Would you change anything about how the forum is run?

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Everything involving functionality and the way the forum actually works is fine. Any gripe it seems comes down to the users themselves.

Only forum I even use, cause it's the only forum where people interact roughly the same way as they do in real life.
 
How about anyone who votes the same person into the sinbin more than three times automatically goes in themselves.

I see Gibbs has gone in again......let me guess....did he disagree with Cahspur, Joe Clash and CJJ by any chance last night.

Case, its not fucking working.
 
How about anyone who votes the same person into the sinbin more than three times automatically goes in themselves.

I see Gibbs has gone in again......let me guess....did he disagree with Cahspur, Joe Clash and CJJ by any chance last night.

Case, its not fucking working.
Listen Sammy I didn't vote him in, or you. You're becoming a cheap shot cunt.
 
How about anyone who votes the same person into the sinbin more than three times automatically goes in themselves.

I see Gibbs has gone in again......let me guess....did he disagree with Cahspur, Joe Clash and CJJ by any chance last night.

Case, its not fucking working.

Yes, those who have voted for him did so simply because he disagreed with someone. :rolleyes:

People disagree with other people on a forum all the time, but the fact of the matter is those who do end up in the bin do so because their actions were deemed out of line.

Plain and simple, if people will not find the need to instigate conflict where unnecessary, no one will ever make that trip.
 
Yes, those who have voted for him did so simply because he disagreed with someone. :rolleyes:

People disagree with other people on a forum all the time, but the fact of the matter is those who do end up in the bin do so because their actions were deemed out of line.

Plain and simple, if people will not find the need to instigate conflict where unnecessary, no one will ever make that trip.

Please keep the thread to how you would improve the forum.

This is not intended for bickering.
 
Please keep the thread to how you would improve the forum.

This is not intended for bickering.

Let's review your post:

"How about anyone who votes the same person into the sinbin more than three times automatically goes in themselves.
I see Gibbs has gone in again......let me guess....did he disagree with Cahspur, Joe Clash and CJJ by any chance last night.

Case, its not fucking working."

Now you're going to step aside and declare you weren't intending to bicker? You serious? Drop the first bomb, then try to declare yourself a victim? It's on you to stop man, as in each of our "bickerings" aside from the one I just apologized to you for in another thread, you have been the provocateur. Just stop, and I guarantee you this forum will be a better place.
 
Actually have criteria for permanent bans, the sin bin I believe was intended to be a 'x times and you're out' facility but that clearly won't work if people team up on others all the time. If I recall correctly when this was brought up before, a number of people said they won't use the sin bin if their vote is visible.

Maybe have a ban button next to sin bin and if 20 people on the forum want you banned then surely your time is up? At least people complaining the sin bin isn't working and should be scrapped should at least provide an alternative solution.
 
Actually have criteria for permanent bans, the sin bin I believe was intended to be a 'x times and you're out' facility but that clearly won't work if people team up on others all the time. If I recall correctly when this was brought up before, a number of people said they won't use the sin bin if their vote is visible.

Maybe have a ban button next to sin bin and if 20 people on the forum want you banned then surely your time is up? At least people complaining the sin bin isn't working and should be scrapped should at least provide an alternative solution.
Who's teaming up? Make the vote visible. The intrigue is unhelpful.
 
Let's review your post:

"How about anyone who votes the same person into the sinbin more than three times automatically goes in themselves.
I see Gibbs has gone in again......let me guess....did he disagree with Cahspur, Joe Clash and CJJ by any chance last night.

Case, its not fucking working."

Now you're going to step aside and declare you weren't intending to bicker? You serious? Drop the first bomb, then try to declare yourself a victim? It's on you to stop man, as in each of our "bickerings" aside from the one I just apologized to you for in another thread, you have been the provocateur. Just stop, and I guarantee you this forum will be a better place.

Lets not review it. Please stop quoting me. Im not interested.
 
Lets not review it. Please stop quoting me. Im not interested.

:paulinhofacepalm:

You made an inflammatory comment, a solution was offered, you deflected your obvious intent to instigate, and are now not acknowledging the problem. I'm done with this conversation as well, but the solution lies entirely in your hands.
 
I see Gibbs has gone in again......let me guess....did he disagree with Cahspur, Joe Clash and CJJ by any chance last night.
People always look who someone was arguing with an immediately assume it's them who voted them in. Which makes sense, that's probably what I would think. That's not always the case though and isn't here. People having to read the arguments are voting too.

In this example, more votes actually came from people outside of that group of 3 people you listed.

Actually have criteria for permanent bans, the sin bin I believe was intended to be a 'x times and you're out' facility but that clearly won't work if people team up on others all the time.

We're still doing this. The length of time doubles each time for those circumstances when someone does something that loads of people vote for. Usually it's one post where someone steps over the line and it's obvious because people are all voting on that post.

For votes that accumulate over time on a variety of posts, they're not usually as serious so we just chuck people in for a few days.

-------------------------------------------

I was considering forcing people to have someone on ignore. Some people like to vote over & over for the same person. If no one else is voting for them, we could force that person to ignore the person they clearly dislike for a month or so. If 2 people vote for each other a few times, force them to ignore each other.

Might help, not sure.
 
People always look who someone was arguing with an immediately assume it's them who voted them in. Which makes sense, that's probably what I would think. That's not always the case though and isn't here. People having to read the arguments are voting too.

In this example, more votes actually came from people outside of that group of 3 people you listed.


Thank you for clearing this up. Will save us all yet another launchpad for accusation and conflict.
 
I was considering forcing people to have someone on ignore. Some people like to vote over & over for the same person. If no one else is voting for them, we could force that person to ignore the person they clearly dislike for a month or so. If 2 people vote for each other a few times, force them to ignore each other.

Might help, not sure.

I also think this may be a good idea. Seeing as some people choose to be particularly vindictive or create vendettas, simply separate the problems. Those same people may also try to sling personal insults towards their "enemy," but hey at least the threads aren't cluttered up.

I think the best plan though is to create extraneous circumstances for permanent bans. Some of these would include:

- Extreme vindictive intent. When a poster has picked out another poster(s), and is attacking that poster on a daily basis with the purpose of causing conflict, it is just well over the top and directly harmful to the forum.

- Causes of daily conflict. If specific identities are often the cause of conflict, they are a direct harm to the integrity of a forum, which is intended to exist for fair and equal exchange of thought. When there is a poster constantly inducing conflict, other posters will refrain from expressing their honest feelings and thoughts. It is my impression that the very purpose of the "no-ban" motive is to promote this honest exchange, but posters violate this trust in good will and are constantly seeking to disagree with people in rude and condescending manners, it serves absolutely no purpose.

- Repeated usages of hate speech. This is a football forum, and football is one of the most humanitarian existences in our world. IMO if anyone makes repeated comments to specifically insult anyone's race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc with no obvious light-hearted joke embedded; they should go. Note I didn't include nationality, as the lines between "joking" and actual "insults" would just be far too blurry on a football forum to make rules around them. Will always be light-hearted banter on an EPL club fan forum between Yanks and Brits, so would just be far too muddied.

- No indication of change despite multiple sin-binnings. If people are repeatedly "binned" for similar offenses, why does it persist? Why do we assume they'll ever learn? If they are repeated sources of problems, and don't change despite "punishment," what's the point of continuing to provide them the opportunity to harm the forum?


TLDR: Anyway, I feel if such extraneous circumstances were to be implemented, this place would be far better. The problem with the "ignore" and "sin-bin" functions in conjunction is that far too often particularly inflammatory people are ignored by many who would be turned off by negative actions of those people, and are therefore unavailable to assist in fair and just "self-policing" of the forum. It isn't as if you've removed people from a jury who have been harmed by a defendant, what you've removed from the courtroom is the victims. And if the victims are removed from a case, you cannot expect to have a fair and equal trial.

In our case here, if you have removed the people who are turned off by an individual who is free of permanent consequences and only subject to the will of those remaining in a "self-policed state," it is only inevitable that such an individual would have yet expanded freedom to continue doing the very acts that turned those people off in the first place. As such, these people who are shown to be incessant in causing problems despite multiple attempts to "teach them" through sin-binning, are only allowed to continue causing problems for the whole since they have shown no sign of "learning."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom