Serious suggestion about threads

[mrzz]

Hi all

I am a strong supporter of our forum policy where bans are practically non existent. And I also use a lot the "ignore" button. However, obnoxious posters will populate a lot of threads with offensive/trolling content, and, even worst, start creating loads and loads of threads. I think that all threads should be kept, people can write what the hell they want, but it is also true that hatred filled threads will keep eventual new quality posters away.

So I have a suggestion which I do not know if is feasible, but anyway:

Threads could be ranked on each section not by latest post, but by some new metric called "relevance". It could just count the replies (but I do not think that would be good), or something like "replies per day" or per hour, or even some kind of rate/grade given by the own community. New threads (which would not be rated still) could be placed in a section called "new threads", before they are old/rated enough to be ranked with the rest.

This way a new poster that gets to the page don't immediately see something like "Nadal fans are a disgrace" (which in fact they are )

 

[Horsa]

Hi!

I think that's a good idea. Moxie was right the other day when she said some people just create threads about whatever is going on in their heads at the time.

How some people on here treat others (yes, I'm talking about the trolls here) I think we need a thread on netiquette. (Just an idea!) I hate the animosity too.

How about a different idea to yours? Instead of having a new threads & relevance section how about a junk thread & post section like a trash bin if you like? It would be easier for admin to police & all they'd have to do if they found junk threads & posts is put them in there. This would also shame the person who posted them so they'd be less likely to post similar things in future. (Just an idea!).

 

[britbox]

Hi all

I am a strong supporter of our forum policy where bans are practically non existent. And I also use a lot the "ignore" button. However, obnoxious posters will populate a lot of threads with offensive/trolling content, and, even worst, start creating loads and loads of threads. I think that all threads should be kept, people can write what the hell they want, but it is also true that hatred filled threads will keep eventual new quality posters away.

So I have a suggestion which I do not know if is feasible, but anyway:

Threads could be ranked on each section not by latest post, but by some new metric called "relevance". It could just count the replies (but I do not think that would be good), or something like "replies per day" or per hour, or even some kind of rate/grade given by the own community. New threads (which would not be rated still) could be placed in a section called "new threads", before they are old/rated enough to be ranked with the rest.

This way a new poster that gets to the page don't immediately see something like "Nadal fans are a disgrace" (which in fact they are )

It would be nice in principle but wouldn't work because often the tribal threads get a bunch of posts... i.e. The Nadal fans are a disgrace thread got 38 replies in a very short space of time and now the Federer fans are a disgrace has had a bunch of replies in a short space of time.

So the only real way of handling it is via some sort of human moderation... then it's a fine balance because different people want different levels. Some want no moderation, some more moderation.

You make valid points though... I saw a thread by Iona re: Murray on clay, first thought was... Iona! I haven't seen her on tennis boards for years... only to be disappointed that a 6-year-old thread had been bumped up by a moronic troll just posting a one-word comment "Garbage" at the end.

Some trolls can be funny, some trolls evolve into better members by contributing more and better stuff as they get more into the forum... so we try and be flexible but there are one or two morons knocking around right now who I doubt will move into either of these categories.

 

[mrzz]

It would be nice in principle but wouldn't work because often the tribal threads get a bunch of posts... i.e. The Nadal fans are a disgrace thread got 38 replies in a very short space of time and now the Federer fans are a disgrace has had a bunch of replies in a short space of time.

So the only real way of handling it is via some sort of human moderation... then it's a fine balance because different people want different levels. Some want no moderation, some more moderation.

You make valid points though... I saw a thread by Iona re: Murray on clay, first thought was... Iona! I haven't seen her on tennis boards for years... only to be disappointed that a 6-year-old thread had been bumped up by a moronic troll just posting a one-word comment "Garbage" at the end.

Some trolls can be funny, some trolls evolve into better members by contributing more and better stuff as they get more into the forum... so we try and be flexible but there are one or two morons knocking around right now who I doubt will move into either of these categories.

I see... that's why I suggested some kind of "rating" to the threads... (you know, from 0 to 5 stars or something like that), as I guess folks would not rate high such idiotic threads, even if they cannot control the compulsion to reply on them.

Or (since I am suggesting, I know that it is very easy to say/write anything that pops out of one head), you guys could just create a section of "Random threads", and move all the barbaric ones there. This would make sense since a thread "Nadal fans are a disgrace" actually has nothing to do with the ATP tour (which is the section it is in right now). It has more to do with things such as "indisputable truths".

 

[tented]

Or (since I am suggesting, I know that it is very easy to say/write anything that pops out of one head), you guys could just create a section of "Random threads", and move all the barbaric ones there. This would make sense since a thread "Nadal fans are a disgrace" actually has nothing to do with the ATP tour (which is the section it is in right now). It has more to do with things such as "indisputable truths".

It’s indisputable that an Indisputable Truths forum is precisely the kind of truth we need around here.

 

[Horsa]

It would be nice in principle but wouldn't work because often the tribal threads get a bunch of posts... i.e. The Nadal fans are a disgrace thread got 38 replies in a very short space of time and now the Federer fans are a disgrace has had a bunch of replies in a short space of time.

So the only real way of handling it is via some sort of human moderation... then it's a fine balance because different people want different levels. Some want no moderation, some more moderation.

You make valid points though... I saw a thread by Iona re: Murray on clay, first thought was... Iona! I haven't seen her on tennis boards for years... only to be disappointed that a 6-year-old thread had been bumped up by a moronic troll just posting a one-word comment "Garbage" at the end.

Some trolls can be funny, some trolls evolve into better members by contributing more and better stuff as they get more into the forum... so we try and be flexible but there are one or two morons knocking around right now who I doubt will move into either of these categories.

I think you've got the balance right most of the time. There are 3 main forms of power. 1 is the top-down hierarchical form. The other 1 is where everyone knows what is expected of them & are friends & want to do what is right. The 3rd is in between the other to where you want everyone to be friends, know what's expected of them & want to do what is right so do it. I know you don't like the idea of the 1st form as you don't like to be too authoritarian & that you'd ideally want the 2nd form but can't get it so try the 3rd form. I know I've stepped out of line a few times mainly when angry but normally try to act like a civilised human being & discuss my problems with people privately & calmly & prefer others to do the same. I know I start explaining myself at 1st but once I've done the explaining I do listen to what has been said & do something about it. (Sometimes *most of the time* I realise my faults myself afterwards when I calm down & get overly apologetic & start explaining myself). I can be reasoned with as people realise as I've often been reasoned with when I've stepped out of line & made things up & got back to normal later. I know that I annoy everyone a bit afterwards when I realise by over-analysing my behaviour, explaining & being overly apologetic. Thank you very much for being patient with me.

 

[Horsa]

It’s indisputable that an Indisputable Truths forum is precisely the kind of truth we need around here.

I love the word-play & think it's very good. Thank you very much. We need more.