The slow death of forums see OP for Admin warning and update 28/02/18

hatrickpatrick · 03-01-2018 08:49PM

Arghus wrote: »

You won't run into displinary issues in a heavily modded forum like soccer just because you support a particular team over another, of course not.

But you will run into trouble if your idea of support is to constantly belittle and aggravate fans of opposing teams.

In political fora around these parts it's not usually the political position people hold that gets them into trouble, more often than not it's how they expouse that position; a distinction that's lost on many of them.

I think you're missing the point I was making, TBH. There are now certain political viewpoints which are unwelcome on Boards. For instance, those who believe in cultural nationalism ("we shouldn't allow people from incompatible cultures into our country because it might cause problems and/or damage our cultural integrity", or "socially conservative Islamic ideology should not be welcome in a country which aspires to be socially liberal") tend to have a particularly hard time.

A political forum in which certain political ideologies are not allowed to be openly supported is as moronic as a soccer forum in which certain teams are not allowed to be openly supported, surely this is obvious?

And again, I don't agree with the views I reference. I'm more annoyed about this because it happens so frequently that someone post some right wing talking points, I type out a beautifully argued response and the thread has been locked by the time I get a chance to hit submit

GreeBo · 03-01-2018 08:49PM

anna080 wrote: »

TBH that just comes across as a bit "how dare some people enjoy something I don't care about"..
Maybe first page is so active with chat threads because users actually enjoy them? Why would you want to suppress that because it's something that turns you off? You have as much power as any other user to start threads on topics that interest you. Don't punish other users for enjoying engaging with one another in light hearted threads just because it's something that's uninteresting and unimportant to you.

+1

For a long time that only thing that got me even back onto this site was Cool Vids, Pics & Links.

It doesnt all have to be deep and meaningful and appealing to everyone.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 03-01-2018 08:53PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

What does gateway forum mean?

A forum that attracts views and from which those viewing can find other subjects/threads they are interested in.

A bit like cannabis supposedly leading to harder drugs, if you like.

hatrickpatrick · 03-01-2018 08:53PM

Just to be even handed in my own argument, the same issue tends to crop up when some scandal involving the Catholic Church breaks and the threads about it are full of mod warnings to stick to that particular scandal and not have a general go at the Catholic Church as an organisation. But why not? If someone's political view is that this organisation's behaviour and ideology makes it harmful to society, should they not be free to say so? It's not the same as saying "all individual practising Catholics are bad people" and therefore doesn't count as racism or anything like that, it's an attack on an ideology and an organisation, as well as some people who practise that ideology in a certain way.

If this is not allowed in a political discussion, then that political discussion is inherently pointless, as these issues cut to the very heart of politics itself.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 03-01-2018 09:00PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

Well, there'd be more real estate on the front page, which might encourage people like me to visit more often and start more threads. The chat threads keep getting bumped. The more there are, the more often it will happen and the more likely it is that new threads will get bumped off the front page before they even get a chance to gain any traction. At the moment, I'd feel a bit like "what's the point?". Kinda seems like they'd sink with trace. Maybe that would happen, maybe it wouldn't but people might get that impression. And the more fresh threads that appear, the more people might be encouraged to start threads themselves. I reckon it could have a knock-on effect.

But they keep getting bumped because people post in them because they like them. It's one of the main sources of traffic on the forum, I just don't understand the argument that removing them will somehow make it busy and better seeing as their very business shows that the people who are using the forum like them

it's like saying "well maybe if we take all these burgers and milkshakes away, the people who like steak and wine will start eating it in this Supermacs!". Maybe there are some other posters who do or would feel similarly to yourself but they're self-evidently outnumbered by the people who like the chat. And again, I've no interest in those threads.

Other threads can and do take off. The Stinge, Facebook, Simpsons threads were all just casually started by general users. I've started threads that died, I've started threads that took off. I'd imagine the people who replied were people who also post in the chat threads.

_Dara_ · 03-01-2018 09:01PM

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Arghus wrote: »

I don't post in the chat threads that often myself, here and there, that's about it, but isn't it just a matter of ignoring them if they bother you that much? Removing them would just mean less activity in general.

No one poster is going to start endless threads. The hope is that many posters will contribute a new fresh topic every once in a while which will have the cumulative effect of there being many fresh topics a day. When chat threads keep getting bumped, new topics barely get any traction before they're bumped off the front page. It's easy to see why someone wouldn't bother going to the effort of starting a new thread when that happens. So there's more going on than just "if you don't like them, don't read them." I disagree that reducing chat threads would necessarily mean less activity. I'm repeating myself but I for one have visited and posted less in AH since long-running chat threads proliferated because they tend to dominate and there is so little new content. I'd be happy to start new threads myself but I'm not going to be endlessly starting them nor is anyone else (and when people do start many threads, it gets commented upon pretty fast). A small number of threads from many users is ideal but the conditions at the moment don't foster that environment IMO.

But jaysus, I wasn't expecting such resistance to criticism of chat threads. :eek: It seems people are very invested in them! Lads, not everyone loves them, don't take it so personally.

dxhound2005 · 03-01-2018 09:03PM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

A forum that attracts views and from which those viewing can find other subjects/threads they are interested in.

A bit like cannabis supposedly leading to harder drugs, if you like.

I was on Boards for years before I ever saw AH. Any forum is a gateway forum by that definition.

_Dara_ · 03-01-2018 09:03PM

Keira Thankful Target wrote: »

But they keep getting bumped because people post in them because they like them.

Some people like them. Others, like me, are actively turned off the forum by their over-presence. So they bring in some users. How many do they drive from the forum?

I've explained why I think having less chat threads would lead to more vibrancy. I'm not going to repeat myself and I can't make you read my posts and if you have read my posts and you don't agree with my reasoning, grand.

retro:electro · 03-01-2018 09:05PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

Well, there'd be more real estate on the front page, which might encourage people like me to visit more often and start more threads. The chat threads keep getting bumped. The more there are, the more often it will happen and the more likely it is that new threads will get bumped off the front page before they even get a chance to gain any traction. At the moment, I'd feel a bit like "what's the point?". Kinda seems like they'd sink with trace. Maybe that would happen, maybe it wouldn't but people might get that impression. And the more fresh threads that appear, the more people might be encouraged to start threads themselves. I reckon it could have a knock-on effect.

Oh, for god's sake. Why would I be like that? You're coming across a tad defensive of a bit of criticism of these threads. If chat threads dominate the first page (and at times they do), the rate at which they get bumped can knock fresh discussions down the page and off the front page. I think this is detrimental to the forum and I know myself that I have visited AH less since they proliferated. Is that a desirable outcome, to drive away users who aren't interested in chat threads?

The ideal is to have many people starting threads frequently. I don't myself have many topics lined up to start threads on, nor to I want that on my shoulders. I have some topics but if many muck in with topics, then some will pique mine and others interests. But if the thread is populated mostly with chat threads, that's not very interesting at all if you're not invested in them and keeps out new topics.

So you won't take the initiative to start threads that interest you and instead expect users to do all the work for you and start interesting threads- all the while lambasting users who have different interests to you and are keeping the forum active. Riiiight.

evolving_doors · 03-01-2018 09:05PM

Patww79 wrote: »

No chat rules on any thread on a discussion board is mind bogglingly stupid as it is.

If you have a chat thread in tandem with the no chat then it's good. Like Cpvl forum or Bargain Alerts (Argos thread). You just have to get used to it and not be offended if mods delete your 'chat'. Maybe a gentle reminder by pm and a link to where its been moved to in the chat thread, rather than just a hard snip and told to use the other thread.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 03-01-2018 09:08PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I was on Boards for years before I ever saw AH. Any forum is a gateway forum by that definition.

Same here, but AH is the biggest forum by far and has the greatest number of posts.

Nearly everyone on Boards will make it to AH at some point, the same can't be said for other forums.

Permabear · 03-01-2018 09:08PM

This post has been deleted.

OldMrBrennan83 · 03-01-2018 09:09PM

This post has been deleted.

_Dara_ · 03-01-2018 09:11PM

anna080 wrote: »

So you won't take the initiative to start threads that interest you and instead expect users to do all the work for you and start interesting threads- all the while lambasting users who have different interests to you and are keeping the forum active. Riiiight.

I will when one comes to me. Down the years, under different accounts, I started plenty. I started one before Christmas which was fairly popular. I'm not going to start them for the sake of it because it will show that I have no investment in the topic. I'm going to start a thread when I feel like I have a good topic myself. Could you point out where I said I would never start a thread myself? I don't want to start loads of threads, I don't think anyone does, but if many people start thread topics in small numbers, that's a good thing.

Dial back on the defensiveness, Anna, seriously. I'm putting thought into my responses here so do me the courtesy of digesting my posts before responding to them.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 03-01-2018 09:12PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

Some people like them. Others, like me, are actively turned off the forum by their over-presence. So they bring in some users. How many do they drive from the forum?

I've explained why I think having less chat threads would lead to more vibrancy. I'm not going to repeat myself and I can't make you read my posts and if you have read my posts and you don't agree with my reasoning, grand.

A lot of people like them Dara, and again, the appeal is a mystery to me personally. Seeing as there are dozens of people contributing to this thread and it's an issue that barely anyone has mentioned, I would doubt it's driving many people away compared with other issues.

If there's an interesting, well-timed, witty OP, a thread usually takes off (until it gets locked :pac:). Like do you have examples of threads you haven't bothered posting or threads you feel didn't get a fair shakes recently?

There are only two proper chat threads on the front page that I can see, although there are other super long ones, abortion, Trump, the usual.

dxhound2005 · 03-01-2018 09:12PM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Same here, but AH is the biggest forum by far and has the greatest number of posts.

Nearly everyone on Boards will make it to AH at some point, the same can't be said for other forums.

From the time of the water charges threads I have not seen anything as busy on AH as the "Lavhlahn" threads in Radio. They max out the 10K post limit ever 6 weeks or so.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 03-01-2018 09:15PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

From the time of the water charges threads I have not seen anything as busy on AH as the "Lavhlahn" threads in Radio. They max out the 10K post limit ever 6 weeks or so.

Radio's a very good forum in general

retro:electro · 03-01-2018 09:17PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

I will when one comes to me. Down the years, under different accounts, I started plenty. I started one before Christmas which was fairly popular. I'm not going to start them for the sake of it because it will show that I have no investment in the topic. I'm going to start a thread when I feel like I have a good topic myself. Could you point out where I said I would never start a thread myself? I don't want to start loads of threads, I don't think anyone does, but if many people start thread topics in small numbers, that's a good thing.

Dial back on the defensiveness, Anna, seriously. I'm putting thought into my responses here so do me the courtesy of digesting my posts before responding to them.

I'm not defensive Dara- but I will defend the purpose of those threads especially since they are primarily thriving in an otherwise dying forum. It makes no sense not to. I just don't understand the logic behind removing them and suddenly boards prospers again. That's all. It just seems to be a skewed logic dressed up in faux concern for the site on behalf of those who can't stand those kind of threads to begin with and want them gone.
Anyway, I'm beginning to annoy myself now so I'm gone!

_Dara_ · 03-01-2018 09:25PM

anna080 wrote: »

It just seems to be a skewed logic dressed up in faux concern for the site on behalf of those who can't stand those kind of threads to begin with and want them gone.

Well, yes, I want to see less of them personally but for the reasons I've outlined which I don't consider to be skewed logic myself. I don't have any problem with people enjoying them but I think some of you are wilfully refusing to take on board anyone else's views about them and that does strike me as defensive.

evolving_doors · 03-01-2018 09:27PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

From the time of the water charges threads I have not seen anything as busy on AH as the "Lavhlahn" threads in Radio. They max out the 10K post limit ever 6 weeks or so.

Irish water was just one of this polarizing things (like when Roy Keane threw a strop in Saipan). Or the annual poppy thread.

Hopefully an abortion referendum thread will be along soon... Dunno is AH the place for that is it? Or is that politics?

AH was supposed to be everything... but in a drunken setting ... Like Nighthawks used to be with Shay Healy. So to disentangle politics from AH was a big mistake in my opinion (even though it's not worth much:rolleyes:).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zruGBWLk9s8

dxhound2005 · 03-01-2018 09:30PM

I wouldn't use my experience of Boards to draw any conclusions. Because I know that in any day I would only ever see a tiny fraction of the 8,500 posts made that day. And even after years here, I have probably only been on 5% of the forums.

Using what farmers chat about, or how someone got infracted four yeas ago by an obviously deranged Mod does not offer anything useful in figuring out why there are fewer posts.

riffmongous · 03-01-2018 10:00PM

evolving_doors wrote: »

Irish water was just one of this polarizing things (like when Roy Keane threw a strop in Saipan). Or the annual poppy thread.

Hopefully an abortion referendum thread will be along soon... Dunno is AH the place for that is it? Or is that politics?

AH was supposed to be everything... but in a drunken setting ... Like Nighthawks used to be with Shay Healy. So to disentangle politics from AH was a big mistake in my opinion (even though it's not worth much:rolleyes:).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zruGBWLk9s8

There is still a long running 8th Ammendment thread... by god I'm not looking forward to the run up to the referendum here, it's already poisoning a facebook group I like

blackwhite · 03-01-2018 10:18PM

riffmongous wrote: »

There is still a long running 8th Ammendment thread... by god I'm not looking forward to the run up to the referendum here, it's already poisoning a facebook group I like

It's going to be one of the nastiest and most vindictive campaigns the State has ever seen - and the losing side (whichever it is) isn't going to simply disappear like they did after the Marriage Referendum.
The fallout from whatever result we get will linger for a long time afterwards

hatrickpatrick · 03-01-2018 10:26PM

evolving_doors wrote: »

AH was supposed to be everything... but in a drunken setting ...

Telling people to mind their language and stop singing silly songs while they're drunk and partying is moronic, though - would you not agree?

BlaasForRafa · 03-01-2018 10:45PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think you're missing the point I was making, TBH. There are now certain political viewpoints which are unwelcome on Boards. For instance, those who believe in cultural nationalism ("we shouldn't allow people from incompatible cultures into our country because it might cause problems and/or damage our cultural integrity", or "socially conservative Islamic ideology should not be welcome in a country which aspires to be socially liberal") tend to have a particularly hard time.

Basically if you don't hold a left-wing viewpoint, if you're not pro-immigration, if you're not pro-transgender, if you're not fully anti-Israel, if you're not fully on board with the social justice agenda then you're going to have a tough time on this forum and on this board as a whole.

If you hold certain viewpoints then you are going to be much more heavily moderated than the other side and that's going to drive people away, what's the point if you know the discussion is going to be one-sided as enforced by the mods?

job seeker · 03-01-2018 10:50PM

Just with regards to the stinge thread - Discussion of the stinge posts are the best part of that thread! I think it ruins the thread by not allowing discussion. I'm posting this here as it's relevant to this thread and I'd prefer to obey the rule..

Madagascan · 03-01-2018 10:51PM

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think you're missing the point I was making, TBH. There are now certain political viewpoints which are unwelcome on Boards. For instance, those who believe in cultural nationalism ("we shouldn't allow people from incompatible cultures into our country because it might cause problems and/or damage our cultural integrity", or "socially conservative Islamic ideology should not be welcome in a country which aspires to be socially liberal") tend to have a particularly hard time.

Basically if you don't hold a left-wing viewpoint, if you're not pro-immigration, if you're not pro-transgender, if you're not fully anti-Israel, if you're not fully on board with the social justice agenda then you're going to have a tough time on this forum and on this board as a whole.

If you hold certain viewpoints then you are going to be much more heavily moderated than the other side and that's going to drive people away, what's the point if you know the discussion is going to be one-sided as enforced by the mods?

Well said.
Most Sites seem to have younger people on them.
When you are young you hold more left wing views.
So the Mods will cracking down on posters who seem to them to be " right wing "
They don't want to lose the left wing majority posters so they censer others.
No reason to expect this Site to be any different.

the_pen_turner · 03-01-2018 10:53PM

job seeker wrote: »

Just with regards to the stinge thread - Discussion of the stinge posts are the best part of that thread! I think it ruins the thread by not allowing discussion. I'm posting this here as it's relevant to this thread and I'd prefer to obey the rule..

I agree 100%
whats the point of a thread if you cant discuss it

decisions like this really make members reconsider whether this forum is even worth be a part of any more.
I know I am

job seeker · 03-01-2018 10:59PM

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I agree 100%
whats the point of a thread if you cant discuss it

decisions like this really make members reconsider whether this forum is even worth be a part of any more.
I know I am

Totally agree! Like if something isn't stingy, do we just bite our lip?

It makes no sense what's so ever! Totally defeating the purpose of a descussion forum!

Hang on!

discussion

noun
1.
an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate.

Imagine that!

Ken. · 03-01-2018 11:01PM

While yere here bitching about that I have loads of pm's from people giving out about the chat in there. Not every point in there needs to be debated to death like it normally is.

The slow death of forums *see OP for Admin warning and update 28/02/18*

Comments

The slow death of forums see OP for Admin warning and update 28/02/18