Ideas, Issues, Suggestions

I was thinking about this the other day, when I saw an article or two in a masthead refering to the network as Ten.

IIRC, when they had the major re-launch was it 2018, they even put out a release, showing specifically how they wanted to be stylised, now as 10. Media are still rarely using this, even members here on MS.

1 Like

Thank you!

1 Like

isn’t that what started this discussion in the first place? The networks’ desire for branding does not necessarily match ours


It isn’t a matter of branding, if it’s a number below ten (or is it twelve, I can’t remember), it should be written out. Most style-guides encourage this.


What are mods thoughts on the re-introduction of emoji reactions to posts on the site?

It seems to me that certain users are abusing the system and reacting with emojis unnecessarily when the post doesn’t warrant it. This erodes the quality of discussion, in my opinion.


We don’t need to live in a police state. If people post laughable comments then people will laugh. It doesn’t hinder the discussion.


The ‘laugh’ reaction can be used to convey a level of disrespect depending on the context. I can see that hindering discussion by making people more reluctant to share their honest opinions on certain topics especially when they hold a view that might differ from the majority.

I think it’s only really an issue on here in certain threads and subforums however. I’m not sure if Discourse allows for selectivity in enabling/disabling certain reactions or the reaction system in certain areas and topics, even if possible I suspect that it would be a lot of extra work for the mods/admins though for relatively minor gains.

Whirlpool (as much as I’m not a fan of parts of that particular forum) does provide a good example of how it could work in theory though- their ‘aura’ system is disabled in the In The News subforum which is considered the most contentious part of the forum. Their forum software is bespoke though which means they have flexibility you don’t get from an off-the-shelf solution like Discourse.

1 Like

Or what if the ability to use emoji reactions could be revoked from users who abuse it?


Either way this iteration seems better than the last.

1 Like

I’m not talking about that. I’m referring to situations where people use reactions that are completely irrelevant.

For example, if a user posts something like “Matt Doran is filling in for Shirvo today” and someone reacts with a laughing emoji, even though the content of the post is not intended to convey humour.

1 Like

I don’t see how that’s a problem though. Why do you think there’s something wrong with that? How does that “erode the quality of discussion”?

Well in that case @FootyKick has a point, and in that a laughing emoji seems odd and doesn’t add value. Unless there is some context to that, like Shirvo being absent so often.

It could be misconstrued but that’s on the member who is commenting. I would have thought they were laughing because somebody posted another irrelevant update about who is filling in for who.

1 Like

When we had them previously, we had members (well mainly just one) who used the poo or crying emoji on anything posted in a vaguely positive light about 9 or negative to 7.

The use of them is immeasurably better now


I agree there’s no need for change. If someone really wanted to express their feeling with an emoji, there’s no stopping them. They could just post it in the body of a comment.


1 Like

There was always a risk that expanding the availability to reactions that it may impact the level of interaction that people are willing to have on the forum. Some people on the site seem to want to spam the reactions option by issuing as many reactions as possible - I see who you are, and a number of you are issuing a number of reactions that is an order of magnitude above the rest.

I’ve looked into this - it cant be done at the moment - if the functionality becomes available then we will revisit.

I can reinstate the poo emoji if you’d like :wink: :poo:


Some people here seem very fixated on who presents what and when. I understand why… but not everyone cares. Tbh I generally don’t think ‘presenter fills in for other presenter’ is at all noteworthy… unless it’s, say, Fergo filling in for Shirvo (what is it with Channel 7 and nicknames?) on Sunrise.

it was voted on in 2022 to keep it that way


A pretty flawed poll - ‘no roster posts’ should’ve been an option.


But huge kudos to members (e.g.) Salty who over the years religiously followed the news and current affairs programming and took the time to keep us on MS in the know, not an ‘easy’ task by any means I’m sure.