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

Time For A Bit of Forum Feedback

1…456810

Comments

  • #212
    fenris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,075 ✭✭✭fenris


    You love it the way it is - I get that.
    You don't want it to change - good for you.
    Trying to stiffle feedback in a feedback thread through personal attacks - lovely.

    I quaill before your superior post count as evidence of your superior intellect and rapier wit, should I like you go forth and rage spam half though out responses to half read posts to meet your exacting criteria and earn the right to have an opinion?

    Personally I prefer to have a higher posting signal to noise ratio, I have been around this forum from the beginning, I try to post only when I have something of value to add.
    As this is a feedback thread, I am giving my feedback on what changes would make it more likely for me to post here, if I didn't give a toss I would not bother.
    "Ah they're all a bunch of wishy washy PC ones who don't know what real gents discussion is" - nice strawman built from your words not mine feel free to play with it all by yourself.

    Who is afraid of women? (well, you say everyone, but just a few names will do) - you can put this with your other strawman.

    Just in case you are genuine and not just a troll, I will try one last time.

    My opinion is that posters tip toe around topics that may be perceived as bringing female disapproval, that is not the same as being scared of women, I though that was pretty clear.

    Male and female communication is different, you can meet in the middle at the lowest common denominator but that loses the nuances of both sides, thinks of the impact of the girl who thinks she is one of the lads or the guy who thinks he is one of the girls on any conversation of depth.
    If you really and honestly think there is no difference, then you just might be one of those people who think that they are a great craic but bear more resemblance to a great crack. Time to ask a real friend, seriously.

    Pawwed Rig genuinely tried to help you understand, you don't at the moment, maybe you will someday, hopefully before you put your foot too deeply in it.

    I am also talking about a spiral of self censorship devaluing discussion and also pointing out that tLL do not have that problem because they are clear about their purpose and moderate based on the fact that if you are there then you have chosen to be there like it or leave it. Robust banter happens there and is useful, female nuanced communication is encouraged there and is a useful part of the culture of that board.

    I am suggesting that a similar moderation approach would work here and turn this forum into something more useful to the male boards population and to the females who actually want some insight.

    I am also stating that in its current form tGC does not fulfil that potential in an effective manner, it currently sits in a confused middle ground and is in danger of fading into irrelevance as BGRH or AH light with a touch of springboard to PI or humanities i.e. no real identity, more of a hallway than a room.

    I think that this would be a shame as it could be a very good forum that may assist males by offering a background level of callibration at times when it is very badly needed but will not be asked for, for a variety or reasons. Proportional reaction, perspective, resiliance, restraint, normal reference, ultimate selfishness - please think about it a little bit before you respond.

    Feedback has been sought by the mods and delivered by a good few posters who have put some though into their responses, it is up to the mods to decide what to do with it.

    The result will decide the direction of the forum going forward, people will then stay or go as appropriate for them and the world will go on for another day.


  • #213
    yawha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    Can you give examples of some of the things we're afraid to say because we're afraid of female disapproval?


  • #214
    fenris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,075 ✭✭✭fenris


    Easy on the eye thread - compare and contrast with its sister thread without cringing at the treatment here.

    Any real reference to men having any let alone equal rights especially after marital breakup.

    would be two very basic but very representative examples, the smaller stuff follows suit.


  • #215
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    fenris wrote: »

    My opinion is that posters tip toe around topics that may be perceived as bringing female disapproval, that is not the same as being scared of women, I though that was pretty clear.

    You can't possibly know why posters don't post certain things. You can certainly explain why you don't post certain things, but you can only speak for yourself.

    I agree with awec, I think that the reason there isn't more discussion of the type you're talking about is because it doesn't interest the majority of posters on this forum. There was a demand for a LTI forum, so there is an LTI forum. There was a demand for a Watches forum, so there's a watches forum. Why isn't there a mens rights forum??

    Presuming that more men don't talk about these subjects because there are women posting on the forum is a huge leap, imo.


  • #216
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    fenris, leave out the snide little digs and personal comments please


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Maguined
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    tbh wrote: »
    There was a demand for a LTI forum, so there is an LTI forum. There was a demand for a Watches forum, so there's a watches forum. Why isn't there a mens rights forum??

    Wasn't this asked for but rejected as the admins said it was covered by the TGC charter?


  • #218
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Maguined wrote: »
    Wasn't this asked for but rejected as the admins said it was covered by the TGC charter?

    actually, you could be right - I went through the forums request forum but I couldn't find anything - I do remember a forum like this being requested tho - can't remember why it was rejected.

    However, the point remains that threads like the ones being discussed are allowed in tGC, and I would argue that the reason they aren't there is because most people aren't interested in starting them, not because they are being closed and deleted.


  • #219
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Dr Galen wrote: »
    There can't and won't be any free for alls. Not that I think that this is what you arguing for TC, just sayin is all.
    At the discretion of the moderators, which is oddly enough what has been criticized - that this judgement has been found lacking in a number of demonstrable cases, some cited here.

    I also note that your response has made no reference whatsoever to improvements in past moderation biases, that even you acknowledged earlier.
    I also wouldn't be a huge fan of threads becoming just a place to bash feminism etc. That isn't what it should be about.
    Are you suggesting that we may not criticize Feminism here? Perhaps even mention it? Or is a little criticism allowed? How much? Another subjective case of the discretion of the moderators?
    Arguments should stand on their own two feet without resorting to he said she said or they have so why can't we type stuff.
    Such arguments tend to arise when someone begins to contradict themselves. If you want to avoid them, consistency is a good strategy to follow.
    There is a fine line here I'd feel, some discussions will be better suited to going to the Humanties forum, others best served by staying here.
    On the basis of what criteria? I ask this because other than being rather mutable and often contradictory, the boundaries imposed by tGC moderators stifle any discussion which goes beyond any tepid posting. You might not like anyone to 'bash' Feminism, but a ruthless examination of what it even stands for is incredibly important to the topic of men's rights, especially as some of its proponents seek to sell the idea that support of Feminism somehow also equates to support of men's rights.
    Finally, it has to be recognised, that a lot of people just aren't interested in the Men's Rights agenda.
    So what? There's plenty of other topics on tGC that lot of people just aren't interested in, but oddly are not singled out in the same way - why raise this red herring?

    As per my original post here then, why not cut men's rights loose rather than this clearly dubious support for them? Shall you support the creation of a separate men's rights board so you no longer need to suffer such threads here?

    Or would you prefer to keep it here specifically so you can stifle discussion?
    Maguined wrote: »
    Wasn't this asked for but rejected as the admins said it was covered by the TGC charter?
    Essentially this was the reason.

    The other reason, which I suspect is largely shared by the moderators here, is that it could be too much hassle. Moderation of such a forum would require multiple mods and would eat up a lot more time than dating threads. To begin with there's a fine line between criticism of Feminism and misogynistic rants, which would have to be kept in line and that's before one considers the onslaught it would likely suffer from Feminist supporters.

    However, the need is there and I do not believe that tGC is fulfilling it.


  • #220
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,179 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    This post has been deleted.


  • #221
    Maguined
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    tbh wrote: »
    actually, you could be right - I went through the forums request forum but I couldn't find anything - I do remember a forum like this being requested tho - can't remember why it was rejected.

    However, the point remains that threads like the ones being discussed are allowed in tGC, and I would argue that the reason they aren't there is because most people aren't interested in starting them, not because they are being closed and deleted.

    I remember at the time it was requested some threads discussing these issues were being a bit heavily modded and closed in my opinion anyway (which is what led to a separate forum request) however I think this has improved in the last while so such threads are allowed to be created and continue in TGC so I do feel it is being properly covered by the charter these days which I am happy about.

    I also agree these threads are not as numerous or active as they could be out of general lack of interest rather than mod intervention now. I just hope the mods continue to allow these threads to be created and discussed and fade out naturally as they are now. Some have complained these threads are soap boxing which I do not agree with so I hope nothing changes in that regard. I think the current approach to these threads by the mods is just about right as is.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    awec wrote: »
    The moderators and the charter are not here to steer the discussions in a certain direction. They are here to ensure posts in this forum abide by the rules and fall within the remit of this forum. It's up to the posters themselves to steer discussion.
    I fear you've missed the point.

    No one is suggesting that men's rights should be the most important topic here, however even if it is of less interest to those who frequent this forum than 'fluff' topics, it is nonetheless of interest to a not insignificant number of posters - and not simply a handful of vocal ones, which is what some would love you to believe.

    The problem is that how such threads have been handled here betrays a negative bias by the moderators; examples have already been given in this thread of threads moved because they're 'more suitable to Humanities' or closed because they were 'going around in circles'.

    Yet threads such as the online dating thread could equally be argued to be 'more suitable to After Hours' or closed because they were 'going around in circles' too. But this is not what happens. This is the bone of contention, so I have no idea what other point you're attempting to make.

    But ultimately whether there is less demand in men's rights threads or not is a red herring, because it does not imply there is no demand and has nothing to do with the criticisms that have been levied here.


  • #223
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Maguined wrote: »
    I also agree these threads are not as numerous or active as they could be out of general lack of interest rather than mod intervention now. I just hope the mods continue to allow these threads to be created and discussed and fade out naturally as they are now. Some have complained these threads are soap boxing which I do not agree with so I hope nothing changes in that regard. I think the current approach to these threads by the mods is just about right as is.
    I had pretty much stopped posting on these topics up until recently because of past moderation policy (I think the thread that was first closed then shunted to Humanities was kind of the last straw for me) and I know that I was not alone in this regard.

    I would tentatively say that the moderation may have improved, but I'm still weary of the fact that the currently live men's rights thread here could be closed down or exiled under some pretext at any stage.


  • #224
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,179 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    This post has been deleted.


  • #225
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    awec wrote: »
    Your point is there is not enough discussion of topics like mens right.
    No, that has never been my point. Where on Earth have I suggested this?


  • #226
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,179 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    This post has been deleted.


  • #227
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    awec wrote: »
    You are trying to promote discussions like this. You are saying these discussions haven't thrived due to moderator policy. This to me indicates you don't feel there is enough discussion of these topics and with a different moderator policy these discussions would be busier.
    Does it indicate to you that I'm also a secret member of the order of the knights Templar too? Because that's kind of the jump in logic you've made there.

    I've argued that the existing threads tend to be closed, moved or otherwise censored. If they were not, perhaps there might be slightly more threads, also because people would post who tend not to bother due to the moderation here, but I doubt they would become anywhere as popular as the 'fluff' threads.

    Talk about jumping to conclusions...


  • #228
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,179 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    This post has been deleted.


  • #229
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    awec wrote: »
    They do? How do you know?
    It's called private messaging.


  • #230
    fenris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,075 ✭✭✭fenris


    How much clearer can he be?

    Don't mistake cause for effect.

    There are less threads because the mod style is perceived as hostile to those topics and they end up being shunted or shut down in some manner.
    The message is pretty clear -don't talk about it here.

    The issue as I see it is that if you cannot discuss items of genuine male interest in any depth in a forum called tGC then what is the difference between tGC and AH or BGRH?

    There is a lot good about tGC, we just seem to veer away from certain areas in a panicky knee jerk manner that does not seem representative and in my opinion does a disservice to the forum as a whole.

    If you read a thread from AH or most other forums you could probably tell where it came from, there is an identity and style consistent with the forum culture. Could you do the same with tGC at the moment?

    I am frustrated because I see the forum as nearly there but shying away in the final stretch.

    A feedback thread that asks what people would like to see and any suggested change or request for clarity is shouted down by folks who either couldn't be bothered reading the post before responding or willfully misinterpret the original statement.

    Agree, disagree, whatever you want with opinions, I don't see why certain posters have taken it upon themselves to be judge and jury to the validity of the opinions expressed in the feedback thread, elsewhere it would probably be classed as backseat modding.

    Let it all go into the pot and let the mods pull out the parts that they think are manageable and appropriate for the forum going forward, maybe even give a bit of clear guidance as to the rationale going forward.

    The feedback thread is in fairness a fairly representative snapshot of the forum content and conduct.


  • #231
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,179 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    awec wrote: »
    Can you back this up?
    Actually I already did. I said I had begun to shy away from starting or even contributing to threads here and that, privately, others had said this also.

    This is not to suggest that suddenly if moderation policy changed, we would suddenly be swamped with with new threads, but I do think that it is fair to say there would probably be more.

    TBH, I really don't know why this particular point is such a big issue for you. All it seems to do is distract from the actual criticisms that have been made.


  • #233
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,356 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    If any thread has to be shut down by a mod regardless of the reason, it is most likely a reaction to something that has occurred on the thread.

    I don't see a reason why there'd be a problem discussing men's rights or any range of topics relating to or from a man's perspective.

    The problem that can occur from it and I've seen it happen here in tGC before is that a poster who holds a strong opinion can destroy a thread by constantly trying to push it. The only threads I've seen this occur in, coincidentally are a couple of threads relating to men's rights. Forget about the topic though, it's the attitude within a thread that'll cause it to be closed.


  • #234
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    The problem that can occur from it and I've seen it happen here in tGC before is that a poster who holds a strong opinion can destroy a thread by constantly trying to push it. The only threads I've seen this occur in, coincidentally are a couple of threads relating to men's rights. Forget about the topic though, it's the attitude within a thread that'll cause it to be closed.
    Examples please?


  • #235
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,356 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Examples please?

    I've gone back a fare few pages trying to find'em. It was quite some time ago so can't really remember the specifics. But that's what it was down to.


  • #236
    Maguined
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    The problem that can occur from it and I've seen it happen here in tGC before is that a poster who holds a strong opinion can destroy a thread by constantly trying to push it. The only threads I've seen this occur in, coincidentally are a couple of threads relating to men's rights. Forget about the topic though, it's the attitude within a thread that'll cause it to be closed.

    If it is down to an individual would that individual not be punished rather than the thread itself?

    Surely locking a thread is done when the thread itself violates the charter and not a individual posting on it?


  • #237
    Liam McPoyle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,846 ✭✭✭✭Liam McPoyle


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Dravokivich wrote: »
    The problem that can occur from it and I've seen it happen here in tGC before is that a poster who holds a strong opinion can destroy a thread by constantly trying to push it. The only threads I've seen this occur in, coincidentally are a couple of threads relating to men's rights. Forget about the topic though, it's the attitude within a thread that'll cause it to be closed.
    Examples please?


    I've asked you to provide examples of threads dealing SPECIFICALLY with mens rights or issues that were either locked or moved else where yet you declined to even try and do so.

    If you can throw around anecdotal opinions without any proof then what the hell gives you the right to ask for proof from anyone else?


  • #238
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    I've gone back a fare few pages trying to find'em. It was quite some time ago so can't really remember the specifics. But that's what it was down to.
    Well, we'll just trust you on that then...

    Conversely, in this thread a few examples of poor moderation have actually been given:

    One where the thread was first closed then later reopened but exiled to Humanities, and if you read it just before it was closed you'll find the excuse was that a few posts (not from the 'posters who hold a strong opinion') that were OTT from posters who jumped into the thread to give their tuppence worth. Deleting the posts, warning or infracting them was too much trouble it seems.

    The second was the now infamous Feminist blog 'research' thread, where the thread was closed at the request of the OP who had started the thread to get material for their blogpost without informing anyone that this was their purpose.


  • #239
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Necronos wrote: »
    I've asked you to provide examples of threads dealing SPECIFICALLY with mens rights or issues that were either locked or moved else where yet you declined to even try and do so.
    I didn't decline - I told you to look back in the thread where I'd already done so - and as you'll see above, I've done so again. Do you have any examples to the contrary?


  • #240
    Panthro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,057 ✭✭✭✭Panthro


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    The second was the now infamous Feminist blog 'research' thread, where the thread was closed at the request of the OP who had started the thread to get material for their blogpost without informing anyone that this was their purpose.

    Quick question seem as I'm the one that closed the second thread you mentioned, what would you have done yourself if the OP of a thread sent you a request to have a thread that they started to be closed?


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Panthro wrote: »
    Quick question seem as I'm the one that closed the second thread you mentioned, what would you have done yourself if the OP of a thread sent you a request to have a thread that they started to be closed?
    I would have posted that the thread had run its course and was going to be closed because of that, not at the OP's request. I would have added that the OP should not have opened the thread without disclosing their intentions and that for this I would at the very least infracted them for this, if not given a month's ban. Then I would have closed the thread.

    Instead you facilitated the very people who had deceived the other posters and closed the thread at their request, then failed to discipline them for what they did.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement