• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Evolution at Green and Gold Rugby - PLEASE READ

Not open for further replies.


Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Staff member
PR is awesome. It's a rugby forum in name only though, completely different site to this.

That's a really good point Dumbledore.

There are many different places to occupy in this rugby community landscape - PR, The Colo, Sportal, Us, The Roar and others

I think it's outmoded to see them as just all forums. They're communities that run in different ways, to different rules and structures. For me, I think we should strive to be different and set our own standards. The online world has changed since forums were just places for internet geeks to come and be keyboard warriors, but unfortunately much of the 'real' world's perceptions of forums hasn't.

I believe G&GR has done really well to lift itself largely out of that and these ideas (which as you say Dumbledore will have less impact then many fear) are an effort to keep that going.

I'll give you an example though of where I reckon we have more work to do - I know a certain Wallabies captain who said he loves the site, but having made a few visits in, doesn't venture into the forums. Now, our aim should never be to keep players and public figures happy, but I think it's a crying shame if the gold that gets discussed here with the banter and interest doesn't get the airing or impact it deserves. (This DOESN'T mean I think we should sanitise everything into a boring vanilla, or make it some sort of blogsite. But as Daz has pointed out, we have a hell of a lot of lurkers to posters, something puts them off from contributing.)

I wonder what else we could achieve if we could bust a few more perceptions and chart new territory? I think that's an exciting idea.


Peter Johnson (47)
I think it would be better if mods just took away (either permanently or for a period) the rights of posters to create threads if they were posting shit threads.

I think this is too much of a 'barrier' to entry. I know that it is designed to be, but fuck I didn't think this place was that messy that it warrants it.

If you want to change something I would suggest making the front page 'longer' so that you can see more threads.

ACT Crusader

Jim Lenehan (48)
Sounds like a good idea cyclopath.

I've been here since the early days of the "breakaway" :) and given I live in OZ follow rugby here quite a bit and it would be great to get more ex or current players on here contributing in some manner. We want the same thing at the Fern. We've had it but unfortunately it only occurred when the abuse of said player got to fever pitch. Whilst getting as many as possible contributors is part of the objective, I think when lurkers read the content it should be something where they know - not because of modding - that it's not a place where people just post senseless crap and throw masked insults around.

Both here and the Fern I've read lots of posts where "long time lurkers" talk of their experience leading up to their first post. Something to aspire to almost that takes a bit of thought....

Good luck


Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
I'm back in civilisation tomorrow and eager to see the changes on a real computer. But I'm still getting a heap of threads on my phone so how is it slowing people down?

Sent using Tapatalk


John Thornett (49)
Gagger, it's a very commendable effort. The intentions are great. I'm curious, though, how you guys see thread creation as the key problem? Bad threads can be easily deleted, repetitive ones merged, etc.

Or, to put it another way, the problem is maybe more what is being posted on certain topics in general and an increasing tendency for the same arguments to be had a thousand times over.

I suppose I would say that wether or not this is the right approach is yet to be seen, but the whole community here should try and lift our game. It shouldn't be about the mods having to lay the smack down. We should want this place to have high standards, to be above parochial bickering, repetitive sniping, name calling and so on. That will take everyone here -- and especially those of us who post more frequently -- lifting our game.


Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Staff member
It wont fix it alone, and I suspect it will have a lesser impact than most fear.

But it, together with a few modding changes should have a bit of of an impact. Generally people picking up their game would have the biggest.


George Smith (75)
Staff member
Richo it's not "just" the thread creation thing, which seems to be a big sticking point. In reality, the ability to start a thread for many will be little changed. Part was to try and boost the quality and get some better discussions on some of the big issues that are being ignored to a large degree. And maybe generate some more decent front page stuff, which can't be a bad thing.
A fair bit of the change was in the last paragraph. We will be applying the rules a bit more closely to keep a lid on a lot of the problematic stuff you mention.
So personal attacks and sniping, derailing threads to the same old provincial arguments etc will cop warnings.

Jethro Tah

Bob Loudon (25)
I'm all for it. About midway through the Super 15 this year I found myself logging on less and less. Rather than an absolute drop in quality it was more due to the feeling of being a little overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of posts and threads to scroll through to find the better ones. This time poor soul will welcome an additional filter and I trust the thread police will not become party poopers.

A big cheers to the folk behind the scenes. I run a site (totally unrelated to rugger) and know how much time it takes up. Most if not all of you have full time jobs/study yet still continue to do it for the love of the game.


Dick Tooth (41)
That's a really good point Dumbledore.

There are many different places to occupy in this rugby community landscape - PR, The Colo, Sportal, Us, The Roar and others... [/snip etc.] I wonder what else we could achieve if we could bust a few more perceptions and chart new territory? I think that's an exciting idea.

I think the main problem isn't the thread starting to be honest. In a way I worry that restricting content is going to lead to even more provincial circle-jerking, and see the same old lazy tropes repeated again and again and again. I know that thread starting is only one of the changes - which is why I said earlier it wouldn't make much of a difference. The worry though is by making this forum too 'niche' you end up with people discussing the minutia of a game or situation and then that becomes a large thread. On a site like PR (for example) you might get a thread like that Taps one, but it would drop off the front page pretty quickly, rather than degenerating into a provincial slanging match. I actually think in a lot of ways more moderating is going to deter the lurkers, rather than encourage them to join. It makes the site look very regimented and segmented - this chat goes here, this chat goes there - rather than letting people jump in and start chatting rugby.

But hey, that's just what I reckon - no harm in giving this a bash and seeing how it works. Nothing is forever and all that, can always change it back if it's shocking.


Dick Tooth (41)
Just another quick thought guys, not something you have to pay attention to at all. Would it be worth bringing together some of the rugby discussion sub-forums? Individually they're relatively active, but if thrown together we'd get a much higher front page turnover. Think it would be easier to keep track of cross-thread discussions as well. You'd have threads about U16 competitions rolling along next to the Reds thread - might make it more accessible to those who aren't as well connected/informed about school level rugby. The Rugby Discussion forum is the main one for the site, is it worth trying to open it up rather than close it down?

thierry dusautoir

Alan Cameron (40)
So a select group of people selected by virtue of the governing body will be in control of everyone else.........sounds like NSWRU.......Just kidding

Could work. Could Not,

I just hope we dont get to the stage where we take ourselves and our discussions too seriously.

Also you shoudl start collating every months blogs and forum posts and make perhaps an e-book for ipad or something......fruit for thought


Steve Williams (59)
Staff member
Have any non-Leadership Group/mod contributors suggested a new thread since this policy arose?


I don't post much at all but enjoy reading many of the threads. I agree the standard of posting has dropped but I can't help but feel these changes may have unintended consequences around deterring contributions.

A number ofpeople have raised the issue of the time delay but I think the greater issue will be this will be a perceived barrier to participation. The old analogy of touching the wings on a butterfly comes to mind.


Billy Sheehan (19)
Bloody hell, we're a scared bunch aren't we. Scared of change.

I can understand that a lot of us were attracted to this site because of the current setup, but I honestly believe that if we cut out a lot of the tit-for-tat posting it will make the overall experience more enjoyable for (just about) all.

There will allways be people who wish to push parochial agendas to the detriment of discussion, but hopefully these changes will have a positive effect.

Perhaps we could have a "Vent" forum for letting off steam?

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
^^^^ A bit like the "Scholarship Thread", and the "Selectors are biased" thread over under Schoolboy Rugby.

Perhaps start a "New Zealand Negativity" Thread, "NSW Negativity" Thread and a "QLD Negativity" thread to start with.
Not open for further replies.