The Trouble With Large Threads. - Not Trouser Related :)

SLAYER69

unb3k44n7
I in no way stated anything to do with whether the photo was perceived as "nice" or not by said staff. ie: sexual. which led to the applause. You just assumed that. Inappropriate in this case doesn't automatically mean sexual, your mind just went there, as did the posters above you.

For the record

I didn't 'Assume' anything 'sexual', In this instance it was you who assumed that's what I meant. Your mind went there in your reply, Not mine.



*Adds another ATS hash mark this one for being 'tool like' Places it next to his recently acquired 'Lover of Putin'

I'm out, peace.

That was me I'm afraid. An easy assumption given the nature of the post.

And if you read my response it was in good taste.

Peace,

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


If there is a user reward system that meets the needs of the owners while enhancing the users, I am sure they'd be all for it. But in my time here, I have seen that many suggestions in that regard are made, nothing is really done.

Today, we see the star/flag counts in some user profiles reporting an obviously glitched number. So the overall concern with the user reward system in general could be at a real low. I am not sure. And I am not criticizing either way. Mostly just giving my perspective based on the work that I do.

bigfatfurrytexan
At the end of the day you have two conflicting goals:

- the members want a forum model that provides ever improving content
- the owners want a profit model that provides ever improving revenues

I think there is an obvious, and understandable, conflict here.

And I think we can see which one will win out in the end.

You could not be more wrong. The owners believe that if the site provides what a majority of members want, everything else will take care of itself. Not once have I ever seen a consideration for anything other than improving the experience for the membership. Some changes people embrace, some changes generate complaining - typically from a select vocal minority.

At the end of the day, the members provide the content and drive the discussions. The goal is to facilitate that in the friendliest and most appealing way possible. Now you can buy that or not, but that's how it is. i know some won't and think there's an underlying agenda beyond the T&C, but there isn't. Some don't understand Terms And Conditions are just what they say they are - terms and conditions. Not idle suggestions. With those folks, we make an effort until it becomes obvious their personal agenda conflicts with the site rules. That's when there's a conflict of significance.

I don't make a dime by being here. All the staff works for nothing, and none of us are dumb enough to do what we do for free, just to put maximum $ in someone else's pocket. The very moment I think it's all about the money, I'll move on.

All suggestions for improvement are considered. Some are practical, some aren't. Some are good, some aren't.

i encourage everyone to submit whatever suggestions they may have for improvements directly to the staff. They'll be considered.

reply to post by unb3k44n7


In any communication there is a sender and a reciever. There is also noise that interferes. It is a duty of both the sender AND reciever to participate equally to ensure communication is made.

That aside, if it were the member photo thread, and you posted a picture, I can see how an applause might be warranted. It was the participation in that thread, doing what the thread is designed to do, that got it.

As mentioned above: the member rewards aren't for us. They are to goad us into helping make increasing revenue goals. "Quality Content" is determined by the site ownership.

reply to post by yeahright


No, it all boils down to the fact that what the owners want, regardless of their reason, trumps any one else's desire. Otherwise, we would have had the "downvote" function a thousand suggestions ago.

Maybe they don't do it for money. Who knows. It isn't an accusation....everyone has to make a living.

Listen friend. Don't get your panties all bundled up over Flags and stars.

They are great to get when your thread is a good one and/or appreciated etc.

Nothing more, nothing less.

You are the one making a big deal about it.

Membership is voluntary.

Do yourself a favor and find something interesting to do a thread on. If you want some ideas, let me know (U2U me).

I have several ideas-just not the time to devote to doing the thread correctly.

anon72
Listen friend. Don't get your panties all bundled up over Flags and stars.

They are great to get when your thread is a good one and/or appreciated etc.

Nothing more, nothing less.

You are the one making a big deal about it.

Membership is voluntary.

Do yourself a favor and find something interesting to do a thread on. If you want some ideas, let me know (U2U me).

I have several ideas-just not the time to devote to doing the thread correctly.

I think you miss read this thread

I am not complaining about not gaining rewards or even feel the need for rewards...

I am however, attempting to float an idea bout how to make the site even more enjoyable to actually read. For ever member there are a galley load of lurkers.... Potential members....

If they are subject to the Monty Python Argument sketch every time they land on a successful thread I suggest they won't become members.

As for the membership ourselves, why wouldn't we want the board to improve for the better?

Peace,

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Fair enough, Somehow we got lumped together in her reply. She did however reply to me specifically in that case though.

ANYWAY

I'd still like to hear about your original suggestion/requested idea discussed further

bigfatfurrytexan
No, it all boils down to the fact that what the owners want, regardless of their reason, trumps any one else's desire. Otherwise, we would have had the "downvote" function a thousand suggestions ago.

What the owners 'want' is what's best for the site and membership.

The decision was made to not turn this into a voting site. You're assuming there was some big outcry for a downvote option. That goes right back to my 'vocal minority' comment above. 10 people in an open thread do not a majority make. If you disagree with something, take the time to either counter it, or just ignore it. There are plenty of sites that allow you to click buttons. We want a discussion. Everyone wants to know who disagrees and why. Can you imagine the furor and accusations and drama that would fly with a high number of downvotes on a contentious topic? We have too much of that side drama crap as it is. It detracts and distracts from the discussion. I'm personally and vehemently 100% against it.

On big events or subjects (heck maybe even not so big ones), my preference is to have everything in one big thread than many small ones. However, if there is a persistant tangent then I don't mind a cross-referenced new thread for a more focused discussion.

(All this is never going to happen I know, but a woman can dream.)

reply to post by yeahright



To be honest I believe the star and flag system does the exact same thing you're saying the down vote would do.
I believe that the whole thing is detrimental to the site and does nothing other than create quantity, rather than quality.

But either way, I'm not massively fussed, just thought I'd make that point.

yeahright

bigfatfurrytexan
No, it all boils down to the fact that what the owners want, regardless of their reason, trumps any one else's desire. Otherwise, we would have had the "downvote" function a thousand suggestions ago.

What the owners 'want' is what's best for the site and membership.

The decision was made to not turn this into a voting site. You're assuming there was some big outcry for a downvote option. That goes right back to my 'vocal minority' comment above. 10 people in an open thread do not a majority make. If you disagree with something, take the time to either counter it, or just ignore it. There are plenty of sites that allow you to click buttons. We want a discussion. Everyone wants to know who disagrees and why. Can you imagine the furor and accusations and drama that would fly with a high number of downvotes on a contentious topic? We have too much of that side drama crap as it is. It detracts and distracts from the discussion. I'm personally and vehemently 100% against it.

Brother, im not here to argue. Really. I am just giving my own observations, based on my own lifes experience. No judgement, not condemnation. The Amigo's have to eat....they shouldn't feel guilty about that.

I think you know I have been around long enough that my bringing up of the downvote isn't an assumption. I have seen multiple threads active at the same time asking for it. No, i don't want it. For the same reasons as you and the ownership. But it has been suggested ad nauseum.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I see where you and I both agree, but what about some sort of point indexing?
Not points as in Stars but point of new twists?

1, 2, 3,
4 updated, 5, 6, 7...

18 Were the NSA involved? 19, 20, 21....

In some reasonable format of course...

reply to post by yeahright

Some changes people embrace, some changes generate complaining - typically from a select vocal minority.

Typically but not always. ie: I don't see a strong "majority" support group for DTOM, from initial stages up until today. But our opinions as members selectively remain irrelevant and unacknowledged.

At the end of the day, the members provide the content and drive the discussions.

Yep, we do. Without the members there would be no ATS. That is why staff should not disrespect or insult their members.

-a "site owner" should not have the right to blatantly "insult" members.

The occurrence has not been forgotten. And I've been quiet about it until now. There has been a build-up, so to speak, of more events that lead me to air this out in the open today.

That's when there's a conflict of significance.

There's conflict of significance when a site owner insults members.

All suggestions for improvement are considered.

No they are not.

i encourage everyone to submit whatever suggestions they may have for improvements directly to the staff. They'll be considered.

No they won't

blupblup
To be honest I believe the star and flag system does the exact same thing you're saying the down vote would do.

Stars and flags allow members to provide positive feedback without contributing to the discussion. A downvote allows someone to hide and throw stones. That's the difference.

I'm going to bow out here before I ring a bell that can't be un-rung. I stand by what I've said and I'm not beating this particular dead horse further.

Carry on.

yeahright

Stars and flags allow members to provide positive feedback without contributing to the discussion. A downvote allows someone to hide and throw stones. That's the difference.

I'm going to bow out here before I ring a bell that can't be un-rung. I stand by what I've said and I'm not beating this particular dead horse further.

Like I said, I don't want either, I think both are utterly pointless and not only pointless, but detrimental.
You're essentially saying that only positive feedback is welcome, which is odd, buy hey ho.
Also if you're not contributing in a discussion then you're not contributing.... simple as that.


I've never been involved in a "downvote" thread before and have no interest in implementing it so the dead horse is not mine to beat.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


To me, successful is where I learn something, and have an informative discussion, even if it gets heated at times. The best and most memorable thread I ever made, changed my entire outlook on something.

The thread only got 19 flags, but the discussion went on for 70 pages. Yes, some people did not read all the posts in the thread before posting, and at one point you just ignore them to a degree and continue on with the discussion that is taking place... the new poster will catch up at some point and jump in on target, or they quit posting one of the two.

But those threads to me are what I consider successful. Everyone is going to measure by a different yard stick, but if the thread to which I am referring was stopped even at page 5.. my perspective would never have changed. It was the discussion which made me change that perspective... due to learning a few things... and discussing until I really understood them.

To me, its not the flags, nor the stars, nor the length.. its how much do we learn? Sometimes I learn a lot just by reading the OP...

I am certain that those who jump into a thread in the middle of large threads, can be intelligent enough to catch up by watching the next page or two after they post.. it doesn't take a rocket scientist. And if the thread is interesting enough to someone, they will read from the beginning, and not stop until they ARE caught up... so it just depends on the person.

But to complicate matters, simply complicates them for no apparent reason when I don't know of anyone who has any difficulty participating in threads.

unb3k44n7
-a "site owner" should not have the right to blatantly "insult" members.

A site owner has the absolute right to do whatever they like on and with their own site. Just as a home owner can do whatever they like in and with their own home.

If you go to a friend's home who has a roommate or relative that owns the home and they are insulting once in a while, you either have to deal with it when you go visit your friend, or you just don't go there anymore.

Having said that, I have not personally observed the site owner be deliberately insulting to anyone. Furthermore, everyone has their own opinions and views on what is or is not insulting as some people have "thicker skin" than others. What's insulting to one might not be to another. So, an "insult" is generally more of one's own opinion.

unb3k44n7
No they are not.

No they won't

Complaints and suggestions are viewed and discussed by all staff. T&C violations by members are viewed and discussed by all staff, and no action is taken against someone unless there is a consensus. There are no lone-wolfs.

Just because these discussions don't happen in view of everyone doesn't mean they don't happen. Nobody can sit there and say the discussions don't happen unless they know for sure.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Having said that, I have not personally observed the site owner be deliberately insulting to anyone.

So? I don't see how the fact that 'you' personally have 'not' observed any instance of said occurrence(s) relevant. I'm saying I have.
I can provide linked sources for the public if we'd care to take it that far. I have no problem with my account being banned by providing them if it has to come to that. In fact Ive requested it to be banned because I knew there would probably come a day sometime in the near future where might no longer be able to pick and choose my battles with a soft voice, and turn a cheek to instances are blatantly wrong and uncalled for. I don't feel to be the one in the wrong here at all. I have made past attempts to discuss my grievances privately with no prevail.

Furthermore, everyone has their own opinions and views on what is or is not insulting as some people have "thicker skin" than others. What's insulting to one might not be to another. So, an "insult" is generally more of one's own opinion.

Oh please. How fine are you willing to split these hairs? Apparently quite.