A.F.A.I.K and "I think..."

[Conker]

Join date isn't everything... I've seen people who joined in 2003 ask "can i haz buy tis snipar from teh us of a?"

I did say a few times "I think", and when I say it, that's because I'm 99% sure about what I'm saying, but that a confirmation would be a good thing.
Exemple: AFAIK BuyAirsoft are faggots. I never bought from them, but I'm quite sure they are.

Everything isn't black and white... But agreed, some people who are totally clueless and use the excuse of « but I said "AFAIK" before! » to get around the retardedness of their answer are bothering as f***.

[Helbino]

*Now, this is just an idea, in which everyone is welcome to make suggestions, criticize, and adapt it to their own wants or needs*

What about implimenting some type of individual post rating system, so people having a glance (or even reading though) would know which information to trust, and which should not be bothered with?
(Now I'll try to relate this as much to the topic as should be.)

Missinformation really sucks, and when everyone seems to be an expert on the subject, who can you trust? Should you only trust people with the 'Age Verified' Title? (Rhetorical Question) Maybe you've had some trouble in the past with missinformation, and only trust really high ranking members?

What about a system where you can see which posts are 'highly rated' easily, and you can get which information to trust, and on the other hand see which posts are 'lowly rated', and which information is incorrect or useless.
*For an easy ^read, I'll just do this as a Q and A format to cover the points.*

Q: 'What if most people don't have the proper information, and the correct info gets burried?'

A: 'Only certain people who meet the expectations can rate a post, so the experienced members can spread their wisdom.

Q: 'What expectations would be needed to rate a post?'

A: 'Well, some possible ways is having a minimum time requirement at ASC.
1.For example, only (AV'D?) members who have at minimum two years on ASC are allowed to vote on posts.
2. Another set of expectations is more of an infectious system, in which a group of highly ranked or trusted members are allowed to vote. Then, those who have a minimum of *THREE/FOUR(?)* *STARS(?)* after a set number of posts *25(?)* can also vote.
3. A combination of both

Q: 'How I can easily tell which posts are highly rated and which arn't? I don't want to have to glue my eyes to my screen to see if four out of five pixels are coloured.'

A: '*Perhaps a border, or four out of five *STARS?* shown in the user info? Maybe an image of something next to the user avatar?*'

Q: 'Will the post rating system be in every section of the forums? I don't want to have my overall average affected because I didn't post a really funny joke in the 'You Laugh, You Lose' thread.

A: 'No, the rating system will only be implimented in specific forum sections'.

I figured I might as well throw this out there, I think the worst it can do is be buried.
Unless it gets implimented, it screws up, ASC fails, and I'm the root of it. AFAIK.

[Dart]

Originally Posted by TokyoSeven

I believe that there there should be form of requirement for people to give answers in the newbie tank. It would weed out 80% of those useless get age verified posts. Spamming "get av'd" to people is useless unless you explain what it means, what it entails and what the benefits are.

Plus after a while I could have some other invisible friends to be invisible with.

Its so lonely here.

Aww T7 I feel that way too. *don't buy the acm... Don't buy it... ok well if you buy it I won't work on it.... it broke? oh look now its on my freaking work bench /facepalm*

[TokyoSeven]

I think its time to make some sorta chain of informative videos that have a lot of boobs in them. People will watch them over and over and while they may not be listening the information may sink in eventually.