Close the Horse Racing Forum

careca

Mods, this is not a wind up. If its inappropriate please delete it.

I am an infrequent visitor to this forum, mainly I just browse the threads, but occasionly I add something if I think its worthwhile.

Recently however, its gone beyond a joke. There is a gambling section in the Rec forum and it seriously gets far better horse racing threads than this place.

As an example yesterday a new thread was started re a tip in the 5.15 at Yarmouth. It was started at 5.13. Fair enough, the horse won, but then the poster says he'll have another one soon and throws up a horse for the next race in Ballinrobe (four mins before the off). There is a 'racing tips' sticky on the forum, why wasn't this used. Also posters are coming on to the tips sticky and saying "I think x will win because its heavy ground". Its for tips ffs.

Sorry about the rant, but if this forum is going to survive, it needs to have a complete overhaul or to be merged with the gambling forum. Having it active and useful for 4 days a year (Chelt) isn't good enough.

allthedoyles

I agree too , its for tips and should be used as such .

There was a guy here yesterday advertising his tips website ...wayne something .

I was waiting for his tip , which came through ok........The horse won as well ...............but the price was 2/7 ...................

Sure I could have tipped that one as well

mike65

My sugestion would be to to have the nags as a sub-forum with a link at the top of the gambling forum.

Sizzler

Based on the OP's comments it sounds more like the modding (sorry!) The forum in principle is fine if you ask me. There are a lot of items on here that are of interest to people that might not neccessarily be gambling related.

Bluetonic

It went downhill when most of the posters moved over to the Letsbet forum, mind you that forum doens't seem to be much more than what we used to have here, which wasn't anything that couldn't be found elsewhere online.

As for this forum it still serves it's purpose so there is no need to disband it.

From a personal point of view it's a shame that the mods aren't active in the forum, they seem to have no interest helping with the development of the forum or adding a bit of life into it. Whilst I understand that it's not their primary role it would show they have some confidence in the future of this forum if they actually contributed, which in turn might encourage other boards.ie members to contribute (for the record Hobarts last post (banning someone) was in April, and Ruggiebears last contribution was in March).

nice1franko

And also insta-bans for bollixes who post selections in the tips forum.

Hobart

For the record, I visit this forum everyday. As has been stated in the past, it is not my job/function to start a thread on every single subject, moreso it is my function to allow debates and threads grow without spam and to keep disruption down to as minimum.

While the forum is not the busiest on these boards, there is normally enough activity in it around the time of the festivals, to justify it's existence.

I'd like some posters to flesh out exactly how it is "my fualt" that this place has become as quiet as it is, and maybe some others would like to inform me on how they would improve the traffic through this forum. Also, some alternative suggestions for mod, and the reasons why they would be a good moderator, would also be welcome.

If anybody has any specific issues with my moderation, feel free to PM me and.or start a helpdesk thread.

wb

allthedoyles wrote: »

I agree too , its for tips and should be used as such .

There was a guy here yesterday advertising his tips website ...wayne something .

I was waiting for his tip , which came through ok........The horse won as well ...............but the price was 2/7 ...................

Sure I could have tipped that one as well

Hi there, someone (not me) started up a thread on the Gambling section about my site and I've been happy to answer some questions on it. I didn't post about the site here yesterday.

Regarding prices, the average price of my bets have been 2.77. The results are as follows:

Bets: 21
Wins: 13
Strike Rate: 61.90%
Average Price: 2.77
Profit/Loss to €10 stake: +€83.51

You can see the full results here: http://waynebaileyracing.com/results.aspx

Yes, yesterdays price was very short and some of my bets are. Some people don't bet at those prices and that's fair enough.

Without being smart, I think the return on investment on my site has been quite good. At the end of the day, it's free.

If, as you say, you could tip them yourself, why not do just that and proof to racing index?

(By the way I'm not saying that in a smart way, I'm just wondering why more people don't give it a go themselves).

If you're looking for big priced value horses, my site is probably not for you as I mainly focus on the top end of the market. Thanks for the feedback anyway.

Wayne

biomech

horse racing is not just about gambling.... imo its got very little to do with it. if people are interested in gambling & horses as was already pointed out... go to the gambling forum... why not completely ban any talk of gambling on the horse racing forum????

mike65

Er without gambling the whole industry would die, its the lifeblood.

careca

First off, I have no problem with modding here and I agree with Hobart that its not his/her job to start threads. You don't need mods on other forums to start them.

Secondly, I have no problem with WB and I like his site/articles in Indo. Again, he doesn't spam the place and its up to each individual whether they want to take his advice or not.

Like I said in op, the only thing annoying me is the crossover on both forums (fora ??) re bets on horses and I do take the point that not all horse racing is gambling. If I wanted to post something (anything) on soccer, I'd know exactly which forum to go to. If I get a tip or fancy something at Ballinrobe this evening, then there are a number of forums, let along threads, which I can use. Just too much overlapping imo.

biomech

mike65 wrote: »

Er without gambling the whole industry would die, its the lifeblood.

gambling on horses is a completely seperate industry to horse racing. slight overstatement to call gambling the lifeblood of horse racing..... that is very much not the case... horseracing can sustain itself. bookies attract more people. any way off topic a bit on my behalf.... how about keeping gambling in the gambling forums and horseracing in the horse racing forums. ? ? ?

corban

definitely think the horse racing forum and gambling forum should be merged....

Hobart

biomech wrote: »

gambling on horses is a completely seperate industry to horse racing. slight overstatement to call gambling the lifeblood of horse racing..... that is very much not the case... horseracing can sustain itself. bookies attract more people. any way off topic a bit on my behalf.... how about keeping gambling in the gambling forums and horseracing in the horse racing forums. ? ? ?

Indeed you are correct. Sure just look at the popularity of HR in those countries where gambling is not allowed.

biomech

Hobart wrote: »

Indeed you are correct. Sure just look at the popularity of HR in those countries where gambling is not allowed.

dubai.... the uk on sundays???? but the question is would this forum survive without gambling chatter.???? i suppose its not the worst but really hate people talking through their pockets:mad:

Morgans

Aftertiming and ranting about bent jockeys because they have undoubtedly lost a poster a fiver are a necessary evil of horse racing forums. Frequent visitors to the site soon spot the culprits. One thing common across all racing forums Ive come encountered is that their traffic is far slower in mid summer compared to the winter - for several reasons. Dont see what closing it down would achieve. If the OP wants to start threads on horse racing there is nothing to stop him/her. If no-one wants to reply, that is their perogative.

Whyno

I think the gambling forum and horse racing forums should be linked. The extra traffic involved in each would result in some better discussions, tips etc etc.
I frequent the horse racing site daily and only recently found the gambling one. Doesnt make sense to me to have both. Id much prefer a linked one and thus we could have some geat banter/discussions/tips/advice and most of all right auld rows ta get the bloods boiling.:cool:

aya14

Whyno wrote: »

I think the gambling forum and horse racing forums should be linked. The extra traffic involved in each would result in some better discussions, tips etc etc.
I frequent the horse racing site daily and only recently found the gambling one. Doesnt make sense to me to have both. Id much prefer a linked one and thus we could have some geat banter/discussions/tips/advice and most of all right auld rows ta get the bloods boiling.:cool:

I like this idea or as Mike65 was sayingmake Horseracing a sub-forum of Gambling. Or is that a problem for folk because gambling is in rec and not sports section?

Also Whyno FFS your on boards 4 years and now you find gambling:rolleyes::rolleyes: and you call yourself a poker player:P

careca

Morgans wrote: »

Aftertiming and ranting about bent jockeys because they have undoubtedly lost a poster a fiver are a necessary evil of horse racing forums. Frequent visitors to the site soon spot the culprits. One thing common across all racing forums Ive come encountered is that their traffic is far slower in mid summer compared to the winter - for several reasons. Dont see what closing it down would achieve. If the OP wants to start threads on horse racing there is nothing to stop him/her. If no-one wants to reply, that is their perogative.

I agree with your first couple of points, but I don't get where you are at with the last two. Where did I say that I start threads and no-one replies?? I couldn't care less if the forum has one thread a year, but I can't see the point in having two separate forums which basically cover the same area (or most of it). Merging HR with Gambling would increase traffic, as someone said, and at least we'd know where to go to post a tip, get info, etc.

Bluetonic

aya14 wrote: »

I like this idea or as Mike65 was sayingmake Horseracing a sub-forum of Gambling. Or is that a problem for folk because gambling is in rec and not sports section?

How would making it a sub forum improve things? It would just be the same forum in a different place. I presume most people know the HR forum exists.

Hobart

Bluetonic wrote: »

How would making it a sub forum improve things? It would just be the same forum in a different place. I presume most people know the HR forum exists.

Again, agreed. The following is also from the Charter:
Finally, there is a lot more to horse racing than just betting. Feel free to discuss any/all aspects of this wonderful sport, and enjoy the forum.

Also

Hobart wrote:

I'd like some posters to flesh out exactly how it is "my fualt" that this place has become as quiet as it is, and maybe some others would like to inform me on how they would improve the traffic through this forum. Also, some alternative suggestions for mod, and the reasons why they would be a good moderator, would also be welcome.

The silence is deafening on this question. How quick some people are to hop all over the mod, and yet when the opportunity is given to explain and/or suggest alternatives, how quiet they become.

Bluetonic

From my point of view Hobart I've said that I'd like to see the mods more active in the forum, perhaps starting a few new threads each week if they see something interesting in the world of HR. I think people are afraid to start new topics for fear of being shot down by a self appointed HR expert or because their own knowledge might be minimal, however if they see something started by a mod they might feel a bit more confident of voicing their opinion. I have certainty nothing to say on either your or the other mods moderation, just on your participation. I also understand if you feel that there is nothing to be added by posting for the sake of it.

I like the look of Mike65, in that he's active daily on the board.

mike65

I'm hardly here to be honest, unless its the Tips thread or a big meet

Bluetonic

mike65 wrote: »

I'm hardly here to be honest, unless its the Tips thread or a big meet

Thats not a no I notice

Hobart

Bluetonic wrote: »

From my point of view Hobart I've said that I'd like to see the mods more active in the forum, perhaps starting a few new threads each week if they see something interesting in the world of HR. I think people are afraid to start new topics for fear of being shot down by a self appointed HR expert or because their own knowledge might be minimal, however if they see something started by a mod they might feel a bit more confident of voicing their opinion. I have certainty nothing to say on either your or the other mods moderation, just on your participation. I also understand if you feel that there is nothing to be added by posting for the sake of it.

I like the look of Mike65, in that he's active daily on the board.

Firstly, I do have a fairly busy RL at the moment, and don't spend as much time here or on other forums, in general. Secondly, I'm normally fairly quick to hop on users who use snide remarks towards, or are disrespectful of others who appear to not have the level of HR knowledge of themselves, and in fairness there are quiet a number of other users who do not suffer fools here, irrespective of their apparent knowledge. Thirdly, there is the Charter. I know it's an old bug-bear, but the Charter does cover everything that is deemed acceptable and unacceptable in this forum, and actually goes as far to give guidelines on the very subjects we are discussing here.

As for Mike65, my understanding is that while he once was a Mod, he has no immediate intention of picking up the reigns anytime soon, and is busy sunning himself in the sunny south east.

Bluetonic

Rest assured this thread will die within a week anyhow, the forum will keep going and someone will post up a similar thread in 12 months. It's not been the first time this has been brought up and won't be the last.

Anyhow 7 days of terrestrial TV covered Irish racing next week, with mixed cards each day so really no excuses.

Morgans

careca wrote: »

Where did I say that I start threads and no-one replies??

And where did I say that you said that. You are free to start threads if you like. The forum is only as good as its contributors. Yet the title of the thread is "Close the Horse Racing Forum".

On the moderators role. I think one of the things that the forum badly needs is a few "Champions" as they would say in the business world. Ideally it would be those people with the power to control the forum who had a passion for developing it into the best forum it could be. Having silent moderators doesnt help in this regard. Its only one issue on why its not such a great forum and probably not the main one, IMO.

Hobart

Morgans wrote: »

On the moderators role. I think one of the things that the forum badly needs is a few "Champions" as they would say in the business world. Ideally it would be those people with the power to control the forum who had a passion for developing it into the best forum it could be. Having silent moderators doesnt help in this regard. Its only one issue on why its not such a great forum and probably not the main one, IMO.

Why are you connecting the two? Why would one of these "champions" necessarily need the tools to delete/edit threads/posts (which is essentially all the power a mod has bar banning spammers)? Why can't this forum have champions, but those champions being contributors, as opposed to mods aswell?

Morgans

Yes. I said "Ideally". If you are asking why it is ideal for the moderator to be a champion is that simply I would like moderators to have a strong knowledge of the content under disucssion, have a passion for the subject and have the well-being of the forum as the highest priortity. Not simply have the edit/delete power simply as an ego boost or someone who checks in daily to see if the charter terms have been transgressed (your credentials are not in question here, far from it).

I actually had "Ideally, but not neccessarily" initially as the sentence constuction was getting too unweildy. Definitely not neccessary, but in an ideal world, the moderators should earn their moderatorship.

And as i said, the fact that the moderators are not champions is not the main problem. The main problem is there is few contributors of real value, regardless of moderators.

Hobart

Morgans wrote: »

Yes. I said "Ideally". If you are asking why it is ideal for the moderator to be a champion is that simply I would like moderators to have a strong knowledge of the content under disucssion, have a passion for the subject and have the well-being of the forum as the highest priortity. Not simply have the edit/delete power simply as an ego boost or someone who checks in daily to see if the charter terms have been transgressed (your credentials are not in question here, far from it).

I actually had "Ideally, but not neccessarily" initially as the sentence constuction was getting too unweildy. Definitely not neccessary, but in an ideal world, the moderators should earn their moderatorship.

In all fairness, your choice of wording, and my subsequent mis-quotation is semantics. Ideally ergo necessarily, it doesn't really matter in the whole scheme of the topic, and is besides the point.

I'd never call myself an expert on anything, but I actually work for a huge racing publication, and I would not be far from the mark when I would attain a little more than a passing knowledge on the subject to myself, but that again is besides the point.

I don't really get where you are going with the whole "earning" of moderatorship, I was approached by an Admin to mod this forum, I said yes, that was it really. Initial concerns where that the whole "gambling" aspect would become the main thrust of the board, and that boards.ie would become a haven of gambling addicts. Thankfully that has not happened.

Again, I do not see any need for a champion to have mod powers, I don't see how the two are linked, but I willing to discuss it on it's merits, and if convinced, I have no issue in proposing one of these champions for modship.

Morgans

There are ways and means to moderate a forum.

I would prefer those who have proven themselves over time to have the forums best interest at heart to be those leading the forum. I do think this is the ideal situation. Those that somehow take it on themselves to help provide the best environment for discussion amongst its contributors. Someone who in quiet times decides to posts something like a simple question "GC vs ROG vs HW over 9f" It would be enough to spark a debate that keeps things going for a while, as has been proven on other racing forums. That is how moderatorship is earned, by sound work on the forum as a contributor.

Someone who makes sure that the charter isnt transgressed will do, but is hardly the same thing. It is not the ideal moderator, but it will do.

Hobart

Morgans wrote: »

There are ways and means to moderate a forum.

I would prefer those who have proven themselves over time to have the forums best interest at heart to be those leading the forum. I do think this is the ideal situation. Those that somehow take it on themselves to help provide the best environment for discussion amongst its contributors. Someone who in quiet times decides to posts something like a simple question "GC vs ROG vs HW over 9f" It would be enough to spark a debate that keeps things going for a while, as has been proven on other racing forums. That is how moderatorship is earned, by sound work on the forum as a contributor.

Someone who makes sure that the charter isnt transgressed will do, but is hardly the same thing. It is not the ideal moderator, but it will do.

I still do not see you answering the question of why one has to be a moderator, to do exactly as you have said above.

If you take what you have said above in total isolation (humor me on this), what difference would it make to the person leading those discussions, starting those threads in quiet times, sparking debates, keeping things going for a while, if they had moderator powers or not?

Morgans

It ok Hobart. No problem discussing it with you - not a question of humouring you. I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.

Essentially, the opposite to my point of view is that any person can moderate any forum as long as they make sure the charter isnt transgressed. So, if this horse racing board was to shut in the morning, you could take your moderating skillset to let's say the Call of Duty forum and not bat an eyelid. Sit in the background and wait for someone to spam or transgress the charter. This seems to be your position on moderating.

Again, the best running forums in my experience have more active moderators who have been appointed in a quasi-vote by the members of the forum. The person who has displayed the best qualities and earned most respect and is willing to be a moderator wins. Ideally, the Call of Duty/Horse Racing forum should be moderated by someone with a strong interest in the topic and someone who has the respect of the contributors, not someone who has shown he can spot spam and how to read the charter. Those things should be the very very minimum to be expected from a moderator.

I also know that you work for an Irish racing publication and I have no intention of being a moderator.

Hobart

Morgans wrote: »

It ok Hobart. No problem discussing it with you - not a question of humouring you. I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.

Essentially, the opposite to my point of view is that any person can moderate any forum as long as they make sure the charter isnt transgressed. So, if this horse racing board was to shut in the morning, you could take your moderating skillset to let's say the Call of Duty forum and not bat an eyelid. Sit in the background and wait for someone to spam or transgress the charter. This seems to be your position on moderating.

I totally agree with everything you have said above.

Again, the best running forums in my experience have more active moderators who have been appointed in a quasi-vote by the members of the forum. The person who has displayed the best qualities and earned most respect and is willing to be a moderator wins. Ideally, the Call of Duty/Horse Racing forum should be moderated by someone with a strong interest in the topic and someone who has the respect of the contributors, not someone who has shown he can spot spam and how to read the charter. Those things should be the very very minimum to be expected from a moderator.

I also know that you work for an Irish racing publication and I have no intention of being a moderator.

Fair enough, and while you have described the values of a very active moderator, you still have not addressed the point of why the qualities you attribute to that moderator, cannot be fulfilled by a poster who is not a moderator.

Why can a poster not earn respect?
Why can a poster not start XYZ threads in quiet times?
Why can a poster not prove themselves over time?
Why (ad-infinitum) all of the questions above?

Essentially, why should these qualities be a "mod only" quality, and not those of the members aswell? There are loads of examples across these boards of where mods appear to take only a passing interest in the boards they mod, and yet those forums work well.

I recently gave up 2 modships I was doing, in-conjunction with HR, simply because I did not have time for them. I held onto this one, because, and I freely admit, while I don't have that much time for BB's, I do have a passing/professional interest in the subject, however. This is the first time that the apparent lack of focus on my part, has been blamed for this board being "quiet" (I'm not directing this accusation at you BTW Morgans).

Morgans

I have never said that a poster rather than a moderator couldnt act as a champion. There is no reason why they couldnt. I also didnt have mod-only characteristics. They are however the characteristics that moderators in well-functioning horse racing forums have. The more champions actively contributing the better - even better still when there is a larger pool of posters who would make fine moderators.

You dont think it matters whether the moderator cares about the subject he/she is moderating. It probably doesnt as long as they see their role as simply watching the charter. The very worst moderator on boards should be able to fulfill that function, its hardly rocket science.

However, the racing forums that I visit work best when moderators with some sense of loyalty to the contributors/responsibility for the upkeep of the forum and to some extent the quality of the contributions. Active moderators who are passionate about the subject, who want to engage discussion on their favourite subject, and who generally want the forum to be the best there is enhance the whole experience.

I would feel comfortable moderating any forum on horse racing, but I wouldnt dream of putting myself forward as a moderator for something like the Paranormal forum or the World of Warcraft forum. Sure I could make sure there would be no fights/lawsuits, but its not something I could contribute to in the manner i think a good moderator should.

Bluetonic

Hobart wrote: »

This is the first time that the apparent lack of focus on my part, has been blamed for this board being "quiet" (I'm not directing this accusation at you BTW Morgans).

Who are you directing it at? I've had a read (quick) over the thread and didn't see anyone blame you for the board being "quiet".

Hobart

Morgans wrote: »

I have never said that a poster rather than a moderator couldnt act as a champion. There is no reason why they couldnt. I also didnt have mod-only characteristics. They are however the characteristics that moderators in well-functioning horse racing forums have. The more champions actively contributing the better - even better still when there is a larger pool of posters who would make fine moderators.

You dont think it matters whether the moderator cares about the subject he/she is moderating. It probably doesnt as long as they see their role as simply watching the charter. The very worst moderator on boards should be able to fulfill that function, its hardly rocket science.

However, the racing forums that I visit work best when moderators with some sense of loyalty to the contributors/responsibility for the upkeep of the forum and to some extent the quality of the contributions. Active moderators who are passionate about the subject, who want to engage discussion on their favourite subject, and who generally want the forum to be the best there is enhance the whole experience.

I would feel comfortable moderating any forum on horse racing, but I wouldnt dream of putting myself forward as a moderator for something like the Paranormal forum or the World of Warcraft forum. Sure I could make sure there would be no fights/lawsuits, but its not something I could contribute to in the manner i think a good moderator should.

I suppose that that's your opinion, I still see nothing in your evaluation, that distinguishes a mod from poster, simply that you put the emphasis on the moderator. There are plenty of examples where mods don't post, or don't post that often on "thier" forums, and yet the forums seem to work very well.

If somebody is willing to be a champion, so be it. I see no merit in the argument that their status being one of a mod or that of a registered user, bears any relevance to their ability to have an active and healthy interest in the suubject at hand, and talking/posting about that.

Bluetonic wrote:

Who are you directing it at? I've had a read (quick) over the thread and didn't see anyone blame you for the board being "quiet".

Well...you and a couple of others tbh. Did you not say that the mods seem to have no interest helping with the development of the forum or adding a bit of life into it, or am I imagining it?

Morgans

Im not going to speak for Bluetonic. He is well capable of doing that for himself.

But isnt the last statement in bold in complete harmony with what you see the role of the moderator to be. i.e. that its not the moderator's job to have an interest in the development of the forum or to add a bit of life to it?

If that is what Bluetonic said, then surely its not something to take offence (however little offence must have been taken) but something to agree with and maybe point out that its not your job to keep the forum busy.

Hobart

Morgans wrote: »

Im not going to speak for Bluetonic. He is well capable of doing that for himself.

But isnt the last statement in bold in complete harmony with what you see the role of the moderator to be. i.e. that its not the moderator's job to have an interest in the development of the forum or to add a bit of life to it?

If that is what Bluetonic said, then surely its not something to take offence (however little offence must have been taken) but something to agree with and maybe point out that its not your job to keep the forum busy.

I really don't see where you are going with this line of thinking.

I think my train of thought on my role here has been fairly well explained, and I'm getting a wee bit sick of defending myself here tbh. The discussion seemed to be around the forum, not my role. Yes I have invited and answered questions on my role, but I'm not going to entertain the minutia of every word I say being dissected and questioned.

Bluetonic asked me a question. I answered it. I thought that that would have been fairly clear.

You may also notice that I invited suggestions as to who should be a mod, and why. Again, bar once obtuse exception, the silence has been deafening.

Whyno

aya14 wrote: »

I like this idea or as Mike65 was sayingmake Horseracing a sub-forum of Gambling. Or is that a problem for folk because gambling is in rec and not sports section?

Also Whyno FFS your on boards 4 years and now you find gambling:rolleyes::rolleyes: and you call yourself a poker player:P

Im lucky to be able to turn on the computer let alone surf d net and more than find out boards is more than just about poker :D:D:D

Pj!

Don't know why Hobart should have to defend himself.
He is the moderator. Simple as that.
Horse racing is a sport you don't find discussed a lot on forums. People are all taken up with the gambling side of things.

Bluetonic

Hobart wrote: »

Well...you and a couple of others tbh. Did you not say that the mods seem to have no interest helping with the development of the forum or adding a bit of life into it, or am I imagining it?

Morgans covers my reply well. No point in adding any more.

Just as a side, and perhaps you've answered it already so forgive me for asking, but why would you want to moderate a forum which you do not participate in or appear to have no motivation for it to be a success even though you quite obviously have more than an interest in the matter at hand?

Bluetonic

Forky wrote: »

Don't know why Hobart should have to defend himself.
He is the moderator. Simple as that.

Hobart did invite the dialogue.

It's healthy and can only be for the good of the forum.

Hobart

Bluetonic wrote: »

Morgans covers my reply well. No point in adding any more.

I don't think he did actually. You asked me specifically who was I directing my remarks at, and you also said that you did not see anyone blame the mods for the forum being quiet. I specifically said I was directing them at you, and others. That was your question, no more no less. Morgans asked, or pointed out, that the thrust of my "defence" would lead one to believe that I would be in broad agreement with it. That's a totally different point, and kinda skews my answer to your very specific question, so let me address them both, so that you are clear.

1) You said :Who are you directing it at? I've had a read (quick) over the thread and didn't see anyone blame you for the board being "quiet".. My answer, to this question is you and others. If you look at where I initially answered the question I included a reference to where you made your comments.

2) Morgans claimed: But isnt the last statement in bold in complete harmony with what you see the role of the moderator to be. And to a certain extent, he is correct, if you take my statements in isolation. But within context, my argument is that as follows: One does not have to be a moderator to have a interest in the forum, or to qualify as a "champion" of the forum. The moderators role is set out and covered in the moderators forum on this site, so I'm well aware of what my role is. My argument is, and just let me be very clear on this, that one does not have to be a mod to be a so called champion of a forum. I hope that both of those points are clear.

Just as a side, and perhaps you've answered it already so forgive me for asking, but why would you want to moderate a forum which you do not participate in or appear to have no motivation for it to be a success even though you quite obviously have more than an interest in the matter at hand?

I have addressed these points previously on this thread.

I still see no suggestions for new mods, or why they should be new moderators, if that actually is the issue. I also see no reason why these champions "have" to be mods, perhaps you could enlighten me.

It's also nice to see a bit of traffic on here .

eagle eye

FFS, why don't we close all the sports forums and put them all in REC Gambling.
I don't often post here but there is no need to shut it because a few degenerates are too lazy to open an extra window or tab.

Morgans

You seem to ignore the point about forum "champions" having to be moderators. I never said that. its the other way round. Im not sure how many times I have to say this.

The ideal sitaiton would be to have a pool of contributors who have the respect of others posters and have the forums well being at heart, participate in lively debate, and have proven themselves to be respectful individuals who if they were take over control of the forum the would try and who would work to make it as good as it could be. These people dont have to be moderators. Forum champions do not have to be moderators. However. in an ideal world the moderators should be forum champions, and take an active rather than a passive role in the well-being of the forum.

An analogy I'd use would be that of a team captain. Bear with me on this one!!!!

Dublin Utd FC are a fictional club whose captain just retired. The ideal situation would be to have several players who have displayed attributes on the pitch and would have the backing of the team should they ask to step up the role. Several players on the team could have captain/inspiring/supportive qualities without being captain.

The captain at least should have some captaining qualities and not simply be present to call the toss, wear the armband, lead the team out etc. Even if that is all the captain is obliged to do by the laws of the game, it doesnt make for the best functioning team.

A stretch but I think it fits!!

Hobart

Morgans wrote: »

You seem to ignore the point about forum "champions" having to be moderators. I never said that. its the other way round. Im not sure how many times I have to say this.

The ideal sitaiton would be to have a pool of contributors who have the respect of others posters and have the forums well being at heart, participate in lively debate, and have proven themselves to be respectful individuals who if they were take over control of the forum the would try and who would work to make it as good as it could be. These people dont have to be moderators. Forum champions do not have to be moderators. However. in an ideal world the moderators should be forum champions, and take an active rather than a passive role in the well-being of the forum.

An analogy I'd use would be that of a team captain. Bear with me on this one!!!!

Dublin Utd FC are a fictional club whose captain just retired. The ideal situation would be to have several players who have displayed attributes on the pitch and would have the backing of the team should they ask to step up the role. Several players on the team could have captain/inspiring/supportive qualities without being captain.

The captain at least should have some captaining qualities and not simply be present to call the toss, wear the armband, lead the team out etc. Even if that is all the captain is obliged to do by the laws of the game, it doesnt make for the best functioning team.

A stretch but I think it fits!!

I see your point, I just don't agree with it.

Let me give you an analogy.

Say we have his winebar owner, who opens his premises to all concerned. His function is to provide for the enjoyment of his punters. He makes sure the place is nice and warm, and clean. He makes sure that the wines served are the correct wines, and he also makes sure that if there are any spillages or rowdiness, the punters are kindly reminded that thats not the way this place is run, and please refrain from such behavior.

He provides musicians for music, buys wine from the suppliers, shows sky sports on the TV. He does not sign songs on a Saturday night, to entertain the punters, he does not sit down and drink with the punters on a nightly basis, as other customers would suffer. He welcomes the regulars, and engages with them, listens to their conversations, but he's not a punter. He's the guy running the place.

Morgans

Correct.

But

a) you wouldnt expect someone who knew zero about wine to run a successful wine bar
b) the passive mode of moderation that you seem to think sufffices is the absolute minimum. There would be one WINE BAR sign, that lets everyone know that wine is served here, and a notice on the door telling everyone to behave according to the laws. I definitely dont see your type of moderator going to the trouble to book musicians or any extra comfort to attract customers, or do anything other than make sure the laws of the bar arent transgressed. Sure they know the rules and they know that its a wine bar. Who cares if its only one person a month who decides to buy a glass of the house white. Why bother hiring musicians?

It would still be a wine bar, just not the best wine bar in town.

Hobart

Morgans wrote: »

Correct.

But

a) you wouldnt expect someone who knew zero about wine to run a successful wine bar

No I would not, but I don't get your point, well I do a little, but again, it's beside the point. The winebar would not exist, nor would it open, if the owner knew SFA about his/her products/trade etc....

b) the passive mode of moderation that you seem to think sufffices is the absolute minimum. There would be one WINE BAR sign, that lets everyone know that wine is served here, and a notice on the door telling everyone to behave according to the laws. I definitely dont see your type of moderator going to the trouble to book musicians or any extra comfort to attract customers, or do anything other than make sure the laws of the bar arent transgressed. Sure they know the rules and they know that its a wine bar. Who cares if its only one person a month who decides to buy a glass of the house white. Why bother hiring musicians?

Again, you totally miss my point. To extrapolate on my analogy, the success of the winebar is not down to the owner. It's down to it's products, and draw. If there is a good atmosphere in there, and good reports, the place will be a success. If there is not, it won't be. You could have the best place in the world, with the worst product, and be the best owner, and still be a failure. My point is, as you have illustrated, is that it is a combination of things that make a success of a forum/winebar. While the owner/mod might have one method of doing things, it does not set the agenda for the locals doing another.

It would still be a wine bar, just not the best wine bar in town.

I don't think that anybody is suggesting that this place is the best forum for racing talk. I know that there has been some talk of www.letsbet.ie/forum , and while it looks great, there does seem to be a lot ex B.IE users over there, for some reason. Maybe I'll register an account, and see how it goes .

Again, recommendations for mods, and reasons why they would be good mods are always welcome........

Morgans

Hobart wrote: »

Again, you totally miss my point. To extrapolate on my analogy, the success of the winebar is not down to the owner. It's down to it's products, and draw. If there is a good atmosphere in there, and good reports, the place will be a success. If there is not, it won't be.

Sorry I am not missing the point. I just think that you are just wrong on this Im afraid. I can understand if you want to end the discussion now as its got a bit surreal.

Yes, you believe that the owner has no responsibility for the athmosphere, products and the success/failure of the winebar. (the owner has no respsonsibility to the success or failure of the venture......Surely a sentence that should ring a bell that you are losing the arguement)

The owner could have boxed wine served in a coal shed and still call itself wine bar but it takes an owner who is committed to the winebar for it to be success. Someone who tries to make the athmosphere as comfortable as possible for its frequenters. Someone that is interested in making it as enjoyable a place to visit as it can be.

To bring this back to moderating and the point I was making initially.

In an ideal world, is it better to have a regularly contributing moderator of a forum or one who passively waits for someone to transgress the charter before intervening?

Pj!

People really have little to be doing.