Who killed AH?

five55 Fake 5t.

saw this linked in the 'Stingiest thing...' thread, would apply to a lot of other threads here, hot just on AH.

Ruu

Moved threads have the re-direct link set to remain permanently by default and I like to add a note that the destination forum now applies when I remember, as a courtesy to everyone like. I think the links just get buried though.

K-9

SW wrote: »

Is that not what the Politics Cafè is for?

Yeah, though a big part of setting that up was to lighten the mood in politics a bit more, funny political stories, satire, that type of stuff but that didn't really catch on.

MugMugs

Am I the only person here that see's a serious issue with the start of a serious Feedback thread about After Hours being littered with inane chat from not less than After Hour mods?

El Guapo!

MugMugs wrote: »

Am I the only person here that see's a serious issue with the start of a serious Feedback thread about After Hours being littered with inane chat from not less than After Hour mods?

Littered with inane chat?

Bit of an exaggeration there Mugs. The first page had a couple of jokes alright but at that stage the thread was nothing more than an OP that consisted of little more than "it's not as good as it used to be". There was no constructive feedback whatsoever at that point.
However, as the thread progressed and developed into something more serious then the tone changed and it's down to serious replies from said mods who actually care about the forum and want to see it do well.

Unknown Soldier

Is there anywhere for longcats these days?

MugMugs

El Guapo! wrote: »

Littered with inane chat?

Bit of an exaggeration there Mugs.

I don't beleive it is but we'll just put that down to a difference of opinions perhaps.

I just found it quite incredible reading the OP and then the trail of "humourous giggles" from mods of the very forum up for discussion.

Super-Rush

MugMugs wrote: »

I don't beleive it is but we'll just put that down to a difference of opinions perhaps.

I just found it quite incredible reading the OP and then the trail of "humourous giggles" from mods of the very forum up for discussion.

3 posts having a joke is all there was, 3.

I wholeheartedly apologise for having a laugh.

Annasopra

TeddyTedson wrote: »

I think the marriage referendum would be a lot more suited in AH to be honest. It's something that the country will be voting on so it's a more representative view of the country. A thread in the LGBT forum will naturally be a more one sided affair.
I think the same goes for various religious threads too. If it is a topic which is not solely dependant on said religious members views on the matter, it's probably better off in AH.

I'm not suggesting all marriage referendum threads should goto the lgbt forum. In fact they they shouldn't. I just think SOME might be more appropriate SOMETIMES in the elections/referendum forum or in lgbt.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Is there anywhere for longcats these days?

No.

Czarcasm

mango salsa wrote: »

I'm not suggesting all marriage referendum threads should goto the lgbt forum. In fact they they shouldn't. I just think SOME might be more appropriate SOMETIMES in the elections/referendum forum or in lgbt.

I suggested it before actually that a MEGATHREAD be created in AH and stickied so that the monthly threads on this issue or similarly themed could all go in that thread rather than constantly cropping up and going over the same old ground again and again. It's inevitable that the issue is going to keep coming up, because SSM IS a prominent social issue and one that affects us all (like the "LET'S ALL LAUGH AT DEPRESSION" thread, it affects us all, and After Hours is the best place for it), because moving these threads to specific forums like LGBT, Politics, Humanities, even A&A has a sticky I think) on the issue, but these forums only discuss the issue from a specific slant, and I think the more general opinions that can be put forward for discussion the better, to flesh out ALL the issues so to speak. There's been enough talk I think about the moral aspects of it, but I've never seen any practical discussion on the issue such as issues like what it will mean for couples on social welfare, what it will mean for inheritance rights, adoption, etc. The threads mostly seem to revolve around "Well what's your problem with it?", and that'll go on for sixty pages or so (Tbh I gave up reading after page 40 of the same back and forth on the most recent one).

There should be some sort of ground rules laid down in the OP of the sticky so it doesn't get bogged down in ground that's already been gone over and done to death already.

Sparks

Czarcasm wrote: »

I've never seen any practical discussion on the issue such as issues like ... inheritance rights

As any married person in Ireland who actually read the forms they had to sign to get the licence can tell you, we solved that particular concern about a century or so ago.

Sorry, I know that's a bit off-topic, but ever since Jeremy Irons went full idiot on that point, it's been pee'ing me off that nobody's pointed this out in public.

Czarcasm

Sparks wrote: »

As any married person in Ireland who actually read the forms they had to sign to get the licence can tell you, we solved that particular concern about a century or so ago.

Sorry, I know that's a bit off-topic, but ever since Jeremy Irons went full idiot on that point, it's been pee'ing me off that nobody's pointed this out in public.

I had to google there Sparks to see what you were talking about, and you've actually strengthened my point for me - Nobody HAS actually talked about these things because, well, most people that ARE already married will know this (or should), but most people that AREN'T married won't know anything about their inheritance rights (I was just using that as an example tbh), because they're never touched on in these discussions about what IS undeniably going to bring about a major change in society.

It just reminds me of the whole "Oh let's be cool and vote for Obama!" (and look how that turned out), when there are actually serious issues that people need to inform themselves about, not just voting yes "because it's the right thing to do". We need to discuss and show more people WHY it's the right thing to do.

OK sorry, small diversion from the thread there, but for me that's the only major stumbling block in AH at the moment.

Aside from that point, yeah, I'm lucky I wasn't drinking coffee just then reading Iron's comments! "Assinine" isn't the word! :pac:

anncoates

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Is there anywhere for longcats these days?

Mongcats more like.

Calhoun

Czarcasm wrote: »

It just reminds me of the whole "Oh let's be cool and vote for Obama!" (and look how that turned out), when there are actually serious issues that people need to inform themselves about, not just voting yes "because it's the right thing to do". We need to discuss and show more people WHY it's the right thing to do.

The depression thread i feel is one of the best case examples of how AH is now being used as a platform for change, its probably a key point in when the tone of AH started to become a bit more serious.

What is AH now is it light hearted discussion forum, a soft politics forum or a platform for people to show others "what the right thing to do is"?

We are seeing more and more of this in the forum, only lastnight we saw a animal welfare charity create a thread to reach the masses rather than post it in its appropriate forum. The thread was locked but i have seen instances in the past where this kind of action would have resulted in a thread deletion and a ban for the user.

Not that any of this is wrong but i when you go down the route of bringing these topics up it changes the nature of the forum and maybe it would be good if there were either steps to split them from the forum after it reached a certain size or create a new forum for light hearted banter type forum.

Czarcasm

Calhoun wrote: »

The depression thread i feel is one of the best case examples of how AH is now being used as a platform for change, its probably a key point in when the tone of AH started to become a bit more serious.

What is AH now is it light hearted discussion forum, a soft politics forum or a platform for people to show others "what the right thing to do is"?

OK that probably came off a bit more preachy than it was meant to sound, but my point was more that it's an issue that comes up time and time again and will do as we get closer to a referendum, and AH will become choc-a-block with the stuff.

Calhoun wrote: »

We are seeing more and more of this in the forum, only lastnight we saw a animal welfare charity create a thread to reach the masses rather than post it in its appropriate forum. The thread was locked but i have seen instances in the past where this kind of action would have resulted in a thread deletion and a ban for the user.

Not that any of this is wrong but i when you go down the route of bringing these topics up it changes the nature of the forum and maybe it would be good if there were either steps to split them from the forum after it reached a certain size or create a new forum for light hearted banter type forum.

Yeah that reminds me actually, I see an awful lot of threads started by one-post-wonders that are just looking for attention or thanks or just looking to stir up trouble. This might be one for the site dev guys but is there any way to set forum specific permissions to say in a specific forum that a poster can't start a thread until they have contributed a certain amount of posts? As it stands, a poster can start a thread before they're even allowed thank a post!

Calhoun

Czarcasm wrote: »

OK that probably came off a bit more preachy than it was meant to sound, but my point was more that it's an issue that comes up time and time again and will do as we get closer to a referendum, and AH will become choc-a-block with the stuff.



Yeah that reminds me actually, I see an awful lot of threads started by one-post-wonders that are just looking for attention or thanks or just looking to stir up trouble. This might be one for the site dev guys but is there any way to set forum specific permissions to say in a specific forum that a poster can't start a thread until they have contributed a certain amount of posts? As it stands, a poster can start a thread before they're even allowed thank a post!

It may have sounded preachy but you were putting into words what i have observed as a general tone in AH for sometime. There is nothing wrong with this but i am just asking the question has the forum changed what it is or is the user base being exploited due to the volume of size.

The user from lastnight was a long time poster so it wouldnt necassrily solve this and as AH is the more light hearted section i believe this would probably be the place where someone would start posting. Obviously what they post is what should be policed.

Fr_Dougal

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I like your idea Dav and think it certainly is with merit and would be interesting to implement.

It would have to be either politics or religion, I would think.

I think this is a bad idea. I can understand soccer being moved, but if you remove religion or politics you'd end up removing too many topics. And what would you do if someone brought religion/politics into a thread? Warn them? Ban them?

Leave After Hours alone, let it develop naturally. Stop trying to force it into becoming something it's not.

Czarcasm

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

I think this is a bad idea. I can understand soccer being moved, but if you remove religion or politics you'd end up removing too many topics. And what would you do if someone brought religion/politics into a thread? Warn them? Ban them?

Leave After Hours alone, let it develop naturally. Stop trying to force it into becoming something it's not.

Fairly sad state of affairs when all we have to talk about are sports, religion, and politics...

Wait a minute, that sounds exactly like after hours down the local! :eek:

Micky Dolenz

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

I think this is a bad idea. I can understand soccer being moved, but if you remove religion or politics you'd end up removing too many topics. And what would you do if someone brought religion/politics into a thread? Warn them? Ban them?

Leave After Hours alone, let it develop naturally. Stop trying to force it into becoming something it's not.

Be under no illusions, AH has never developed naturally. There has always been a hand steering it in a direction. That direction was, for example, away from tired memes and casual sexism, to name two. Which was rife, I'll add.

I read a thread from 5 years ago and a thread from last year and the level of maturity and decent banter had increased a 1000 fold. That is mainly down to the willingness of the posters to accept that a change was needed and a mod team willing to work hard on making it happen in the most pain free way possible.

Do we need to steer it in another way now? As Dav says, it shouldn't be discounted to at least try a trial period. We have nothing to lose and lots to gain.

I think Politics could even be broken into 3 categories, Southern Politics, Northern Politically themed and world politics. We often get swamped with at least 2 of the three. Even getting rid of one would be worth while exercise in my opinion.

Calhoun

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Be under no illusions, AH has never developed naturally. There has always been a hand steering it in a direction. That direction was, for example, away from tired memes and casual sexism, to name two. Which was rife, I'll add.

I read a thread from 5 years ago and a thread from last year and the level of maturity and decent banter had increased a 1000 fold. That is mainly down to the willingness of the posters to accept that a change was needed and a mod team willing to work hard on making it happen in the most pain free way possible.

Do we need to steer it in another way now? As Dav says, it shouldn't be discounted to at least try a trial period. We have nothing to lose and lots to gain.

I think Politics could even be broken into 3 categories, Southern Politics, Northern Politically themed and world politics. We often get swamped with at least 2 of the three. Even getting rid of one would be worth while exercise in my opinion.

You could also break them out into LGBT and mental health social politics, as they seem to pop up now and again.

nesf

AH used to be a lot more interesting, I'd agree with that. Then, the site was a lot smaller and almost none of you had registered yet. Actually, replace AH with "Boards.ie" and you're not far from the truth. Increased popularity has been good in some ways but it's brought a lot of problems with it too, the main one being a degradation in the signal-to-noise ratio on all the busier forums and the death of some more serious ones as people left basically due to the latter.


It might interest some of you to know, back in 04/05 when myself and Ruu were amongst the mods in AH (iirc, it was 10 years ago!), political discussion was banned. If you wanted to discuss politics you had to go to the Politics forum to do it. Dav's idea of moving a big topic out isn't new, it's how it was done for many years (mainly with Soccer and Politics to try and keep the trouble in one place and make bans from either forum meaningful). AH used to be just a place for light hearted discussions, more serious topics were meant for elsewhere. This worked fine until around '05/'06 when the site started getting a lot more traffic and the amount of noise started rising very quickly on AH with the result that a harsh clampdown was needed later on because of the "churn" of the community basically preventing the community from regulating itself to a large extent, the forum became more faceless and you were more likely to be arguing with a user you'd never seen before. Whereas back in '04 you could probably name almost all of the people involved in a ten page thread once you were told the topic title.

AH in its current form does feel rather sterile and less like the "pub chat" atmosphere that used to be there. But this is how it has to be, the site has gotten too big for such a relaxed approach today, especially with Boards.ie Ltd's greater legal exposure. Other forums have changed a lot too, Politics over 06/07 changed from being somewhere people came to debate to somewhere people came to whine about or attack the Government or some other group (a normal result of a recession and something which appears to have receded somewhat). Humanities used to the same size as Politics, and basically filled with the same people, but it has died over the past ten years, mostly due to demographic changes in the user base (fewer people who want to spend their time online arguing about morality etc essentially).

A longer post than I'd planned, but perhaps somewhat interesting to those who haven't been here than long and don't know about how much change there's been.

padd b1975

Corkfeen wrote: »

True that. How about a redirection address(to politics cafe) as a subforum,purely to send more foot traffic in that general direction?

I have noticed mods suggesting that when closing some obvious church-bashing threads.

Strangely enough, they never re-appear in the forum suggested by the mods:rolleyes:

dr.bollocko

Get rid of the goddamned nordy and isreal threads.

I f*cking hate them.

nesf

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Get rid of the goddamned nordy and isreal threads.

I f*cking hate them.

Try moderating Politics for 8 (?) years.

*twitch*

Calhoun

nesf wrote: »

Humanities used to the same size as Politics, and basically filled with the same people, but it has died over the past ten years, mostly due to demographic changes in the user base (fewer people who want to spend their time online arguing about morality etc essentially).

You would think that but to the good Dr's point there are still quite a few folk who like to argue morality all the time, they just do it in AH.

nesf

Calhoun wrote: »

You would think that but to the good Dr's point there are still quite a few folk who like to argue morality all the time, they just do it in AH.

No, not really. Most of what you see in AH is soapboxers shouting at each other combined with people making trite points. I'm thinking of actual debate where points are made, conceded and withdrawn. Not necessarily people agreeing with each other but at the very least respect for the others position. Most of the "debate" on AH is either under-informed or as I said people with a cause. Reading economic, political and moral threads on there really does make me question the wisdom of universal franchise most of the time to be blunt about it.

LuckyLloyd

So you want to have a pub where the patrons can't talk about certain topics of the day?

I've personally talked about pretty much everything in the pub; in all tones from the irreverant to the highly formal. It seems to me that AH is currently as it was intended to be.

Calhoun

nesf wrote: »

No, not really. Most of what you see in AH is soapboxers shouting at each other combined with people making trite points. I'm thinking of actual debate where points are made, conceded and withdrawn. Not necessarily people agreeing with each other but at the very least respect for the others position. Most of the "debate" on AH is either under-informed or as I said people with a cause. Reading economic, political and moral threads on there really does make me question the wisdom of universal franchise most of the time to be blunt about it.

True true, i 100% agree with this especially the point about people with a cause, as we have already discussed there are many and varied attempts to show people what the right opinion on a subject is. I suppose i was just pointing out that there are attempts to discuss morale subjects but no code of practice or quality is applied to what is discussed.

People may say that this is ok as it is AH but i get the distinct impression that the uninformed are being led on a merry dance by the user with a cause.

Micky Dolenz

The whole pub analogy hasn't been true for a long while or probably never was true.