Sign in to follow this  
VegasCanuck

Minimum Feedback level to start Thread

Should there be a minimum feedback level be to start a thread  

60 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Who is to decide that a post is deliberate?  That's supposing one actually knows the poster's intent, which is completely subjective.  This entire thread is very upsetting to me.  Perhaps other posters find it upsetting too?  It appears there is a small group of posters trying to control the board - who can start a thread, which comments are to be considered trolling, and let's have filters.  By the definition of trolling, this thread should be locked.  See, I'm getting upset, because of this topic.  Who is to say the OP of this concept to control the boards by filters was not intending to elicite angry responses?  There is even a moderator, who is supposed to be completely objective, posting about filters.  Yes, I find this thread upsetting, and with (it certainly appears) valid reason.

The posters who blatantly troll are usually very obvious by their behavior and the content of their posts. Is there grey area? Of course there is. This is why there is a board admin and moderators here. This is a thread about suggestions to stop those who join just to troll and those frustrated and fed up, trying to eliminate the many redundant threads that seem to crop up when new users join and do not bother to read the TOS for being here.

 

Being a member of this board is a privilege, not a right. I originally joined this board in 2003 and you would not believe the mess it turned into precisely because people were allowed to run amok. It got so bad that certain areas of the board were shut down completely and for YEARS due to the behavior of some who refused to behave and follow the board rules. Many people left due to the actions of a select few. There is a reason why CDC is the biggest NHL hockey board now. It's due to the hard work of admin and the moderators who have (at times) the most thankless task of trying to keep this place somewhere everyone  can come and talk hockey, participate in OT conversation and go a little loopy in WN ;)


The board has rules to follow to ensure that being a member here is as positive an experience as possible for EVERYONE.....and for registered, long time members not to be subjected to those who choose to just come and troll the regular users, those who refuse to acquaint themselves with the rules of the board and those who feel they can come and say (and do) whatever they please regardless of stated rules. The users who spend their time here quite happily posting within the board guidelines deserve the best.

Edited by Cerridwen
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Who is to decide that a post is deliberate?  That's supposing one actually knows the poster's intent, which is completely subjective.  This entire thread is very upsetting to me.  Perhaps other posters find it upsetting too?  It appears there is a small group of posters trying to control the board - who can start a thread, which comments are to be considered trolling, and let's have filters.  By the definition of trolling, this thread should be locked.  See, I'm getting upset, because of this topic.  Who is to say the OP of this concept to control the boards by filters was not intending to elicite angry responses?  There is even a moderator, who is supposed to be completely objective, posting about filters.  Yes, I find this thread upsetting, and with (it certainly appears) valid reason.

There has to be some line that can't be crossed Alf. We can't stretch subjectivity like it was a taffy pull. Differing opinions isn't trolling without some form of aggressive reply. For instance, you might post that you like apples. If I post I don't like apples but prefer oranges, that isn't trolling. If I were to post instead, I don't like apples or the idiots that do, that is trolling. In a discussion of differing opinions where one poster keeps arguing a point and never lets it go, and brings the differing issue up again in another post and thread, that most likely could be considered a form of cyber bulling more than a specific troll attempt. I really think that your concern over this thread is a tad over the top. I don't believe anyone is trying to censor you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cerridwen said:

The posters who blatantly troll are usually very obvious by their behavior and the content of their posts. Is there grey area? Of course there is. This is why there is a board admin and moderators here. This is a thread about suggestions to stop those who join just to troll and those frustrated and fed up, trying to eliminate the many redundant threads that seem to crop up when new users join and do not bother to read the TOS for being here.

 

Being a member of this board is a privilege, not a right. I originally joined this board in 2003 and you would not believe the mess it turned into precisely because people were allowed to run amok. It got so bad that certain areas of the board were shut down completely and for YEARS due to the behavior of some who refused to behave and follow the board rules. Many people left due to the actions of a select few. There is a reason why CDC is the biggest NHL hockey board now. It's due to the hard work of admin and the moderators who have (at times) the most thankless task of trying to keep this place somewhere everyone  can come and talk hockey, participate in OT conversation and go a little loopy in WN ;)


The board has rules to follow to ensure that being a member here is as positive an experience as possible for EVERYONE.....and for registered, long time members not to be subjected to those who choose to just come and troll the regular users, those who refuse to acquaint themselves with the rules of the board and those who feel they can come and say (and do) whatever they please regardless of stated rules. The users who spend their time here quite happily posting within the board guidelines deserve the best.

 

1 hour ago, JAY JAY said:

There has to be some line that can't be crossed Alf. We can't stretch subjectivity like it was a taffy pull. Differing opinions isn't trolling without some form of aggressive reply. For instance, you might post that you like apples. If I post I don't like apples but prefer oranges, that isn't trolling. If I were to post instead, I don't like apples or the idiots that do, that is trolling. In a discussion of differing opinions where one poster keeps arguing a point and never lets it go, and brings the differing issue up again in another post and thread, that most likely could be considered a form of cyber bulling more than a specific troll attempt. I really think that your concern over this thread is a tad over the top. I don't believe anyone is trying to censor you.

I appreciate the honest feedback.  Open and honest discussion (even if view points differ) is always the best way to talk about issues.  Private chats, where ideas that will affect the entire group are discussed, is not the way.  I feel there is an oligarchy of rule here.  I see it as both unjust and prejudicial.  There are posters who are very serious by nature, and post as such.  Then there are posters who wish to be entertained by their participation.  The two sides often argue, openly.  I personally have been openly called some really insulting things here.  There was even a thread started in which I was strictly the target of abuse.  Now I read here, with a moderator participating (who has a hammer for a symbol) that a small group of posters ( the oligarchs) want to filter the board to keep posters from - in the oligarch's view - spamming, trolling, or starting threads deemed not worthy, which to myself is incredibly upsetting.  Every member here should have an equal voice, regardless of their tenure, talents, knowledge, or point of view.  I honestly do not understand why the moderators have not both sanctioned those who started this insulting thread, and locked it too.  As you can see, I am very upset by the nature of this thread, and from my point of view it is trolling.  Or, does the voice of an old person, who has very limited computer and Internet knowledge, who does not try to fit into some politically correct group, not get consideration.  Why do the moderators continue to not support those here who actually need the most help?  

Edited by Alflives

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Alflives said:

This is really sounding too much like censorship.  The definition of trolling allows for a lot of subjectivity, especially considering it could include all contrary opinion.  Perhaps allow people to make their statements, and if other posters don't like that person's opinion there is the choice to ignore and move on?  To have a small group of posters deciding who's views are trolling and who's are not trolling does seem rather unfair.  Is this not a Canuck's sponsored site?  Should not the Vancouver Canucks be the ones deciding these types of issues?  Seriously, discussing filtering other people's opinions, because they are contrarian really contradicts what we as Canadians hold dear - freedom of speech.  

Could not even the discussion to filter some posters be considered trolling?  This discussion has very much elicited a negative response from me.  That's trolling, is it not?  Now was that the intent of this discussion?  Probably not, but yet the response I'm feeling is still the same.  Who, therefore, will represent my opinion that this topic is trolling?

Now back to having fun here. My goodness!

Ill try to clear a few apparent my misconceptions here.

 

First, I think you're taking the filter comment out of context. The original premise was to set a post count or date count requirement on thread creation. It would only apply if heavy traffic was expected and if I were to know that no moderators, including myself were going to be present. It would apply only in an emergency situation. 

 

There are still no plans to enact such a filter during normal periods.

 

Second, we define trolling as posting specifically with the intent of antagonizing or attacking other users. Sometimes trolls will use a contrary opinion to further their aims, but it's quite easy for us to tell when that's the case and when it's not. I think you might be reading too much into the definition and applying it to situations outside.of that scale.

 

This is not a discussion about filtering people whose opinions differ from the norm. This is about removing elements that clearly intend harm to the community.

 

Although free speech doesn't really apply here (privately run), I strive for a free speech environment. Nobody is punished simply because their opinions are different from the norm. 

 

*Thanks JAY JAY and Cerr for your points :)

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm definitely against a waiting period or having to hit a certain threshold to create a thread. When new members find the site they're looking to express a thought they have. If they aren't able to express it then odds are they'll never come back and we'd never know what we'd lose in that member. We have moderators that deal with spam threads fairly quickly and it's the old adage if you don't like it, don't go into the thread.

 

Also I find even the most obvious trolling threads have users posting in them making comments to gain reputation points when all that does is keep the thread front and centre. If we all ignored the thread it would go away by itself, so we as users are to blame as well.

 

I can't speak for everyone else, but for myself one of my first posts was actually my first thread. It didn't go over that well with most users, but I learned from that and now try to create topics only when I have something to say that no one else has yet with analysis, thought and statistics. Had I not been able to post that thread I probably never would've stayed here.

 

I think we need to create less barriers to enhance our membership base, not more and even if some do create dumb or redundant threads, they're dealt with pretty quickly. I think the consequences of not allowing a potentially great addition to the board to voice their thoughts has far more consequences then us seeing a bad thread for a few hours.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, J.R. said:

We need more than one neg a day. There's a LOT of stupid on here lately.

Absolutely!  :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Absolutely!  :lol:

 

Be careful what you ask for Alf :lol:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring back the neg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first post created a thread because I basically did not know what I was doing.

I was quickly corrected and the post went into the approprieate thread.

I do not think that was too much for anyone though I did get several responses 'telling me where to go'.

 

What I would like to see (as well as return of the Neg button) is the abilitly to put an entire thread on "Ignore".

That way, one look at the post or even the poster, would be enough for me to see no more of the offending thread.

 

One problem with the "Ignore" funciton is that other posters quote and respond to people I have on Ignore.

These are generally "good" poster who enjoy countering people I have on Ignore.

I would like to have a sub-option in Ignore that allows for ignoring responses to the posts of people I have on Ignore.

 

So for me, it is:

1. Return of the Neg button.

2. Ability to place an entire thread on Ignore.

3. Ability to opt to ignore responses to people I have on Ignore.

4. Bonus: Differentiation for the "HaHa" Like Button between laughing with the poster or at them.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.