|
Post by Kash Flagg on Jun 4, 2009 23:37:04 GMT -5
Meh it wasn't that bad when it was just KOoS doing it then others started latching on with progressively dumber ones And you have to admit, an idea around here does tend to be beaten in a record amount of time.
|
|
|
Post by The Genesis of KoOS on Jun 4, 2009 23:41:32 GMT -5
Honestly, I think other than the lame Snork poll, I had the only on going tournament poll in the WWE forum.
Now in this forum I know there was a lot of them, but at the same time at least this polls were discussion provoking. The only one I felt was unnecessary (imo) was the Who Would You Rather Snork polls, since it really had nothing to do with wrestling. Mine were just Better Wrestler/Tag Teams and even then, the general trend was only one poll on the first page per day, if that depending on the forum activity.
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Jun 4, 2009 23:45:46 GMT -5
I felt bad that some posters who weren't going nuts over the polls thing got shafted (no pun intended). I hope we can fix that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2009 23:48:35 GMT -5
Honestly the only Day polls in O-T I remember were DP's and the Comic poll by someone's whos name escapes me ATM
|
|
|
Post by The Genesis of KoOS on Jun 4, 2009 23:55:11 GMT -5
Although I must say, I wish there was an option for us to either edit/reset stats for polls or to delete polls entirely.
For example, I'm doing a Greatest Basketball Player tournament.
Match 1 is LeBron James vs. John Stockton, once that match is over, I can delete that poll. And then I can add a brand new poll without having to start a new topic. Or I can edit the new match in and then reset the voting stats.
That would keep everything in one topic, but I doubt there is even that kind of option available with Pro Boards.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Todd Grisham on Jun 5, 2009 0:31:36 GMT -5
I think it would also be helpful that if a certain topic gets posted and one person gets out of hand that the topic not be locked, just have certain posts deleted. People seem to tip toe through a lot of subjects in fear of the thread being locked. I think we miss out on a decent amount of conversation that way. I agree with this. Sometimes I feel like a thread had been locked too fast, and it could have easily been salvaged. Also, I know proboards doesn't support this, but it would be helpful to merge multiple threads of the same topics. Sometimes a mod doesn't find it until 5 or more posts, and the thread is locked and the comments disappear never to be found again.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Woodrow on Jun 5, 2009 0:36:51 GMT -5
I think it would also be helpful that if a certain topic gets posted and one person gets out of hand that the topic not be locked, just have certain posts deleted. People seem to tip toe through a lot of subjects in fear of the thread being locked. I think we miss out on a decent amount of conversation that way. I agree with this. Sometimes I feel like a thread had been locked too fast, and it could have easily been salvaged. Also, I know proboards doesn't support this, but it would be helpful to merge multiple threads of the same topics. Sometimes a mod doesn't find it until 5 or more posts, and the thread is locked and the comments disappear never to be found again. I second these motions.
|
|
|
Post by i.Sarita.com on Jun 5, 2009 0:40:14 GMT -5
I'd like to say in defense of the no tournament side of things, that for a while there it was getting out of hand. Every other thread was some tournament or game it seemed like. Normal posts would get bumped to like page 2 or 3 in a matter of minutes because every other post in a tournament thread is one word of who somebody votes on.
Half the posts on the main page would be "Whatever Day 2143" and for every one that was "thought provoking" as far as posts go, you'd have a punch with people just replying with one word to boost there post count.
|
|
|
Post by Ultimo Chocula on Jun 5, 2009 1:07:10 GMT -5
Here's one idea that popped in my head. A "Once And For All" section for threads that keep showing up every two or three weeks. Stuff like the Montreal Screwjob, Mass Transit, What's the beef between Macho and Vince, stuff like that. That way we'll have one place where these often talked about topics can stay and they don't have to get rehashed every month or two. Hell, there can even be a section for Luger jokes so they can be contained in one spot without the fear of seeing one in another thread.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Jun 5, 2009 1:11:34 GMT -5
Hmmm....some great suggestions thus far.
For my part, I have to say that I think an amendment/revision to the rules governing what constitutes "bashing" a wrestler needs to be made. I've said this time and again, and just for the record for those who LOVE to HATE...I'm not just defending Mickie here, but also Candice, McCool, and Vickie Guerrerro as well...but I think the whole "bashing/viciously trashing" the personal appearance of a talent should go right along with wishing harm on them. Both are equally cruel, and both are equally needless. Besides, what purpose does it serve to site there and just RAG on how fat Vickie is, or how disgusting you think Candice looks, when you KNOW full well that the people who are fans of those women are just going to show up to defend them, leading to bitter words and a possible flame war?
I can see discussing things logically, and honestly, that's where common sense comes in. Topics like 'McCool isn't big enough to be considered a power wrestler" with thoughtful discussion of anatomy and physiology, would be ok, but something along the lines of "MCRIBZ CAN HAZ CHEEZEBURGER PLZ?" would be outright locked.
I don't know...maybe it's because I try and strive for this place to be a NICE forum, and cruelly mocking someone's physical appearance is so far from nice it's not even funny...but I'd just like there to be more emphasis on cracking down on the posters who TROLL in the different threads with those kinds of comments.
As Bob Schlapowitz and I agreed on a long time ago, you don't HAVE to post those kinds of rude comments. You CAN back out of the thread, or not go into it at all, if the mention of a certain DIVA or wrestler makes you see red/turns you into an obnoxious assclown.
And hey, as a way of satisfying those who feel there are too many DIVA threads in the WWE Current...could we maybe add a DIVAs subsection?
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 42,003
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Jun 5, 2009 2:36:57 GMT -5
Here's one idea that popped in my head. A "Once And For All" section for threads that keep showing up every two or three weeks. Stuff like the Montreal Screwjob, Mass Transit, What's the beef between Macho and Vince, stuff like that. That way we'll have one place where these often talked about topics can stay and they don't have to get rehashed every month or two. Hell, there can even be a section for Luger jokes so they can be contained in one spot without the fear of seeing one in another thread. I totally agree. I once asked about it, I think I got the wrong idea across. I stole it from a band message board. It's called the Dead Horse section, because that's the name of one of the band's songs, so it works on two levels. Madison (I believe) said we shouldn't because people would feel their posts were being ignored or thought less of. I disagee. The same topics that always happen (Savage, Vince, Steph, Greatest Simpsons Episode Ever, Montreal and so on) could go in there and basically remain open all the time. In one easy place. If a new thread about it pops up, just consolidate it into one thread in the new sub-forum. There's enough threads that are always done to get a sub-forum, or at least a permanent sticky somewhere. Frankly, even if someone does come in with a new insight or question into, say Montreal, it always degnerates (no pun intended) into the same arguement. I generally dislike forums with waaaaaaay too many sub-forums, but I think it would be a good idea. An Entertainent one only isn't a bad idea, but, that's pretty much Off Topic as it is. There's not too much in Off Topic that isn't entertainment and when it is, it usually falls into "relationship" stuff. These, of course, are sweeping generalizations, but I think you get my drift.
|
|
|
Post by kidtamagotchi on Jun 5, 2009 2:52:56 GMT -5
Is there a way to show (on the main forum sections) which threads you've already posted in? Like a little icon next to the topic title.
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Jun 5, 2009 4:10:49 GMT -5
My concerns regard the archive section. Is there a way to better organize that area? There are several threads I'm looking for, and I can't find them, even though I know the general timeframe they were started. But in the archives, they seem to be arranged in a convoluted manner.
Also, on a related note, can we make it so when a thread is moved into the archive section, it isn't automatically moved from our bookmarks? I've lost several threads because they were archived, and I haven't been able to find some of them.
|
|
|
Post by Macho Dude Handy Damage on Jun 5, 2009 5:38:17 GMT -5
While some ideas here sounds good, like an ignore option and a revision of the rules, some of the suggestions I find outright ridiculous. I don't think the board needs any more subforums and sections. Although I do think that the RULES could maybe be made a permanent announcement. maybe then the mods won't have to link to it all the time in the ask a mod thread...
All in all, the only thing I want to make a suggestion for is the filters. In the rules it says you can write the f-word and s-word by using the first letter of the word and the rest with asteriks. Then why not just make THAT the filtered words for them instead of using silly and unfunny filtered words like snork and excretory matter. Why not just make the filtered words f*** and s***? Just seems more mature and serious, I think.
Am I the only one?
|
|
|
Post by Bobafett on Jun 5, 2009 6:39:53 GMT -5
The ignore button would make some threas awkward to read if some posters were blocked I had an idea in the askamod for a minimum word limit thing, which may discourage trolly stuff and posts which add very little, so you can't just do QFT or something, you have to explain why (though if you quoted the post you agree witht tats ok its the amount of small posts that add nothing that take away from thigs also I wanna repost this something I wanna bring up, i doubt anything can be dones whenever someone has a thread about why they hate a wrestler who has never been aIWC fav (HHH, Cena, Orton.. you get the pcture ),you get guys jumping on ther back sayng things lke " <wrestler name> hate s so 2003/4/5/etc " "if it was <perceved WC fav > you wouldn't say that " "oh great more blnd <wrestler name> hate " a number of reasons don't lke this, we are not a stagnant communty memebers join and leave regular the poster ma not have een around when.. say hating HHH was all the rage, he/she may not have seen those threads before and as for the IWC favs not getting hate, the Micke arbys/horsy crap s just as annoying to me as the batsta basketball thing is to others i know its not flaming and not being a douchbag, but its still not a nice thing to see its ignorant t assume everytime someone says they don't like something they are blind hating or just doing it to be smarky I never put a legit complaint about the boards before and I hope something can be done andI know this is a smal lissue but being dyslexsic this actually isn't pleasant to see is someone makes a post and makes a slight spelling mistake, one they may not have picked up on, you'll have posts after it not commenting on what they said but ridiculing the error, some posters need to relax on stufflike that (plus they need to bear in mind for some posters english is a second language too ) yeah the tournament stuff gets silly sometimes btw can we change back to Smurf as a filter.. it actually brightened my day sometimes I I think if people get an attitude that Batista and basketballs arent funny and Mickie James/Arby's jokes arent funny the board loses a little of its uniqueness. I understand the need to strict rules in certain aspects of a board that encompases people from 14 to 40. But a jokes a joke and as long as it isnt intentionally rude, vulgar or disrespectful to other members of the board i dont think its hurting anybody to call a female wrestler ugly anymore than it is to say John Cena looks like Diddy Kong. no no no, you seethe Batista/basketballs thing was funny, it relate to something that he said on WWE programming and has kida became an endearing joke, the arbys stuff is very, very cruel and is uncalled for, its the difference from playfully teasing a mate for that time he ran around drunk and stripping off, to constantly calling a slightly chubby girl a fatty to her face, see my point? people group them together but they're not the same
|
|
|
Post by Sir Woodrow on Jun 5, 2009 7:06:27 GMT -5
How about the spoiler button like Deadpool's forum?
|
|
|
Post by simplydurhamcalling on Jun 5, 2009 9:41:45 GMT -5
I've suggested it before...but I figure i might as well give it another try.
How about changing the WWE forum so that it only includes stuff say from 2002 - Present.
Not only would it reduce the amount of threads created in the WWE forum it would add some traffic to the (w)Rest section and even things out a little.
|
|
|
Post by Red 'n' Black Reggie on Jun 5, 2009 10:30:25 GMT -5
i'm not creative enough to come up with ideas, but i can tell others what they're doing wron,g so if i can try and do so without being too much of adouche, i don't really like the "ignore" option idea. the problem i have is that even if i usually argue with someone, they could say something which is actually pretty useful, so for example if someone started a thread requesting a video or something, you run the risk of said video being posted like ten times in a row, because everyone's ignoring everyone else. and maybe it's just me, but i'd "ignore" all the people i more often than not disagree with, which means i'd rarely get into anything resembling a debate on the forum. as much as alot of the arguments are tiresome, that's kinda the point of a forum, so we could end up with every thread being two groups agreeing with themselves and not even realising the other group is talking, which wouldn't be half as fun.
i'll admit that didn't make much sense, and sorry if a came across as too critical, but i just thought i'd throw those out there.
|
|
|
Post by simplydurhamcalling on Jun 5, 2009 10:53:36 GMT -5
I get what RnB Reggie means and that was my initial thought on the idea. While it seems a good idea in principal we could end up with lots of people making the exact same point again and again in the same thread.
So for those who don't have anyone ignored it would be a case of having to see and read all of this, which would probably be just as infuriating. I could also see people pointing out that somebody made a point already which could lead to people realising they're being ignored by someone and getting, for lack of a better term 'douchey' over it?!
Though I've never used a forum with this option, so I've had no experience with it.
Another completely different, and a little more positive idea, would be to have some kind of 'thank' option, where you can thank a poster ofr there post and some king of record of this could be shown under their name. There's certainly been a few times people have helped me out where this option would have come in handy to show my gratitude.
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Jun 5, 2009 10:54:31 GMT -5
I must say I'm not a big fan of the "ignore" button proposition. One of the big issues that this would bring would be with quotes. You'd get awkward stuff like for example: While the idea is interesting, I think that the execution would be very unpractical and confusing. Plus, I don't know about you guys, but I usually find what other posters have to say very interesting whether I agree with them or not. We are lucky to have very few people who downright troll or flame here, and those who do are usually taken care of fairly fast so honestly, I don't feel the need to block other users' posts.
|
|