A couple of suggestions

Apologies if this is in the wrong section, I couldn't find a suggestions forum & this seemed the most relevant.



I've noticed for a while that it's very easy for a lot of threads to get hijacked & derailed off topic. Trolls latch onto a thread & won't let go until it is dead & buried. I know there is a lot of passionate posters here, but there is also the topic of disinfo agents, which itself has become a bit of a conspiracy (probably cause there's so many working here )

It can be very frustrating at times, I just finished reading a thread now, ~250 posts in the thread & 50 from the one member. Most of the posts were of a condescending or insulting nature & very infuriating to read.

Anyway I've been thinking of a solution to this problem and I've come up with 2 ideas that i think could help the problem.





*1. Set a time-limit between the times you are allowed the post in the same thread, ie if you make a post in a thread, you would be restricted from reposting in that same thread for 30 mins to an hour.

I think it would significantly reduce the trolling & hijacking of threads. I think it would also result in higher quality posts & hence higher quality debates, since posters will have to include more relevant information in their initial replies knowing they will be locked out of the thread for a time-limit.





*2. My 2nd idea involves the star system, all too often i will read a thread & see a completely untrue/insulting/etc statement gain 20+ stars and more quality posts gaining very little in comparison.

Now I can't make everyone sign in and star the way i feel it should happen, people may agree with a post, but not to an extent to star it. Whereas in certain topics when a post is on a certain side of the argument, it gains a lot of stars.

My suggestion to this would be like a de-star system. All too often i find myself disagreeing with a post but I only have the option to star in agreement with the post. I think it would also be a good idea to have an option to vote against a post you're in disagreement with. This doesn't necessarily have to mean people lose stars when their stance is disagreed with. They can have no bearing at all on the accumulated stars at all.

I think it would be a lot more informative if we had red/blue stars, and you could accurately see how many posters starred (agreed with)[blue] and how many de-starred (disagreed with)[red] with each post.

Just some ideas

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ATS Issue Thread

With a time limit for posting responses it would be impossible to discuss things properly wouldn't you say? Any sense of continuity would be lost and we'd always be backtracking to understand responses.

Not good, but kudos for having ideas.

i think there is a ... flag as offensive button on posts, right?

Originally posted by shiman
i think there is a ... flag as offensive button on posts, right?

There is and currently the best way to handle as you have described, TheSam, is to alert Staff and we can take steps to insure that the discussion remains on course...

The idea of negative stars isn't a bad idea, I have thought that myself at times.

The idea of not being able to post again in the thread for half an hour or more, not such a good idea. How would one answer any questions? Or replies? How would anything get discussed by the OP? Yes it would reduce the trolling, it would also reduce people putting into the thread at all if discussion is not allowed to happen.

See you in an hour.

reply to post by nerbot



I agree - when I am interesting in posting on a thread I like to stay with it for a while. Its a discussion.

As for the star/non-star option - maybe - need to think it thru a little more. I am thinking a non-star is like a put down, we have enough of that verbally already.

the delay thing would be a disaster. ats, more than any forum i know of, flourishes with conversation ... and often, it's rapid and passionate. yes, for sure, flies get in the ointment, but the moderators here are 95% on the ball with those kinds of situations that actually require intervention.

in my opinion, we have to remember when there is an issue that is personally annoying to us and when there is an issue that really, honestly brings down the site. often, these are not the same things. and conflict isn't necessarily a negative. also, dissension exists in real life ... so it will on ats.

i don't have an opinion on the negative starring thing (just can't make up my mind and stopped worrying about it ... though i do sometimes find myself reading a post and involuntarily searching for the "vote down" button), but if you look around, there's a million threads already on it and if i'm not mistaken, management has issued ixnay after ixnay, with a "never going to happen" cherry on top. could be wrong, though.

Thanks for the feedback. I can see how such a time-limit would be a problem now. Being mainly a lurker, I didn't see some of these from the onset.

So an hour is far too long, would a time frame of 10 or 20 mins be more suitable? Or just not beneficial at all?

What about in sensitive forums? Such as 9/11 for one.

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by shiman
i think there is a ... flag as offensive button on posts, right?

There is and currently the best way to handle as you have described, TheSam, is to alert Staff and we can take steps to insure that the discussion remains on course...

Ah yes, I know about this feature, I've used it a few times before too & have had posts removed. It's a good feature but is not what I was referring to.

With the star system we can see the mindset of ATS members on if we agree with a post. If more people agree with the post there will be more stars obv.

The problem I was suggesting is there is no system where we can see the mindset of those who disagree with a post.

A post may have 30 stars lets say, you could think "yeah 30 stars? wow must be good info then". That's 30 people who agreed with it, but we don't know how many read the post and disagreed with it, found it to be untrue, misleading, disinfo etc. The score could in reality be; agree 30 - 100 disagree.

I think it could add a new level to the ratings system.

i know it's not exactly what you're describing (and i don't mean to patronize you because you are obviously familiar with ats), but i find it's pretty clear, generally, when you enter a new thread that's even a little bit established, what the two (or more) sides are.

typically, and especially on political or issue-oriented threads, there will be the original post and its associated stars, then within the first few posts, often the dissenting view and its associated stars. or you could say, first, there is the claim thrown out there ... then the skeptics start pecking away.

sometimes the allies of the op barrage the thread with flags and stars. sometimes, the opposing view dominates and those posts will accrue the stars (and i assume the thread suffers from acquiring flags).

in some ways, i imagine if there was a "vote down" star system, ats, as a whole, would become more homogenized (at least in terms of stars/flags and therefore "featurability") because whatever is the predominate persuasion of the membership, it seems, would take over.

for example, if ats membership, generally, has more conservative views and people have the option of voting positively or negatively, i would imagine most liberally-minded threads would suffer. and conservatively-minded threads would regularly get more "yes" stars (and flags) than "no" stars ... and be more successful.

or, wild claims of conspiracy or paranormality would, knowing ats members, reap stars and flags like there's no tomorrow. skeptical posts, whether reasoned or not, would be emasculated to lilliputian dimensions.

as such, it seems the majority would dominate in a way which, i think fortunately, somewhat eludes us now.

on the other hand, people who happen to share the majority opinion would have their ego boosted. but i think a lot of people want the availability of a wide range of opinion even if it sometimes drives us nuts when more people than not share a position contrary to our own.

it seems to me that what supporters of the "vote down" system want is actually what we already have. if you like something, you flag/star it ... if you don't, you don't flag/star. but rather than just being ok with not sharing an opinion, but letting other people have it, some actually want those opinions to be subject to ... whatever (removal?, movement to the island of bad opinions?). not having stars/flags is, in some ways, the same as having been voted down.

of course, i thoroughly understand some want this to thwart stupid and ignorant posts that are often devoid of opinion or position. maybe that's a necessary evil.

reply to post by TheSam

I agree like most that a time limit would not work. I certainly understand your reasoning but even dropping it to 10 or 20 minutes wouldn't solve anything IMO and only frustrate those that want to reply on topic.

Regarding the de-star issue I could see something like that being a useful addition. I myself have starred posts that aren't on topic including a humorous post that could be taken as a distraction to some. I've read when the star system was implicated it was described as similar to a "like or dislike" but it doesn't address the dislike end of it. Not starring a post could mean you're neutral or you dislike it. Maybe this issue will be resolved in the new "ATS 2010" release?

Regarding this,

It can be very frustrating at times, I just finished reading a thread now, ~250 posts in the thread & 50 from the one member. Most of the posts were of a condescending or insulting nature & very infuriating to read.

I could see an "ignore user during this post" or something to possible alleviate the problem.