DieHardFan Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 I don't know if anyone else feels this way but I am getting frustrated at the number of topics that get hi-jacked, usually by 2 -4 posters who use it to argue with each other about subjects that many times have nothing to do with the post's topic. (ie minor example that prompted this: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=46969 ) I'm not against the discussions, just start a new post. Is it possible to add an option under the OPTIONS > MODERATOR OPTIONS that lets the topic originator delete non relevant posts? Optimally a line would show that a response by xyz was deleted by the original poster. If so and the mods are willing is anyone else interested in this? [And yes I'm prepared for the number of wannabe witty responses that may follow.] [Mod's please give this a chance and don't banish this to the consumer or complaint area for at least a day. Thanks.]
KRC Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 I don't know if anyone else feels this way but I am getting frustrated at the number of topics that get hi-jacked, usually by 2 -4 posters who use it to argue with each other about subjects that many times have nothing to do with the post's topic. (ie minor example that prompted this: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=46969 ) I'm not against the discussions, just start a new post. Is it possible to add an option under the OPTIONS > MODERATOR OPTIONS that lets the topic originator delete non relevant posts? Optimally a line would show that a response by xyz was deleted by the original poster. If so and the mods are willing is anyone else interested in this? [And yes I'm prepared for the number of wannabe witty responses that may follow.] [Mod's please give this a chance and don't banish this to the consumer or complaint area for at least a day. Thanks.] 692934[/snapback] Any thread that has a number of responses is inherently going to veer off its original course. It is just the nature of the medium. Making each poster a moderator would cause more problems than it solves. If you have a problem with specific posts within a thread (regardless of whether you start the thread or not), report it to the board moderators. They can then determine if any action is required. Just my opinion, but there needs to be more consolidation of posts. When you have everyone starting a new thread to discuss the same things, it prevents people from participating. They see the first two pages flodded with the same topic, they end up glossing over any other topics that might be sprinkled in. This is a complaint I hear over and over again.
Lv-Bills Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 I don't know if anyone else feels this way but I am getting frustrated at the number of topics that get hi-jacked, usually by 2 -4 posters who use it to argue with each other about subjects that many times have nothing to do with the post's topic. (ie minor example that prompted this: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=46969 ) I'm not against the discussions, just start a new post. Is it possible to add an option under the OPTIONS > MODERATOR OPTIONS that lets the topic originator delete non relevant posts? Optimally a line would show that a response by xyz was deleted by the original poster. If so and the mods are willing is anyone else interested in this? [And yes I'm prepared for the number of wannabe witty responses that may follow.] [Mod's please give this a chance and don't banish this to the consumer or complaint area for at least a day. Thanks.] 692934[/snapback] Dude, I still think the Weather Channel chicks are smoking hot. Jenn Carfagno, and Hillary Andrews could start their own version of a younger desparate housewives.
stuckincincy Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Is it possible to add an option under the OPTIONS > MODERATOR OPTIONS that lets the topic originator delete non relevant posts? Optimally a line would show that a response by xyz was deleted by the original poster. [And yes I'm prepared for the number of wannabe witty responses that may follow.] 692934[/snapback] So you want the ability to censor, to shut off the microphone, so to speak. Hmmm... I like the wanderings...it goes towards comraderie, and offers the twin pleasures of cracking jokes and cracking backs.
Ramius Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Dude, I still think the Weather Channel chicks are smoking hot. Jenn Carfagno, and Hillary Andrews could start their own version of a younger desparate housewives. 692942[/snapback] No way... stephanie abrams takes the cake...something about big juggs and little shorts standing in a hurricane...
DieHardFan Posted May 17, 2006 Author Posted May 17, 2006 Any thread that has a number of responses is inherently going to veer off its original course. It is just the nature of the medium. Making each poster a moderator would cause more problems than it solves. If you have a problem with specific posts within a thread (regardless of whether you start the thread or not), report it to the board moderators. They can then determine if any action is required. 692938[/snapback] Just to clarify (I can be unclear at times) I'm just advocating allowing the topic originator to have the option. Veering off course is ok even a good thing but three pages of "You're an ****" "No you're an ****" gets old fast and there are alot of posters that feel that they need the last word in these type of battles. Just my opinion, but there needs to be more consolidation of posts. When you have everyone starting a new thread to discuss the same things, it prevents people from participating. They see the first two pages flooded with the same topic, they end up glossing over any other topics that might be sprinkled in. This is a complaint I hear over and over again.692938[/snapback] I agree but don't think that this would contribute significantly to that problem. Once the spotlight is off the attention grabber I doubt they will get many others wanting to view a battle of (nit)wits. As always all comments are just IM(never)HO.
Lv-Bills Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 No way... stephanie abrams takes the cake...something about big juggs and little shorts standing in a hurricane... 692950[/snapback] I used to agree with this, but I don't anymore. Jenn Carfagno is perfect wife (looks) material. She's that cute kinda hot. Hillary Andrews, on the other hand, is just that sleazy, kinda, I've got skeletons in my closet, kinda, hot. Abrams is toward the hot side.....but seriously, look at Hillary Andrews at night, and look how she dresses and stuff. Her face, body, hair......WOW. In a perfect world, it would be great to have Carfagno as a wife.....and Andrews as your business travel partner.....great for those "business trips" to LA or San Fran or wherever.
stuckincincy Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 I used to agree with this, but I don't anymore. Jenn Carfagno is perfect wife (looks) material. She's that cute kinda hot. Hillary Andrews, on the other hand, is just that sleazy, kinda, I've got skeletons in my closet, kinda, hot. Abrams is toward the hot side.....but seriously, look at Hillary Andrews at night, and look how she dresses and stuff. Her face, body, hair......WOW. In a perfect world, it would be great to have Carfagno as a wife.....and Andrews as your business travel partner.....great for those "business trips" to LA or San Fran or wherever. 692956[/snapback] The Weather Channel must buy make-up in pallet quantities. I'd like to scrape off the pound or so they all wear, and get a look at the zit marks and the greasy pores.
cooldudeav Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 What was this thread about again? Oh yeah... The Weather Channel Chicks
Dan Gross Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Does anyone in this thread know Willis' current 40 time?
stuckincincy Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Does anyone in this thread know Willis' current 40 time? 692980[/snapback] Yes. He's 25 years old, so his time to 40 is 15 years.
Ramius Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Does anyone in this thread know Willis' current 40 time? 692980[/snapback] hey! did you listen to the initial poster? please stop trying to hijack our weather channel chicks thread.
Dan Gross Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 hey! did you listen to the initial poster? please stop trying to hijack our weather channel chicks thread. 692987[/snapback] You're an ****.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 No you're an ****. 692997[/snapback] Isn't Die Hard an ****?
Dan Gross Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Oh, wait, I know what this thread is missing... JP LOSMAN! Cue Holcomb's Arm in 5...4...3...2...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Oh, wait, I know what this thread is missing... JP LOSMAN! Cue Holcomb's Arm in 5...4...3...2... 693000[/snapback] This thread definitely needs more cowbell.
BoondckCL Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 You're both aZZholes! Could this turn into a Mike Williams thread of just people calling eachother azzholes? So what do you guys want to do about this QB controversey?
Dan Gross Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 This thread definitely needs more cowbell. 693002[/snapback] Hey you're not supposed to come in here until your cue: RALPH WILSON!
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Hey you're not supposed to come in here until your cue: RALPH WILSON! 693005[/snapback] You like me...you really really like me! Hrm...what would be *your * cue???? I KNOW! PLASMA!
Recommended Posts