[THE CONTENTS OF THIS POST HAVE BEEN DEEMED UNSUITABLE FOR THIS THREAD]
GIVEN REASON: "That **$%£ Straycat again"
[PLEASE CONTACT A MODERATOR IF FURTHER EXPLANATION IS REQUIRED]
How much should thread creators define the parameters of that thread?
As the moment, threads are moderated for "on-topicness" (!), and individual posts are moderated for content, but nothing else. And frankly, given the regular outcry about thread splitting, I'm not desparately keen to increase the moderation load.
But it's been suggested that thread creators should be able to define who should and shouldn't contribute, and what is / isn't a sensible vote in a poll.
Is that reasonable, or is that too much control?
[THE CONTENTS OF THIS POST HAVE BEEN DEEMED UNSUITABLE FOR THIS THREAD]
GIVEN REASON: "That **$%£ Straycat again"
[PLEASE CONTACT A MODERATOR IF FURTHER EXPLANATION IS REQUIRED]
Unless it's David James posting irrelevance. Unless it's David James using the f word in a childish manner.
Has it? I would ask you to qualify that statement, but you don't let little things such as the truth and facts get in the way of your little personal grudge as proven twice already.
I don't think that this has "been suggested".
I think what has been mentioned is that it seems irrelavant to post on a topic that one is unlikely to be involved in the subject matter of, and that it might be counter productive to answer every single option on a poll when it is pretty unlikely that every option could apply to one.
Yes, you're right - a suggestion implies a positive contribution. Sorry about that.
OK, then, it has been implied that thread creation should provide a greater level of control of "who can post", and "what's a sensible vote", how's that?
OK, but to be clear, do you think that thread creators should be able to define / control this sort of thing, or not?
For example, if you created a thread "Cake suggestions for Jango", or whatever, would you want me (or anyone from, say, Scotland) not to post on that thread simply because it's unlikely we'd eat them?
Well, we've had plenty of other silly votes before - yes, often by me, usually on the "who's going where" polls - but I've not seen thread creators get all up in arms about it previously however... I've certainly never had a thread creator tell me what I can and can't click on.
In fact, lots of polls have a "click" option for that very purpose.
(Although RobD's now wised up on poll creation strategy so we can't multi-click on them alas )
Ahhh, the bliss of a properly-working ignore function - to Franck.
Again, a load of old tosh. Here's the original post with nothing implied or suggested about thread creation providing a greater level of control. It merely questions David James' dubious motives.
<!-- google_ad_section_end -->We were actually after the opinions of those who were likely to attend a UTOPIA all-nighter. I do apologise if Rocky didn't make that clear in his first post.
I fail to see why you have joined this debate seeing as you emailed us stating that you would never attend another UTOPIA event (PM if you want the details folks).
In post number 14 you also make a sarcastic reference to the fact that even though Rocky is on your ignore list, you can still see this thread.
To top it off you then sabotage the poll by childishly voting for every option.
There is a good debate going on here and it doesn't need to be hijacked by a moderator with a personal grudge.
Why the question to Sparkles? It's only David James who's made up this non existent statement.
EDIT: This is just to clarify to the more intelligent members of this forum what David James is going on about.
*wonders whether there will soon be a whole new forum meaning to "Sack the DJ"*
No, I'm not saying that at all, I think if you want to post then you should post.
I'm not speaking in specific terms here, merely general ones; and as I'm sure you can understand, ticking every option on a poll adds little to a debate or decision making process, and if a post on such as thread as you have suggested above said something along the lines of "I think a roast dinner would be much better than cake because cakes are pathetic" I'm sure you can understand that I might consider that post to be a waste of time, especially if the person posting it was not even going to be at the event.
Clicking every option and posting things that have little relevance are similar in a way to graffiti - it's an eyesore (generally) and helps no-one.
I am not saying that you or any other individual person has done this or is doing it; and if someone did I'm not saying that they shouldn't... I just didn't like what people have written elsewhere being taken out of context and put in a new thread, because that's how arguments start, and I hate arguing
Having just said all of that, I go back and read a thread that proves me wrong and that some people do think they should be allowed to control who posts what on their threads . I guess you can't win 'em all.
Just for the record, no, i don't think a thread creator should be allowed to control who posts what on their thread. If they don't like a particular post they can report it to the moderation team and that's all.
Thanks
Yes, it's silly, but almost all forum polls are silly - and if you think about it, the fact that a single vote can "skew the results" shows how unrepresentative the results are.
The only polls that I think are generally useful are the ones with significant numbers of votes - e.g. the "age" one.
Sure, but my point was not so much about one post, whether silly or sensible, more about ownership. God knows, there are enough silly posts in most threads as it is.
Which, again, lots of people do and have done in the past. And for that matter, spoiling a ballot paper is a long-standing and legitimate action in polls.
But, again to be clear, do you think this is something that should be moderated, or something you think should just be generally disapproved as poor etiquette?
For example:
How dare you post this nonsense on my thread
Last edited by David Bailey; 28th-March-2007 at 04:37 PM.
has this thread been split?
oh ****
...
Just to clarify, this is related to something I was thinking about a while back with the "Gold Members" thread.
The concept was that a putative Gold Member could have a bunch of funky features, possibly including more control, moderator-y level, of "their threads".
So, when I said, in that thread:
That's the sort of thing I was thinking about.
However, people weren't generally that enthusiastic at that time - have people changed their minds?
YOU'RE DOING IT AGAIN! IT'S MY THREAD! STOP IT NOW!!
The funny thing is - you take one loose thread. And you pull it.... you know you shouldn't be doing it, but you just can't help yourself....
... and before you know it, the whole forum starts to come unravelled! And STILL the compulsion continues, and you keep picking at that one loose thread - you might even be threatening the whole of existence, but you just can't stop yourse*
How can any sensible person in a public forum initiate a thread and expect to exclude certain people or groups from replying?
It's discrimination, on grounds yet unknown but simply discrimination.
If the Forum had Interest groups as a subset of the membership then that could by virtue of the fact that the interest group was not open to all the forum members, as a right, be used to direct threads at a more focused group. You could have groups like Lovers Corner for DT, Gav, Beo etc; a Grumpy Old Men Corner for DJ and ermmm yeah ok for DJ. I'm sure that the Franckmeister could get his web designer to create these membership groups and allow or disallow visibility of threads to those in or out of the groups like the registered members can see stuff OUTSIDE but spiders and bots can't.
It does however hint at elitism even more than just being a member of the forum to those who know of the forum but are too scared to join. A Virtual Cliquey Talented Corner to coine a phrase.
More importantly though the initial point DJ raised was about Thread Ownership and he alluded to other discussions ongoing and current in the forum. I feel it should be highlighted that the Idea of Thread Ownership would not have been raised but for the trend of Thread Splitting which hoists unbidden Thread Ownership on the unsuspecting poster, who may have possibly wandered one post too far from the initial subject.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks