The atmosphere in Cricket Chat - Suggestions & Discussion

[biased indian]

37 people on ignore? Wow, thats a fair few.

Am I one?

if he does not respond you can make sure you are in the list
may be he will see this and respond now

 

[SJS]

dwta

37 people on ignore? Wow, thats a fair few.

Am I one?

if he does not respond you can make sure you are in the list
may be he will see this and respond now

There is none as of now and thats all that matters.

 

[SJS]

By the way, its not difficult to see who is ignoring you (whether on a formal list or not).

I have scrupulously refrained from responding directly to any posts by those on my ignore list (its easy when you cant see what they write) though at times when these posts have been commented upon by others I have, on few occasions, made a comment. Also when I have started a thread asking for people's opinion I have always opened the 'ignored' posts and responded.



PS : Its quite possible the loss has been purely mine but I also think I have been in a happier frame of mind over all

 

[honestbharani]

I think SJS' idea of making it visible both at OT and CC is better.

 

[Richard]

Would just like to say that the below examples:

Please lets not take this thread off track as well with the Tendulkar/Chappell argument fella's. It has no relevance to the topic at hand, and I'm fairly certain it was the sort of discussion G.I Joe had hoped for when creating the thread...

social, please refrain from attempting to sidetrack the discussion so early in the piece. Whilst loosely related to the thread, it doesn't concern the central topic and is going to steer the conversation away from the thread title in only the third post of the thread.

are about everything I'd say could be asked in terms of the "trying to nip unwanted posting in the bud". I've said that I'm very against the idea of all-threads-must-remain-title-topic-related and I will always remain so, but this sort of nudging is exactly the sort of thing that could reduce the sort of posting that most seem to object to - tired subjects and loooooong boring repeated arguments.

Hope this can be maintained, as it's not a straightforward task to moderate that sort of thing.

 

[Richard]

I think SJS' idea of making it visible both at OT and CC is better.

I'll be surprised if that's possible, but if it is, it'd be much the best idea IMO.

 

[vic_orthdox]

We could leave a permanent re-direct in one of those forums. Not sure if these were desirable.

 

[GIMH]

We could leave a permanent re-direct in one of those forums. Not sure if these were desirable.

Yeah seems like a good idea - like we did for the Ashes subforum, right?

 

[SJS]

We could leave a permanent re-direct in one of those forums. Not sure if these were desirable.

Yes. Why not ?

 

[Richard]

Fine idea, IMO. I'd vote for move it into CC and leave the perma-redirect in OT myself.

But that's really only on the basis of the fact that I post in CC lots and (presently) hardly ever in OT. If people want it to stay where it's always been that's fair enough.

And BTW, there are actually two introduce yourself threads in OT, which personally I've always thought should be merged. One is closed, but I'm sure it'd be very easy to find. The further back it dates, the better, IMO.

 

[GIMH]

Well I think CC would be the better place to have the welcome thread for the reasons I outlined above, with the linky thread appearing in OT

 

[G.I.Joe]

Would just like to say that the below examples:


are about everything I'd say could be asked in terms of the "trying to nip unwanted posting in the bud". I've said that I'm very against the idea of all-threads-must-remain-title-topic-related and I will always remain so, but this sort of nudging is exactly the sort of thing that could reduce the sort of posting that most seem to object to - tired subjects and loooooong boring repeated arguments.

Hope this can be maintained, as it's not a straightforward task to moderate that sort of thing.

I still don't get why Clapo basically flat out insinuated that I'd hoped for a derailment in that thread, in that first post you quote.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I still don't get why Clapo basically flat out insinuated that I'd hoped for a derailment in that thread, in that first post you quote.

I'd assume that he meant to say "was not" the sort of discussion.

 

[Johnners]

haha, woops, typo....

 

[Matt79]

Can you 'flat out insinuate'? :hmmmm:

 

[G.I.Joe]

Not the time now, grampa

Good thing too the clarification comes while I'm still just on page 1 of my 5 page "**** you all, I'm out of here" letter, which I intended to entrust to the care of GIMH

 

[Matt79]

Bloody hell - I'm only 31!

 

[Richard]

Two PH34Rs in one post - bannable offence, IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

hey... you are not the mod.. And btw, Joe, why the hell do you want to start a thread if you are "hoping" it would derail...


That is the real bannable offence, tbh..

 

[GotSpin]

Fairly honorable IMO