What would you change about Boards?

steveblack572

dr.bollocko wrote: »

It's a poxy discussion board on the internet buddy. Calm down.

Your a MOD with 33,200 posts, says a lot about you wasting your time here on a poxy site.

4zn76tysfajdxp

steveblack572 wrote: »

Your a MOD with 33,200 posts, says a lot about you wasting your time here on a poxy site.

Yeah. What a dweeb. I heard he wears glasses.

wazky

Xavier Obnoxious Gipsy wrote: »

Yeah. What a dweeb. I heard he wears glasses.

With no glass in them.

mikemac1

A lady posts about her partner piling on weight and it's a short thread with either kind advice about diet and exercise or sharp advice to tell him to buck up

A guy can start the exact same thread and he doesn't find his wife/girlfriend attractive anymore and he'll be called shallow and get ripped for starting the thread

Gotta love boards :pac:

Teyla Emmagan

steveblack572 wrote: »

Just notice in the PM box the welcome message from Boards.ie.
The post count for Boards.ie is - Posts: 1,521.

No wonder the hive mind is strong here if there are only 1,500 accounts.
Its a small number and as we know "boards of a feather flock together".
It explains a lot, new members are coming into a small closed group of posters, a fresh perspective can ruffle some feathers. The hive circles the wagons and shuts downs any alternative view.

What an utterly mental perspective.

Hotfail.com

steveblack572 wrote: »

Your a MOD with 33,200 posts, says a lot about you wasting your time here on a poxy site.

And you'll be wondering why you got banned in a few days time... :rolleyes:

The Purveyor of Truth

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

What an utterly mental perspective.

In fairness, the "Boards of feather.." thing was good.

They misinterpreted what some numbers pertained to. Hardly sectionable.

Teyla Emmagan

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

In fairness, the "Boards of feather.." thing was good.

They misinterpreted what some numbers pertained to. Hardly sectionable.

Ah no, we won't lock him away just yet.

He'll calm down in a bit.

Shakespeare's Sister

mikemac1 wrote: »

A lady posts about her partner piling on weight and it's a short thread with either kind advice about diet and exercise or sharp advice to tell him to buck up

Where/when was this?

A guy can start the exact same thread and he doesn't find his wife/girlfriend attractive anymore and he'll be called shallow and get ripped for starting the thread

Such bullsh-t.
He'd be deemed in the right overall - a few dopes would say he's shallow, whatever, but they wouldn't be taken seriously. And then the blanket derogatory comments about Irish women would get churned out.

Shakespeare's Sister

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

They misinterpreted what some numbers pertained to. Hardly sectionable.

It clearly was a ridiculous misinterpretation. Boards isn't perfect - I've posted above about "scoffing" cmods/admins, but that person doesn't deserve to be defended. They're being utterly obnoxious.

LuckyLloyd

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Like what? Not being smart, just wondering what you mean. E.g. trying to slip under the radar to get up to shneaky shtuff?

Maybe the "Close account" button should be disabled as it is just too easy all right, e.g. if you've had a few drinks, but the option to close an account should be there (but carried out by admins) as people do have genuine personal causes to do so (like when Boards spills into real life).

Genuine reasons to close an account:

- the existence of the account is being used as a focal point for real life harassment or bullying;
- the account owner needs to symbolically cut ties from various Internet involvements due to having identified an addictive / behavioral issue;

Such cases would make up a tiny minority of close account actions. The majority of closures resolve back to people being too weak to stand over what they write on the Internet. You proffered an opinion? You posted some personal info? So? I don't believe in the idea that your Internet self should be disassociated from yourself, and think it is detrimental to a site like this.

To be honest, it's even worse again when people are closing accounts not because of any fear of real life identification but just because they got owned in a series of debates and want to come back and try again with a clean slate.

The push for 'the right to be forgotten' to be written into data protection law is baffling to me as such a precedent never existed in the pre Internet age. Through archived newspapers / word of mouth / networks / etc people had a reputation and a verifiable history. Sure, modern Internet accelerates and amplifies things but people are looking for levels of protection and disassociation from what they write that was never afforded them before imo.

Shakespeare's Sister

My fourth account/sixth name reckons you make some good points. :pac:

steveblack572

Ruu wrote: »

bzzzzzzbansteveblackbzzzzzzzzzbansteveblackbzzzzzzzzzz

Soon i suspect
youtu.be/YkADj0TPrJA

Hotfail.com

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

My fourth account/sixth name reckons you make some good points. :pac:

I was wondering where you went, only realised the change the other day :P

steveblack572

Just read a PM , the ban of multiple accounts held by one person is BS, with a VPN dozens of accounts could be held by one person. So it is possible the hard core deniers of the hive mind could be just the one queen bee.
Cheap VPN deals pop up regular in bargain alerts. Explain a lot of the back slapping that goes on here, the same person thanking themselves over and over again. Sad stuff.

How Soon Is Now

steveblack572 wrote: »

Just read a PM , the ban of multiple accounts held by one person is BS, with a VPN dozens of accounts could be held by one person. So it is possible the hard core deniers of the hive mind could be just the one queen bee.
Cheap VPN deals pop up regular in bargain alerts. Explain a lot of the back slapping that goes on here, the same person thanking themselves over and over again. Sad stuff.

For a while there i was kinda following what u where saying now im done. :pac:

Micky Dolenz

steveblack572 wrote: »

Just read a PM , the ban of multiple accounts held by one person is BS, with a VPN dozens of accounts could be held by one person. So it is possible the hard core deniers of the hive mind could be just the one queen bee.
Cheap VPN deals pop up regular in bargain alerts. Explain a lot of the back slapping that goes on here, the same person thanking themselves over and over again. Sad stuff.

Did you get over charged for a jar of honey or wha?

Garzard

Make it so threads can only be closed / locked with the consent of a majority vote or something along those lines. Hate seeing controversial albeit interesting & good threads being locked out of the blue.

The Rabbit

steveblack572 wrote: »

Just read a PM , the ban of multiple accounts held by one person is BS, with a VPN dozens of accounts could be held by one person. So it is possible the hard core deniers of the hive mind could be just the one queen bee.
Cheap VPN deals pop up regular in bargain alerts. Explain a lot of the back slapping that goes on here, the same person thanking themselves over and over again. Sad stuff.

A psychiatrist may be able to help you.

The Purveyor of Truth

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Boards isn't perfect - I've posted above about "scoffing" cmods/admins.

Crikey, I have some issues with a few of them myself, but I would never condone anyone eating them.

dr.bollocko

Everyone slagging mr. Black off isn't going to help much now is it?

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Everyone slagging mr. Black off isn't going to help much now is it?

What are you saying, sure you're not even a real doctor.

Molester Stallone II

The Cunning Linguist wrote: »

What are you saying, sure you're not even a real doctor.

No, but he's a proper bolloc.....o!

anncoates

Me? wrote: »

I would have a lockout function, a few hours each day so some of the cave dwellers in here might get some fresh air.

The site used to go down for a while (database backup or something) in the early hours when I first started using boards.

The Purveyor of Truth

That's what they told you.

Micky Dolenz

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Everyone slagging mr. Black off isn't going to help much now is it?

That's a two way street. We are open to well reasoned opinion.

Timberrrrrrrr

steveblack572 wrote: »

Just read a PM , the ban of multiple accounts held by one person is BS, with a VPN dozens of accounts could be held by one person. So it is possible the hard core deniers of the hive mind could be just the one queen bee.
Cheap VPN deals pop up regular in bargain alerts. Explain a lot of the back slapping that goes on here, the same person thanking themselves over and over again. Sad stuff.

The conspiracy thickens :rolleyes:

anncoates

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The conspiracy thickens :rolleyes:

The poster thickens, more like.

The Purveyor of Truth

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

That's a two way street. We are open to well reasoned opinion.

It should never be okay for any user on Boards to imply that another is mentally ill, and that they need help in that regard, no matter what they have said or have been perceived to have said. When such remarks seemingly go unmoderated, it sends the message, whether it is wished to or not, that there are times when the attack the post and not the poster rule is not in effect. It sets a bad precedent and one which could very well be cited in a DR forum thread whenever a member gets banned in the future for being personally abusive: 'Whaddya mean it's against the rules to say thata user needs to see a shrink? Look at this thread here on AH were a moderator was clearly fine with that very thing being said..

Micky Dolenz

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

It should never be okay for any user on Boards to imply that another is mentally ill, and that they need help in that regard, no matter what they have said or have been perceived to have said. When such remarks seemingly go unmoderated, it sends the message, whether it is wished to or not, that there are times when the attack the post and not the poster rule is not in effect. It sets a bad precedent and one which could very well be cited in a DR forum thread whenever a member gets banned in the future for being personally abusive: 'Whaddya mean it's against the rules to say thata user needs to see a shrink? Look at this thread here on AH were a moderator was clearly fine with that very thing being said..

Ah here. Do you want us to sanction (no pun intended) every comment that implied something. If anyone crosses the line, don't worry, action will be taken.
We're not dancing in the dark here.

Hotfail.com

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

It should never be okay for any user on Boards to imply that another is mentally ill, and that they need help in that regard, no matter what they have said or have been perceived to have said. When such remarks seemingly go unmoderated, it sends the message, whether it is wished to or not, that there are times when the attack the post and not the poster rule is not in effect. It sets a bad precedent and one which could very well be cited in a DR forum thread whenever a member gets banned in the future for being personally abusive: 'Whaddya mean it's against the rules to say thata user needs to see a shrink? Look at this thread here on AH were a moderator was clearly fine with that very thing being said..

I don't think AH is for you.

Buona Fortuna

Hotfail.com wrote: »

I don't think AH is for you.

Got any other thread ideas?

Bipolar Joe

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Ah here. Do you want us to sanction (no pun intended) every comment that implied something. If anyone crosses the line, don't worry, action will be taken.
We're not dancing in the dark here.

The point is, where is that line, and is it fair to ban someone when the line is not clearly set?

Hotfail.com

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Got any other thread ideas?

Plenty, but some would get me banned......... :rolleyes: :pac:

steveblack572

The Rabbit wrote: »

A psychiatrist may be able to help you.

When someone suggests a psychiatrist i always think of the rule of Farts.
Whoever asks who farted? They are usually the one who did it.
Those who recommend a psychiatrist usually have previous experience with them.

Micky Dolenz

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

The point is, where is that line, and is it fair to ban someone when the line is not clearly set?

Joe, you're around long enough to have an idea where the line is.

As bad as some may think, we don't dish out bans willy nilly. Most posters banned only after warnings. Continuing a pattern after being pulled up is a sure way to draw attention.

steveblack572

Text book hive mind display.
I suggest 1,500 accounts here and possibly several accounts used by one person with VPN.

Like clockwork,it appears obnoxious, bullying behavior of the hive mind (sarcastic mocking, baiting, purposeful derailing the point).
They offer no rebuttal to my suggestions.
Got to hand it to them, they are well disciplined.

The Rabbit

steveblack572 wrote: »

When someone suggests a psychiatrist i always think of the rule of Farts.
Whoever asks who farted? They are usually the one who did it.
Those who recommend a psychiatrist usually have previous experience with them.

You're probably right, I'm broken.

It's the mods you see...and the cliques!

The mods and the cliques are out to destroy us all!

IvaBigWun

Id allow "@" tagging for those with a thousand posts or more.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=91189223

Is it possible to add "@" tagging to usernames with the current software Boards is using?

I ask because there's a couple of currently fast moving (LOTS of replies) threads Ive posted in. Rather than scroll through page after page to see if someone has quoted my comment etc to give their thoughts on my input, it would be handy to get a notification when a poster wants to give you an "@" tag.

And Id allow pics to be posted in AH by those with 5,000 or more posts.


Two things that should long be here to be honest.

Bipolar Joe

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Joe, you're around long enough to have an idea where the line is.

As bad as some may think, we don't dish out bans willy nilly. Most posters banned only after warnings. Continuing a pattern after being pulled up is a sure way to draw attention.

What about other users, or newer ones? The problem with multiple mods is each one might have a different line, which might be why some people "Get away" with something and another won't. Less mods means potentially more divilment. If there's a hard line, there's no excuse. Keeping rules like we're all playing Calvinball makes it seem like there are favourites.

steveblack572

steveblack572 wrote: »

Text book hive mind display.
I suggest 1,500 accounts here and possibly several accounts used by one person with VPN.

Like clockwork,it appears obnoxious, bullying behavior of the hive mind (sarcastic mocking, baiting, purposeful derailing the point).
They offer no rebuttal to my suggestions.
Got to hand it to them, they are well disciplined.

Of course, pet.

Firewalkwithme

A thumbs down button, no thanks if you will.

Cartoon_Head

Cartoon_Head wrote: »

A thumbs down button, no thanks if you will.

But if everyone could give a thumbs up or a thumbs down, who would bother discussing anything beyond a few posts for and against?

Firewalkwithme

Candie wrote: »

But if everyone could give a thumbs up or a thumbs down, who would bother discussing anything beyond a few posts for and against?

All the people who already post and give thanks.

Garzard

Within reason, so-called grammar Nazis shouldn't be infracted [only for a once off] - as said once before, a lot of people should be ashamed at how poor their grammar is.

Also, the ability to edit posts within the 48hr limit should be kept as is but do away with that goddamn ''Last Edited by: username etc at Date & Time etc'' bit of text that appears below posts.

Cartoon_Head

Cartoon_Head wrote: »

All the people who already post and give thanks.

I don't know. A lot wouldn't bother composing their own rebuttal of a point if they could just thumbs down something or thumb up something that they agree with. One or the other works fine, but both would just wind up a shorthand way of resolving differing opinions.

Hotfail.com

Garzard wrote: »

Within reason, so-called grammar Nazis shouldn't be infracted [only for a once off] - as said once before, a lot of people should be ashamed at how poor their grammar is.

Also, the ability to edit posts within the 48hr limit should be kept as is but do away with that goddamn ''Last Edited by: username etc at Date & Time etc'' bit of text that appears below posts.

That "last edited" thing is a great idea, otherwise someone could post something and then change it completely when it gathers a large number of thanks, which could look very dodgy if they changed it to anything illegal/disgusting. The editing system is grand the way it is imo.

steveblack572

Cartoon_Head wrote: »

A thumbs down button, no thanks if you will.

It would show just what posters think of the rubbish that some members of the hive post, therefore will never get a thumbs down button.
The thumbs down would far out number the Thanks received

Hotfail.com

I'd ban any mention of "the hive".

Buona Fortuna

Garzard wrote: »

Within reason, so-called grammar Nazis shouldn't be infracted [only for a once off] - as said once before, a lot of people should be ashamed at how poor their grammar is.

.

So they're ashamed, then what? Make them resit some exams before they can post again?

Also, the ability to edit posts within the 48hr limit should be kept as is but do away with that goddamn ''Last Edited by: username etc at Date & Time etc'' bit of text that appears below posts

Why? What is the gain to be had ? At least this way people can see that a post was edited.