Evolution at Green and Gold Rugby - PLEASE READ

[cyclopath]

OK, everyone. We are making a few changes with the forum, with regards to threads and content.

Why?

It has become more obvious, as our traffic has increased, that the quality of the threads, at times, has declined. Too many threads are close to double-ups in terms of subject matter, quite a few really offer little more than yet another opportunity for club / provincial / national-based parochialism and sniping, and probably a few threads need to be wound up sooner such as match-based threads.
We are looking to stimulate a greater level of good debate on some of the many worthwhile topics that present themselves. We’ve had some good examples in recent weeks – the Pillars and Stonewall thread (taking out the usual name-calling and preciousness) had some good rational argument on matters of law.

Other recent potential worthwhile issues include:-
· Substitution debacle against SA
· Why is our injury count so high?
· Travel issues from Aus to SA to Argentina and the unique problems they pose
· Horwill or Pocock to captain EOYT (or indeed Sharpey!)
· Peter Betham in the ITM Cup
· Where is Phil Blake coaching next year?
· Have the new scrum “set call” rules improved things in the ITM and Currie Cups?

…and so on. We are looking at people to start with a decent post with some facts / stats to back up arguments and go from there. Good posts might be blog articles too – something for forum members to think about. 200-400 words is a good figure to aim at.

What we don’t want are “ Did Taps Butcher a Try?” threads. The discussion is worth having, but when a thread is started like that, it heads only one way. Better to ask “Has the art of draw and pass declined in Oz and why?”

What’s new?

The ability to start a thread will be limited, but the ability to have an idea that leads to a thread will not. If you have an idea, post it in the “Suggested Threads” sub-forum which will appear soon. Ideally, create a decent post, not just a one-liner, or outline an idea at least. This will be reviewed by a “Thread Starter” and if good enough, the post becomes a thread. That group will be created, not based on post counts necessarily, but on quality and consistency of contribution. It will be fluid over time.

What Else?

There will be a tighter rein on off-topic posting, and repeat offenders will get warned or given a rest if they don’t get the hint.
There will be no tolerance for trolling, playing the man, abusive or threatening posting and the like. There are places to go and have a good shit-fight on the Web, GAGR aint it.

Bear in mind, there may be some teething issues with this change, so bear with us.

 

[DPK]

So will the previous threads now considered poor quality be closed?

 

[cyclopath]

We're looking forward, not back!

 

[Schadenfreude]

Nothing encourages an open and interesting discussion like censorship.

 

[cyclopath]

Nothing encourages an open and interesting discussion like censorship.

Not at all - anyone can be added to the group starting threads if they contribute in a meaningful way to the forum. Anyone can have an idea that will get a thread started, we are just trying to bolster the quality of the content somewhat. People who generally get involved in sniping and arguments are not really doing that.
The ability to post in threads is unchanged.
Somewhat more like the front page, but with a slightly different focus.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Sounds like a reasonable idea.

 

[DPK]

So like the Supreme Court in the US created the "clear and present danger" test for free speech in Schneck v. United States, do we now have a test for what we consider poor quality forum contributions?

 

[cyclopath]

Yep. Write a 200-400 word post for a thread, and post it in Suggested Threads (once that sub-forum is up). Or post the outline of an idea for a thread.
The "Thread Starters" group is going to be pretty broad, and NOT just moderators, in case anyone was wondering.
If it is liked in there, it goes up.
If it's not, we'll, there's the test.

 

[AngrySeahorse]

What’s new?

The ability to start a thread will be limited, but the ability to have an idea that leads to a thread will not. If you have an idea, post it in the “Suggested Threads” sub-forum which will appear soon. Ideally, create a 200-400 word post, or outline an idea at least. This will be reviewed by a “Thread Starter” and if good enough, the post becomes a thread. That group will be created, not based on post countsnecessarily, but on quality and consistency of contribution. It will be fluid over time.

Bear in mind, there may be some teething issues with this change, so bear with us.

I've read the whole post a few times & maybe I just keep missing something but my understanding of this is if you put up a "Suggested Thread" in the "Suggested Thread" section it is locked from anyone else posting on it till the "Thread starter" group has checked it out then given it the ok. Is that right?

If that is correct here is my concern. Say I'm up at 3am ready to watch a Super Rugby game live out of SA & I notice there is no match thread for the game. I go to the "Suggested Thread" section to post a match thread. Is there going to be someone from this "Thread Starter" group available to approve it in quick time? If no one is around to ok it, & the match thread is sitting there in the "Suggested Threads" section with no one able to be respond to it. It may well cut off a fair bit of conversation on some games for us nightowls (or those in different time zones).

^^^This probably would not be an issue if we had the shoutbox running. Even if we had the whole list of test & Super Rugby games already put up in their own threads before hand there are Euro/other based Rugby games at late night/early morning times. These may not have a match thread & you never know when people are watching these games & may want to put up a thread off the cuff.

I suppose the concern for me is taking away the ability to put up threads at the spur of the moment. Provided I've understood the info right on how this is going to work.

If these changes are going ahead I'd like to see a tick box option as to whether you are creating a match thread or not so that perhaps match threads can be posted immediately rather than having to wait to have them approved.

Overall I'm happy at what these new thread procedures are trying to do in terms of quality.

 

[Scarfman]

Nothing encourages an open and interesting discussion like censorship.

There is somewhere in between Soviet Russsia and the Wild Wild West.

This forum is 5 years, 1 month, and 12 days old, and has 1000s of members. In that time, it has been pretty close to the most reasonable sports discussion forum in the world. But keeping it that way does involve constant evolution to stay one step ahead.

I haven't had anything to do with this, by the way, but I think it looks worth a shot.

 

[cyclopath]

I've read the whole post a few times & maybe I just keep missing something but my understanding of this is if you put up a "Suggested Thread" in the "Suggested Thread" section it is locked from anyone else posting on it till the "Thread starter" group has checked it out then given it the ok. Is that right?

If that is correct here is my concern. Say I'm up at 3am ready to watch a Super Rugby game live out of SA & I notice there is no match thread for the game. I go to the "Suggested Thread" section to post a match thread. Is there going to be someone from this "Thread Starter" group available to approve it in quick time? If no one is around to ok it, & the match thread is sitting there in the "Suggested Threads" section with no one able to be respond to it. It may well cut off a fair bit of conversation on some games for us nightowls (or those in different time zones).

^^^This probably would not be an issue if we had the shoutbox running. Even if we had the whole list of test & Super Rugby games already put up in their own threads before hand there are Euro/other based Rugby games at late night/early morning times. These may not have a match thread & you never know when people are watching these games & may want to put up a thread off the cuff.

I suppose the concern for me is taking away the ability to put up threads at the spur of the moment. Provided I've understood the info right on how this is going to work.

If these changes are going ahead I'd like to see a tick box option as to whether you are creating a match thread or not so that perhaps match threads can be posted immediately rather than having to wait to have them approved.

Overall I'm happy at what these new thread procedures are trying to do in terms of quality.

If you post in Suggested Threads, and anyone in the "Thread Starter" group sees it, it can be posted.
Match threads, player rating threads and team lists will be a bit different by necessity, and we should be able to have these up prior to any matches.
As I said, there will be some teething issues, but we'll work them out.
As I said as well, the Thread Starter group will be quite broad.

 

[Moses]

I should add this is only going to apply to threads in 'Rugby Discussion' initially, we'll see how well it works and re-evaluate after a bit

 

[cyclopath]

I should add this is only going to apply to threads in 'Rugby Discussion' initially, we'll see how well it works and re-evaluate after a bit

See, I should have put it in the Suggested Threads box first and got it right.

 

[The Red Baron]

Interesting idea, however I am more concerned about how people are finding this page..

Anyway, lets not derail the thread.

 

[Gagger]

Excellent stuff, I'm excited where this might take us.

Nothing encourages an open and interesting discussion like censorship.

This forum has never been "say whatever you want" - which is why it's not a cesspool.

If you want to see what that sort of policy can lead to, read this
http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-on-the-web

 

[Jnor]

Just as a minor point, I think the 200-400 wd limit might be a bit much. Just for something to be a good thread idea doesn't need a mini-thesis of discussion. 300 words on discussing who might be injured for the EOYT, for example.

Otherwise, let's do it

 

[cyclopath]

Just as a minor point, I think the 200-400 wd limit might be a bit much. Just for something to be a good thread idea doesn't need a mini-thesis of discussion. 300 words on discussing who might be injured for the EOYT, for example.

Otherwise, let's do it

The 200-400 words is to see if we can get some decent blog posts too. Of course they do not all have to be that length, but we have some good content creators who might be up for a bit more.
People can have or start an idea which is a few points, and it can be built into a thread starting post.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Nothing encourages an open and interesting discussion like censorship.

The proprietor of a private establishment having house rules is not censorship. The government telling you what you can or cannot read, say, view or write is. Big difference.

 

[Moses]

If these changes are going ahead I'd like to see a tick box option as to whether you are creating a match thread or not so that perhaps match threads can be posted immediately rather than having to wait to have them approved.

I've made a separate sub-forum for 'Rugby Matches', anyone can start a thread in this section.

 

[Schadenfreude]

The proprietor of a private establishment having house rules is not censorship. The government telling you what you can or cannot read, say, view or write is. Big difference.

I think you're talking about freedom of speech and press. Big difference.

No my point is that it's risky to limit forums (or whatever the plural is). Threads die when people have lost interest, and websites and fora are heavily penalized for people losing interest.

I wish you luck - if you pull it off you may be the first - but I think what you're doing is changing the site from "forum with blog" to "blog with comments". Either way is gutsy.