Mod. Notice "Player Watch threads" - The Definitive Poll | Have your say now!

[Kong]

So as has been discussed, we've been trialling a new system over the pre-season right through to now, where all "player watch" threads have been kept on the main Essendon board.

Round 2 was the time that we said we'd run the trial through to, to allow a few weeks of proper in season to decide which system you preferred.

On Sunday, we'll be creating the poll for every board user to vote on.

So please, when you're online over the next few days, take the time to consider which method you'd prefer:

- As it is. All player watch threads on the main board. Title updated to reflect the current topic
- As it were. All player watch threads on the "Player Watch" sub-board.

The poll will only run until the following Friday just prior to the Round 3 game, so please make sure you vote.

Only Essendon users' votes will be counted, and the decision will be final, at least until the end of the season.

We feel this way is the fairest, so that everybody has their chance to decide, rather than one or two people.

Cheers.

 

[yaco55]

Re: "Player Watch threads" - The Definitive Poll

New system is fine.

My only beef is that the selected team should have a separate thread, as opposed to being a continuation of a game preview thread as happened in Round 1. It was tough to find the team.

 

[Kong]

Re: "Player Watch threads" - The Definitive Poll

Yeah, that was just a matter of how it happened, if you get me, though.

If the new system remained, new threads for things like the team announcement are fine.

 

[The Dustbin]

Re: "Player Watch threads" - The Definitive Poll

The original format has my vote.

 

[Kong]

Re: "Player Watch threads" - The Definitive Poll

Remember to vote on Sunday

 

[Kong]

Re: "Player Watch threads" - The Definitive Poll

Vote now, or forever hold your peace.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Current, but please stop giving morons who post moronic things the titles.

 

[Kyptastic]

Prefer the current system, everything is so neat and organised.

 

[daz17]

Current, but please stop giving morons who post moronic things the titles.

Agree with this. Player comparisons and big calls shouldn't be in the title. Stick to facts and stats.

 

[Phone]

Yeah agree with the above.

 

[eth-dog]

Ben sums it up for me

 

[Lance Uppercut]

What Ben said

 

[blitzer]

Current seems good just because no one really posted in the player threads before but now they are much more active and I like how the titles are renamed to advise on recent developments.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

The new system is really good.

 

[raskolnikov]

Old way.

The current way is confusing and extremely cluttered.

Also, why do usernames have to be in the thread title?

 

[Kong]

We got a small bit of feedback that some people preferred that the titles have a quote and reference (ie username) in them, rather than simply things like "Will Hurley cop poor umpiring for his career?", which created the appearance of the title reflecting the consensus of the entire board.

So to those against using quotes.. Which of the following:

1) Moderators decide at their discretion, which users are worth quoting
2) No users are quoted, but the topic is (eg "Is Zaka tracking similarly to Ablett?" without referencing AS9)
3) No opinions in the titles, only facts (personally I could see this limiting our creativity with titles, as it'd even rule out things like "Is Hurley underdone?", and limit us to always only using stats)

 

[Lord Nicholson]

If we're going to use quotes they absolutely have to be attributed in the title, lest they be confused for consensus.

 

[Kyptastic]

I don't mind the quotes as long as they're relevant to what is being discussed currently in the thread.

 

[Howard Moon]

ive come around to the current way....

as the season has started properly it just seems to work, things move at a proper pace and it keeps what needs to be seen in sight.

 

[lamaros]

If we're going to use quotes they absolutely have to be attributed in the title, lest they be confused for consensus.

This.

 

[raskolnikov]

If we're going to use quotes they absolutely have to be attributed in the title, lest they be confused for consensus.

If you see a thread on the main board "Carlton certainties for the flag" do you assume that's consensus just because there is no username next to the thread title?

 

[Kyptastic]

If you see a thread on the main board "Carlton certainties for the flag" do you assume that's consensus just because there is no username next to the thread title?

No, but a thread on the main board is going to have the OP's name next to it, whilst an opinion i a Player Watch title won't generally be by the same person who originally made the thread.

 

[Kong]

We got a small bit of feedback that some people preferred that the titles have a quote and reference (ie username) in them, rather than simply things like "Will Hurley cop poor umpiring for his career?", which created the appearance of the title reflecting the consensus of the entire board.

So to those against using quotes.. Which of the following:

1) Moderators decide at their discretion, which users are worth quoting
2) No users are quoted, but the topic is (eg "Is Zaka tracking similarly to Ablett?" without referencing AS9)
3) No opinions in the titles, only facts (personally I could see this limiting our creativity with titles, as it'd even rule out things like "Is Hurley underdone?", and limit us to always only using stats)

Feedback?

 

[Lord Nicholson]

I say 1.

 

[The Prosecutor]

Yeah 1.