It does work, doesn't it?

Who would be a referee eh?!

It works, in a functional sense, it's just not very good.

Just out of interest, how would you like to see it work to your satisfaction?

Yeah, same. Also hate the fact that people were using his cockup in midweek as a stick to beat him with on this one, as if him learning from his mistake and not making it again was somehow a bad thing. I get that we want consistency but we don't want consistently bad calls.


It blocks the initial post but it shows up if quoted and the block ruins the flow of a thread (rather than just not showing the post at all it comes up with an X's post is blocked message). So it's fine for ignoring a troll who comes out every so often but it really doesn't help against someone who posts 24/7. It's easy (in principle) to fix as well, just have it skip the post from the ignored person and remove it from anyone quoting.

Now that I do agree with.

Definitely. When one poster seems to see it as their duty, or even their job, to respond to every single thing, even when people have clearly stated they are now being ignored they still reply to them, then it makes the ignore function impossible to actually use properly.

If someone wishes to post as often or as little as they wish, then what is the problem with that?

If someone wishes to put someone on ignore then the mods should help them out by perhaps blocking out the posts from their respective timeliness.

For the first point, it depends on the quality of the posts. If they add something to a debate then great, post as much as you like. If they don't and are just inane spamming/trolling (or are perceived to be) then there is a problem. I'd also add that if someone is posting more than double the second most frequent poster then it has gone beyond posting often IMO and into posting excessively. Not sure why you're getting so worked up about this given you actually seem to agree about how the ignore function should work.

Joe hart is coming across well in this Italian thing

What a whole three days later

Quality of posts surely differers from one person to the next, so quite hard to judge that on a level that would be required I think.

In terms of post count and being double the next poster etc, well then you should look at why that is, rather than just blaming the person at the top of the pile.

I am not getting worked up, I think that this is a debate or discussion well worth having, as it is important to get it right, or as near as possible, so that as many people as possible can be happy with the end result.

Long way to travel on the day of a match so this gives them a full day of training in between the days that they travel.


I wasn't saying there would be a way to 'judge' but the suggestion is that people could make up there mind. And if someone has double the number of posts of the next poster then the top person then the reason is the top poster is posting too often. And since everyone who's posted so far is in agreement, I have no idea what you are getting at with the last bit.

We need an Ignorant function rather than an Ignore function. Trouble is, posting constant banal, inane, insipid drivel is not an offence but it's still poison ivy strangling the life out of the forum.

An upgraded forum is no good if it's deserted.

The question in regards to a poster being double ahead of second place for example I think needs to be asked, how do you sort that situation out?
Do you say that the top person cannot post until the person in second place is within "x" amount of posts?
As I think blaming the poor chap on top for other people not posting is a tad bit unfair in that sort of situation.
It obviously is not ideal, but what can be done in a practical sense, to achieve parity, or some level of closeness in the post counts?

We do need more posters who are posting here, I agree with you on that point, as it would be no fun at all, to just have a forum with one or two people only posting.

How does a moderator go about setting the rules for what is considered "banal", "inane" etc?

Nice name for it.


I'd say the top poster should be told to post a bit less and if they ignore then they should be treated like any other rule-breaker. It's not unfair to blame them at all, they are the ones who are choosing to post that much.

Some forums have a setup where posts are automatically hidden if they're downvoted so much that they reach a particular negative score.

Apparently that's what will be happening on here once the upgrade is complete.

Fair enough, but who decides how much is "a bit less"?

If for example a poster has been told to post less often, but then his club side sign a player that is newsworthy, or something newsworthy happens to his club, it does seem a tad harsh that he would not be able to comment on it until other posters have done so enough times that the gap is not as big as any rules on this might pertain.

Do the mods say, "right, you cannot post in thread x until poster v has posted fifty more times"?
Or "right you can only post once more this week, use that post wisely."

Should people have limits, like say only 10 posts a day, or 20? Is that a good way to do things?

It is an interesting debate, as no-one I would suggest (myself included), likes it when one person is way out in front, it is just how you go about managing the situation in practical terms.

Is it, then that would actually mean that there might be more active posters, as to downgrade a post, surely you must be logged in to do just that.

If this leads to more people participating on the forums, then that will be good news.

Also I wonder what sort of threshold there will be, so if a post gets ten dislikes, then it gets hidden, or will it be twenty?
You don't want it too low, otherwise quite a lot of posts could get the silent treatment, but you would surely need to find a decent balance, (and only one vote per user I would suggest, to stop people voting multiple times) so as to not have it tip too far one way or the other.

Problem with that is it can be ruined by idiots who'll downvote to disagree rather than because they think a post adds nothing while posts that add nothing and are just "hahaha Loserpool lol" get upvoted enough to escape a block. I'd rather read a controversial but interesting post than one that is just crap.


Simplest method would be to take note of the % of total posts made by this one user and then check the % over the next couple of weeks. If something major happens then you'd expect a lot of people to post so it would come down if this person posted a normal amount. If nothing major happened then the % should still come down from that person self-moderating and not posting every single thought they have no matter how much it adds to discussion. Obviously would be more work for the moderators.

You forgot obnoxious as well

That method does sound like a good one, but as you say it would require a lot of work from the moderators, and I just question if they have the man or woman power to do that, hopefully they do.

No offence but you seem to be overthinking this issue.

The general point people seem to be making (albeit not me, I'm staying out of this) is that your high post count shows that you feel the need to post every single thought you have and reply to everyone who posts in this thread.

If, when you have a thought, you gave more consideration to whether it was really worth you posting it or not and cut down the number of posts you made accordingly, then maybe your presence on this or other threads wouldn't be so dominating to the point that it grates with a number of people?

As the saying goes, familiarity breeds contempt.


Perhaps the thing to combat that would be if people were only given permission to upvote and downvote posts sparingly.