Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
After Hours 'Off-Topic' Thread
Options
Comments
-
-
landsleaving wrote: »I support the notion of a general chit chat thread. A fair few AH threads get closed for a bit of chat, which seems a bit much at times. I do understand where the mods are coming from, but I think an off topic thread would be a nice way to keep threads on topic without taking away the occasional chat.
You can't have much of a conversation via pm imo, not least becasuse only 2 people can be involved.
I'd also be happy to see a little more leniency as regards how off topic a thread can go if an off topic thread is out of the question.
AH is clique-y as it is, an off topic thread might distract some regulars for berating new users threads just to get thanks. :pac::pac::pac:
Actually you can have a conversation with as many people as you want via PM, there's no limit on recipients afaik.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
To my mind there are a few misconceptions in this thread regarding After Hours and chat threads.
After Hours is the "off-topic" forum
This is an unfortunate choice of words in my opinion which is often used to cast it as an "anything goes" forum when, in fact, anything does not go. AH has always been a place with a broad reach, where current affairs, politics, family, friends, work, life's little foibles and any number of things can be talked about.
There are limits to it's reach though. It doesn't do football. Or sport in general if I remember right. Christmas isn't on the cards either.
My point? That the "off-topic" tag does not refer to your ability to wander off topic on any thread, but rather to the general interest theme of After Hours; the fact that the forum has no one, unifying them.
After Hours is the "pub talk" forum
Similar to the above but not the same, AH is often described as having a chat with your mate over some beers. This, again, does not mean that an AH thread will mirror the meandering nature of pub talk, from one topic to another and back again. You may well have more leeway in AH to wander but the pub talk, in fact, refers to the style of posting rather than the topic. It sets it apart from Humanities, Politics and other stricter forums with a broad focus where posters are expected to back up what they say and take the subject seriously.
No one is expected to take the subjects in AH seriously, though they often choose to.
There is a clique in AH and it must be stopped at all costs!
What is a clique? In the manner we use it here, it's a group of people that bind together to the deliberate exclusion of others. How is this possible in a public forum? Members of the clique can deliberately back each other up (even if they disagree on a topic) and thus put off new users.
Does this happen in AH? Not that I can see. That is, no one deliberately alters what they would post, when, or where, in order to back up their buddies. You do have users who frequent the forum often, form friendships with people based on common interests and points of view, and then end up posting similar opinions on a range of issues. This is perfectly normal behaviour and there is nothing you can do to mitigate it.
Those forums have chat threads; we should have one too
To talk about this, it's important to remember what chat threads are and how they came about. The first chat thread, I believe, was set up in BGRH or TLL, which are also, notably two of the first "social forums" boards created. The reason was simple; both forums had a narrower scope than AH, yet people in those forums wanted a place to post about general issues, outside that scope and didn't want to post about them in AH.
This is even more accentuated in the other forums listed in the OP. Their scope is narrower again, and the threads become a place where regulars can post about general topics. It makes no sense to have a thread devoted to general topics in the general topics forum. This would be like saying the Soccer chat thread should be about general Soccer chat; indeed, the members of said forum fought long and hard to ensure it's scope was broader than that. (Actually, just checking there and the Soccer chat thread explicitly forbids discussion of Soccer in it).
The most successful off topic thread was the BBV thread in Poker; a forum which was very specialist in nature.
In Summary
1) After Hours is a general discussion forum, not an "off topic" forum; it has a broad, though not limitless, scope.
2) Posts on threads in After Hours are not required to be dissertations or even address the subject seriously, though they sometimes are and often do.
3) Threads are not expected to meander on to any topic though you will probably be given more leeway than in most forums.
4) "Off topic" threads are required for regulars of forums with a narrow focus because they wish to have a shared area where they can talk about general issues and do not wish to use After Hours.
5) Cliques form in all forums though not in the deliberate or calculated manner that some would suggest.
6) Creating an "off topic" thread would not remove said cliques; indeed, it may just lead to the creation of another, albeit more obvious one.
After Hours does not need an "off topic" (general discussion) thread because it is the "off topic" (general discussion) forum.0 -
-
AH is for new and old posters, all should be made feel welcome.
I said that in the OP, that newbies will have a place to come in a and ask questions. Why are you trying to imply that I, or others that want such a thread, don't share that viewpoint.By posting that a users opinion matters more than anyone else that has posted before them you are being disingenuous.
Look at what I said in context to the thread.
The user statedI don't really post much. More an observer.
I know my opinion shall count to nothing, but I thought I'd give my support to this idea
Why does this user feel that their opinion doesn't count?
I was trying to make them feel as if their opinion mattered the most "SO FAR" on the thread because they were a relative newbie.
The comments about such a thread being threatening to newbies made their opinion important, perhaps I did not word it well but I think to most people it was obvious that I was exageratting the point to try and balance them saying their opinion "shall count to nothing".
You can kiss my hairy arse with IF you're implying that I form any part of a "clique", it's simply not true and I ask you to clarify that statement immediately.
Did I say you specifically were in a clique?
You are the last Mod or ex-Mod I would ever say was in a clique and I would have thought my comments when you stepped down would have said as much.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
No, whats "pathetic" is dragging this thread into a debate about Semantics. And stifling. And ironic, actually.
Sure: calling it Pathetic was Derisive and a poor choice of words. But why are we still hung up on it?
You're the one hung up on Semantics.
My point was that someone shouldn't call a potential future suggestion pathetic without discussion.Really?! After all that spiel about stifling debate? Really?!
I shouldn't even have to tell you Zohan.
The implication that I form any part of a clique was so far off the mark that I made that comment, in reality it's not hairy. Really. 0 -
My name is URL wrote: »The people suggesting it have a fairly 'narrow focus'.. they're AH regulars who are interested in having place for off-thread chit chat, where they can talk amongst themselves while not dragging other threads off-topic.
So should the focus of a forum emerge from the forum or from a few posters? And should the forum accommodate this desire when it may be met elsewhere (yes I mean social groups and PMs).I'm on the fence over whether or not any cliques would be reinforced by it.. it would be fairly easy to spot and call people up on it if it caused problems.
I think it would reinforce an existing clique or create a new one. That wouldn't bother me too much because I think cliques aren't, in and of themselves, harmful.
What would need to be watched is spillover from the general chat thread to other threads. There was a similar exercise carried out in TLL recently, I believe, where, in summary, they felt every thread had become an extension of the chat thread and had to clamp down on off topic posts a little more.As for modding it, how many of the main AH mods actively look after the Irish sub-forum? It is it's own microcosm, and no problems seem to arise in AH because of it. If it needs other mods then draft them in..
None of them do, I would think. nesf and simu, both of whom are Irish speakers, look after moderating that forum to the best of my knowledge. So unless you're suggesting this new thread have it's own moderators...:)0 -
Earthhorse wrote: »But the purpose they wish to use it for is already met; general discussion.
No, not true.
The purpose is not already met.
Here is the way I see it:
Let's say it's Friday night and there are five hot threads.
The average regular poster will post in all of them and get involved in some banter in whichever thread has become the 'Banter thread' (there will always be one).
Sharpshooter (main Mod at night) will usually say: "Stay on topic.." or if she feels nessacery, lock the thread/
Then IMMEDIATELY, everyone jumps to another thread and it becomes the 'banter thread' and so on and so forth till everyone goes off to bed.
So what we have is users quite happily using three or four threads at a time.
Now if there was an 'Off-topic' thread, people could just keep the 'banter' for there.
They wouldn't need to jump from one thread to the next, as they would have their place for that and when they got bored of the mind-numbing flirting (I do it myself, especially when drunk
) they would just pop off to the other three or four hot 'ON-TOPIC' threads.
It's foolproof I tell yaEarthhorse wrote: »It's always a judgement call but if there's an issue with moderators locking threads that are going off topic then it should be dealt with by changes in moderation. I don't think an off topic thread is a good way of addressing this.
Fair point, but I feel an 'off-topic' thread sure would make their their life easier.
It has to be a pain in the neck having to tell people to stay on topic and then lock threads when they don't. Dealing with the PMs of complaint alone must be a headache.0 -
You're the one hung up on Semantics. My point was that someone shouldn't call a potential future suggestion pathetic without discussion.
But there was discussion, that's why I called it pathetic.
It just happened elsewhere.
I have changed the word in the OP now but have to agree with Overheal, it is 'semantics' 0 -
-
-
OutlawPete wrote: »But there was discussion, that's why I called it pathetic.
It just happened elsewhere.
I have changed the word in the OP now but have to agree with Overheal, it is 'semantics'
Didn't see that thread, I think.
The beauty about After Hours is if you want to hve a chat about say "funny things that happened to me on a bus" then you can start a thread on it and have a chat about it there.
One major problem I can see with an "off topic thread" is people will start chatting about Dublin clubs for example, and posters that are not from Dublin will feel left out so they won't post in the thread. Or you can have posters talking about clubs in Galway, and other posters will feel left out and won't post.
Then you'll have the idiotic one word posts the likes of which you would expect from a 3 year old, once that crap starts it won't end and people that want a mature discussion will not join in.0 -
But Pete, banter develops from people discussing the topic at hand, making jokes and stuff. It's always going to happen, whether there's a chat thread or not.
That's why I was clear to distinguish between 'On-topic' banter and 'Off-topic' banter.
Nobody minds the former and I would never think that was a problem, it makes AH the place it is.
What gets threads locked and ruins AH for some is the chatty flirting nonsense.
As I have said, I have done it, I try not to .. but invariable people start chatting and before you now it, the thread is destroyed.
Especially with new threads late at night.
Many fine threads get lost in chatty crap and I think if there was an 'Off-topic' thread, that wouldn't happen.
Maybe I am wrong but I genuinely think it would be a positive step for AH.Another problem would definitely be people having discussions in there rather than creating threads. Links, news stories and whatever is on people's minds will go in the chat thread, and AH would shrink.
That would never happen.
People are not going to stop starting threads and posting in them because there is an 'Off-topic' thread.Don't mess with success! -1,000,000
You're just ignoring the problems with respect.
Off-topic chat is bugging people, people will never stop, threads get locked and some just die as people can't deal with the chat and walk away. The 'off-topic' chatter needs to be controlled and what better way that to say:
"Keep the Chat for the 'Off-Topic' thread everyone.." 0 -
Advertisement
-
pickarooney wrote: »It would be a complete mess. I hate megathreads and meandering, off-topic waffle and one thread with 500 people talking at once about the first thing that comes into their heads doesn't bear thinking about.
Again, with respect, the thread is not compulsory viewing.
I ignore threads I have no interest in all the time, why should this thread be any different.
It should make your AH viewing more enjoyable by what you are saying as you won't have to put up with 'off-topic' chatter.
I post in films all the time and the: "What have you seen lately.. " thread is the biggest there.
I hate the damn thing, wrecks my head the idea of that thread.
So, I just step over it everytime I see it 0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement