nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What new rules would you impose on After Hours?

DareGod

(1) Users are not allowed to post in After Hours until they have a post count of 50 or more.

(2) A "Random thoughts" thread, for people to post their random thoughts. Besides being useful on its own, also in an attempt to stamp out the endless amount of nonsense threads being started.

You?

(P.S. Please don't lock this thread.)

Find more posts tagged with

comunazi

Quick Links

Comments

anncoates

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

We should be allowed to attack the poster as well as the post.

Like down votes/dislike buttons, a lot of the people that really champion this would actually end up doing quite badly from it.

Mint Aero

Ban banter.

"the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks."
"exchange remarks in a good-humoured teasing way."

Clearly the PC brigade in AH see it as bullying and trolling. :pac:
It must be banned! Won't someone please think of the children! :P

Cuban Pete

thelad95 wrote: »

Bring back the "blast her with piss" comments. Some of them used to be gold but it got too popular and you had idiots using it for everything.

That's why it was banned and why it should stay banned. It's also the reason I wouldn't mind seeing the painfully unfunny jokes that people fall over themselves to post in order to garner thanks banned. Now that's something that's ruined AH.

Buona Fortuna

Trigger Happy wrote: »

I guess they would then just post garbage in there to get to the threshold quickly...

What? The perfect apprenticeship.

I already have a name in mind

AH-Jobridge

old_aussie

mikeym wrote: »

Two drink minimum before posting

That leaves out a certain crowd, who cares, opens 8th beer tonight.

walkingshadow

I think a new rule should be that when a person has been found guilty of a crime by a court (and thereby there is no means to prejudice a case), we should be allowed to discuss the case like every other media outlet in the country.

whatismyname

Garzard wrote: »

Ban the one-worded ''Yes / No'' type responses to OP's.

Even when the OP asks a yes / no question?

Cold War Kid

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

We should be allowed to attack the poster as well as the post.

You'd be ok with personal abuse towards yourself?

eamonnq

We should be allowed to continue threads even if they become topic of conspiracy and hostility.

TheOtherBloke

DareGod wrote: »

(1) Users are not allowed to post in After Hours until they have a post count of 50 or more.

(2) A "Random thoughts" thread, for people to post their random thoughts. Besides being useful on its own, also in an attempt to stamp out the endless amount of nonsense threads being started.

You?

(P.S. Please don't lock this thread.)

Random thoughts thread was mine. I did explain it could become catastrophic.. BUT a Chance of a post being an interesting one too. I think thats the whole point of AH, to post nonsense or any subject. So chill out

noway12345

We should be able to ban mods if enough people give them negative reviews.

Buona Fortuna

noway12345 wrote: »

We should be able to ban mods if enough people give them negative reviews.

Good luck with that

crockholm

restrict multi-quote to 2 paragraphs,duo-quote,we could call it, as bi-quote sounds harsh on the ear. Degsy and outlaw pete to be given diplomatic immunity. Realistically though,I reckon strobe hit it on the head with the partitioning of AH.

Fleawuss

Ban religion

catallus

noway12345 wrote: »

We should be able to ban mods if enough people give them negative reviews.

+1

This is a genuinely good idea.

MadDog76

Mint Aero wrote: »

Ban the use of the word cretin. It's cringey.

Ban the phrase and posters who use "grabs popcorn" it's sad.

Ban the PC brigade. We all know who they are.

Ban boring posters who can't take a joke.

Ban rules

Choose life

Almost perfect list, just add "Ban Mods"!

Edit: This is probably covered under "Ban Rules"?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

catallus wrote: »

+1

This is a genuinely good idea.

You get people with weird vendettas against mods though. I could see it just turning into a thing of loads of re-regs or multiple accounts being set up solely to complain about a mod that they don't like for purely personal reasons.

Also probably every time there was a contentious mega-thread (gay marriage, abortion and the likes), there'd be a certain amount of people complaining about moderators no matter what the mod did.

catallus

Gibson Muscular Toadstool wrote: »

You get people with weird vendettas against mods though. I could see it just turning into a thing of loads of re-regs or multiple accounts being set up solely to complain about a mod that they don't like for purely personal reasons.

Also probably every time there was a contentious mega-thread (gay marriage, abortion and the likes), there'd be a certain amount of people complaining about moderators no matter what the mod did.

Yeah but surely those kind of tactics would be seen through easily enough.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

catallus wrote: »

Yeah but surely those kind of tactics would be seen through easily enough.

Ah yeah but it'd be creating a lot of paperwork, for want of a better word. Presumably category mods and admins know themselves if they're getting a lot of feedback threads and the like about a certain mod and they can have a word or get rid of them, probably better to keep it at their discretion rather than posters knowing "if x amount of complaints get made, this f*cker's gone"

anncoates

Cold War Kid wrote: »

You'd be ok with personal abuse towards yourself?

Be like down votes or dislike button.

Certain type of person loves the idea of attacking posters or negative rep because it means doing other people down with the minimum of effort, wit and intelligence, especially in groups.

Then certain type of person ends up being savaged verbally or with a huge negative ranking, because, you know, they're a certain type of person.

Certain type of person then leaves site in tears, citing cliques, mods, censorship, hive mind etc etc.

Not a NSA agent

Send anyone who thinks some brigade, agenda, space nazis are the cause of something to the conspiracy theories forum.

There are a few people who seem to think one of those is the cause of every single thing that goes wrong.

catallus

Gibson Muscular Toadstool wrote: »

.... probably better to keep it at their discretion rather than posters knowing "if x amount of complaints get made, this f*cker's gone"

But their discretion is clearly not working; the number of posters with closed accounts is a good enough sign of that.

Like I said, someone with an unreasonable hatred of mods would bee seen through easily enough.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

catallus wrote: »

But their discretion is clearly not working; the number of posters with closed accounts is a good enough sign of that.

Like I said, someone with an unreasonable hatred of mods would bee seen through easily enough.

I'm not having a go but I wouldn't attribute closed accounts to moderator action exclusively or even mostly. A lot of regular users close accounts and open new ones pretty often because they don't want their real life identity to be easily found out or their posts tracked when someone knows who they are. People take a huff and close accounts when they get beaten in an argument that doesn't even involve a mod. I think a lot of long time users are either a) more conscious of the fact that you should be careful what you say online, certainly in a country this size, than they would've been in 2005, or b) the increased influence of the legal team (which is not the mods' fault, but is their job to enforce) means they don't like the place any more.

Tony Beetroot

Close it on Good Friday

anncoates

catallus wrote: »

the number of posters with closed accounts is a good enough sign of that..

You mean, the 5% or 10% that don't immediately re-register?

Hans Bricks

anncoates wrote: »

Be like down votes or dislike button.

Certain type of person loves the idea of attacking posters or negative rep because it means doing other people down with the minimum of effort, wit and intelligence, especially in groups.

Then certain type of person ends up being savaged verbally or with a huge negative ranking, because, you know, they're a certain type of person.

Certain type of person then leaves site in tears, citing cliques, mods, censorship, hive mind etc etc.

Judging by that Rubberbandits FB status a while back about Boards.ie posters, there was a couple of familiar names that were mentioned there who wouldn't last too long here if we could attack the poster. It is a bit primary schoolish around here in that we have to somehow re-word our disdain for other posters.

RDM_83 again

Give AH a mission statement about promoting a culturally left wing diverse tolerant Ireland, it would reflect reality (easiest example is the posters get warned about being agenda posters about certain topics but not others and how left wing trolls are treated compared to right wing ones) and when users get butt hurt about it just point them to the mission statement and job done

DareGod

I wish Mods could "re-calibrate" threads whose titles are being blatantly misinterpreted, such as the "Things that inexplicably turn you against someone" thread.

I've never seen so many people COMPLETELY misinterpret a thread title as much as the people who have posted in that thread have done. I want to call a lot of the posters in that thread total idiots, but I won't - but almost all of them have decided to ignore the word "inexplicably" in the thread title. I wouldn't mind but it's one of the bigger words in the title, too.

ebbsy

Ban political or other serious topics. There are enough other forums to deal with this on Boards.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Hans Bricks wrote: »

Judging by that Rubberbandits FB status a while back about Boards.ie posters, there was a couple of familiar names that were mentioned there who wouldn't last too long here if we could attack the poster. It is a bit primary schoolish around here in that we have to somehow re-word our disdain for other posters.

It's fantastic training in passive aggression. Totally transferable skill too, some day you'll find yourself in a workplace and be wondering how to absolutely tear some prick a new one without seeming to, and you'll think back to your days here with gratitude