| Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums https://bucketguild.mooserve.org/phpbb3/ |
|
| Poll 2: @ Threads https://bucketguild.mooserve.org/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=9139 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Eturnalshift [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Poll 2: @ Threads |
Should @ threads be allowed to exist? They're good for stating a topic, getting someones attention... and often times they turn into threads that are worth reading and the ones that don't fall to the later pages. The downside to allowing these is you may get a lot of personal conversation threads when PMs and other methods of 1-on-1 communication already exist which may clutter the main page. Poll open for 10 days? Sure. |
|
| Author: | Yuratuhl [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quoting myself here. Rule #2 doesn't outright ban @ posts. It exists to discourage posts meant for one reader only which will contain nothing of substance for anyone but that reader. If an @ post has a clear message that could conceivably apply to more than one person, it should be fine. If it's a one-liner that also happens to be an inside joke which means dick to 99% of us, it's getting locked and too bad so sad. Neither of these options allows for any kind of line to be drawn. In fact, I'm going to abuse my moderator powers to add a third option. |
|
| Author: | Usdk [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I would like to know why /USD isn't on choice one. |
|
| Author: | Eturnalshift [ Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You're the second person. <3 |
|
| Author: | Usdk [ Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
what |
|
| Author: | Mns [ Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I really want it to be "sometimes", but every single time someone gets butthurt and bitches about how they got singled out. If people were mature, a third option would be ideal. I'm still voting for it, however. EDIT: for clarification, "it" being the "sometimes" option, even though every time someone gets a thread locked they bitch about it. |
|
| Author: | Necrachilles [ Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
3rd option! |
|
| Author: | rikkilake [ Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think they should be allowed, but watched carefully. There have been message boards that I haven't noticed that I had a PM for days--even weeks--after they were sent because my gaze doesn't really affix onto that part of the screen so an @-thread would be a much better option for trying to get a hold of me. Now that doesn't mean the thread should stay up there since it's point is probably only short-lived. My solution is that it should be manually-pruned after there hasn't been a response in the thread for a short period of time. For example: Say I made an @tuhl thread regarding an enjoyable battleground we were both in and he saw it later that day and replied with a quaint "lol". The thread has the potentiality to grow into a more open discussion with others and should be given the chance for maybe a day or two. After that? Kill it. If Tuhl also hadn't responded to it within say, 36 hours, kill it then, too. |
|
| Author: | Battletard [ Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Third Option. |
|
| Author: | Mns [ Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm just flat-out saying that there will be absolutely no FEVYN TROLL HORD on this site. If something is becoming an idiot circlejerk between two people, I'm locking it. You can bitch all you want, but I'm absolutely not budging on that. |
|
| Author: | Eturnalshift [ Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
So much for voting on it, eh Mayo? |
|
| Author: | rikkilake [ Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Eturnalshift wrote: So much for voting on it, eh Mayo?
are you surprised at this? |
|
| Author: | Mns [ Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Eturnalshift wrote: So much for voting on it, eh Mayo?
I'm perfectly fine with voting on the "lolol here's my inside joke that 99.9% of the forum won't get". What I'm not budging on are FEVYN-esque threads that are the same 3 people talking back and forth with twice as many posts than views. Its really hard to explain if you never saw the FEVYN TROLL HORD thread, but that thread will never happen on any board that I moderate. I don't think that there will be any sort of situation like that, but I'm putting all my cards on the table. |
|
| Author: | rikkilake [ Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mns wrote: Eturnalshift wrote: So much for voting on it, eh Mayo? I'm perfectly fine with voting on the "lolol here's my inside joke that 99.9% of the forum won't get". What I'm not budging on are FEVYN-esque threads that are the same 3 people talking back and forth with twice as many posts than views. Its really hard to explain if you never saw the FEVYN TROLL HORD thread, but that thread will never happen on any board that I moderate. I don't think that there will be any sort of situation like that, but I'm putting all my cards on the table. so you want selective censorship at your discretion? |
|
| Author: | Mns [ Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
In extreme cases of FEVYN TROLL HORD (which I've only seen like 3 or 4 times, and never on these boards), I'm just going to lock it. In 99.99999999999% of every other instance, if this passes, I won't lock. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|