• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Evolution at Green and Gold Rugby - PLEASE READ

Status
Not open for further replies.

lily

Vay Wilson (31)
As long as one of you doesn't morph into sideline coach then it's all good. I am still banned from that site till 2018 because I brought up censorship. My banned post if you remember Lee, was in defence of an attack on you.
 

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.
 

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.
 

Gagger

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Staff member
Well, there were about 3 different "I hate JON" threads going at the time - but in a future paradise where we didn't have all of those, I would still have been able to start such a thread, as I did.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
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.
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
I think it will work once everyone gets used to the system. When does it start?

Sent using Tapatalk
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
The Suggested Threads sub forum is there in rugby discussion. Have to check with the boffins.
 

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.
 

Gagger

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Staff member
By the way guys, we are listening to what you say and won't be pigheaded about things - but we do want to see change.

Please have a crack at it and see what we can make work
 

Lyall

Allen Oxlade (6)
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.

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.
:cool:
 

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
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.


I'm sure the mods here will give you the fair hearing you don't deserve, but I can tell you that:


It sounds pompous and arrogant.
 

TSR

Mark Ella (57)
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.

Agree with all of this. Particularly the part in bold. Happy to give it a go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top