Yorkie Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Only read the opening post so apologies if i'm repeating anything. Don't think it's an overly bad idea, but people can get to 100 posts quite quickly and i can't help but think that if the mongs know that this is the case, they'll do whatever they can to get their post count up. And i'm surprised the mods/admins are in favour of this idea over Thread Moderation - which would be a lot more efficient. Regardless of who is posting the threads, there'll always be mong threads. But i agree that something needs to be done. Hopefully that will be noted, though. It'll be noted? Woah... calm down! Let's not go to too drastic measures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Bluf told me he's going to write them on his head. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Worst of it is, the mongs will be reading this thinking................ "yer make sure them bastards don't get there word count up". OMG.... maybe i'm one of them! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newcastle Fan Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 btw who are "the mongs" here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Worst of it is, the mongs will be reading this thinking................ "yer make sure them bastards don't get there word count up". OMG.... maybe i'm one of them! It's generally the case though. Whenever i've been on a footy forum, and the post count has been there, on the page, underneath their avatar for all to see - the kiddies have competed to get it up to a high amount. Sad, but it is true. So as to be dubbed "World Cup Winner" and other such subtitles that post counts offer. I'm sure Dave or Bluf would probably agree with me on that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 btw who are "the mongs" here Stop panicking. ... I'm just stereotyping. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 A secret group of under cover mackems who have some from the outer reaches of human misery in order to distrupt our forum with negative and poor comments. or just a bunch of 14 year olds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 A secret group of under cover mackems who have some from the outer reaches of human misery in order to distrupt our forum with negative and poor comments. or just a bunch of 14 year olds take those 2 groups out and theres only me left Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 so why exactly was the longest thread topic deleted? surely in general chat that should be allowed. i personally think there is too much moderation on this forum, i get fed up of having to trawl through pages to find what i want as threads have been merged. why not just have one thread for big sam and one for each player and keep them going all season and allow nobody to start a new thread no matter what happens, thats the way it seems to be going sometimes. fair enough there were quite a few threads relating to allardyce over the last few weeks but some of them were totally unrelated yet still get merged. anyway i've only got 50 posts so probably not even entitled to an opinion, although i have been a member since 2005. Yeah, and in that time you've started 3 threads, are you really sure that you'll miss it that much? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 ...I can't help but think that if the mongs know that this is the case, they'll do whatever they can to get their post count up. And i'm surprised the mods/admins are in favour of this idea over Thread Moderation - which would be a lot more efficient. Agreed on those points. The forum has had a run on poor threads with little or no interesting debate, and I don't see how you can do anything about it other than kill such threads and keep any decent ones alive. I don't see how restricting new users is the way to go as generally if someone starts their first thread they will have put some thought into it otherwise just lock it and move on. Tbf most of the threads just seem to fail because established posters post in them almost simply for the sake of it. Not a lot you can do about that really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonbaz Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 so why exactly was the longest thread topic deleted? surely in general chat that should be allowed. i personally think there is too much moderation on this forum, i get fed up of having to trawl through pages to find what i want as threads have been merged. why not just have one thread for big sam and one for each player and keep them going all season and allow nobody to start a new thread no matter what happens, thats the way it seems to be going sometimes. fair enough there were quite a few threads relating to allardyce over the last few weeks but some of them were totally unrelated yet still get merged. anyway i've only got 50 posts so probably not even entitled to an opinion, although i have been a member since 2005. Yeah, and in that time you've started 3 threads, are you really sure that you'll miss it that much? i wont miss it really although i still feel i should have the option Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spark Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 I'm sorry but I don't think this is a good idea at all. Why not just restrict the posting of people who consistently start shit topics? What if someone has a link to an interesting piece of news or an article? You're telling me that they can't post a topic about it? 100 posts might not seem like a lot to some of you but some people only post once in a while so it could take them ages to rack up that amount. I wouldn't say the standard has been to bad of late, either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ennyoueffsea Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Bluf told me he's going to write them on his head. Gawd, he must have a canny size heed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Bluf told me he's going to write them on his head. There won't be enough space. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Bluf can borrow my head if he wants. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodson Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Hello all. Recently there have been increasing numbers of threads appearing in which the subject has either been already discussed very recently or is complete bollocks. I'm not going to give specific examples, everyone has seen them. With the number of members also going up and up, this has become a major problem, both for the forum (loads of duplicate threads, not knowing which to read/ignore, fractured topics) and for the admin, who have to do a spiralling amount of largely unnecessary merging, modifying, locking and deleting. The way we have chosen to address this is via a post count-based moderation system for both new members and those who very rarely post. Basically, members have to post at least 100 times before they are able to start their own threads (or polls) on the forum. They will still be able to post normally during this time. We hope this means that threads are started by members that have been here a while and have made a decent contribution to the forum. We feel this is a safe cut-off point to prevent new members just starting threads left, right and centre. 100 posts should take a lengthy amount of time to get to, and in that time it should be obvious to all whether that member contributes in a worthwhile way to the forum. If this is not the case, and members reach 100 posts with rubbish then start to create worthless/duplicate threads, they can (and will) be downgraded to stop them. This will also happen to existing members with 100+ posts who regularly start s*** threads. However, all people who are restricted from starting threads will still be able to post normally. We hope this will make members aware that without contributing in a worthwhile fashion, the ability to create new threads will not be afforded to them, whether or not they reach 100 posts. The admin understand that not everyone will be happy about this new arrangement, but we are doing this in the interests of the forum, hoping to create a more concise community with fewer threads that just clog up the place, create work and are generally not worth reading. Cheers. Who is the moderator, Putin? ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toon Amy Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 If I go to my stats it says 36 posts. If I go to "show posts" there are 147 of them. I can't start a new topic because the post count is incorrect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 If I go to my stats it says 36 posts. If I go to "show posts" there are 147 of them. I can't start a new topic because the post count is incorrect. See Dave it's working. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcdefg Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 I run a (music) forum and barely moderate it at all, for the simple reason that I can't be arsed, and being off-topic is obligatory anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 First post edited. *Runs* Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 good idea Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DavB93 Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 How does the post count work, I've been a member for ages and posted loads but only shows as 18. Got well over 200. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 One thing I find mental on here is the whole concept of the "official match thread" immediately being locked when the final whistle goes, and an "official post-match thread" being started. I would have thought users are intelligent enough to know that when the match finishes, they are discussing things "post-match" without having to be directed to a new thread. There could also be a pretty good discussion going on re a particular issue, and all of a sudden that's brought to a halt by the thread being locked - I know that's happened to me on one occasion, you're replying and all of a sudden "This thread has been locked". There's no guarantee that both/all parties involved will move to the new thread, so you just end a perfectly good discussion for......well, what reason exactly? And before our over-sensitive moderating team start, no this isn't "any excuse to have a dig" , it's something which I genuinely think makes no sense. As Isegrim has said, why the need to control things to the extent that a match thread has to be instantly locked when the final whistle blows, just to ensure that nothing "post match" can be mentioned in it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 good idea Can someone reset Nobby's post count? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 good idea Can someone reset Nobby's post count? quality not quantity ....8447 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now