Time For A Bit of Forum Feedback

CastorTroy

The KYC thread is grand since comments can't be posted. So being thanked for posting isn't much of an ego boost in my opinion. If there were comments saying how great someone looked, then that would be a different story.

Galvasean

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, I'd rather concede the argument than have to read that thread again so as to pull up some examples...

The Corinthian wrote: »

You seriously need to get out more...

So that's two threads you made claims about that have been proven to be false. I must agree with Honey-ec in that:

it seems to me that some people have a personal dislike of certain threads and would like to see them shut down instead of just exercising their right to completely ignore them.

It's all well and good to offer Feedback, but for anything constructive to be achieved it needs to be at least somewhat representative of reality. In the case of both the OD thread and the KYC thread what you have presented are strawmen.

The Corinthian

Galvasean wrote: »

So that's two threads you made claims about that have been proven to be false.

I don't care. I simply gave an opinion on my first reading of both threads and have never suggested anything more than they're a bit odd or out of place but (repeatedly) that if people don't like a topic they don't have to read it. There's really no reason for you to get so worked up about it - maybe it's just me you have an issue with, TBH.

It's all well and good to offer Feedback, but for anything constructive to be achieved it needs to be at least somewhat representative of reality. In the case of both the OD thread and the KYC thread what you have presented are strawmen.

No I presented opinions on the two threads and then when challenged, admitted I really wasn't arsed to back them up - neither is actually a strawman, if you'd like to actually read your own link, at worst my opinions were deduced from false data. It was a casual opinion that I was happy to concede when challenged. No big deal.

Now if you feel this has given you a moral victory of some description, all well and good, but is it really that important to you? If I thank some of your posts, will that make you happy?

yawha

Why does there have to be such aggressive point scoring shite on this forum?

I mean, did someone really just use the term "strawman" on a fecking feedback thread?

iptba

Galvasean wrote: »

Also, on a related note, can a note about 'soapboxing' be put in the Charter? I've seen quite a few threads in tGC get ruined by one persistent soapboxer. Similar Charter amendments have helped other forums deal with such problem users.

Although I think soapboxing may be a bit hard to define: if one disagrees with a point somebody is making, one might be much more likely to call it soap-boxing than if one agrees with the point.

iptba

Madam_X wrote: »

Be nice to see an end to the cheap-shot throwing of "feminist" as a derogatory term towards people who may not even be feminists and are merely challenging thinly veiled attacks against woman and "Life is terrible for men, so easy for women" rhetoric (while not denying men do face discrimination/bias/unfairness in some areas).

I'm afraid that seems too close to restricting freedom of speech for my liking.

In my mind, there is not enough freedom of speech allowed/encouraged in universities (for example) on gender issues. This, of course, suits some people - but certainly not everyone, nor do I think it is appropriate.

yawha

Freedom of speech != freedom from criticism.

I'm not sure I ever felt freedom of speech was restricted very much when I university. That's probably off topic ITT though.

In my mind, the issue is scapegoating feminism, feminists or "the feminist agenda" for things without much explanation as to why. I have seen this a number of times in this forum. On the other hand, I have also seen well reasoned criticisms and substantiated negative opinions on feminism, which are perfectly fine.

Also, it's important to note that a feminist viewpoint is not necessarily a non-male viewpoint. As a guy, I personally agree with a lot of the concerns raised my modern feminism, acknowledge the existence of male privilege etc., while also disagreeing with other viewpoints and actions of various feminists and feminist groups.

iptba

yawha wrote: »

Freedom of speech != freedom from criticism.

I'm not exactly sure what that symbol represents - I'm guessing it represents "not equal to". I'm perfectly happy for my and other points being criticised. However, I was responding to a specific suggestion which was about general policy. I don't think general policies should be made that certain points can't be made, or that certain ideologies can't be challenged.

No one is forced to self-identify as a feminist, just as nobody is forced to self-identify as a socialist/communist/capitalist/etc. Terms such as socialism/communism/capitalism/etc don't get special protection and neither should feminism.

yawha wrote: »

Also, it's important to note that a feminist viewpoint is not necessarily a non-male viewpoint. As a guy, I personally agree with a lot of the concerns raised my modern feminism, acknowledge the existence of male privilege etc., while also disagreeing with other viewpoints and actions of various feminists and feminist groups.

You can believe what you want. I don't believe we should all have to accept as axiomatic for discussions "male privilege", "patriarchy", etc. Those are the sorts of problems I associate with gender studies courses.

yawha

I'm not sure where I indicated that feminism should have special protection, or that certain points should not be allowed be made, or that anyone should have to accept anything as axiomatic.

As I said, I have seen many well reasoned, substantiated criticisms of feminism and the actions of feminists on here. I think that the use of "feminism" as a derogatory term, or unsubstantiated generalisations and cheap shots should be discouraged, but I absolutely do not want to see anyone silenced or having to accept anyone else's opinion on anything.

iptba

yawha wrote: »

As I said, I have seen many well reasoned, substantiated criticisms of feminism and the actions of feminists on here. I think that the use of "feminism" as a derogatory term, or unsubstantiated generalisations and cheap shots should be discouraged, but I absolutely do not want to see anyone silenced or having to accept anyone else's opinion on anything.

I think people shouldn't assume we live in a patriarchy or "male privilege" exists (more than "female privilege"): I see them as "unsubstantiated generalisations" and "cheap shots" of a sort (in a debate). However, I imagine individuals will continue to make such points into the future.

Also, (many people in) a recent discussion basically came to the conclusion that feminism was little more than a movement that exists just to help women, like a union movement for women, except that it claims to be much more. I don't see why such a movement (or terms associated with it) should get any special protection. Socialist, for example, can be used by some as a derogatory word but as I said it doesn't get any special protection. All sorts of "low quality" points are made in threads - they can be challenged as necessary. If there are to be rules, they shouldn't revolve about the word "feminism".

So, anyway, I think, like you, it's best if people don't have to accept anyone else's opinion.

yawha

I agree. The likes of privilege and patriarchy are complex topics and personally I would never just throw them around assuming that they were accepted by everyone on here. "Because privilege" or "because patriarchy" are indeed not substantiated arguments.

With relation to feminism, it's stuff like this which I don't agree with being posted. No intelligent point is being made, there's nothing provided to show that feminists or women generally think this way, it's just a stupid, unsubstantiated cheap shot.

iptba

The discussion reminded me of: "The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics"
http://menforjustice.net/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=49

In a perfect world, one might like if such tactics were discouraged or not allowed. However, I don't expect this will happen. But just pointing out the sorts of issues that can arise and it's certainly not just feminists who can get a hard time in discussions.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

Although I think soapboxing may be a bit hard to define: if one disagrees with a point somebody is making, one might be much more likely to call it soap-boxing than if one agrees with the point.

Soapboxing is not good. However as you point out, often arguments that a poster may disagree with may be irroniously identified as such, which is also not good.

Soapboxing is essentially where a poster will engage in monologue; that is, posting rhetorical arguments and/or articles but refuse to engage in dialogue when challenged - instead resorting to ignoring such challenges or using tactics such as digression (changing the subject/argument). But if a poster engages with other posters, responding to their challenges, then it is not soapboxing.

Of course, it can be difficult to tell sometimes, as some challenges may not be valid, particularly straw men. For example:

1. Feminism is bad because of X and Y.
2. Opposing Feminism means opposing the rights of women.

In this case, you run the risk of being brought down a bottomless rabbit hole of fallacious arguments, yet dismissing them invites accusations of soapboxing.

This is where moderators need to step in, to resolve such disputes, which can be difficult if they have already dragged out for a few pages. If I was to levy a criticism of moderation here, is that this does not appear to be done here - at least in comparison to, say, the Politics board, which is very well moderated in this regard.

Overall, I'll have to note that the use of terms such as soapboxing and strawman has increased substantially on Boards.ie in general, over the last few years. I can't say why, but I can say that many who use such terms don't seem to know what they mean in the first place.

yawha wrote: »

In my mind, the issue is scapegoating feminism, feminists or "the feminist agenda" for things without much explanation as to why. I have seen this a number of times in this forum. On the other hand, I have also seen well reasoned criticisms and substantiated negative opinions on feminism, which are perfectly fine.

Agreed. There are always going to be stupid arguments used when criticizing Feminism or arguing in favour of men's rights (my favourite is that women not sleeping with ugly men is discrimination), however they should not be used as an excuse to silence intelligent criticism or argument - to do so would ironically be a straw man.

Also, it's important to note that a feminist viewpoint is not necessarily a non-male viewpoint. As a guy, I personally agree with a lot of the concerns raised my modern feminism, acknowledge the existence of male privilege etc., while also disagreeing with other viewpoints and actions of various feminists and feminist groups.

Again agreed. Feminism is an ideology that can be shared by either men or women. There may be more women who do so, or at least nominally so, but that stands to reason given human propensity twoards self-interest. I would also point out that residual patriarchal attitudes are as much of a problem to male rights as the worst examples of Feminism - the notion that a man may be a victim is rejected by chauvinists just as vociferously as any radical Feminist will.

The topic of 'male privilege' (that you mention) is another matter, that would make for an interesting topic here. One of the most substantial things Feminism ever did was to deconstruct womens' role in society, and in this regard, there's been little attempt to do the same for men. A notable exception has been by writers such as Warren Farrell, who actually put into question the entire notion that men are actually 'privileged'.

This lack of debate on whether 'male privilege' truly exists any more, has ultimately led to it becoming an article of faith, taken as fact and almost never questioned, as laid out by Feminism. But that's a discussion for another thread - this is a feedback thread and my post has already gone OT enough.

yawha wrote: »

With relation to feminism, it's stuff like this which I don't agree with being posted. No intelligent point is being made, there's nothing provided to show that feminists or women generally think this way, it's just a stupid, unsubstantiated cheap shot.

I disagree. The cartoon does illustrate a valid criticism - unless you can explain why double standards are acceptable. Neither is it something that is limited to anti-Feminist argument; the blogsite of the Feminist group (that sought, dishonestly, to 'research' male opinion for one of their blogposts) is actually full of such cartoons.

This is not to say there are not some cheap shots of fallacious criticisms or arguments out there, but the example you give has merit, IMO, even if you don't like the way it presents it.

iptba wrote: »

The discussion reminded me of: "The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics"
http://menforjustice.net/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=49

Such tactics have been so effective that this is, I suspect, the reason that men's rights threads will get shut down on tGC faster than other threads - throw enough dirt and eventually some of it will stick in the minds of people.

iptba

Just to say that although I have an interest in Men's Rights like TC, I currently don't have the level of dissatisfaction with the forum that he has. It may be that I was advised (by a regular poster, not a mod) it was best to not continually post and I did get the impression that might cause a problem so I come in and out sporadically.

Also, there was a moderator who seemed not to believe there was a need for a focus for men's health discussions (although I did note to myself that in a discussion he, like many others, did agree they neglected their health) and was sometimes willing to engage in shaming when such issues came up.

Like others, there are plenty of threads I never or almost never go in to, but there existence doesn't particularly bother me one way or another (although I do imagine that the more activity there is, the more there is for mods to follow and hence they might have less time for issues that come up, less time/energy to be tactful, etc.).

So anyway I think I'm happy for things to continue as they are.

yawha

The Corinthian wrote: »

The topic of 'male privilege' (that you mention) is another matter, that would make for an interesting topic here. One of the most substantial things Feminism ever did was to deconstruct womens' role in society, and in this regard, there's been little attempt to do the same for men. A notable exception has been by writers such as Warren Farrell, who actually put into question the entire notion that men are actually 'privileged'.

This lack of debate on whether 'male privilege' truly exists any more, has ultimately led to it becoming an article of faith, taken as fact and almost never questioned, as laid out by Feminism. But that's a discussion for another thread - this is a feedback thread and my post has already gone OT enough.

I have considered starting a thread to discuss male privilege. Perhaps I will when I get a bit of time. I feel that a well written OP would be needed for the discussion to be in any way productive.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I disagree. The cartoon does illustrate a valid criticism - unless you can explain why double standards are acceptable. Neither is it something that is limited to anti-Feminist argument; the blogsite of the Feminist group (that sought, dishonestly, to 'research' male opinion for one of their blogposts) is actually full of such cartoons.

This is not to say there are not some cheap shots of fallacious criticisms or arguments out there, but the example you give has merit, IMO, even if you don't like the way it presents it.

How it's presented is exactly the problem I have with it though. What's being presented is not an accepted or obvious fact about most feminists or even most women. I think reasoning as to why the poster feels this is the case is necessary for claims like these.

And what any feminist group may do or not do shouldn't have any bearing on how we conduct ourselves here.

The Corinthian

yawha wrote: »

I have considered starting a thread to discuss male privilege. Perhaps I will when I get a bit of time. I feel that a well written OP would be needed for the discussion to be in any way productive.

Agreed. I've actually considered a more broad thread that examines deconstructing men's role in modern society, that would naturally encompass the question of 'privilege', also. What stops me is I waste enough of my day posting on Boards as it is.

How it's presented is exactly the problem I have with it though. What's being presented is not an accepted or obvious fact about most feminists or even most women. I think reasoning as to why the poster feels this is the case is necessary for claims like these.

That's not what cartoons do though. They're designed to illustrate a point; something to get discussion going, for good or ill. Just because it is not accepted (by whom? This I find a little disturbing, as I thought the existence of double standards with regards to Feminism was pretty widely accepted at this stage - apart from Feminists.) should not mean it should not be drawn.

And what any feminist group may do or not do shouldn't have any bearing on how we conduct ourselves here.

It shouldn't and if such cartoons by feminist groups were treated the same way, it wouldn't.

iptba

Regarding men complaining that some aspect of themselves makes them less attractive to some women e.g. their height, while I am interested in other types of things when discussing men's rights and the like, I'm not going to slag them off for having a moan about such things.

I think it's a perfectly human reaction to be disappointed that the chances of having a romantic relationship with somebody are dramatically reduced because, say, one is a few inches shorter than them.

Also, it's not as if one taught of this issue in school.

And while I think some aspects of such phenomena are more likely to be down to biology, often discussions of gender issues are framed in simply a sociological context so if one looks at such issues in such terms, it would seem like something of interest is going on.

Also, while a lot of such points on what women find attractive/unattractive may be down to biology, it could be the case that advertising and society does promote some aspects of some men as being unattractive (or alternatively attractive) and just as women (and feminists) will often complain about this, I don't see why men can't either.

Also, I think it's natural to want to know things that one can do to make oneself more attractive to the opposite sex (if one is a heterosexual) so discussing what women find attractive/unattractive can be interesting as one might learn from it. Also, one might learn which women may or may not find you attractive e.g. if you're a certain height, what sort of range of people might find you attractive or unattractive; or at least get an idea of percentages.

Note: I'm 6 foot so the height thing hasn't been a bit issue for me.

yawha

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's not what cartoons do though. They're designed to illustrate a point; something to get discussion going, for good or ill. Just because it is not accepted (by whom? This I find a little disturbing, as I thought the existence of double standards with regards to Feminism was pretty widely accepted at this stage - apart from Feminists.) should not mean it should not be drawn.

I don't accept the double standard as portrayed by that cartoon actually exists. Admittedly, this is based purely on personal experience. Not a discussion for this thread though.

iptba wrote: »

Regarding men complaining that some aspect of themselves makes them less attractive to some women e.g. their height, while I am interested in other types of things when discussing men's rights and the like, I'm not going to slag them off for having a moan about such things.

Having a moan is fine. Attributing the fact that you're not getting laid to feminism making women more stuck up or some bs like that is not.

iptba

yawha wrote: »

Having a moan is fine. Attributing the fact that you're not getting laid to feminism making women more stuck up or some bs like that is not.

Until I see you go over to a forum for women and tell them in such trenchant terms to stop moaning about how society is influencing what is and isn't attractive in a woman, I'll believe your complaints are biased and unbalanced.

People all the time have all sorts of wild theories. I don't see why feminism can't be included in them*.

* note: I'm not saying that all criticisms of feminism are crazy, but feminism shouldn't be excluded from people's speculations about the world.

yawha

iptba wrote: »

People all the time have all sorts of wild theories.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576 ?

I'm not really sure what's all that objectionable or biased about what I've said. Blatant, lazy comments scapegoating any particular group without basis should be discouraged. I have simply seen it done in relation to feminism on here.

iptba

yawha wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576 ?

Once I see lots of feminist-type theories and speculations moved over there, I'll consider your point valid.

In the meantime, I think people should be allowed make speculations that occur to them just as I see all the time all sorts of speculations that are influenced by feminism.

I'm not really sure what's all that objectionable or biased about what I've said.

I said your comments were biased and unbalanced because women complain all the time about what society says is attractive, this point is often made as a feminist point, but I don't recall you being so trenchant and derogatory about such points nor do I recall you saying they were "unacceptable".

This also makes me find your comments "blatant[ly] lazy scapegoating", to use your language, about people/posts who/which proffer such opinions.

The Corinthian

[PERSONAL_OPINION]I think the way men's rights are dealt with in tGC has been done to death for the purposes of a feedback thread; I voiced my concerns, iptba is happy enough and others gave various other opinions and suggestions.

But actually debating men's rights or Feminism here is probably counter-productive to the purpose of this thread at this stage (I'm not blameless on this count, I may add).

Where it comes to this topic, unless anyone has anything new to add, I suspect it's up to the moderators to agree upon and implement a policy. Presuming they do either, of course.[/PERSONAL_OPINION]

Dr Galen

Just so you all know I'm not ignoring this thread. I'm on holidays right now and we'll.... Drinking eating and getting a tan are higher up my list of things to do

Fwiw I think some very good points have been made

iptba

Dr Galen wrote: »

Just so you all know I'm not ignoring this thread. I'm on holidays right now and we'll.... Drinking eating and getting a tan are higher up my list of things to do

Fwiw I think some very good points have been made

Enjoy yourself. You deserve it. I'm grateful to anybody who does voluntary moderation work for any forum of any sort, including this one [I've been asked numerous times for other (non boards.ie) forums but have turned it down; but I do do a lot of other voluntary work].

D'Agger

Dr Galen wrote: »

Just so you all know I'm not ignoring this thread. I'm on holidays right now and we'll.... Drinking eating and getting a tan are higher up my list of things to do

Fwiw I think some very good points have been made

Mods take holidays?? :pac:

Pawwed Rig

I used to post here a bit more often but stopped for a long while because of the moderation on the 'discrimination against men' thread, which has been discussed already.
I am glad to see the mens rights thread has not been closed so have been more active (relatively) recently and would hope to see similar serious topics raised here in future which seems to be happening so fingers crossed that the moderation will be fair and the threads not closed down because they hit a nerve.
My main gripe with the forum is that it does not represent many of the issues that men (in my experience and social group) have. The words fluff were used earler and I would agree strongly with that. I know zero men who worry about what after shave to use, what wallet to buy etc etc so am somewhat bemused by alot of the threads here. I just read one page of the 'nicest fragrance' thread and tbh I am appalled by what men have turned into. Is there not a makeup or beauty forum it could be transferred to?;)
Also I find there are alot of people on here that have obviously met each other or are familiar with each other in some way. This does not make the forum very friendly for people outside the clique and would put me off posting in these threads (guinness and rollies thread for example). There are alot of guy-girl flirting etc which is fairly off-putting.

I have no issues with the Easy on the Eye thread and think it should stay put. OD thread I have no opinion on. I think I posted in it before but haven't really followed it for a while.

In general I would like to see more substance than fluff.

Also no offense to the mods but some are pretty inactive. Maybe make an active poster a mod? But maybe from outside of what I would consider the main group on this forum.

yawha

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I know zero men who worry about what after shave to use, what wallet to buy etc etc so am somewhat bemused by alot of the threads here. I just read one page of the 'nicest fragrance' thread and tbh I am appalled by what men have turned into. Is there not a makeup or beauty forum it could be transferred to?;)

Well, while I don't post in those threads much, I care about some of these things, I know guys who care about some of these things, and I find it incredibly ironic that you claim to care about men's rights issues while also deriding men who do not fit into your male stereotype.

Pawwed Rig

It is feedback from a personal perspective which is what this thread is for? We can probably discuss my post elsewhere but I am not sure this is the forum to be having a general conversation.

D'Agger

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

My main gripe with the forum is that it does not represent many of the issues that men (in my experience and social group) have. The words fluff were used earler and I would agree strongly with that. I know zero men who worry about what after shave to use, what wallet to buy etc etc so am somewhat bemused by alot of the threads here. I just read one page of the 'nicest fragrance' thread and tbh I am appalled by what men have turned into. Is there not a makeup or beauty forum it could be transferred to?;)

Why not open threads on what you feel are pressing issues for men?

As another poster has already mentioned - I don't think a forum can be criticized for the content that a predominantly male dynamic are posting up.

Personally, I, as a man, like to smell well and dress well - this forum is a good place to get other male opinions on where to get good value in my pursuit of certain items, whilst also introducing me to new fragrances etc. - I actively post on these threads - so I'm getting out of it what I put in, I don't see this as a failing of TGC atall.

Also I find there are alot of people on here that have obviously met each other or are familiar with each other in some way. This does not make the forum very friendly for people outside the clique and would put me off posting in these threads (guinness and rollies thread for example). There are alot of guy-girl flirting etc which is fairly off-putting.

I have never met any of the posters in the OT thread and yet I find I'm very comfortable in there.

While I can understand the skepticism about it and interpreted cliquish nature of the thread - if you want an OT chat then I don't think you'll find a nicer bunch of posters housed under one thread tbh, simply take part and you'll be well received.

Pawwed Rig

Surely the purpose of a feedback thread is to get as many opinions as possible. Fine if you want to talk about perfume then I have no problem with that. The suggestion (from me) is to move it to a beauty forum. If that is the consensus then it will be moved. If that is not the consensus it will not be moved. If the feedback the mods want is that everything is fine and steady as she goes well then there is no need for this thread. If they want to know what posters are thinking then I have posted. I do not see why you and the previous poster are offended by this?

The reasons I have not opened more threads on issues I feel are pressing to men is that, as I have posted and has previously been called out in this forum (which I didn't want to go into again as it has been well hashed through here already), these issues were frowned upon by the mods and after the thread I listed in my post was essentially censored I moved away from this forum for a good long period.

Re 'the skepticism about it and interpreted cliquish nature of the thread'. I have no problem with any individual on the thread and I am sure they are all wonderful people but as a semi outsider looking in I would not be inclined to goto the OT threads. Again this is feedback from my opinion. Is that not what we are doing here?

D'Agger

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Surely the purpose of a feedback thread is to get as many opinions as possible. Fine if you want to talk about perfume then I have no problem with that. The suggestion (from me) is to move it to a beauty forum. If that is the consensus then it will be moved. If that is not the consensus it will not be moved. If the feedback the mods want is that everything is fine and steady as she goes well then there is no need for this thread. If they want to know what posters are thinking then I have posted. I do not see why you and the previous poster are offended by this?

The reasons I have not opened more threads on issues I feel are pressing to men is that, as I have posted and has previously been called out in this forum (which I didn't want to go into again as it has been well hashed through here already), these issues were frowned upon by the mods and after the thread I listed in my post was essentially censored I moved away from this forum for a good long period.

Re 'the skepticism about it and interpreted cliquish nature of the thread'. I have no problem with any individual on the thread and I am sure they are all wonderful people but as a semi outsider looking in I would not be inclined to goto the OT threads. Again this is feedback from my opinion. Is that not what we are doing here?

You haven't offended me but I feel you're opinion misrepresents some of the threads I would frequent - especially the OT thread which is one of the better threads on boards imo.

Similar to you providing feedback in order to provide the mods with a general concensus - so am I - you've shown what you feel to be limitations of the forum, I have responded to your points with my interpretation of their place in the forum, with both sides of the coin being shown on this thread I'd imagine the mods will have an easier time in interpreting the feedback and deciding from there how to proceed going forward - to my mind that's how feedback works.

Pawwed Rig

No hassles. Good to get as many opinions as possible. Would you be in favour of the mods allowing serious topics that affect men be discussed here too?
This was my main point tbh

yawha

What serious topics don't they allow??

Arguably poor moderation on one thread, which was basically a dead horse at that point, isn't really an indication of anything.

To weigh in on the topic of serious threads. I think that in order to foster more and better quality discussions, we need much more specific threads on men's issues. "Men's Rights", for example, is way too vague a thread topic. It has no direction and is far too long for most people to bother reading. Of course, this isn't something mods can fix, just a general comment.

Pawwed Rig

I think a couple of examples have been called out on this thread already.
I don't think it was a 'dead horse' at all. It was probably the most relevant thread I have seen in this forum.

The Mens rights thread is too long? It has less than 200 posts? That is fairly short when you look at other threads in TGC.

yawha wrote: »

To weigh in on the topic of serious threads. I think that in order to foster more and better quality discussions, we need much more specific threads on men's issues.

Agreed. Lets leave it there as I am conscious that I don't want to keep posting points that were made already. I have already posted here 5 more times than I originally intended:D

johnr1

I agree with pawned rig that this should be a thread for people to post their opinions about the forum and the various threads within it, without then having to defend their opinion. That IMO belongs elsewhere.

My opinions are as follows:
I would like to see more serious discussions along the lines of some of the better ones in that other forum which we are not allowed to mention or draw comparisons with. (this rule I find to be a little bizarre) I understand that the 'fluff' as it has been called needs to be here in order to draw a crowd, but I rarely read those threads anyway, as which aftershave I use or which cut of jeans I wear aren't over important to my feeling of worth.

The online dating thread I used when I was online dating, - I'm not anymore, and don't read it, but it was fine then. If it has degenerated a bit and is populated by people who don't contribute otherwise here, then maybe it ought to be closed for a while.

The know your clubbers thread is interesting, but I think people ought to be limited to say five posts or so on it, as I'm getting really fed up of logging in to look at yet another picture of one of the two people who post their every night out and work photo on it.

The easy on the eye thread I looked at once, found to be boring and haven't looked again, that's just personal opinion, - I really don't care what happens to it.

The off topic thread I find cliquey and intimidating, even though I've met some of the regulars on it at beers and found them to be lovely people. It must be
ten times worse for others who haven't met any of you. My own problem with it is that if I don't post here for a bit, everyone seems to know each other waaaay better than I know anyone here, and have loads to talk about.

I think that the modding here is usually ok, but it does sometimes gall me a little to see a female mod wade into a discussion among men, in The Gentlemans Club, to lay down the law about what can or cannot be said, when the same point could be made by a male mod, and might go down better. The forum rules are the forum rules, the male mods can and do apply them just as well.
I also notice that our esteemed female mod also mods that other forum which we may not mention, where ironically, Wibbs (a man) mods excellently, staying out of the gender stuff and leaving that to the female mods there unless the culprit is male.
Our female posters (who make usually excellent contributions) might also feel more welcome here if the stupid woman-bashing posters are slapped down by a male mod rather than having a woman wade in to do it. I certainly feel better when I see one of the female mods do similar in that other forum I mentioned.

Anyway, in general I think the forum is a good one, I am glad to see it progress to more serious discussions, and I am only sorry I don't contribute more often. I read about 100 times more than I post everywhere on boards though, as someone can always say it in less words and more clearly than I can...... This post is a good example :rolleyes:

ETA, Sam, I'm genuinely not trying to have a go at you, just expressing my occasional frustration at being told what not to do by a woman in a forum which has a guy slant to it. The problem, I fear is with me. :pac:

.

iptba

johnr1 wrote: »

My opinions are as follows:
I would like to see more serious discussions along the lines of some of the better ones in that other forum which we are not allowed to mention or draw comparisons with. (this rule I find to be a little bizarre) I understand that the 'fluff' as it has been called needs to be here in order to draw a crowd, but I rarely read those threads anyway, as which aftershave I use or which cut of jeans I wear aren't over important to my feeling of worth.

Can you or somebody else give examples? I don't look over there so have no idea. If you want, alter the title a little. I'm not trying to discuss the other forum, simply trying to find out what topics aren't being discussed that could be of interest.

sam34

johnr1 wrote: »

I think that the modding here is usually ok, but it does sometimes gall me a little to see a female mod wade into a discussion among men, in The Gentlemans Club, to lay down the law about what can or cannot be said, when the same point could be made by a male mod, and might go down better. The forum rules are the forum rules, the male mods can and do apply them just as well.
I also notice that our esteemed female mod also mods that other forum which we may not mention, where ironically, Wibbs (a man) mods excellently, staying out of the gender stuff and leaving that to the female mods there unless the culprit is male.
Our female posters (who make usually excellent contributions) might also feel more welcome here if the stupid woman-bashing posters are slapped down by a male mod rather than having a woman wade in to do it. I certainly feel better when I see one of the female mods do similar in that other forum I mentioned
.

I don't mod TLL, never did, have never been asked to and never will mod it, so I don't know where you're getting that from.

I deliberately stay out of the men's rights /discrimination etc threads now, specifically to avoid the accusations and allegations you have just levelled at me, of a 'woman wading in telling men what to talk about in their forum'. my mod actions in this forum are largely closing medical-advice requests, deleting/banning trolls or spam and deleting chat-only posts in the easy-on-the-eye thread -I genuinely don't see why or how my gender is an issue there.

I've never noticed that in tll wibbs deals with male posters- I doubt that's a mod policy as it doesn't make any sense from a mod-team point of view.

The Corinthian

johnr1 wrote: »

I would like to see more serious discussions along the lines of some of the better ones in that other forum which we are not allowed to mention or draw comparisons with. (this rule I find to be a little bizarre)

Out of curiosity, does the other forum (that we dare not speak its name) have a similar rule against mention of tGC or does this censorship only apply here? More to the point, what is the rational behind this censorship?

I think that the modding here is usually ok, but it does sometimes gall me a little to see a female mod wade into a discussion among men, in The Gentlemans Club, to lay down the law about what can or cannot be said, when the same point could be made by a male mod, and might go down better.

I don't think this is fair. While a male-only private sub forum (like the female-only private sub forum on the other forum) is a potentially good idea, presuming that someone has a conflict of interests moderating, or otherwise cannot be competent nor objective simply based on their gender is both misguided and offensive.

Even where it comes to men's rights, I'll have to be honest and say that my experience of women who get involved in those issues are often far more involved than the men who, in my experience, talk the talk but seldom walk the walk.

It's not a war. Even if it were, it would never work as there would be far too much fraternizing with the enemy.

awec

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

awec wrote: »

Why though is it a potentially a good idea? What would belong in the private forum that doesn't belong here?

The ladies lounge private forum is as far as I know used to arrange ladies lounge beers, and other than that posting is pretty sparse.

You can post anonymously in Gents Club if you desire, so I see zero need for a private forum.

You could say the same of the private forum on tLL, TBH. Have you made the same points there?

It has been my experience that many men - some especially - will say and act differently if there are no women around. Introducing an environment for such men would not be such a bad idea, IMHO.

There is no rule against mentioning the ladies lounge, no idea where you got that from. Nor this idea of censorship. There is a rule against criticism of moderation etc of the ladies lounge.

Incorrect. The rule was brought in in theory to stop any criticism of other fora, but very much as a response to comparisons between tLL and tGC.

Which is good, because if you want to criticise TLL then at least have the balls to do it in their forum rather than hiding in the gents club taking cheap digs.

It's never really been criticism about tLL, but about comparisons between what is allowed there and here. In reality, these comparisons were banned not because posters were criticising tLL but because posters were criticising tGC, specifically moderation.

awec

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

awec wrote: »

Why should men be afraid of female input into discussions? It's not a proper debate if you want to hide it from those who will have the opposite viewpoint.

I never said afraid. Nonetheless, even if that were the reason; for the same reasons women may want a private forum as they feel more comfortable in such an environment. Do you disagree with this?

I note you avoided my asking whether you had made the same points on tLL. Are you suggesting that what is good for the goose is not for the gander?

It is there to prevent boring, cheap and continual comparisons of TGC and TLL. If there is something in the ladies lounge that you disagree with then discuss it in there. There is zero value in continual comparison of how TGC and TLL are run.

I'd disagree as comparing one forum dedicated to women and one dedicated to men is perfectly valid, both in terms of comparative models and equality of expression, and simply dismissing it with such dismissive terms as boring and cheap is not very persuasive. Indeed, such comparisons never, AFAIK, criticised tLL, but argued that tGC should be more like tLL.

Do you actually have any reasonable arguments to present for your objections?

awec

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

awec wrote: »

I do not disagree with that statement. My point is that this is a dicussion forum and as such there should be discussion from those on both sides of the issue. It is then up to the mods to ensure that neither side get out of hand. Completely removing one side of the discussion for convenience is not the right way to go about things.

Then you are disagreeing with the statement - otherwise you would object to a gender-qualified private forum on either tLL or tGC.

I haven't made this points in the ladies lounge. Firstly, there is no feedback thread. Secondly I have no opinion on how the ladies lounge is run. They can do what they want.

That's a nice way to avoid answering whether you believe what is good for the goose is good for the gander or not. As with your above 'agreement' you seem to be a bit schizophrenic on the subject.

It is boring and cheap. It's fluff. "x y and z said this in the ladies lounge", "oh but the ladies are allowed to criticise other forums", "oh look at that thread in the ladies lounge". Yawn. If you are so concerned about what goes on in the ladies lounge then go and post in the ladies lounge.

No, I'm concerned with what goes on in tGC, and one of those things that concerns me is that freedom of expression is curtailed in comparison to tLL. It's a perfectly valid complaint.

Have you any valid objections, because so far all you seem to be arguing is that we shouldn't compare because it bores you? Maybe you should just not click on those threads that do so then?

Dravokivich

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then you are disagreeing with the statement - otherwise you would object to a gender-qualified private forum on either tLL or tGC.

It's been mentioned before, the scope of that forum is for arranging beers/meetups between active memebers of tLL due to them having issues with guys who lurked and turned up in huge numbers.

No, I'm concerned with what goes on in tGC, and one of those things that concerns me is that freedom of expression is curtailed in comparison to tLL. It's a perfectly valid complaint.

Also, I don't think the expression is as free in tLL as you suggest, though I've only popped in there sporadically. The forum is heavily influenced along the lines of "from a female perspective" and rightly so. Are you suggesting that "from a male perspective" is not respected in the same manner here?

...if so, I can kinda see what you mean by that. Particularly with the thread you mentioned earlier where we were baited, but the OP who trolled us was shown the respect.

awec

This post has been deleted.

tbh

The Corinthian wrote: »

In reality, these comparisons were banned not because posters were criticising tLL but because posters were criticising tGC, specifically moderation.

I can tell you, because I was involved in the decision, that you're 100% wrong on that. It was specifically because people were criticizing the moderation of the ladies lounge that the rule was brought in. I think, frankly, that it's insulting to the mods, past and present, to present the rule as an attempt to block criticism of of the mods here - if you look through the reported posts forum, you'll see that we brought the rule in as a result of the tll mods complaining about posts in tGC that mentioned the moderation style over there.

There's no black and white about this, and it's not open to interpretation - you're 100% wrong about that, it's an unfair statement, and I hope you've the deceny to withdraw it.

Now, I don't want to personalise the discussion any further, but I have to admit, it's annoying reading you talk about censorship.

In fact, the policy of the mods here was specifically NOT to moderate Mens rights threads. It's even in the charter.

We are aware of the desire to discuss issues around gender rights, and the disparity - perceived or otherwise - of rights between men and women.

We are also aware that a lot of posters have no interest in this issue, and no wish to discuss them when they start, or contribute to, a thread.

In the interest of ensuring that all sides are catered to, we will be implementing a very strict policy of moderation around these issues.

What this means:

Gender rights, in the main, should only be discussed in threads where it is clear that the intention of the OP is to discuss these issues.

For example, an OP of "Can anyone tell me why so much money is spent on womens health issues as opposed to mens health issues" is fine.

However, if the OP posts about an experience with a mens health issues, we do not want these threads evolving into a discussion about mens health vs womens health.
If a moderator sees that this is happening, we will state clearly on thread that we consider any such posting "off-topic" and will ban posters who ignore these instructions.

This is important:

The moderators decision as to what constitutes off-topic posting is final. Be VERY clear about that from the offset. It doesn't matter if you think the mod is wrong, or afraid to discuss the topic, or a bra-burning feminist. Off-topic posting WILL result in a ban.

If the mod says it's off-topic, it's off-topic.

mods will not be drawn into a back-and-forth, it-is-it-isn't argument.

Any questioning of a mods decision on thread will result in a three month ban - there will be no exceptions to this rule.

On the other hand, moderation of gender discussion threads will be light - mods will only intervene when there is a clear case of personal abuse - we will not be referees as to valid /invalid arguments, soapboxing, refusal to back up claims etc.
This does not affect your statutory rights.

The ironic thing is that this rule was brought in because people were complaining about you turning every thread into a mens rights threads, and then soapboxing. It was phrased the way it was phrased (Mods will only intervene.....) because of reports you made that other posters weren't backing up their arguments.

In short, that rule was brought in specifically to allow you to start mens rights threads if you wanted to, and stop you from hijacking threads started by people who were sick of seeing their "general" threads turning into a soapbox fest.

So I'm sure you can appreciate how galling it is for me to see you insulting the mods by accusing them of trying to suppress criticism of them and to moan about how you can't discuss certain topics, given all the efforts that were made to specifically accommodate you.



disclaimer: I'm not a mod here and I don't claim to speak for the mods.

The Corinthian

Dravokivich wrote: »

Are you suggesting that "from a male perspective" is not respected in the same manner here?

We wouldn't be having this discussion and such comparisons would not have been made unless at the very least a perception of such was indeed the case.

...if so, I can kinda see what you mean by that. Particularly with the thread you mentioned earlier where we were baited, but the OP who trolled us was shown the respect.

Case in point. I just shook my head and pretty much gave up on this forum after that fiasco.

awec wrote: »

Why do you think that TLL and TGC need exactly the same set of rules and regulations? They are 2 seperate forums. Continual reference to and comparison of TLL comes across as obsessive.

I don't see why they should not if there is demand for the same or similar rules and policies.

I do not disagree with the statement. I can see why men might think they are more comfortable in a male only environment. My point is that they need to step outside that comfort zone, as staying within it is the easy way out.

So what is good for the goose is not good for the gander then.

If you want to debate a subject you have to be able to handle people who are going to disagree with you. Nothing remotely schizophrenic about that.

You're right, it's not schizophrenic - it's sexist.

Your last statement is a bit strange though, for someone who moaned about forum "fluff".

Not really, even there I did qualify repeatedly that people need not click on the link if they don't like such threads.

tbh wrote: »

I can tell you, because I was involved in the decision, that you're 100% wrong on that. It was specifically because people were criticizing the moderation of the ladies lounge that the rule was brought in. I think, frankly, that it's insulting to the mods, past and present, to present the rule as an attempt to block criticism of of the mods here - if you look through the reported posts forum, you'll see that we brought the rule in as a result of the tll mods complaining about posts in tGC that mentioned the moderation style over there.

I disagree with you. Whatever the official intention of the rule, it simply became a means to censor any comparison with tLL, in the face of curtailed freedom of expression here. Pointing out that what is allowed on tLL is banned here is not a criticism of tLL, as you claim, but of tGC.

If that is insulting to the moderators, so be it. Some of them have been very good in their work and others have instead done a pretty shabby job and I have said so - the Feminist blog troll cited above being a case in point.

In fact, the policy of the mods here was specifically NOT to moderate Mens rights threads. It's even in the charter.

Which they have repeatedly broken and examples of this were given earlier in the thread.

In short, that rule was brought in specifically to allow you to start mens rights threads if you wanted to, and stop you from hijacking threads started by people who were sick of seeing their "general" threads turning into a soapbox fest.

I don't believe that for a moment. It makes no sense whatsoever and sounds like little more than a post-facto justification wrapped up in an ad hominem directed at me - so please don't talk to me about 'decency'.

tbh

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't believe that for a moment. It makes no sense whatsoever and sounds like little more than a post-facto justification wrapped up in an ad hominem directed at me - so please don't talk to me about 'decency'.

I really don't care, and I've no interest in discussing this with you any further. You've been sniping away at the mods all through this thread, based on assumptions. Those assumptions just demonstrate the contempt you have for the mods or the forums. The reasons you attribute for the decisions made are false - I was involved in most of those discussions and you're just wrong, period.

People can read your contributions, and read mine, and decide for themselves who they believe.

awec

This post has been deleted.