Time For A Bit of Forum Feedback

Galvasean

The Corinthian wrote: »

Reading through the last five pages of it now for the first time and from what I can see, it seems to be a pretty general, non-gender specific, debate on online dating about 20% of the time, with the other 80% devoted to subtle and not-so-subtle attempts to flirt with the other posters.

As someone who posts there frequently and just had a look back through the last few pages of said thread, where on Earth did you pull those statistics from!?!?!?!?

Giselle

Sauve wrote: »

I do realise that looking for thanks and attention goes against the whole idea of it but maybe just be the bigger person and ignore the multiple pics?

Maybe the validation-seeking could be stopped by disabling the thanks function? It'd be a lot less gratifying to attention seekers if they didn't have the rewards of thanks. I don't see why anyone would need (or want) to post up more than one photo.

I just looked at the TGC one there for the first time, and to be honest it just creeps me out in the same way the one in TLL does.

Sauve

I do see where you're coming from, but my point is why even click on the thread if it 'creeps you out'?
At the end of the day, it's only a few posts, and you always have the option to put that poster on ignore.

tbh

Giselle wrote: »

Maybe the validation-seeking could be stopped by disabling the thanks function? It'd be a lot less gratifying to attention seekers if they didn't have the rewards of thanks. I don't see why anyone would need (or want) to post up more than one photo.

I just looked at the TGC one there for the first time, and to be honest it just creeps me out in the same way the one in TLL does.

I wonder where people are getting the impression that it's two or three posters posting all the time. The facts don't back that up.

The thread was started almost two years ago, and has 330 posts, with 161 unique posters. 36% of the posters in the thread have only put up a single post, and 87% of the posters in the thread have 3 or less posts.
The top 5 posters in the thread have only 20% of all posts, and the top poster in the thread - who's a guy - has only 6% of the posts.

Now - yes, there are a small group of posters who post more regularly that others and yes the impact of that posting is high because of that top five group, three have only started posting in the last six months, but the facts don't bear out this idea that's been expressed more than once on this thread that it's the same people posting over and over again.

.....and they said that that statistics module would be a waste of time :rolleyes:

tbh

as an add-on, all of the attachments with over 3000 views are all guys. Which surprised me. Except for MagneticImpulse who has 11K views!

Dravokivich

TBH, that was Magnetic Impulse

The Corinthian

Galvasean wrote: »

As someone who posts there frequently and just had a look back through the last few pages of said thread, where on Earth did you pull those statistics from!?!?!?!?

TBH, I'd rather concede the argument than have to read that thread again so as to pull up some examples...

tbh wrote: »

The thread was started almost two years ago, and has 330 posts, with 161 unique posters. 36% of the posters in the thread have only put up a single post, and 87% of the posters in the thread have 3 or less posts.
The top 5 posters in the thread have only 20% of all posts, and the top poster in the thread - who's a guy - has only 6% of the posts.

You seriously need to get out more...

Honey-ec

The Corinthian wrote: »

You seriously need to get out more...

I think he made a very relevant point, actually. I've posted in KYC a couple of times and was reading the very negative comments on it going "Jesus, do they mean me?" But when I actually went back in and flicked through the thread, tbh I couldn't find any evidence of this "thanks wh0ring" that everyone claims is so rife.

I think there's an awful lot of snobbery being thrown about in regards to the KYC and OD threads. If you don't have an interest in a particular thread or subject, just don't frequent it. It's not rocket science.

I know the whole point of this thread is to get feedback about tGC, but it seems to me that some people have a personal dislike of certain threads and would like to see them shut down instead of just exercising their right to completely ignore them.

Pembily

I went into the online dating thread when I was dating. I went in to see the success story when I thought my online dating experience was going badly.

What I didn't like was the creepiness and I eventually avoided it. Not because I wasn't dating but because I didn't like the thread...

Re the KYL and Easy on the Eye, I don't see the harm. I don't think the Easy on the Eye objectives anyone.

hdowney

Sauve wrote: »

Ah that's a bit harsh I think. The KYC thread is there for posting pics in, fair enough some people may post a lot but that's up to them. If they're doing it for attention then leave them at it, it's only a few posts.
I do realise that looking for thanks and attention goes against the whole idea of it but maybe just be the bigger person and ignore the multiple pics?

I agree I was just saying I do see where some people could be coming from. I actually like seeing peoples pics, when they change their hair etc and post a new pic, but I have hear whinging from people about those threads at times too.

CastorTroy

The KYC thread is grand since comments can't be posted. So being thanked for posting isn't much of an ego boost in my opinion. If there were comments saying how great someone looked, then that would be a different story.

Galvasean

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, I'd rather concede the argument than have to read that thread again so as to pull up some examples...

The Corinthian wrote: »

You seriously need to get out more...

So that's two threads you made claims about that have been proven to be false. I must agree with Honey-ec in that:

it seems to me that some people have a personal dislike of certain threads and would like to see them shut down instead of just exercising their right to completely ignore them.

It's all well and good to offer Feedback, but for anything constructive to be achieved it needs to be at least somewhat representative of reality. In the case of both the OD thread and the KYC thread what you have presented are strawmen.

The Corinthian

Galvasean wrote: »

So that's two threads you made claims about that have been proven to be false.

I don't care. I simply gave an opinion on my first reading of both threads and have never suggested anything more than they're a bit odd or out of place but (repeatedly) that if people don't like a topic they don't have to read it. There's really no reason for you to get so worked up about it - maybe it's just me you have an issue with, TBH.

It's all well and good to offer Feedback, but for anything constructive to be achieved it needs to be at least somewhat representative of reality. In the case of both the OD thread and the KYC thread what you have presented are strawmen.

No I presented opinions on the two threads and then when challenged, admitted I really wasn't arsed to back them up - neither is actually a strawman, if you'd like to actually read your own link, at worst my opinions were deduced from false data. It was a casual opinion that I was happy to concede when challenged. No big deal.

Now if you feel this has given you a moral victory of some description, all well and good, but is it really that important to you? If I thank some of your posts, will that make you happy?

yawha

Why does there have to be such aggressive point scoring shite on this forum?

I mean, did someone really just use the term "strawman" on a fecking feedback thread?

iptba

Galvasean wrote: »

Also, on a related note, can a note about 'soapboxing' be put in the Charter? I've seen quite a few threads in tGC get ruined by one persistent soapboxer. Similar Charter amendments have helped other forums deal with such problem users.

Although I think soapboxing may be a bit hard to define: if one disagrees with a point somebody is making, one might be much more likely to call it soap-boxing than if one agrees with the point.

iptba

Madam_X wrote: »

Be nice to see an end to the cheap-shot throwing of "feminist" as a derogatory term towards people who may not even be feminists and are merely challenging thinly veiled attacks against woman and "Life is terrible for men, so easy for women" rhetoric (while not denying men do face discrimination/bias/unfairness in some areas).

I'm afraid that seems too close to restricting freedom of speech for my liking.

In my mind, there is not enough freedom of speech allowed/encouraged in universities (for example) on gender issues. This, of course, suits some people - but certainly not everyone, nor do I think it is appropriate.

yawha

Freedom of speech != freedom from criticism.

I'm not sure I ever felt freedom of speech was restricted very much when I university. That's probably off topic ITT though.

In my mind, the issue is scapegoating feminism, feminists or "the feminist agenda" for things without much explanation as to why. I have seen this a number of times in this forum. On the other hand, I have also seen well reasoned criticisms and substantiated negative opinions on feminism, which are perfectly fine.

Also, it's important to note that a feminist viewpoint is not necessarily a non-male viewpoint. As a guy, I personally agree with a lot of the concerns raised my modern feminism, acknowledge the existence of male privilege etc., while also disagreeing with other viewpoints and actions of various feminists and feminist groups.

iptba

yawha wrote: »

Freedom of speech != freedom from criticism.

I'm not exactly sure what that symbol represents - I'm guessing it represents "not equal to". I'm perfectly happy for my and other points being criticised. However, I was responding to a specific suggestion which was about general policy. I don't think general policies should be made that certain points can't be made, or that certain ideologies can't be challenged.

No one is forced to self-identify as a feminist, just as nobody is forced to self-identify as a socialist/communist/capitalist/etc. Terms such as socialism/communism/capitalism/etc don't get special protection and neither should feminism.

yawha wrote: »

Also, it's important to note that a feminist viewpoint is not necessarily a non-male viewpoint. As a guy, I personally agree with a lot of the concerns raised my modern feminism, acknowledge the existence of male privilege etc., while also disagreeing with other viewpoints and actions of various feminists and feminist groups.

You can believe what you want. I don't believe we should all have to accept as axiomatic for discussions "male privilege", "patriarchy", etc. Those are the sorts of problems I associate with gender studies courses.

yawha

I'm not sure where I indicated that feminism should have special protection, or that certain points should not be allowed be made, or that anyone should have to accept anything as axiomatic.

As I said, I have seen many well reasoned, substantiated criticisms of feminism and the actions of feminists on here. I think that the use of "feminism" as a derogatory term, or unsubstantiated generalisations and cheap shots should be discouraged, but I absolutely do not want to see anyone silenced or having to accept anyone else's opinion on anything.

iptba

yawha wrote: »

As I said, I have seen many well reasoned, substantiated criticisms of feminism and the actions of feminists on here. I think that the use of "feminism" as a derogatory term, or unsubstantiated generalisations and cheap shots should be discouraged, but I absolutely do not want to see anyone silenced or having to accept anyone else's opinion on anything.

I think people shouldn't assume we live in a patriarchy or "male privilege" exists (more than "female privilege"): I see them as "unsubstantiated generalisations" and "cheap shots" of a sort (in a debate). However, I imagine individuals will continue to make such points into the future.

Also, (many people in) a recent discussion basically came to the conclusion that feminism was little more than a movement that exists just to help women, like a union movement for women, except that it claims to be much more. I don't see why such a movement (or terms associated with it) should get any special protection. Socialist, for example, can be used by some as a derogatory word but as I said it doesn't get any special protection. All sorts of "low quality" points are made in threads - they can be challenged as necessary. If there are to be rules, they shouldn't revolve about the word "feminism".

So, anyway, I think, like you, it's best if people don't have to accept anyone else's opinion.

yawha

I agree. The likes of privilege and patriarchy are complex topics and personally I would never just throw them around assuming that they were accepted by everyone on here. "Because privilege" or "because patriarchy" are indeed not substantiated arguments.

With relation to feminism, it's stuff like this which I don't agree with being posted. No intelligent point is being made, there's nothing provided to show that feminists or women generally think this way, it's just a stupid, unsubstantiated cheap shot.

iptba

The discussion reminded me of: "The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics"
http://menforjustice.net/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=49

In a perfect world, one might like if such tactics were discouraged or not allowed. However, I don't expect this will happen. But just pointing out the sorts of issues that can arise and it's certainly not just feminists who can get a hard time in discussions.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

Although I think soapboxing may be a bit hard to define: if one disagrees with a point somebody is making, one might be much more likely to call it soap-boxing than if one agrees with the point.

Soapboxing is not good. However as you point out, often arguments that a poster may disagree with may be irroniously identified as such, which is also not good.

Soapboxing is essentially where a poster will engage in monologue; that is, posting rhetorical arguments and/or articles but refuse to engage in dialogue when challenged - instead resorting to ignoring such challenges or using tactics such as digression (changing the subject/argument). But if a poster engages with other posters, responding to their challenges, then it is not soapboxing.

Of course, it can be difficult to tell sometimes, as some challenges may not be valid, particularly straw men. For example:

1. Feminism is bad because of X and Y.
2. Opposing Feminism means opposing the rights of women.

In this case, you run the risk of being brought down a bottomless rabbit hole of fallacious arguments, yet dismissing them invites accusations of soapboxing.

This is where moderators need to step in, to resolve such disputes, which can be difficult if they have already dragged out for a few pages. If I was to levy a criticism of moderation here, is that this does not appear to be done here - at least in comparison to, say, the Politics board, which is very well moderated in this regard.

Overall, I'll have to note that the use of terms such as soapboxing and strawman has increased substantially on Boards.ie in general, over the last few years. I can't say why, but I can say that many who use such terms don't seem to know what they mean in the first place.

yawha wrote: »

In my mind, the issue is scapegoating feminism, feminists or "the feminist agenda" for things without much explanation as to why. I have seen this a number of times in this forum. On the other hand, I have also seen well reasoned criticisms and substantiated negative opinions on feminism, which are perfectly fine.

Agreed. There are always going to be stupid arguments used when criticizing Feminism or arguing in favour of men's rights (my favourite is that women not sleeping with ugly men is discrimination), however they should not be used as an excuse to silence intelligent criticism or argument - to do so would ironically be a straw man.

Also, it's important to note that a feminist viewpoint is not necessarily a non-male viewpoint. As a guy, I personally agree with a lot of the concerns raised my modern feminism, acknowledge the existence of male privilege etc., while also disagreeing with other viewpoints and actions of various feminists and feminist groups.

Again agreed. Feminism is an ideology that can be shared by either men or women. There may be more women who do so, or at least nominally so, but that stands to reason given human propensity twoards self-interest. I would also point out that residual patriarchal attitudes are as much of a problem to male rights as the worst examples of Feminism - the notion that a man may be a victim is rejected by chauvinists just as vociferously as any radical Feminist will.

The topic of 'male privilege' (that you mention) is another matter, that would make for an interesting topic here. One of the most substantial things Feminism ever did was to deconstruct womens' role in society, and in this regard, there's been little attempt to do the same for men. A notable exception has been by writers such as Warren Farrell, who actually put into question the entire notion that men are actually 'privileged'.

This lack of debate on whether 'male privilege' truly exists any more, has ultimately led to it becoming an article of faith, taken as fact and almost never questioned, as laid out by Feminism. But that's a discussion for another thread - this is a feedback thread and my post has already gone OT enough.

yawha wrote: »

With relation to feminism, it's stuff like this which I don't agree with being posted. No intelligent point is being made, there's nothing provided to show that feminists or women generally think this way, it's just a stupid, unsubstantiated cheap shot.

I disagree. The cartoon does illustrate a valid criticism - unless you can explain why double standards are acceptable. Neither is it something that is limited to anti-Feminist argument; the blogsite of the Feminist group (that sought, dishonestly, to 'research' male opinion for one of their blogposts) is actually full of such cartoons.

This is not to say there are not some cheap shots of fallacious criticisms or arguments out there, but the example you give has merit, IMO, even if you don't like the way it presents it.

iptba wrote: »

The discussion reminded me of: "The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics"
http://menforjustice.net/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=49

Such tactics have been so effective that this is, I suspect, the reason that men's rights threads will get shut down on tGC faster than other threads - throw enough dirt and eventually some of it will stick in the minds of people.

iptba

Just to say that although I have an interest in Men's Rights like TC, I currently don't have the level of dissatisfaction with the forum that he has. It may be that I was advised (by a regular poster, not a mod) it was best to not continually post and I did get the impression that might cause a problem so I come in and out sporadically.

Also, there was a moderator who seemed not to believe there was a need for a focus for men's health discussions (although I did note to myself that in a discussion he, like many others, did agree they neglected their health) and was sometimes willing to engage in shaming when such issues came up.

Like others, there are plenty of threads I never or almost never go in to, but there existence doesn't particularly bother me one way or another (although I do imagine that the more activity there is, the more there is for mods to follow and hence they might have less time for issues that come up, less time/energy to be tactful, etc.).

So anyway I think I'm happy for things to continue as they are.

yawha

The Corinthian wrote: »

The topic of 'male privilege' (that you mention) is another matter, that would make for an interesting topic here. One of the most substantial things Feminism ever did was to deconstruct womens' role in society, and in this regard, there's been little attempt to do the same for men. A notable exception has been by writers such as Warren Farrell, who actually put into question the entire notion that men are actually 'privileged'.

This lack of debate on whether 'male privilege' truly exists any more, has ultimately led to it becoming an article of faith, taken as fact and almost never questioned, as laid out by Feminism. But that's a discussion for another thread - this is a feedback thread and my post has already gone OT enough.

I have considered starting a thread to discuss male privilege. Perhaps I will when I get a bit of time. I feel that a well written OP would be needed for the discussion to be in any way productive.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I disagree. The cartoon does illustrate a valid criticism - unless you can explain why double standards are acceptable. Neither is it something that is limited to anti-Feminist argument; the blogsite of the Feminist group (that sought, dishonestly, to 'research' male opinion for one of their blogposts) is actually full of such cartoons.

This is not to say there are not some cheap shots of fallacious criticisms or arguments out there, but the example you give has merit, IMO, even if you don't like the way it presents it.

How it's presented is exactly the problem I have with it though. What's being presented is not an accepted or obvious fact about most feminists or even most women. I think reasoning as to why the poster feels this is the case is necessary for claims like these.

And what any feminist group may do or not do shouldn't have any bearing on how we conduct ourselves here.

The Corinthian

yawha wrote: »

I have considered starting a thread to discuss male privilege. Perhaps I will when I get a bit of time. I feel that a well written OP would be needed for the discussion to be in any way productive.

Agreed. I've actually considered a more broad thread that examines deconstructing men's role in modern society, that would naturally encompass the question of 'privilege', also. What stops me is I waste enough of my day posting on Boards as it is.

How it's presented is exactly the problem I have with it though. What's being presented is not an accepted or obvious fact about most feminists or even most women. I think reasoning as to why the poster feels this is the case is necessary for claims like these.

That's not what cartoons do though. They're designed to illustrate a point; something to get discussion going, for good or ill. Just because it is not accepted (by whom? This I find a little disturbing, as I thought the existence of double standards with regards to Feminism was pretty widely accepted at this stage - apart from Feminists.) should not mean it should not be drawn.

And what any feminist group may do or not do shouldn't have any bearing on how we conduct ourselves here.

It shouldn't and if such cartoons by feminist groups were treated the same way, it wouldn't.

iptba

Regarding men complaining that some aspect of themselves makes them less attractive to some women e.g. their height, while I am interested in other types of things when discussing men's rights and the like, I'm not going to slag them off for having a moan about such things.

I think it's a perfectly human reaction to be disappointed that the chances of having a romantic relationship with somebody are dramatically reduced because, say, one is a few inches shorter than them.

Also, it's not as if one taught of this issue in school.

And while I think some aspects of such phenomena are more likely to be down to biology, often discussions of gender issues are framed in simply a sociological context so if one looks at such issues in such terms, it would seem like something of interest is going on.

Also, while a lot of such points on what women find attractive/unattractive may be down to biology, it could be the case that advertising and society does promote some aspects of some men as being unattractive (or alternatively attractive) and just as women (and feminists) will often complain about this, I don't see why men can't either.

Also, I think it's natural to want to know things that one can do to make oneself more attractive to the opposite sex (if one is a heterosexual) so discussing what women find attractive/unattractive can be interesting as one might learn from it. Also, one might learn which women may or may not find you attractive e.g. if you're a certain height, what sort of range of people might find you attractive or unattractive; or at least get an idea of percentages.

Note: I'm 6 foot so the height thing hasn't been a bit issue for me.

yawha

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's not what cartoons do though. They're designed to illustrate a point; something to get discussion going, for good or ill. Just because it is not accepted (by whom? This I find a little disturbing, as I thought the existence of double standards with regards to Feminism was pretty widely accepted at this stage - apart from Feminists.) should not mean it should not be drawn.

I don't accept the double standard as portrayed by that cartoon actually exists. Admittedly, this is based purely on personal experience. Not a discussion for this thread though.

iptba wrote: »

Regarding men complaining that some aspect of themselves makes them less attractive to some women e.g. their height, while I am interested in other types of things when discussing men's rights and the like, I'm not going to slag them off for having a moan about such things.

Having a moan is fine. Attributing the fact that you're not getting laid to feminism making women more stuck up or some bs like that is not.

iptba

yawha wrote: »

Having a moan is fine. Attributing the fact that you're not getting laid to feminism making women more stuck up or some bs like that is not.

Until I see you go over to a forum for women and tell them in such trenchant terms to stop moaning about how society is influencing what is and isn't attractive in a woman, I'll believe your complaints are biased and unbalanced.

People all the time have all sorts of wild theories. I don't see why feminism can't be included in them*.

* note: I'm not saying that all criticisms of feminism are crazy, but feminism shouldn't be excluded from people's speculations about the world.

yawha

iptba wrote: »

People all the time have all sorts of wild theories.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576 ?

I'm not really sure what's all that objectionable or biased about what I've said. Blatant, lazy comments scapegoating any particular group without basis should be discouraged. I have simply seen it done in relation to feminism on here.