Poll: Lets Ban Negative Threads

[Wongo]

Ban what? Your not kidding are you?

[Waldo]

Agree with all the nays, particularly Toyboy's post. I'd agree too with Wongo's too, but that bloke on the tram scares the heck out of me.

[Wood Borer]

I think I know what Bob is on about.

It is the whingers whose idea of appraisal is to just find things wrong. For example a new product that perhaps someone can't afford is no reason to bad mouth it.

Those who form little hate groups with no sound basis. Example, I can't cut hand dovetails so I will bag everyone who can. Example, I have no interest in making pens so I will bag and nit pick everyone who does enjoy making them.

Those who have experienced bad service/products but have not approached the service provider/retailer/manufacturer. They are quick to criticise behind the backs of those who can right the wrong.


Not that many examples are found on this forum probably due to the good work done by the moderators.

Negative threads about suppliers or products alerting others so they too don't waste time and money could be considered positive.

[Waldo]

[RufflyRustic]

Banning a negative thread is very situational. It depends on the thread, where it's posted, what it's saying, the tone of it and I'm sure there's more that I've not included here. It depends.....

[Groggy]

The mods have to make a bit of a judgement call on what the intent of the posters appear to be. If they seem to be just stirring the pot and causing unrest because they are bored, drunk or just plain ornery, that is different to someone who appears to have a genuine bleat about a topic and are getting it off their chests.

Negative threads create debate if they can stay balanced, once someone calls someone else a nazi though it is usually a good time to pull the plug.

Then of course you have trolling posts...

[Daddles]

Then of course you have trolling posts...

What intrigues me is how trolls get upset when you call them for it. Maybe they're in it for the emotional pain

Richard

[wheelinround]

but negatives look

[kekemo]

Well… I agree with most in here….. Negativity in general isn’t complimentary or desirable …but our perception of which is negative….can differ greatly…one’s person literary skills may not be able to convey their sentiments or opinions as directly or precise as others….
But wait…there’s more….(no not 6 stake knives) …I pose a question to the readers….an offer an apology to boot….
…Not so long ago I read a post that I though was negative…..deciding in my wisdom of not liking to offend anyone…. I made a positive attempt to get them back on track….. quote…


Now here’s a thought.........I think there's too much time spent....worrying about the "Queens English"...or the bushman's "bloody oath's"....AND SOME DON'T SPEND ENOUGH TIME WOODWORKING....come' on u Nancy's ....put your pen's down...tuck your pride back in your pocket....you're not hold n' the chisel or hammer long enough...we want to keep people interested in WOODWORK...not loose them between the lines.......ANYONE WANT TO PICK ON WORDS...TRY THE NEWSPAPERS....I GAVE UP READING THEM....BECAUSE THE "ENGLISH' LANGUAGE IN THAT WASN'T WORTH THE JOB.....THE BUSHMEN USE IT FOR!.....BACK TO THE SHED....
.....love peace makers....they remind me of the aroma of a good woodshed!.......
........you do not need sight to have vision......
........you do not need hands to feel...
........you do not need to be together to be in contact....
........all we need, is to know we are loved!....

Now with the morbid state of curiosity that I indulge myself with…..I thought after posting this thread…I would like to follow the answers… see if I had succeeded in parting a positive influence…..mmm… now where did I post it….lets see…what section did in come under….

Oh holy crap….(it was in)

NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH WOODWORK - Include Drivel & Open SlatherThis forum is for GENERAL DISCUSSION/DEBATE/CONFRONTATION etc. on any topic you like, so long as it has NOTHING TO DO WITH WOODWORK.

So…as I said, firstly it’s an apology to the regular visit’s in that section…. I goofed…
So I offer a solution….perhaps moving the “obvious negativity”…to this section….perhaps request the author of the post to move it voluntarily first….
cheers to all....now I am back to the shed...I missed four days...and feel really misserable.....got to go....need some threapy...lol
KEKEMO

[Incoming!]

Negativity is part of life boys and girls (and all those undecided). Besides, cranky people are quite good fun - it's always great to run across well placed peevishness. I still miss Paul Keating's ascerbic nastiness.

In the same way that you want to throttle bubby, cheerful flight attendants at oh dark hundred in the morning, I think we'd get pretty sick of unrelenting good will. Besides, once you ban the neggies, where does the censorship end? Will we ban those who think that chipboard mounted on bricks makes a nice bookshelf?

Maybe the moderators could give consideration to implementing a "karma" system, where in addition to awarding greenies, someone can award browneyes or some such raspberry, to posters who offend or transgress. Dispute and discussion are the lifeblood of forums, and I'd personally hate to miss out on some of the gems that arise from some initially negative posts.

[AlexS]

No, I don't think we need to ban negative posts (or most others) If the worst comes to the worst, just ignore them.

But Jeez I wish some people would self-censor.

[jerryc]

Ban negativity?
Little story.
Have a friend who was in admin in a large bank. Bank called an executive meeting to discuss whether lease out their IT instead of doing it in house. Friend raised many objections and was told he was being negative. "We want positive input here". He was the company's Risk Assessor.
As he said "They only wanted to hear what agreed with their ideas."

Jerry

War doesn't prove who is right. It only proves who is left.

[Honorary Bloke]

Will we ban those who think that chipboard mounted on bricks makes a nice bookshelf? .

Yes.

[autogenous]

Its the personal attacks that should be moderated.

Once someone stops playing the ball and starts throwing punches at the man.

The content has to stay objective. If not the moderator belts the offending user with a mallet. What one Im not sure.

Thats what qualifies for moderation.

[RETIRED]

Its the personal attacks that should be moderated.

Once someone stops playing the ball and starts throwing punches at the man.

The content has to stay objective. If not the moderator belts the offending user with a mallet. What one Im not sure.

Thats what qualifies for moderation.

They always are along with other things we find offensive.