So .. Where are we as a forum at

metamorphosis

Lately, the tone of this forum has been far from ideal. We are an argumentative bunch for sure and passionate about nutrition and backing up information provided with studies. Debate is great and this forum would be a hell of a lot less interestinmg and educational without it, but ..

Lately, there's been a sniff of big fish, little pond from this forum and it's really not nice or acceptable. Posters (both regular and not so regular) seem to have adopted an aggressive attitute which is highly unnessecary. Not everybody will want to eat the same or be as interested in nutrition to the level some people are around here. Some people may simply want to better themselves by making small changes to their diets or lifestyle.

The tone of posts seem to be 'my way or the high way', 'I'm right, you're wrong'. Its turning any potentail posters away from here.

This thread is just a shout out to see if we could be a little more nicer from time to time and not be so ready to jump throats. It is just the internet at the end if the day and it's nice to be nice.:)

El_Dangeroso

I respond in the tone to which I'm spoken to.

The shitestorm that occurred over the weekend was the result of a few non-regular posters that waded in all guns blazing to critisise everyone and throw around ad hominems. Not surprisingly, people reacted badly. Nothing worse than someone who hasn't spent more than two minutes on this forum telling everyone they know it all. It's just rude. Try that on another forum here and see what happens.

The off-topic thread was originally set up in order to deal with threads that went wildly off topic (as they tend to do around here, and no, it's not ALWAYS me!) but has since evolved into a more convivial tone. Perhaps a 'war-zone' sticky thread would be appropriate, and then it's not confronting people who are just looking for advice etc.

If you lose those big fight threads (though agreed, attacking the poster is not necessary) then this place will be sooooo boring. Look at the threads with the biggest views, bar the weight watchers threads it's all big debate threads. I've learnt so much from them and I'm sure others have too. Be a shame to lose that spirit IMO.

metamorphosis

Good idea about the 'war zone' sticky. Don't want to lose debate, don't want the forum to do a 360, off topic is not always bad when the direction been taken is good and educational. But there's too much attacking the poster, and not the post going on. Some of it is snide, some of it is not. Not looking at anyone inparticular at all at all, just a little re wording can have the same messgae and meaning but will look less aggressive.

New posters don't have a clue what they are jumping into, so it's no surprise they bite at first chance, we (and i have also been guilty of this in the past) could give them the benefit of the doubt at the start and be a little nicer at first. Though there will always be posters who like to be just rude and aggressive for no reason but they can be spotted a mile away.

El_Dangeroso

metamorphosis wrote: »

New posters don't have a clue what they are jumping into, so it's no surprise they bite at first chance, we (and i have also been guilty of this in the past) could give them the benefit of the doubt at the start and be a little nicer at first. Though there will always be posters who like to be just rude and aggressive for no reason but they can be spotted a mile away.

Give me an example where someone has innocently come seeking advice and the regulars here have been rude or aggressive to them? Doesn't happen as far as I can see. I've been nice to posters that could do with a bit of copping on, but if you're aggressive to me or another poster here out of the blue, I'm going to take issue. Sorry, you can ban me if you like but as I said before this is what happens on other forums throughout boards.

We accept low carb diets as one of the healthy ways of losing weight, that is always going to make this forum a lightening rod for any idiot who read a magazine article somewhere and think they know better. For some reason this is perceived as a low carb 'bias'. I dunno..

Diary Day

I'm new don't pick on me!!

El_Dangeroso

Diary Day wrote: »

I'm new don't pick on me!!

GTFO NOOOB!:D

g'em

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

if you're aggressive to me or another poster here out of the blue, I'm going to take issue. Sorry, you can ban me if you like but as I said before this is what happens on other forums throughout boards.

And therein lies the crux. That's what the report post function is for and that's why there are Moderators here. We rely on regulars to be the examples and to know the lay of the land, we resepct the hard work you put into your posts. But it also means you need to make our lives easier and let us take care of things that get out of hand. As frustrating as it may be just report the posts, don't fight like with like. That's what is contributing to the aggressive atmosphere of late.

El_Dangeroso

g'em wrote: »

And therein lies the crux. That's what the report post function is for and that's why there are Moderators here. We rely on regulars to be the examples and to know the lay of the land, we resepct the hard work you put into your posts. But it also means you need to make our lives easier and let us take care of things that get out of hand. As frustrating as it may be just report the posts, don't fight like with like. That's what is contributing to the aggressive atmosphere of late.

Hmmm. Sometimes the posts in question break absolutely no rules in the charter, perhaps a bit snippy but if we start to report all those posts you guys will be inundated. I mean, can you pick out the one post that caused that obesity thread to go so far off track? Cos I can't.

corkcomp

everything metamorphosis said in the original post is bang on. I dont have an answer for the issue but if I stumbled in here as a newbie looking for advice id stumble back out pretty quickly based on some of what goes on here. then again, a lot more of the debate could be kept to the O/T thread IMO

dr.bollocko

I'm confused by the original post. You're not seeking to let the misinformed reclaim the forum so I don't understand the need for a navel gazing exercise or aother forum-wide announcement about it. Get some more in-thread hands on moderation in. "Cut out the personal stuff please" and some post snipping / PMs to relevant parties is probably all it needs in most cases tbh.

Amtmann

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

The shitestorm that occurred over the weekend was the result of a few non-regular posters that waded in all guns blazing to critisise everyone and throw around ad hominems. Not surprisingly, people reacted badly. Nothing worse than someone who hasn't spent more than two minutes on this forum telling everyone they know it all. It's just rude. Try that on another forum here and see what happens.

I love your posts El Dangeroso, so what follows is no criticism of you; it's actually just an observation about how online communities evolve and function socially in general.

The forums I frequent most (Roads and Infrastructure) also have 'regular' posters. We know each other really well from having posted together for the past two or more years, and in general, we have established a sort of unwritten 'understanding' of what's cool and what's not. The tone of the forum is well known to us.

Note, though, that these 'understandings' are not codified, not constitutional and not enshrined in the forum charters. They have simply emerged (a pro-roads, pro-infrastructure consensus) over time, borne of a common interest among posters. Constitutionally (i.e. according to the charter, which I wrote) the forums have no pro- or anti- roads/infrastructure policy. They are supposed to be neutral, and in theory anti-roads posters are welcome to post there. But very often, they will rapidly receive a very chilly reception indeed if they do.

Basically, what I'm getting at is that sometimes online communities take on a life of their own. I actually am uncomfortable with the terms 'regular' and 'newbie' to describe posters because it implies the existence of an inner circle or an unwritten ethos. This can make a forum intimidating for new posters to post in.

The point about new posters coming in with "all guns blazing" is very apt however, and I TOTALLY get what you mean by this. But it is only true from the point of view of regular posters. For the newcomer, they are just airing their views. They don't know anything about the forum, its social structure, the reputation of certain posters, the ethos of the place.
I have had experience of this very thing recently in my own forums: a sort of lack of patience with new posters who may, out of ignorance, say something bogus about some infrastructural project or what have you. They unwittingly violate an unwritten rule when they do this. Sure, it can be argued that they have displayed poor forum etiquette by 'barging in'; but a forum is a public space - no one has proprietary rights, despite longevity in terms of posting history. As a moderator I see it as one of my tasks to constantly bear this in mind, and it's a difficult balance to strike - you don't want to upset the community of regular posters, but at the same time you know ''it doesn't have to be this way and new posters need to be encouraged to post''.

In my experience, every busy forum has its own idiosyncratic form of etiquette, which can be very difficult for new posters to gauge (plus, of course, general internet etiquette is something that one learns through trial and error over months. Very few people 'get it' intuitively).

So I think patience and encouragement are required when dealing with gung-ho new posters. Especially if one gets the sense from them that they have the potential to become regular posters, a softly softly approach is best if one wishes to encourage growth in the usership of a forum. As for posters who insist on soapboxing (i.e. constant repetition of a single viewpoint without entertaining correction on it if it's shown to be wrong), well, that has been made an infractable offence in many forums, because it is undoubtedly frustrating and annoying for everyone.

daenerysstormborn3

I think posters new and old need to bear in mind as well that for some people it is very very difficult to come onto a forum of this nature concerning predominantly their appearance and say "I weigh x and am looking for some advice about y and z" eventhough it is "anonymous" it is still very hard for people to even admit in this form that they have a problem and need help. I'm not saying people should be treated with gloves but sometimes the regular posters can be quite harsh simply because they probably do see posts along these lines crop up every couple of days.

In my opinion better management of the stickies and keeping them up to date would be more beneficial.

El_Dangeroso

Tremelo, I take your point, but actually looking back on that thread, I really can't see where I would have changed anything. If someone states something that's incorrect I'll correct it, especially when they do it in an obnoxious fashion, whether it's a new person or a regular poster. If they are acting the tool then they are hardly likely to be a positive influence on the forum in the future. Those that do stick around after getting into a scrap tend to become polite and contributive posters.

In any case these state-of-the-union threads rarely achieve their aims. This is nothing that couldn't have been handled by more hands on modding which forgive me, has been traditionally lacking on this forum.

Amtmann

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Tremelo, I take your point, but actually looking back on that thread, I really can't see where I would have changed anything. If someone states something that's incorrect I'll correct it, especially when they do it in an obnoxious fashion, whether it's a new person or a regular poster. If they are acting the tool then they are hardly likely to be a positive influence on the forum in the future. Those that do stick around after getting into a scrap tend to become polite and contributive posters.

True. My point was a general one. I think soapboxing is detrimental and would try the patience of a saint.

In any case these state-of-the-union threads rarely achieve their aims. This is nothing that couldn't have been handled by more hands on modding which forgive me, has been traditionally lacking on this forum.

I think they can be pretty useful sometimes, to get people's views on how things are from multiple perspectives.

I favour a 'myths' sticky revolving around such things as eating before bed, starvation mode, saturated fats, etc. If facts are established in a sticky thread, and backed up with reputable links, then misinformed posters can be directed there.. It could be included in the charter that wilful promulgation of these myths in threads is contra-charter. Might streamline things a bit

Lantus

dont recall that thread but yes some posters can be quite sharp. I myself have to remind myself to take 35 deep breaths every time I read the word Weight Watchers anywhere.

I always think that new posters are the life blood of any forum bringing new idea's, asking new or different questions that perhaps have not been asked in a long time and often highlighting things like a 'big fish' mentality which to anyone on the outside would be much more obvious than to the regulars to which it has become comfortable like a friendly leather chair.

If the repeat of questions like the 'I.m 6ft and weigh xx' is annoying then regs need to also take breaths but perhaps an FAQ as a sticky with the ten most popular questions in and some stickies or links on at least where to start would help diffuse alot of tension.

It's a very contentious topic though which is applied by often passionate people and some have a vested interest in the area.

El_Dangeroso

I actually still don't know what the 'big fish mentality' or 'big fish/small pond' thing means, perhaps someone could explain?

I'm not a big one for posting on the 'help me tweak my diet' threads, usually because I think 'where to start!' don't want to overwhelm the poster with info, but I haven't seen anyone be too harsh on those threads, maybe I missed them and someone could point me to an example.

menoscemo

While the regular posters may have been more 'right' in that thread, there was a lot of high fiving amongst them in their put downs of the 'noobs'.
This certainly gave a sense of 'them vs Us'. 'Us' being the established regulars with their particular theories and 'them' being any 'noobs' opposing their view. Unfortunately most of the replies were an attempt to put down the people holding opposing views rather than to educate them in the error of their ways.

While I have learned a lot from this forum and some of it's posters in particular, it certainly does have a cliquey feel to it as of late.

Lantus

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I actually still don't know what the 'big fish mentality' or 'big fish/small pond' thing means, perhaps someone could explain?

I'm not a big one for posting on the 'help me tweak my diet' threads, usually because I think 'where to start!' don't want to overwhelm the poster with info, but I haven't seen anyone be too harsh on those threads, maybe I missed them and someone could point me to an example.

I'm the same. Usually I'm like I have 50 pages I want to type but only 8 hours so what can I say. It's not like the DIY section where you can bash it with a hammer. I think thats also frustrating as well because people may feel like they have made no effort themselves to learn anything.

menoscemo wrote: »

While the regular posters may have been more 'right' in that thread, there was a lot of high fiving amongst them in their put downs of the 'noobs'.
This certainly gave a sense of 'them vs Us'. 'Us' being the established regulars with their particular theories and 'them' being any 'noobs' opposing their view. Unfortunately most of the replies were an attempt to put down the people holding opposing views rather than to educate them in the error of their ways.

While I have learned a lot from this forum and some of it's posters in particular, it certainly does have a cliquey feel to it as of late.

Agreed on last comment. There are only a few people hanging around and no new people coming in.

Maybe a new to the forum thread section stickie would be useful? That way people could orientate themselves and just say hello without having to post up an explosive topic and feel the wrath of the bigger fish.....that and my FAQ stickie of course

Macha

I do think that the best way to deal with snippy language is through mod intervention.

I quite like the lively debates as i learn a lot and many of the questions I have on either side get an airing but I agree that there's no need for the snippy language. A certain amount is inevitable as people basically don't like their basic understanding of nutrition to be challenged and everyone has their own take on it. Plus in nutrition more than most areas, people will draw on personal experiences which are important but of limited value when compared to high quality clinical trials.

g'em

I'm quite happy for there to be an overhaul of the stickies - I did call for it a while back when I was a Mod here but it didn't really get off the ground. In all honesty I just don't have the time to do them myself so if people would like to put themselves forward to be a "re-write team" that would be superb

--Kaiser--

menoscemo wrote: »

While the regular posters may have been more 'right' in that thread, there was a lot of high fiving amongst them in their put downs of the 'noobs'.
This certainly gave a sense of 'them vs Us'. 'Us' being the established regulars with their particular theories and 'them' being any 'noobs' opposing their view. Unfortunately most of the replies were an attempt to put down the people holding opposing views rather than to educate them in the error of their ways.

While I have learned a lot from this forum and some of it's posters in particular, it certainly does have a cliquey feel to it as of late.

The aggression evident in the posts was obviously a response to the aggressive tone taken by some of the 'Newbies', which is only natural (try whispering to someone, notice how they whisper back?).

The 'right' side, as you so succinctly put it, of the argument had some qualified scientists in their corner, plus numerous studies and facts to back up their claims. The arguments from the other corner seemed to consist of "everyone knows this is healthy....lol...". So I don't agree that the regular posters 'put down' the new posters. If they had made an effort to listen, or even argue coherently, most would have been happy to engage them.

corkcomp

some posters here get angry and defensive whenever their views are questioned, no matter how subtly the other poster makes his / her point and it really does sound like a bit of a cop out for people to say they only get any in response to other posters taking the same tone.. it would be easier IMO to use the report button and / or just ignore the post and not bother replying.

smiles302

On the topic of stickies. A pros and cons of low carb-ing would be very useful as a lot of threads I've read through here tend to be intimidating when it turns into carbs are the only marco-nutrient humans don't need etc etc.

A whole lot of people are happy following a eat everything in the healthy food box mentality and feel very lost wondering can you/should you eat fruit =/

I don't think you could get rid of the "clique" in a forum like this, no matter what you do there are people more interested/educated and because of that they will always look like the "big boys" online.
I don't think it's a bad thing as such, as long as everything too basic to explain over and over again is in a sticky somewhere.

Khannie

Macha wrote: »

I do think that the best way to deal with snippy language is through mod intervention.

I agree and to be up front: that intervention is going to start occurring more frequently. This thread is about asking people up front to be a bit more gentle. We don't need to have a big debate about it. There's nothing wrong with being gentle, or asking people to be gentle.

I would also ask people to use the report post function a bit more.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Give me an example where someone has innocently come seeking advice and the regulars here have been rude or aggressive to them?

Now why did you feel the need to jump in with a defensive response immediately? Do you think the tone of the forum is spot on? If so, I can tell you that you're in a minority. This thread is about having a friendly "let's try to be nice". That's all.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Doesn't happen as far as I can see.

You're dead wrong. Only yesterday I deleted a post of that nature in here after it was reported (a post which you had thanked). I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, but you may rest assured that it happens. (to the poster whose post I deleted: I'm not singling you out, I'm just using it as an example).

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

We accept low carb diets as one of the healthy ways of losing weight, that is always going to make this forum a lightening rod for any idiot who read a magazine article somewhere and think they know better. For some reason this is perceived as a low carb 'bias'. I dunno..

Who's this "we" you refer to?

To be honest, the fact that you'd openly refer to someone who doesn't know as much as you / disagrees with your point of view as an "idiot" is more than a bit off-putting.

dr.bollocko

Khannie wrote: »

Now why did you feel the need to jump in with a defensive response immediately? Do you think the tone of the forum is spot on? If so, I can tell you that you're in a minority. This thread is about having a friendly "let's try to be nice". That's all.

it wasn't defensive. It was asking for an example. Answer the question. You're inferring something from the question which isn't necessarily there and doing so in an unnecessary accusatory manner. Petty.

You're dead wrong. Only yesterday I deleted a post of that nature in here after it was reported (a post which you had thanked). I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, but you may rest assured that it happens. (to the poster whose post I deleted: I'm not singling you out, I'm just using it as an example).

PM the person whose post you deleted explaining the problem. I can assure you that starting to moderate people or accuse people based on thanking a post is not a good avenue to go down. Even bringing it up here strikes me as petty and singling out one person.

Who's this "we" you refer to?

Do you even read the forum?

To be honest, the fact that you'd openly refer to someone who doesn't know as much as you / disagrees with your point of view as an "idiot" is more than a bit off-putting.

That is not what was said at all and trying to infer that it was is just exactly the kind of negative attitude that I hope you're trying to remove from the forum. Seeing as how it appears to exist from the mods when talking to the regulars though, I doubt you'll be able to achieve your goals. "Any idiot" clearly refers to the kind of muppet who doesn't listen and lambasts and insults other posters for being a part of a cult, doesn't get involved in discussion or post or discuss papers or scientific theory, just has an "I'm right cos I'm right" mentality.
But no. Go on the attack and accuse people of saying what they did not and see how that works out.
Not well I'd wager. Not well.
(Nobody thanks this post lest its thrown back in your face in public.)
If you're not capable or interested in moderating the forum properly then let somebody else have a go.
Cos it strikes me that good moderation has been lacking in here ever since I've been a lurker. And with posts like the above I am beginning to understand why.
Infuriatingly insulting scapegoating nonsense.

menoscemo

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

The aggression evident in the posts was obviously a response to the aggressive tone taken by some of the 'Newbies', which is only natural (try whispering to someone, notice how they whisper back?).

I absolutely agree, but ganging up on them, putting them down and then high fiving each other is not the way forward. It just scares people away, stifles debate abd makes the forum a closed shop.

It is quite clear that there are some accepted beliefs on the forum. Those beliefs are accepted because of debates held in the past, people who have been following the debates are aware of all that.
The Problem is you have to accept that there are going to be new posters coming onto threads from time to time who haven't been following the forum previously.
It's not that strange that such people reading advice of a high fat, low carb diet for the first time find it incredulous and take issue with said advice. After all it is not the commom held belief 'out there' of what a healthy diet is. As was proven in the thread, one particular poster didn't even have the high carb diet that he thought he had, in fact he had quite a high fat diet (which he was preaching against!). Unfortunately the response to the new posters 'ignorance' was to put him down and almost laugh at him for being wrong.

It might be a pain, but when new posters come to any forum they have to be treated like posters were before certain beliefs were accepted on the forum. That will unfortunately mean going over old arguments again and again and having debates that have already been had. You have to remember that they might be wrong but a lot of us held the same views as them at some point.

g'em

Can we all hold our horses there and let teh tempers calm down please?

dr. bollocko that's a fairly pointed and accusatory tone you have in your post and I don't particularly see how it's helping the discussion at all.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Do you even read the forum?

Actually this is a very good point that Khannie brought up. When a poster refers to "we" as speaking for the majority they are in effect saying that the forum unequivocally believes x, y and z. I personally believe that's a fairly dangerous route to go down - what we're seeing more and more of is that nutritional information changes, studies evolve, and information that regarded as unarguable truth ten years ago is constantly questioned and turned on its head. That's what makes science so great.

So when a poster says "we know that x is the healthiest route..." it's really leaving no room for argument otherwise, and that's quite a narrow-minded view imo. Yes the current studies back it up, but there's nothing at all worng with cosntantly questioning that and bringing up new points of view.

Granted some of the "evidence" can be dodgy, but that doesn't give anyone the right to treat someone else as an idiot.

dr.bollocko

g'em wrote: »

dr. bollocko that's a fairly pointed and accusatory tone you have in your post and I don't particularly see how it's helping the discussion at all.

The tone was set by Khannie in his original post which was completely unnecessary and accusatory. I merely responded in a similar manner asking him/her to back up what they were saying in a reasonable manner. So if you were to accuse somebody of an unnecessary accusatory tone I would, with respect, start with his/her post rather than my own.

g'em

dr.bollocko wrote: »

The tone was set by Khannie in his original post which was completely unnecessary and accusatory. I merely responded in a similar manner asking him/her to back up what they were saying in a reasonable manner. So if you were to accuse somebody of an unnecessary accusatory tone I would, with respect, start with his/her post rather than my own.

And that's how we make this right is it? This goes back to my original point, this tactic does not work well.

Nutrition and Diet should be a welcoming, supportive, open forum. That is the atmosphere we would like to foster. That is the atmosphere the forum was created in and that's what we are hoping all of its users would like to see a return to.

dr.bollocko

Then why would mods employ this tactic when speaking to posters on here in the manner above? If it doesn't work well then why keep doing it and expecting different results? We're talking about the new direction fo the forum. I thought my points were, yeah, cutting, but I didn't think they were necessarily inaccurate. I can temper my posts to a more reasonable tone. I would hope that others can do the same. Moderation needs to be more hands on.

Khannie

dr.bollocko wrote: »

it wasn't defensive.

How do you know? It struck me that way. It struck you another way.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

It was asking for an example. Answer the question.

Read my post again. I did answer the question. I can't link to the deleted post. It exists.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

You're inferring something from the question which isn't necessarily there and doing so in an unnecessary accusatory manner. Petty.

I'm petty now because I inferred a tone that wasn't there? I am going to put that right back at you.

Be careful with that name calling. You're getting very close to attacking the poster and not the post.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

PM the person whose post you deleted explaining the problem. I can assure you that starting to moderate people or accuse people based on thanking a post is not a good avenue to go down. Even bringing it up here strikes me as petty and singling out one person.

Why would you assume that I didn't? I did PM the person whose post I deleted. Do not tell me how to moderate the forum again. I did not moderate anyone for thanking a post. I pointed out that a post of the nature that was being questioned got thanked by the person in question so they definitely *saw* the post. Again you're inferring things that aren't there. Anyone is free to thank any post.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Do you even read the forum?

Again you're mis-interpreting me. See g'ems post. The question was designed to point out that there should not be a "we". That if there is a "we" then there's probably something wrong.

Of course I'm not saying that there aren't a group of regulars, only that it's not good to assume a forum has a singular viewpoint. It doesn't.

edit: And yes, I am a long term reader of the forum.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

That is not what was said at all and trying to infer that it was is just exactly the kind of negative attitude that I hope you're trying to remove the forum. Seeing as how it appears to exist from the mods when talking to the regulars though, I doubt you'll be able to acheive your goals. "Any idiot" clearly refers to the kind of muppet who doesn't listen and lambasts and insults other posters for being a part of a cult, doesn't get involved in discussion or post or discuss papers or scientific theory, just has an "I'm right cos I'm right" mentality.
But no. Go on the attack and accuse people of saying what they did not and see how that works out.
Not well I'd wager. Not well.
(Nobody thanks this post lest its thrown back in your face in public.)

What a load of rant.

El_Dangeroso

Khannie wrote: »

Now why did you feel the need to jump in with a defensive response immediately? Do you think the tone of the forum is spot on? If so, I can tell you that you're in a minority. This thread is about having a friendly "let's try to be nice". That's all.

I wasn't being defensive, I was genuinely asking for an example

If you infer defensivness from that then I'm sorry there's not much I can do except maybe ask you to not assume the worst of me.

Khannie wrote: »

You're dead wrong. Only yesterday I deleted a post of that nature in here after it was reported (a post which you had thanked). I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, but you may rest assured that it happens. (to the poster whose post I deleted: I'm not singling you out, I'm just using it as an example).

You are singling me out, you used a specific example of something I had done in order to support your point. That's the very definition of singling me out. I honestly don't recall that post, but in any case a courtesy PM would be nice rather than critising me on an open thread. Not very professional. Mods are supposed to be above that level.

Khannie

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I wasn't being defensive, I was genuinely asking for an example

If you infer defensivness from that then I'm sorry there's not much I can do except maybe ask you to not assume the worst of me.

Apologies.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

You are singling me out, you used a specific example of something I had done in order to support your point.

Is this the thanking we're talking about? I don't care that you thanked the post. I was only making it clear that you had definitely seen the post in question.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

That's the very definition of singling me out. I honestly don't recall that post, but in any case a courtesy PM would be nice rather than critising me on an open thread. Not very professional. Mods are supposed to be above that level.

What should I have PM'd you for exactly? Thanking a post that I deleted?

dr.bollocko

I didn't call anyone any names Khannie and to imply that I did is not true. Look at it again. Where did I call you any names or insult you?
As for your piece in bold you're asking for feedback on how to improve the forum with this thread. So your "Don't tell me how to moderate the forum again" appears to relate to opinions you disagree with. Rather than, say, people suggesting revamping the stickies in this thread asking where the forum is at and querying the moderation. And there's your problem right there.
But with that in mind I do get it now.
Thanks for clearing that up Khannie.
"Do as I say not as I do" coupled with "We're not too interested in going the same way as the science is" seems to be the major themes cagily represented here.
That's grand. I'm happy with that. I can take my nutrition information elsewhere for fear of hurting people with science instead of smiley faces.

El_Dangeroso

Khannie wrote: »

Apologies.




Is this the thanking we're talking about? I don't care that you thanked the post. I was only making it clear that you had definitely seen the post in question.



What should I have PM'd you for exactly? Thanking a post that I deleted?

I really think we need to see this post so we can clarify what is and isn't acceptable. This vague talk has us going around in circles.

Khannie

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I didn't call anyone any names Khannie and to imply that I did is not true. Look at it again. Where did I call you any names or insult you?

You called me petty. You think that isn't insulting somehow?

dr.bollocko wrote: »

But with that in mind I do get it now.
Thanks for clearing that up Khannie.
"Do as I say not as I do" coupled with "We're not too interested in going the same way as the science is" seems to be the major themes cagily represented here.
That's grand. I'm happy with that. I can take my nutrition information elsewhere for fear of hurting people with science instead of smiley faces.

You're being reactionary and making mis-informed accusations all over the place. I'm all for science. I have little time for people who come on here shoving things down the regulars throats. I have no time for "omfg, cabbage diet is the best thing ever" or "super fad diet ftw".

dr.bollocko

g'em wrote: »

That's a very unfair representation of what I've said if you're referring to my post?

No direct referral to any posts. I get that there are converging opinions and what I think is not necessarily what is so. Otherwise I wouldn't be interested in reading the discussion. (Note I read rather than contribute in most cases because I learn more from that and tbh tis an area thats of new interest to me since the ole belly appeared post christmas).
I am just concerned that one follows the other. Once read, the evidence in favour of a number of things is rather overwhelming. That's the cutting edge of where nutrition needs to be discussed and is discussed. And that challenges a number of long held beliefs, sat fats bad, food pyramid and what healthy eating actually means.
That's a contentious subject right there. I guess it's not very "newb" friendly as a topic.

dr.bollocko

Khannie wrote: »

You called me petty. You think that isn't insulting somehow?

I called your post petty.
Because it struck me as petty. In that you steam rollered in here to attack one poster specifically.
You're calling me reactionary and misinformed.
You think that isn't insulting somehow?

El_Dangeroso

Khannie wrote: »

You called me petty. You think that isn't insulting somehow?



You're being reactionary and making mis-informed accusations all over the place. I'm all for science. I have little time for people who come on here shoving things down the regulars throats. I have no time for "omfg, cabbage diet is the best thing ever" or "super fad diet ftw".

Hang on, you are offended by your actions being referred to as petty and calling dr. bollock reactionary and misinformed in the same post and you don't see the contradiction there?

Khannie

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I called your post petty.
Because it struck me as petty. In that you steam rollered in here to attack one poster specifically.

Actually, I didn't steam roll in here to attack one poster specifically. I was starting at the start of the thread and wanted to make my way forward though it. You misinterpreted my post and "steam rollered in here to attack one poster specifically" so I didn't really get a chance.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

You're calling me reactionary and misinformed.
You think that isn't insulting somehow?

You think your post wasn't reactionary? The mis-informed thing is a fact. You made a mis-informed accusation. I did too (though not at you). I admitted it and apologised.

g'em

dr.bollocko wrote: »

That's a contentious subject right there. I guess it's not very "newb" friendly as a topic.

It certainly is

To be totally honest I've seen the very same thing happening in Fitness - there are "accepted" theories of information and then there are the totally crazy, outlandish, downright wrong theories. It's incredibly frustrating when someone comes along spouting total nonsense that completely flies in the face of common sense and research. But, like it or not, that doesn't mean that anyoen can treat that person like an idiot. They may have picked it up from a magazine (and to people who aren't schooled in scientific papers, why wouldn't they? It's a bloody minefield out there when you approach the worlds of nutrition and exercise as a newb), they may have heard it from friends, they may have read it on the net. Irrespective of that they may genuinely believe their inforamtion to be correct. Just because the collective "we" knows that not to be the case it doesn't allow for egos and dismissive voices to ridicule that person.

The applies particularly to the contentious subjects, the ones where you could probably find papers to argue every angle of the debate. This is where I find it getting very sticky - in recent times I've seen posts that criticise people for not being able to read scientific papers and present them accordingly on the net. Well, come on now, that's a fairly abrasive bit of academic snobbery right there - and I said that as someone who's been in academia for the last 13 years

It's incredibly intimidating to get involved in discussions if that kind of rebuttal is to be expected.

No-one is asking for smiley face happy clappy lets-all-hold-hands type behaviour, but it's not unreasonable to request that the regulars and those in the know bare in mind what this forum is all about.

Khannie

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I really think we need to see this post so we can clarify what is and isn't acceptable. This vague talk has us going around in circles.

There is no circling going on. I wont be undeleting the post. I PM'd the poster of the post and they were really decent about it so I don't want to make a big issue of the specific post.

Can you answer my questions though? (edit: about the PM / thanking that is, you confused me a bit.).

dr.bollocko

Khannie wrote: »

Actually, I didn't steam roll in here to attack one poster specifically. I was starting at the start of the thread and wanted to make my way forward though it. You misinterpreted my post and "steam rollered in here to attack one poster specifically" so I didn't really get a chance.



You think your post wasn't reactionary? The mis-informed thing is a fact. You made a mis-informed accusation. I did too (though not at you). I admitted it and apologised.

Your specific examples involve one deleted post you won't undelete. You accuse me of being insulting on the one hand while insulting me with the other. Threatening to ban with the one hand while throwing insults at me with the other. "Do as I say not as I do."
I didn't misrepresent your post. I pointed out the contradictions inherent in it. You did attack one poster specifically. Mis-informed is not a fact, unless you have a study to back it up it is an opinion you hold and little more.

Khannie

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Mis-informed is not a fact, unless you have a study to back it up it is an opinion you hold and little more.

What? There's a study on my post? I think you're mis-interpreting me again.

Hang on.....Don't reply for a minute....just give me a chance and I'll explain....

Davei141

This forum is/was perfectly fine until the mods decide to light up a fuse. So what if it is not very 'noob' friendly? There is loads and i mean loads of good advice in this forum, that should be enough instead of turning it into a nauseating support group of smileys and cheerleaders but ultimately bad advice.

Edit: just read G'ems post now, that makes more sense. I really did get the sense you guys wanted to turn it into "smiley face happy clappy lets-all-hold-hands type behaviour." at the expense of good advice but thats a good post.

corkcomp

I honestly cant see how the modding could be more hands on. the mods from what I've seen let people have their opinion which is good, the only thing I would change is that people with ongoing cranky attitudes should take a break from the forum, its like walking on egg shells with some posters (not singling out anyone btw). its a no win situation for the mods from what I can see as they get accused of all sorts of agenda's and attitute when they attempt to mod and get accused of being hands off if they dont.

--Kaiser--

Davei141 wrote: »

This forum is/was perfectly fine until the mods decide to light up a fuse. So what if it is not very 'noob' friendly? There is loads and i mean loads of good advice in this forum, that should be enough instead of turning it into a nauseating support group of smileys and cheerleaders but ultimately bad advice.

It's not particularly 'noob' unfriendly either. If someone comes in and asks a question, they would usually get several answers. All polite. If someone wants to start a cogent debate then that is also facilitated.

In the thread in question, someone who had clearly little to no knowledge of nutrition came in and called the views of some of the posters 'nonsense'. Understandably, he was not treated with quite the same civility.

metamorphosis

Hey - me again!

I am largely internetless at the moment, so busy dealing with life stuff and work stuff that have just popped up that this is my 1st time on since yesterday so i have only just got down to menoscemos post and have not yet read further.

I am not the best at articulating myself and some things may have been misinterpreted but I want to say that menoscemos poist is where i am kinda of coming from.

The high fiving between regualars that comes accross as putting a newb (who did also react not so nicely at all).

When im next on il try and get through points raised in the thread.

Cheers
R.

dr.bollocko

Khannie wrote: »

What? There's a study on my post? I think you're mis-interpreting me again.

Hang on.....

Do you feel the need to further drag the thread off topic by attempting to score potshots at me over my pointing out the cognitive dissonance inherent in your actions?

Davei141

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

It's not particularly 'noob' unfriendly either. If someone comes in and asks a question, they would usually get several answers. All polite. If someone wants to start a cogent debate then that is also facilitated.

In the thread in question, someone who had clearly little to no knowledge of nutrition came in and called the views of some of the posters 'nonsense'. Understandably, he was not treated with quite the same civility.

Thats what i meant by it, you are preaching to the choir.

metamorphosis

Ok just read the thread- did not ever even think it could be possible for such a ****storm to happen out of this! Il be back later on when i have had the time and caffeine to process it again but just to point out

I don't myself want to see this forum to change, stop debating etc etc, just that the tone here recently has gone up a few degrees and there have been a few unhappy reports back and so i though a bit of a shout to recognise this would be ok.