Sites with huge user bases all suck and their threads are always unreadable.
I just meant your reported posts summary thing, not that I expected you to do a bunch more free work for us.
We can’t even ban anachronistic! There’s a thread dedicated to that that went nowhere. It can’t go anywhere because there is no agreement on what success looks like.
I think you posted a description of what you want in a forum and it wasn’t a huge user base full of strangers.
Become a mod and ban anachronistic. Seriously.
1 Like
It seems like the systems in place are working.
I’m not questioning your description, but do you have any examples?
And both of these people still have posters who continue to engage them, right? Where is their responsibility in this?
lul
One idea might be to create a naughty list where problem posters are outed in the op with the community’s grievances. They can earn their way off if they change, or be banned after some amount if there is no earnest effort to change.
We can use the formula you offered to put them in there once the specific numbers are decided.
Were there bad poster threads on 22? I think so… Any idea if they did any good?
The Victor/Iowa situation only became untenable when other people engaged with him for hundreds of posts. If it was simply one poster posting a hot take that the caucus was rigged against bernie, it would not have been so bad.
In a political forum, especially on a caucus/primary night, there will always be hot takes that people consider over-the-top. As long as people are posting in good faith, I have no problem with that.
I have come to use the Ignore capability more and more. Plus it is easy to put people on Ignore and then remove them from Ignore. (I did this on the New Hampshire thread when I got annoyed with all of the PI posts.)
To come full circle, attracting/keeping new users will always be a challenge. But I don’t think our lack of bannings has anything to do with it.
1 Like
I’m probably the only one on here that has never ignored anyone here or on our former home. I’m odd but reading the terrible shitposting makes me feel better about my own mediocre posting i suppose.
4 Likes
For the longest time I never put anyone on ignore, but I use it now to try to keep from getting in too many heated arguments.
I still think he should have been banned, but despite the popular opinion being that I hated him over something, it was never a personal grudge, just strong feelings about his rhetoric. No need to ignore him if he’s contributing good content, and I haven’t seen any extreme rhetoric but I’m also not a mod so I could just be missing it.
I am strongly in favor of more modding overall and trying to make this a place that can grow a bit and not just be an echo chamber or dwindling niche group.
I would like to see a rule about not allowing or at least very strongly discouraging fucking expletives and shit in thread titles. This is not a closed community. We are open to the entire world and are at least ostensibly trying to attract new users. I think it is a bad look to have prominent links with that sort of language on the front page of the site.
- Ban that fucking shit from thread titles
- It’s shitty and should be discouraged, but not explicitly banned
- Rules are bullshit, I curse where I want
0 voters
Should users who choose pie charts for poll results be banned?
- Temp Ban
- Perm Ban
0 voters