: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:03 pm  

Just to add to what I said previously, I see there has been a thread by the mods, which I congratulate them on, just hope it works.

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:06 pm  

keithcun wrote:

Again, I agree with yourself and JWP.

You and myself have disagreed numerous times in the past, but at least when we have we have both given the reasons why we disagree. If you say why you think X is crap, you explain why and I might explain why I think he's not.

Lately, we are getting posters who offer no debate whatsoever. They are limited to one line where they say player x is good/bad but don't say why.

This forum has lost debate.

And I know, someone wil come on here and say it's up to us to get it back to where it was, but to be perfectly honest, I can't be bothered trawling through the diatribe to find someone who actually wants to debate with me and I'm presuming that goes for others.

Now I'm not wanting to step on anyones toes, and just like a ref, it's a job I wouldn't want to do on here, but I think the mods have to have a tighter rein on things. I'm a mod on another forum and I understand it's hard knowing where to draw the line, but I think if we could at least get rid of the incessant trolls and spamming with stupid threads, that would be a start.

Other forums have the ability to stop this with "No New topics", where you can ban any particular poster from starting a thread, so if we have the likes of Casual Des or one of his cohorts etc, stick that against their name and they can't start a new topic unless this is removed. Let them earn the right to start new threads. This would stop the incessant spamming of stupid new topics by the same old people. Just things like that would be a step. I know it may have things to do with the software used on the forum, but it needs to improve before I consider making the effort again.

All fair points Keithcun.

My only issue is that of tighter, draconian, moderation. I know they do a difficult job and I often complain (if only to play up my liberal anarchist alter-ego thing I have going) when I believe I see subjective decision making. There is a valid argument against any moderation process (usually expressed as "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" (who watches the watchers). I would be much more content if the moderators were appointed democratically by the the forum members on merit rather than "act of god" appointments as we see now. This would create a positive environment which both builds trust and faith in the moderation process and applies a subtle back pressure to moderators that in essence there are answerable to the membership in general.

Having said that I believe that the "new invite only" specialist forum may be the only answer to create the environment of quality, reasoned debate.

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:16 pm  

As a follow on from what has just been said about debate with humour etc.

Im all for debate with reasoned argument with a bit of mickey taking thrown in.

What I detest is when posters start getting on your back and calling you names just because you have a differing view.

I had a good and fair debate with Chick this morning about the merits of expansion, we both put our views across and in the end agreed to disagree without the hint of any back biting or name calling.

Its a shame that others cant do the same.

Speaking personally, I feel that im an easy target and regularly feel like a fox that is being hunted down by a pack of bloodthirsty hounds.

I am now taking the stance of ignoring any comments made to provoke a reaction and will post within the rules set down in the AUP.

I hope that I will be supported and protected by my fellow posters and the mods alike.

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:32 pm  

keithcun wrote:

.

This forum has lost debate.

Got it in one.

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:36 pm  

Roger Whittakers Penis wrote:

I had a good and fair debate with Chick this morning about the merits of expansion, we both put our views across and in the end agreed to disagree without the hint of any back biting or name calling.

I hadn't agreed to that bit yet

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:44 pm  

[emmerdale mode] Not bin t' same since Neil & Nat sold up [/end mode].

But in seriousness Wolfweb was like this too. Especially when people were frustrated & we were doing crap. Anyone with a long memory will remember I went through a stage where I was constantly threatened (once in front of my kids) by a forum bully. The result of that was the formation of the meessageboard team that played v opposition fans befopre a game & got ratted straight afterwards. so Happy Ending.

Best thing to do was to ignore it, starve them of attention & they go away.

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:49 pm  

Steve51 wrote:

[emmerdale mode] Not bin t' same since Neil & Nat sold up [/end mode].

But in seriousness Wolfweb was like this too. Especially when people were frustrated & we were doing crap. Anyone with a long memory will remember I went through a stage where I was constantly threatened (once in front of my kids) by a forum bully. The result of that was the formation of the meessageboard team that played v opposition fans befopre a game & got ratted straight afterwards. so Happy Ending.

Best thing to do was to ignore it, starve them of attention & they go away.

Thats the answer to all the problems on here.

The team starts performing and winning, people start being more positive and less argumentative.

Its frustration boiling over.

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:17 pm  

In the past one of the first things i would do when i got in would be to check this forum to see what was going on, not anymore as people have said its gone down hill and has become petty and childish......and its always the same people.

: Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:10 pm  

Ok then, many seem to agree. So, instead of relying on the moderators to clean up the forum (in reality, we don't actually intervene much at all, despite several criticisms lately), let's all as posters re-claim the forum for proper debate and interesting, amusing banter.