Post counts

My points are treated as less valid than someone with a high post count even though their posts are 5% city related and 95% are "what are you having for tea" or soft porn. Whatever.
 
You've accused a member of belittling you for your post count when they pointed out that people might give your words a little more credence if you weren't so confrontational, I think you need to go back and read those posts again.

really?

If i was pointing out to someone that people would give what they wrote a little credence it would go along the lines of..

"Your post seems a little confrontattional have you ever thought that if you toned it down a little then people may just see what you have written rather than how you have written it"

compare that to what was actually written and you will see there is a world of difference and at no point in my example have I said you wrote crap or mentioned a post count. Bizzare.

I certainly wasnt confrontational I merely wrote how it looks, and without resorting to calling someones opinion crap, which is confrontational, but as im all grown up I wont lose any sleep over it.
 
I haven't read through the whole thread but in my view a guy who registered today and makes just one post could potentially have a more positive impact on the community than say myself who has a shitload of posts and I'm always doing something bad :D

Hopefully this may encourage people to post to contribute to discussion rather than "for the sake of it/to increase post count"
 
I'd imagine the ones who are in support of no post counts are the posters who live in off topic or even the mains where you don't have to put up with these wumming twats. Having no post count only works when you don't have as many posters posting. Me personally, I couldn't give two fucks if my post count shows or not, but as some have already said, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to spot the nobs on the wum.
 
Is this not just a pointless discussion as the decision has been made?
 
I post here nearly everyday, just rarely post in the main forum, so dont get your point there.

What posters do i have a problem with? I pulled up Blueinsa because he bangs on about stuff i think should be left to the more than capable moderating team.

Me and Cheesy have both been Mods and seen stuff from the other side of the fence. Once you have done that how you look at things changes a little. I advocated post counts being disabled back in 2006 because of the reasons it has finally been done. A posters opinion should be valued whether they have one post or one trillion and if it ends the tedious pastime of calling people rags then this place will be all the better for it.


But as you dont care so much, support the actions as in my humble opinion they are the right thing to do.
You might think differently if you posted in the main forum more frequently.

If people are worried about people with high post counts feeling "special", why not have people's post counts up to 5,000 (so we can see if someone's brand new etc as stated) and then anyone with more just show 5,000+. I am personally not arsed about mine in the slightest, the only time I find out how many I have is when some unfunny **** refers to it and calls me a sad ****.
 
What it is, is utter shit. As Billy has already explained, he and others (including me) don't give a shit about our own post counts. If you want to pretend that we do in order to divert attention away from the real (and clearly stated over the course of the last 21 pages) reasons people would prefer to keep the post count visible, good luck to you. Classic straw man stuff......
Yep. It's infantile and idiotic.
 
You might think differently if you posted in the main forum more frequently.

If people are worried about people with high post counts feeling "special", why not have people's post counts up to 5,000 (so we can see if someone's brand new etc as stated) and then anyone with more just show 5,000+. I am personally not arsed about mine in the slightest, the only time I find out how many I have is when some unfunny **** refers to it and calls me a sad ****.

You do know you can see anybody's post count by clicking their name? - How does having that 5000 post rule thing help at all though? I thought the reason for 'hiding' the info was to ensure people don't prejudge a user's post in a certain way based on their number of posts. Which is idiotic.

I can't see a downside :/ We can all read, and in between the lines and everything.
 
The thread's still open is it not?
Yes, but looking at the posts that count, it appears that the decision has been made. Personally, I can't see why it makes a difference - as for getting stick for not having a high post count, man the fuck up and fight your corner.
 
You do know you can see anybody's post count by clicking their name? - How does having that 5000 post rule thing help at all though? I thought the reason for 'hiding' the info was to ensure people don't prejudge a user's post in a certain way based on their number of posts. Which is idiotic.

I can't see a downside :/ We can all read, and in between the lines and everything.
And that wouldn't be time consuming at all when reading a meltdown thread after our first loss, in February.

There's not just me of that thinking. As I say, I have no interest at all in my post count, but while they aren't perfect, they are handy in the main forum to help detect WUMs and flappers. The idea of having a cut off is to counter claims from the brain dead that those in favour of post counts are in any way proud of the 'acheivment'
 
Yes, but looking at the posts that count, it appears that the decision has been made. Personally, I can't see why it makes a difference - as for getting stick for not having a high post count, man the fuck up and fight your corner.

Nothing's set in stone. It's useful to get as many people's opinions as possible.
 
You do know you can see anybody's post count by clicking their name? - How does having that 5000 post rule thing help at all though? I thought the reason for 'hiding' the info was to ensure people don't prejudge a user's post in a certain way based on their number of posts. Which is idiotic.

I can't see a downside :/ We can all read, and in between the lines and everything.

Says Mr. 5,762 posts.
 
And that wouldn't be time consuming at all when reading a meltdown thread after our first loss, in February.

There's not just me of that thinking. As I say, I have no interest at all in my post count, but while they aren't perfect, they are handy in the main forum to help detect WUMs and flappers. The idea of having a cut off is to counter claims from the brain dead that those in favour of post counts are in any way proud of the 'acheivment'

The reading between the lines bit covers the flappers and WUMs and I wasn't even alluding to that 'acheivment' thing that may or may not exist.. But 5000 and they can't flap? 5000 and they only talk sense? Doesn't make sense to me really.
 
I can't say that I'm a fan of this. New users being greeted with suspicion is often from the same set of posters - take that issue up with those members (i.e - warnings for constant harassment).

Post counts were useful when purchasing tickets (I preferred buying off those with a few posts or with a reputation of being a good seller). I also used them to recognise posters. For example the poster who sits in his boxers drinking Stella all day whilst playing FIFA. He's called Aguero something with 20,000+ posts. There's a shit ton of Aguero's on this forum, it's now going to make it harder for me to recognise him. That's just one example, I use post counts to recognise many members. We lack avatars, post counts on view was a way to distinguish who's who.

@Ric, may I suggest an opt in option. I.E - post counts are hidden, those who want to see them can click an option to see them.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top