Specific threads just a thought

[ALLIE WALLS]

A thought for Admin as certain members post the same views about Morrissey over and over wouldn't it be better to have a specific thread about this where these posts can be moved to ? this will spare the rest of us the tireless moments when we have to come across them especially when we dont really care about or agree with what they say, it could be named sub group, the usual suspects or something like that. I,m sure most are tiresome of such posts which continue to infest this page with negativity and bile.

 

[Deleted member 25370]

A thought for Admin as certain members post the same views about Morrissey over and over wouldn't it be better to have a specific thread about this where these posts can be moved to ? this will spare the rest of us the tireless moments when we have to come across them especially when we dont really care about or agree with what they say, it could be named sub group, the usual suspects or something like that. I,m sure most are tiresome of such posts which continue to infest this page with negativity and bile.

Very good idea!

 

[Famous when dead]

Some things to consider:
Who is assessing/measuring 'over and over'?
What constitutes too much Morrissey discussion on a forum dedicated to Morrissey discussion?
When does someone become a 'usual suspect' and does that label outweigh any of their contributions here - who do they appeal to if they disagree with said view?
What if people view your contributions in the same way as you view theirs?
Who gets moved then and would you be as keen to move posts if you fall under your own category in the eyes of others? By definition, a discussion site will encompass views that you may not agree with - how you cope with that isn't the concern of the entire user base is it?
If their posts are profuse, but are on topic - why would they need to move to a differently titled thread? How is splitting threads up based on arbitrary assessments helpful for anyone?
"Dont really care about or agree with what they say" is in the eye of the beholder, can apply to anyone and is too subjective to be managed practically. The degree of 'moderation' required for that type of policing is just not practicable in the real world - that response won't please everyone, but it's honest.
People seldom reach consensus about anything on this site - for every person YOU may feel needs comments moving - another will tell you that you are not being fair and the comments have worth - how is that mediated in a way that pleases everyone?
Writing policies about the subjective merits of individuals and how you perceive their post's worth can be seen as a way to marginalise people you don't like - do you have any more right to post here than them and what if more people dislike you than like you? Does that mean you don't get to post?
How are people's justifications for posting being assessed - should they write a rationale to accompany each post so we can include their motivations in deciding if they are going on too much?
There are tools here to hide the people that you feel are so predictable that they need removing from threads (keeping in mind there is no 'pure', hassle-free experience online practically anywhere on the web), why not try reducing what you don't like seeing in a way that doesn't affect the site as a whole?
The site owner's view regarding self-policing/ignoring rather than pages of policy is a known quantity and has been for 2+ decades, why repudiate that now?
I could go on...
Regards,
FWD.

 

[Skylarker]

Some things to consider:
Who is assessing/measuring 'over and over'?
What constitutes too much Morrissey discussion on a forum dedicated to Morrissey discussion?
When does someone become a 'usual suspect' and does that label outweigh any of their contributions here - who do they appeal to if they disagree with said view?
What if people view your contributions in the same way as you view theirs?
Who gets moved then and would you be as keen to move posts if you fall under your own category in the eyes of others? By definition, a discussion site will encompass views that you may not agree with - how you cope with that isn't the concern of the entire user base is it?
If their posts are profuse, but are on topic - why would they need to move to a differently titled thread? How is splitting threads up based on arbitrary assessments helpful for anyone?
"Dont really care about or agree with what they say" is in the eye of the beholder, can apply to anyone and is too subjective to be managed practically. The degree of 'moderation' required for that type of policing is just not practicable in the real world - that response won't please everyone, but it's honest.
People seldom reach consensus about anything on this site - for every person YOU may feel needs comments moving - another will tell you that you are not being fair and the comments have worth - how is that mediated in a way that pleases everyone?
Writing policies about the subjective merits of individuals and how you perceive their post's worth can be seen as a way to marginalise people you don't like - do you have any more right to post here than them and what if more people dislike you than like you? Does that mean you don't get to post?
How are people's justifications for posting being assessed - should they write a rationale to accompany each post so we can include their motivations in deciding if they are going on too much?
There are tools here to hide the people that you feel are so predictable that they need removing from threads (keeping in mind there is no 'pure', hassle-free experience online practically anywhere on the web), why not try reducing what you don't like seeing in a way that doesn't affect the site as a whole?
The site owner's view regarding self-policing/ignoring rather than pages of policy is a known quantity and has been for 2+ decades, why repudiate that now?
I could go on...
Regards,
FWD.

Shake.
Some action's what I need.
To let me bust out at full speed.
I'm sure that's all you need.
To make it alright.

 

[Deleted member 1074]

Some things to consider:
Who is assessing/measuring 'over and over'?
What constitutes too much Morrissey discussion on a forum dedicated to Morrissey discussion?
When does someone become a 'usual suspect' and does that label outweigh any of their contributions here - who do they appeal to if they disagree with said view?
What if people view your contributions in the same way as you view theirs?
Who gets moved then and would you be as keen to move posts if you fall under your own category in the eyes of others? By definition, a discussion site will encompass views that you may not agree with - how you cope with that isn't the concern of the entire user base is it?
If their posts are profuse, but are on topic - why would they need to move to a differently titled thread? How is splitting threads up based on arbitrary assessments helpful for anyone?
"Dont really care about or agree with what they say" is in the eye of the beholder, can apply to anyone and is too subjective to be managed practically. The degree of 'moderation' required for that type of policing is just not practicable in the real world - that response won't please everyone, but it's honest.
People seldom reach consensus about anything on this site - for every person YOU may feel needs comments moving - another will tell you that you are not being fair and the comments have worth - how is that mediated in a way that pleases everyone?
Writing policies about the subjective merits of individuals and how you perceive their post's worth can be seen as a way to marginalise people you don't like - do you have any more right to post here than them and what if more people dislike you than like you? Does that mean you don't get to post?
How are people's justifications for posting being assessed - should they write a rationale to accompany each post so we can include their motivations in deciding if they are going on too much?
There are tools here to hide the people that you feel are so predictable that they need removing from threads (keeping in mind there is no 'pure', hassle-free experience online practically anywhere on the web), why not try reducing what you don't like seeing in a way that doesn't affect the site as a whole?
The site owner's view regarding self-policing/ignoring rather than pages of policy is a known quantity and has been for 2+ decades, why repudiate that now?
I could go on...
Regards,
FWD.

I didn’t read any of this. ?