TGC Feedback Thread *Closes September 25th 9pm*

Frosty McSnowballs

I pop in here almost every day to see if there is anything that either interests me, something I can contribute to or something I may be able to assist with.

Presently for me, the closest thread I would post in is the one about shaving your ballbag. There is just nothing here for me at all. That is a reflection on me more so than posters/mods or topics in here.

There have been times where I would be about to post a thread or ask for advice on something but I didn't hit the button. This is mainly because there might be a more "suitable" place for it and I didn't bother because it would end up locked or deleted.

From an outsider point of view, it doesn't seem like a place I'd like to post in. There doesn't seem to be much craic and I get an unfriendly vibe off it.

That's just my general opinion of here, I have no specific references to whip out and back up my comments. But there ya go.

Otherwise, keep up the good work.

The Black Oil

What's the nature of the unfriendliness?

Panthro

Thank you all.
Closed while we look at changes to be made to the Charter.

Panthro

Our proposed additions to the Charter as a result of this feedback thread as promised folks.
Also would like to welcome Sauve to the Mod team here since this thread was opened.

Off Topic Posts:
Please do not reply to an Off Topic post On Thread as this may be seen as an attempt by you to continue the Off Topic Discussion. You are therefore seen as encouraging Off Topic Discussion and are therefore just as liable to be actioned against.

Fashion:
A general discussion thread about fashion will be allowed. (ie. you spotted a good bargain, you want to throw up a pic and get an opinion etc etc) For Specific fashion advice (ie where can I get a suit in Dublin for a wedding) we would recommend using the Fashion and Appearances forum.

]Arguing with a Mod Decision:
Arguing with a Mod on thread is not allowed and may be actioned against.

Serious Discussion Threads:
The general Mod rule of thumb for these threads will be:
We will allow discussion, but we are not here to protect you.
Generalisations against either of the sexes are a massive "No No"
Off Topic posts are a massive "no no"
Gerneralisations/ off topic posts/ responding to off topic posts may be infractable.

Browbeating:
I.e. If the mods feel that a group of posters are ganging up on another poster then they will be told to stop.
threads less going forward will be moved - unless it is blatantly outside the scope of this forum.
Women can, and are encouraged to participate in the discussions on this forum (and always will be). The exact same rules apply to women as to men and they will be enforced exactly the same.
Feminism is allowed to be discussed and criticised here. Any discussion should be constructive - well reasoned and valid. People are of course allowed to argue in favour of feminism, and to defend it with equally constructive posts but posts like 'women have it worse' will not be tolerated.
Please keep threads topical - open a new thread for different issues. this makes participation easier and makes following the conversation easier.

Online Dating Discussion:
Online Dating is catered for via a Private Group. It will not be discussed here.
To join the Group you must contact the Hoasted Mods: knucklehead6, miamee, Sparky

Tigger99

Long time lurker but think this forum is hugely important.


I'd make one suggestion. Have 1 fashion thread for men here (and all queries go here). The problem with sending guys to the fashion and appearance thread is that it's predominantly women and men's threads would get lost (and mightnt get much traffic).

Sauve

Tigger99 wrote: »

Long time lurker but think this forum is hugely important.


I'd make one suggestion. Have 1 fashion thread for men here (and all queries go here). The problem with sending guys to the fashion and appearance thread is that it's predominantly women and men's threads would get lost (and mightnt get much traffic).

Agreed, and one general discussion thread (as mentioned above) will be allowed. We just don't want a situation where there are endless threads for individual queries.

Maguined

To be honest I am pretty uneasy about the browbeating rule as I think it is completely subjective and too vague to be enforced in a reasonable manner at all.

If a individual post is acceptible by it's own merit I find it unfair that the post would then be considered unfair just because many others also share the same opinion. So the first X posts to disagree with someone is fine but X+1 and upwards now counts as browbeating?

Take the ring thread for example, one poster came in and basically implied that women deserve big expensive engagement rings. Many posters disagreed with her and they all posted their reasoning why. That thread could easily be considered browbeating, the consensus opinion of the many against one individual posters opinion. None of the posts were abusive, they all just explained their reasoning why they disagree with the original opinion but because so many people posted it could easily have been considered browbeating.

Could the mods give us an example of a situation in the past that they considered to be browbeating and they would moderate against if it repeated under the new rule? This example would make it better for all of us to understand this new rule and differentiate between accetpable differences of opinion and unacceptable browbeating.

awec

This post has been deleted.

D'Agger

Just to respond to that Mags,

I would say that it's there for occasions if we feel that certain posters are being berated or constantly being ganged up on - it's fair enough to say that if somebody's wrong, they're wrong and let them get picked apart - that's grand.

Browbeating is something you can come across on boards, a poster will get a name for having unpopular opinions and end up being talked about on threads, having jokes passed etc. - it's the equivalent of online bullying and something we don't want to see here. With that said - it's not something I've seen here that would be on par with other forums, but I think that it's something we should have in so that we can point to it and say 'easy there - there's a line you're close to crossing'

One of the things I've taken from this thread is that we (mods & users) want to promote conversation in the thread more and promote people getting involved, rather than having a hostile vibe to the forum which would discourage users from taking part in discussions - prevention of browbeating is there to protect users - an extension of attack the post not the poster, if a gang of users ridicule a user due to their opinion - that's not on imo, so for those reasons I'd leave it in myself.

Maguined

D'Agger wrote: »

Just to respond to that Mags,

I would say that it's there for occasions if we feel that certain posters are being berated or constantly being ganged up on - it's fair enough to say that if somebody's wrong, they're wrong and let them get picked apart - that's grand.

Browbeating is something you can come across on boards, a poster will get a name for having unpopular opinions and end up being talked about on threads, having jokes passed etc. - it's the equivalent of online bullying and something we don't want to see here. With that said - it's not something I've seen here that would be on par with other forums, but I think that it's something we should have in so that we can point to it and say 'easy there - there's a line you're close to crossing'

One of the things I've taken from this thread is that we (mods & users) want to promote conversation in the thread more and promote people getting involved, rather than having a hostile vibe to the forum which would discourage users from taking part in discussions - prevention of browbeating is there to protect users - an extension of attack the post not the poster, if a gang of users ridicule a user due to their opinion - that's not on imo, so for those reasons I'd leave it in myself.

I appreciate what you are aiming for however my concern is that such things should already be catered for under the current rules. No personal attacks should already cover anyone passing a comment on a poster so I do not see the benefit gained in adding in browbeating as a rule while I do see the potential negativity in a vague rule being applied.

A mod posting on a thread pointing to an offending post and stating "attack the post not the poster" is concise, everyone learns the line has been crossed and understands that rule. My concern is a mod doing the same but saying "no browbeating" is not concise and clear as the definition of browbeating is neither so it becomes more muddled for users to understand where the acceptible line is.

I don't want to hound you but can you point out an example of a situation where you would of intervened into a thread citing "no browbeating" that you could not of actioned under "attack the post not the poster"?

Personally I cannot myself which is why I am apprehensive that adding in such a new rule is more likely to cause additional hassle and frustration for both users and mods than any potential benefits.

The Corinthian

I'll be honest and say that what constitutes browbeating is not clear at all. Could some examples be given, or some clearer definition of what it means? Otherwise, browbeating could mean anything at all, as Maguined pointed out.

Secondly, some clarification on the 'Arguing with a Mod Decision' here. Naturally, this should cover in-thread discussion. But would this also mean that if a poster disagreed with a mod decision they can't PM them about it? Or report the post where the mod makes the decision?

Is all such dissension verboten, that we could only escalate it to the Help Desk forum? Or would escalating it to the Help Desk forum also be an actionable offence too? Some clarification would help.

Off topic - with large, generic threads, like the Men's Rights one, off-topic does lose it's meaning to a degree. We've already seen a few posts (cited earlier) deleted as being off topic from that thread, even though most agree they were not off topic. Are guidelines on this forthcoming?

And finally, will there be any new moderators?

awec

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

awec wrote: »

It's the same as all other forums on boards - no arguing with mods on threads. You can of course pm a mod to ask for clarification.

Clarification? Bit of hubris there - I've changed my own moderator decisions more than once when a reasonable argument has been presented to me.

Panthro

The Corinthian wrote: »

Clarification? Bit of hubris there - I've changed my own moderator decisions more than once when a reasonable argument has been presented to me.

If you're not happy with a Mod decision, you PM the Mod.
If you don't reach an agreement with the Mod and are still not happy, you can contact Helpdesk or a C-Mod as per normal Boards channels.
Clear?

D'Agger

Maguined wrote: »

I appreciate what you are aiming for however my concern is that such things should already be catered for under the current rules. No personal attacks should already cover anyone passing a comment on a poster so I do not see the benefit gained in adding in browbeating as a rule while I do see the potential negativity in a vague rule being applied.

A mod posting on a thread pointing to an offending post and stating "attack the post not the poster" is concise, everyone learns the line has been crossed and understands that rule. My concern is a mod doing the same but saying "no browbeating" is not concise and clear as the definition of browbeating is neither so it becomes more muddled for users to understand where the acceptible line is.

I don't want to hound you but can you point out an example of a situation where you would of intervened into a thread citing "no browbeating" that you could not of actioned under "attack the post not the poster"?

Personally I cannot myself which is why I am apprehensive that adding in such a new rule is more likely to cause additional hassle and frustration for both users and mods than any potential benefits.

No hounding assumed, you're grand

I think you're right about the personal attacks - there's a line there where as the lines are slightly blurred for browbeating.

I would suggest that mods, if the feel a poster is receiving unnecessary flack for their opinions without being directly attacked or confronted, can give a warning and if requested, back this up for the warned user through quotes where they feel the person has been browbeating another user.

Honestly, I don't think it's a rule that will be applied all too much, that said, if we come across something resembling browbeating and we look to put a stop to it, a poster can point at the charter and say 'what rule am I breaking' - there's a don't be a díck rule, attack the post not the poster, but I do feel that browbeating covers the 'repeatedly undermining such and such a user - I feel you're flying close to the browbeating rule'

I don't think we will see too much of that kind of behavior here, it being a gentlemans forum however, I don't see the harm in having it there.

Again, it's open to interpretation, I'd like to hear more peoples thoughts on it (no offence Mags) to get more of a picture on whether people think it's necessary or not

Sauve

The Corinthian wrote: »

And finally, will there be any new moderators?

Hello

D'Agger

The Corinthian wrote: »

Clarification? Bit of hubris there - I've changed my own moderator decisions more than once when a reasonable argument has been presented to me.

I'd prefer to have reasonable arguments over an infraction by PM rather than pull a thread off topic and focus the attention on a single user and their behavior/posts/whatever has been infracted upon on said thread but, similar to your way of doing things - that's just a personal modding style really

awec

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Panthro wrote: »

Clear?

Perfectly. Just wanted to make sure that politely PM'ing a mod is not considered grounds for banning.

D'Agger wrote: »

Again, it's open to interpretation, I'd like to hear more peoples thoughts on it (no offence Mags) to get more of a picture on whether people think it's necessary or not

If one analyses 'browbeating', it's really the old 'me too' issue. It tends to happen (I presume, as we've yet to see an example) when someone posts something so clearly opposed to the general view of others on the thread, that everyone wants to respond to it.

It's not so much 'browbeating' as everyone wanting to have their, same, say; +1 ad nauseam.

Probably a better way of dealing with this is a simple mod stating something like "OK, I think they got the message, no need for everyone to post the same thing". Quickly stops the avalanche of posting without rubbing anyone the wrong way.

Just a thought.

Sauve

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's not so much 'browbeating' as everyone wanting to have their, same, say; +1 ad nauseam.

Probably a better way of dealing with this is a simple mod stating something like "OK, I think they got the message, no need for everyone to post the same thing". Quickly stops the avalanche of posting without rubbing anyone the wrong way.

Just a thought.

That's not really where we're coming from, our angle is more like what D'Agger explained here:

D'Agger wrote: »

Honestly, I don't think it's a rule that will be applied all too much, that said, if we come across something resembling browbeating and we look to put a stop to it, a poster can point at the charter and say 'what rule am I breaking' - there's a don't be a díck rule, attack the post not the poster, but I do feel that browbeating covers the 'repeatedly undermining such and such a user - I feel you're flying close to the browbeating rule'

There's a large difference between 90% of posters disagreeing with someones opinion on a single topic, and a poster/poster(s) consistently putting down another for what seems to us, the sake of having a go at someone.

As I'm new here, I don't have any examples of this, nor have I personally experienced it, but that's the gist of what is meant by the rule.

Legs.Eleven

Maguined wrote: »

To be honest I am pretty uneasy about the browbeating rule as I think it is completely subjective and too vague to be enforced in a reasonable manner at all.

If a individual post is acceptible by it's own merit I find it unfair that the post would then be considered unfair just because many others also share the same opinion. So the first X posts to disagree with someone is fine but X+1 and upwards now counts as browbeating?

Take the ring thread for example, one poster came in and basically implied that women deserve big expensive engagement rings. Many posters disagreed with her and they all posted their reasoning why. That thread could easily be considered browbeating, the consensus opinion of the many against one individual posters opinion. None of the posts were abusive, they all just explained their reasoning why they disagree with the original opinion but because so many people posted it could easily have been considered browbeating.

Could the mods give us an example of a situation in the past that they considered to be browbeating and they would moderate against if it repeated under the new rule? This example would make it better for all of us to understand this new rule and differentiate between accetpable differences of opinion and unacceptable browbeating.

Actually yes they were. One poster asked her how much her husband paid FOR her implying she was a mail order bride. I reported that post, in fact and it was actioned with a warning (I personally thought it deserved a a week off as it was completely uncalled for and what I would label "abusive" and I would've liked to have seen something more than a warning to set an example). To that point I think the responses were reasonable but it only takes one poster to ruin it and I have seen it happen in here tbh and it ruins the whole atmosphere. There should be zero tolerance for being an arsehole.

When your husband ordered you, did he get you delivered in by air? or sea?

This was thanked by two regulars btw, which just adds to the overall prickishness of it and what I would label as "browbeating". As a posters it can start to feel as if you're being ganged up upon, especially if you're female and not a regular poster. I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

The Corinthian

Sauve wrote: »

There's a large difference between 90% of posters disagreeing with someones opinion on a single topic, and a poster/poster(s) consistently putting down another for what seems to us, the sake of having a go at someone.

And the bit I've emboldened is where it all gets very fuzzy - too fuzzy to be taken seriously.

Problem is, sometimes posters are "repeatedly undermining such and such a user" for no more sinister a reason than that that poster is repeatedly posting crap. What then? Unless any of the moderators can give a better (actually any) example, that's all it sounds like so far.

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Actually yes they were. One poster asked her how much her husband paid FOR her implying she was a mail order bride. I reported that post, in fact and it was actioned with a warning (I personally thought it deserved a a week off as it was completely uncalled for and what I would label "abusive" and I would've liked to have seen something more than a warning to set an example). To that point I think the responses were reasonable but it only takes one poster to ruin it and I have seen it happen in here tbh and it ruins the whole atmosphere. There should be zero tolerance for being an arsehole.

Therefore one abusive poster, regardless of how reasonable all the others are, denotes collective culpability of 'browbeating'?

As a posters it can start to feel as if you're being ganged up upon, especially if you're female and not a regular poster. I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

Please don't start playing the "I'm just a girl, don't be nasty to me" card. It's insulting and, frankly, on the Internet, everyone is a 50-year old man, with a bottle of hand lotion next to his mouse, until proven otherwise.

Legs.Eleven

Therefore one abusive poster, regardless of how reasonable all the others are, denotes collective culpability of 'browbeating'?

Maguined used that as an example of a debate that went on with no abuse and I pointed out that it hadn't. Two regular poster thanked that post btw.

I get your point. It was still a bad example to use as one that went smoothly with no abusive posts though. I see those sly digs in here a fair bit. Doesn't create a very nice atmosphere overall, tbh.

Please don't start playing the "I'm just a girl, don't be nasty to me" card. It's insulting and, frankly, on the Internet, everyone is a 50-year old man, with a bottle of hand lotion next to his mouse, until proven otherwise.

That's a bit unnecessary, no? And ever so slightly OTT?

I'm talking about someone posting as one gender on a forum for the opposite gender, so it has nothing to do with what you stated above. End of story. Posters have been ganged up on in here for being female and having an opinion (and visa versa in the "other" forum). Nothing to do with "I'm just a girl" bollocks. I've never been that type of poster and that thought has never crossed my mind.

Edit: I revoke my claim of browbeating in that thread but I will say that I see too much of the kinds of comment I quoted in here to make it a pleasant place to post.

Rev Hellfire

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Posters have been ganged up on in here for being female and having an opinion (and visa versa in the "other" forum).

I've never seen anyone ganged up in this forum due to their sex, its always been for a particular stance they have taken.

Something I'm not seeing (perhaps I've missed it) is a clarification as to the scope of the men's rights thread. Are we going to see a splitting up of the topics its currently is used to contain into their own threads? Are topics for example on PUAs going to be still subjected to a blanket ban (almost like our very own section 31).

To date I'm just seeing a business as usual stance taken.

Pawwed Rig

My 2 cents for whatever it is worth

The threats of infractions for off topic posting concerns me. As conversations develop they often take twists and turns along the way. I have started many a post on boards with the phrase 'going slightly off topic here but'. I have never received or been threatened with an infraction for it. Sometimes a point can be made and briefly discussed without upsetting the thread as a whole. But now I have to think doing that may earn infractions or replying to one will get me carded? I think that it a little extreme.
Also as was stated by numerous people earlier in the thread what has been considered off topic by the mods was not considered off topic by any of the posters on the thread. Therefore seemingly perfectly valid points could also receive infractions?

One of the main points of feedback pre-thread closure was the lack of mod participation/interest in alot of the threads here. I see Sauve was recently made a mod. Welcome Sauve. Was that a response to the feedback or was that going to happen anyway? Is Sauve interested in mens rights/suicide/serious type of threads? I and others have highlighted the gap that exists from a moderator team that is not representative of the posters so hopefully this gap is now closed rather than just another contributor to the guinness and rollies thread.

Last point and I am tired so apologies if this post is any way abrupt of impolite.
Has any thought gone into what TGC is to be all about? We now have clarity on fashion threads - 1 is allowed. What else can be talked about here? What will fill the pages and attract the masses to TGC?

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Actually yes they were. One poster asked her how much her husband paid FOR her implying she was a mail order bride. I reported that post, in fact and it was actioned with a warning

Rest assured you were not the only one to report that post. I know I did. Probably others too.

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

This was thanked by two regulars

Was it? I never came across the poster before and after a bit of brief research that is the first time he has posted in TGC (in the last month anyway). One of the 'thankers' has 4 posts on boards - zero in TGC and the others name seems familiar but not that familiar so not a prolific poster here.

Legs.Eleven

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Was it? I never came across the poster before and after a bit of brief research that is the first time he has posted in TGC (in the last month anyway). One of the 'thankers' has 4 posts on boards - zero in TGC and the others name seems familiar but not that familiar so not a prolific poster here.

I've seen the poster before and one of the posters who thanked him around Boards. I acknowledge that they're not regulars in here though although the poster of the comment is. My original point was simply that that post was overlooked when Maguined stated on this thread that that debate with that particular poster went on abuse-free. It didn't.

I don't post in here very often at all but I read a fair bit as I've an interest in some of the topics but I've seen posts that can only be described as "hostile". They could also be described as "browbeating" in the sense that you get the impression that certain posters would rather have no female posters posting in here, no matter how reasonable they and their posts are and are doing all they can to get them out. Most posters seem sound but the handful responsible are damaging the rep of the place.

Even the above comment from The Corinthian stating I'm trying to come across as "only a girl" could be classed as hostile and unnecessary. I see too much of it around and it's hardly makes the place attractive to posters.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Sauve

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Is Sauve interested in mens rights/suicide/serious type of threads?

Sure am.
I know I for one, (and without speaking for the rest of the guys, but I'm pretty sure they're the same) read everything posted in all the threads here since I joined.
I won't post unless I have something to add, I don't see any gain in posting for the sake of it, but rest assured all threads are being watched and read.
If you see something you don't like, or have concerns about, always feel free to either report a post or pm one of us. It's what we're here for

Maguined

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I've seen the poster before and one of the posters who thanked him around Boards. I acknowledge that they're not regulars in here though although the poster of the comment is. My original point was simply that that post was overlooked when Maguined stated on this thread that that debate with that particular poster went on abuse-free. It didn't.

When I said abuse free I meant browbeating abuse. If abuse is already covered by the rule "attack the post but not the poster" then what is browbeating. People say it can happen but no one can point out what it looks like.

Rev Hellfire

Sauve wrote: »

Sure am.
I know I for one, (and without speaking for the rest of the guys, but I'm pretty sure they're the same) read everything posted in all the threads here since I joined.

The problem through is that an impression has been given that this forum is being directed with potentially high-maintenance topics being consigned to a single mega thread or outright banned to make things easier for moderator, who have expressed a disinterest in the subject matter.

Pawwed Rig

Sauve wrote: »

Sure am.
I know I for one, (and without speaking for the rest of the guys, but I'm pretty sure they're the same) read everything posted in all the threads here since I joined.

With respect I do not think you speak for the other mods here, hence all the early posts in this feedback thread and the previous feedback thread which highlighted the split in TGC between The Guinness and rollies thread and the regular poster in the other conversations threads. Numerous posters appealed for a mod with an active interest in serious conversation to be appointed. Awec has already said that you were not appointed based on this feedback so the question remains is the mod team making efforts to be representative of the regular posters in the forum?
I am aware all posts are read but the mod interaction on the threads in question is to ensure the conversation does not stray into areas they are uncomfortable with rather than active participation or passion for the topics at hand.
Most forums on boards have mods who are the heart and soul of their respective forum which I feel TGC lacks. My feedback is that this should be remedied.

D'Agger

The Corinthian wrote: »

And the bit I've emboldened is where it all gets very fuzzy - too fuzzy to be taken seriously.

Problem is, sometimes posters are "repeatedly undermining such and such a user" for no more sinister a reason than that that poster is repeatedly posting crap. What then? Unless any of the moderators can give a better (actually any) example, that's all it sounds like so far.

Therefore one abusive poster, regardless of how reasonable all the others are, denotes collective culpability of 'browbeating'?

So anything that's left to mod interpretation i.e. a large part of the task in being a mod is 'too fuzzy to be taken seriously'? I've mentioned the theory behind putting this into practice, and well enough I would have thought. I think we need to get to the heart of things on the matter - how do you feel adding it to the charter would implicate on the forum?

I personally said I don't think it'll be used all that much, if at all, but is nice to have it there to remind new posters that personal abuse and "repeatedly undermining such and such a user" isn't cool.

If a poster is repeatedly posting crap then you can report the users posts for trolling, should you feel the user is trolling, otherwise, if the user is posting 'crap' then surely that's your interpretation of their posts - it's a discussion forum, surely we're not looking for uniformed opinions?

I've given, what I feel is a fair enough descirption of what it covers - it's there to protect users who may feel that they're offering their opinion and repeatedly having it dragged back up and having it used as a stick to beat them with.

Please don't start playing the "I'm just a girl, don't be nasty to me" card. It's insulting and, frankly, on the Internet, everyone is a 50-year old man, with a bottle of hand lotion next to his mouse, until proven otherwise.

Lets reel it in a bit and get back to discussing what we want to see on the forum and what we don't shall we?

D'Agger

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The problem through is that an impression has been given that this forum is being directed with potentially high-maintenance topics being consigned to a single mega thread or outright banned to make things easier for moderator, who have expressed a disinterest in the subject matter.

From the conversation on the thread itself on how that (mega thread which I suggested), would go you should know that course of action is now unlikely.

Regarding the mens rights thread, we've mentioned here previously that we'll allow the conversation to flow more and be less strict with regards to the topic of feminism and try to let the thread flow with less mod intervention - however, if we feel we need to step in we will.

As per the mega threads - we've said that fashion can have it's own singular thread where people can post and will be directed to if they open a new thread on it - with that said, we're not looking to take away from the fashion forum so specialist threads or queries will be directed there from time to time - I believe Awec might have covered this with an earlier post.

Maguined

D'Agger wrote: »

So anything that's left to mod interpretation i.e. a large part of the task in being a mod is 'too fuzzy to be taken seriously'? I've mentioned the theory behind putting this into practice, and well enough I would have thought. I think we need to get to the heart of things on the matter - how do you feel adding it to the charter would implicate on the forum?

Even though this wasnt asked of me I am going to give my view anyway.

My concern is that browbeating will be applied to the men's rights threads but not really anywhere else. I still fail to see any situation that personal abuse is not already covered in the rules so the vague an widely open to interpretation "browbeating" will end unfairly being applied.

What I fear will end up happening is that it won't be used in the Ring thread for example even though that could be construed as browbeating but it will be applied in the men's rights threads. Because the rule is so vague it makes it possible for it to be used in such a way while the more clear and concise and already existing rule of "attack the post not the poster" is already perfectly adequate without being open to such wide interpretation.

I also don't agree with the reasoning that just because you don't expect it to be used often is good enough reasoning for it's introduction. If anything that is reasoning not to introduce this rule considering abuse is already covred in the rules.

The heart of things on the matter is that to me a new rule has been proposed, more than one user has expressed concerns over the new rule being bad and asked for further clarification. I genuinely do not feel there is any situation that enforcing a "browbeating" rule could not already be covered by the personal abuse rules and have yet to have anyone provide an example of such a case.

This really leaves the mods with the below options in my mind.

1. Provide an example of a situation that differetiates between personal abuse and browbeating abuse, this would justify such a new rules existence which would lessen the unease myself and other users feel about such a new rule.
2. Abandon the rule as it is already covered by the personal abuse rules.
3. Carry on with the introduction of the rule without providing an example of it's use and ignoring the feedback of posters in this thread about their concerns.

Personally I prefer option number 2 as I don't agree with the rule however I would be happy with option number 1 if a good example was provided. My fear is option number 3 as it's the worst option in my mind as it basically is not caring about the feedback of users in the feedback thread.

Unfortunately to me option 3 seems to be the most likely result so far.

The Corinthian

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I'm talking about someone posting as one gender on a forum for the opposite gender, so it has nothing to do with what you stated above. End of story. Posters have been ganged up on in here for being female and having an opinion (and visa versa in the "other" forum). Nothing to do with "I'm just a girl" bollocks. I've never been that type of poster and that thought has never crossed my mind.

If someone attacks another poster on the basis of their perceived gender, it's an ad hominem, regardless of what gender, and should be treated as such. But the moment one starts to cite their gender as a reason why others disagree with them, then we are on the slippery slope of using the "I'm just a girl/boy" cop-out and there lies a dangerous invitation to censorship.

Edit: I revoke my claim of browbeating in that thread but I will say that I see too much of the kinds of comment I quoted in here to make it a pleasant place to post.

What do you expect if people disagree with you?

You often get the complaint on discussion boards from those who get 'browbeaten' that they're entitled to their opinion and indeed they are entitled to their opinion. However, being entitled to your opinion does not imply that you're entitled to your opinion being respected.

If someone comes out with an option that is strongly objected to, by a majority of those participating in the discussion, then inevitably it's not going to be a pleasant place for them. So I absolutely support their right to argue their position, but don't ask me or anyone else to support their 'right' to be respected for it.

D'Agger wrote: »

So anything that's left to mod interpretation i.e. a large part of the task in being a mod is 'too fuzzy to be taken seriously'?

I'm afraid you've not understood or are misinterpreting what I wrote.

There will always be a certain level of interpretation involved in moderation. The objection being raised here is the latitude of potential interpretation. This proposed 'browbeating' rule is so insanely open to interpretation and so dubious in it's conception that almost any kind of rebuttal by more than one poster could be deemed so by a moderator if that is their whim.

And, as we earlier saw in this very thread, some moderator interpretations fall very short of the mark.

I've mentioned the theory behind putting this into practice, and well enough I would have thought.

And you've completely failed in defining what it means beyond the vaguest of terms - nothing reasonable there at all. Repeatedly, also, people have sought past examples and not a single one has been given.

I personally said I don't think it'll be used all that much, if at all, but is nice to have it there to remind new posters that personal abuse and "repeatedly undermining such and such a user" isn't cool.

If a poster is repeatedly posting crap then you can report the users posts for trolling, should you feel the user is trolling, otherwise, if the user is posting 'crap' then surely that's your interpretation of their posts - it's a discussion forum, surely we're not looking for uniformed opinions?

Both of which require a lot more confidence in the present moderation than is presently available. Again, one thing that has been repeatedly raised by this feedback thread was the need for a moderator who has a genuine interest and investment in certain topics (men's rights in particular). You must realize why this demand is there, although given this demand has been ignored, perhaps not.

Lets reel it in a bit and get back to discussing what we want to see on the forum and what we don't shall we?

What we want or what the moderators want?

awec

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

awec wrote: »

What the posters of the forum want. Again, you are fully aware that that is what this thread is about. Being overly-dramatic is detracting from whatever points you are trying to make.

And arguing, despite complete lack of agreement, that the discussion on this point is over, and effectively settled, is detracting from whatever points you are trying to make.

Nothing in this thread has been ignored either. Again, you are fully aware of this. As a moderator yourself you should know how long these things take - have some patience please.

As a moderator myself, I'm also aware of how often things are ignored.

Remember, many of the things being raised here are the same as those raised in the last feedback thread. Patience didn't help there.

awec

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

awec wrote: »

Where did I say the discussion is over?

Saying "lets reel it in a bit and get back to discussing what we want to see on the forum and what we don't shall we?" sounds like a change of subject, without any promise to return to the present one, TBH.

Panthro

The Corinthian wrote: »

Saying "lets reel it in a bit and get back to discussing what we want to see on the forum and what we don't shall we?" sounds like a change of subject, without any promise to return to the present one, TBH.

Please don't start playing the "I'm just a girl, don't be nasty to me" card. It's insulting and, frankly, on the Internet, everyone is a 50-year old man, with a bottle of hand lotion next to his mouse, until proven otherwise.

The second quote is not feedback to the forum, now you've been asked very politely to stay on the topic that is feedback.
Mod note:
Now I'm warning you, stray off topic to forum feedback again like you did in the second quote above, and I'll take action, clear?

D'Agger

The Corinthian wrote: »

Saying "lets reel it in a bit and get back to discussing what we want to see on the forum and what we don't shall we?" sounds like a change of subject, without any promise to return to the present one, TBH.

I can confirm that it wasn't chap - not every point has an undertone in fairness.

I'm willing to leave the browbeating out of the forum so if others are in agreement to that. Regarding the persistent calls for examples - I've seen it in other forums and don't want to see it here - if we're going to leave the mens rights thread etc. to flow and move into other topics without intervening too much then I do see it as something that could come up and think it should be put in as a preventative measure.

TBQH Mags - you've made some very good points on the thread but I take exception to the option number 3 you mentioned - I wouldn't, nor would I want other mods to act against the general consensus of the users of the forum - I felt I was acting in best interests with the idea of preventative measures against browbeating but I woudn't go so far as to think we'd just completely dismiss posters input and do our own thing - that's way off the mark.

We're not the gestapo, we're trying to establish what should be allowed and what should be treated with delicacy, what should be met with infractions etc. we're not going to please everybody but we're playing it as we go and as best we can. I continued to push the browbeating for reasons I gave above but the arguments provided in response seem to indicate that it would be a bone of contention and therefore difficult to put into practice - were it required.

The Corinthian

D'Agger wrote: »

I'm willing to leave the browbeating out of the forum so if others are in agreement to that. Regarding the persistent calls for examples - I've seen it in other forums and don't want to see it here

I don't object to examples from other fora. I think the only objection is to what it is defined as, so such examples may help. Honestly, I'm not against it in theory, just how it works in practice.

We're not the gestapo, we're trying to establish what should be allowed and what should be treated with delicacy, what should be met with infractions etc.

Given the most recent moderator decision on what is OT, I'm not sure people would agree with you. That's feedback, I'm afraid; at this stage you must have recognised that this suspicion amongst many posters is not limited to uppity 'loners' like me.

D'Agger

The Corinthian wrote: »

Given the most recent moderator decision on what is OT, I'm not sure people would agree with you. That's feedback, I'm afraid; at this stage you must have recognised that this suspicion amongst many posters is not limited to uppity 'loners' like me.

This, to me, is hyperbolic to say the least, can you elaborate on what you're suspicious of?

Maguined

D'Agger wrote: »

TBQH Mags - you've made some very good points on the thread but I take exception to the option number 3 you mentioned - I wouldn't, nor would I want other mods to act against the general consensus of the users of the forum - I felt I was acting in best interests with the idea of preventative measures against browbeating but I woudn't go so far as to think we'd just completely dismiss posters input and do our own thing - that's way off the mark.

There is nothing wrong with suggesting ideas, the issue is when I expressed concerns about those ideas and wanted clarification no one really addressed my points. A general idea of what you wanted to achieve was given and that is fine but it is not really addressing my points so it looks like you are ignoring mine and others concern.

I have no problem if it is just a timing thing, If any of the mods are planning on responding later when they have the time to provide an examples or more detailed clarification that is fine, I don't expect the mods the be on here 24/7 however it just looked like no one wanted to respond to my points.

If an example from another forum could be provided that would be good and you could throw it up, if you don't want to quote things from another forum out of etiquette that is fine then the rule should be able to be defined and clarified using conceptual terms. If a rule cannot be adequately explained concisely using conceptual terms then it too messy a rule to put into effect in my opinion.

The Corinthian

D'Agger wrote: »

This, to me, is hyperbolic to say the least, can you elaborate on what you're suspicious of?

Would love to, but I'd rather not get sanctioned for 'questioning a mod's decision'.

BonsaiKitten

I'm also going to echo what's been said by others in the thread. I've read and reread the explanations so far about what constitutes the browbeating this new rule is being brought in to deal with, and I'm still confused. A lot of it should be covered under the general boards rules of 'don't be a dick' and 'attack the post not the poster' tbh, which is much more clear cut and concise imo.

Put simply, if it's not a rule you can see being needed very often, and the explanations for it are thus far pretty vague (imo anyway), I don't see any reason to put it in place.

Some examples would help, so we could see exactly what you mean by it?

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

This was thanked by two regulars btw, which just adds to the overall prickishness of it and what I would label as "browbeating". As a posters it can start to feel as if you're being ganged up upon, especially if you're female and not a regular poster. I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

And they were dealt with, without needing this rule. I read a lot of the threads on here tbh, and I don't see people being sniped at just because of their gender. Yes I think there are posters here who would rather it be a men-only forum but the mods have said before, that won't happen.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Would love to, but I'd rather not get sanctioned for 'questioning a mod's decision'.

Making a vague point and then refusing to elaborate hardly looks any better in a feedback thread, in all fairness.

D'Agger

Maguined wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with suggesting ideas, the issue is when I expressed concerns about those ideas and wanted clarification no one really addressed my points. A general idea of what you wanted to achieve was given and that is fine but it is not really addressing my points so it looks like you are ignoring mine and others concern.

I have no problem if it is just a timing thing, If any of the mods are planning on responding later when they have the time to provide an examples or more detailed clarification that is fine, I don't expect the mods the be on here 24/7 however it just looked like no one wanted to respond to my points.

If an example from another forum could be provided that would be good and you could throw it up, if you don't want to quote things from another forum out of etiquette that is fine then the rule should be able to be defined and clarified using conceptual terms. If a rule cannot be adequately explained concisely using conceptual terms then it too messy a rule to put into effect in my opinion.

There wasn't any intent on ignoring Mags, apologies on that front - the thing is, an argument can be made against a charter rule or a proposed one as was the case here, and I don't want to make amendments to the charter without discussing with the fellow mods, so I'd prefer to take the time and have a general concensus on what's proposed before speaking on behalf of the mods, when, in actual fact, my personal opinion on it may not reflect fairly on how the other mods feel about proposed changes etc.

Also, the rule that I proposed came to the fore of the thread, so I always want to respond with well strung together points rather than just chuck a post together quickly and fire it in - I'm at work also so yeah....that's all my excuses

Honesty, I think taking posts from another forum is slightly poor taste - it's like using another forum as a stick to beat our own forum with.

And given the points yourself and some other posters have made, it seems the inclusion of browbeating rules to the forum would cause confusion and I think the charter requires clarity at the moment.

So we can put the browbeating idea to bed. Forever. And Ever :pac:

The Corinthian wrote: »

Would love to, but I'd rather not get sanctioned for 'questioning a mod's decision'.

With all due respect - you know the channels to go through if you feel that discussing it on the thread will result in a sanctioning.

I'd prefer that you raised issues through the outlined channels rather than pertain to them and then not elaborate tbh

The Corinthian

BonsaiKitten wrote: »

Making a vague point and then refusing to elaborate hardly looks any better in a feedback thread, in all fairness.

I totally accept that. Problem is that much of what is being discussed is related to moderator decisions and interpretations and how these are negatively impacting on the forum in some cases. Whenever such actions are questioned we are bluntly told this is forbidden - even in this feedback thread and they are part of that feedback.

So if I go into detail, without being told it's OK for me to do so, I could well be sanctioned and I'd rather not.

Rev Hellfire

D'Agger wrote: »

Honesty, I think taking posts from another forum is slightly poor taste - it's like using another forum as a stick to beat our own forum with.

That's a strange response, when asked for clarification on a topic your own response is.

wrote:

I've seen it in other forums and don't want to see it here

Seems unfair to use posts from other forums as evidence and then say being asked to provide said evidence is unfair.

D'Agger

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

That's a strange response, when asked for clarification on a topic your own response is.



Seems unfair to use posts from other forums as evidence and then say being asked to provide said evidence is unfair.

Hold up - I never said it was unfair for me to be asked to provide evidence - I stated that bringing another forum in here may be poor taste which I do believe it to be so, as it might be taken as a slight by another forum and reflect poorly on TGC

Seeing as I don't have examples from our own forum based on it being a concept, and based on the arguments against the introduction of such a rule by the majority of posters, I've stated that it's best to leave it out of the charter. I had an idea, it was flawed and so it's not been deemed fit for the charter.

I honestly don't know where 'fairness' came into it

The Corinthian wrote: »

I totally accept that. Problem is that much of what is being discussed is related to moderator decisions and interpretations and how these are negatively impacting on the forum in some cases. Whenever such actions are questioned we are bluntly told this is forbidden - even in this feedback thread and they are part of that feedback.

So if I go into detail, without being told it's OK for me to do so, I could well be sanctioned and I'd rather not.

You're simply being asked to take it to PM, this isn't a new concept, if you have questions on mod decisions, take them to the mods and discuss them free of fear seeing as it's not on the thread.