Board "reputations"

[Logorrhea]

Its not quite the end of the Internets (ohs noes), but I'm finding that more and more threads are being dominated/derailed by the same few troll-like posters.

While I understand we are all (virtual) adults, and the mods like to keep a low-touch approach to forum matters, would it be possible to implement some kind of reputation (for lack of a better word) system on the board. Just to allow us to identify obvious trolls, and/or idiot posters?

Edit: I presume the answer will be no, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

[neilinboston]

We could start a thread called 'Siberia' anybody that disagrees with the mods (who shall be referred to as 'the party' from here on) could be only allowed post there until they die of exposure (not sure how to virtually kill somebody by exposure).

You do have a point though. I think the uncertainty around the team next season had sent some posters over the edge. I'm as passionate as the next man (not allowed hold the baby during matches) but some seem to forget its entertainment rather than warfare.

I'd best get back to crafting my aluminum mitre, increase my stock of canned goods and checking the perimeter for pesky interlopers wearing red.

Edit : sleep deprivation may have got the better of me.

[FrankBurke]

How about all posters use their real names? Its easy to say anything under the cover of anonymity.

[Peg Leg]

How about all posters use their real names? Its easy to say anything under the cover of anonymity.

That's a good idea Frank..... If that is your real name??

[Darce]

Isn't this what post counts are for?

[ceemec]

The real name idea has been proposed mentioned before on most fora and, whilst it certainly has merit in terms of removing the morons, it does not do so entirely as there's always a significant number of people who aren't trying to go on a wind up but genuinely believe the things they post. It's their opinion and their entitled to it even if we don't agree. The other knock on effect is that it will see the posting numbers drop. People don't want to use their real names for a multitude of reasons. They like the anonymity of being able to post without some barstool genius down the pub saying "Was that you posting that rubbish?" or, more obviously, many people here post from work. A clear log of their surfing wouldn't appeal to many.

*looks over shoulder*

The problem with reputations is that new posters who might have extremely insightful comments tend to be ignored for those who are established with thousands of posts. I see on other sites such as Boards, for example, there are some generally dull as dishwater comments or a significant number of posters whose biggest contributions are posting pictures or internet memes etc. and, with the thanks system employed there, receive more approval for their posts than those talking about actual rugby. The knock on effect is that a lot of the best posters over there have stopped posting as people are more concerned with getting approval than discussing the sport in depth.

There's an ignore system available here which is far from perfect but is useful. If it's not your cup of tea, I think we're generally mature enough to sort the wheat from the chaff and disregard those who have little or merit to say.

[Logorrhea]

The problem with reputations is that new posters who might have extremely insightful comments tend to be ignored for those who are established with thousands of posts. I see on other sites such as Boards, for example, there are some generally dull as dishwater comments or a significant number of posters whose biggest contributions are posting pictures or internet memes etc. and, with the thanks system employed there, receive more approval for their posts than those talking about actual rugby. The knock on effect is that a lot of the best posters over there have stopped posting as people are more concerned with getting approval than discussing the sport in depth.

Agreed. Once you have someone saying "rep me" or whatever after a post you kind of lose interest in whats being said. I'd prefer a system in which only negative reps can be given and cleared after a time. Its to catch the trolls not promote a clique.

Having said all this, I'm not even sure if its possible, but I get frustrated with the same posters, dominating threads that could be interesting, and turning into the usual red vs blue shitfeist.

There's an ignore system available here which is far from perfect but is useful. If it's not your cup of tea, I think we're generally mature enough to sort the wheat from the chaff and disregard those who have little or merit to say.

Look at the average conversation regarding the international team, or the last three pages of the Luke thread. One troll comes in, spams it with the usual red > blue shite and completely derails the conversation. I ignored that guy a good while back, but I cant ignore the constant responses to his trolling. A system marking him as a troll would either discourage him from doing it, or highlight it to less regular posters who aren't aware of what hes doing. Limiting the responses he receives.

Anyhoo, its just a suggestion, nothing to revolutionary. A way to highlight the trolls, but not mute anyone.

[johng]

I think trolls can be entertaining. I generally ignore them or if I do interact it is generally in a fun way. They are just out to get a rise out of people and sometimes it can be funny. If you don't take them to seriously they get bored and go away.

[Peg Leg]

The problem with reputations is that new posters who might have extremely insightful comments tend to be ignored for those who are established with thousands of posts. I see on other sites such as Boards, for example, there are some generally dull as dishwater comments or a significant number of posters whose biggest contributions are posting pictures or internet memes etc. and, with the thanks system employed there, receive more approval for their posts than those talking about actual rugby. The knock on effect is that a lot of the best posters over there have stopped posting as people are more concerned with getting approval than discussing the sport in depth.

Agreed. Once you have someone saying "rep me" or whatever after a post you kind of lose interest in whats being said. I'd prefer a system in which only negative reps can be given and cleared after a time. Its to catch the trolls not promote a clique.

Having said all this, I'm not even sure if its possible, but I get frustrated with the same posters, dominating threads that could be interesting, and turning into the usual red vs blue shitfeist.

There's an ignore system available here which is far from perfect but is useful. If it's not your cup of tea, I think we're generally mature enough to sort the wheat from the chaff and disregard those who have little or merit to say.

Look at the average conversation regarding the international team, or the last three pages of the Luke thread. One troll comes in, spams it with the usual red > blue shite and completely derails the conversation. I ignored that guy a good while back, but I cant ignore the constant responses to his trolling. A system marking him as a troll would either discourage him from doing it, or highlight it to less regular posters who aren't aware of what hes doing. Limiting the responses he receives.

Anyhoo, its just a suggestion, nothing to revolutionary. A way to highlight the trolls, but not mute anyone.

Maybe a troll poll held at the top of one of the boards (listing every member)?
The problem with all this shite is, posters would just vote for / ignore people they disagree with.
I don't ignore anyone because it's insightful to see how deluded some on here actually are, our biggest problem is the lads that feed the trolls.

[FrankBurke]

How about all posters use their real names? Its easy to say anything under the cover of anonymity.

That's a good idea Frank..... If that is your real name??

Yes!

[ceemec]

Fair points and a good idea on the negative feedback. It would possibly sort the situation out alright although a parameter might be required whereby only those with X amount of posts can provide feedback to prevent people signing up just to screw with things.

[Peg Leg]

Fair points and a good idea on the negative feedback. It would possibly sort the situation out alright although a parameter might be required whereby only those with X amount of posts can provide feedback to prevent people signing up just to screw with things.

The problem with this I suspect is, that the posters whose opinions I value greatest on here, strike me as the least likely to engage in rating posters!
EDIT:Unless that is, you limited rating capability to posters with 20,000+ posts

[Peg Leg]

Maybe a troll poll held at the top of one of the boards (listing every member)?

Maybe do this for "sources" as well