New Bannable Offenses

CuLT

I think at this stage it might be easier to list the things that won't get you banned.

Shiminay

I think we should just start site banning all the people who complain about anything, we could do with a population cull, we've needed one for a very long time actualy. Every boards beer it's the same, "who are all these f00king n00bs?"

And won't it add to the mystery, people just "dissappearing" in the middle of the night

GuanYin

The first thing we should do is ban over-reactionary threads like this one. Then we should ban people who create repeat threads of the same topic within 3 pages of each other and THEN and ONLY then, should we ban people for giving out about it.

Shiminay

psi banned for correcting me...

Hobbes

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

Can we make it a bannable offense to point out that threads have been done before? Seriously... I don't care if it was discussed two/three/seven years ago and I couldn't be arsed traling through pages of search resluts whick are never that accurate to start with.

Sounds great on paper doesn't it. Depending on the forum though it can just p!ss the regulars right off.

For example:
Do you think people in Programming forum would like seeing continual posts of "Where do I get Java?".

Or a better example is the Islam forum. There are probably 3 or 4 core misconceptions about Islam that a simple google would answer. Instead we would get numerous person after person every week asking the same question. It gets annoying fast for people in the forum.

User45701

Actually now that i think of it once you guys get the new servers in can we not use a more advanced search feature so that it becomes allot easyier to locate the thread that you seek?

Silverfish

I think we should ban people for not reading threads, and posting on page 2 or 3 asking questions that were addressed on page one.

Far more offensive than re-posting a thread that has slipped to page 2 or 3.


It gets my goat, it really does.

Time Magazine

DeVore wrote:

So, perhaps we should have a "decay time" for threads like a month or something.... opinions?

New thread due on the Padraig Nally case so...

I think it's extremely difficult (i.e. impossibubble) to have a "time" to fit all the circumstances of bumping/re-examining.

I think it should be taken on a reasonable-effort basis at the discretion of the janitor of the forum. If it's not pages 1-6 or so of the forum then usually that's fine. This suggestion is of course awfully flawed, but less flawed than a set time methinks.

User45701

User45701 wrote:

Actually now that i think of it once you guys get the new servers in can we not use a more advanced search feature so that it becomes allot easyier to locate the thread that you seek?

Best way to answer that is with 'If people bother to search...'

As for the idea, it would work on some heavy duty fora, but not on all. If it is in a thread which can help people (like some of the college fora have people asking about some course in that University/IT) I don't really see much of an issue with the posting of a link to the thread. A debate/argument/rant is a different matter thought.

Tar.Aldarion

If a new thread is created about a topic that was done, OP is attacked.
If an old thread is dragged up instead, poster attacked.
Hmm. Simpsons did it.

stovelid

Does it matter whether the topic has been done before if enough posters wish to talk about it again?