[craig]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you looking to cut down on the number of threads?

[/ QUOTE ]

No

[ QUOTE ]
Are you looking to weed out potential "salespeople" and fake chest-thumpers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhat

[ QUOTE ]
Are you looking to make it easier to ignore a poster's threads, if they are not up to snuff?

[/ QUOTE ]

No

[ QUOTE ]
Are you looking to simplify your job as moderator?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a definite "no". If anything this will make moderating tougher. I am going to have to verify (others will help I am sure) that people's records are accurate.


[ QUOTE ]
As to the W-L records- since those numbers mean very little without validation, wouldn't it be better to list 2+2 posted win/loss records? Those can be verified and judged accurate; other sources usually cannot, due to control questions.

I personally think I'd rather see one "Picks of x/x/06- (sport)" thread that everyone replies to, rather than having to drill down into craig's baseball picks for the week, then find mr baseball and drill down into his for Friday's picks, then hit tech's weekly thread.... and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am unsure what you mean by "wouldn't it be better to list 2+2 posted win/loss records"? Do you mean as a group or individually. If you mean as a group, I don't see what the point of that would be. If you mean individually, then that will be pretty tough to go through every thread and add up people's picks. Plus, you will have the extra burden of people saying, "no, I never said, I bet that, I just said I liked it, etc...". But, if they are listing picks in the manner I suggested (and others, I am not just doing this on my own) then it will be easy to verify the records.

As far as one day for each sport, those threads get very long and filled with a bunch of "homerism" and "bs reasoning". Plus, a lot goes unnoticed in the uber-long threads. Plus, others, including myself, don't want to wade through a bunch of that.



[ QUOTE ]
I am curious what your objectives are here. Given some of the constraints of the forum software, and Search facilities, I don't know if what you're imposing is going to be helpful or not.

Can you give some examples of what you expect the forum to be like?

[/ QUOTE ]

My objective is to make the forum better. Other sports betting forums that have had a similar structure seem to produce more well thought out picks and discussions (not less, like others think). When you look at the other strategy forums on 2+2 there is nothing else on the Internet that can even come close to matching the advice and knowledge that is spread. But, unfortunately, this strategy forum does not. There are better Sports Bettting forums and I think that with some type of structure, with us having people with well documented winning records, and with the discussions we are going to have, this forum could also be the best sports betting forum on the Internet. Tech has also mentioned that other forums with similar structures are sometimes better. And I think some accountability will make this forum better.

I am not going to guarantee that this forum will be better because of the new structure. I am also not saying that the new "rules" aren't changeable. I am a reasonable person who is always open to criticism. If this doesn't work well, we (as a group) can change it.

On the same note, not that much is changing. I am not making rules that "you must have X posts before making a post in here" or anything like that. All I am saying is that if you are going to make picks you should be accountable for them. No more bsing us (especially new people) that you have solid winning advice, when you don't. W/L records over the long run do say something. Over the short term, they are meaningless (we all should know that).

If anybody can propose a better and easier system for some form of accountability while making the forum better, I am all ears. You can PM me or post here.

craig