Issues with boards

[atomicaloud]

LOL at u what iss ur asl.

[atomicaloud]

and my name is atomic aloud not atomickittenaloud ok. ;) ;)

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Jersey said:

Yeah, people's definition's of that line is different.... but I think all of us mods are trying to use our best judgement... maybe one of us is a little more harsh (for lack of a better word) than the others, it all has to do with different definitions of when a line is crossed.

But some topics don't even need to be locked. Like if someone asks a question and someone else answers it, then it's locked but that's unnecessary because no one else will reply to it anyway, unless they have a followup question, to which they have to unnecessarily start another topic for.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Matt4319 said:

I assume you're talking about the 10/10 Pop Chart thread (which was open for 13 days... go figure). Discussion may still have been ongoing, but it had nothing to do with the TOPIC. The last 10 or so replies were talking about mid-week Mediabase trends and stuff. Even the 10/17 chart topic had gone 4 pages before 10/10 was closed!

True but it's still chart discussion, there was no fighting. Most topics will eventually go off-topic anyway but consider the 10/10 topic was still in the general chart discussion, I'd say that was pretty good for a group of people who can go from talking about charts to talking about Winnie The Pooh in a matter of 3 posts.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

atomicaloud said:

and my name is atomic aloud not atomickittenaloud ok. ;) ;)

Big LOL @ that one!
LOL!

[allow that]

The said:

But some topics don't even need to be locked. Like if someone asks a question and someone else answers it, then it's locked but that's unnecessary because no one else will reply to it anyway, unless they have a followup question, to which they have to unnecessarily start another topic for.

Am I alone in not following this? Because I'm not understanding the point/question here at all.

[Matt4319]

Jersey said:

Am I alone in not following this? Because I'm not understanding the point/question here at all.

He's referring to this thread, I assume.

[j]

Is there really a need for 69 to make 3 consecutive posts. FYI you can just use [ quote ] [ / quote ] to quote someone... the person's name and date of the post wouldn't be there that's all.

Anyway, about the Pop Chart topic, it would have died down eventually on its own, therefore there was really no need to lock it in my opinion. Unless it started getting out of hand and 10 week-old chart topics are still on the first page, then why lock it? It's really unnecessary.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Yes to Matt. That's kinda an example.

j said:

Is there really a need for 69 to make 3 consecutive posts. FYI you can just use [ quote ] [ / quote ] to quote someone... the person's name and date of the post wouldn't be there that's all.

It wouldn't bother you if the post counts weren't made readily available so why would it bother you now? No there's not a need but there's not a lot of need for a lot of stuff some peeps do here. It's not like I'm flooding the boards or something so don't worry about it. But yes, I'll take that into consideration next time.

[Rob64]

j said:

Is there really a need for 69 to make 3 consecutive posts. FYI you can just use [ quote ] [ / quote ] to quote someone... the person's name and date of the post wouldn't be there that's all.

I don't wanna start a fight with you... but you shadowblue, out of people, complaining about somebody making 3 posts in a row. Remember your post count @ R&R? nuff said

[WhySoSerious?]

The said:

But some topics don't even need to be locked. Like if someone asks a question and someone else answers it, then it's locked but that's unnecessary because no one else will reply to it anyway, unless they have a followup question, to which they have to unnecessarily start another topic for.

If no one would have replied to it anyway why do you care if it's locked? Arguing over why rather meaningless topics like the one Matt posted are locked seems pretty pointless to me.

It's like you wouldn't have ever replied anyway, but the fact that you no longer have the option pisses you off.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

TCorey said:

If no one would have replied to it anyway why do you care if it's locked? Arguing over why rather meaningless topics like the one Matt posted are locked seems pretty pointless to me.

It's like you wouldn't have ever replied anyway, but the fact that you no longer have the option pisses you off.

Yeah, I later thought of that . But if no one's gonna reply to it, the topic will die off so locking it is unnecessary. At least when you lock it, you're barring off any chance of further discussion. I was kinda mad that Josh locked by "why did you close my waiting topic" before I could reply back. I guess that's why I was bothered by the whole thing.

[atomicaloud]

OMG how many posts how you made in this topic 69.

[crash46]

What I liked about R and R's lack of a post count wasn't so much the fact that it cut down on the number of stupid posts, but it also cut down on the number of complaints about other people posting too much or twice in a row or whatever. Honestly, I have yet to notice anyone with consecutive posts until somebody had to make a post of their own to point it out. It's really not that big of a deal.

[j]

Rob64's said:

I don't wanna start a fight with you... but you shadowblue, out of people, complaining about somebody making 3 posts in a row. Remember your post count @ R&R? nuff said

That was in the past. Stop bringing up the past.

It doesn't bother me. But I wanted to point it out to you so that if other people accuse you of posting for the sake of trying to boost your post count, then you would know why they might possibly feel that way, even if it's not true. I know you get very annoyed when people accuse you of doing it (trust me I know how it feels!) so I'm just pointing out certain posting behavior that might possibly be misconstrued as post-count-boosting to some people.

[atomicaloud]

a lot of people just post for the sake of it to get their posts up.

[Matt4319]

I unlocked the topics people had a problem with. So fire away!

[atomicaloud]

LOL

[FriendsFan]

The said:

There are currently two topics on 'Slow' by Kylie Minogue in CHR/Pop AND Music News. Both are still open.

The reason why the "Slow" topic in CHR/Pop is still open, is probably because its gonna be a single in the US.

There's been one "Slow" topic locked in the CHR/Pop forum before. Before it was announced as a US single.

pulsemusic.proboards12.com/index.cgi?board=pop&action=display&thread=1065587421

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

atomicaloud said:

OMG how many posts how you made in this topic 69.

Not as many as you made in the Greatest Hits topic I made.

crash46 said:

What I liked about R and R's lack of a post count wasn't so much the fact that it cut down on the number of stupid posts, but it also cut down on the number of complaints about other people posting too much or twice in a row or whatever. Honestly, I have yet to notice anyone with consecutive posts until somebody had to make a post of their own to point it out. It's really not that big of a deal.

Definately agreed. Among the best things you've ever said, mr 46. People that complain obviously have a problem with the post count not because of the numbers and that they're worried other people are posting crap to increase their numbers but because they themselves are worried that other people have a cheated advantage of boosting their own numbers. People complain about others because they're afraid they'll never have a shot at passing them so they complain in hopes to bring them down. Who cares? It's none of no one else's business how I post. I don't complain about the fact that Josh has twice as many posts as I do, do I?

j said:

It doesn't bother me. But I wanted to point it out to you so that if other people accuse you of posting for the sake of trying to boost your post count, then you would know why they might possibly feel that way, even if it's not true. I know you get very annoyed when people accuse you of doing it (trust me I know how it feels!) so I'm just pointing out certain posting behavior that might possibly be misconstrued as post-count-boosting to some people.

Well, it's not my problem if people feel that way. I'll just tell them to mind their own business. If that's all people on this board are worried about, maybe they should either start paying more attention to the content of the topics (participate in topics) or simply leave. Either way, I'm going to ignore the fact that people are bothered with my posting and tell them to buzz off!

[Keith3000]

Frankly, I don't see what the problem is here regarding post counts. Some people just participate more than others, that's all. The post counts tell nothing about the length of each post, the quality, or the different threads posted in; they just mention the actual number of total posts of a member.

If someone wants to make stupid posts, or reply to themselves, in order to just increase their post count, I don't think it's really a big deal; I just think it's knid of lame, that's all. I mean, there's no prize or whatever for the guy with the most posts, so why post just for the sake of it? And why make an issue of it just because some people like to post more than others?

[Matt4319]

The said:

I don't complain about the fact that Josh has twice as many posts as I do, do I?

Not on the boards, anyway.

[allow that]

Keith3000 said:

I mean, there's no prize or whatever for the guy with the most posts, so why post just for the sake of it? And why make an issue of it just because some people like to post more than others?

I couldn't have said this better myself.

[halo19]

Also agreed with Keith3000.

One thing I like about these boards though is that by going to someone's profile, you can see what they posted.

[j]

The said:

People that complain obviously have a problem with the post count not because of the numbers and that they're worried other people are posting crap to increase their numbers but because they themselves are worried that other people have a cheated advantage of boosting their own numbers. People complain about others because they're afraid they'll never have a shot at passing them so they complain in hopes to bring them down.

I said the exact same thing at R&R. The people who complaining about my post count there the most are the ones who didn't want me to "catch up" with them in terms of post count. I could tell they themselves were very obsessed with the counts because they kept making "post count milestone" topics (and some still do, on other boards like FreakyFlyBry's) and they've also admitted they checked my profile regularly to see how much I've posted. It's very sad.

[allow that]

Caring about post counts are just stupid. I don't even know what my rank is, nor do I care. As Keith said, there's no prize for the "winner" so it's basically what would the point be of being #1? And it's always the same 4 or 5 members bringing up the post counts thing. It's wearing very thin.... it's very irritating to keep reading.

And I'll add that whatever the case at R&R may have been, since these new boards have started I haven't read a single nonsense post at j, so stop accusing him of shit.... because really when you do that, you don't make him look stupid... you just make yourself look stupid.

[pophector]

Jersey said:

since these new boards have started I haven't read a single nonsense post at j, so stop accusing him of s**t.....

I don't agree with this however...

[Rob64]

why was the "name chages" topic closed?

who cares if it went off-topic? people were still discussing there.

[Keith3000]

Rob64's said:

why was the "name chages" topic closed?

who cares if it went off-topic? people were still discussing there.

Mineable and ulij20 and a few other guys were going on with some totally wierd conversation (to these guys--there's such thing as private messaging y'know), but besides that, the topic was still clearly there.

Before a moderator closes a topic, I think he should at least post a reason for doing so. In the case of the "name changes" thread, the discussions mostly did not go off-topic. Mineable could have simply been told to end the off-topic discussion.

[allow that]

Keith3000 said:

Before a moderator closes a topic, I think he should at least post a reason for doing so. In the case of the "name changes" thread, the discussions mostly did not go off-topic.

I can say that personally, I never close a topic without replying with an explanation first.