Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2009 20:14:20 GMT -5
Honestly the only idea I have is one that's been said for awhile and its a Search Function that works
|
|
Johnny B. Decent
Patti Mayonnaise
Had one once
Everybody's Favorite Arizonian.
Posts: 31,091
|
Post by Johnny B. Decent on Jun 4, 2009 20:23:46 GMT -5
Is there a option for filters where you can turn on/off how you see them, but others can? Like if someone types "f***", you can see it, but everybody else sees it as "snork", and if you type that word, it is filtered to the ones who have it on. Some people don't like filters, so it might appeal to them.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Jun 4, 2009 20:25:31 GMT -5
I agree with the ideas about a "tiered" banning system, an ignore option, and a games sub-forum.
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Jun 4, 2009 20:28:12 GMT -5
Three strikes rule...we already have it in place...works for some, not for others.
Personally, I love the ignore button idea, although sadly mods wouldn't be able to do so.
Search function that works would be a great idea as well.
Forum games...doubt it'll get it's own section, although there are boards that promote such games (see Deadpool's sig).
We're trying to discourage that kind of language (to a degree) so I personally am not keen on the filter idea.
This is going great so far.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Woodrow on Jun 4, 2009 20:28:27 GMT -5
Is there a option for filters where you can turn on/off how you see them, but others can? Like if someone types "f***", you can see it, but everybody else sees it as "snork", and if you type that word, it is filtered to the ones who have it on. Some people don't like filters, so it might appeal to them. I like that idea.
|
|
|
Post by ani on Jun 4, 2009 20:34:01 GMT -5
Not sure how good this idea is but I'll throw it out anyway...
What about a sub-forum that acts like a lower "forum government" That way, non-mod posters can have a say in certain matters.
|
|
|
Post by tap on Jun 4, 2009 20:37:35 GMT -5
Would a general entertainment forum, that would include movies, music, games, books, TV, etc., be good to separate General Discussion from other things? With the rate that threads drop off page 1 of General Discussion, it would reduce multiple threads about the same topic as well make things easier to find (because sometimes I can't find such and such a thread with the search function).
I think I asked about this before and got a "no" because of how Proboards is set up here. Anyway, I thought it might be worth re-suggesting.
|
|
"Hollywood" Cactus Matt
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
You couldn't ask for a better custom title!
How do you spell "Goddess"? C-H-R-I-S-T-Y!
Posts: 15,300
|
Post by "Hollywood" Cactus Matt on Jun 4, 2009 20:38:33 GMT -5
Not sure how good this idea is but I'll throw it out anyway... What about a sub-forum that acts like a lower "forum government" That way, non-mod posters can have a say in certain matters. That works in theory, but I think it would just lead to flaming.
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Jun 4, 2009 20:39:12 GMT -5
Not sure how good this idea is but I'll throw it out anyway... What about a sub-forum that acts like a lower "forum government" That way, non-mod posters can have a say in certain matters. Thing is, how would we decided which posters got a say, and which don't? I don't think popular vote would work, as that would be a popularity contest not necessarily who would be best for the spot. But if they were chosen by the mods, then they might as well just make them mods. The idea itself is good, I like it. But the problem would be choosing who got a say, and who didn't EDIT: Wow, that's 2 of Ani's ideas I've picked apart ![:-/](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/undecided.png) Don't take it personally dude, I like the ideas but the logistics are difficult
|
|
|
Post by Sir Woodrow on Jun 4, 2009 20:40:25 GMT -5
Not sure how good this idea is but I'll throw it out anyway... What about a sub-forum that acts like a lower "forum government" That way, non-mod posters can have a say in certain matters. That works in theory, but I think it would just lead to flaming. Forget flaming it would turn into a damn inferno.
|
|
|
Post by Gopher Mod on Jun 4, 2009 20:42:13 GMT -5
Kash, as someone said earlier, I would like to see a harder stance on the three-strikes policy we have around here.
First warning would result in a ban of 12-24 hours.
Second warning would result in a ban of 2 weeks or so.
Third warning- ejection from the boards, never to return.
I feel just having the warnings is not enough. When someone steps out of line, the hammer needs to be dropped.
|
|
|
Post by ani on Jun 4, 2009 20:44:44 GMT -5
Kash, as someone said earlier, I would like to see a harder stance on the three-strikes policy we have around here. First warning would result in a ban of 12-24 hours. Second warning would result in a ban of 2 weeks or so. Third warning- ejection from the boards, never to return. I feel just having the warnings is not enough. When someone steps out of line, the hammer needs to be dropped. The only problem with that is you can ban people forever but some can easily sign up back again. It's tough to block the IP's from what I remember the mods telling me.
|
|
Square
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Official Ambassador
Grand Poobah of Scavenger Hunts 2011
Square-Because he looks good at all the right angles.
Posts: 18,701
|
Post by Square on Jun 4, 2009 20:44:51 GMT -5
How about the posibility of getting warnings removed after a period, like a year or so
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Jun 4, 2009 20:45:23 GMT -5
Kash, as someone said earlier, I would like to see a harder stance on the three-strikes policy we have around here. First warning would result in a ban of 12-24 hours. Second warning would result in a ban of 2 weeks or so. Third warning- ejection from the boards, never to return. I feel just having the warnings is not enough. When someone steps out of line, the hammer needs to be dropped. The three strikes thing is something that might be tweaked.
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Jun 4, 2009 20:45:57 GMT -5
How about the posibility of getting warnings removed after a period, like a year or so That already happens after a certain period of time(not saying how long for obvious reasons).
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Jun 4, 2009 20:46:52 GMT -5
Kash, as someone said earlier, I would like to see a harder stance on the three-strikes policy we have around here. First warning would result in a ban of 12-24 hours. Second warning would result in a ban of 2 weeks or so. Third warning- ejection from the boards, never to return. I feel just having the warnings is not enough. When someone steps out of line, the hammer needs to be dropped. The only problem with that is you can ban people forever but some can easily sign up back again. It's tough to block the IP's from what I remember the mods telling me. Some people will always try to sign up again...some even slip through. But way more get found out than slip through.
|
|
Square
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Official Ambassador
Grand Poobah of Scavenger Hunts 2011
Square-Because he looks good at all the right angles.
Posts: 18,701
|
Post by Square on Jun 4, 2009 20:46:54 GMT -5
How about the posibility of getting warnings removed after a period, like a year or so That already happens after a certain period of time(not saying how long for obvious reasons). Are people told about them, because that would be a good incentive of people to buck up there ideas
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Jun 4, 2009 20:48:15 GMT -5
That already happens after a certain period of time(not saying how long for obvious reasons). Are people told about them, because that would be a good incentive of people to buck up there ideas No. Because if someone knows that a warning has dropped, they'll try to guesstimate how long the time period is and wait until then to show their ass again.
|
|
"Hollywood" Cactus Matt
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
You couldn't ask for a better custom title!
How do you spell "Goddess"? C-H-R-I-S-T-Y!
Posts: 15,300
|
Post by "Hollywood" Cactus Matt on Jun 4, 2009 20:49:13 GMT -5
That works in theory, but I think it would just lead to flaming. Forget flaming it would turn into a damn inferno. Did you just call me gay? ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) Seriously, though, I really like the IGNORE button idea, as I think being able to ignore a handful of individuals would definitely increase my enjoyment of the board. And maybe we change the definition of what constitutes "trolling"? I don't expect to agree with everyone - that would be boring as hell - but when the same people are posting the same thing(s) in every single thread - even if it follows all the rules - it should be a warnable offense, I think. Like, if I went into threads that had nothing to do with Christy Hemme, and I started on-topic but then somehow, using my superior intelligence ;D changed it into a multi-paragraph rant about the awesomeness of Christy Hemme, only to come back around at the end and say, "In conclusion, I think Shawn Michaels is awesome," well ... I think I should get warned. Basically, I'm saying that mild hijacking is fine and dandy, but if it gets to be, like, seven or more posts all "I agree" or "I DON'T KNOOOOOOWWW!!" or whatever, the thread should be locked. Or, if it gets to be the same handful of jokers doing it all the time, they should be warned/banned/quartered by horses. Did that make sense to anyone else, or was that only a good idea in my head?
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Jun 4, 2009 20:51:35 GMT -5
Also, I like the idea of Warnings being taken more seriously, but along with that I'd like to see better outlines of what gets a slap on the wrist, what gets an full warning, and what's autoban.
For example, saying someone is being an asshole and saying I'm gonna go tip back a few Budweisers are both against board rules. But would both get me the same punishment?
|
|