The atmosphere in Cricket Chat - Suggestions & Discussion

[Flem274*]

Haha.

I think certain forms of the intarwebz are more likely to have personality distortions than others. For me, when on MSN thats the "real" me I guess you could say, where as sometimes on here I look over old posts and think "woah, I actualy said that? What a douche."

Could just be me.

 

[GotSpin]

IMO we should remove avatars. I believe they provide distraction from the quality of posts on offer and establish a false image of members.

This might be unpopular so my other idea is that when you first sign up you can choose an avatar for life. It's way too confusing when people change their avatars, and unless I look at how many posts they've made I tend to believe that they've just joined up to the site and as a result think any posts they make aren't any good.

 

[Agent TBY]

Such good form.

 

[Richard]

I don't know if they transform into another person, but people are a lot nicer in person. Manan paid for my beer and never talked about science.

Some people play themselves a bit differently when posting and when speaking; some don't. There's no hard-and-fast rule. The person is, however, the same person whether they attempt (failing or succeeding) to present a different side of themselves via different mediums.

 

[Richard]

Disagree, a lot of people act differently when posting than they would in real life

Some might act differently - plenty of the CWers I've met have done, and I'd say I made a deliberate effort to myself - but they're still the same person.

 

[GIMH]

Well yeah, but when people say "[x] is a different person online" you're just being far too literal if you actually argue that, no, they are physically the same being!

 

[Richard]

sometimes on here I look over old posts and think "woah, I actualy said that? What a douche."

Have had such moments throughout my CW career, usually with the exception of the "what a douche" part.

 

[Richard]

Well yeah, but when people say "[x] is a different person online" you're just being far too literal if you actually argue that, no, they are physically the same being!

I just object to silly pieces of phaseology like that TBH. I don't consider that "being too literal".

 

[GIMH]

Well it is being too literal, there's no other way to put it.

 

[Zinzan]

I can tell you're pretty crushed so I'm sending you a framed picture of myself.

:

 

[DingDong]

ONLY option is to shut the forum down for 3 months.that is only thing that'll work

 

[morgieb]

Solution - ban members with more than 70,000 posts. Everyone wins.

 

[Richard]

Solution - ban members with more than 70,000 posts. No-one wins.

Fix'd.

 

[JBH001]

I say, take off and nuke CW from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

 

[Streetwise]

Probably a good lesson, too bad if Noobs did want to say something here the thread has been trashed.

 

[GotSpin]

there have been some great suggestions

 

[Zinzan]

Reckon we should have a separate page for all polls.

Have always been a fan of obscure sort-of polls such as D Cork vs. D Nash, but am always mindful that many aren't so keen on seeing them scattered throughout the front page. Would be a win-win IMO.

 

[GotSpin]

More subforums is a bad idea.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

The solution is pretty simple. Ban people when they contribute to the negative atmosphere, and ban people for arguing with moderating decisions.

 

[Furball]

The solution is pretty simple. Ban people when they contribute to the negative atmosphere, and ban people for arguing with moderating decisions.

DWTA.

If I or anyone else think the mods have made a dire decision, we should have the right to call them out on it.

As long as it's done constructively, and not just done for the sake of abuse, then the membership has every right to question why something was done.