Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…5051535556…98

Comments

  • #1562
    gifted
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,052 ✭✭✭gifted


    Beasty is warming up I reckon if the posts continue in the same vein lol lol


  • #1563
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,166 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    anna080 wrote: »
    Ah here he was hardly attacked.

    Calling people who disagree with chat threads ‘****’ and then posters on this thread liking the ‘****’ comment isn’t exactly welcoming. Then a 3 on 1 ‘suggestion’ that you post on that same thread...eh...lemme think about that one....🤔😳


  • #1564
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    That is totally unfair. I have given a lot of thought to my posts on-thread, I have explained my logic well, I think. Many of my posts have received support.

    And again, I note, the many of the poor quality posts in defence of chat threads are being given a pass despite many of them being quite petty. Not surprising at all though. And ably demonstrates the cliquey nature of such threads. You're not a regular on chat threads, grand, but you're protective towards their members anyway, despite petty, dismissive, undermining posts coming from prominent members of those threads. Any some of those posts came early in the criticism of such threads too.

    Given a pass by who, me? Who am I defending, exactly?

    A few pages back there were digs made at Dougal, the posters were called out and I thanked that post, I thought it was well out of order. Maybe it suits you to think I'm just having a go at you because you're in disagreement with people who I'm in a clique with or something but it's not the case; and it's just a different version of your earlier arguing that the people who were disagreeing with you just couldn't handle anyone not liking their pet threads. I've had more than one run in with Anna, zero interaction that I can recall with the others. Edit: Oops, Candie seems to be a semi-regular contributor to some of them.

    It is possible for me to just have a problem with how you're posting because of the actual content of those posts you know, it's not mean to disagree with you or criticise your behaviour even though you're putting thought into those posts. Your needlessly hostile and condescending response to a very simple, politely asked question from me earlier for example, certainly had thought put into it, a lot of thought. None of the people I'm apparently defending interacted with me like that, so no I haven't been arguing with them, they haven't given me a reason to.

    Actually I think this may be an example of something I said when this was actually a feedback thread, that posters with minority opinions end up feeling ganged up on or like they're being personally targeted just through sheer numbers.


  • #1565
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »
    Calling people who disagree with chat threads ‘****’ and then posters on this thread liking the ‘****’ comment isn’t exactly welcoming. Then a 3 on 1 ‘suggestion’ that you post on that same thread...eh...lemme think about that one....🀔😳

    Would these be the same posters whose content you've been ridiculing for about a week now?
    For shame.


  • #1566
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    This is why we can't have nice things.


  • Advertisement
  • #1567
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    Candie wrote: »
    You're sniping at Persepoly over her sniping at someone else? Give her a break.

    I made no personal comment about Persepoly. Totally different. I think lashing out at someone because they criticised a thread you post in totally ridiculous. AND betrays the true nature of some of the chat threads.


  • #1568
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,500 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Keira Thankful Target wrote: »
    Actually I think this may be an example of something I said when this was actually a feedback thread, that posters with minority opinions end up feeling ganged up on or like they're being personally targeted just through sheer numbers.

    As of right now, other that one user changing their vote it would be a dead heat regarding the chat sub-forum suggestion.

    Hardly minority opinion...


  • #1569
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,166 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    Candie wrote: »
    How about a two month trial of a single, all-inclusive, strictly sole chat thread? It'd clear up the page and not be too onerous to ignore, and posters stay put in AH and interact with all the regulars from all the threads?

    I don't mind the chats, but there could be fewer. I don't want people moving to a sub forum because I like having them around AH, most of them are lovely.

    If no other chat threads are allowed, it'd be a decent compromise to have an all-encompassing single one for those inclined to enjoy, surely?

    If there *has* to be chat in AH, that’s a very fair compromise. Generally all the same posters anyhow.

    We’re probably at the stage where the this thread has run it’s course, can’t see us covering much new ground. Thanks to everyone who contributed, even who’s opinions I don’t agree with. For the most part it’s been very civilized and good natured, even if we didn’t agree on everything.

    Cheers. 😊


  • #1570
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    Keira Thankful Target wrote: »
    Your needlessly hostile and condescending response to a very simple, politely asked question from me earlier for example, certainly had thought put into it, a lot of thought.

    You can see why I'd be incredulous at that question. It did not at all strike me as you sincerely wanting to know what I meant by non-serious, non-chat thread. Anyone who has been posting on boards as long as you have would know what I meant when I said that. Hence I couldn't take the question too seriously. But I still gave you examples.


  • #1571
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,500 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    This thread doesnt have to stop...we could just....yunno, move onto something else.


  • Advertisement
  • #1572
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,166 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    anna080 wrote: »
    Would these be the same posters whose content you've been ridiculing for about a week now?
    For shame.

    Attacking the post, not the posters. Big difference.:)


  • #1573
    gifted
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,052 ✭✭✭gifted


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    I made no personal comment about Persepoly. Totally different. I think lashing out at someone because they criticised a thread you post in totally ridiculous. AND betrays the true nature of some of the chat threads.

    True nature?.....you think they're some sort of cult?.......I don't get what your implying...what are you suggesting takes place in some of by he chat threads?


  • #1574
    Pac1Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,395 ✭✭✭Pac1Man


    There have been a lot of posts since earlier. Who attacked who again?


  • #1575
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Pac1Man wrote: »
    There have been a lot of posts since earlier. Who attacked who again?

    People are tired and cranky, and some of us (me) need a nap.

    Everyone should return to their corners before this gets bogged down in a single issue and everyone gets entrenched.


  • #1576
    Buford T. Justice XIX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭Buford T. Justice XIX


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »
    So even after I have explained it to you, you still don’t get it? :confused: there’s a difference between chat threads and lighthearted threads. Chat threads are cliquey and not discussion threads.

    That’s a fair point about contributing more threads in AH, I will certainly put in more of an effort.

    Look, I get that from a mods prospective it’s good to have a mixture of serious threads and lighthearted threads, and right now these chat threads are probably as close to lighthearted as we have in AH at the moment. Back in the day we used to have the same discussion about the forum, that it was doom and gloom and no craic(you’ll probably still be able to find those posts).

    These chat threads are not the answer, IMO. We’re up to half a dozen now, what happens when a couple more creep in? And then a couple more? I can think of another half a dozen thread titles that would decend into chat/dear diary posts and they’d last forever.
    I understand the difference, thanks.

    I was being, slightly, a devils advocate in pointing out there was more than one solution to the chat threads.

    AH is supposed to be lighthearted in nature, as was rightly pointed out to me very early on while modding here. The general chat threads seem a better fit for the aspirations of AH than the more serious threads that you and others are advocating. I merely suggested that moving the threads which appear more suited to AH should be left there and the other more serious threads could have their own subforum.

    To me, it seems a better solution to the perceived difficulties of which threads should populate the AH forum. I appreciate some might not agree but I feel it is, at least, an equally valid proposition as moving threads more suited to the ethos of AH.


  • #1577
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    gifted wrote: »
    True nature?.....you think they're some sort of cult?.......I don't get what your implying...what are you suggesting takes place in some of by he chat threads?

    If people unsheath their claws that easily at any hint of criticism (and the defensiveness over the chat threads came very quick once there was criticism of them on this thread) then that to me betrays a less welcoming, feelgood vibe in these threads than has been advertised here.


  • #1578
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 78,458 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    gifted wrote: »
    Beasty is warming up I reckon if the posts continue in the same vein lol lol
    The thread has been pretty much focussed on a single mainly AH issue for the past day or so. That makes my life a lot easier:)

    The AH mods have said they will look at points raised in connection with this forum and I guess they now have to consider whether to just look at what had been said here or start a separate discussion on AH-specific points

    I do think the chat on chat has done a number of rounds already (and I thought that about 24 hours ago also!) and the thread would benefit from focussing on one or two other areas of feedback

    I would reiterate though - let's keep it civil. This thread has, in my view, been a massive improvement on the sort of stuff we saw under the old Feedback format which is itself very encouraging. Let's try not to spoil that.

    Thanks


  • #1579
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,500 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Buford T. Justice V wrote: »
    I understand the difference, thanks.

    I was being, slightly, a devils advocate in pointing out there was more than one solution to the chat threads.

    AH is supposed to be lighthearted in nature, as was rightly pointed out to me very early on while modding here. The general chat threads seem a better fit for the aspirations of AH than the more serious threads that you and others are advocating. I merely suggested that moving the threads which appear more suited to AH should be left there and the other more serious threads could have their own subforum.

    To me, it seems a better solution to the perceived difficulties of which threads should populate the AH forum. I appreciate some might not agree but I feel it is, at least, an equally valid proposition as moving threads more suited to the ethos of AH.

    Merging a bunch of unrelated threads into one mega thread would seem to be completely unworkable, unless its the same people posting in them all...in which case....


  • #1580
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    Buford T. Justice V wrote: »
    AH is supposed to be lighthearted in nature, as was rightly pointed out to me very early on while modding here. The general chat threads seem a better fit for the aspirations of AH than the more serious threads that you and others are advocating.

    Once again, we're not all advocating serious threads in their place. The best AH threads were generally NOT serious. But they were more engaging to a wider range of people than long-running chat threads. I for one haven't been advocating for more serious threads and gave examples of non-serious ones earlier.

    I hope this is the last time I say this but non-serious threads =/= chat threads.


  • #1581
    Pac1Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,395 ✭✭✭Pac1Man


    Candie wrote: »
    People are tired and cranky, and some of us (me) need a nap.

    Everyone should return to their corners before this gets bogged down in a single issue and everyone gets entrenched.

    I think this is important though.

    Anyone have a link to where somebody made an attack?


  • Advertisement
  • #1582
    gifted
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,052 ✭✭✭gifted


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    If people unsheath their claws that easily at any hint of criticism (and the defensiveness over the chat threads came very quick once there was criticism of them on this thread) then that to me betrays a less welcoming, feelgood vibe in these threads than has been advertised here.

    But that's the beauty of the chat threads...criticism is practically unheard of....it's respect and appreciation and generally positive vibes in these threads.


  • #1583
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 21,679 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Dougal, I am sorry if you felt I was singling you out or attacking you. Malice isn't my style. The community within those threads mean something to me and to others so I was defending them.


    Sleep time now.


  • #1584
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    gifted wrote: »
    But that's the beauty of the chat threads...criticism is practically unheard of....it's respect and appreciation and generally positive vibes in these threads.

    I'll take your word for that. :)


  • #1585
    Kurtosis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Kurtosis


    Beasty wrote: »
    The thread has been pretty much focussed on a single mainly AH issue for the past day or so. That makes my life a lot easier:)

    The AH mods have said they will look at points raised in connection with this forum and I guess they now have to consider whether to just look at what had been said here or start a separate discussion on AH-specific points

    I do think the chat on chat has done a number of rounds already (and I thought that about 24 hours ago also!) and the thread would benefit from focussing on one or two other areas of feedback

    I would reiterate though - let's keep it civil. This thread has, in my view, been a massive improvement on the sort of stuff we saw under the old Feedback format which is itself very encouraging. Let's try not to spoil that.

    Thanks

    Given this thread has morphed into eliciting general site feedback (and is currently the only means of providing such feedback outside of the new Feedback forum), should a site-wide announcement be posted to give posters who do not visit AH a chance to contribute?


  • #1586
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    Candie wrote: »
    This is why we can't have nice things.

    The small part of me,that likes to see the world burn...

    Loves these disputes over relatively small issues that get blown outta proportion....as they can be gas to look at from outside looking in


  • #1587
    5rtytry56
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,828 ✭✭✭5rtytry56


    tomwaterford wrote: »

    Loves these disputes over relatively small issues that get blown outta proportion....as they can be gas to look at from outside looking in
    Funnier still when a mod posts a note along the lines of "gugleguy cannot post anymore. Site banned for 3 months to cool his jets"


  • #1588
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    5rtytry56 wrote: »
    Funnier still when a mod posts a note along the lines of "gugleguy cannot post anymore. Site banned for 3 months to cool his jets"

    That's nearly half the craic....watching everyone push it further and further...

    Until some lad geos too far.....and intervention is necessary (which rather suprisingly I don't mind)....kinda pushing boundaries the whole time Is gas like.....basically I'm just an over sized teenager :D


  • #1589
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    tomwaterford wrote: »
    The small part of me,that likes to see the world burn...

    Loves these disputes over relatively small issues that get blown outta proportion....as they can be gas to look at from outside looking in
    tomwaterford wrote: »
    That's nearly half the craic....watching everyone push it further and further...

    Until some lad geos too far.....and intervention is necessary....kinda pushing boundaries the whole time Is gas like.....basically I'm just an over sized teenager :D

    Happy to be of service. :pac:


  • #1590
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 31,031 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »
    Calling people who disagree with chat threads ‘****’ and then posters on this thread liking the ‘****’ comment isn’t exactly welcoming. Then a 3 on 1 ‘suggestion’ that you post on that same thread...eh...lemme think about that one....🀔😳

    On this point, did you pay any attention to the account that made that post? They signed up, made 5 posts, called some people "****", then closed their account after the "****" comment was moderated. It's absolutely not proof of anything other than the fact that someone trolled you (and very effectively at that, seeing as you're still going on about it).

    If I was a more paranoid man I'd suggest it was a deliberate act of sabotage by members of the opposition...


  • Advertisement
  • #1591
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    On this point, did you pay any attention to the account that made that post? They signed up, made 5 posts, called some people "****", then closed their account after the "****" comment was moderated. It's absolutely not proof of anything other than the fact that someone trolled you (and very effectively at that, seeing as you're still going on about it).

    I think a large part of his point was the people who thanked the post. Some of them might now unthank it but I took a screengrab!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement