Suggestion: Thread title tags in BOI?

Just thinking it would be a good idea to add some sort of feature (if possible) where a moderator could add some sort of flair to thread titles...

Example:


[BAD GUY] Joe Shmoe Reptiles (Issue Resolved)
[INQUIRY] Prince William Jamison of Nigeria (Known Scammer)
[BAD GUY] Up Yours Enterprises called me a Turd and stole my credit card info(Issue Not Resolved)
[BAD GUY] I bought a snake and killed it but Super Snakes, Inc. won't refund me (Thread Not Deserved)
[GOOD GUY] Reptile Supplier Inc. Best Company Ever (Thread Created By Employee/Friend)

Just thought about this as I was looking somebody up and saw a few mixed reviews, some deserved and some not, some issues that had been resolved amicably, and some not. Had I not clicked on a few of the threads I could have "judged a book by its cover" and I'm sure a lot of people make assumptions based on the number of good or bad guy reviews, not necessarily by reading all 20 pages of each thread.

Just an idea!

While on the surface this might seem like a pretty good idea, ANY moderator who edits such a thread title then becomes LEGALLY a co-author of that entire thread. Meaning, that if a lawsuit ever develops over what someone posted in that thread in reference to someone else, they become legally liable for that other person's words because of that edit.

I think I probably speak for all of the staff here when I say "Thanks, but NO thanks!"

I understand what you mean!

I have often wondered something similar though, particularly when a problem is resolved or it turns out to be a malicious posting.

If the problem is in making the moderator an author, could there at least be a facility where an OP themselves could label a thread "Issue Resolved" as Mike suggests?

Originally Posted by Helenthereef

I have often wondered something similar though, particularly when a problem is resolved or it turns out to be a malicious posting.

If the problem is in making the moderator an author, could there at least be a facility where an OP themselves could label a thread "Issue Resolved" as Mike suggests?

And what happens when someone who made an unwarranted or ill advised thread on the BOI, got their butt handed to them on a platter when the pigeons all came home to roost, and then decides they want to cover their tracks by editing out the subject matter as much as possible? Should they be allowed to do that? How many times have we seen this sort of thing happen and the original author get into a snit over it? What do you think they might do to a topic line that they can freely edit at will?

I wasn't really thinking of allowing edits, just allowing the addition of an icon to the side of the target line showing the quick reader that the dispute was resolved, without them having to dig through what can be LONG threads.

It might encourage some to settle disputes if they felt that their efforts would show up easily, but the entire conversation would still remain in its unedited entirety for those who want to go through the details.

And I mean that only the OP, ie the original complainant, would be able to put the icon up, no one else and certainly not the subject of the thread.

Originally Posted by Helenthereef

And I mean that only the OP, ie the original complainant, would be able to put the icon up, no one else and certainly not the subject of the thread.

Well, I was thinking about the logistics of the custom programming effort involved to do something like what has been suggested here when you made this above quote. And this is when the real wrinkle to this suggestion hit me. The BOI threads are not always going to be about the singular person who started the thread. Technically the thread is about the SUBJECT, and as such, very often others will chime in with the same or similar problems. This, of course, is in reference to generally bad guy threads, but not limited to them, as we have very, VERY often seen good guy threads to a 180 abruptly. So in such cases, how would that be handled? The obvious answer would be to limit BOI threads to ONLY the issue presented by the original poster, but that would be an insurmountable challenge without drastic changes being made to the BOI itself. How could it work otherwise? Limit the thread to only input by the original poster and the subject? Well, doesn't that defeat the original design of the BOI completely? That is, to allow peer input to be voiced and the subsequent pressure that can exert on the parties to work things out? So if that were the goal to completely change the BOI, then that would mean, again, custom programming to apply such a change. And a large portion of manual hands-on by me in that I would have to be contacted by the subject of such a thread and manually set up privileges to allow their participation within the thread about them.

Without making such changes, since each thread basically is ABOUT the subject, and not particularly restricted to the original author, allowing that one person to completely judge such a thread based on their singular experience would certainly be problematic. Suppose the original author opened up a can of worms and 10 other people chimed in with their own similar issues. And the subject does settle things with the original author but still leaves the other 10 people flapping in the breeze. Would it be fair to have the original author claim that the subject is free and clear and pretty much pull the rug out from under those other 10 who still have their own cases they would want to remain aired? After all, if someone is viewing the subject line of someone who screwed over the author but sees [RESOLVED] in that subject line, are they really going to open it to actually read the rest of those issues stated within? Would this be fair?

Would YOU be comfortable with someone being able to create a bogus BOI thread about you and then be able to immediately make it look official but putting the label of [KNOWN SCAMMER] in that thread subject. Seriously, why wouldn't the original author just go ahead and do that immediately upon creating the thread, since in the case of a bad guy claim, that is going to certainly be what they believe at the moment. What about those people who may disagree with that assessment and state such within the thread? What now is actually being served by that additional label that hasn't already been claimed by the original author with the labels that are currently provided?

And again, what about those people, as mentioned in my earlier post, who get in a snit over something and may want to change that label to something completely irrelevant or even misleading?

You know, my ORIGINAL intent with the Board of Inquiry forum was to simply have a single thread for each and every person or business brought up for discussion and ALL posts made about that person, positive or negative, being completely contained within that single thread. I'm sure you can see how well that worked out. I used to enforce it a long while back, but it became a major MANUAL pain in the butt to do, so I had to abandon that original design. Yeah, I suppose I could have had custom coding put into place, but when I sat down and worked on design constraints that would be needed, it wouldn't have been a system that would have worked any better than what was already evolving on it's own. Matter of fact, it probably would have been worse, because then I would have had the lovely burden of trying to maintain a table of eligible persons and businesses that COULD be used to create a new BOI thread. And any time someone tried to create a new subject thread, the program would have had to be smart enough to figure out WHO it was actually about, and whether or not an existing thread was already in place in order to block the new thread. Of course, then the author would have had to be pointed to that existing thread so their input could be appended to what was already there.

Yes, I know this all looks really easy to do, and I guess maybe sometimes it appears that I didn't put any thought at all into the design or how things have evolved to what the BOI is today. Yeah, maybe somethings could have been done differently with a crystal ball on my desk, but honestly, there is a very real possibility that a different design strategy would have been such that no one wanted to jump through all the hoops necessary to strictly control how it was to be used. Heck, I did a lot of programming in my younger days, and I certainly would like to change things up here just because I actually like mixing things up sometimes. But I have large chunks that have been bitten out of my butt in the past because I tried to do some things that just did not go over very well. They seemed like good ideas at the time, but just because I might think that, it is certainly no guarantee that anyone else will think the same way.

Stuff like was what suggested here crosses my mind all the time. But as soon as I dig into the mechanics of what is needed to actually implement it, or my programmer pulls me down to earth with HIS assessment of what I am actually asking and in for, I have to scrub the idea.

Anyway, sorry about the long winded explanation, but I wanted to show you all that I DO seriously consider such suggestions and wanted to show you all why some things that sound real good just are not feasible to implement. Often it's not any case of all that I do NOT want to implement something, it's just that the reality of doing so is a whole lot of work and sprinkled with a large dose of causing a lot more problems than anything the suggestion was intended to correct or improve. And, of course, there is always the issue that I have to consider in that would something complicated to implement via custom programming really be cost effective if it cost several thousand dollars in order to do so? Would the return be worth the expenditure? I really hate to even think of some of the things I've paid for to be implemented here that are pretty much ignored and unused today. So honestly, the fun of doing new things aside, I like to think I've gotten smarter about such things lately and acted more like an administrator instead of some kid with new toys to play with on the internet.

Heck, this is way too long for me to proofread. Sorry about anything that just doesn't make sense because of my fumbling fingers.

Thanks for the detailed response (now I feel guilty for having taken up so much of your time....). I do get that this is never a simple issue, and as a very much NOT technical person, I am sure that what looks simple from the outside is not at all simple to make happen.

I see your points, and I certainly get that the BOI is sensitive ground. In my simplistic way I thought that the icon system that can be used when initiating a thread could possibly be modified by adding a "Situation Resolved" icon, not really for the other suggested categories (as I certainly get that someone would take great exception to being labelled a scammer without demonstrable proof).

Anyway, I understand the difficulties now, it's NEVER simple!

Thanks again for the explanation.

Originally Posted by Helenthereef

And I mean that only the OP, ie the original complainant, would be able to put the icon up, no one else and certainly not the subject of the thread.

There have been times when the OP claims another party is a 'Bad Guy' and some readers will question this assumption and post that in their opinion, the OP is in fact the REAL bad guy.
Sometimes in response to these posts putting him or her in the limelight, the OP will claim the situation is now resolved, and that no one needs to post further.
It is amazing that someone who was singing like a canary will all of a sudden choose the path of silence for himself and the readers as well.