What should the board look like

[Deleted]

Liking saves a post in agreement.I think it should be retained.

[eor]

Dec 6, 2021 17:48:10 GMT Mark said:

It has been suggested that I disable 'liking' people's posts.

I have no strong feeling on this eithor way, but wondered what others thought.

Maybe we should revisit if people feel there's been an upsurge in virtue-signalling or whatever specifically to get Likes, but until then what harm does it do? 

And it has potential benefits, especially with so many new posters. Nice to be able to say "yeah, good point" without cluttering up the flow of the discussion. 

[Mark]

I will be starting a new polling thread in the next few days...I'll be keeping my eye out for a new poll to start it with.

The first one is getting a bit lengthy now and has been running for a while.

Also, while it's likely too early to see any effect for 'Christmas party gate', it will be interesting to see what, if any, effect it has and see that near the top of the thread as subsequent polls come out.

Also, all eyes on the by-election next week...

[Mark]

Thank you all for a great start to UKPR2!

I have to say, however, that I have noticed a few instances where there have been insults aimed at other users. May I politely make a reminder :

"When there are differences of opinion, argue the point, not the member posting it."

Nobody has had a warning, we are all new here, finding our feet and there hasn't been a serious transgression.

This is simply a gentle reminder to keep it nice, even when a discussion gets passionate.

[neilj]

Thanks for setting this up Mark
Re PMQS can't see any issue with discussing them
Also no issue with using the like button

[pete]

Wasn't there a thread for certain issues?
I think brexit/Covid/General Politics should have their own threads.

[jayblanc]

Can we please have a ban on wildly off-topic truther conspiracy theory nonsense? Specifically, the current "Vaccines don't work" stuff.

[Deleted]

Dec 10, 2021 18:09:08 GMT Mark said:

Thank you all for a great start to UKPR2!

I have to say, however, that I have noticed a few instances where there have been insults aimed at other users. May I politely make a reminder :

"When there are differences of opinion, argue the point, not the member posting it."

Nobody has had a warning, we are all new here, finding our feet and there hasn't been a serious transgression.

This is simply a gentle reminder to keep it nice, even when a discussion gets passionate.

Without wishing to give you loads of 'admin' then you are the only 'admin' so is time for some 'yellow cards' (and if you've quietly been doing those then some 'reds' - kicking off?)

I'm blocking the flamers (old and new) but a lot of folks are either starting or continuing the kind of stuff that turned UKPR into a cess pit (for which I accept some responsibility on the old forum)

Also as per jayblanc then a lot of 'niche' topics are clogging up the main thread and folks are not using the 'Issue Specific' threads to discuss the finer details of those specific issues. 'Blocking' is an option that more folks should perhaps consider so they don't have to read DANNY's 'theories' on Covid and then will hopefully not feel the need to engage with him (similar for other folks on other topics that are clogging up the main thread which I expect most folks were hoping would be 'mostly' polling or at least polling related)

[leftieliberal]

@tw "Also as per jayblanc then a lot of 'niche' topics are clogging up the main thread and folks are not using the 'Issue Specific' threads to discuss the finer details of those specific issues. 'Blocking' is an option that more folks should perhaps consider so they don't have to read DANNY's 'theories' on Covid and then will hopefully not feel the need to engage with him (similar for other folks on other topics that are clogging up the main thread which I expect most folks were hoping would be 'mostly' polling or at least polling related)"

I find it even easier to scroll past Danny's contributions now he has an avatar. While I would prefer it if he stuck to posting in the Issue Specific: Covid thread, it doesn't cause me much of a problem. Although AFAIK only Mark can physically move posts around, there is nothing to stop anyone else using 'Link to a post' in the Settings menu and then pasting that link in the appropriate Issue Specific thread if they want to reply to it. For example @tw 's post above is ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/post/3341

It may be a good idea to use link rather than quote if you are commenting on the whole of a previous poster's comment and just use quote when you want to comment on parts of it and need to show what you are commenting on. Let's just try to take advantage of the new features this board offers.

[Deleted]

leftieliberal Good tips on ways to 'reply' but sadly I doubt many will use them and my point was more about not replying at all. I'm quite able to ignore the people who post nonsense or clog up the main thread with subjects I've no interest in or that have minimal-no polling relevance (and if I miss one nugget of useful info then so be it) but a lot of folks seem unable to resist the need to reply to nonsense, irrelevant subjects or 'baiting' (which I see in replies having blocked the original source individuals myself). Individual choice means folks can pick and choose who they wish to block or reply to and so perhaps leave it as is it for now? The 'baiting' episode from a few days back seems to have calmed down (from at least one of the sides) - maybe after a 'nudge' or maybe some self-reflection? 

From the final para in general rules and how to post:

If you see a comment from someone else that you think crosses over the line please do NOT respond with equally partisan rebuttals. If it is a new poster then please do welcome them, explain we don’t really do things that way round here. If it is someone who should know better, just ignore them: continuing a partisan argument is just as bad as starting it!

Which I use in a broader context than 'partisan' for the Issue Specific topics (which I try to keep to the Issue Specific thread). Similar to entrenched partisan bias then some folks have an entrenched bias on 'other' issues so any discussion is pointless (ie I'm adopting the view that 'continuing said argument is just as bad as (re)starting it!')

[Mark]

@tw - Thanks for your input. While I have seen a few personal digs, for now, I am happy to post a gentle reminder here for now and then keep a watchful eye.

While I haven't as yet, if I do issue any warnings that are not in need of action at the time given, that will be a chance of the member getting them to think about and reflect on what they have been told and will, therefore not be made public to other members.

As to posts clogging up the main threads, I agree and will be making a post on the current polling thread shortly. (I am not concerned about the Formula One posts as they are event driven and will therefore cease anyway).

[Mark]

Hey, all

Reading through today's posts has brought up a couple of issues, the latter, I would like to hear feedback from other members.

The first, for me, is cut and dried.

There have been several links posted (the first one I removed) starting with "chrome-extension://" rather than "http://" or "https://".

These are generated by a Google Chrome extension.

I will ask anyone postng such a link, please do not do this, but, post the direct link instead.

As well as the fact that the extension generating the links has had privacy concerns expressed about it, anyone who is not using Google Chrome will not be able to click on it at all.

The second issue, that I'd like feedback on, is that on links to content that are behind a paywall. (I include Daily Mirror posts in this as you can no longer read them if you are using an ad-blocker).

There are several option, and none are good (although if anyone has other options that I haven't thought of, feel free to post them).

The bottom line is, if someone posts a link, I expect every member to be able to click throuh and read.

The options I see are as follows :

1. When posting such a link, copy and paste the text. (The drawback being that it would make for a long post that most members would get frustrated simply scrolling past).

2. Try to find the same article elsewhere - you would be surprised at just how many 'paywall' articles are sold on to lesser known papers that are not paywalled.
(The drawback being that it would be a pain for members having to search and half the time coming up blank).

3. Disallow paywall posts altogether. This would mean an additional site rule, but, I would be prepared to do that if it is what members want.

[John Chanin]

Dec 14, 2021 16:31:55 GMT Mark said:

Hey, all

Reading through today's posts has brought up a couple of issues, the latter, I would like to hear feedback from other members.

The first, for me, is cut and dried.

There have been several links posted (the first one I removed) starting with "chrome-extension://" rather than "http://" or "https://".

These are generated by a Google Chrome extension.

I will ask anyone postng such a link, please do not do this, but, post the direct link instead.

As well as the fact that the extension generating the links has had privacy concerns expressed about it, anyone who is not using Google Chrome will not be able to click on it at all.

The second issue, that I'd like feedback on, is that on links to content that are behind a paywall. (I include Daily Mirror posts in this as you can no longer read them if you are using an ad-blocker).

There are several option, and none are good (although if anyone has other options that I haven't thought of, feel free to post them).

The bottom line is, if someone posts a link, I expect every member to be able to click throuh and read.

The options I see are as follows :

1. When posting such a link, copy and paste the text. (The drawback being that it would make for a long post that most members would get frustrated simply scrolling past).

2. Try to find the same article elsewhere - you would be surprised at just how many 'paywall' articles are sold on to lesser known papers that are not paywalled.
(The drawback being that it would be a pain for members having to search and half the time coming up blank).

3. Disallow paywall posts altogether. This would mean an additional site rule, but, I would be prepared to do that if it is what members want.

Sometimes the reference is useful to know where a story comes from even if most people can’t access it. A good compromise is for people posting such a link to label it “paywall”.  And of course there are some sites that allow limited access for a certain number of page impressions a month, although you often need to register even so. So I think banning them is a bad idea, although people posting should consider the utility.

[Deleted]

I posted one today. It was a Bank of England Report. A copy and paste of the link into Google produced the document. I checked that after posting.

[Deleted]

Dec 14, 2021 16:31:55 GMT Mark said:

The options I see are as follows :

1. When posting such a link, copy and paste the text. (The drawback being that it would make for a long post that most members would get frustrated simply scrolling past).

2. Try to find the same article elsewhere - you would be surprised at just how many 'paywall' articles are sold on to lesser known papers that are not paywalled.
(The drawback being that it would be a pain for members having to search and half the time coming up blank).

3. Disallow paywall posts altogether. This would mean an additional site rule, but, I would be prepared to do that if it is what members want.

For 1/ I try to 'clip' out a few of the main points, for 2/ I try to do that but as per other comments then knowing the original source is useful IMO (eg Guardian or Torygraph have clear bias so 'bias radar' on when reading articles from sources with known bias - the info can still be useful but IMO it's helpful to know which side your pinch of salt needs to be aware of). I'd certainly be against 3/ and not sure you'd easily be able to enforce that.

Since you've mentioned rules then are we going to see any enforcement of any of the current rules[1]?

The main thread is still choked with 'issue Specific' stuff (Covid, Brexit, etc) or posts that are total irrelevant to polling. I've blocked the trolls but too many folks feel the need to respond to 'flaming' (baiting) and we then have 'to-fro' of the kind of personal/partisan stuff that turned UKPR into a cess-pit (for which I admit I played a part but am able to avoid repeating on UKPR2 by use of the blocking facility to totally ignore the 'usual(+new) suspects')

[1] Notably #2 and perhaps a 'nudge' reminder of the final paragraph and a second/final reminder to post issue specific posts on the issue specific threads (and/or use Direct Messaging if you just want a one-one chat)?
ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/thread/5/general-rules-post-read

[neilj]

Hi Mark, my tuppence I think the site is working well, with little personal animosity compared to the previous one

Issues like Brexit are not that frequent in the main thread, when they do appear I think it is because they deserve to be there. For example the resignation of Frost, who was closely associated with Johnson Ann Brexit. His departure is worthy of mention and discussion.

Yes Covid discussions can get a little bogged down in the minutiae and I am guilty of sometimes getting sucked in, but it's not difficult to scroll past.

I wouldn't charge much at the moment
Thanks again for setting up this site, it's better than the one it replaced, with a larger group of members, who are interesting to read

Cheers Mark

[catfuzz]

Hi Mark,

Further to my post in the most recent polling topic, I wonder if there could be a ‘General Chat’ thread, where topics that are about wider political debate (so not related to recent / current events or polling specifically) can be put there instead, so that the main polling boards aren’t cluttered with these kinds of topics?

The thread could be for general discussions and chit-chat, so as long as posts are not offensive or break the forum guidelines, anything goes.

Cheers,
Cat_Fuzz

[Mark]

While I would welcome the thoughts of others, here are my own current musings.

Re-a 'General Chat' thread, I am certainly not opposed although, I think this should be a non-political general discussion thread, a place for people to discuss their hobbies etc. The reason I say that this one place to be free of politics is...what may be a niche issue for some may be heartfelt and important to others.

My feeling is that if it's just a short discussion on the main/current polling thread, it doesn't really need to be moved anywhere else anyway, but, longer/continued discussions may need their own thread and putting them in a 'general discussion thread' seems lik a demotion, whether intended or not.

Which brings me to...

There have been two more lengthy discussions recently, firstly on independence/international law, secondly on social conservatism.

I think that both these issues could benefit from their own threads in 'issue spacific'.

Please note, that should *NOT* be seen as a demotion of these issues, they are important issues, just not issues that affect current polling.

Both have the potential to be, for instance, if a referendum on Scottish independence is called, or, come election time (or indeed any other time), one or more of the parties brings social issues to the front of the campaign.

Again, I'd like to know what others think.

[catfuzz]

Dec 31, 2021 14:49:35 GMT Mark said:

There have been two more lengthy discussions recently, firstly on independence/international law, secondly on social conservatism.

I think that both these issues could benefit from their own threads in 'issue spacific'.

Please note, that should *NOT* be seen as a demotion of these issues, they are important issues, just not issues that affect current polling.

Both have the potential to be, for instance, if a referendum on Scottish independence is called, or, come election time (or indeed any other time), one or more of the parties brings social issues to the front of the campaign.

Again, I'd like to know what others think.

Agree completely, issue specific threads shouldn’t be considered a quarantine of the issue, but more a place where the conversation can focus on the topic without it clogging up the main space. I can see how some could view it as a secondary thread, but it is only if it’s treated as such.

Also RE: General Chat - I think your suggestion is a sound proposal, but I would welcome others views also.

[leftieliberal]

Dec 31, 2021 14:49:35 GMT Mark said:

While I would welcome the thoughts of others, here are my own current musings.

Re-a 'General Chat' thread, I am certainly not opposed although, I think this should be a non-political general discussion thread, a place for people to discuss their hobbies etc. The reason I say that this one place to be free of politics is...what may be a niche issue for some may be heartfelt and important to others.

My feeling is that if it's just a short discussion on the main/current polling thread, it doesn't really need to be moved anywhere else anyway, but, longer/continued discussions may need their own thread and putting them in a 'general discussion thread' seems lik a demotion, whether intended or not.

Again, I'd like to know what others think.

I think that the best thing about the "Issue Specific" threads is that the members of the board themselves decide whether they are successful. So "Covid" has been quite popular, but other threads have been started and fizzled out (although they may revive in future). If people want to start new threads on independence/international law and on social conservatism then they can and it should not need you as administrator to do any more than suggest in the main polling thread that perhaps the discussion deserves a separate thread. In that sense UKPR2 is much more democratic than UKPR was, where (I believe) AW created a special Scottish thread (although I never saw it).

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2021 14:49:35 GMT Mark said:

While I would welcome the thoughts of others, here are my own current musings.

Re-a 'General Chat' thread, I am certainly not opposed although, I think this should be a non-political general discussion thread, a place for people to discuss their hobbies etc. The reason I say that this one place to be free of politics is...what may be a niche issue for some may be heartfelt and important to others.

My feeling is that if it's just a short discussion on the main/current polling thread, it doesn't really need to be moved anywhere else anyway, but, longer/continued discussions may need their own thread and putting them in a 'general discussion thread' seems lik a demotion, whether intended or not.

Which brings me to...

There have been two more lengthy discussions recently, firstly on independence/international law, secondly on social conservatism.

I think that both these issues could benefit from their own threads in 'issue spacific'.

Please note, that should *NOT* be seen as a demotion of these issues, they are important issues, just not issues that affect current polling.

Both have the potential to be, for instance, if a referendum on Scottish independence is called, or, come election time (or indeed any other time), one or more of the parties brings social issues to the front of the campaign.

Again, I'd like to know what others think.

As you know I support the 'Issue Specific' threads as they allow more detailed discussion but it appears not many folks use them and still clog up the main thread with specific issues. So whilst a new thread on 'Scottish independence' could have the useful links to SNP 'plan', process and the legal issues (that are by no means 100% certain) then I'm not sure it would refocus the discussion away from clogging up the main thread.

I would however suggest that if a new thread is started by yourself or someone without 'baggage' then it might get more folks posting on that thread (a point I made WRT to an 'economy' thread and my request you deleted it as if someone with 'bias' (and I admit to having it, although I do make an effort to substantiate it with polling or facts) starts a thread then that might well put folks off).

So if you/someone starts it up then I'll post some links as a summary of useful info.

[steamdrivenandy]

Re colour/font.

I'm waiting for a call from our opticians re a new pair of spectacles. So I'll let you know.

[robert]

Re: Colours and font.

I am not in favour of coloured type as it is more difficult to read. The odd word in red as a highlight is not a problem though. Happy with a larger font though and more regular use of paragraphs- suggest every 5/6 lines and with a clear space between each para.

The current thread has got too long in my view and I would prefer a new thread on the 1st of the month regardless.

Other opinions will undoubtedly be on offer.

[Deleted]

Jan 6, 2022 13:03:16 GMT robert said:

Re: Colours and font.

I am not in favour of coloured type as it is more difficult to read. The odd word in red as a highlight is not a problem though. Happy with a larger font though and more regular use of paragraphs- suggest every 5/6 lines and with a clear space between each para.

The current thread has got too long in my view and I would prefer a new thread on the 1st of the month regardless.

Other opinions will undoubtedly be on offer.

Agree on colours robert. 

[lululemonmustdobetter]

colin

Agree on colours robert.

Obvs I am in favour of colour but willing to go with the views of the collective.

[Mark]

Jan 6, 2022 13:03:16 GMT robert said:

The current thread has got too long in my view and I would prefer a new thread on the 1st of the month regardless.

While I am loathe to post new polling threads on arbitary dates (as previously said, events stubbornly refuse to time themselves against new threads here on UKPR2), I fully agree that the current thread is getting long now.

I shall stat a new one at the weekend or early next week, depending on when the next poll drops.

On colours/fonts, as it is only an hour or so since I raised it, I will leave it open to give those that want wish to comment a chance to do so.

[leftieliberal]

Jan 6, 2022 13:03:16 GMT robert said:

Re: Colours and font.

I am not in favour of coloured type as it is more difficult to read. The odd word in red as a highlight is not a problem though. Happy with a larger font though and more regular use of paragraphs- suggest every 5/6 lines and with a clear space between each para.

The current thread has got too long in my view and I would prefer a new thread on the 1st of the month regardless.

Other opinions will undoubtedly be on offer.

I would like to suggest that people think in terms of using a font with serifs as these are usually thought easier to read in small font sizes than a sans serif font.

As for thread length, perhaps a new thread after the first Westminster poll of each month would be about right. This would also give a consistent title. (Mark's suggestion of a new thread after the next poll was posted while I was composing this posting.)

[catfuzz]

Personally don’t like colour changes as it can make posts more difficult to read (eg @lululemons red I find difficult to read on white, not so much on a darker background)

But I’m also for uniformity of text simply to make the content the focal point rather than the way it’s presented. There’s also a tendency for some to start expressing how special and unique they are through garish fonts and eye-bleeding colours, and the whole board starts to look like 90’s wordart.

[leftieliberal]

Incidentally, the poll at the head of this thread is still open, so there is nothing to stop robbiealive expressing (his/her/their) views or people who have already voted changing their mind.

[Deleted]

Jan 6, 2022 13:22:45 GMT Mark said:

Jan 6, 2022 13:03:16 GMT robert said:

The current thread has got too long in my view and I would prefer a new thread on the 1st of the month regardless.

While I am loathe to post new polling threads on arbitary dates (as previously said, events stubbornly refuse to time themselves against new threads here on UKPR2), I fully agree that the current thread is getting long now.

I agree-they would merely be a pauses in the Continuous Conversation.

Even the presence of a new poll will only stop that conversation for a while.

AW's thread headers were in depth Poll analyses , despite which discussion of them only lasted a while before the usual Stream of Consciousness started again.

To my mind the only thing which worked a bit was AW's rule that conversation on old thread topics should not be carried over to a new thread. That acted as a minor fire break I think. But in the end folks will natter about what they want to natter about unless/until they are stopped.