DenimBlog.com › Welcome to the DenimBlog Community! › General Topics › Chat › We need your Help people
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

We need your Help people - Page 6

post #126 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:00pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by virgoddess View Post
I've suggested removing COH or merging it with another "barely active" section months ago.
Yup

And it was a fantastic idea
Reply
post #127 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by the c in rap is silent View Post
it's also understandable to ban religion as a topic of discussion, but it's also hypocritical to shove your religious values on others at the same time, e.g. not allowing semi-nude pics, specific curse words, sexual topics, etc. yes, if you check your history, those values have religious roots.
banning religion as a topic is stupid...it's just a belief. it's ridiculous how religion is constantly put on a pedestal like it's a such a untouchable topic to discuss compared to politics, et al.
Reply
post #128 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mihalis View Post
banning religion as a topic is stupid...it's just a belief. it's ridiculous how religion is constantly put on a pedestal like it's a such a untouchable topic to discuss compared to politics, et al.
Theoretically, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But if you've ever seen religious "discussions" on internet message boards (that don't have religion as their primary purpose), you'd quickly realize that said boards would be better without them.
Reply
post #129 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mihalis View Post
banning religion as a topic is stupid...it's just a belief. it's ridiculous how religion is constantly put on a pedestal like it's a such a untouchable topic to discuss compared to politics, et al.
banning religious topics is understandable (as opposed to ideal) for pragmatic (as opposed to personal) reasons. it's too controversial to be worth the risk. you might be able to discuss the topic with your friends, because you're all either like-minded or you all know each other well enough.
Reply
post #130 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:07pm
1) Create real rules and enforce them

2) If someone gets mod rights, they need to be allowed input into the direction and decisions of the forum

3) Lock threads or remove posts that break the rules, CONSISTENTLY and SWIFTLY

4) Ban only under the most absolutely necessary conditions, and with mod agreement and input

5) Announce all bans and allow discussions of them for a limited period of time. Say two weeks.

6) Examine the +/-'s on people's posts and actually examine those people get too many minuses.
Reply
post #131 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:07pm
both points taken, but either way it's supposed to be an unmoderated forum with its participants knowing what to expect when they click the link. i think a majority of the members here who would actually contribute to a religious discussion are mature enough to know what is extraneous and what isn't. it's not like any of the posts here are youtube comment-esque
Reply
post #132 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:09pm
Number 6 is interesting. What happens?
Reply
post #133 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by blm14 View Post
6) Examine the +/-'s on people's posts and actually examine what happens if people get too many minuses.
What does this mean, like see whether they become suicidal or something?

(Ok, no really, what do you mean?)
Reply
post #134 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:09pm
part of the problem with a "no-holds barred" area is that it's not like members who go at one another in there get along in other areas.

Having an area where rules are relaxed will allow bad blood to metastasize and spread to the rest of the forum. I've seen it happen.
Reply
post #135 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite42 View Post
What does this mean, like see whether they become suicidal or something?

(Ok, no really, what do you mean?)

If someone gets a whole shitload of minuses then mods should look into their posts and possibly warn/punish. If someone gets a ton of pluses, they could get a free pair of jeans.

In other words, we already have a mechanism in place for REGULAR USERS to moderate themselves. Obviously you'll have neg-stalkers so you need to account for that, but if a new user has 100 posts and has in total 400 negs and only two positives, maybe that person should get a warning...
Reply
post #136 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by blm14 View Post
If someone gets a whole shitload of minuses then mods should look into their posts and possibly warn/punish. If someone gets a ton of pluses, they could get a free pair of jeans.

In other words, we already have a mechanism in place for REGULAR USERS to moderate themselves. Obviously you'll have neg-stalkers so you need to account for that, but if a new user has 100 posts and has in total 400 negs and only two positives, maybe that person should get a warning...
So, in other words, Saifz would pretty much be insta-banned?
Reply
post #137 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by blm14 View Post
part of the problem with a "no-holds barred" area is that it's not like members who go at one another in there get along in other areas.

Having an area where rules are relaxed will allow bad blood to metastasize and spread to the rest of the forum. I've seen it happen.
That's why I said earlier that each person's idea of "no holds barred" is different. Whereas one person may think it means controversial discussions, another thinks it means talking shit about members they don't like.
Reply
post #138 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:12pm
yea, that would be a great idea for the + people to get free stuff or get promoted.

we would either need somebody to do it manually, or some help raising funds for the programming of it.

i would love to see a system like that.
Reply
post #139 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:13pm
then everyone would start negging people just to get them in trouble...
Reply
post #140 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mihalis View Post
both points taken, but either way it's supposed to be an unmoderated forum with its participants knowing what to expect when they click the link. i think a majority of the members here who would actually contribute to a religious discussion are mature enough to know what is extraneous and what isn't. it's not like any of the posts here are youtube comment-esque
are you really not able to understand this totally reasonable concern or are you just that much itching to voice your opinion on religion? believe me, i'd prefer that religious topics be allowed, but you can't be serious
Reply
post #141 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:13pm
Well the fact that any one user can only neg any one post once, plus the fact that you can query the database to find e-neg-stalkers makes actions like that useless.
Reply
post #142 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by blm14 View Post
If someone gets a whole shitload of minuses then mods should look into their posts and possibly warn/punish. If someone gets a ton of pluses, they could get a free pair of jeans.

In other words, we already have a mechanism in place for REGULAR USERS to moderate themselves. Obviously you'll have neg-stalkers so you need to account for that, but if a new user has 100 posts and has in total 400 negs and only two positives, maybe that person should get a warning...
IMO bad idea, mob mentality will create gangs.

Actually, I think that's not farfetched to expect.
Reply
post #143 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jskidder View Post
then everyone would start negging people just to get them in trouble...
...and in trouble you would be.
Reply
post #144 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by begret View Post
IMO bad idea, mob mentality will create gangs.

Actually, I think that's not farfetched to expect.
That only happens so long as you see who has negged or plused your posts. If that information is not visible, gangs will not be possible.
Reply
post #145 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by begret View Post
That's why I said earlier that each person's idea of "no holds barred" is different. Whereas one person may think it means controversial discussions, another thinks it means talking shit about members they don't like.
Controversial discussions invariably lead to ad-hominem attacks, so you're drawing a false dichotomy. Controversial discussion becomes talking shit about people.
Reply
post #146 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:17pm
That will never work, nobody will + anyone anymore.
Reply
post #147 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by blm14 View Post
That only happens so long as you see who has negged or plused your posts. If that information is not visible, gangs will not be possible.
These e-gangs will probably meet on their e-turf to discuss their next neg hit.

And just like in real life, the AZN gangs will probably be the most humorous.
Reply
post #148 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by the c in rap is silent View Post
are you really not able to understand this totally reasonable concern or are you just that much itching to voice your opinion on religion? believe me, i'd prefer that religious topics be allowed, but you can't be serious
both.

at the end of the day it doesn't really bother me, was just food for thought
Reply
post #149 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:18pm
well maybe that's not a bad thing. The +/- system as it stands now does nothing. Imagine this:

negs are not seen publicly but pluses are.
Reply
post #150 of 280
12/10/08 at 10:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by blm14 View Post
That only happens so long as you see who has negged or plused your posts. If that information is not visible, gangs will not be possible.
True. So get rid of the ability to see.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Chat
DenimBlog.com › Welcome to the DenimBlog Community! › General Topics › Chat › We need your Help people