OG proposal #1 (June 09) - Cull worthless members?

[Anti-Flag]

I haven't decided yet whether he's being serious or just provocative, but I'm leaning towards the latter.

I'll credit him with the intelligence to be using it to make a point like the last thread, to keep the whingers quiet. The problem is some of them do have a slight point sometimes.

 

[Enmos]

I'll credit him with the intelligence to be using it to make a point like the last thread, to keep the whingers quiet. The problem is some of them do have a slight point sometimes.

Well, maybe he's talking about members that rarely contribute something useful. Like some of the woowoo's..

 

[Sciencelovah]

Can you honestly name a poster here who has never made a worthless post(in someone's opinion)? Hell even using one persons opinions there wouldn't be anyone left.

Anti-flag, do you honestly cannot differ between "people occasionally making worthless post" with "worthless members" i.e. being notorious for continuously posting gibberish, obscene/illegal/repugnant thoughts, etc? Do you find comfort in such status quo system? Meh, I would rather admins enforcing higher quality posts, even if that means I will not be able to post anymore (until I have capacity to adjust).

 

[Anti-Flag]

Well, maybe he's talking about members that rarely contribute something useful. Like some of the woowoo's..

And us comedians.

The woowoo's mostly qualify as trolling though and are banned as such, the few that are genuinely misguided and promote discussion shouldn't be banned, but it's hard to tell which is which.
We're a forum, we have all sorts of poeple and we rightly should, unless they're harmful or desperately trolling we can live with them.

 

[Enmos]

Anti-flag, do you honestly cannot differ between "people occasionally making worthless post" with "worthless members" i.e. being notorious for continuously posting gibberish, obscene/illegal/repugnant thoughts, etc? Do you find comfort in such status quo? Meh, I would rather admins enforcing higher quality posts, even if that means I will not be able to post anymore (until I have capacity to adjust).

Inzomnia, you used to be so sweet.. what happened ? lol

 

[Enmos]

And us comedians.

Shit, you think so ?

The woowoo's mostly qualify as trolling though and are banned as such, the few that are genuinely misguided and promote discussion shouldn't be banned, but it's hard to tell which is which.
We're a forum, we have all sorts of poeple and we rightly should, unless they're harmful or desperately trolling we can live with them.

I guess you're right.. although there are some 'useless members' that seem to get a lot of leeway.

 

[Anti-Flag]

Anti-flag, do you honestly cannot differ between "people occasionally making worthless post" with "worthless members" i.e. being notorious for continuously posting gibberish, obscene/illegal/repugnant thoughts, etc? Do you find comfort in such status quo system? Meh, I would rather admins enforcing higher quality posts, even if that means I will not be able to post anymore (until I have capacity to adjust).

What ratio of posts being worthless constitutes a worthless poster? What's the definition of worthless in this context? Who decides this definition? What if people disagree? Is worth defined by arguing coherently and impressively, even if they're wrong? Will they just come back as sockpuppets anyway? Do we have worthless subforums here too to consider?

I agree that we can't tolerate racists, bigots, anything illegal etc. Where do we draw the line with "worth" though? As I say, I suspect most of us would no longer be here.
Hasn't anyone seen the original Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy series?

 

[Anti-Flag]

Shit, you think so ?

It's a conspiricy. The FBI were put in place to round up jokers and place them in camps, that's why the FBI have no sense of humour.

I guess you're right.. although there are some 'useless members' that seem to get a lot of leeway.

Of course, in our opinion.

 

[Sciencelovah]

Inzomnia, you used to be so sweet.. what happened ? lol

I am tired Enmos, this place is getting depressing and boring, same ole same ole. Threads and posts are created like diarrhea. I miss people like Kadark, Roman, Greenberg, Simon something, Read-Only, etc. I love reading posts that are created with full of thought, I got a lot to learn. Ideal sciforums posters should be able to post like them, and also like Dr. Lou (thanks God, he is around), Fraggle Rocker, James R, Bells, SAM, Tiassa, Alpha Numeric, DH, etc. Those are models for intelligent community. I would like to be dragged into their quality, not dragged into or dragging others into chit chat or cesspool quality

 

[Enmos]

I am tired Enmos, this place is getting depressing and boring, same ole same ole. Threads and posts are created like diarrhea. I miss people like Kadark, Roman, Greenberg, Simon something, Read-Only, etc. I love reading posts that are created with full of thought, I got a lot to learn. Ideal sciforums posters should be able to post like them, and also like Dr. Lou (thanks God, he is around), Fraggle Rocker, James R, Bells, SAM, Tiassa, Alpha Numeric, DH, etc. Those are models for intelligent community. I would like to be dragged into their quality, not dragged into or dragging others into chit chat or cesspool quality

So you want people like you out, so you can enjoy the community more ?

 

[Sciencelovah]

What ratio of posts being worthless constitutes a worthless poster? What's the definition of worthless in this context? Who decides this definition? What if people disagree? Is worth defined by arguing coherently and impressively, even if they're wrong? Will they just come back as sockpuppets anyway? Do we have worthless subforums here too to consider?

I agree that we can't tolerate racists, bigots, anything illegal etc. Where do we draw the line with "worth" though? As I say, I suspect most of us would no longer be here.
Hasn't anyone seen the original Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy series?

This whole thing is subjective, that's why James said, at least five different posters should nominate them before they can be put in poll. If it is subjective but majority agree, the criteria isn't important anymore. However, to avoid personal vendeta, James has already added that you should be able to explain your reasoning on nominating some names. I see it as a great chance to improve the overall quality of the forum.

I think I am going to be off for some days from sci, hopefully when I return, there will be some fresh air here

 

[Sciencelovah]

So you want people like you out, so you can enjoy the community more ?

If that is your perception about me, then the answer is yes!

 

[Gustav]

bah
go back to school
come back when you are ready to contribute something of intellect

 

[Enmos]

If that is your perception about me, then the answer is yes!

Huh ? No, that's wasn't meant to be mean. It's what I gathered from your post..

 

[Anti-Flag]

This whole thing is subjective, that's why James said, at least five different posters should nominate them before they can be put in poll. If it is subjective but majority agree, the criteria isn't important anymore. However, to avoid personal vendeta, James has already added that you should be able to explain your reasoning on nominating some names. I see it as a great chance to improve the overall quality of the forum.

Of course it's important, you don't feel that this essentially becomes one big popularity contest? The first people out will be the most disliked.:shrug:

 

[Sciencelovah]

Huh ? No, that's wasn't meant to be mean. It's what I gathered from your post..

I know enough to know what I don't know.

 

[Enmos]

I know enough to know what I don't know.

Yea, but at the same time you want other people that 'know enough to know what they don't know' out.

 

[Sciencelovah]

Of course it's important, you don't feel that this essentially becomes one big popularity contest? The first people out will be the most disliked.:shrug:

Please read the OP again:

I would like to gauge the opinions of the general membership as to whether sciforums currently has any members that do not contribute anything useful, and who should therefore be banned from the forum.

In this thread, you are free to speak your mind about other members, so please feel free to list any you think do not belong here.

Provisos:

1. You MUST give reasons why you believe the named member(s) should be banned.
2. This is NOT a thread for free insulting of other members who you don't like. No name-calling. No calls for bans not backed by any argument. No personal sniping. Or I will close the thread and assume that members are not mature enough to discuss the issue.

This cull of members, if it goes ahead, will be a once-off event, for now. The current thread is essentially for nominations of who should go. We will have a formal VOTE in a separate thread for any member who gets five or more nominations by different posters here.

This process is a suggested one, also open for discussion in the current thread.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

This whole thing is subjective, that's why James said, at least five different posters should nominate them before they can be put in poll. If it is subjective but majority agree, the criteria isn't important anymore. However, to avoid personal vendeta, James has already added that you should be able to explain your reasoning on nominating some names. I see it as a great chance to improve the overall quality of the forum.

I think I am going to be off for some days from sci, hopefully when I return, there will be some fresh air here

And after certain people are banned what will happen when new member noobs join? You see banning a woowoo doesn't prevent new noobie woowoo's from joining.

 

[Sciencelovah]

Yea, but at the same time you want other people that 'know enough to know what they don't know' out.

Then you must have misunderstand my post, because in numerous chances in this thread I have already stated, I am against permanent ban, because I believe that each individual should be given chance to improve their quality. If you don't like the idea, though, fine, Enmos. I am giving my opinion as the respond to the OP.