WMK, with regards to the ignoring anon's

WessB

I really think the point of being able to "ignore" was misunderstood...I am on other forums where I can "ignore" any individual user I decide..the "blanket" ignore all unregistered posters is not what I believe most useres wanted...there are still many anon's that are genuine...and I don't want to ignore ALL at the cost of the sincere....FWIW..

WessB

If the rule is "register to post" I think it simplifies all of the issues you are trying to deal with...at least most of them...and in todays society registering is in no way uncommon.....make people register with an accountable e mail...if they cause trouble you can track them down..hotmail is not accountable..

WMK

WessB,

The rule was never supposed to be "register to post", but since we've had so many complaints lately about "guest posts", and, since some think they should be allowed, and others do not, the "ignore guest post" feature allows those that think they shouldn't be allowed to filter them while those they disagree need not check box.

Ignoring specific members will also be provided, but it's not quite as quick to implement.

Ignoring guests more specifically could also be provided instead of the broad "ignore all guest", but this is not the same a "register to post". Requiring registration to post eliminates all guest post just as "ignore guest posts" makes it appear. In essence, each of us now has our own head sized bucket of sand with respect to guest posts.

This solution also allows me to continue to use "forum feedback" as a support system such as it is -- not an ideal solution to be sure, but its been working for many years nonetheless.

WessB

I understand, keep up the good work. It would be interesting to see what results a poll on "register to post" would bring these days. But I also understand the perspective from all on your end. Thanks

WMK

WessB,

I forgot to mention that ignoring specific guests is problematical since they can post as anything they wish.

P.S.

I know Teeve-tip got off on the wrong foot around here and ruffled some feathers; but if he genuinely wishes to take a step back and politely offer assistance, then I'm all for it. (rhetorical) Why aren't you?

WessB

I typically only comment on his posts if his advice is wrong, last night was more of a poke at him because many were commenting about how quite the forum has been, I had no intentions of letting that turn into anything explosive. If he is giving valid advice I have no problem with it. He does tend to stand up and fight over issues he has no personal knowledge of however. New egg owners can be very easily influenced by forum members and they have no idea wether what they are being told is true or not, or even if the person saying it knows what they are talking about, I merely feel obligated to correct his inaccuracies for the benefit of the new egger and not as a personal attack on him.

WMK

WessB,

As long as everybody contributes politely, taking no "delight" in "correct(ing) inaccuracies", then all is well. In short, as the late Patrick Swayze said in the movie Roadhouse, "be nice".

Unknown

Quoting roadhouse? That's hilarious.

How about:

Dalton: Nobody ever wins a fight.

Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker

it's a losing battle trying to satisfy everyone... but if the anonymous posts allow you to still communicate with folk having registration issues via the feedback forum, you could always restrict anonymous posting to that forum alone, no?

in my experience, it isn't anonymous posting that is causing the trouble, it's that flame wars and offending posts linger for a day or two before being taken down. timely deletion of offending posts would kill the opportunity for audience which is what trolls want.

we understand that you aren't here to monitor 24/7, but that's what enables the flare-ups. designated ACTIVE moderators (not censors) could very easily follow a set of strict rules you (and BGE?) come up with.

no one wants a moderator that takes down a cooker-comparison post or an OT post that is otherwise harmless. but if you deputized three or four active members (sane ones, not me or wess :laugh: ), and told them "look, don't take any post down unless it meets these criteria...." it would go a long way to stop the foolishness. remove the post quickly, and the trolling becomes wasted effort.

i just think that the best solution is timely deletion of offending posts.

there are logical simple work-arounds for the arguments that "we don't have the money", or "moderators' powers would go to their heads"