312 posts shown.
Adam Morales45 said:When I say "everyone," I mean people like you—not personally, obviously—who just really care about having an audience, wanting people to actually read their posts and look up to them. For some folks, maybe that’s a genuine motivation. 😉
Adam Morales45 said:I get the whole "browsing incognito" thing—it makes sense if you don't want people stalking your every move, which, let's be honest, is how most forums work these days—but I'm genuinely curious: why do some people actually *prefer* being visible? Is it because they want everyone to know they're hanging out here, or is it just a total accident?
hollowtrucker77 said:new mods will be picked for Alternativa soon,
on the other hand, Alternativa implies thinking differently by its very nature
William Green4 said:I have to disagree; this idea isn't nearly as simple to pull off as it seems.
If we were handling registration, I think users would just choose their own gender anyway.
First off, if we implemented the symbols that Jacob Foster11 suggested, half the community probably wouldn't even know which icon represents which gender.
Second, you always have those people who intentionally enter the wrong information just to be difficult.
In my opinion, if we really wanted accuracy, everyone's Social Security Number should be listed right next to their username.
That way, there wouldn't be any confusion when someone starts talking trash about what another user wrote, and you'd actually know exactly whose house to drive to if you felt like settling the score physically.
The whole concept misses the mark entirely.
On a side note, I’ve noticed a sudden surge of suggestions lately on how to "improve" the site; I can't tell if people are just bored or if they're all trying to audition for moderator positions.
Honestly, the forum is perfectly fine just the way it is.
First off—if we actually went through with those symbols Jacob Foster11 is pushing, half the people on this forum wouldn't even know which one meant male.
There are also the trolls—or just people who go out of their way to put in the wrong gender.
I honestly think everyone should be required to display their Social Security number right next to their username. Just a thought.
Then there wouldn't be any confusion about getting screwed over—like someone else mentioned earlier—and I’d actually know exactly whose nose I need to come over and break.
The whole idea is a total bust.
So, I’ve been noticing a ton of people lately throwing out all these big ideas on how to "improve" the forum—honestly, I can't tell if everyone is just bored out of their minds or if they're all just low-key campaigning for moderator positions.
The forum is fine exactly the way it is... honestly.
boldjackal10 said:Blood type matters too.
Drug testing should be mandatory, just so everyone knows exactly where they stand right from the jump.
cosmicskipper39 said:Back on that old monitor forum, we used to have those little "star" ratings, but let's be real: people were just handing them out to themselves anyway since the option was basically dead 😁
Jacob Foster11 said:Once again, I fail to see the point of this user reputation system.
Here is a proposal for how it should actually work. First, stop counting posts within all the casual chat threads on the forum. A moderator for any given thread should have the option to disable the post counter for users there. Second, reputation should be calculated automatically using a pre-defined mathematical function. This function would take two parameters: the total number of user posts (excluding those from chat threads) and the cumulative number of warnings, points, or days banned (some combination of these). More posts increase reputation; penalties decrease it. Again, based on a carefully selected, predetermined formula.
That is how you make something actually meaningful.
bluerider2 said:I'm totally on board with the point about all those spelling and grammar mistakes. 😍
Jacob Foster11 said:Terrible idea. There is no way to ensure high-quality users actually get a high reputation while the low-quality ones stay low. You'll just end up with a clique of people hanging out in a chat room, artificially boosting each other's scores without contributing anything of value to the site. Meanwhile, an actual expert might only chime in on specific topics where they provide real insight, but because they aren't part of the chat group, they won't have a crew to inflate their reputation.
Amy Nelson34 said:😂😂Nah. Just whoever I run into. I mean, sure, I’d probably end up scrolling through way more threads than I have so far, but eventually, I’d find some decent, literate folks who could actually lend a hand.
quietdriver said:Threads shouldn't be moved once the topic isn't hot anymore—the move is just to lock them. (For example: "Dangerous lunatic escaped from the asylum!"—once they catch him, you just lock the thread.)
Here’s another one:
Back when General Reggie Miller was running wild through Appalachia—during the whole manhunt and even after Ivana Hodak was killed—those threads stayed on Politics, even though, let's be real, that isn't really political stuff.
If someone thinks those kinds of events have some political angle, fine, they can start a thread in Politics and debate it there for days, but breaking news should actually have its own sub-forum.
If someone isn't interested, they won't read it, but I honestly think a dedicated news sub-forum would be super active—people would probably head straight there for their daily updates instead of some mainstream outlet.
Paul Davis51 said:I don't know, it feels like a pretty half-baked idea to me. I mean, we’d probably need to set some kind of expiration date on topics—otherwise, you just end up with old news popping up because someone decided to chime in way too late. 😁
David Jones said:Sure, let's find a solution, but I really think you should have directed that specific thought toward that other guy. 🙂
PS,
and lo and behold, the posts aren't being deleted, 🙏 though naturally, the "fanboy" ones are. 🙂
Brilliantly planned. 🙂
PS2,
steelskipper5, I feel for you regarding those 300 posts of yours, but this isn't a thread about you. 🙂
Joshua Hughes4 said:I think we’re looking at this all wrong. We've got the cause and effect totally flipped here.
Nobody is arguing that moderators should crack down on people acting like total animals on Reddit.
The issue isn't about policing bad behavior; it's about the fact that an entire thread was nuked. People didn't get banned because they were being trolls—they got banned because they were asking why the hell the thread disappeared in the first place. They had their posts deleted, and when they went to the help desk to ask for some clarity on their bans, they got hit with a permanent ban instead.
Look, you can't go around calling users bottom-of-the-barrel trash and labeling a thread a playground for morons and uneducated idiots without expecting a massive backlash...
🤷
Nicholas King said:Just a simple question here: but why exactly??? 😕
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:I'm with Nick on this... the whole setup over on the religion board is just ridiculous—honestly, it makes zero sense. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read (hi shady 👋) that the mods there only bust people if someone actually flags a post... I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: moderators should be actually reading through threads according to their own guidelines and cleaning things up proactively. Reports should just be a tool, not the whole strategy. After I got hit with warnings while the people I was arguing with got off scot-free—because of that exact logic—I decided to play the game myself and start reporting... 🙂 which is honestly the only way to deal with it. I'll file a report, and within an hour or a day, boom, a red card shows up... 🙏 🤣 😎
Steven Clark2 said:Look, cosmicskipper39, I don't think that's really the best way to define trolling. Usually, trolling is about derailing the conversation—focusing on side issues just to be annoying.
Jacob Foster11 said:Trolling is basically just posting stuff specifically to bait an emotional reaction out of someone—or just to derail a normal, on-topic conversation. So yeah, that’s classic trolling, it’s unwanted, and it should definitely be subject to sanctions.