Die Hard Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Like i said before, this is a public website and by making it a public website, you have to deal with the public, and you must treat them all the same. You hear that Art? Don't make another group. Ban them... treat everybody the same. Break the rules.... ban them. It's the only way to be consistent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 22, 2006 Author Share Posted March 22, 2006 You hear that Art? Don't make another group. Ban them... treat everybody the same. Break the rules.... ban them. It's the only way to be consistent They know not what they ask . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StepyagameuP Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Hi. I'm testing a new group. This new group will be disallowed from making new threads on this board. After posting this, I will be put in this group by the big, grumpy, meany Art. You will see what group I'm in. People in this group, like me, post threads that are in direct violation of forum rules. Either they do not use descriptive thread titles or they contain exact information previously posted. This group will be used liberally, but, not without limits. If news is breaking and six people post the same thing within five minutes, none will be punished. If that same news is then brought back to us three hours later, that person will be. It isn't too much to ask to ask you to look over the forum before posting and posting ANYTHING you'd like within threads that may already contain that conversation. I would actually like to make this a poll. Do you like this new group or not? We're still going to play with it, so, I'm not going to promise we care what the vote is, but, I at least want to SEE what you think. This new group can do EVERYTHING on the board EXCEPT post new threads. They can reply all day long, but nothing new. And only people who've demonstrated they don't want to do what's been asked will be placed there. Let us know what you think. I think the posts need to be on a continuous page rather then page by page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Like i said before, this is a public website and by making it a public website, you have to deal with the public, and you must treat them all the same. You realise that in order to post, you had to register an account here. If it were public, there'd be no registration process. You also realise that when you registered your account, you checked a box that states you have read the forum rules & agree to abide by them. And no, we mustn't treat them all the same. In public, if you shoot someone, should you get the same punishment as someone who litters? Someone that posts a repeat thread hours after it's old news & someone that simply comes in with a new account to do nothing but troll are going to be treated differenty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akorn22 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 You hear that Art? Don't make another group. Ban them... treat everybody the same. Break the rules.... ban them. It's the only way to be consistent i can tell you were being sarcastic to my sentence but it's not a bad idea. I said in one of my posts, if someone is breaking the rules, PM them and tell them that if it doesn;t stop, then they will be suspended or banned. I'd rather that happen. that way, i can still post threads, and if i post repetative threads again, i will be dealt with. I completely agree with the mods when they say the want to cut down on repetative and useless threads. BUt there just has to be a better way of doing it. It's actually a good thing that art posted this thread because now i will be more careful posting threads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akorn22 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 You realise that in order to post, you had to register an account here. If it were public, there'd be no registration process. You also realise that when you registered your account, you checked a box that states you have read the forum rules & agree to abide by them. And no, we mustn't treat them all the same. In public, if you shoot someone, should you get the same punishment as someone who litters? Someone that posts a repeat thread hours after it's old news & someone that simply comes in with a new account to do nothing but troll are going to be treated differenty. True, i guess it's not public, but the registration is free, and im pretty sure you guys don;t really deny anyone (i base that on the numerous trolls and fans of other teams that post on here). I checked the box that said i read the rules. and i did read the rules. However sometimes i wouldn;t read arefully enought and i would miss the thread i was about to post. I'm not the kind of person who see's a blatant thread title and posts the same thing. I just don;t always search the whole entire site for threads.. However, i will be more careful in my posting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Im gonna start a new thread talking about how I agree/disagree with this new idea!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 i can tell you were being sarcastic to my sentence but it's not a bad idea. I said in one of my posts, if someone is breaking the rules, PM them and tell them that if it doesn;t stop, then they will be suspended or banned. I'd rather that happen. that way, i can still post threads, and if i post repetative threads again, i will be dealt with. I completely agree with the mods when they say the want to cut down on repetative and useless threads. BUt there just has to be a better way of doing it. It's actually a good thing that art posted this thread because now i will be more careful posting threads I wouldn't be so sure he was being sarcastic, lol. Some people don't have as much patience for dealing with reptitive stupidity (not referring to you, necessarily) as the current mods do and for that, I commend them. I don't think a lot of people understand how much **** they put up with here on a daily basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 I don't think a lot of people understand how much **** they put up with here on a daily basis. Maybe one day we'll pull a Letterman & open up the ol' mailbag. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Maybe one day we'll pull a Letterman & open up the ol' mailbag. :laugh: Now that, I'd like to see. Get any death threats yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooney Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Non-mods jumping on other posters about what rules the thread is breaking. The discussion that follows in the same thread about why or why not the thread is indeed against the rules. It's unpleasant, and a waste of time having to cut through all the chaff to get to some actual content. Doctor is right, this is as much a problem as repetitive threads. "The patterns Al Saunders left behind" was a thread started a few days ago. It offered a completely different point of view than any of the previous "Al Saunders" threads that had been mentioned, but the thread starter was immediately chastised by a non-mod saying it belonged in another all things "Al Saunders" thread. I disagree. dinzelwashington was demonstrating, though not very coherently, the lack of supposed talent that Saunders had left in his wake, and how he was able to get that talent to perform at an extremely high level. Excellent point of view, and worth noting and discussing. It shouldn't be lumped in with another thread just because it was related to Saunders. I have changed my point of view on numerous occasions because another member had a completely different point of view and was able to express it. Especially in the off-season, when all subjects are debated ad nauseum, a fresh vantage point is refreshing, without the noise from the non-Mods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 22, 2006 Author Share Posted March 22, 2006 Now that, I'd like to see. Get any death threats yet? I average three a year or so. More if the person is certifiable. Mostly I get the, "I'm going to beat you up at the next tailgate," comment, then that comes and no one beats me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Weirdo Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 None of the mods answered my question.Am I going to be treated differently for being a Philly fan? I posted this in the other thread on accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 I average three a year or so. More if the person is certifiable. Mostly I get the, "I'm going to beat you up at the next tailgate," comment, then that comes and no one beats me up. Unbelievable. I guess I should have figured with as many people as are on here but I didn't think you'd actually answer yes. That's a little eye opening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 I posted this in the other thread on accident. (Heh, I saw that, and it looked like it was meant for this thread) Anyway to answer your question...no ...other than the ritual castration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Weirdo Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 (Heh, I saw that, and it looked like it was meant for this thread)Anyway to answer your question...no ...other then the ritual castration. Damn. I was hoping I would get unfairly banned or something. Shucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long n Left Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Here's what interests me about your view.We've stated ANYONE can say ANYTHING they want in terms of concepts, opinion and ideas, only that we're asking they do so where those conversations may already exist. There's absolutely no limit on them other than order and certainly not on content. So, how can you suggest this and censorship have anything in common. Meanwhile, you believe what YOU deem to be personal attacks are a bigger problem that should be censored. So, you're FOR censorship, but, only the kind you happen to side with? Nope. Sorry Art. Never said personal attacks should be censored...you're putting words in my mouth. I said I have more of a problem with them, and no content posts, than with redundant posts. I can skip over redundant posts. I have to wade through the others to get the info I seek. That's all. The problem I have is the principle. You say you're not limiting content, but if you disallow posts... Also, Om, I truly understand the intent. My worry is the direction it could ultimately take. As I said, It's just a principle I've long held. I'm of the opinion that the community itself does a good job of policing perpetrators. I know you have size constraints to worry about, but that's the nature of the beast when you grow as quickly as this site has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moondog Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Finally!!! I don't even care if I get placed in the group, I hardly ever start threads anyway. I don't care, just glad we are finally starting something here. Hope it really helps a lot around here, I think it will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakaveliRIP Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 ok im extremely confused can someone tell me whats going on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akorn22 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 ok im extremely confusedcan someone tell me whats going on? Basically what is goin on is this: The mods are considering putting certain members into a group that can;t post threads. They can only reply to already posted threads. The reasoning is so that it will eliminate usless and repetative threads so that they don;t have to keep closing and merging threads (they have lives too). The plan on taking members who have posted a lot of repetative threads and putting them in this group. SOme people are for it and some people are against the idea. As you can tell, i am personally against the idea. So this is the thread made to post your opinions on the proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakaveliRIP Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 ok thanks akorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossWalker Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I just don't like the idea. I started a thread about a new rivalry starting up between us and Tampa and some guy starts spouting off about how he started that thread two weeks earlier and I'm a loser and whatever else, I put him on my blocked list because he was just a disrespectful person. Anyway, if what I did there is an infringement of the rules and I would lose the ability to start threads because of something like that I'd just have to say that I'm not really for the "new group that can't start threads, errr group" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAXON Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 is this for the members who have nothing to do all day but post on extremeskins.com??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dent19 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 if it cuts down on BS,,, im wit it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shagman Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 I think its a good idea! definetly, I mean the punishment fits doesnt it. Its not like your getting kicked off or anything. I would say that after a couple times doing it people should be placed in the group. Maybe give the person one chance and then its on. You know just so I can post a thread about Should we get Larry Allen? or Bring LA back!!!:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.