. But it takes a classier poster to write something good thirty-two times.I agree.
Although is there much point to gaining reputation points? Ie, is there a next "step up", or does gaining points just give someone a bigger licence to be a twat, because he's got more points to burn? If it's the latter, it's probably better off just being able to take them away (although they'd be slowly returned over time -- say if you drop below 50 then every week you get 1 point back).
And I'd set the number at more like 20. Still enough scope to forgive the odd outburst, but even some of the real shitters wouldn't get caught with a stash of 50 points in the bank.
And the newbie forum should require 400 points or so for promotion methinks
I only threw out the figure of 50 with the idea that they can either move up or down by 5 or 10 points at a time. It might be easier just to make it 20 then.
I think that the reason for having positive rep would be to restore your rep count, especially if say you had noticed you were down to '5' from '20' and you made a conscious effort to change, you should be awarded for making that effort. I think if it was just negative, too many posters might be demoted before realizing what's happening and they wouldn't be able to change.
As you pointed out though, it would give other posters a license to pull 'rank' on other posters and inflate ego's because they have more points then others. However, this might have to be a small price to pay because it makes it more 'equal' this way.
I'm not sure what the mods take will be on this idea, but I think it would work out quite well and save them from picking through hundreds of posters, when others can help out and moderate easily enough through just awarding/deducting reputation points. It would also be a better alternative to outright or temporary bans, it would serve as a wake-up call for the poster, who would either have to make a real effort to get promoted again, or leave on account of not being good enough for the forum.
I agree.
Although is there much point to gaining reputation points? Ie, is there a next "step up", or does gaining points just give someone a bigger licence to be a twat, because he's got more points to burn? If it's the latter, it's probably better off just being able to take them away (although they'd be slowly returned over time -- say if you drop below 50 then every week you get 1 point back).
And I'd set the number at more like 30. Still enough scope to forgive the odd outburst, but even some of the real shitters wouldn't get caught with a stash of 50 points in the bank.
And the newbie forum should require 400 points or so for promotion methinks
You don't want a potentially good poster turning their back on the place because they're forced to endure the newbie forum for a month or so though. I went up after about 30 posts if I aint mistaken, and while it was nice to talk to fellow United supporters on the internet (first time I'd thought of doing it, had a PNE supporter who spent a lot of time doing it on his teams forum), it was something of the fiery depths of hell in there such was the quality. Certainly I embraced the concept of the newbie forum when I left it!
Fundimentally, these reputation points systems sound a good way of achieving the task in hand. But it would require 2 things: mod consistency, and mod effort. An awful lot of effort potentially, so perhaps a compromise is a relatively simply reputation system? Just putting thoughts out there, am sure the mods will come to a solution that best serves their time and arsedness demands, but keeps the forum ticking over nicely and enjoyable
p.s Soebeck, I'm impressed with you already mate! Look forwards to having some chats and debates with you in said forums
Even Rams used to write 500 words about his sexual and toilet habits.
Hectic said:
Perhaps positive reputation points could only be given when not already at maximum? Or, if the poster already has 20/30/50/whatever points (the maximum) then the positive points don't do anything.
That would allow people to make a conscious decision to clean up their act, I agree, but it would also prevent someone who has maybe been an excellent poster for a while suddenly turning into a spastic.
Saying that, chances are that someone who puts in the effort to get a huge points buffer isn't going to be someone that will start spouting nonsense at every opportunity.
The ability for everyone to give rep points will not work. An example of this is say Brad and I having a bit of a barney and we start derepping each other in some drunken or potminded madness, or simply out of pure nutpotedness.
And who decides who has what quantity of rep points to begin with?
And who decides who has what quantity of rep points to begin with?
Place a Slabber into a rep points system and what happens? Just a thought!
I agree, it could be used only when the poster reaches a certain level where gaining reputation points actually makes a difference. The only issue is that it might not motivate posters to post 'higher quality' because they aren't being repped for it. However, if that's their only reason to post quality posts, then perhaps this isn't the right place for them anyway.
Well, in my head it was the moderators doing the reputation ups/downs, because they can be trusted to not abuse the system. Though, thinking about it, it's probably far too big a task logistically to ask someone who does this as a hobby to do.
Are the moderators here assigned to particular sections, by the way? Most of the other forums I've been to have this -- it means that, say, the transfer forum moderator gets a feel for the particular species that he has to look after and is therefore better placed to judge their contributions on said forums.
Are the moderators here assigned to particular sections, by the way? Most of the other forums I've been to have this -- it means that, say, the transfer forum moderator gets a feel for the particular species that he has to look after and is therefore better placed to judge their contributions on said forums.
- Status