or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Citizens On Patrol Thread...forum rules you would like to see
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Citizens On Patrol Thread...forum rules you would like to see - Page 3

post #31 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas View Post
We are talking about this as though it were technically feasible, which I am certain it is not.

But I'll play just because it's fun. Sure it's a possibility that a clique could gang up on someone but I was just trying to come up with a way for this not to take up more mod attention. If the rules were very firm on this sort of collusion (and could result in a ban) I think ppl would take the responsibility seriously enough. Still, it's probably true we would never again see an AF thread.

[cue Louis Armstrong]

Yup, we're all just spitballing in this thread, I knew what you were saying. If we don't toss out ideas we'll get no new ideas on the topic.
post #32 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas View Post
I'd be sad if the CE and DT fora were gone. I came for the clothes, but now I rarely venture into MC, for a whole variety of reasons both forum-related and otherwise. Just my $.02.

I agree though that it is extremely difficult to get to the best clothing information out there, which contributes to the noob issue in MC. Perhaps if there were a "Hall of Fame" independently searchable microsite (or subforum), with the best threads (e.g. Manton's Business Casual masterpiece) posted there, it would be a good place for noobs to start. Then you'd just have to come up with good criteria for nominating and electing HOF threads.

One thing I wouldn't mind seeing - some sort of punishment level that allowed a member to stay and post but no longer start threads. I doubt this is possible, but if, say, 5 members have you on ignore you automatically lose new thread-making abilities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Doug, great idea, but how hard would it be to get five members to collude for a joke or spite?

I think the solution, if there is one (which presupposes there's actually a problem), would be both member driven and mod driven. For instance, the socks. I have to say the increased socks has made me snarkier. As I said in trans-mod, I feel like I'm answering the same questions (which will get argued with), from the same guy(s) a million times. Could be just my innate but we all know socks/trolls have done this repeatedly to most of us.

So member and mod driven. Mods set the priority, i.e. eliminate/minimize harmful socks, members pitch in and just report a suspected sock vs. reacting to it (yes, I'm guilty of this).

I like Douglas's idea regarding the ignore statistics and think that there's a reasonable number above which a member gets disappeared for stupidity/annoyance.

I'm not quite sure how this will play, but if you took such a statistic from your senior member base (or perhaps a base of posters above a certain postcount) then you'd probably have a reasonable idea of who is largely detracting from the site. It would almost amount to a sort of membership review of sorts.

Socks, though, have got to go, and the puppetmasters probably get a week off or so. Probably time for an amnesty drive where we turn in our socks.

As for DT - I was talking with another member (a fellow pioneer of the surreal) who was lamenting the sad state of affairs - and neither of us have much of an answer for it. One of the ironies (brought up by foodguy - iirc) of DT's is that you never quite know what thread will have legs and start running. Some of the most entertaining threads have been about the stupidest things - but someone gets in a good comment and it builds from there. Take the pwnage thread from a year or so back - it started out so, so stupidly, but was good-natured and had a lot of support from the stalwarts of the forum.

I do think that the DT-regs have the brain power to not just bang out stupid thread titles (parodies, in particular) without substance behind them, and that probably ought to be something we self-enforce. The grab for quick yuks tends to make us all come down to that level, and it just pollutes the forum.
post #33 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas View Post
I do think that the DT-regs have the brain power to not just bang out stupid thread titles (parodies, in particular) without substance behind them, and that probably ought to be something we self-enforce. The grab for quick yuks tends to make us all come down to that level, and it just pollutes the forum.

Well, we do have a handy-dandy threak just to get your stupid thread titles off your mind vs. making a new threak...

Agree though, you just never know which DT thread is going to go large. However, you can often tell the ones that will die in utero.
post #34 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Well, we do have a handy-dandy threak just to get your stupid thread titles off your mind vs. making a new threak...

Agree though, you just never know which DT thread is going to go large. However, you can often tell the ones that will die in utero.

True on both counts, although I think at times we all tend to overestimate our ability to delivery the funniez and decide that THIS time our thread will rule!!!!!
post #35 of 357
What's up with the pussy ban? Why can't we post pics of bushes in threads that pretty much warn people of adult content?

I understand if you don't want to allow actual penetration, but lift the pussy embargo.
post #36 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre Secreto View Post
What's up with the pussy ban? Why can't we post pics of bushes in threads that pretty much warn people of adult content?

I understand if you don't want to allow actual penetration, but lift the pussy embargo.

This is not helpful.
post #37 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
This is not helpful.

If it were to be isolated to specific threads it would't be that bad. I just don't get how they allow boobs and asses, but not the bush.
post #38 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre Secreto View Post
If it were to be isolated to specific threads it would't be that bad. I just don't get how they allow boobs and asses, but not the bush.

IMO, it would accelerate the drift of the site toward a more locker-room atmosphere. I think it needs less of that, not more.

Besides, does the I-net really need more porn?
post #39 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
IMO, it would accelerate the drift of the site toward a more locker-room atmosphere. I think it needs less of that, not more.

Besides, does the I-net really need more porn?

Isn't Entertainment & Culture and DT already a locker-room atmosphere?
post #40 of 357
I dont know how this would be enforced, but I find it really annoying how every fucking thread has to turn into pages upon pages of dumb threads inside joke circle jerks. Maybe part of the reason why noobs arent sticking around has to do with the fact that they have to sift through pages of bullshit just to find what they're looking for.
post #41 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre Secreto View Post
Isn't Entertainment & Culture and DT already a locker-room atmosphere?

DT, certainly. E&C, not entirely.

Anyway, this is a major point of contention between the disgruntled gray hairs (me & others) and the yung-uns. One site, two cultures ... I feel like the locker room is taking over and I don't like that.
post #42 of 357
We need less of the appreciation threads with questionable nudity, not more. There is zero, I mean less than zero, need for porn to be on SF. Also, I'm sure there are some legal issues that are opened up if you allow any of that shit. Someone posts a pic of a girl who turns out to be underage... etc etc.
post #43 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Wang View Post
I think just a PM to offending posters would change the tone. It would not even be in the form of a warning with implied consequences for non-compliance, but it would be more like you're at a bar and one of the regulars pulls you aside for a chat.

A hundred PMs or so sent out over a week would quickly have an effect.

I think this would work fairly well also, but be fairly labor-intensive and cyclical. In other words, more work for the mods, but probably yield benefits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpooPoker View Post
TBH, I think its pretty good as is. Nothing glaringly wrong from me.

lulz, so sez the guy who recommended the no0b gift her boyfriend with, and I quote, "a beej" in MC..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
I may have more thoughts later, but I don't think getting rid of CE is the answer. I think it is actually an asset to the site. OK, that may be too far. But I know that it is one of the reasons why I came and hung out. Yes, it can be really, really snarky and obnoxious. But it can also be very well informed and lots of fun.


I think I agree that getting rid of the CEsspool is not the answer, but I honestly see no reason for DTs. IIRC, this became an outlet for DTs to move to in an attempt to clean up the other boards and keep them focused. Another labor-intensive but effective strategy may be to get rid of DTs, and then just start deleting the truly dumb threads. I am sure there are a plethora of message boards dedicated to dick humor and grossing each other out, so it's not like there are not many other sites where people can't go to scratch that itch.
post #44 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
3. no socks. The only reason people start socks is to say crap they aren't man enough to say under their own name. So, then, don't say it. I have been on a bit of a rampage there and will continue to out puppeteers.
Have any of the unmasked socks been announced yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post
There is really good content locked into past SF threads and posts. The Glossary of terms/ Best posts/ FAQ/ Links is a completely inadequate mechanism to summarize this material for new members. If this material was more readily available and obvious, it might do much to be a friendly and useful gateway for your precious new members. Someone would have to select, organize, curate, and update this material, and it should be knowledgable mods. This means more work for you.
I very much agree with this. I post a lot in the MC version of "Ask a Quick Question Thread" as a means of procrastinating in my real work, but a really high percentage of the questions in that thread and all the n00b threads started in MC could be answered by referring to content linked in the "Glossary of terms/ Best posts/ FAQ/ Links" thread. I thought about organizing some of it into articles to answer common questions such as "what's the best suit I can get for $500 or $1000" or "what should I look for in an MTM or bespoke suit," but I generally don't care to procrastinate that much. Perhaps you could offer some sort of incentive (extra privileges in the B&S forum or something along those lines?) to members who could contribute articles of sufficient quality. AAAC has a number of such articles (although the content in most of them is of poor quality) posted on their main page and I suspect that drives a lot of google traffic to their site. If you were to have some solid articles that answered a lot of questions about either men's tailored clothing or SW&D, I bet you'd see your site traffic increase. Those kind of front page articles might also be a good place for ads (if the revenue is of any interest) since they wouldn't necessarily be part of the forum.
post #45 of 357
My vote is for a hard-core crackdown on socks and DT/CE outside of DT/CE. The proliferation of socks has become absurd, and the few funny ones aren't funny enough to warrant dealing with the stupid ones. As for DT/CE, they both have their merits, but I can see where they'd be an annoyance to members who aren't involved in either. I think the "if you don't like a forum, don't enter it" logic is perfectly sound, but it's undermined when those fora spill over into others. The way to rectify this, in my opinion, is to make sure they're as compartmentalized as possible. Also, a 100 post minimum for both seems like a good idea to me. I'm also a fan of some type of restriction on new posters. I understand why it's a bad idea to bar them from posting at all, but perhaps they could be prohibited from starting a thread for the first xx days of membership. This would help prevent ridiculous noob threads while encouraging the use of the search function and allowing them to contribute to the forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny_5 View Post
I dont know how this would be enforced, but I find it really annoying how every fucking thread has to turn into pages upon pages of dumb threads inside joke circle jerks. Maybe part of the reason why noobs arent sticking around has to do with the fact that they have to sift through pages of bullshit just to find what they're looking for.
I disagree that this is a problem. The in-joke stuff was going on when I first started posting, and it never bothered me. It's just a part of any place where people interact with one another for a long period of time. Hang around for a bit, and you'll end up a part of it as well. I think it's a sign of a healthy community.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Citizens On Patrol Thread...forum rules you would like to see