I'd like to know, with our current system as-is, is it possible for the suggestions (and main boards) only, that each topic is sent to a possible queue, which it then either allows the members to click for it to be posted, or an admin, and thus if it's a duplicate thread, we or the admin have the choice in it's posting or not.

Every other thread can stay the same, but it's needed more so on these 3 main boards. Main, Suggestions, and News. It would also add a bit more professional atmosphere to it, and more "member control" if we do the former "let the members accept it" system.

The main issue is that I'm not sure if the current system we have in place, can accomplish this suggestion.

Member control? I see what your getting at and on any other bbs/forum/chatroom/whatever it would probably work. Except on dollarsbbs no one knows who the moderators are, their probably not online all the time (So stuff could potentially sit in the queue for days), and there isn't really such a thing as 'members'. The moment a new person posts something they are a 'member' because the dollars bbs doesn't have accounts. That's almost the whole point of the dollars bbs, its unique.
That doesn't mean its not a good idea I just don't think its feasible.

>>2 True, anyone could vote on it, including new people.

However, we should make this process sufficiently complicated so that you'd have to have experience as a member. That is how we'd separate new people and not make them vote on something that requires experience to do.

Not sure how I feel about this quite yet. I think my previous suggestion would be significantly less complicated/obtrusive than this, and it got shot down.

>>2 is right. It would work somewhere else but I dont think it can work here..we have new members posting a lot of random shit around the site and theres only about 4-5 people correcting them..So if we do the "members in control " thing, we could have more newbs voting yes without knowing how to check if its a duplicate or if its even thread worthy..thus potentially out voting the members who have been here for atleast a week or so. I hope that clearly States my point. its extremely hard to explain

>>3
damn it! Ninja Inuhakka. lol didnt see your post. We have similar points.

>>2
We do have members. What we don't have is accounts, and profiles. You don't have to have those to be a member.

Also it won't be too obtrusive. I mean Main is for important topics by the members, and so is Suggestions, and News is meant to be important. It's only logical that if possible, to do this.

It'd allow the 3 boards to stay clean a bit more often. But we probably should limit it. Probably a voting queue where it needs a percentage of votes before it is accepted in.

>>7
you have to take into consideration the amount of newbs who will be voting yes to anything that sounds interesting and the other members who'll vote in anything as long as they to mess with people. And if its a certain amount of votes then how much? because if its too much then theyll be waiting for quite some time..and what do we do with the threads that are waiting approval? is there a time limit? People can mess with any system..you have to be ready for everything ..

I like the idea that youre trying to help with the useless/duplicate threads..trust me id love nothing more than to have it stop..not only would that problem be solved but the "raging" would stop as well..But we have to take into consideration who gets to vote..

>>8 I would think there'd be a time limit, maybe one day, then the percentage of votes during that period would decide what gets chosen. Mod and Admin votes would be final and null every other vote.

Is that right?

>>10
we dont know anything about the mods or when theyre on..and I doubt we can bother our admin every time we have to vote in a new thread.
With every change theres challenges that come with it but you could bring this to the admin's attention by emailing him directly. Just to try and atleast do something about the duplicate/useless thread in the main boards. Its a start.

when I said you could bring this to the admin's attention I meant the OP XD

>>11
Pretty sure you're still new, not super new, but new. Admin are fairly active. I'm pretty sure there is normally one on everyday.

ugh gotta rewrite it.
>>13
Ive been here for 3+ years. Our admin is active, yes. Mods are active, yes. When? no one knows.

plus I never implied that our mods/Admin are INACTIVE or that theyre RARELY active. I just stated that no one knows when exactly theyre on.
" we dont know anything about the mods or when theyre on..and I doubt we can bother our admin every time we have to vote in a new thread. "

We don't need to know their schedule. We just need to know how active they are.

Which we already know.

Okay since you have everything figured out why havent you emailed the admin about it? We could use some type of system.

>>11 I said their votes would be final, but they don't have to vote on any thread. If they did, that would be it, their vote would be counted as 100% and their decision would be final.

Also, the mods have to be active enough to get rid of the crappy threads that are made anyway, so there wouldn't be more work to do.

>>20
That makes sense. He should email the admin..or someone has to cuz its way better than having to deal with the misplaced or not thread worthy.

So, we're basically discussing a sort of Urban Dictionary type system where threads have to get enough positive votes before they can be made, except it'll be manually done by mods in this case?

I don't agree. The only board I agree with locking off is Countries. Everything else still has a reasonable application for new threads by other members. They're not always great threads (meaning they're usually absolute shit) but enough of the good threads have come out of it that I don't see the need.

It's annoying, but bumping bad threads off isn't so hard that I feel we need to change the functionality of the site for these ones with it. Not to mention that I doubt a Mod wants to be responsible for making new threads for all three of those boards. Countries was one thing; a remake would only be once every few weeks, if that much. We can't rely on the mods that much.

>>22
We didn't say just mods. Mods have the ability to push it through with one vote. Members need more votes.

>>22 Yet, I feel this is a problem that is more than simple annoyance. The percentage of good threads made on Main versus bad threads is not close to an acceptable level. The last time a legitimate thread was made on Main was almost a month ago, on the 11th. Before that, almost another month. I really don't see good, new threads being made on Main more than twice a month.

They have to take the time to permasage every bad thread anyway, so it would not be more time spent if they had to click Yes or No to the thread.

Again, what >>23 said. A mod vote is final, but otherwise it is based on a percentage of member votes. The mods could, in theory never vote, and the system would work.

How many votes to be exact? 5?10?20? How many new members would vote "yes" to anything they see fit for Main? Theres a time limit to how long the thread can wait to be voted in right? I love the idea of locking down Countries and Main..as >>24 said, A good thread comes along every month if we're lucky..

>>25
There needs to be something where you have to use this site for over a month before you can vote.

>>26 There's no way to track that. However, we could make it complicated enough a process that you would have to read the FAQ and have some experience with the site before you'd know how to do it. Like, a URL with no links to it or something. Not necessarily that, but something along those lines.

Alright, so let's say it's saving the mods time. I'll play with this idea, but there is a lot more to take into consideration.

What are we going to do if:

1) This system is exploited by spammers and either ends with no threads able to be made or too many threads made on those boards?

We're discussing changing the entire posting system for several boards. This isn't something that can just be switched out once it's put in place should an exploit be publicly found. Keep the mechanics of the site into consideration when planning this out.

2) Noobs find their way there and upvote each other's posts anyway or angsty members downvote the threads of anyone they don't like?

Keeping a voting system fair with this kind of anonymous memberbase is going to be very tricky. It is extremely easy to manipulate if there is any option where the mods don't have to vote.

3) A thread that is legitimately good gets rejected, either by noobs or a mod who misunderstood its intention, etc?

When a thread is permasaged that probably shouldn't be, you can currently comment on it and get the sage lifted (if it's worthy; it's ignored otherwise). This new system will take that option of communication out if the mods can put in their vote before the community has given their opinion. Maybe have some kind of temporary comment system (the comments won't stay afterwards if the thread is accepted and re-posted)?

>>26
the only way to track exactly how long youve been a member is to have a profile..I (sort of) wish we could have simple profiles so we could message people directly. Like, no info needed just your user name and password ... but as I said..I SORT OF wish we did. Not really :/ but it'd make contact easier.

>>29
Nah, you can track their IP and once it's been active for a little bit, then it can be programmed so it allows you voting. Plus there's more than one way to track someone on the internet. Hell, you can track people via HDID which doesn't change every time you leave and come back onto the net like some people's IP's do.

>>30
Okay so we track people by their IP and after a while they get the option to vote.
new thread can only be voted in with a certain amount of votes
1 day time limit
Admin/mod votes are worth more.
What about >>28 she stated a good point in 2)

Ps. Super against this idea because reasons too lazy to type out

>>32
Im sort of against it as well, I just like the idea that someones trying to do something about the Useless/misplaced/ and duplicate threads. especially on Main. The Main Board is filled with shit threads right now.

Wait, so what's the point of this? They're still making the thread, people still have to read it, the only difference is that it will disappear slightly quicker once a few people (or some unfortunate admin/mod) has voted on it.

All your saving these boards from is some aesthetic clutter. Not to mentioned it will probably encourage those that do make shitty threads because those that might of had a hope will look on the archives and go 'Oh boy! Nobody has made a thread with this idea yet!'. Nor will any noobs see examples of permasaged threads about to be bumped off and think 'Better not do that then'.

And then we'd have to make a whole new set of rules simply for describing the ins and outs of this out of place and weirdly complicated addition to a BBS site.

Just do not like.

>>34
No the point is, it'll show possibly thread title and probably the first sentence, and then you decide from there. You're trying to purposefully over think it. The idea is it'll show up elsewhere, via thread queue, and then if voted in, it'll appear directly on the board. No posts can be posted in it, and it can only be read.

Sure people would still be able to read it, but it saves us a lot of work from having to actually bump the board clean.

>>34 All this, again. I still really don't like the idea.

Plus then it has all of the topics on one spot not being able to be fully read, and then can be cleared if not voted on in a week.