Re: *Please read*
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy;910087]Perfect solution to the problem; just have the mods start the threads.[/QUOTE]



Mods shouldn't have to babysit like it's jail. All it takes is a little common sense and 3 seconds to search. It's not brain surgery.

Re: *Please read*
 

Everyone should be able to start new threads. When they fail to understand the guiding principles behind searching before starting, that privilege can be removed.

I have found i hate starting threads, because i'm too lazy to search. Normally there is a macro-thread that i can post the article i've found in.

Re: *Please read*
 

[quote=Monksdown;910108]Everyone should be able to start new threads. When they fail to understand the guiding principles behind searching before starting, that privilege can be removed.

I have found i hate starting threads, because i'm too lazy to search. Normally there is a macro-thread that i can post the article i've found in.[/quote]

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.

Re: *Please read*
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;910096]Mods shouldn't have to babysit like it's jail. All it takes is a little common sense and 3 seconds to search. It's not brain surgery.[/quote]

I agree with you. It was a bit of tongue in cheek comment.

Playing devil's advocate, IMHO, I'd put some sort of statute of limitations on the search. I mean, if I have a topic I'd like to post and I think it's interesting enough that it deserves its own thread, and I do a search to find out someone posted it back in 2005, am I to assume we can never talk about said subject forever and ever amen?

I'd probably add an addendum to say do a search to make sure it's not a current trending thread or one that was posted within the last six months or so. Plenty of new members are added in three years time if the forum is interesting enough, and new members are more than likely going to discuss things that some of us long time members have already discussed in the past.

It's just a thought though. A forum that's new user friendly is one that will thrive.

Re: *Please read*
 

I think we're getting away from the original point here, which is to spend a little more time reading vs posting, especially when it comes to breaking news stories.

Re: *Please read*
 

[quote=Mattyk;910135]I think we're getting away from the original point here, which is to spend a little more time reading vs posting, especially when it comes to breaking news stories.[/quote]

Sorry Matt, didn't mean to deviate from the original topic. And, I think you just answered my questions! Cheers to you!

And to those that complain, to be fair, the path is one of the least restrictive (in terms of postings and new threads) forums. A lot of forums will ban and kick you without warning.

Re: *Please read*
 

[quote=hooskins;910260]And to those that complain, to be fair, the path is one of the least restrictive (in terms of postings and new threads) forums. A lot of forums will ban and kick you without warning.[/quote]


Exactly. People should thank Matty for being a forgiving god. A merciful god. A loving god.


Even when I browse ES, I just shake my head at how mods(one in particular) treat some of the long standing members. Pretty much ban them for the slightest thing, and doesn't matter what they write, they'll say it falls under X rule. Don't dare talk back to them or feel their wrath. I don't want a board like that. I enjoy the low key forum we have here and I thank the mods for their work even though they aren't getting paid to do it. I'd buy them beers if they were close by for having to put up with us misfits.


:food-smil

Re: *Please read*
 

BREAKING NEWS: Moderator releases statement [url]http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/47328-please-read.html[/url]

Re: *Please read*
 

[quote=NC_Skins;910270]Exactly. People should thank Matty for being a forgiving god. A merciful god. A loving god.


Even when I browse ES, I just shake my head at how mods(one in particular) treat some of the long standing members. Pretty much ban them for the slightest thing, and doesn't matter what they write, they'll say it falls under X rule. Don't dare talk back to them or feel their wrath. I don't want a board like that. I enjoy the low key forum we have here and I thank the mods for their work even though they aren't getting paid to do it. I'd buy them beers if they were close by for having to put up with us misfits.


:food-smil[/quote]

ES is plainly horrible and the mods/admins there are absolutely the worst I have ever experienced on the net. And the one mod you mentioned is probably one that I'm thinking of. That place is a perfect example of constant chaos.

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?