Liverpool FC Forum

Leonmc0708 wrote:There seems to be quite a lot of unrest around the site regarding the POST's and POSTER's at the moment. Complaints of everything from posting in haste or anger to being a happy clapper.

Personally I think they do well, but that doesn't mean they are perfect, just that imo they are doing the best they can in very difficult circumstances.

I think if we are to improve on the present situation, some form of accountability is required. Maybe a review or appeals committee that looks into the more controversial POST's and POSTER's.

As with football referees or even policemen, there need to be some element of independance to any such committee. Maybe it could be headed by Supersub, with JBG and Bigmick (both former successful POSTER's and probably as well respected as any on the site) making up the team. Perhaps even an additional member who could be appointed on a monthly basis, to give everyone a chance and bring a feeling of collective responsibility.

This could lead to numerous frivolous POST's etc, so I think it should really be restricted to POST's and multiple POST's, and not for deleted POST's and single POST's etc etc.

The second problem is it may put POSTER's off doing their job properly if they feel their actions are going to be constantly questioned. They may decide its easier to ignore someone rather than take the appropriate action of POSTING a reply intelligently to someone who deserves it.

I feel this could be addressed by restricting all inital POST's to a couple of seconds until reviewed or ok'd by at least one of your brain cells, and only then a time limit added to the POST. (If the POST was harsh 2 seconds thought wont kill anyone)

A slightly more controversial idea might be to restrict the POSTING process to established members only. Newbies, people with less than 6 months POSTING and with say less than 200 POST's being probationary and not covered by the POSTING process?

People with 8490 or more posts and who's user name has a 0708 in it should obviously be exempt from any bans.   

This is not intended as a POSTER knocking opportunity, but as a genuine attempt to improve the site. Hopefully while my ideas are no doubt unworkable and implausable if explored fully, others may have better and easier solutions.

If nothing else, some form of POSTING proccess should be inplace in my view. The current method of voicing disapproval by ruining a thread has obvious disadvantages, as the point often gets lost in a sea of personal responses.

         

s@int wrote:Dear Mr. and Mrs.Maypax, I was maypax's mate. I knew your son vaguely, which is to say I knew his name. In a matter of time, the trial of the man charged with your son's banning will be concluded, and seven men whom you've never met will try to offer you an explanation as to why Maypax was banned. For my part, I've done as much as I can to bring the truth to light. And the truth is this: Your son was banned for only one reason. I wasn't strong enough to stop it. Always, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Andrew Markinson (s@int for short), United States Marine Corps.

Effes wrote:You can't handle the truth!

andy_g wrote:did you have a dodgy pork pie, leon?

he's probably had about 12 (we need a bloater smilie)