No, not implying that things should be that extreme, and that's the whole point, to acknowledge that there are areas of "grey" that the rules need to accommodate. By the same token, if the cops see an assault in progress they would be fairly certain to intervene.....BackFromUSA wrote: ↑Wed 15 Sep 2021 10:54amBut sometimes the cops see someone jay walking and just let it go.
Should they pull you up and fine that person for jay walking?
SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Dis Believer
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5088
- Joined: Sun 28 Mar 2004 1:42pm
- Location: The terraces at Moorabbin, in the pouring rain.......
- Has thanked: 255 times
- Been thanked: 272 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
The heavy metal artist formerly known as True Believer!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri 26 May 2006 4:29pm
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 132 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
Hi Simon,
I apologise for the length of post. My suggestions are interrelated so I prefer to give them all to you at the one-time even though it is only week one.
I would like to see forum changes aimed at helping newbies join and post.
Thanks to your work this site is no longer feral. But we are missing new and younger views. The only member in the past year who made a post and does not appear to be an old member under a new nic is theacademic and his project was abused in the General Forum so I doubt we will see him/her again.
I would like you to consider:
• “New saintsational fan forum rules” changed to “Welcome to new posters and our Saintsational fan forum rules”. Then change some of the focus to welcoming new posters and making them feel comfortable to post. Generally new posters will be the ones reading the rules for the first time
• A sticky for newbies to introduce themselves and ask questions. It would be a safe thread to encourage new posters for their first post
• A second sticky on why “I love/am grateful I support the Saints” to make the site more positive (short term ban for anyone who posts negatively in the sticky)
• Change the name of the “foe” function to “ignore”. We are all Saints supporters
• Make the “ignore” function reciprocal so that both parties are blocked from each other if someone is uncomfortable with/does not want to communicate with another poster. There is stalking and white anting going on with the foe function
• Make the site self-regulated. Allow everyone the ability to report and ban another poster for 1 or 7 days through you. But if they do so both parties and all related nics should be put on permanent ignore with each other
• I love the broad rules which I do with the Group I run. I would add “demeaning or making another poster uncomfortable
• Focus on appointing administrators - not moderators who are empowered to take the forum forward under you – i.e. moderating, banning, website, internet, content, media, funding, sponsorship, socials, history, etc. Most are already in place. Give people the opportunity to volunteer for roles they think will help the site. Give the administrators credit by having a permanent sticky in the fan forum showing who is doing what. It then looks like a community forum which it is.
Allowing everyone the right to ban for a short time will scare some but it should not. Under my suggestion a reporter and reportee/banner and bannee are permanently blocked from each other thereafter so it can only happen once amongst each other. It is no longer a dobber environment Gazrat is worried about because there is mutual consequence.
As a moderator you cannot fix the “grey areas” True believer talks about. 7 people wanted True Believer gone. It is a lesson for True Believer that some people have had enough of politics on the fan forum. It is not a “grey area” debate. The lesson should be do not cross other members boundaries or they can cut off communication with you.
Self regulation will take all the pressure from moderators because it is the members doing the banning. You should however always retain final say because processes become abused over time.
Thanks again for your work.
You have really made a big difference.
I apologise for the length of post. My suggestions are interrelated so I prefer to give them all to you at the one-time even though it is only week one.
I would like to see forum changes aimed at helping newbies join and post.
Thanks to your work this site is no longer feral. But we are missing new and younger views. The only member in the past year who made a post and does not appear to be an old member under a new nic is theacademic and his project was abused in the General Forum so I doubt we will see him/her again.
I would like you to consider:
• “New saintsational fan forum rules” changed to “Welcome to new posters and our Saintsational fan forum rules”. Then change some of the focus to welcoming new posters and making them feel comfortable to post. Generally new posters will be the ones reading the rules for the first time
• A sticky for newbies to introduce themselves and ask questions. It would be a safe thread to encourage new posters for their first post
• A second sticky on why “I love/am grateful I support the Saints” to make the site more positive (short term ban for anyone who posts negatively in the sticky)
• Change the name of the “foe” function to “ignore”. We are all Saints supporters
• Make the “ignore” function reciprocal so that both parties are blocked from each other if someone is uncomfortable with/does not want to communicate with another poster. There is stalking and white anting going on with the foe function
• Make the site self-regulated. Allow everyone the ability to report and ban another poster for 1 or 7 days through you. But if they do so both parties and all related nics should be put on permanent ignore with each other
• I love the broad rules which I do with the Group I run. I would add “demeaning or making another poster uncomfortable
• Focus on appointing administrators - not moderators who are empowered to take the forum forward under you – i.e. moderating, banning, website, internet, content, media, funding, sponsorship, socials, history, etc. Most are already in place. Give people the opportunity to volunteer for roles they think will help the site. Give the administrators credit by having a permanent sticky in the fan forum showing who is doing what. It then looks like a community forum which it is.
Allowing everyone the right to ban for a short time will scare some but it should not. Under my suggestion a reporter and reportee/banner and bannee are permanently blocked from each other thereafter so it can only happen once amongst each other. It is no longer a dobber environment Gazrat is worried about because there is mutual consequence.
As a moderator you cannot fix the “grey areas” True believer talks about. 7 people wanted True Believer gone. It is a lesson for True Believer that some people have had enough of politics on the fan forum. It is not a “grey area” debate. The lesson should be do not cross other members boundaries or they can cut off communication with you.
Self regulation will take all the pressure from moderators because it is the members doing the banning. You should however always retain final say because processes become abused over time.
Thanks again for your work.
You have really made a big difference.
- asiu
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10313
- Joined: Thu 08 Apr 2010 8:11pm
- Has thanked: 1327 times
- Been thanked: 932 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
this is an absolute crock of crapThe only member in the past year who made a post and does not appear to be an old member under a new nic is theacademic and his project was abused in the General Forum so I doubt we will see him/her again.
he SPECIFICALLY gained entrance
(via simon) to Thread up his research on SS
that thread was then posted in the Fan Forum
when it was derailed in the FAN FORUM
by FAN FORUM members
it was then landfilled off to infest the General Forum
so the FAN FORUM looks good
![Image](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iUpoNBZyaBc/R0zVk-1LCZI/AAAAAAAAAg0/9eeT7D6cnaA/s320/compass-blu-265x220.gif)
.name the ways , thought manipulates the State of Presence away.
.tipara waranta kani nina-tu.
- asiu
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10313
- Joined: Thu 08 Apr 2010 8:11pm
- Has thanked: 1327 times
- Been thanked: 932 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
ps
dont bother replying
take your idiotic slander back with you
to all the young people impressed with your rubbish
bye
dont bother replying
take your idiotic slander back with you
to all the young people impressed with your rubbish
bye
The lesson should be do not cross other members boundaries or they can cut off communication with you.
![Image](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iUpoNBZyaBc/R0zVk-1LCZI/AAAAAAAAAg0/9eeT7D6cnaA/s320/compass-blu-265x220.gif)
.name the ways , thought manipulates the State of Presence away.
.tipara waranta kani nina-tu.
- Dis Believer
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5088
- Joined: Sun 28 Mar 2004 1:42pm
- Location: The terraces at Moorabbin, in the pouring rain.......
- Has thanked: 255 times
- Been thanked: 272 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
With all due respect, I disagree. 83% of people wanted me to stay. I would suggest that the 7 you are referring to had more issue with my politics, rather than the fact that my joke was political. And again, the main point is that my post was in response to someone elses political post - which was not reported!!
The idea of posters banning each other will simply result in greater weaponisation than the reporting system!
The heavy metal artist formerly known as True Believer!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
- desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10404
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 186 times
- Been thanked: 701 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
i accidentally banned shaggy. sorry shaggy. not that you can read this anymore. stupid fingers. stupid ipad.
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
- markp
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Mon 26 Mar 2007 4:22pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 81 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
Dis Believer wrote: ↑Tue 21 Sep 2021 8:02pmWith all due respect, I disagree. 83% of people wanted me to stay. I would suggest that the 7 you are referring to had more issue with my politics, rather than the fact that my joke was political. And again, the main point is that my post was in response to someone elses political post - which was not reported!!
The idea of posters banning each other will simply result in greater weaponisation than the reporting system!
I would suggest most people who voted for you to stay disregarded or disagree with your politics... but on you go blaming those with opposing views to yours for voting against 'you' or abusing the report function with regards to political posts, based on nothing more than a personal hunch or theory. And you accuse 'them' of being incapable of sensible debate?
Most people probably just don't want politics on the main forum full stop. The 7 who voted for the rules to be strictly upheld probably agree with that rule regardless of political leanings, and probably think the rules are the rules full stop.
I personally think you were like the guy in the US charged with a felony for underpaying 43c for his sprite (esp on your priors). But the problem is not that you shouldn't have to pay full price for the sprite, or the dude who called the cops, it is the lack of discretion in the application of the law/rule.
- Dis Believer
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5088
- Joined: Sun 28 Mar 2004 1:42pm
- Location: The terraces at Moorabbin, in the pouring rain.......
- Has thanked: 255 times
- Been thanked: 272 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
I haven't heard the story from the USA, but do like the analogy, and the position. I still maintain my position on the magnificent seven. To put it into context, I have a nearly 20 year history on this site with the only two "priors" being back to back within the space of one month over the very hotly debated use of "Cho" a couple of years ago. So effectively I have a nearly two decade spotless history, and yet 7 people wanted me permanently banned over one joke!?markp wrote: ↑Tue 21 Sep 2021 10:40pmDis Believer wrote: ↑Tue 21 Sep 2021 8:02pmWith all due respect, I disagree. 83% of people wanted me to stay. I would suggest that the 7 you are referring to had more issue with my politics, rather than the fact that my joke was political. And again, the main point is that my post was in response to someone elses political post - which was not reported!!
The idea of posters banning each other will simply result in greater weaponisation than the reporting system!
I would suggest most people who voted for you to stay disregarded or disagree with your politics... but on you go blaming those with opposing views to yours for abusing the report function with regards to political posts, based on nothing more than a personal hunch or theory. And you accuse 'them' of being incapable of sensible debate?
Most people probably just don't want politics on the main forum full stop. The 7 who voted for the rules to be strictly upheld probably agree with that rule regardless of political leanings, and probably just think the rules are the rules full stop.
I personally think you were like the guy in the US charged with a felony for underpaying 43c for his sprite (esp on your priors). But the problem is not that you shouldn't have to pay full price for the sprite, or the dude who called the cops, it is the lack of discretion in the application of the law/rule.
I would be prepared to wager that at least 5 of those 7 would have no issue whatsoever if the target of my joke had been Scott Morrison or Peter Dutton!
The heavy metal artist formerly known as True Believer!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23010
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
- Has thanked: 8904 times
- Been thanked: 3883 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
Bloody silly idea. I wouldn't last a day FFS.Dis Believer wrote: ↑Tue 21 Sep 2021 8:02pmWith all due respect, I disagree. 83% of people wanted me to stay. I would suggest that the 7 you are referring to had more issue with my politics, rather than the fact that my joke was political. And again, the main point is that my post was in response to someone elses political post - which was not reported!!
The idea of posters banning each other will simply result in greater weaponisation than the reporting system!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23010
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
- Has thanked: 8904 times
- Been thanked: 3883 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
I would have all my money on all 7.Dis Believer wrote: ↑Wed 22 Sep 2021 9:19amI haven't heard the story from the USA, but do like the analogy, and the position. I still maintain my position on the magnificent seven. To put it into context, I have a nearly 20 year history on this site with the only two "priors" being back to back within the space of one month over the very hotly debated use of "Cho" a couple of years ago. So effectively I have a nearly two decade spotless history, and yet 7 people wanted me permanently banned over one joke!?markp wrote: ↑Tue 21 Sep 2021 10:40pmDis Believer wrote: ↑Tue 21 Sep 2021 8:02pmWith all due respect, I disagree. 83% of people wanted me to stay. I would suggest that the 7 you are referring to had more issue with my politics, rather than the fact that my joke was political. And again, the main point is that my post was in response to someone elses political post - which was not reported!!
The idea of posters banning each other will simply result in greater weaponisation than the reporting system!
I would suggest most people who voted for you to stay disregarded or disagree with your politics... but on you go blaming those with opposing views to yours for abusing the report function with regards to political posts, based on nothing more than a personal hunch or theory. And you accuse 'them' of being incapable of sensible debate?
Most people probably just don't want politics on the main forum full stop. The 7 who voted for the rules to be strictly upheld probably agree with that rule regardless of political leanings, and probably just think the rules are the rules full stop.
I personally think you were like the guy in the US charged with a felony for underpaying 43c for his sprite (esp on your priors). But the problem is not that you shouldn't have to pay full price for the sprite, or the dude who called the cops, it is the lack of discretion in the application of the law/rule.
I would be prepared to wager that at least 5 of those 7 would have no issue whatsoever if the target of my joke had been Scott Morrison or Peter Dutton!
- markp
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Mon 26 Mar 2007 4:22pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 81 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
The vote wasn't about your joke, it was about how stringently a rule should be applied in this case.Dis Believer wrote: ↑Wed 22 Sep 2021 9:19amI haven't heard the story from the USA, but do like the analogy, and the position. I still maintain my position on the magnificent seven. To put it into context, I have a nearly 20 year history on this site with the only two "priors" being back to back within the space of one month over the very hotly debated use of "Cho" a couple of years ago. So effectively I have a nearly two decade spotless history, and yet 7 people wanted me permanently banned over one joke!?markp wrote: ↑Tue 21 Sep 2021 10:40pmDis Believer wrote: ↑Tue 21 Sep 2021 8:02pmWith all due respect, I disagree. 83% of people wanted me to stay. I would suggest that the 7 you are referring to had more issue with my politics, rather than the fact that my joke was political. And again, the main point is that my post was in response to someone elses political post - which was not reported!!
The idea of posters banning each other will simply result in greater weaponisation than the reporting system!
I would suggest most people who voted for you to stay disregarded or disagree with your politics... but on you go blaming those with opposing views to yours for abusing the report function with regards to political posts, based on nothing more than a personal hunch or theory. And you accuse 'them' of being incapable of sensible debate?
Most people probably just don't want politics on the main forum full stop. The 7 who voted for the rules to be strictly upheld probably agree with that rule regardless of political leanings, and probably just think the rules are the rules full stop.
I personally think you were like the guy in the US charged with a felony for underpaying 43c for his sprite (esp on your priors). But the problem is not that you shouldn't have to pay full price for the sprite, or the dude who called the cops, it is the lack of discretion in the application of the law/rule.
I would be prepared to wager that at least 5 of those 7 would have no issue whatsoever if the target of my joke had been Scott Morrison or Peter Dutton!
If we're betting I'll have a dollar in a multi that of the 7 voters, 2 hit the wrong button, 3 just don't like you (2 of whom are 4th wave feminists, and the other you flamed mercilessly once in a GT thread in 2011) and the remaining 2 just think the rules are the rules. I'd roll that into betting had you made the same joke about the other politicians you mentioned that you'd have been reported by any number of hall monitor types here, and voted against by at least as many as 7.
Like you I'd be guessing, and we'd probably both do our dough.
But what I'm hearing is that you believe people with opposing politcal views to you here are precious and devoid of a sense of humour, on top of being incapable of sensible debate. Which may represent to some an invitation a respond in kind (or to endorse), prompting a counter, and on it goes... and is why most probably prefer the strict rule to begin with.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23010
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
- Has thanked: 8904 times
- Been thanked: 3883 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
So I'm wondering if the other 6 will also unmask themselves in time.markp wrote: ↑Wed 22 Sep 2021 3:15pmThe vote wasn't about your joke, it was about how stringently a rule should be applied in this case.Dis Believer wrote: ↑Wed 22 Sep 2021 9:19amI haven't heard the story from the USA, but do like the analogy, and the position. I still maintain my position on the magnificent seven. To put it into context, I have a nearly 20 year history on this site with the only two "priors" being back to back within the space of one month over the very hotly debated use of "Cho" a couple of years ago. So effectively I have a nearly two decade spotless history, and yet 7 people wanted me permanently banned over one joke!?markp wrote: ↑Tue 21 Sep 2021 10:40pmDis Believer wrote: ↑Tue 21 Sep 2021 8:02pmWith all due respect, I disagree. 83% of people wanted me to stay. I would suggest that the 7 you are referring to had more issue with my politics, rather than the fact that my joke was political. And again, the main point is that my post was in response to someone elses political post - which was not reported!!
The idea of posters banning each other will simply result in greater weaponisation than the reporting system!
I would suggest most people who voted for you to stay disregarded or disagree with your politics... but on you go blaming those with opposing views to yours for abusing the report function with regards to political posts, based on nothing more than a personal hunch or theory. And you accuse 'them' of being incapable of sensible debate?
Most people probably just don't want politics on the main forum full stop. The 7 who voted for the rules to be strictly upheld probably agree with that rule regardless of political leanings, and probably just think the rules are the rules full stop.
I personally think you were like the guy in the US charged with a felony for underpaying 43c for his sprite (esp on your priors). But the problem is not that you shouldn't have to pay full price for the sprite, or the dude who called the cops, it is the lack of discretion in the application of the law/rule.
I would be prepared to wager that at least 5 of those 7 would have no issue whatsoever if the target of my joke had been Scott Morrison or Peter Dutton!
If we're betting I'll have a dollar in a multi that of the 7 voters, 2 hit the wrong button, 3 just don't like you (2 of whom are 4th wave feminists, and the other you flamed mercilessly once in a GT thread in 2011) and the remaining 2 just think the rules are the rules. I'd roll that into betting had you made the same joke about the other politicians you mentioned that you'd have been reported by any number of hall monitor types here, and voted against by at least as many as 7.
Like you I'd be guessing, and we'd probably both do our dough.
But what I'm hearing is that you believe people with opposing politcal views to you here are precious and devoid of a sense of humour, on top of being incapable of sensible debate. Which may represent to some an invitation a respond in kind (or to endorse), prompting a counter, and on it goes... and is why most probably prefer the strict rule to begin with.
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
- markp
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Mon 26 Mar 2007 4:22pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 81 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Case in point - captain eye roll himself, stinger. Given a 'fresh start' as saynta the hall monitor.
I already stated how I voted and why.
But you go off.
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
- asiu
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10313
- Joined: Thu 08 Apr 2010 8:11pm
- Has thanked: 1327 times
- Been thanked: 932 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
enid blyton (?)
we used to play Secret Seven in the chook house
when i was about that old
i was the not so smart one iirc
well
given that they burnt to death in the fires
that swept up the gully
i must of been the lucky one
we used to play Secret Seven in the chook house
when i was about that old
i was the not so smart one iirc
well
given that they burnt to death in the fires
that swept up the gully
i must of been the lucky one
![Image](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iUpoNBZyaBc/R0zVk-1LCZI/AAAAAAAAAg0/9eeT7D6cnaA/s320/compass-blu-265x220.gif)
.name the ways , thought manipulates the State of Presence away.
.tipara waranta kani nina-tu.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23010
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
- Has thanked: 8904 times
- Been thanked: 3883 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
So says you.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
I don't know how you voted and care even less.
I have stated many times before that I joined this forum from the start and long before stinger.
I find your post extremely offense but that's par for the course AFAIC.
- markp
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Mon 26 Mar 2007 4:22pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 81 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Ok.
Thank you.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23010
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
- Has thanked: 8904 times
- Been thanked: 3883 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
No worries.markp wrote: ↑Wed 22 Sep 2021 4:24pm
![]()
Ok.
Thank you.
![Cool 8-)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1186
- Joined: Fri 22 Mar 2019 10:46pm
- Has thanked: 526 times
- Been thanked: 377 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
Shouldn't mention a CANCELLED author in public...evil human...don't want her evil to stick on the children.
- asiu
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10313
- Joined: Thu 08 Apr 2010 8:11pm
- Has thanked: 1327 times
- Been thanked: 932 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
burning down the community hall (way)
![Image](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iUpoNBZyaBc/R0zVk-1LCZI/AAAAAAAAAg0/9eeT7D6cnaA/s320/compass-blu-265x220.gif)
.name the ways , thought manipulates the State of Presence away.
.tipara waranta kani nina-tu.
- Wayne42
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4911
- Joined: Mon 24 Jun 2013 10:27pm
- Has thanked: 619 times
- Been thanked: 558 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
Enid Blyton FFS,
I thought this was a thread about the forum rules, not poster's favourite authors.
I thought this was a thread about the forum rules, not poster's favourite authors.
The Saints are under review, will it make any difference to the underachievers ?
- asiu
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10313
- Joined: Thu 08 Apr 2010 8:11pm
- Has thanked: 1327 times
- Been thanked: 932 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
you might have to learn how to read between the lines then Wayne
THE seminal moment in SS rules HIS STORY
are being discussed
keep up
THE seminal moment in SS rules HIS STORY
are being discussed
keep up
![Image](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iUpoNBZyaBc/R0zVk-1LCZI/AAAAAAAAAg0/9eeT7D6cnaA/s320/compass-blu-265x220.gif)
.name the ways , thought manipulates the State of Presence away.
.tipara waranta kani nina-tu.
- Wayne42
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4911
- Joined: Mon 24 Jun 2013 10:27pm
- Has thanked: 619 times
- Been thanked: 558 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
Now that this discussion is OFF the rails, i think the boss should wrap this one up.
The Saints are under review, will it make any difference to the underachievers ?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6415
- Joined: Fri 18 Sep 2020 6:51am
- Has thanked: 854 times
- Been thanked: 1012 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
I think the biggest priority should be given to increasing membership. I'm kinda busy atm however I'm going to contribute some ideas as soon as I get a chance to articulate.
Essentially I believe more posters will improve the diversity of conversation.
Essentially I believe more posters will improve the diversity of conversation.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri 26 May 2006 4:29pm
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 132 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
It would actually help you.saynta wrote: ↑Wed 22 Sep 2021 2:49pmBloody silly idea. I wouldn't last a day FFS.Dis Believer wrote: ↑Tue 21 Sep 2021 8:02pmWith all due respect, I disagree. 83% of people wanted me to stay. I would suggest that the 7 you are referring to had more issue with my politics, rather than the fact that my joke was political. And again, the main point is that my post was in response to someone elses political post - which was not reported!!
The idea of posters banning each other will simply result in greater weaponisation than the reporting system!
Relationships with long standing grudges should be put on reciprocal ignore.
It is far better then constant sniping and reporting. If you think someone will be out to ban you then place them on reciprocal ignore and then they cannot. A simple ignore does not work. You are currently stalked by someone you have on ignore which is not good for anyone and the site.
IMO everyone should be allowed to ban anyone but only for 1 or 7 days and it can only be done once with a permanent ignore after so it is hardly a weapon. It would have saved Joffa Burns to be cut off from Curly after the first misdemeanor. Permanent bans would obviously stay with Simon.
New comers need to feel welcome and safe to post.
Otherwise this site will simply become a Saints forum for old men with strong views and thick skin.
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16890
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3580 times
- Been thanked: 2848 times
Re: SAINTSATIONAL RULE REVISION: WEEK 1
I think a proper block function like the one on BF is the way to go - removes their posts to you and vice versa as well as quotes
Under this current system, people that I really wish would leave me alone frequently post about me and my posts... I’ve noted in recent threads that a number of long term forumites (and a few more that don’t post so much anymore), have a similar experience of feeling harassed.
I think that’s the best way to open the forum up again...
The serial pests can rejoin and we can just block them when it becomes apparent who they are.
Easiest fix
Under this current system, people that I really wish would leave me alone frequently post about me and my posts... I’ve noted in recent threads that a number of long term forumites (and a few more that don’t post so much anymore), have a similar experience of feeling harassed.
I think that’s the best way to open the forum up again...
The serial pests can rejoin and we can just block them when it becomes apparent who they are.
Easiest fix