Suggestion on how to stop most knee-jerk threads in the GARM.

I like this!

and not because I have more than 1 dot, I barely start a thread, especially in the GARM, because almost all topics have been posted, so I can post my opinions in those threads, without starting a new one, and about breaking news, its probable someone already posted about it.

 

Even I get sucked in sometimes in all of the emotions. Sometimes after a bad loss, I like to go to the Drexlerism thread and just let go.

 

how about no new threads at all during game time and maybe 2 hours after game time?

 

WTF... I thought I had a good idea and then I find this thread.

 

I would agree with you here, but limiting all posts to the single gamethread will get hectic. I mean three pages fill up in like 20 seconds lol.

This is a stretch, but I would suggest instead of a game thread a sub-forum dedicated to a game (you can edit the title of the subforum each game) will open up and will be as follows:

-GARM
--[insert matchup here] such as "December 29th, 2048 Rockets vs. Kings"
And in that subforum you just let all the members go crazy and create threads there... all the while the original GARM will have all new thread posting abilities locked until the game ends.

Of course this is probably inefficient and there might be a better way of handling things...

 

"[Player/Coach/Morey] Performance" mega threads would be the way to go if Clutch ever decided to do this, imo.

 

Only allow contributing members allowed to start threads in the GARM.

Maybe allow members over 2 or 3 rep bars to start threads in the GARM. Some of those guys suck, but it would weed out a lot.

Both of those don't just apply to post game. They apply for anytime. Problem solved.

 

Is there a way to mark threads that are started by members that have either x posts or have been members for x years (say 1,000 posts or 2 years) and have at least two green dots??

Just with a red dot or something, and make it filterable. Maybe that would help without alienating newbies.

 

What the board really is looking for is some more active moderation at the end of games, and it is not fair to ask Clutch or other mods to be here, maybe some SUB mods could be appointed - to fix the after game issues.

IMO - it would be best to kill the threads, and put a VISIBLE hickey on the guy who started the thread, like a demerit(sp?) or something....so that others can learn what he/'she did wrong and will not do it themselves.

But, that is just my .02.

DD

 

We all have the "report" button for useless threads or problem posters, the mods will determine if it is worth taking action on. This board can self moderate if you use common sense, no need for new hall monitors.

 

The issue is that you are assuming the few mods we have here are at their computer or ready to act when that report button is hit.

If there was a way for threads to get auto locked, like say...5 contributing members report it....and it auto locks, that might work without extra hall monitors as you say.

DD

 

Or maybe people that recognize a bad thread won't participate in it, and soon it will fall off from the first page. If a bad thread keeps bumping up with useless/bad dialogue, then unfortunately that says a lot about our members that frequent and participate the GARM. We are as whole what we post, but I think Clutch is smart enough which members he has to pull the plug on, he just gives them enough rope to hang themselves.

 

V3.0, that is too big of a job for one person, and doesn't solve the problem of folks responding to a bad thread.

Hell, you get tons of people going "Wrong forum" or hammering the op for making the thread, and then you have others that make sarcastic like named threads because they have feel their views are self important.

This is just my opinion, but if there could be a system that was self moderating, where folks could vote to lock threads, and maybe that has some consequences...like if you get a thread locked, you have a 24 hour hold on thread starting - and you get a warning PM as to why that happened etc...and the thread that was locked has a color code that shows it as locked and why...

I think the board would work more cohesively that way.

DD

 

Clutchfans isn't about creating a bbs utopia, you'll have good/not so good/very bad posts and/or threads. What's the difference in ignoring a thread and voting to lock a thread? Why should I waste time in voting for a thread I deem bad when I could move on to read the good threads?

 

Because you might miss a good thread because the bad ones pushed it so far down that it falls off the front page.

Either way, Clutch nails it in Tinny's thread, it is clear that you and I care about the experience, nice chatting with you.

DD

 

I know how to get to the 2nd page, if that's the case. Blame members for not participating in the good threads enough then.