Evolution at Green and Gold Rugby - PLEASE READ

[Hugh Jarse]

^^^^ Would there be any value in developing a shorthand to refer to matches to make searching thread titles easier:

Suggest year Competition name Round (if applicable) Team 1 v Team 2 (if applicable)

example 2012 SupeRugby R2 Waratahs v Rebels

 

[cyclopath]

^^^^ Would there be any value in developing a shorthand to refer to matches to make searching thread titles easier:

Suggest year Competition name Round (if applicable) Team 1 v Team 2 (if applicable)

example 2012 SupeRugby R2 Waratahs v Rebels

This idea has been discussed, and yes, it probably would be of value. A common template if you like to make it easier.

 

[Schadenfreude]

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



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

While I don't necessarily want to derail this thread, you know Violentacrez was a Mod right?

 

[Gagger]

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.
.

This is exactly why we're doing it!

We believe flaming and low quality posting might get you a few views in the short term, only high quality content will win longer term for our audience. It's not just about quality over quantity.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

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

No, I meant what I said. Curtailing freedom of speech is censorship, surely. Someone having rules about what you are allowed to say on their property is not, because you are free to do as you wish in your own establishment.

 

[James Buchanan]

I'll be the first to agree to some extent that the posting quality has gone downhill somewhat as the userbase has expanded. I suspect that stems largely from getting more outspoken people who tend to dominate the conversations via posting more often (the internet equivalent of talking more loudly, I imagine) and some of the quieter but insightful posters (I like to think I am one) being drowned out or finding it too much of an effort to put their point across.

I'm not entirely convinced that restricting topics will stem that too much. Some people have their agendas and they want to push them. Some people will always post compulsively. Threads will be derailed (which I remember as being something of a point of pride a couple of years ago, when done appropriately) for better or for worse.

I'm also not sure that the thread creation by proxy route is the best one. I have experienced on other forums a degree of posting right restriction, such as having to make 50 posts or whatever is appropriate before getting the right to start your own thread. This usually gives new users a time to get a feel for the forum before wading in with their pet grievance thread. In addition, this is often backed up by mods exercising the power to take away user's ability to create threads if they abuse it. This can be for a period of a week, a month or more; or in some cases, permanently.

I'm inclined towards that as a preferable system, as I think it allows for a more open conversation but with real consequences if you're being a muppet. I at least prefer this to a vaguely paternalistic system which may shield people from other users excesses of fervor or indiscretions of judgment, but only really provides topics of discussion which are deemed 'appropriate'.

I imagine that this will depend largely on the size of the 'thread creator' list. Although, I question this too. Too small a list and we have limited discourse, too large and why bother with the process in the first place. I suspect getting the balance on this will prove very difficult to achieve overall.

But when it comes down to it, as long as I have a Rebels thread to natter on in, I'm sure I'll survive.

 

[Gagger]

While I don't necessarily want to derail this thread, you know Violentacrez was a Mod right?

Yep, and he embodied their clickbait policy as I explained above, which is counter to what we'd like to achieve.

It's really interesting that you're struggling with this Schadenfreude

 

[cyclopath]

I'm sure you will, James.
It will be a process of testing the water a bit, and we'll know more after a bit of time with it.
I think, in the long run, if we can focus on better quality, it will work out.
The last bit of my initial post is also important - derailing threads with off-topic crap and personal sniping etc will be less tolerated.
An no, that doesn't mean pithy one-liners aren't allowed - humour has been a great part of this site.
Witty and funny banter is always OK. Even from Rebels supporters.

 

[ChargerWA]

This seems like a strange way to lift the quality of the posts. If you have an issue with the threads intent or an individuals contibution to the threads and forum in general, wouldn't it be easier to moderate the individual responsible.

What's the next step if this doesn't work? Moderating every post before it can be submitted?

 

[cyclopath]

No.
That is not the aim.
The idea is to try to improve the quality of forum discussions, by making the starting point more robust.
Nobody is being denied the ability to comment, and I'll say it again, if you have an idea for a thread, you can still generate one.
This is to be trialled in rugby discussion for a while.

 

[Scarfman]

When I used to run the forum, I used to take away poster's rights to start a thread quite regularly. A poor title and opening post is a one-way ticket to crap posting. I guess that's why the mods are focusing on that aspect. I think James B has a point that turning up this method could be used as an alternative.

The main thing is that we know that cyclopath is doing this in good faith, in an attempt to tweak the quality of the posts. I'm sure adjustments can be made to the method over time.

 

[Jnor]

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.

I get the idea is to encourage better quality discussion through better quality starting points but IMO the majority of threads are not something that need that kind of structure and initial thought.

It's not like every discussion about rugby down the pub (which is what this place is a virtual verison of) starts with a two or three-minute monologue.

And a whole lot of valid, more newsy but less analyitical threads are going to be lost or have to be discussed in irrelevant existing threads - injury situations I mentioned previously, JON resigning, McCaw's autobiography etc.

I know it's a trial at the moment and I agree that quality needs to be paramount, I just think we might lose a lot of the casual discussion we come here for.

 

[Gagger]

Like Cyclo says - let's try it, and see what happens.

No-one's going to be bloody minded about it, and no doubt we'll need to tweak it one way or the other. The thoughts you're all expressing are the that we've discussed. We won't know how it all plays out until try it.

But hey, let's just give it a shot for a coupla weeks. In truth there's nothing that bad that can happen.

 

[Moses]

I've just added a mod that allows mods to sticky the first post in a thread so it shows on every page.

In response to Jnor, not every thread will need that many words; what we're really after is some thought at the top of a thread about the direction it will take. Threads started to discuss 'did Taps butcher a try' will always elicit a certain response, and we're hearing that response turns a lot of readers off.

 

[rugbyisfun]

Strewth....it's serious stuff this....talkin rugby

 

[Athilnaur]

I think it will be extremely counterproductive, thread counts will drop radically, inspire less (for better and worse), and traffic will drop.

Nor will it stop the reds vs the world dimension, or the anti-establishment cynics pushing their carts. All you are really doing is applying a brake on people who want to raise a new topic.

I applaud the objective, but the upshot is a bunch of mods are going to approve(or reject) ideas, that goes against the whole premise of fora.

 

[Richo]

I'm sceptical, to be honest, but I really agree that things have declined a bit lately. Is that because crap threads are being started? I don't know. I don't recall that many of them. To me it seems like the larger problem is both beating dead horses and poor adherence to the forum rules.

Anyway, while I don't know if this is the right approach, I appreciate the effort to keep the quality here at a high level.

 

[cyclopath]

I think it will be extremely counterproductive, thread counts will drop radically, inspire less (for better and worse), and traffic will drop.

Nor will it stop the reds vs the world dimension, or the anti-establishment cynics pushing their carts. All you are really doing is applying a brake on people who want to raise a new topic.

I applaud the objective, but the upshot is a bunch of mods are going to approve(or reject) ideas, that goes against the whole premise of fora.

It's not going to be a bunch of mods approving or rejecting ideas. The group will be much broader than the moderators alone.
Anyway, we'll see how it transpires.

 

[rugbyisfun]

Is there a direct correlation between the threads/conversation going down hill and the state of Australian rugby possibly??

 

[cyclopath]

Is there a direct correlation between the threads/conversation going down hill and the state of Australian rugby possibly??

You couldn't pay someone enough to do that study!!
Yeah, probably has something to do with it.
There are probably a number of factors, including the sheer size of numbers we are getting these days. In any event, too many threads end up mired in the same or similar circular arguments, partly because we have been lax in letting them get there, and partly because quite a few share commonality.
This way, threads which make good ideas for discussion, such as the Pillars and Stonewall thread, and the Did Tapuai Butcher a Try thread can be started with a somewhat more positive tone, and hopefully help avoid provincialism and point-scoring to some degree.
Anyway, it will be a fluid thing. Don't get hung up on anything being set in stone at the moment.
Fora need to evolve and try to keep fresh.