Unnecessary multiplication of draft/trade threads

Suggestions, praise, feedback. Need to communicate with the moderators? This is the place. If you need to communicate privately with the moderators, send email to lesbastardssinistres(at)magpies.net

Moderator: bbmods

Post Reply
User avatar
Pies4shaw
Posts: 34873
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:14 pm
Has liked: 130 times
Been liked: 181 times

Unnecessary multiplication of draft/trade threads

Post by Pies4shaw »

This year, the multiplicity of threads about more or less the same topic in the DTM forum has made it more than usually difficult to try to keep up with the rumours, offers and agreements reached in relation to players potentially coming to, or leaving, Collingwood.

For example, there are at least 6 live threads in the DTM forum at the moment, all of which deal, in substance, with whether Chris Dawes is going to be traded or not and, if so, for what deal. There are further threads about whether Dawes should be traded or not.

It would, I think, be helpful if Nick's could adopt a policy in relation to such threads with a view to limiting their number. I wonder whether a "1 thread per player" policy in the DTM forum might be useful - something like that seemed to work reasonably well in the general discussion forum at the height of the Cloke Wars. And I recall reading a fairly consolidated thread about Chris Tarrant when he went to Freo (and another when he came back).

Under such a policy, there would be no need (and no place) for a new thread to deal with every rumour about a different potential trade for a player. So, whether it is for pick 4, or pick 11, or for picks 21 and 47, or as part of a "supertrade" involving 17 other players, if it involves Chris Dawes, it could be conveniently posted in a "Chris Dawes" thread, rather than a thread about a very specific possible or proposed trade.

I understand that wouldn't be perfect. For example, with the once-mooted joint trade of Wellingham and Dawes to Melbourne, it might lead to some discussion of the topic in a Dawes thread and some in a Wellingham thread - but it seems to me to have the potential to give some useful and simple guidance to posters about when a new thread should be created (ie, is there already a thread about that player or not?). And it has the potential to reduce the need to trawl through multiple threads all about the same topic to see who has posted what slight nuance about the topic in which of the multiple parallel threads running about the particular player. A naming convention for such threads would also be useful: for example, if a thread is entitled "Josh Caddy", it's clear enough what its content will be, whereas if it has some sort of oblique title, it's hard to know whether to read it or not and to remember what the thread was about when you come back to the Board later.

There may be better ways of achieving some sort of economy than the one I've suggested. Perhaps others have suggestions?
User avatar
Nick - Pie Man
Posts: 7194
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:53 pm
Been liked: 1 time

Post by Nick - Pie Man »

I disagree. It might just be a temporary thing. Let it roll and in a week it will sort itself out. Absolutely no reason to react and create another rule that will ultimately be used against us.
User avatar
Pies4shaw
Posts: 34873
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:14 pm
Has liked: 130 times
Been liked: 181 times

Post by Pies4shaw »

So, NPM, what's your view on the especially inane and content-free ones being "stickied"?
User avatar
Nick - Pie Man
Posts: 7194
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:53 pm
Been liked: 1 time

Post by Nick - Pie Man »

Abuse of power of some sort, undoubtably.

Which topics are you referring to?
Post Reply