There should be a change regarding the way posts are credited. When posting in lame, childish, moronic threads posters would be credited with only 0.1 posts. Political posts would be worth 0.01. When posting stupid replies, e.g. most of Porkie's posts, the credit would be worth -1 posts. Any poster slipping below a value of zero would be automatically banned from TV. On the other hand, highly creative posts and those with exceptional content would be valued between 2 and 5. Posts counts would then be a truer indication of post/poster quality, not quantity.

If post counts were to be adjusted according to this system posters such as KerryD and Glauka might no longer qualify for Bedlam membership. Members such as Porkie would most likely have been banned by now. It would be interesting to speculate how some members ranking might change.

Good idea . . . or not.

What if someone just asks a question?

A stupid question = -0.5

A really stupid question = -1

An intelligent question = 1-5

How is stupdity to be determined?

There should not be counts at all.

Only for board statistics.

There should be a change regarding the way posts are credited. When posting in lame, childish, moronic threads posters would be credited with only 0.1 posts. Political posts would be worth 0.01. When posting stupid replies, e.g. most of Porkie's posts, the credit would be worth -1 posts. Any poster slipping below a value of zero would be automatically banned from TV. On the other hand, highly creative posts and those with exceptional content would be valued between 2 and 5. Posts counts would then be a truer indication of post/poster quality, not quantity.

If post counts were to be adjusted according to this system posters such as KerryD and Glauka might no longer qualify for Bedlam membership. Members such as Porkie would most likely have been banned by now. It would be interesting to speculate how some members ranking might change.

Good idea . . . or not.

Those posting nothing but utter TRIPE wouldn't even be allowed to register in the first place and Tripe-aporn would be posting over at acidhead-dot-com with the rest of the empty-headed dreamers.

Ulysses G. just received another -1 count.

That answers Bop's question.

There should be a change regarding the way posts are credited. When posting in lame, childish, moronic threads posters would be credited with only 0.1 posts. Political posts would be worth 0.01. When posting stupid replies, e.g. most of Porkie's posts, the credit would be worth -1 posts. Any poster slipping below a value of zero would be automatically banned from TV. On the other hand, highly creative posts and those with exceptional content would be valued between 2 and 5. Posts counts would then be a truer indication of post/poster quality, not quantity.

If post counts were to be adjusted according to this system posters such as KerryD and Glauka might no longer qualify for Bedlam membership. Members such as Porkie would most likely have been banned by now. It would be interesting to speculate how some members ranking might change.

Good idea . . . or not.

Those posting nothing but utter TRIPE wouldn't even be allowed to register in the first place and Tripe-aporn would be posting over at acidhead-dot-com with the rest of the empty-headed dreamers.

He's young, Ulysses G - cut the boy some slack...

If post counts were to be adjusted according to this system posters such as KerryD and Glauka might no longer qualify for Bedlam membership. Members such as Porkie would most likely have been banned by now. It would be interesting to speculate how some members ranking might change.

Good idea . . . or not.

Wayne Kerr !!!

Shouldn't have to remind you that you had to have 500 posts just to get into Bedlam and be able to post in "the Last Word".

And a review of my posting record (excluding the Last Word and Rain threads which represent only 13% of my total posts) would show that the majority of my posts would probably rate 3's and 4's, if not 4's and 5's.

How ever, if you suggested a 0 or -1 score for people that quote an entire post and add a smiley, or just reply with a smiley

How about a -2 score for posts that are nothing but insults directed at other posters ?

And just who would judge all those posts, what scoring criteria would be used, what redress system would be in place where you could dispute a score ?

-5 for this subject

Jai yen yen, folks. Jeez, does anyone still take me seriously????

Jai yen yen, folks. Jeez, does anyone still take me seriously????

I was just messin' with ya. Didn't mean anything.

How about a -2 score for posts that are nothing but insults directed at other posters ?

How about a banning for threads that are nothing but insults directed at other posters?

How about a -2 score for posts that are nothing but insults directed at other posters ?

How about a banning for threads that are nothing but insults directed at other posters?

Then they would have to close down Bedlam.

How about a -2 score for posts that are nothing but insults directed at other posters ?

How about a banning for threads that are nothing but insults directed at other posters?

Then they would have to close down Bedlam.

Good insults (make you smile) = 1

Great insults (have you rolling on the floor) = 2

How about a -2 score for posts that are nothing but insults directed at other posters ?

How about a banning for threads that are nothing but insults directed at other posters?

Then we wouldn't have Butterfly to bash around anymore!

Those posting nothing but utter TRIPE wouldn't even be allowed to register in the first place and Tripe-aporn would be posting over at acidhead-dot-com with the rest of the empty-headed dreamers.

I would have given this post a +5 point rating...

Good thing it's in Bedlam though...

This thread should be renamed "The Insulting Thread"...

Strictly a troll post, JD.

If post counts were to be adjusted according to this system posters such as KerryD and Glauka might no longer qualify for Bedlam membership. Members such as Porkie would most likely have been banned by now.

Ditto.

Those posting nothing but utter TRIPE wouldn't even be allowed to register in the first place and Tripe-aporn would be posting over at acidhead-dot-com with the rest of the empty-headed dreamers.

I would have given this post a +5 point rating...

Good thing it's in Bedlam though...

This thread should be renamed "The Insulting Thread"...

How about extra points if you are sponsor ?

Bored today tippaporn?

Too much frickin' politics, Brit. Yeah.

How about when a post 'isn't' political and someone introduces politics in to it? -10 perhaps???

-5 for this subject

Members such as Porkie would most likely have been banned by now.

<deleted> is "porkie"?

That's an insult directed at me.

BAN HIM!

How about when a post 'isn't' political and someone introduces politics in to it? -10 perhaps???

Religion doesn't count Suegha, too close to Politics.

Changing the post count count isn't really the way to go- after all, a post is a post.

I have seen other forum softwares that have a "Rate this post" option- and the points are accumulated on the poster's account as "Reputation".

Perhaps Invision offers / could integrate a system like this?

How about when a post 'isn't' political and someone introduces politics in to it? -10 perhaps???

Religion doesn't count Suegha, too close to Politics.

I have to disagree with the statement that Religion is too close to politics! For me it's 'never the twain shall me'.

The reasons why I don't vote are religious, however, I love politics! I just don't want it in every post in Bedlam.