Re: *Please read*
 

[quote=FRPLG;910117]Exactly. I have been a board member for 7(?) years and started maybe a dozen threads. People ought to really be more considered when a thread idea comes to them. I have to say at least half the threads that come up around here are sorta useless. Not awful but not really needed in a lot of cases. But I just ignore them. That's the nature of a board like this.[/quote]

yeah but should niles paul converting to TE really be part of the Redskins have signed Morgan and Garcon?

You'd think it would be.. skins have signed blah blah thread

Our Receiving corps so far for 2012 thread

Niles Paul converting to Tight End thread

I mean.. the headline of signing the guys doesn't imply that's it's an EVERYTHING WR/pass catcher thread

plus google will pick up on a lot more things if they are the thread title (and page title) which could bring more members/$ for the site

Re: *Please read*
 

[quote=tryfuhl;910620]yeah but should niles paul converting to TE really be part of the Redskins have signed Morgan and Garcon?

You'd think it would be.. skins have signed blah blah thread

Our Receiving corps so far for 2012 thread

Niles Paul converting to Tight End thread

I mean.. the headline of signing the guys doesn't imply that's it's an EVERYTHING WR/pass catcher thread

plus google will pick up on a lot more things if they are the thread title (and page title) which could bring more members/$ for the site[/quote]

A) There are a lot of stupid threads that are started, that's a fact

B) I'll take the blame for throwing the Paul news into the Morgan thread. At the time it was an "oh by the way" statement. But I guess it's turned into something more

C) People still don't read. I'm talking about just reading a few of the most recent posts. And honestly, if you don't have time to read at least most of the latest posts then you don't belong on this board. This isn't a blog for you (the general you, not you specifically) to come on and just spit out your thoughts. This board is for dialogue and debate

Re: *Please read*
 

I feel that there should be a 1000 post minimum before a user can start a thread.

While anyone can make the argument that the Niles Paul didn't belong in the Garcon/Morgan thread, it was already being discussed at length when the new thread was created.

People should make a quick test before creating a thread or posting breaking news...if it happened more than 3 hours ago, it is most likely being discussed in the forum.

You know how there's the whole "F*ck It I'm Going Deep" joke about Rex Grossman? I think some people here that go "F*ck It I'm Creating a Thread".

Re: *Please read*
 

Guys new idea. 1,000 post minimum before starting a thread. And Matty I definitely agree. People need to read the thread before posting.

Re: *Please read*
 

what is the problem with more threads? more memory?

1000 posts? Seriously? That would have a negative impact and turn a lot of new posters off.

The overall goal of a forum is to increase communication. If we are going to have a 1000 post waiting period, to learn, we are basically making this forum into a "good old boys" email chain.

Re: *Please read*
 

I think 1,000 posts is a good minimum for creating threads.

Re: *Please read*
 

[quote=SmootSmack;910623]A) There are a lot of stupid threads that are started, that's a fact

B) I'll take the blame for throwing the Paul news into the Morgan thread. At the time it was an "oh by the way" statement. But I guess it's turned into something more

C) People still don't read. I'm talking about just reading a few of the most recent posts. And honestly, if you don't have time to read at least most of the latest posts then you don't belong on this board. This isn't a blog for you (the general you, not you specifically) to come on and just spit out your thoughts. This board is for dialogue and debate[/quote]

agreed

and properly separating the subjects benefits us all

wasn't even aware that it was you that did it

dialogue and debate is much better when kept somewhat to the same topic

Re: *Please read*
 

[quote=tryfuhl;910645]dialogue and debate is much better when kept somewhat to the same topic[/quote]in that case, wouldn't more threads be better?

Re: *Please read*
 

Bottom line is people weren't reading posts that were written just minutes before, and that's why this thread was started. If there's a thread called 2012 NFL Draft Prospect and at 11:48am someone posts Morris Claiborne's Wonderlic score and then at 11:54 you come on and post the exact same thing...that's a problem.

If no one posted anything, and you felt it was worthy enough to be a new thread by all means we'd rather you did that. At worst, we'll just lock it...then ban you...and impound your car...and close your accounts...and see it to you never post on another Redskins message board again!

Re: *Please read*
 

edit* i think the option of being able to delete your own posts is an easy way to help solve that problem

Re: *Please read*
 

[quote=Ruhskins;910631]I feel that there should be a 1000 post minimum before a user can start a thread.

While anyone can make the argument that the Niles Paul didn't belong in the Garcon/Morgan thread, it was already being discussed at length when the new thread was created.

People should make a quick test before creating a thread or posting breaking news...if it happened more than 3 hours ago, it is most likely being discussed in the forum.

You know how there's the whole "F*ck It I'm Going Deep" joke about Rex Grossman? I think some people here that go "F*ck It I'm Creating a Thread".[/quote]

The Mods here do one hell of a job and it's not an easy one especially when you consider the topic is Redskins football something that in some case's has been passed down from one generation to another.
My question to Rushkins is why 1000,the poster will do it wether it's 500 or 2000 posts.If the poster makes a habit of it suspend his posting priviledges for a week or two.Just MHO but we all need to be a littlle more carefull,if that's all the mods want ,it's the least we can do.

Re: *Please read*
 

I would advocate a 100 post minimum before starting a thread, to discourage all the newbies that come here to advertise their blogs, etc. I think new members that do that see the 10 post minimum as an easy hurdle to pass just by making 10 crap posts that don't add any value to the boards. Maybe making it 100 posts would make it tougher while still not eliminating new members' desire to post here. Either that or make a two week - 1 month waiting period before they can start a thread.

I would also advocate starting a "welcome, introduce yourself here" thread in the Locker Room, probably stickied at the top, as a thread that would allow new members to introduce themselves and also post the reason they are joining the boards, whether it be advertising their own site or whatever. I would include a link to that thread in the post that new members typically see, the one that tells them to read the forum guidelines, etc. This would allow them the opportunity to advertise their stuff without spamming the board, and hopefully that thread would work in conjunction with the 100 post minimum to allow them to get their point across, without making them feel not welcome.

Of course, none of what I just said would help in regards to the various members of this board who are more concerned with breaking news than actually reading the boards. That's a much harder problem to solve.

Re: *Please read*
 

[quote=mooby;910678]I would advocate a 100 post minimum before starting a thread, to discourage all the newbies that come here to advertise their blogs, etc. I think new members that do that see the 10 post minimum as an easy hurdle to pass just by making 10 crap posts that don't add any value to the boards. Maybe making it 100 posts would make it tougher while still not eliminating new members' desire to post here. Either that or make a two week - 1 month waiting period before they can start a thread.

I would also advocate starting a "welcome, introduce yourself here" thread in the Locker Room, probably stickied at the top, as a thread that would allow new members to introduce themselves and also post the reason they are joining the boards, whether it be advertising their own site or whatever. I would include a link to that thread in the post that new members typically see, the one that tells them to read the forum guidelines, etc. This would allow them the opportunity to advertise their stuff without spamming the board, and hopefully that thread would work in conjunction with the 100 post minimum to allow them to get their point across, without making them feel not welcome.

Of course, none of what I just said would help in regards to the various members of this board who are more concerned with breaking news than actually reading the boards. That's a much harder problem to solve.[/quote]

I think 100 posts is a good idea...I may have gone over the top with 1000 posts.

Re: *Please read*
 

it is funny how everyone is missing the point of this thread.

There are not to many threads being posted there are too many [B][I]multiply[/I][/B] [B][I]post[/I][/B] going on.

Re: *Please read*
 

[quote=mredskins;910682]it is funny how everyone is missing the point of this thread.

There are not to many threads being posted there are too many [B][I]multiply[/I][/B] [B][I]post[/I][/B] going on.[/quote]

I'm not missing the point, I get that clearly. I just don't have a solution for it other than telling the other forum members to read a little more instead of assuming nobody has broken news yet (seriously, I mean whenever new Redskins-related news breaks on the internet it's usually posted here within 5 minutes or less, so people should automatically assume when they log in that any news has already been posted about here), so I was discussing solutions to other problems the board has.

Re: *Please read*
 

[quote=mooby;910683]I'm not missing the point, I get that clearly. I just don't have a solution for it other than telling the other forum members to read a little more, so I was discussing solutions to other problems the board has.[/quote]


Geez, you wonder why your heart rate is elevated.

We IMO have not really had a problem with too many threads by newbies in recent history.

Re: *Please read*
 

[quote=los panda;910647]in that case, wouldn't more threads be better?[/quote]

Very much so

I think that it would bring more activity too

Re: *Please read*
 

[quote=tryfuhl;910839]Very much so

I think that it would bring more activity too[/quote]

Quantity over quality though? Extremeskins has more activity...most of which makes me want to puke.

Re: *Please read*
 

[quote=mredskins;910685]Geez, you wonder why your heart rate is elevated.

We IMO have not really had a problem with too many threads by newbies in recent history.[/quote]

?

I was actually pretty calm when I wrote that. I was only making suggestions as to how we can improve the boards. IMO it sounds like you're the one getting a tad upset that we're not staying on point here.

Re: *Please read*
 

so, did you hear claiborne scored a 4 on his wonderlic?


btw, i think new threads should have a 15,000 post minimum. just saying.

Re: *Please read*
 

Can a fella get a day 2 draft thread 40 minutes before it starts? Scared to start it myself because it would get locked. Anyone?

Re: *Please read*
 

[quote=CapitalDefense;912515]Can a fella get a day 2 draft thread 40 minutes before it starts? Scared to start it myself because it would get locked. Anyone?[/quote]

What?

Re: *Please read*
 

can a brother get hbo under water

Re: *Please read*
 

[quote=CapitalDefense;912515]Can a fella get a day 2 draft thread 40 minutes before it starts? Scared to start it myself because it would get locked. Anyone?[/quote]

[url]http://www.thewarpath.net/nfl-draft-central/47584-2012-nfl-draft-day-2-a.html[/url]