Evolution at Green and Gold Rugby - PLEASE READ
- Thread starter cyclopath
- Start date
- Status
Antony
Alex Ross (28)
I don't use any other fora, so can't speak to the effectiveness of a measure like that. Fair enough though.
I wasn't here for the halcyon days, but I tend to agree with the above that the problem with threads isn't largely the origin, but the way that people are happy to abduct ANY topic and turn it into "McCaw's a cheat", "McCabe/any-other-midfield-player is shit", "Higginbotham's a winger", "Cooper is a jerk" etc.
Since it's always the same topics, maybe a different solution would be to have sticky'ed (?) threads for the recurring bad subjects, or a special sub-section for them, so that people who want to flame each other are free to, and those who want to avoid can avoid. Any off topic replies can be quickly moved to those threads. They're still rugby topics, and some people clearly really like discussing them, so there should still be a place to do so.
Like I said though, do what you've got to do. Sorry if this all sounds like we're heaping shit on you.
I wasn't here for the halcyon days, but I tend to agree with the above that the problem with threads isn't largely the origin, but the way that people are happy to abduct ANY topic and turn it into "McCaw's a cheat", "McCabe/any-other-midfield-player is shit", "Higginbotham's a winger", "Cooper is a jerk" etc.
Since it's always the same topics, maybe a different solution would be to have sticky'ed (?) threads for the recurring bad subjects, or a special sub-section for them, so that people who want to flame each other are free to, and those who want to avoid can avoid. Any off topic replies can be quickly moved to those threads. They're still rugby topics, and some people clearly really like discussing them, so there should still be a place to do so.
Like I said though, do what you've got to do. Sorry if this all sounds like we're heaping shit on you.
Hooray - let's just hope the sky doesn't fall in on us first!
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
what happens when something like JON resigns - presumably the forum will await approval for the JON Resigns thread? whereas the thread that actually attracted that "news" started as a rumour, I think.
Anyway its your site.
Anyway its your site.
IS - there will be plenty of people to start such threads.
In reality, I reckon the problems will be fewer than some are anticipating here.
I repeat - EVERYONE can post in the Suggested Threads sub-forum for Rugby Discussion. EVERYONE can start a thread in any other forum. NOBODY is being censored from having ideas, commenting or whatever. We're trying to set a benchmark for content, not impose constraints on free speech.
Everyone should wait and see before assuming it will become Burma.
In reality, I reckon the problems will be fewer than some are anticipating here.
I repeat - EVERYONE can post in the Suggested Threads sub-forum for Rugby Discussion. EVERYONE can start a thread in any other forum. NOBODY is being censored from having ideas, commenting or whatever. We're trying to set a benchmark for content, not impose constraints on free speech.
Everyone should wait and see before assuming it will become Burma.
Roundawhile
Billy Sheehan (19)
If it reduces the Reds/Tahs, Wobs/ABs, Reds/Everyone, Tahs/Everyone, QC (Quade Cooper)/Everyone McCaw cheat parochial flaming I am all for it.
The 'Stonewall' thread started brilliantly, and was then turned to shit by some rather inward looking individuals.
Getting tired of the 'you said' 'I said' childishness.
Would also like to see a crackdown on people taking offense at posts where there is no offense intended, as you say the preciousness.
Hopefully we can get back to Rugby Discussion.
You have my vote.
The 'Stonewall' thread started brilliantly, and was then turned to shit by some rather inward looking individuals.
Getting tired of the 'you said' 'I said' childishness.
Would also like to see a crackdown on people taking offense at posts where there is no offense intended, as you say the preciousness.
Hopefully we can get back to Rugby Discussion.
You have my vote.
tigerland12
John Thornett (49)
Ugh I hate change haha
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
Who moved my cheese?
Lyall
Herbert Moran (7)
Underlined above would be my only concern and that would be more so for the moderators, the most recent case in point being Barbarian taking offence to something being called gay (no I don't want to start a thread about it!). I'd like to see the 'slack' cut to posters continued.
Otherwise thank you to everyone who is on and 'behind' this forum, it adds very much to my total Rugby experience, your efforts are all very much appreciated.
Tim&Bingo
Chris McKivat (8)
Right
For what it's worth.
I'm unclear as to the straightness of the agenda that this board is endeavouring to establish, although that might be because I'm too thick to get it.
The decisions about what the quality level of any contribution is, and who makes them are worrying
There is an ongoing increase in the popularity of the Union game and subsequently a wider demographic in who may or may not be attracted to participate in this forum.
If the decision to be allowed to participate is based on some arbitrary capacity to articulate an idea or opinion then that is patently wrong.
If it is based on some educational prejudice of a poster's capacity to deliver eloquent and coherent commentary on their experiences of Union rugby then that is wrong.
If this policy is based upon a desire to make a Moderator or Editor's activity easier then that is wrong.
If it is due to criticism from a 3rd party of influence who the Ed?Mods? wish to impress by suppressing untoward or less on-message discussion then this decision is wrong and highlights lazy management.
If it reflects a lack of editorial/ mod intellect to do the job then bin the lot of them and bring in new blood.
I find a manifesto, as published, that trumpets the spurious benefits of less options, less choice of participation, less openness, more censure, less variety and less rigour in the desire to make G&G an inclusive forum to be a depressing result of an crass top management process.
But it is a perception given the way this message has been broadcast and possibly due to poor forethought of the way the proclamation is delivered.
It sounds pompous and arrogant.
I would beseech the great and good of G&G to take another swig of the jar and have a thorough think about what they want G&G to be.
At the moment it seems that they only want an exclusive "elite" to voice a view - that is the perception, in which case, if real will reduce G&G to a very lonely place for those still interested in participating.
That's my take.
For what it's worth.
I'm unclear as to the straightness of the agenda that this board is endeavouring to establish, although that might be because I'm too thick to get it.
The decisions about what the quality level of any contribution is, and who makes them are worrying
There is an ongoing increase in the popularity of the Union game and subsequently a wider demographic in who may or may not be attracted to participate in this forum.
If the decision to be allowed to participate is based on some arbitrary capacity to articulate an idea or opinion then that is patently wrong.
If it is based on some educational prejudice of a poster's capacity to deliver eloquent and coherent commentary on their experiences of Union rugby then that is wrong.
If this policy is based upon a desire to make a Moderator or Editor's activity easier then that is wrong.
If it is due to criticism from a 3rd party of influence who the Ed?Mods? wish to impress by suppressing untoward or less on-message discussion then this decision is wrong and highlights lazy management.
If it reflects a lack of editorial/ mod intellect to do the job then bin the lot of them and bring in new blood.
I find a manifesto, as published, that trumpets the spurious benefits of less options, less choice of participation, less openness, more censure, less variety and less rigour in the desire to make G&G an inclusive forum to be a depressing result of an crass top management process.
But it is a perception given the way this message has been broadcast and possibly due to poor forethought of the way the proclamation is delivered.
It sounds pompous and arrogant.
I would beseech the great and good of G&G to take another swig of the jar and have a thorough think about what they want G&G to be.
At the moment it seems that they only want an exclusive "elite" to voice a view - that is the perception, in which case, if real will reduce G&G to a very lonely place for those still interested in participating.
That's my take.
Scarfman
Knitter of the Scarf
I'm sure the mods here will give you the fair hearing you don't deserve, but I can tell you that:
TSR
Andrew Slack (58)
Agree with all of this. Particularly the part in bold. Happy to give it a go.
our fame continues to grow
http://forum.planet-rugby.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=22999
http://forum.planet-rugby.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=22999
- Status