New Bannable Offenses

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

A request and an question...

The request:

Can we make it a bannable offense to point out that threads have been done before? Seriously... I don't care if it was discussed two/three/seven years ago and I couldn't be arsed traling through pages of search resluts whick are never that accurate to start with.

And don't bother linking to it either in the middle of a sarcastic sentence like "Wow this is new...." to said article from back in '97. People should be shot for this. We, the newer members of boards, DO NOT CARE if you and a bunch of people who no longer frequent. It doesn't make the issue null and void...!

The idea:
What else can we make bannable offence...?

Ip.

PS - If someone decides to trawl back through the annals of boards history in the hope of finding a vague thread from the last time this came up and link to it.... **** OFF, YOU BLOODY ANORAK!!

InFront

Pfft, this is soo November 2001

nlgbbbblth

If there was a decent search facility then threads would not be repeated as much.

The current search facility is crap.

dr.bollocko

Bannings for all users with no vowels in their username.
What are you, Welsh, or just clearing your throat?

humanji

I don't know what a "search reslut whick", but I want one!

Sad Professor

Even when there was a good search tool people still repeated threads. It's just laziness.

challengemaster

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

The idea:
What else can we make bannable offence...?

making threads like this.

phantom_lord

wrong forum surely?

mikedragon32

Posting in the wrong forum should be bannable!

This should be in Feedback too.

Ruu_Old

mikedragon32 wrote:

Posting in the wrong forum should be bannable!

This should be in Feedback too.

The banstick would be well worn out at that stage! It has happened before though and will again, especially to those who should know better and post in After Hours "for speedier answers" or similar. I've been here long enough to know the amount of times certain threads show up again so unless its not more than once in a month, it doesn't bother me.

smashey

mikedragon32 wrote:

Posting in the wrong forum should be bannable!

This should be in Feedback too.

Especially when it is posted in a busier forum in the hope of getting more replies.

Crucifix

If someone's refering back to threads from years ago, maybe so. But sometimes you get a repost of a thread from a day or two ago, that only just slipped onto page 2, in which case fair enough (IMO).

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

...but if people get high and mighty about it...? **** it! Mistakes happen!!

challengemaster wrote:

making threads like this.

making threads like what?

Rb

smashey wrote:

Especially when it is posted in a busier forum in the hope of getting more replies.

Exactly.

Ban Ikky Poo2.

regi

This thread has _so_ been done before.

Asok

Esel

Maybe I'm confused, but I so want to inslut yuo, PO.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

esel wrote:

Maybe I'm confused, but I so want to inslut yuo, PO.

Depends... whats a PO?

And rb, I've been banned before for less so.... meh....

Silverfish

esel wrote:

Maybe I'm confused, but I so want to inslut yuo, PO.

DeVore

Pehaps we should have a timeframe during which a new thread should not be created but after which the topic could be raised again. New information can arise, new ways of looking at things so redebating a topic should be allowed but it IS pretty annoying when after a long debate of a topic a user comes along and says "hey, what about XYZ...." (cue everyone shouting at the new guy, usually).

So, perhaps we should have a "decay time" for threads like a month or something.... opinions?

DeV.

nlgbbbblth

dr.bollocko wrote:

Bannings for all users with no vowels in their username.
What are you, Welsh, or just clearing your throat?

analogue bubblebath* minus vowels

* was the name of a zine I used to write 1998 - 2000, itself named after a deadly Aphex Twin tune.

Silverfish

nlgbbbblth wrote:

analogue bubblebath* minus vowels

* was the name of a zine I used to write 1998 - 2000, itself named after a deadly Aphex Twin tune.

Then it would be nlgbbblbth, not nlgbbbblth?

racso1975

^^^^^^^^^ Dear god please get out and socialize

nesf

racso1975 wrote:

^^^^^^^^^ Dear god please get out and socialize

Yes because people who mock others online are in a position to talk?

Smellyirishman

Silverfish wrote:

Then it would be nlgbbblbth, not nlgbbbblth?

That was taken.

nlgbbbblth

Silverfish wrote:

Then it would be nlgbbblbth, not nlgbbbblth?

should be but I decided to leave it as it was. Easier to remember four bs all together.

Bard

Sometimes it's handy to find out that a thread has been done before - especially when the technical query you are making has been answered comprehensively in the older thread;- hence the suggestion in a number of forum charters to SEARCH the forum (at least have a quick scan through the first few pages of it anyway, and the FAQ thread if there is one) to see if your query has already been addressed in an older thread...

Sparky

/enters thread


Meh!
A new banning excuse. Very good!


/leaves thread.

User45701

DeVore wrote:

Pehaps we should have a timeframe during which a new thread should not be created but after which the topic could be raised again. New information can arise, new ways of looking at things so redebating a topic should be allowed but it IS pretty annoying when after a long debate of a topic a user comes along and says "hey, what about XYZ...." (cue everyone shouting at the new guy, usually).

So, perhaps we should have a "decay time" for threads like a month or something.... opinions?

DeV.

The thing i don't like about old threads is when they are brought back up people just repeat things that have already been said or in a debate/argument the same points again and again because people don't want to read through 6 or 7 pages, i tend not to post in the larger topics unless there very interesting to me then ill read the pages and quote/reply to whatever.

A month is not that long. Two months would be better because a month can fly by - if a topic is created on the first of the month it will probbley stay there for a a day or two, if its a good topic then a week maybe two so then two weeks later the same topic can be started again. Thats a bit too soon id defiantly go with two months

Gordon

All I'm worried about is if us mods are going to get a pay rise if we have to ban more people for random stuff. And, do we have to PM the people we ban with these new rules that are in place? And also, have the Janitor unions been notified about the changes?

Pighead

Gordon wrote:

All I'm worried about is if us mods are going to get a pay rise if we have to ban more people for random stuff. And, do we have to PM the people we ban with these new rules that are in place? And also, have the Janitor unions been notified about the changes?

Word on the street is, you're pay is gonna get doubled. Thats just between you and Pighead though.

CuLT

I think at this stage it might be easier to list the things that won't get you banned.

Shiminay

I think we should just start site banning all the people who complain about anything, we could do with a population cull, we've needed one for a very long time actualy. Every boards beer it's the same, "who are all these f00king n00bs?"

And won't it add to the mystery, people just "dissappearing" in the middle of the night

GuanYin

The first thing we should do is ban over-reactionary threads like this one. Then we should ban people who create repeat threads of the same topic within 3 pages of each other and THEN and ONLY then, should we ban people for giving out about it.

Shiminay

psi banned for correcting me...

Hobbes

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

Can we make it a bannable offense to point out that threads have been done before? Seriously... I don't care if it was discussed two/three/seven years ago and I couldn't be arsed traling through pages of search resluts whick are never that accurate to start with.

Sounds great on paper doesn't it. Depending on the forum though it can just p!ss the regulars right off.

For example:
Do you think people in Programming forum would like seeing continual posts of "Where do I get Java?".

Or a better example is the Islam forum. There are probably 3 or 4 core misconceptions about Islam that a simple google would answer. Instead we would get numerous person after person every week asking the same question. It gets annoying fast for people in the forum.

User45701

Actually now that i think of it once you guys get the new servers in can we not use a more advanced search feature so that it becomes allot easyier to locate the thread that you seek?

Silverfish

I think we should ban people for not reading threads, and posting on page 2 or 3 asking questions that were addressed on page one.

Far more offensive than re-posting a thread that has slipped to page 2 or 3.


It gets my goat, it really does.

Time Magazine

DeVore wrote:

So, perhaps we should have a "decay time" for threads like a month or something.... opinions?

New thread due on the Padraig Nally case so...

I think it's extremely difficult (i.e. impossibubble) to have a "time" to fit all the circumstances of bumping/re-examining.

I think it should be taken on a reasonable-effort basis at the discretion of the janitor of the forum. If it's not pages 1-6 or so of the forum then usually that's fine. This suggestion is of course awfully flawed, but less flawed than a set time methinks.

User45701

User45701 wrote:

Actually now that i think of it once you guys get the new servers in can we not use a more advanced search feature so that it becomes allot easyier to locate the thread that you seek?

Best way to answer that is with 'If people bother to search...'

As for the idea, it would work on some heavy duty fora, but not on all. If it is in a thread which can help people (like some of the college fora have people asking about some course in that University/IT) I don't really see much of an issue with the posting of a link to the thread. A debate/argument/rant is a different matter thought.

Tar.Aldarion

If a new thread is created about a topic that was done, OP is attacked.
If an old thread is dragged up instead, poster attacked.
Hmm. Simpsons did it.

stovelid

Does it matter whether the topic has been done before if enough posters wish to talk about it again?