Soccer Forum Feedback 2017

5starpool

5starpool wrote: »

OK, so, as requested above, I have collated the feedback into a set of bullet points. If I missed any, apologies.

================================================

- Match talk in superthreads. Should all match talk take place in dedicated threads or is it ok to do in superthreads?
- If match talk is in superthreads, will comments in relation to matches be judged based on the same rules as match threads where they do exist (e.g normally calling player x a diver in superthread may be construed as trolling, but in a match thread it will never be punished). Rules around this need to be clarified.
- Should there be a single match thread for all games where all discussion should be had for the matches on that weekend or midweek fixtures, with no specific match threads?
- Should the forum be opened up again for World Cups, Euros, etc? Some posters felt it caused more trouble than it was worth.
- Allow people to call out trolls when they are perceived to be trolls, or stronger enforcement of the current rule that disallows this behaviour specifically?
- What about possibile over reactions to trolling, perceived or real?
- Expanding on the above, reacting on thread if called a troll, are there going to be clarified rules on this or not? It probably extends to reacting to any abuse or privication.
- Should there be a humour thread for each new season rather than one that keeps going until 10k posts?
- Clarify rules on back seat modding, whether it can be used in a reasonable way (as in, "you're ruining the thread for people, cop on") or not.
- Should blatant low level trolls be just banned outright as has happened in the past, or is it the case that mods already do this, and if someone is still posting then the mods don't see them as only a troll?
- Should all links to the sun newspaper be banned, or deleted on sight? Should a line be put in the charter discouraging the posting of links from there?
- Should the mentioning of Utd/Liverpool in threads not related to those clubs result in a card for the user who first derailed the thread?
- Should there be a rule about posting a link to a rumour in a thread, arather than just saying "I see we're linked with XYZ".
- Should the charter be condensed to a single rule of "Don't be a dick"?
- Should thread poster infighting (between sets of fans of the same club) be clamped down on more, when it is a repeat happening?
- Should there be 'fun' naming of superthreads (As well as the necessary info) chosen by one or more posters.
- Should people be allowed to just post a link (to twitter or wherever) without comment?
- Should the use of running jokes, or inthread banter be curtailed or banned outright?
- Charter needs to be updated if any relevant rules change (new or existing.

========================================

I have left out some things (including one from me) that would require site development, ans are not really realistic things. I also have not expressed any opinion in this post because it is essentially set of minutes. It is obvious in most cases what will happen (in my view) but we need official say so on these points. Most will be a quick "stay as it is" but updating the charter overall to reflect current norms and actual rules is needed.

Personally I'd hope the mods can respond on the above in the next couple of weeks, and then a few days for further feedback on the decisions to see if anything persuasive is said. If anything is changed on the back of that, then a final post for clarification would be much appreciated, but I doubt further general discussion is needed.

Thanks.

Fair play

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Top work 5 Star Pool

dfx-

Ok, thread closed. Thank you for all your contributions.

We will work off 5starpool's well-compiled list below here and come back with responses within two weeks of today for extra discussion.

5starpool wrote: »

OK, so, as requested above, I have collated the feedback into a set of bullet points. If I missed any, apologies.

================================================

- Match talk in superthreads. Should all match talk take place in dedicated threads or is it ok to do in superthreads?
- If match talk is in superthreads, will comments in relation to matches be judged based on the same rules as match threads where they do exist (e.g normally calling player x a diver in superthread may be construed as trolling, but in a match thread it will never be punished). Rules around this need to be clarified.
- Should there be a single match thread for all games where all discussion should be had for the matches on that weekend or midweek fixtures, with no specific match threads?
- Should the forum be opened up again for World Cups, Euros, etc? Some posters felt it caused more trouble than it was worth.
- Allow people to call out trolls when they are perceived to be trolls, or stronger enforcement of the current rule that disallows this behaviour specifically?
- What about possibile over reactions to trolling, perceived or real?
- Expanding on the above, reacting on thread if called a troll, are there going to be clarified rules on this or not? It probably extends to reacting to any abuse or privication.
- Should there be a humour thread for each new season rather than one that keeps going until 10k posts?
- Clarify rules on back seat modding, whether it can be used in a reasonable way (as in, "you're ruining the thread for people, cop on") or not.
- Should blatant low level trolls be just banned outright as has happened in the past, or is it the case that mods already do this, and if someone is still posting then the mods don't see them as only a troll?
- Should all links to the sun newspaper be banned, or deleted on sight? Should a line be put in the charter discouraging the posting of links from there?
- Should the mentioning of Utd/Liverpool in threads not related to those clubs result in a card for the user who first derailed the thread?
- Should there be a rule about posting a link to a rumour in a thread, arather than just saying "I see we're linked with XYZ".
- Should the charter be condensed to a single rule of "Don't be a dick"?
- Should thread poster infighting (between sets of fans of the same club) be clamped down on more, when it is a repeat happening?
- Should there be 'fun' naming of superthreads (As well as the necessary info) chosen by one or more posters.
- Should people be allowed to just post a link (to twitter or wherever) without comment?
- Should the use of running jokes, or inthread banter be curtailed or banned outright?
- Charter needs to be updated if any relevant rules change (new or existing.

========================================

I have left out some things (including one from me) that would require site development, ans are not really realistic things. I also have not expressed any opinion in this post because it is essentially set of minutes. It is obvious in most cases what will happen (in my view) but we need official say so on these points. Most will be a quick "stay as it is" but updating the charter overall to reflect current norms and actual rules is needed.

Personally I'd hope the mods can respond on the above in the next couple of weeks, and then a few days for further feedback on the decisions to see if anything persuasive is said. If anything is changed on the back of that, then a final post for clarification would be much appreciated, but I doubt further general discussion is needed.

Thanks.

dfx-

Quick two week update: We've had a full discussion amongst the mods over most points raised, but are still going a bit further into a couple of them. I'd hope we can put up a reply in the next day or two.

dfx-

Apologies for the delay, bold text just to highlight the answers and we'd encourage added feedback, especially where polls might be put forward such as 3, 4, 8 and 11.

1. - Match talk in superthreads. Should all match talk take place in dedicated threads or is it ok to do in superthreads?

Yes, we can try out discussion in superthreads as part of the charter and see how it goes. Matchthreads though are still a very important part of the forum and can co-exist as they have been recently.

2. - If match talk is in superthreads, will comments in relation to matches be judged based on the same rules as match threads where they do exist (e.g normally calling player x a diver in superthread may be construed as trolling, but in a match thread it will never be punished). Rules around this need to be clarified.

Ongoing discussions amongst the mods on the best way forward here. This would be part of the charter re-write.

3. - Should there be a single match thread for all games where all discussion should be had for the matches on that weekend or midweek fixtures, with no specific match threads?

We think things work well as it is on this one. A general thread for smaller games and specific matchthreads for big games or the higher supported clubs on the forum. There was a week 1 thread this weekend, so opinions on how that worked or if it's better to go back to the all in one thread would be good.

4. - Should the forum be opened up again for World Cups, Euros, etc? Some posters felt it caused more trouble than it was worth.

It could be put for a poll before each tournament. Last time around, there was more trouble than before around England v Russia and it was a lot busier with Ireland's involvement than in 2014 and with some long banned re-regs.

5. - Allow people to call out trolls when they are perceived to be trolls, or stronger enforcement of the current rule that disallows this behaviour specifically?

Definitely would leave this as is. Leave it to the mods.

6. - What about possibile over reactions to trolling, perceived or real?

Report the post and leave it to the mods. There are sometimes overreactions and accusations of trolling where there is none and that then spirals out of control.

7. - Expanding on the above, reacting on thread if called a troll, are there going to be clarified rules on this or not? It probably extends to reacting to any abuse or privication.

Report the post and leave it to the mods.

8. - Should there be a humour thread for each new season rather than one that keeps going until 10k posts?

Yep, this one can be done if people want this. This might be best suited to a poll as well. In terms of some people have mentioned that they are falling foul of the no chat rule by replying to a post - there is a possibility of making the thread a gif/pic/link only thread.

9. - Clarify rules on back seat modding, whether it can be used in a reasonable way (as in, "you're ruining the thread for people, cop on") or not.

We would definitely not be in favour of this. It would be another case of leave it to the mods.

10. - Should blatant low level trolls be just banned outright as has happened in the past, or is it the case that mods already do this, and if someone is still posting then the mods don't see them as only a troll?

It would be difficult to be permanently ban outright unless there's extraordinary circumstances just by the nature of the DRP process. We know who the forum at large considers as trolls or not and repeat offenders are increasingly being red-carded for deliberate breaches of charter.

11. - Should all links to the sun newspaper be banned, or deleted on sight? Should a line be put in the charter discouraging the posting of links from there?

In general, we'd be in favour of this for obvious reasons, but is it banworthy as punishment? Maybe this too can go to a forum poll and we can put it in the charter.

12. - Should the mentioning of Utd/Liverpool in threads not related to those clubs result in a card for the user who first derailed the thread?

It's hard to have a hard and fast rule here. It can be relevant to a thread subject to bring up the two clubs and even comparisons between them and the two biggest fanbases on the forum are likely to bring it up. It depends on the case, thread warnings might be the best way forward and tough consequences for repeat offenders.

13. - Should there be a rule about posting a link to a rumour in a thread, arather than just saying "I see we're linked with XYZ".

We think the rumours/gossip thing is there for this. It'd cut out a lot potentially. We'd be for leaving it as is.

14. - Should the charter be condensed to a single rule of "Don't be a dick"?

We'd be absolutely not in favour here. The charter could be refined and updated, but it is very helpful for most to have examples and clearer lines than just "don't be a dick".

15. - Should thread poster infighting (between sets of fans of the same club) be clamped down on more, when it is a repeat happening?

Yes, this is being looked at. It is very important for posts to be reported here. Sometimes a mod on duty might not be up to date on the details of the most recent flare up in a thread.

16. - Should there be 'fun' naming of superthreads (As well as the necessary info) chosen by one or more posters.

We'd be in favour of keeping the main club superthreads at least with a clear matter-of-fact style title. It helps newer posters find the thread and is easier to manage in terms of mod warning updates.

17. - Should people be allowed to just post a link (to twitter or wherever) without comment?

Generally this is ok, though comment should definitely be encouraged. It can be valid to start a discussion. A 'ban' would be a hard thing to moderate/enforce practically too.

18. - Should the use of running jokes, or inthread banter be curtailed or banned outright?

No, definitely not banned outright. It can be attended to (and typically is) if it gets to the point of being disruptive. It sometimes depends on what the running joke is too. Generally it promotes a sense of community and is a natural development of a group.

Thanks dfx. There's a lot of questions back at poster's which is good. Is there a follow up session for your questions?

One which wasn't mentioned is a Liverpool v Utd thread which would clear up 75% of trolling imo.

Liam McPoyle

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Thanks dfx. There's a lot of questions back at poster's which is good. Is there a follow up session for your questions?

One which wasn't mentioned is a Liverpool v Utd thread which would clear up 75% of trolling imo.

You mean an ongoing super thread specifically for LFC vs United : discussion / banter / call it what you will?

Genuinely cannot see how that (if thats what you mean) would not be anything but an unmitigated disaster tbh.

If opposing fans step over the line in either superthread then they are generally dealt with at a local level and that's that.

Imo a thread dedicated to the rivalry alone would not last pissing time as it would surely descend into anarchy within a few days given the nature if the beast.

pjohnson

Regarding pt. 3 I was the one who made the GW1 thread so I can keep it going if that is something that people thought was good.

Trigger

pjohnson wrote: »

Regarding pt. 3 I was the one who made the GW1 thread so I can keep it going if that is something that people thought was good.

In fairness I prefer just having the general premier league thread, people posting on both of them (including me) and it was very confusing. I think one thread for it all is better

pjohnson

astradave wrote: »

In fairness I prefer just having the general premier league thread, people posting on both of them (including me) and it was very confusing. I think one thread for it all is better

Cool cool

PhilipsR

I don't understand the idea of having match talk in two places. Everywhere else on Boards, discussion on one topic should be in one thread, splitting it between two makes it messy and it seems completely unnecessary.

Why have a discussion in two places?

bucketybuck

PhilipsR wrote: »

Why have a discussion in two places?

There is no discussion in match threads.

gimmick

The fact there has to be a feedback thread about how people discuss things says it all about the absolute dredge this entire site has become.

Tom Mann Centuria

gimmick wrote: »

The fact there has to be a feedback thread about how people discuss things says it all about the absolute dredge this entire site has become.

Whatever about the rest of the site, there's been a soccer forum feedback thread for years. It's not a recent thing.

Jayop

gimmick wrote: »

The fact there has to be a feedback thread about how people discuss things says it all about the absolute dredge this entire site has become.

The fact that the mods have the respect to ask the posters here how the feel the place can be improved is a credit to the place.

The fact that the only like your post got came from an expected source says more.

MagicIRL

No feedback regarding posting goals / gifs that aren't hosted on boards? I. E. Linking to a third party website.

Andersonisgod

Nice bit of irony there in the feedback thread to enjoy.

If the site is so ****e then don't post lads

The forum is great imo

Panthro

Can we have an annual purge where we berate the living daylights out of each other for 24hrs and in return the mods can ban anyone who posts no questions asked during said 24hrs.

Bit a craic like
/Kidding

LiamoSail

Panthro wrote: »

Can we have an annual purge where we berate the living daylights out of each other for 24hrs and in return the mods can ban anyone who posts no questions asked during said 24hrs.

Bit a craic like
/Kidding

There's a few mods already doing that

Beasty

LiamoSail wrote: »

There's a few mods already doing that

If you have a problem with the card you received today you can take it to the DRP. Having a whinge about mods here is not going to improve your situation

LiamoSail

Beasty wrote: »

If you have a problem with the card you received today you can take it to the DRP. Having a whinge about mods here is not going to improve your situation

The only way you would know that is if you have access to PMs I sent/received. Have you?

LiamoSail

Also, you can ram your DRP. We all know what goes on there

pjohnson

This thread is taking a unusual turn.....

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Tom Mann Centuria

Patww79 wrote: »

Is the banning of Sun links because of popups, etc or is the guy who posted it a Liverpool fan? Preposterous if it's the latter.

I think it was due to sensitivities around what the Sun have printed in the past. Not a Liverpool fan myself, and don't think it should be banned from here (and don't think it's going to be either).

Saying that, I can see why some see it as a reprehensible rag and I'd normally look for an alternative source to link from other than them.

pjohnson

The Sun is utter clickbait and if your thinking anything in it is true enough to be a "source" you should smell the horsesh*t.

Jayop

The Sun is a disgrace and I'd wholly back anyone from any club calling for it not only to be banned but obliterated into a billion tiny pieces.

Brendan Flowers

I know the Mods are at the stage of review/implementing improvements based on the feedback provided a few weeks back. So I hope I'm not breaking any rules now by adding some more feedback. I understand that it might be too late for Mods to take any action even if they wanted to. But its something that has just come up again today in the Neymar thread and reminded me how bad it was at times last season.

Conspiracy theories, accusations of teams buying off refs, claims of leagues favouring one team over another, etc. It's creeping into the Neymar thread now. It was rampant in the La Liga and Champions League threads last season. It seriously derails proper football discussions and is almost always without even a shred of proof. But worst of all its usually people making the claim against "their" teams mains rival(s). And when similar decisions go in favour of the team they support, they're the first to bury their heads in the sand and ignore that.

Tom Mann Centuria

Maybe the clusterf*ck of a Rangers thread can be looked after again.

pjohnson

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Maybe the clusterf*ck of a Rangers thread can be looked after again.

Its great comedy.

A: They did this
B: No they didn't
A: They did this
B: No they didn't
A: They did this
B: No they didn't
A: They did this
B: No they didn't
A: They did this
B: No they didn't
A: They did this
B: No they didn't
A: They did this
B: No they didn't
A: They did this
B: No they didn't
A: They did this
B: No they didn't

dfx-

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Thanks dfx. There's a lot of questions back at poster's which is good. Is there a follow up session for your questions?

One which wasn't mentioned is a Liverpool v Utd thread which would clear up 75% of trolling imo.

I think 5starpool put forward a time of a few days for any related feedback to the answers we gave, so we can stick to that and leave this thread open to a week or so for replies.

5starpool

Most responses are as expected to the points raised, some of which were good points, some weren't. The main one I'd have an issue with is the hardline interpretation that boards has always taken too far on backseat modding. In a lot of instances it is right and proper that things are just reported and left to mods to deal with in as timely a manner as possible, which in here is usually very good to be fair. However, I'd like clarity on whether someone telling one/more posters to cop on, they are ruining the thread (or a similar type comment) will be carded by mods?

Self policing of this type when done in a non confrontational manner is I think good far more than not,especially in superthreads which for the most part are groups of people that are familiar with each other to a large extent. Mods not encouraging even these type of rebukes I can understand, but if they are going to be carded themselves (which it hasn't been said they will, I just want clarification on the general point) it will piss people off needlessly. It's something I'd have done occasionally in the past and I just want to know what the situation is in future.

Always carded, or just discouraged but possibly carded depending on the situation?

Beasty

The danger is posters may manipulate any flexibility. They could for example gang up behind the scenes and then target particular posters by telling them to "cop on". I appreciate the sentiment behind the suggestion, and have no doubt most posters would not look to manipulate things in this way.

There is still a risk that telling others to "cop on" becomes a weapon to hit other posters with. At least if it's left to the mods judgement they can ignore any false alarms or indeed make a note if they suspect someone is reporting stuff with malicious intent

You also highlight this is a rule that is applied across the site and I think granting an exemption to one forum would risk causing problems elsewhere with posters applying principles they see here in other forums. Hence I think it's something more for site-wide rather than forum-specific feedback

Andersonisgod

Beasty wrote: »

The danger is posters may manipulate any flexibility. They could for example gang up behind the scenes and then target particular posters by telling them to "cop on". I appreciate the sentiment behind the suggestion, and have no doubt most posters would not look to manipulate things in this way.

There is still a risk that telling others to "cop on" becomes a weapon to hit other posters with. At least if it's left to the mods judgement they can ignore any false alarms or indeed make a note if they suspect someone is reporting stuff with malicious intent

You also highlight this is a rule that is applied across the site and I think granting an exemption to one forum would risk causing problems elsewhere with posters applying principles they see here in other forums. Hence I think it's something more for site-wide rather than forum-specific feedback

I wonder does back seat modding apply to accusations of trolling?

Jayop

or accusations of backseat modding?

Beasty

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I wonder does back seat modding apply to accusations of trolling?

Your dispute thread has been dealt with. I have responded to your latest post in your Help Desk thread. I would suggest it's in your own best interests not to try going over the same ground in a 3rd place

Andersonisgod

Beasty wrote: »

Your dispute thread has been dealt with. I have responded to your latest post in your Help Desk thread. I would suggest it's in your own best interests not to try going over the same ground in a 3rd place

Oops, twas merely an innocent question asked in the feedback thread.

dfx-

5starpool wrote: »

Most responses are as expected to the points raised, some of which were good points, some weren't. The main one I'd have an issue with is the hardline interpretation that boards has always taken too far on backseat modding. In a lot of instances it is right and proper that things are just reported and left to mods to deal with in as timely a manner as possible, which in here is usually very good to be fair. However, I'd like clarity on whether someone telling one/more posters to cop on, they are ruining the thread (or a similar type comment) will be carded by mods?

Self policing of this type when done in a non confrontational manner is I think good far more than not,especially in superthreads which for the most part are groups of people that are familiar with each other to a large extent. Mods not encouraging even these type of rebukes I can understand, but if they are going to be carded themselves (which it hasn't been said they will, I just want clarification on the general point) it will piss people off needlessly. It's something I'd have done occasionally in the past and I just want to know what the situation is in future.

Always carded, or just discouraged but possibly carded depending on the situation?

Personally speaking:

I wouldn't card someone saying 'cop on' unless there was something else behind it. For example, it might become a problem if someone who it was aimed at took the comment badly and the thread devolved into a personal tit-for-tat. But even still, a friendly reminder to break it up would probably be my first port of call than a card.

In terms of the question, clarifying the rules on 'reasonable' back seat modding: I wouldn't be in favour of changing the current "leave it to the mods" approach only because I think it covers the most ground the easiest for posters and mods.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

So, when is Five Starpool being made a mod then?

Should I start a petition?

LuckyLloyd

Conor Lively Beanbag wrote: »

So, when is Five Starpool being made a mod then?

Should I start a petition?

Seconded

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

aw diddums

GavRedKing

Conor Lively Beanbag wrote: »

So, when is Five Starpool being made a mod then?

Should I start a petition?

It doesnt work like that.

Theres a number of factors before people are considered to be modded and a petition isnt one of them.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Thanks for the, erm, clarification.



still though

#5sp4lyf

GavRedKing

We can be bribed, just as an fyi.

< <

> >

5starpool

Conor Lively Beanbag wrote: »

Thanks for the, erm, clarification.



still though

#5sp4lyf

Cop on. Oh wait, hang on. Reported. No, still not right.

Feck off. That's better.

5starpool

Beasty wrote: »

The danger is posters may manipulate any flexibility. They could for example gang up behind the scenes and then target particular posters by telling them to "cop on". I appreciate the sentiment behind the suggestion, and have no doubt most posters would not look to manipulate things in this way.

There is still a risk that telling others to "cop on" becomes a weapon to hit other posters with. At least if it's left to the mods judgement they can ignore any false alarms or indeed make a note if they suspect someone is reporting stuff with malicious intent

You also highlight this is a rule that is applied across the site and I think granting an exemption to one forum would risk causing problems elsewhere with posters applying principles they see here in other forums. Hence I think it's something more for site-wide rather than forum-specific feedback

Of course there are going to be individual circumstances to everything and exceptions, but I hardly think the norm is a group of people sending PM's to each other about someone deciding who will tell them to 'cop on' or similar, or how best to get under someone's skin by using something essentially harmless. It's a mild rebuke that can stop things in their tracks, not a full on telling off or dressing down. I've been around long enough to know how stuff works here (for good and bad) and sometimes the easiest thing is for places to self police themselves to a degree. I'm sure most people will use reported posts anyhow in a lot of situations, but if things are getting a bit petulant (which to be honest they do quite often) then something like "ah lads, give it a rest and stfu" often does make posters realise how annoying to everyone else their back and forth is being.

dfx- wrote: »

Personally speaking:

I wouldn't card someone saying 'cop on' unless there was something else behind it. For example, it might become a problem if someone who it was aimed at took the comment badly and the thread devolved into a personal tit-for-tat. But even still, a friendly reminder to break it up would probably be my first port of call than a card.

In terms of the question, clarifying the rules on 'reasonable' back seat modding: I wouldn't be in favour of changing the current "leave it to the mods" approach only because I think it covers the most ground the easiest for posters and mods.

I have always been in favour of using common sense above hard and fast rules wherever possible. If for example, you are taking this approach, but another mod (Gav to pick an example) has decided he is having none of it, this will lead to inconsistent actions, which where avoidable are really infuriating. I would be ok if the rule for back seat modding was along the lines of:

---

Back seat modding is something that we on boards do not wish to see happen as it can cause conflicts of it's own. Where possible we will apply our judgement to situations and reserve the right to warn/infract as appropriate if we feel people are overstepping or further antagonising the situation. Please just report posts and let us deal with it if things are becoming problematic.

---

I know this is somewhat vague, but it does allow for the type of interaction (much like you'd have down the pub to use that old analogy) while still not officially allowing it and of course clearing the way to infract people who are doing it to antagonise, bully or trying to control things in a way they have no right to.

Kirby

5starpool wrote: »

I know this is somewhat vague, but it does allow for the type of interaction (much like you'd have down the pub to use that old analogy) while still not officially allowing it and of course clearing the way to infract people who are doing it to antagonise, bully or trying to control things in a way they have no right to.

The problem is, people tend to spend time in the pub with people they like. Most of the time anyway. This forum is filled with people who dislike each other and want to score points on the "enemy".

"cop on" works with a friend who is acting the eejit. Say it to somebody you don't know or somebody you have previous with........its starting a 10 page row in the thread.

Let the mods, mod. It isn't the job of the users to do it tbh.

The exception of course being calling out trolls. This is necessary to keep the place clean. The trolls are well known here and calling them out on their nonsense should not be a cardable offence. It is without doubt, one of the most ridiculous rules we have.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Kirby wrote: »

Let the mods, mod. It isn't the job of the users to do it tbh.

Kirby wrote: »

The trolls are well known here and calling them out on their nonsense should not be a cardable offence.

Bounty Hunter

As this was unlocked just wanted to say something as I missed this thread before (cos its stickied):


I like the idea of splitting posts off from a thread more when threads are going way off topic. For example if we have a couple of pages of Pogba / Neymar / Mbappe who was the best value in the transfer thread it could be split into a topic called "Best value Transfer" and the actual transfer thread could be a lot less cluttered.

This obviously applies to more than just that thread and that was a made up example but it is somewhere such actions could be implemented more often.