Next season is the last for Bill Belichick [*opinion*]

[kerofaye]

I just read from SI:

"The Patriots have been so aggressive that one NFL observer has a theory: Bill Belichick is firing all his guns at once because he wants to go out on top. The folks at ProFootballTalk.com say the Pats' spending spree has all the makings of a run at one final Super Bowl before Belichick packs it in as a coach of the Pats.
-- Boston Herald"

IMO: It won't happen. BB is a football fanatics like us. What would he be doing if he is not coaching in NFL ?

 

[khayos]

Re: Next season is the last for Bill Belichick

I'm really, really in favor of people not being able to start topics until they have at least 100 posts.

 

[DefenseRules]

Re: Next season is the last for Bill Belichick

I'm really, really in favor of people not being able to start topics until they have at least 100 posts.

Amen. How many threads do we need on this topic?

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Next season is the last for Bill Belichick

Dude, get a brain and don't write OPINIONS as FACTS for subjects.

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

Re: Next season is the last for Bill Belichick

I'm really, really in favor of people not being able to start topics until they have at least 100 posts.

Amen. And 5 lashes with a wet noodle for misleading titles.

 

[amazinPats]

Re: Next season is the last for Bill Belichick

I'm really, really in favor of people not being able to start topics until they have at least 100 posts.

Let's make it 5,000 so you can't start a thread either.

Talk about fascist....sheesh!

 

[spacecrime]

Re: Next season is the last for Bill Belichick

I'm really, really in favor of people not being able to start topics until they have at least 100 posts.

I'm in favor of people not being allowed to start topics until they learn English. The title of this thread is needs the words "might be" instead of "is."

EDIT: The change effected by a MOD, adding "OPINION," was done while I was typing the above. Great minds ...

 

[amazinPats]

Re: Next season is the last for Bill Belichick

Dude, get a brain and don't write OPINIONS as FACTS for subjects.

I'm all for reading about opinions about our team, so I applaud kherofaye for bringing it up; but he didn't need to mislead with the thread title.

 

[Isaac]

Moderator: please add "[opinion]" to this thread title--your little additions have been most welcome lately!

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

Moderator: please add "[opinion]" to this thread title--your little additions have been most welcome lately!

Beat ya by a few minutes.

 

[amazinPats]

On the topic of post counts:

I've been lurking here for a long time and like to read the threads. I don't post much because I write only whenever I can add something to the discussion, or present a point which may have been overlooked. Many people build postcounts with idle and transitory thoughts and musings. Some of us do not. There is no need to judge people by their number of posts. It's like judging people by how many pairs of socks they own. It's totally irrelevant.

 

[PromisedLand]

I suggest "idle speculation" instead of "opinion".

 

[VJCPatriot]

On the topic of post counts:

I've been lurking here for a long time and like to read the threads. I don't post much because I write only whenever I can add something to the discussion, or present a point which may have been overlooked. Many people build postcounts with idle and transitory thoughts and musings. Some of us do not. There is no need to judge people by their number of posts. It's like judging people by how many pairs of socks they own. It's totally irrelevant.

The suggestion was that people shouldn't be able to "start" new threads without the 100 count, not be unable to reply to threads which is a difference. So you would still be able to chime in your response.

What the 100 post count requirement to starting a thread would do is to discourage newcomer trolls from starting "look at me" threads or to stop the casual troll from coming in the week before their team plays ours from just stirring up sh*t just to do it for that one time of the season. The long time/more determined trolls would still require moderator intervention/discretion.

 

[Rob0729]

Come on. Lay off the guy/gal. Everyone was a newbie at one point on this board. Give the guy/gal a break.

 

[khayos]

The suggestion was that people shouldn't be able to "start" new threads without the 100 count, not be unable to reply to threads which is a difference. So you would still be able to chime in your response.

What the 100 post count requirement to starting a thread would do is to discourage newcomer trolls from starting "look at me" threads or to stop the casual troll from coming in the week before their team plays ours from just stirring up sh*t just to do it for that one time of the season. The long time/more determined trolls would still require moderator intervention/discretion.

Exactly. Everyone should be able to comment on existing thread, but I see a lot of new threads started by people with low post counts that clutter up the board. Post count can be seen as a baseline for understanding how to behave on a board. I'm just barely about 300 myself, so it's not like I'm prolific either, and there are exceptions to every rule. However, if we apply 80/20 logic or better, I believe a post count baseline would help the board self-moderate.

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

On the topic of post counts:

I've been lurking here for a long time and like to read the threads. I don't post much because I write only whenever I can add something to the discussion, or present a point which may have been overlooked. Many people build postcounts with idle and transitory thoughts and musings. Some of us do not. There is no need to judge people by their number of posts. It's like judging people by how many pairs of socks they own. It's totally irrelevant.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Many of my posts are just chit-chat, one liners and goofing off, as such, I don't put much value in post counts. (Nor do most here, save for a few vocal rabble rousers.) However, putting a small post requirement on the privilege of started a new thread topic would weed out the hit and run trolls, and the spammers. Maybe not 100 posts, but you get the point.

Now let's get back to the idle speculation about BB's last year here.

 

[PATSNUTme]

On the topic of post counts:

I've been lurking here for a long time and like to read the threads. I don't post much because I write only whenever I can add something to the discussion, or present a point which may have been overlooked. Many people build postcounts with idle and transitory thoughts and musings. Some of us do not. There is no need to judge people by their number of posts. It's like judging people by how many pairs of socks they own. It's totally irrelevant.

No Way!

It may surprise you that some people build post counts by offering valueable images and insight on the cheerleader thread.

 

[Rob0729]

The suggestion was that people shouldn't be able to "start" new threads without the 100 count, not be unable to reply to threads which is a difference. So you would still be able to chime in your response.

What the 100 post count requirement to starting a thread would do is to discourage newcomer trolls from starting "look at me" threads or to stop the casual troll from coming in the week before their team plays ours from just stirring up sh*t just to do it for that one time of the season. The long time/more determined trolls would still require moderator intervention/discretion.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you should restrict anyone from starting a thread unless they post something in volation of the board. If a newbie posts a thread just to get attention, ignore it. Same with a single troll thread (if the troll starts 20 threads, that is something different).

Just because you are new doesn't mean you can't bring something to the table and start an intelligent thread that starts a lot of lively debate.

I guess I just don't find it that much of an inconvienence to click on a thread like this and see that the newbie didn't follow proper board etiquette and post the title as opinion or that it is a repeat thread. The moderators are usually pretty good about cleaning up those problems quickly.

 

[PromisedLand]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Many of my posts are just chit-chat, one liners and goofing off, as such, I don't put much value in post counts. (Nor do most here, save for a few vocal rabble rousers.) However, putting a small post requirement on the privilege of started a new thread topic would weed out the hit and run trolls, and the spammers. Maybe not 100 posts, but you get the point.

Now let's get back to the idle speculation about BB's last year here.

I am in favor of the 100 post requirement to start a new thread if vBulletin supports it.

 

[PromisedLand]

No Way!

It may surprise you that some people build post counts by offering valueable images and insight on the cheerleader thread.

LOL (just building my post count)