TGC Feedback Thread *Closes September 25th 9pm*

awec

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Following on from my post in the mens rights thread, that there shouldn't really be a divide between mens/womens rights discussion/movements:
How about a general 'Gender/Sex Equality' forum, to cover all issues ranging from mens/womens/trans/gay and all other orientation/sexual-preference issues, that aren't covered by the LGBT/Male-oriented/Female-oriented forums, or things which otherwise might get stuck to the private Sex and Sexuality forum? (though I don't know if there's much discussion there)

Seems like a good place to lump all such discussion together; would need a crack team of mods though, as putting so many conflicting groups together on the one forum, would ensure pretty fiery debate (but it would also set a pretty high critical standard to be met, for peoples arguments).

I think a lot could be learned from such a forum; I don't know a great deal about mens rights, and only some about womens, and there are a wide area of discriminated groups that I just know nothing about that would fit in such a forum.

It was suggested before (just as a 'Gender Equality' forum though - I think including sex equality issues would be good too), and didn't seem to pick up much steam (was suggested it get put under Humanities, but that doesn't really suit it because the issues are so specific), but that was 5 years ago now, so might get accepted this time around:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055241377

Maguined

awec wrote: »

There are certainly plenty of instances of bullying in these threads of anyone who dares go against the grain with their opinion. I'm not going to enumerate every instance of what is over the line - but hopefully posters can exercise common sense going forward.

Can I ask what you classify as bullying? To me all I thought that would matter in a thread is if someone broke the rules or not? If someone is posting something in a thread that warrants mod intervention then surely you intervene and the issue is resolved? if something is posted that does not break the rules and so does not require mod internvetion then surely this is acceptable?

Are you saying there is a third option where someone is not technically breaking the rules but you feel the mods should be able to intervene as what they are posting is not acceptable within the current confines of the rules?

As long as the posters are not breaking the rules when posting against someone who is going against the grain I would not view this as bullying myself and more of a consensus forming amongst the forum.

The Corinthian

awec wrote: »

Posts are deleted as off topic in one thread - you have been using this site long enough to know that that doesn't mean another topic can't be started.

Yet what happens when, as a mod here suggested, we should:

D'Agger wrote: »

I think we should look to keep the number of new threads created for similar issues down, and look to have one or two main threads such as the Mens Rights thread.

With only "one or two" such threads, what is the scope for going 'off-topic' and thus limiting discussion? Pretty large, I'd imagine.

awec wrote: »

There are certainly plenty of instances of bullying in these threads of anyone who dares go against the grain with their opinion. I'm not going to enumerate every instance of what is over the line - but hopefully posters can exercise common sense going forward.

And what do you expect if someone jumps into a thread and claims that men suffer no real discrimination?

Put it another way; if someone were to post something on the lines of "black people are more stupid than white people", they're likely to be not only flamed for this by other posters, but also also banned by the mods.

How many posters have you banned for misandrist posts?

I'm glad you're not accusing me of bias, but I don't moderate for an easy life either. This forum isn't easy to moderate because no matter what you do you'll be annoying someone.

I understand that, but even you must have noticed that most moderation posts in these threads are being thanked almost exclusively by the other moderators. Considered that the decisions being made are not exactly supported by the community here?

To suggest we actively target these threads to strangle discussion is rubbish. That is certainly not the case.

Yet when you have moderators here suggesting that "we should look to keep the number of new threads created for similar issues down", that hardly looks like you're encouraging it either. You'll have to admit that you're not exactly promoting a supportive message.

TBH, I've suggested what would help in my last post. My fear is that D'Agger's containment strategy will instead and that will strangle discussion. Feel free to prove me wrong; I won't complain if you do.

The Corinthian

awec wrote: »

Of course constructive, thought out, critique of feminism is not extreme - please stop inventing straw men.

While we're on this, please feel free to explain to me on why my post that critiqued pre and post 1970's feminism was deleted by Panthro? Feel free to read it and let me know if it was 'extreme', 'off topic' or 'lazy stereotyping'.

Panthro

The Corinthian wrote: »

While we're on this, please feel free to explain to me on why my post that critiqued pre and post 1970's feminism was deleted by Panthro? Feel free to read it and let me know if it was 'extreme', 'off topic' or 'lazy stereotyping'.

Why are going on about Feminism in a Men's Rights discussion thread?
Quite a few posts were deleted as the conversation was starting to evolve around the discussion of Feminism, not Men's Rights.

The Corinthian

Panthro wrote: »

Why are going on about Feminism in a Men's Rights discussion thread?

I wonder why? Maybe because someone asked why men's rights movements are needed if feminism is about equality of the genders? Because it's relevant to why men's rights movements exist in the first place?

Quite a few posts were deleted as the conversation was starting to evolve around the discussion of Feminism, not Men's Rights.

And as threads are to be kept to a minimum, so will all threads end up censored.

D'Agger

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet what happens when, as a mod here suggested, we should:

With only "one or two" such threads, what is the scope for going 'off-topic' and thus limiting discussion? Pretty large, I'd imagine.

Or the scope for what could be discussed in the threads could be quite large, it depends on how you look at a glass with 50% of it's volume in use.

The idea was along the lines of a large scale mens issues thread where you could discuss topics of domestic violence, mens rights issues, divorce etc. - the issue would be for us to decide the scope as per what is on topic and what is off.

Perhaps it's just me but I prefer forums where threads have a wider scope rather than having multiple threads, I find it's more organized to go through the forum rather than wading through somewhat similar threads where the same content is visited every few pages.

In that same vein, I'd prefer to have a general mens grooming thread or suits/clothing thread introduced.

Either way, it's an idea I put up in here to bounce it off other users to see what they thought it could bring to the forum.

Yet when you have moderators here suggesting that "we should look to keep the number of new threads created for similar issues down", that hardly looks like you're encouraging it either. You'll have to admit that you're not exactly promoting a supportive message.

Like I said above, who's to say a more general thread wouldn't promote better scope of conversation and that is someting I would support - the issue again, is judging what is OT and what is - in comparison to the rules set out on the thread - the thread would have to be well setup so as to allow good discussions imo

TBH, I've suggested what would help in my last post. My fear is that D'Agger's containment strategy will instead and that will strangle discussion. Feel free to prove me wrong; I won't complain if you do.

You'd swear I'm going to try to commit some sort of thread genocide :pac:

Seriously - what are your thoughts on the original point I feel I just expanded a little on there, would you still be against it or do you think it could work if approched a different way etc?

Panthro

The Corinthian wrote: »

I wonder why? Maybe because someone asked why men's rights movements are needed if feminism is about equality of the genders? Because it's relevant to why men's rights movements exist in the first place?

And as threads are to be kept to a minimum, so will all threads end up censored.

If you have a problem with the Moderation, please feel free to air your grievances with a C-Mod.
Seem as this is a Feedback thread about the Forum in general, I'll ask you politely refrain from calling up such Mod decisions in here.
Thank you.

The Corinthian

D'Agger wrote: »

Or the scope for what could be discussed in the threads could be quite large, it depends on how you look at a glass with 50% of it's volume in use.

Seemingly Pantro has other ideas on this, which is why I have raised this latest example here, so you'll have to admit that it does not bode well for what you claim.

Seriously - what are your thoughts on the original point I feel I just expanded a little on there, would you still be against it or do you think it could work if approched a different way etc?

It wouldn't work, for exactly the reasons I've already raised. Moderation of men's rights threads is getting more and more arbitrary, from what I can see. Limiting the number of threads essentially ghettoises the topic, into long meandering discussions that would put anyone off joining and on top of that it's already clear that any excuse, such as something being 'off topic' will be used to censor them.

Maguined

Panthro wrote: »

Why are going on about Feminism in a Men's Rights discussion thread?

Actually this is something I noticed before but forgot to mention in previous posts.

I have seen posts criticising feminism in the Men's Rights thread being deleted and found it odd as I would of thought they were on topic and relevant to the discussion of men's rights most of the time.

I just don't understand how you can talk about mens rights without comparing them to womens rights and women rights are influenced by feminism but you are not allowed criticise feminism?

So my feedback would be to allow the discussion and criticism of feminism as it's generally on topic when discussing men's rights.

Pawwed Rig

D'Agger wrote: »

Perhaps it's just me but I prefer forums where threads have a wider scope rather than having multiple threads, I find it's more organized to go through the forum rather than wading through somewhat similar threads where the same content is visited every few pages.

I would say the opposite in that I would prefer separate threads. With the catch all threads people jump on and off and the thread ends up going around in circles with the same items being covered again and again as few people will sit and read 500 posts prior to making their first post.
I can see how they would be easier to moderate though.
Also I do not see the harm in a small off topic side conversation. Were it to take over the thread then I can see it being an issue but 10 or 12 posts I think is perfectly acceptable.

Panthro wrote: »

Why are going on about Feminism in a Men's Rights discussion thread?

I am a little confused by this statement. I do not see how you can discuss one without the other. It would be the equivalent of a feminism thread with patriarchal privilege being a taboo topic?

I would encourage the mods to keep an open mind on these threads. Some of the ground covered definitely makes interesting reading and is an eye opener to look at issues from another persons perspective. Whether you agree or not is not the relevant point.
In the event that the mods remain uninterested in these issues I would again urge the appointment of someone who would be an active participant ensuring that the mod team remains representative of the forum as a whole.

Panthro

Maguined wrote: »

So my feedback would be to allow the discussion and criticism of feminism as it's generally on topic when discussing men's rights.

Taken on board, thank you.

KyussBishop

My post in the mens rights thread was deleted as being off topic, but it was about mens rights, and wondering why it is not incorporated into other movements as well - that wasn't off topic?

EDIT:

Panthro wrote: »

Why are going on about Feminism in a Men's Rights discussion thread?
Quite a few posts were deleted as the conversation was starting to evolve around the discussion of Feminism, not Men's Rights.

My post was about mens rights, in relation to feminism - since both movements are (at their heart) about gender equality, they are mutually intertwined (promoting equality for men, also means removing societal advantages men have over women, thus also relates to feminism), and I was posting wondering why they are not (in practice) intertwined.

The ambiguity here, is a good example of why a forum dedicated to sex/gender issues, would be a good idea.

D'Agger

The Corinthian wrote: »

Seemingly Pantro has other ideas on this, which is why I have raised this latest example here, so you'll have to admit that it does not bode well for what you claim.

You're discussing a currently existing thread, like Mags has just said, why not give the feedback that arguing feminism should be allowed to be discussed?

Limiting the number of threads essentially ghettoises the topic, into long meandering discussions that would put anyone off joining and on top of that

I disagree, I think if you look at the Soccer forum as an example, where there is a general discussion thread for a particular team that encompasses a vast amount of discussion on various subjects, the rules are clear from the offset and that makes it easier to post in and, I would imagine, moderate.

Again, to go back to Mags post - why not have a thread that can encompass the Mens Rights movement, Feminism, Legal issues i.e. divorce, child support etc?

it's already clear that any excuse, such as something being 'off topic' will be used to censor them.

We're not big brother and this isn't 1984, the mens rights thread is restrictive and we're keeping it that way until such time that we can potentially setup a new thread with a different set of rules to reflect what members of the forum want to discuss - my idea was to give it a more expansive/general scope

What changes would you look to bring to the mens rights discussion to improve it? Mags has mentioned allowing the discussion of feminism, anything else?

Femme_Fatale

It would be a bit of a travesty if there were no men's issues threads in The Gentlemen's Club, and if discussion/criticism of modern feminism could not be included full stop. There is nothing wrong with all threads being from men's point of view either - it is a men's forum.

The only problem with men's issues discussions is if they become "men versus women", if women-bashing enters the equation, if women get blamed for injustices men face (even those for which men are responsible - other men can be an obstacle towards men's rights, not just women; particularly when it comes to sexual assault of men by women), the "Us v them" stuff that's so hostile to female readers like "Women get all the perks" kinda sentiment, "If that were a woman, xyz would happen", hyperbole along the lines of "Nobody cares about men" and the pretence that men are really downtrodden overall. (It is the case, absolutely, that men experience injustices because of being men, and that women have the upper hand in some scenarios, but that does not make men overall a disenfranchised, oppressed group. Ditto women - in the West).

And that is how the men's issues threads can get, unfortunately. It's only a coterie of the same people over and over, who deny they are hostile towards women, but every so often their mask slips - whether it's what they say or what they thank.
On the "Sexism you have experienced" thread, the lack of leeway for questioning the more dubious/blatantly hostile comments gives people "protection" to post horrible stuff (I would say the very same about a female discussion on sexism).

Some of the latest posts to the current men's issues threads are just staggering in their nastiness towards women. It's dismaying to read, some of it is downright hurtful tbh. I wouldn't dream of venturing into the hardcore misogynistic discussion forums on the net, but I like Boards - it's a great website and it's depressing to see a similar element on what could be really interesting discussions on a forum that concerns issues which are of huge interest to me personally. I want more awareness of fathers' lack of rights, of domestic abuse of men, of men's health concerns, of the way ads and TV/film are open season on ridiculing men; slapping of men by women being no big deal, sexual assault of men by women being no big deal, etc.
But I find I simply cannot get involved in such discussions here, because I'm a woman and there are too many nasty, unnecessary, unhelpful comments directed at my gender in here, and it's too difficult to take part in such discussion because of the venom that has to be waded through.
It's like these threads are grabbed as an opportunity to vent (including digs towards women) rather than any constructive discussion (not saying that can't include venting, just that hostile venting alone over and over seems pointless).

With regards to "bullying" mentioned earlier which Maguined queried: It is most certainly the case that people who question the inflammatory, provocative, hostile, dubious posts are ganged up on. "Browbeaten" is the word someone used, and it's spot-on IMO.
Well this was the case until recently - I think the mods seem to be taking that on board now, and fair play to them.

As for feminism, I hate extreme feminism - I hate the stuff about "the patriarchy" and the inconsistency in terms of what hardline feminists deem worth getting worked-up over.
But it's just the reality that there are moderate feminists. Even if people will argue that they shouldn't attach themselves to a movement with such an extreme element, that doesn't change that they exist. They are just the female equivalent of moderate men's rights advocates, who get bothered by actual crap women experience because of their gender (not stuff like sexy billboards) and any such women I know, absolutely love men. Any of the women I know who nag and belittle men and go on about them being bastards and other such crap... are the same women who have no time for anything feminist.
Things are not always as they seem.

Rev Hellfire

D'Agger wrote: »

to go back to Mags post - why not have a thread that can encompass the Mens Rights movement, Feminism, Legal issues i.e. divorce, child support etc?

Because all you are really doing is attempting to ghettoise the confrontational content. I don't see why for example legal issues and child support belong exclusively in a thread about the men's right movement, they are each important matters and deserve there own individual threads.

Additionally I personally hate those sort of mega threads, it's hard to hold a discussion when there's such a broad scope assigned to it.

If you must at least have a thread for each of the distinct topics.

D'Agger wrote: »

What changes would you look to bring to the mens rights discussion to improve it? Mags has mentioned allowing the discussion of feminism, anything else?

My suggestion is that there is once the subject matter has a relationship to the issue of male rights that it is allowed. I don't believe you should be deleting posts unless they are abusive. Otherwise you're not facilitating discussion but rather directing it.

D'Agger wrote: »

We're not big brother and this isn't 1984, the mens rights thread is restrictive and we're keeping it that way until such time that we can potentially setup a new thread with a different set of rules to reflect what members of the forum want to discuss

Here's the rub, who decides what the members want to discuss, the active members or the moderators.

Maguined

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

With regards to "bullying" mentioned earlier which Maguined queried: It is most certainly the case that people who question the inflammatory, provocative, hostile, dubious posts are ganged up on. "Browbeaten" is the word someone used, and it's spot-on IMO.
Well this was the case until recently - I think the mods seem to be taking that on board now, and fair play to them.

Can I ask you what specifically do you think the browbeaters are doing wrong? Surely if they are being abusive in what they say then acting abusive is moderated on every forum? I don't mean to pick on you or anything but others have mentioned the same thing without really explaining what they mean?

So far all I can gather is that some posters are not breaking the rules but people don't like what they post so it gets called browbeating or bullying when all I can see is that they are not violating the rules so shouldnt be punished?

As for your feminism point what is your ultimate conclusion though? If given the choice between feminism not being allowed to be discussed or criticised in any mens rights threads or allowing such discussion even if it involves harsh criticism of feminism which would you choose?

D'Agger

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Because all you are really doing is attempting to ghettoise the confrontational content. I don't see why for example legal issues and child support belong exclusively in a thread about the men's right movement, they are each important matters and deserve there own individual threads.

Additionally I personally hate those sort of mega threads, it's hard to hold a discussion when there's such a broad scope assigned to it.

If you must at least have a thread for each of the distinct topics.

That's a fair point - the issue then becomes what can be covered on those specific threads, the scope for what is on or off topic becomes tighter but like you said if it's a related topic then it should be allowed, the question then is what's to stop people pushing that to include the most tenuous of links to drag a thread into a different region the excuse of 'well it's related to mens rights so it should be allowed' - it's us who has to make that decision and often you're not going to please everybody.

On the mens rights thread, from a personal viewpoint - it seems like we're being shouted at by both sides of an argument via reporting of posts and it's tedious to say the least, we're in a position where you need to decide what should be allowed and not allowed - that's why we're here, we want to find out what needs to be addressed in an open forum to allow threads like the mens rights thread to be discussed and see how we can improve the overall standard of both individual threads and the forum as a whole.

My suggestion is that there is once the subject matter has a relationship to the issue of male rights that it is allowed. I don't believe you should be deleting posts unless they are abusive. Otherwise you're not facilitating discussion but rather directing it.

Directing it to what we percieve to be on topic it should be noted - we all know that the Mens rights thread is restricted, due to our implementation of what we feel to be on or off topic for the current thread - again, I know I'm repeating myself but we're here to find out how to facilitate the discussion better.

Here's the rub, who decides what the members want to discuss, the active members or the moderators.

If somebody wants to setup a thread then we look to hold that up against the charter which we know is outdated and requires work, however, when it comes to a thread like the mens rights thread, which is something that encompasses something quite broad, we need to implement thread rules and look to implement them - at the moment the Mens rights thread needs reviewing.

I'm saying it's not 1984 because we wouldn't be having a feedback thread if we didn't want active member input into what can be improved which, thankfully we're getting, we're not the thought police, we simply try to have threads conversation flow without straying off the original topic.

The Corinthian

D'Agger wrote: »

You're discussing a currently existing thread, like Mags has just said, why not give the feedback that arguing feminism should be allowed to be discussed?

I do and it's been ignored without exception - indeed that I've done so by reporting the moderator post announcing the deletions has resulted in a rather snotty reply that the report function should not be used this way. Maybe PM's are easier to ignore?

Another recent example was the ruling on the acceptability of violence against men thread that bringing up how male rape is dealt with was off topic. Off topic? How silly of us not to realize that rape has nothing to do with violence. Completely insane.

I disagree, I think if you look at the Soccer forum as an example, where there is a general discussion thread for a particular team that encompasses a vast amount of discussion on various subjects, the rules are clear from the offset and that makes it easier to post in and, I would imagine, moderate.

Yet that is not what is happening here. Worse than that these supposed megathreads are not allowing "discussion on various subjects" as has been evidenced by the increased use of playing the off-topic card by the moderators. You've gotten several examples of this, at this stage.

Again, to go back to Mags post - why not have a thread that can encompass the Mens Rights movement, Feminism, Legal issues i.e. divorce, child support etc?

Because, as I've repeatedly said:

• Such threads become endless meandering monsters where finding any sub-topic becomes impossible and discourage participation, and
• because there are at this stage far too many examples of over-moderation that arbitrarily censor as off-topic or otherwise any deviation from some magical definition of said thread topic, as defined by moderators who clearly have little interest in it.

It wouldn't work and would simply serve to 'contain' the topic, which is all well and good if you'd prefer that tGC didn't have too many of them, as clearly the moderators feel, but then it would fail the claimed scope of the forum.

We're not big brother and this isn't 1984, the mens rights thread is restrictive and we're keeping it that way until such time that we can potentially setup a new thread with a different set of rules to reflect what members of the forum want to discuss - my idea was to give it a more expansive/general scope

You tried that already; the men's rights megathread came out of the last feedback thread here - and clearly it's not working. All you're suggesting is extending that strategy.

What changes would you look to bring to the mens rights discussion to improve it? Mags has mentioned allowing the discussion of feminism, anything else?

How about a sub-forum, with moderators who actually have an interest in the subject? Gets it out of immediate sight (which appears to be an issue for some) and would likely decrease the number of ham-fisted moderation decisions we've been seeing.

I'd vote for Wibbs, but I doubt he'd take it up given his recent resignation from tLL.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

The only problem with men's issues discussions is if they become "men versus women", if women-bashing enters the equation, if women get blamed for injustices men face (even those for which men are responsible

I agree, however...

For example, you cite that men are responsible for some of these injustices. Logically then, if 'men' ourselves should be open to criticism, 'women' should also - yet to ban any potential "men versus women" comparisons could well result in any mention being censored by this policy.

On the other side, just as you get in some pro-feminist threads elsewhere, you also get some dreadful generalizations too, and they certainly should not be encouraged (in fairness they generally get shot down by other posters though).

The question is how do you differentiate between fair comment and nonsense, and unfortunately we appear to have a poor record on how this has been applied to date.

Femme_Fatale

Maguined wrote: »

Can I ask you what specifically do you think the browbeaters are doing wrong? Surely if they are being abusive in what they say then acting abusive is moderated on every forum? I don't mean to pick on you or anything but others have mentioned the same thing without really explaining what they mean?

So far all I can gather is that some posters are not breaking the rules but people don't like what they post so it gets called browbeating or bullying when all I can see is that they are not violating the rules so shouldnt be punished?

People can be disagreed with without the aggression, hostility and dismissiveness, which is the browbeating being referred to.

As for your feminism point what is your ultimate conclusion though? If given the choice between feminism not being allowed to be discussed or criticised in any mens rights threads or allowing such discussion even if it involves harsh criticism of feminism which would you choose?

Thought I'd been clear: I don't see anything wrong with criticism of militant feminism, but attacking "feminism" as a whole is attacking reasonable women, women who are also interested in men's rights. Even if there's disagreement with them calling themselves feminists, they do.

The Corinthian

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

People can be disagreed with without the aggression, hostility and dismissiveness, which is the browbeating being referred to.

Can we see some examples of this, as it's still a bit fuzzy what is meant?

Thought I'd been clear: I don't see anything wrong with criticism of militant feminism, but attacking "feminism" as a whole is attacking reasonable women, women who are also interested in men's rights. Even if there's disagreement with them calling themselves feminists, they do.

That's your opinion, but that's not what open discussion should be limited to.

It's all too easy to simply pin the blame on some 'extremists', but what if you can make an argument that such criticisms apply to mainstream feminism, or that feminism as a broad ideological movement is doomed to go down this road?

Just because someone may prefer that criticism is limited to a few 'extremists', shouldn't make feminism as a whole some kind of sacred cow.

Maguined

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

People can be disagreed with without the aggression, hostility and dismissiveness, which is the browbeating being referred to.

So do you feel that aggression, hostility and dismissiveness are not currently against the rules of the forums or that those rules are not currently being enforced by the moderators?

To me the above are all subjective especially regards the tone of a post which is why they are not moderated against and correctly so in my opinion.

Attack the post not the poster is the forum wide rule and I think it would be a bad move to revise this to include such subjective criteria not to mention an absolutely impossibly vague line for the mods to try and enforce.

Again I am not trying to pick on you but you are the only one who has given further clarification on what you mean so while I respectfully disagree with your opinion on this but I do thank you for taking the time to give detail to what you mean.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Thought I'd been clear: I don't see anything wrong with criticism of militant feminism, but attacking "feminism" as a whole is attacking reasonable women, women who are also interested in men's rights. Even if there's disagreement with them calling themselves feminists, they do.

So if a rule was brought in to say feminism cannot be criticised but militant feminism can be you would be happy with that?

Sleepy

I'd suggest that the forum shouldn't require set threads for particular topics and that unless there's a forum where a user will clearly get a better response e.g. legal discussion / PI / Motors / Shaving & Beards etc. it should be left in situ i.e. let the community determine the scope of the forum.

I see nothing wrong with this being the forum to post a fashion related question to get a male opinion on it rather than delving into the Fashion & Appearance sections of boards. It's akin to asking the lads down the pub instead of consulting Vogue.

Discussion of Men's Rights naturally fits here in the "Man's forum" and any attempts to lump the various topics into specific meandering threads just leads to horrendously long, meandering discussion which either end up wildly "off-topic" or mods having to constantly monitor them for off-topic issues that should have just been posted in their own threads.

TL/DR: the number of moved/closed threads in here often seems quite extreme. So what if there's another forum dedicated to the topic? This is the place for discussing it with other men.

Wibbs

Long time lurker and reader, (very) occasional poster.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

who decides what the members want to discuss, the active members or the moderators.

This would be my take on some aspects of the forum. It appears run more top down, than bottom up. The mods appear to drive the community, not the other way around. For me the moderator role is just that, janitorial moderation of the discussion. Discussion the community wants to have, not what I, or other mods have decided the community want to have.

Do NOT get me wrong I well know the line moderation of a forum can sometimes have to walk. God do I know. However when I was clumsily walking that line I did so with the confidence and backup that this was what the vast majority of the community had told us they wanted and mods were acting on that communities behalf. As it should be for all forums IMH. I just got/get the feeling that this is not necessarily the case here on a couple of subjects anyway*.

A forum can broadly go one of two ways, a forum in the image of the community or a forum in the image of the moderating team. IMHO the former is infinitely more attractive to posters and readers and is also far less likely to fade out down to 2 posters a week over time.

My 3cents anyway.


*Put it another way, TBH and obviously personally speaking if I wanted to start a debate on the state/rights of men going through separation or divorce I'd start the thread in After Hours or Humanities or Legal discussion before I'd start it here in what's supposed to be "the" men's forum.

awec

This post has been deleted.

awec

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

awec wrote: »

That has never, ever, ever been the case on here.

You know full well that it has never been the case. You know full well that the only stipulation be that criticism is constructive, not generalising and of a certain standard.

I was responding to Femme_Fatale's suggestion that only 'extremist' feminism should be criticized. I made no other implication.

Look - it's not as if I'm the only one pointing out that how the moderators are defining what is 'acceptable' or not is out of sync with a large proportion of the posters. Examples have even been given.

So what do you suggest?

Maguined

awec wrote: »

That has never, ever, ever been the case on here.

You know full well that it has never been the case. You know full well that the only stipulation be that criticism is constructive, not generalising and of a certain standard.

I have to disagree, ruling that feminism is off topic in a men's rights thread as has already been acknowledged to me is already in effect granting it sacred cow status.

I would wager the vast majority of people would view it as being on topic.

awec

This post has been deleted.