Sounds like a "blue card" is basically the sin bin we already have.
Sure, but football didn't have a "sin bin" previously. Now it's coming but so is the blue card. Is admin a rule breaker at heart?
Re: culling of unused accts
many times it seems like these are parked accts that are ultimately used for abuse...as an example, in the US (not that you care or that it will help my case...prolly hurt it) voter rolls are culled if they are not used for many cycles...it's common sense (if done in good faith) as it provides a situation rife for abuse. When someone hasn't posted since 2013, has 13 posts, and hasn't logged in (only you can see that) in years...surely that should tingle some spidey senses.
But I understand if 'membership' is your reflexive response...everyone would like a few extra 'inches' no matter the penis proxy. But the implicit message of this thread is for the improvement of the forum, right? And moderation was brought in for this very point...seems common sense to me.
2. I believe people should be able to anonymously vote.
Right...seems a very democratic idea...except that they aren't just voting are they? This isn't just a poll as to whether Kulu is completely shit or not, is it? They are accusing/charging someone with something, right? And then a poster finds themselves binned with no explanation, no recourse, and no idea who found what objectionable or what 'crime' was committed. I cannot see how this is consistent with raising the standards of civility and comportment on the forum when we don't expect posters (who ARE anonymous whether they foul vote or not, so your desire is already served by this being the internet) to have the courage of their convictions.
A similar standard of jurisprudence is the right to face your accusers...otherwise anyone can lob accusations at you...and we have incontrovertible proof of a cabal of 'fit and proper Spurs' supporters' whose stated goal was to do just that...sunlight is the best disinfectant.
And beyond that, if there is a poster 'A' that is consistently 'fouling' people in general (or specific targets) and those targets receive no further sanction then poster 'A' at some point should see some sort of sanction so they can re-calibrate their senses...a booking for 'diving' so to speak. But we only know this if we know who is fouling people.
3. You can "Watch" threads and
view them here (if that's the kind of thing you meant?)
No, threadmarks are NOT the same. Threadmarks are in-thread 'chapter' marks. So, for example, in a player's thread one can place a threadmark saying "Spurs 3-Brentford 2
date" and up at the top of the page next to the "ignore" "jump to new", and "unwatch" buttons there is a "threadmark" button which allows you to miss all the BS convo before the significant event.
I've previously pointed you toward RedCafe's example of this item. It essentially provides an evolving chaptering/TOC for a thread. If you don't think this would be useful I'd respectfully disagree but would understand...especially if you think most would find it very difficult...but we should elevate not pander...elevation has been the implicit goal of the revamp, right?
4. This is sort of already in place. New users first few posts are flagged.
I'm not sure how flagging the "first few posts" of a new user is the same as limiting the number of post/day a new user can post...even in a "sort of" way. It has been my experience that the posters that end up a problem let themselves be known very early on by spamming all over the forum AND especially in particular (types of) threads...which I can name but I'm sure you already know.
5. If a new users gets a load of foul votes then they do usually get banned.
Welp, I didn't limit my point to just foul votes. In fact, that would not remotely address the point nor give you any predictive ability. What should be used is a fuller picture like posts/day in addition to early "foul votes/binning/ignoring stats".
The toxic know how to stay
jjjjjjuuuuuuuuusssssssssttttttttttt on the right side of impropriety, right? It's really what makes them sociopathic, isn't it? If every sociopath showed themselves to be the real true assholes that they are on their first day then this forum, and many others, would have significantly fewer members. Reasonable people get the lay of the land and try to avoid stepping on toes in the beginning...others spam a forum with 20, 30, 40, and even 50+ posts/day in a who gives a fuck manner. They should be flagged.
I would argue that you could cull many of these folks just by putting a monitor on posts/day...that would zero you in on some target rich areas. Again, if there is still the desire to raise the civility standards.
edit: for clarity, inserted "poster 'A' " and a few other clarifications for reading. apparently I've gone over my time and it's left a new timestamp.
Admin to shut any thread down.
