Evolution at Green and Gold Rugby - PLEASE READ

[Hugh Jarse]

spoilsport

 

[Gagger]

So, just to clarify..

The changes are already in place - so if you can threadstart now, you're a threadstarter - a twisted threadstarter.

Basically the idea is that once you've become a valued member of the community, you get the right to start threads. This should be a right we value, because by starting a thread, you are inviting people to spend their valuable time in it.

If you start threads of questionable value you'll get a heads up, and after that if you keep going you could get the keys taken away. Fair enough I'd say.

Should a new joiner want to start a thread, they just put their idea forward - it's physically no harder then starting a thread is now. If they put a couple of good ideas forward, they'll no doubt get given the keys as well.

Will it reduce the thread count? I hope so. My favourite restaurants are those with short menus - because I know the quality of those choices will be high. Other people like the opposite - fair enough, there are other restaurants.

Grubs up

 

[Inside Shoulder]

So, just to clarify..

The changes are already in place - so if you can threadstart now, you're a threadstarter - a twisted threadstarter.

Basically the idea is that once you've become a valued member of the community, you get the right to start threads. This should be a right we value, because by starting a thread, you are inviting people to spend their valuable time in it.

If you start threads of questionable value you'll get a heads up, and after that if you keep going you could get the keys taken away. Fair enough I'd say.

Should a new joiner want to start a thread, they just put their idea forward - it's physically no harder then starting a thread is now. If they put a couple of good ideas forward, they'll no doubt get given the keys as well.

Will it reduce the thread count? I hope so. My favourite restaurants are those with short menus - because I know the quality of those choices will be high. Other people like the opposite - fair enough, there are other restaurants.

Grubs up

As a matter of interest is your interest in reducing the tread count because there are too many threads that have very similar themes or is it more to do with site logistics or neither?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Gagger]

It's about raising thread quality. Not every thread is great quality, so that will probably reduce numbers and concentrate discussion.

 

[Roundawhile]

Any chance we can move important/imminent matches to the Rugby Discussion forum (i.e. Bled 3) temporarily.

Bit of a pain having to jump forums to check the latest posts when it is a pretty central discussion?

 

[The Red Baron]

Any chance we can move important/imminent matches to the Rugby Discussion forum (i.e. Bled 3) temporarily.

Bit of a pain having to jump forums to check the latest posts when it is a pretty central discussion?

Just post in the thread. That way, if your alerts are active, you will be notified that there is activity in the said thread. That's what I do. I only check the forums when I have finished checking out new posts in threads I watch.

 

[Roundawhile]

Cheers TRB, I will look into how to do this

 

[Moses]

There are a few good tricks to keep an eye on active threads

1. Use the "What's New" button up the top, it'll show you the latest posts in all threads
2. Subscribe to receive alerts from threads you like, you do this by clicking 'Watch Thread' up the top of the thread (near your picture)
3. As TRB suggests, you can have the system automatically subscribe to threads that 'you create or reply to'. To do this, head here and tick the box.

 

[Bardon]

I was going to start a new thread for the 2013 Heineken Cup as I put together a pretty comprehensive guide to the competition and the teams in it this year in a bid to broaden the horizons of some of the Rugby fans on here and to be something useful for people who were thinking of dipping their toe into NH Rugby waters. But then I saw the new rules so I just put it in the NH 2012-13 thread but that's only visited by the usual suspects and I felt it kind of defeated the purpose a little.

Overall I think it's a good aim to improve the overall quality of the site but it can also be a bit off putting to newer posters who feel they have something to discuss but are worried about having to go through an approval process. As someone interested in almost all aspects of the game some of the best thread I've read on here may not have had the most posts or been the longest lived but what was posted were mainly well thought out posts from people who don't start threads that often. I'd hate it if such people felt they couldn't start new discussions anymore.

I'm certainly willing to see how things go. I've really enjoyed the forum since I joined about a year ago and hope to enjoy it just as much, if not more, in the future.

 

[cyclopath]

You can start threads as normal. Many can.
I have created the thread and moved the posts.

 

[RugbyReg]

But that's just the type of article that would go well on the front page.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Front page (and comments) or the Forum threads.

What are the numbers?

Which is read the most?
What commands the "attention"?

 

[cyclopath]

But that's just the type of article that would go well on the front page.

And that would be great.
Except I don't know how to put it there, not being one of the bloggers.

 

[Athilnaur]

You can start threads as normal. Many can.
I have created the thread and moved the posts.

For me that was the source of confusion - I got the impression a short list of mods/quasi mods would have posting rights. I have no issue with lurkers having to earn their stripes as it were, as there is the option of the suggested thread to achieve said stripes.

And I am all for us reducing the noise and improving the posts that aspire to Lee Grant quality. I think most of us are.

But I continue to be concerned at some of the moderation recently. It is well intended but isn't (imo) addressing the underlying driver I believe the mods are trying to address. Some posters here (and yes, I am going to pick the low fruit; reds aligned posters) repeatedly push an agenda without regard to the broader view. When a poster reacts directly to that provincialism, the upshot is they get banned. Personally I think warnings were sufficient. And I include some of the kiwi stirrers. To moderate well means being even handed. I can think of a few occasions here where a noted mod has posted controversial posts I saw as baiting only to then see other persons who reacted getting banned. That makes me want to come here less. A fora is for sharing and exchanging views, they won't always agree.

Another area might be the anti-Deans pro-Deans camp. There are genuine reasons to support him as the coach short term, yet the site (or one or two high impact individuals for the site?) pushes a firm anti-Deans agenda.

I don't intend to get into a debate on it, just my 2cents for consideration.

 

[Roundawhile]

I'm sorry Ath, but you have shot yourself in the foot.

You rue the fact that the mods aren't even handed, and then totally disparage anyone who is a reds supporter or anyone who disagrees with Robbie.

Glass houses etc.

 

[Athilnaur]

If so it wasn't what I intended Roundawhile!

I didn't mean to disparage anyone who is a reds supporter - just suggest we have a few here, maybe even quite a few, who are provincial and bite if they are gainsaid.

Similarly for Deans I am arguing there should be some tolerance to views other than he should be gone yesterday.

Mods jobs are to moderate. No suprises there!

 

[cyclopath]

For me that was the source of confusion - I got the impression a short list of mods/quasi mods would have posting rights. I have no issue with lurkers having to earn their stripes as it were, as there is the option of the suggested thread to achieve said stripes.

And I am all for us reducing the noise and improving the posts that aspire to Lee Grant quality. I think most of us are.

But I continue to be concerned at some of the moderation recently. It is well intended but isn't (imo) addressing the underlying driver I believe the mods are trying to address. Some posters here (and yes, I am going to pick the low fruit; reds aligned posters) repeatedly push an agenda without regard to the broader view. When a poster reacts directly to that provincialism, the upshot is they get banned. Personally I think warnings were sufficient. And I include some of the kiwi stirrers. To moderate well means being even handed. I can think of a few occasions here where a noted mod has posted controversial posts I saw as baiting only to then see other persons who reacted getting banned. That makes me want to come here less. A fora is for sharing and exchanging views, they won't always agree.

Another area might be the anti-Deans pro-Deans camp. There are genuine reasons to support him as the coach short term, yet the site (or one or two high impact individuals for the site?) pushes a firm anti-Deans agenda.

I don't intend to get into a debate on it, just my 2cents for consideration.

Where to start.
Firstly, I have posted in this thread multiple times to the effect that people should not over-react to the changes and that many posters would be able to post as normal. Have a look back, and it is there. I can only say it so many times. I'll say it again - most, if not all, who have raised this issue have exactly the same rights as before.
Secondly, with all due respect, you have no idea of what comes across our "desk" every day to be moderated, nor what actually happens behind the scenes with respect to messages, hints, suggestions and then warnings. Not to mention the discussion between moderators regarding who gets sanctioned, when and how. And no, I am not really going to go into detail about it here.
People don't get banned for having a different viewpoint, they get banned for starting, or continuing shit fights, for repetitive trolling, for personal abuse at members or public figures and so on.
If you, or anyone, has a concern about anything, report the post, or PM me (unless I am the evil one who baits and smites people, in which case PM someone else in the moderators).
I really don't want to buy into the Deans thing, but we (mods) don't all agree on everything. I, for one, find the repetitive McCaw is a Bloody Cheat stuff pretty tiresome. But others can differ.

 

[Bowside]

I think that this seperate sub forum for games gets a bit annoying at times.

Maybe just have a rule that Game threads are locked a week after the game.

On the thread posting, do you gain posting rights after a certain number of posts?

 

[cyclopath]

I think that this seperate sub forum for games gets a bit annoying at times.

Maybe just have a rule that Game threads are locked a week after the game.

On the thread posting, do you gain posting rights after a certain number of posts?

Yes.
No, to your next question!

 

[Athilnaur]

Where to start.
Firstly, I have posted in this thread multiple times to the effect that people should not over-react to the changes and that many posters would be able to post as normal. Have a look back, and it is there. I can only say it so many times. I'll say it again - most, if not all, who have raised this issue have exactly the same rights as before.

Woah, ease up there big fella - I posted my concerns about the concept long before you and GAGGER'S sundry posts, I was simply recognising that my concerns were needless.

Secondly, with all due respect, you have no idea of what comes across our "desk" every day to be moderated, nor what actually happens behind the scenes with respect to messages, hints, suggestions and then warnings. Not to mention the discussion between moderators regarding who gets sanctioned, when and how. And no, I am not really going to go into detail about it here... ...People don't get banned for having a different viewpoint, they get banned for starting, or continuing shit fights, for repetitive trolling, for personal abuse at members or public figures and so on.

That is self evidently true. I suspect you are trying to refute my views rather than consider what merit they might have first. Posters here judge the board and it's mods on what they see. In a number of instances (do I really need to document them?) I have seen posters essentially say what I suspect many were thinking - xyz post was a parochial and patronising piece of refuse - only to end up banned for subsequent unseen discussion that no doubt involved said bannee messaging something to the effect of 'get stuffed, I was just stating the obvious'.

If you, or anyone, has a concern about anything, report the post, or PM me (unless I am the evil one who baits and smites people, in which case PM someone else in the moderators).

And what accountability would that bring? I think it is fair to say I am one of G&GR's good citizens. I don't pick fights, I genuinely try and respect people's views, and I rarely if ever report. It usually takes a bigot for me to act, and usually I'd just settle for a disparaging remark, our mods are more than capable of managing that. But recently some mods have given me the impression of being heavy handed. It is just an opinion, but you know what, impressions occur for a reason. That is why I posted, because I care enough to raise it. Just the opinion of one reader.

I really don't want to buy into the Deans thing, but we (mods) don't all agree on everything. I, for one, find the repetitive McCaw is a Bloody Cheat stuff pretty tiresome. But others can differ.

And there we agree perfectly, we need mods who have differing views, we need mods and posters who embrace different views. It isn't a fora without them, it's a mutual admiration club.