Agreed, I mean sometimes things digress slightly in discussion, but to me that's the nature of a forum?
Agree with this. That would make a lot more sense than stopping rumours (who's to decide whether they are far fetched? I'll just say Kevin Keegan) in a rumour thread. Everyone should be able to contribute even if it's just something they heard somewhere. It starts debate and that surely is what a forum is for. We just need to keep on topic.
As long as a post isn't racist, sexist, inciting hatred, abusive or too personal about another forum user, then I think anything should go, but thats just my opinion.
That's fine, as long as it bears some resemblance to the topic of the thread. Otherwise threads get completely bogged down in side-issues and irrelevance.
I'm interested to know who you think would benefit from a tighter controlled thread and how you expect to police it and ultimately what the main goal is? 344 pages is a lot, but the thread must have ran for 4/5 months and the website is smart enough to take you to your last viewed post, so you don't have to remember which page you were on. I know I had a mini moan about the puns, but it's not much of a hardship to skim through posts if you're in a hurry and some puns even raise a smile. My main point is, i'm sure the mods have better things to do than constantly post warnings on the thread or send out PMs and if you're over-zealous with the policing then that makes people think twice about posting and that's not good for a forum. If you're concerned about more casual visitors to the site missing rumours amongst the side debates these rumours generate then perhaps a sticky/locked thread to list all rumours and their source can be created so ppl have a go to place. The request for linked sources to rumours has got me wondering if the mods have arranged some pay per click deal with fleet street - tell me the mods haven't sold out!
Firstly, everyone benefits because the thread isn't full of rubbish and off-topic digressions. We had a lot of complaints from a lot of users last summer, and this move is partly in response to those complaints. And no, I'm not going to list them or say who made them. As I said before, we want people to post "genuine" rumours which have some kind of source, and we want people to discuss those rumours. Seems simple enough to me. On the list idea, I believe that last year we put a list of all the rumours and their outcome at the beginning of the thread to make it easier to find. The mods will take responsibility for updating that list. And finally, I wish! If that were true, us lowly forum mods wouldn't see much of the proceeds!
Well if a thread isn't allowed to be full of rubbish then Maltese Mick Must be planning a new advertising campaign to attract some new members
Surely all rumours are genuine rumours. They are defined as 'an unofficial interesting story or piece of news that might be true or invented, and quickly spreads from person to person' (taken from Cambridge dictionaries online).
If you read my earlier post I did worry that the phrase was an oxymoron. Or maybe I mean a tautology? What I meant was, if it is completely made up, it shouldn't be made up by whoever posts it.
Indeed. Have we just gone around in a big circle? We seem to be back at quoting from the press again and not just any rumours people hear (and don't make up themselves).
Maybe we should just call the thread "The Summer Complete Bollocks Thread" which you seem to want it to be?
Please read my earlier post (#1098) on page 55. We're still talking about it and the thread isn't being posted until the end of April. Please, no more on this from me tonight!
