Evolution at Green and Gold Rugby - PLEASE READ

[Roundawhile]

SNIP
I do agree, though, that there is less variety on the Rugby Discussion page. For instance, in the past, the Beale-Vuna incident would have spawned its own thread rather than clogging up the Rebels 2013 one. Perhaps a wider range of members would have gotten involved in the conversation. Similarly, lots of discussion about Waratahs crowd figures fills up the 2013 thread. While relevant, it does mean the topic of the thread is enormous and snippets of info about players and so on get lost.

I think this is very relevant and is probably why we are seeing less variety on the discussion board. The Beale-Vuna incident definitely deserved to have its own thread, but this, along with many others, are being buried in the match threads. It is very difficult to wade through these threads to find interesting posts.

I actually made a post regarding the Beale-Vuna incident, but when I went back a couple of days later, trying to fossick through the rebels posts to try to find the B-V posts become a chore and I gave up.

There are over 4000 posts in the Waratahs 2013 thread, where the hell do you start to look for a specific topic?

This is perhaps the point I was trying (rather ineptly) to make last night, all the interesting posts are being swallowed.

We have (rightly) tightened the site to remove the dross, but in so doing we have discouraged new threads to the point were we are losing the very diversity of threads that drew so many people to start with.

Is it actually the wrong direction though? There are dozens of websites where you can say literally whatever you want about rugby or the players, organizations, other countries etc. This is the only place where you are not allowed to just spout off whatever you feel like saying. I'd rather be called 'elitist' and actually be able to have in-depth discussions and analysis without any of the filler or bullshit that you find on every other rugby forum than to be liked by all at the cost of the one thing that truly makes G&GR special (aside from Lee's/Scott's analysis and Cat's social pages updates).

Yes I was wrong in making that statement, I should have said that we have moved a little too far in the other direction.

If we can get members to start posting more threads again , where they are relevant, then I believe we will have achieved all the goals set out in the mods restructure.

PS I blame over-indulgence brought on by a weekend spent with my kids and grandson for my overly critical tone last night

 

[ChargerWA]

It is the distinction between calling for Deans to hang, rather than asking why Deans should keep his job, that we are trying to drive. The difference in language is that one is clearly playing the man and encouraging hate speech, and the other is asking for considered thought and reason.

This is probably the most concise description of the intent behind the changes I have seen.

When I consider the changes that have been made, in the short term I miss the buffoonery but overall I will acknowledge that the changes have had a positive impact. Specifically I don't miss the state V state baiting that appears to have died down.

 

[USARugger]

I think this is very relevant and is probably why we are seeing less variety on the discussion board. The Beale-Vuna incident definitely deserved to have its own thread, but this, along with many others, are being buried in the match threads. It is very difficult to wade through these threads to find interesting posts.

I actually made a post regarding the Beale-Vuna incident, but when I went back a couple of days later, trying to fossick through the rebels posts to try to find the B-V posts become a chore and I gave up.

There are over 4000 posts in the Waratahs 2013 thread, where the hell do you start to look for a specific topic?

This is perhaps the point I was trying (rather ineptly) to make last night, all the interesting posts are being swallowed.

We have (rightly) tightened the site to remove the dross, but in so doing we have discouraged new threads to the point were we are losing the very diversity of threads that drew so many people to start with.



Yes I was wrong in making that statement, I should have said that we have moved a little too far in the other direction.

If we can get members to start posting more threads again , where they are relevant, then I believe we will have achieved all the goals set out in the mods restructure.

PS I blame over-indulgence brought on by a weekend spent with my kids and grandson for my overly critical tone last night

I think the issue seems to be more with new threads not being create for sub-topic level discussions (Beale/Vuna incident, Folau's development, etc). That is a little more on the general forum culture here than it is on the mods, nothing is really 'stopping' anyone from making these threads, it just doesn't really happen. There is still a fairly large amount of content being posted here, but the brilliant thing is I don't have to dig through 40 posts comparing Richie McCaw to Hitler to get to a post that is insightful/funny/doesn't make me want to gouge my eyes out with a fork. So perhaps as a forum we need to come to the realization that perhaps we should start creating separate threads for sub-topical material. The only issue there would be defining exactly what would qualify, which is largely subjective but the system of corralling new threads before introducing them to the actual forums would pretty easily allow the mods to handle this.

 

[HG]

I agree with Roundawhile, I haven't been in for a while and was shocked at the change to the starting of threads.
If it is too hard for people to create a thread they won't and will post in an existing thread. Then to have a meaning full discussion within another thread about the issue is near impossible and all it will succeed in doing is getting lost in the rest of the general discussion.
If the board think they are going to improve the quality of posting this is not the way to do it.
I am disappointed that this has occurred.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

HG do you have a suggested model for meeting somewhere in the middle between complete laissez faire anarchy and a rigidly enforced regimented structure?

IMHO the whole thing more or less seems to be working OK, although I can acknowledge that Gaggerland can be a little intimidating for newbies as they come up to speed with the Vibe of the place.

 

[HG]

Most of what cyclopath has said I agree with. Not playing the man, trolling etc however off topic posting may get worst as people want to have a say but don't want to write a 200 odd word essay to get a topic started.
The issues the community need to work out, is do you want a forum or more of a blog site that people comment on?
I for one won't be trying to start a thread under the current system, so will post anything I have to say under the Reds, Tahs, etc existing threads. This is how good discussion will be lost, as most won't be bothered to read through all the other stuff that to get back to the posts they were looking at a few days ago.
The best way to control the system is through moderation, locking tired threads, etc. When I dropped in the other week I was looking for the thread about Vuna, Beale issue and couldn't see any. Maybe it is there if I wanted to look further but didn't have the time.
It has taken the spontaneity away for the site.
Just my thoughts. Good luck with what ever you decide.

 

[Sully]

Posters will eventually get to a level that allows them to start threads and you don't need to write an essay to start a thread in the suggested thread forum.
I've been around since the forum started and found the fact that it's intimidating to post here. If like to hear more about it.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[cyclopath]

I've changed the wording a bit - really the starting of a thread in "Suggested Threads" is as easy as it ever was. Initially, we had the idea of getting some "bigger" starters that might overlap and become blog pieces. In reality, we want something considered, not a throwaway one-liner, or obvious baiting, to start a thread.
The idea of a 200-400 word post as a blog article is still great, but obviously not what every thread needs to aim at, and my wording was clumsy on this. But if you have a good one in you, throw it up!
Some good points have been thrown up to us in the past few weeks, and we have looked at tweaking a few things following on from that.
This will remain a fluid process, and ongoing feedback is always welcome and appropriate.

 

[Sully]

HG have you tried starting a thread?

 

[boyo]

Maybe the "Suggested threads" thing is unseen by many?

As to making it more visible, I have no answer.

 

[Scott Allen]

Maybe the "Suggested threads" thing is unseen by many?

As to making it more visible, I have no answer.

The idea with the Suggested Threads area is that the mods move threads from there to the main forum if we think it deserves the exposure. Sometimes we're a little slow in doing that but I just moved your Nicknames thread over to the main forum so it should now get the exposure.

We don't move threads if they're not considered appropriate or are an obvious duplicate of an existing thread.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

bit slow at the best of times but....

Suggested Threads

All users can start threads in here.

Great! Thenks!

then its:

(You have insufficient privileges to post here.)

...but it says "all users"... How many posts do you need to even get to suggest a thread? Reason I ask is I do not see any "Auckland Blues 2014" thread at this, a rugby forum. Thats like having a car without the fuckin' bonnet. Or the racing stripes.

 

[cyclopath]

bit slow at the best of times but..



Great! Thenks!

then its:



.but it says "all users". How many posts do you need to even get to suggest a thread? Reason I ask is I do not see any "Auckland Blues 2014" thread at this, a rugby forum. Thats like having a car without the fuckin' bonnet. Or the racing stripes.

Not sure why you don't have privileges - will look into it. Meantime, I'll start the thread. Sorry about that!

 

[Sully]

10 posts before you can start a thread.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[cyclopath]

10 posts before you can start a thread.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Oops, I assumed he had 10 and didn't check - seemed like he's been around a while! Anyway, thread started.

 

[Sully]

Thought there was a combined NZ thread.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[matty_k]

There used to be.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

ps, that email newsletter is a good idea. i joined here last year, promptly forgot all about the place then got remindered the other day. Good vibe to this forus as opposed to, say, The Silver Fern, a site which, incidenatlly, i got banned from for criticising their forum from a neighbouring fuckin forum! Not even on their site! That is some NSA shit motherfuckers. Bottoms up, Baron Semen Brokeback haha

-- Baron Semen Ballsack, seen here working his day job.

 

[Bowside]

Is it possible to somehow direct the comments on front page articles into the forum?

Perhaps when an article goes up a thread starts and all comments are part of the thread?

Forum is getting a bit stale. But the blog is great.

Can we also get rid of some of the stickies, stickies sort of lose meaning when there is more than two of them.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

one other query; how come the forus is so narrow? I see a lot of untapped real estate potential out to the left and to the right there.

Is it because some people view the site on those blasted little smartpants contraptions?

Or are the ARU coffers so empty they could only afford 2/3rds of a screen haha little joke there, dont panic, I know the site is really run by the NZRFU.

________________________________________________________________​

​