Closing favourite threads.....

P_1

Orim wrote: »

I think it would fit well into BGRH

Do the mods of BGRH want it though?

I think the problem that we have is that we have something that:
1 - a good few people want to talk about
2 - a good few others don't want to see people talking about
3 - is an absolute headache to mod

Now solving this sort of conundrum is why the mods/admins are paid the big bucks earn the coke and hookers

knucklehead6

pithater1 wrote: »

Do the mods of BGRH want it though?

I think the problem that we have is that we have something that:
1 - a good few people want to talk about
2 - a good few others don't want to see people talking about
3 - is an absolute headache to mod

Now solving this sort of conundrum is why the mods/admins are paid the big bucks earn the coke and hookers

I don't think any mods want the thread in their forum.

That leaves setting up a new forum, but there isn't the interest for that..... And no mod would want to moderate it. And as Zaph said, it wouldn't get approved anyway. I'd offer my services as a mod but I think that the boards hamster feeders would want an experienced mod to take care of it, as it would require a steady hand.


We have a workaround in the social group. I think that's about as good as its going to get, unfortunately.

Pawwed Rig

Orim wrote: »

I think it would fit well into BGRH

E-mail the BGRH mods and ask them if they will take it. Having said that a quick browse through their forum would seem to indicate that the online Dating thread would be by far the busiest on that forum, so they may not have the manpower to deal with OD

Zaph

Orim wrote: »

I think it would fit well into BGRH

Interestingly enough, in the past 18 months or so 4 couples who met in BGRH have gotten married (I'm half of one of those couples ). That said, the forum charter does include this:

No serious threads

Which I think automatically rules it out of contention.

I'm disappointed that that thread was shut. Where am I to air my grievances now? apart from friends

P_1

TBH the whole 'there's no place to put it so we'll have no talking about it' point is a bit of a cop out.

The fact is that we have a topic that:

1 - a lot of people want to talk about
2 - is not illegal or immoral
3 - nobody is threatening to sue the site over

TBH 150 reported posts over 30,000 posts is nothing really. Compare that with say, a contentious football match in soccer or something like the household charge over in AH. If you were to apply the same criteria to those would we have talk of them banned?

Just my €0.02

supackofidiots

disgraceful decision, easily one of the most popular threads on the website. one of the regular posters in the thread would have been fairly happy to moderate it I'd imagine.

what if it was put in Tech>Blogs/Wikis/Social Networks. That forums could be retitled to something to incorporate the OD. Make Knucklehead a mod of that forum with the sole job of moderating the online dating thread. Problem solved.

Pawwed Rig

supackofidiots wrote: »

what if it was put in Tech>Blogs/Wikis/Social Networks. That forums could be retitled to something to incorporate the OD. Make Knucklehead a mod of that forum with the sole job of moderating the online dating thread. Problem solved.

Seems like a good idea although I am not sure volunteering to be a mod actually qualifies one as a mod. The powers that be would need to look at his history and make that decision.

Agree that a popular thread like this should be kept open somewhere.
I also agree that 150 posts out of 30,000 does not seem a huge drain on resources.

We could also move it to the Gambling forum if my experience of OD is anything to go by:D

Edit: This thread has been viewed 450,000 times by posters and lurkers. That is just the most recent thread. There were 2 threads previous to this one. That is alot of footfall (advertising space) to be giving up.

Zaph

supackofidiots wrote: »

disgraceful decision

Given that your trolling of the thread got you banned from tGC, this opinion hardly surprises me.

supackofidiots wrote: »

what if it was put in Tech>Blogs/Wikis/Social Networks. That forums could be retitled to something to incorporate the OD. Make Knucklehead a mod of that forum with the sole job of moderating the online dating thread. Problem solved.

We will not be renaming or reorganising a forum just to suit a single thread. Similarly the mod selection process will not be changed purely to suit it.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I also agree that 150 posts out of 30,000 does not seem a huge drain on resources.

Without knowing what each reported post was, I can't confirm that every single one required significant mod effort. However from having looked a a sample few of them it's clear that some certainly required an above average amount of work from the mods due to the size of the thread and the need to go back through a lot of the he said/she said bickering.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Edit: This thread has been viewed 450,000 times by posters and lurkers. That is just the most recent thread. There were 2 threads previous to this one. That is alot of footfall (advertising space) to be giving up.

When advertising becomes the sole criteria for keeping threads open I'll be long gone from Boards to care whether they are or not.

Dravokivich

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I can kinda understand why it was closed in that the thread had no real 'home' but if that was the feeling then the first thread should have been closed and directed elsewhere. To allow 30k posts over 3 threads sets a precedent.

The first thread was intended to be about opinions and perspectives regarding Online Dating. It turned into a gossip column after that.

Esoteric_

To give credit to the mods and to counter the argument that 150 reported posts isn't a lot out of 30,000 -

I've reported posts in that thread more than once. By the time a mod is online to look at it (because it was a very fast moving thread), they had to wade through three or four pages of posts generally, then not only penalise the person in the wrong, but also check every single response quoting that person.

It's not a case of just deleting one post or banning/infracting one person. It's a case of having to go through every single reply for a few pages afterward.

We can't expect mods to be online all the time and, as someone who mods a few extremely high traffic forums on another site, I can say with hand on heart that it's a pain in the bollocks to have to wade through pages of posts just to action one post, and then check every single subsequent post.

Sure, I'm sad to see it gone, but eh, knucklehead made a social group, and hats off to the mods for moderating it as long as they did. I certainly don't envy them, it was a mammoth task. Out of the 150 reported posts, I'd imagine that a hell of a lot more of the subsequent posts had to be deleted/actioned, too.

Pawwed Rig

Zaph wrote: »

Without knowing what each reported post was, I can't confirm that every single one required significant mod effort. However from having looked a a sample few of them it's clear that some certainly required an above average amount of work from the mods due to the size of the thread and the need to go back through a lot of the he said/she said bickering.

Fair point

Zaph wrote: »

When advertising becomes the sole criteria for keeping threads open I'll be long gone from Boards to care whether they are or not.

Of course not the sole criteria but from reading other threads in feedback with the cost of running the site and the reintroduction of banner ads it is still a valid point.

I did mention foootfall aswell which is more important imho.
As a thread itself the OD does not interest me. I think I posted in it a couple of times way back but not recently. What does interest me is the size of the thread and the amount of hits it gets. That tells me there is a huge interest in keeping it open. If that makes the boards community bigger and happier then the thread should be reopened (imho).

So Zaph maybe as an admin you can provide advice. What can the guys do from here? Is it worth their while canvassing for another forum to host this thread or is it a dead duck?

Zaph

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

So Zaph maybe as an admin you can provide advice. What can the guys do from here? Is it worth their while canvassing for another forum to host this thread or is it a dead duck?

I've been giving this some thought since the whole question of re-starting it in another forum was first asked, and honestly I can't think of anywhere it fits. It went from an advice thread to a pure chat thread, and any forums that already have chat threads aren't going to want another one, even if it's more focussed on a single topic than the existing general chat threads. Any forum that doesn't have a chat thread isn't going to want to add one at this stage. While it's not an ideal solution for the thread regulars, I do think that the social group is about as good as it gets in this case.

P_1

Zaph wrote: »

I've been giving this some thought since the whole question of re-starting it in another forum was first asked, and honestly I can't think of anywhere it fits. It went from an advice thread to a pure chat thread, and any forums that already have chat threads aren't going to want another one, even if it's more focussed on a single topic than the existing general chat threads. Any forum that doesn't have a chat thread isn't going to want to add one at this stage. While it's not an ideal solution for the thread regulars, I do think that the social group is about as good as it gets in this case.

Zaph if you ask me you're setting a dangerous precedent for the site by essentially saying that this topic has no home and thus, is not to be discussed.

Now I understand that there is no free speech as such here but logic would dictate that that 'should' only apply to topics that are illegal or could get the site into trouble legally.

Another potential solution could be to take a leaf from the forum where this thread originated, R&R, and make a private forum for the discussion of OD. Taking another leaf from R&R, this new forum could have a rule written into the charter stating that if you break any rule whatsoever, you're gone, no comeback, no appeals will be listened to.

Would that fly?

Zaph

pithater1 wrote: »

Zaph if you ask me you're setting a dangerous precedent for the site by essentially saying that this topic has no home and thus, is not to be discussed.

Now I understand that there is no free speech as such here but logic would dictate that that 'should' only apply to topics that are illegal or could get the site into trouble legally.

If I had actually said that there might be a precedent set, although describing it as a dangerous one may be a little over-dramatic. But at no stage did I say that this topic should not be discussed, if that were the case I'd never have suggested a social group. What I have said is that I can think of no obvious home for it, which is something completely different.

pithater1 wrote: »

Another potential solution could be to take a leaf from the forum where this thread originated, R&R, and make a private forum for the discussion of OD. Taking another leaf from R&R, this new forum could have a rule written into the charter stating that if you break any rule whatsoever, you're gone, no comeback, no appeals will be listened to.

Would that fly?

Well there's nothing stopping you putting in a forum request for it if you want to give it a go. It would still have to go through the full process like any other forum request.

awec

Hi all,

We closed this thread because we felt it was no longer a topic that belonged in the gents club. There had been a lot of off topic chatter in it recently and the thread rules were made stricter with thread #3 but the overriding reason was that it didn't fit in with the purpose of the forum.

The thread itself had strayed completely from what it originally had started out to discuss. We discussed closing it at length and took on board the feedback given by posters and we all agreed that closing it was the most sensible option.

As mods of the gentlemens club it is not up to us to say where this thread might be better placed, but we made a call that tgc isn't its rightful home.

As for moving it instead of closing it, I personally feel it would be unfair on another mod to land a thread almost 10000 posts long in their forum. Closing with the view of it being started elsewhere was the obvious option, provided the thread posters could find a suitable forum for it.

P_1

Zaph wrote: »

If I had actually said that there might be a precedent set, although describing it as a dangerous one may be a little over-dramatic. But at no stage did I say that this topic should not be discussed, if that were the case I'd never have suggested a social group. What I have said is that I can think of no obvious home for it, which is something completely different.

I might have misinterpreted you there, but what I read from it was essentially no thread/forum to post about it in = no discussion.

Zaph wrote: »

Well there's nothing stopping you putting in a forum request for it if you want to give it a go. It would still have to go through the full process like any other forum request.

TBH I never actually posted in it and was just sticking up for the folks who were annoyed about it being closed (this opened up in R&R remember).
Its an option for the lads and I'll certainly give it my +1 if it does get requested. However I wouldn't hold my breath on it being approved even if it gets a million +1's as I have a feeling that the mod/admin ranks have closed on this issue.

Zaph

pithater1 wrote: »

I might have misinterpreted you there, but what I read from it was essentially no thread/forum to post about it in = no discussion.

There's the social group, so discussion is permitted. Not having a proper home for a thread is not the same as banning all discussion relating to it.

pithater1 wrote: »

However I wouldn't hold my breath on it being approved even if it gets a million +1's as I have a feeling that the mod/admin ranks have closed on this issue.

Not in the slightest, to the best of my knowledge this hasn't been discussed anywhere other than by the tGC mods and on this thread. After discussion amongst themselves they decided it's not appropriate for their forum, and that's fair enough. I haven't discussed this with any other admins, no no ranks have been closed there.

P_1

Zaph wrote: »

There's the social group, so discussion is permitted. Not having a proper home for a thread is not the same as banning all discussion relating to it.

A social group equal an actual thread though. Having said that, if no mods want it in their own forums and chances are it won't get its own forum it probably is the best workaround.

Zaph wrote: »

Not in the slightest, to the best of my knowledge this hasn't been discussed anywhere other than by the tGC mods and on this thread. After discussion amongst themselves they decided it's not appropriate for their forum, and that's fair enough. I haven't discussed this with any other admins, no no ranks have been closed there.

That's fair enough, although your own opinion does carry some considerable weight around these parts so it might be a reasonable assumption that the other mods and admins may well back your opinion up in this case.

Maybe the best solution might be to open up a poll thread (with the mods agreement) in tGC to ask where the best new home for it may be and then to open up a poll thread (again with the mods agreement) in the winning forum asking both the users and mods if they want to have it there.

(You must be sick and tired of hearing my suggestions at this stage )

Dravokivich

Pithater1 I don't see why tGC needs any involvement in moving it elsewhere.

P_1

Dravokivich wrote: »

Pithater1 I don't see why tGC needs any involvement in moving it elsewhere.

My reasoning behind it is:

1 - There's probably a lot of regular posters/readers of the OD thread looking at the closed thread and wondering 'WTF happened here, where can I post now?'
2 - By having the poll thread up there these posters/readers can have their say in where the thread ends up eventually, keeping things nice and democratic. Plus diffusing the inevitable 'WTF are those [insert expletive] mods doing closing up the thread I love to read and post in' reaction.

awec

There is a thread in tgc that had been stickied that points to the social group.

supackofidiots

Zaph wrote: »

Given that your trolling of the thread got you banned from tGC, this opinion hardly surprises me.

Trolling? It certainly wasn't trolling. There was an initial misunderstanding about something I said which was cleared up, I then made a jovial comment which was taken the wrong way. It certainly wasn't trolling, and this wasn't the reason given for my ban.

Secondly your above post makes no sense. If I was trolling I'd only be too happy to have seen the thread closed with a misguided sense of justice on my part. Trolls don't fight to keep threads open.


We will not be renaming or reorganising a forum just to suit a single thread. Similarly the mod selection process will not be changed purely to suit it.

Fair enough, seems bad form though in general to destroy one of the most popular on site threads because of what amounts to a little bit ''too much work''. You don't seem to have offered any solutions up other than ''make a social group''.

.

.

Dravokivich

pithater1 wrote: »

My reasoning behind it is:

1 - There's probably a lot of regular posters/readers of the OD thread looking at the closed thread and wondering 'WTF happened here, where can I post now?'
2 - By having the poll thread up there these posters/readers can have their say in where the thread ends up eventually, keeping things nice and democratic. Plus diffusing the inevitable 'WTF are those [insert expletive] mods doing closing up the thread I love to read and post in' reaction.

1 - It was discussed quite a lot on the feedback thread that remains stickied.

2 - It was a reaction to most of the members of tGC highlighting it wasn't very "G" orientated. The mods kept their opinions on that thread to themselves until they noticed members were feeling the same.

P_1

Dravokivich wrote: »

1 - It was discussed quite a lot on the feedback thread that remains stickied.

2 - It was a reaction to most of the members of tGC highlighting it wasn't very "G" orientated. The mods kept their opinions on that thread to themselves until they noticed members were feeling the same.

In that case I think a bit of a clique mentality was represented.

Looking through the OD threads it seem the majority of posters there wouldn't be what you'd call 'seasoned/established posters' whereas the majority of posters on the feedback thread were what you'd call 'seasoned/established posters'.

Its almost like a situation in a golf or country club where you have a group of longstanding members and then a new group of members join said club. The longstanding members don't like what the 'newbies' mainly talk about and make moves to have said 'newbies' removed.

So the posters who were posting in the OD thread (which the regular posters of tGC could have simply ignored) now find themselves in the situation where they no longer have anywhere to post.

And to head the argument off a social group is not an adequate replacement for a thread.

Esoteric_

pithater1 wrote: »

In that case I think a bit of a clique mentality was represented.

Looking through the OD threads it seem the majority of posters there wouldn't be what you'd call 'seasoned/established posters' whereas the majority of posters on the feedback thread were what you'd call 'seasoned/established posters'.

Its almost like a situation in a golf or country club where you have a group of longstanding members and then a new group of members join said club. The longstanding members don't like what the 'newbies' mainly talk about and make moves to have said 'newbies' removed.

So the posters who were posting in the OD thread (which the regular posters of tGC could have simply ignored) now find themselves in the situation where they no longer have anywhere to post.

And to head the argument off a social group is not an adequate replacement for a thread.

I have to completely disagree with this.

I'm not what I'd consider a 'well established' member. I'm only here a couple of years and wasn't a regular poster up til about a year ago, and I have a fairly low post count in comparison to most users.

However, if you check out the Feedback thread and the OD thread again, you'll see that many 'non-established' members, myself included, thanked a lot of the posts in the Feedback thread made by the 'established' members. Just because we didn't offer an opinion doesn't mean we didn't agree. Some of the things the 'established' posters complained about was the bitchy attitude and constant flirting that was prevalent in that thread.

To be perfectly honest, I agree with that wholeheartedly. I do think, like I said previously, that the good over-rode the bad, but there was a lot of crap in the thread. I can't even tell you the amount of times users of that thread hit on me, and once mods cracked down on that, it became PMs hitting on me, and I'm sure it's happened to lots of other members, too.

The Feedback might have mainly been written by the more 'established' members, but from what I can see, those more established members know more about the forum as a whole. They're the ones who've been around for years, seeing what's going on in the forum and particularly in the OD thread.

And I don't think anyone is suggesting that a social group is an adequate replacement, but as many people have said, there is no forum that the thread fits into, tGC included. At least they've given the option of making a group, rather than stifling all conversation/discussion completely.

They were even decent enough that awec went and stickied a thread with a link to the social group.

I feel like a lot of regs in that thread, a bit disappointed. However, I don't think we can say that the mods haven't done their very best to help out with this situation. Their responses here, along with Zaph's, have been excellent and as helpful as they possibly can be.

P_1

LyndaMcL wrote: »

I have to completely disagree with this.

I'm not what I'd consider a 'well established' member. I'm only here a couple of years and wasn't a regular poster up til about a year ago, and I have a fairly low post count in comparison to most users.

However, if you check out the Feedback thread and the OD thread again, you'll see that many 'non-established' members, myself included, thanked a lot of the posts in the Feedback thread made by the 'established' members. Just because we didn't offer an opinion doesn't mean we didn't agree. Some of the things the 'established' posters complained about was the bitchy attitude and constant flirting that was prevalent in that thread.

To be perfectly honest, I agree with that wholeheartedly. I do think, like I said previously, that the good over-rode the bad, but there was a lot of crap in the thread. I can't even tell you the amount of times users of that thread hit on me, and once mods cracked down on that, it became PMs hitting on me, and I'm sure it's happened to lots of other members, too.

The Feedback might have mainly been written by the more 'established' members, but from what I can see, those more established members know more about the forum as a whole. They're the ones who've been around for years, seeing what's going on in the forum and particularly in the OD thread.

And I don't think anyone is suggesting that a social group is an adequate replacement, but as many people have said, there is no forum that the thread fits into, tGC included. At least they've given the option of making a group, rather than stifling all conversation/discussion completely.

They were even decent enough that awec went and stickied a thread with a link to the social group.

I feel like a lot of regs in that thread, a bit disappointed. However, I don't think we can say that the mods haven't done their very best to help out with this situation. Their responses here, along with Zaph's, have been excellent and as helpful as they possibly can be.

That's fair enough, sure I was looking at it totally as an outsider and you totally have the advantage on me as someone who has posted in it.

I didn't realise you had gotten that much hassle from it (the PMs etc).

As an aside, I hope my posts didn't come across as criticizing Zaph or any of the mods at all ( I was just trying to play devils advocate). I know how much hard work they put into the site and I agree wholeheartedly with you that their responses have been excellent and extremely helpful.

I also realise that I might be coming across as a bit of a PITA to the lads here so if ye want I'll stop posting on this thread if they think I'm derailing the issue.

Fluorescence

As an observer, it occurs to me that perhaps one of the hosted forums (such as The Lock Inn, maybe?) might be a suitable home for OD. Or even a new social forum based on online dating (though perhaps there isn't enough to discuss to warrant a forum of its own).

pithater1 wrote: »

Another potential solution could be to take a leaf from the forum where this thread originated, R&R, and make a private forum for the discussion of OD. Taking another leaf from R&R, this new forum could have a rule written into the charter stating that if you break any rule whatsoever, you're gone, no comeback, no appeals will be listened to.

There's no such rule in R&R. We've never had to ban anyone, let alone listen to an appeal. If we banned every time a rule was broken we'd have few posters left.

knucklehead6

One of the "attractions" to the original thread was the fact that it was in a publicly visible forum. We had a LOT of lurkers on that thread. I've even seen it mentioned in users profiles on the likes of POF.

While that may not sound like a good thing to the boards powers that be, it shows that it was used as a resource and advice area by people who didn't post there.

Locking it away in a hosted or private forum will remove that resource.

I honestly don't think there is the support for a separate forum for threads like it, as realistically, it would only have one active thread going at any one time.

P_1

Fluorescence wrote: »

There's no such rule in R&R. We've never had to ban anyone, let alone listen to an appeal. If we banned every time a rule was broken we'd have few posters left.

I meant the '3 strikes and you're out rule'. But revised to a '1 strike and you're gone rule'.

(Or maybe I shouldn't have brought that to your attention) :pac:

R&R Charter wrote:

11) Three strikes and your out.

Everyone starts with a clean slate regardless of any past R&R indiscretions/warnings/bans.

However, now that you have access to a private forum you will be expected to know the rules and adhere to them. Any serious breach of the rules will result in a ban (drunken silliness will be forgiven but don't push your luck).

If you are stupid enough to receive three bans you will have your access removed from the forum for good. The "Three Strikes" rule does not count if you do something amazingly stupid, you can be kicked out for your first offence if it is serious enough.