Mod. Notice Adelaide BigFooty Board Feedback Opportunity

[CrowBloke]

This thread has turned into a pseudo intellectual wank fest.

I hasten to point out that use of the term "pseudo intellectual" is, um, well, pseudo intellectual ... (<== wasn't sure which would convey best the lighthearted tone, so I used a bunch of them)

 

[King Elvis]

I was bullied about van Berlo. People constantly asking me if I want to bang him, if I am him, and if I'm his father.

I mean what sort of weird freaky shit did they think was going on in my house hold?

Distinction between being bullied and people taking the piss?

 

[fabs33]

New Topic: open threads

When a game finishes, someone opens a Team Changes thread. Then someone starts a Preview / Face-Off thread. Then there's a Game Day thread.

How would posters feel if the Team Changes thread was locked and discussion moved to the preview thread once the P/FO thread opened, and the P/FO thread locked and discussion moved to the Game Day thread when that opened?

I don't think that's such a good idea. The changes and P/FO threads serve as two distinct spaces for two separate topics. They're related but not the same. The P/FO threads are a more open and broad discussion space where you can discuss pretty much anything to do with our games, it's a place where opposition supporters can share their thoughts as well. The changes threads are a beast on their own with discussions being long and often heated. You merge the two and you lose all that the P/FO has to offer in a sea of discussion about what happened on Thursday. I get that the P/FO threads might sometimes not get the attention they deserve, sometimes even forgotten with people jumping straight from the changes threads to the gameday threads, but the changes threads serve a valuable purpose as independent threads by keeping all that discussion contained in one place preventing it from drowning every other pregame topic.

 

[Rave Slave]

I was bullied about van Berlo. People constantly asking me if I want to bang him, if I am him, and if I'm his father.

I mean what sort of weird freaky shit did they think was going on in my house hold?

No comment

 

[fabs33]

I was bullied about van Berlo. People constantly asking me if I want to bang him, if I am him, and if I'm his father.

I mean what sort of weird freaky shit did they think was going on in my house hold?

Do we really want to know what happens at VB temple?

 

[Southerntakeover]

Bullies, the lot of you.

 

[CrowBloke]

Ahh, this is one of those things where written word doesnt convey tone.
... I was being facetious.

OK, gotcha.

 

[fabs33]

Bullies, the lot of you.

The irony is that future discussion's regarding VB are likely to revolve around his ability to coach and I might end up switching to your side on that front.

 

[John Who]

I think at the end of the day, Mods/Admins need to figure out what they want with the forum, and how forceful the Mods need to be with the rules.
There seems to be personal agendas with to and fro, and no real further advancements in discussions.
Discussions will be pointless without a judge/jury. Seems like members cannot be the judge/jury, but only the Mods/Admins can.
I can see some things as being personal attacks, and others will jump on the against argument that there is only light banter.
I can cry "cyber bullying", and others will say "stop being an attention seeker".
I can make a funny joke, and others will still call me a "troll".

So there will always be indifferences, I think we can all agree.

Bottom line, is that the Mods need to act the role of the "umpire" and make the rules apply to EVERYONE. No individual/selective bias, as we (the members of the forum) all belong in the same team. Boundaries to be set by rules, Mods to enforce them with warnings or temporary bans if rules are not heeded to.
Democracy rules, but no rules mean chaos!

 

[feenix67]

I hasten to point out that use of the term "pseudo intellectual" is, um, well, pseudo intellectual ... (<== wasn't sure which would convey best the lighthearted tone, so I used a bunch of them)

Oh, I'm sure you did "hasten to point out"

 

[Squiba]

Oh, I'm sure you did "hasten to point out"

Sometimes I reckon we could be a bit harsher on the port flogs/oppo trolls. It sure isnt as accomadating over there. Otherwise, I am pretty happy with the moderation of the site. No complaints.

I am just wondering what the status is of the dearly departed Sam/Alex, and whether they are near returning to the board? May I suggest, that should they want to return, we could have a very strict rule set for them to follow such as: No alias, posts should be constructive, post in x y z threads only etc, until they have proven they are somewhat capable of rejoining bigfooty life.

With Sam, for example, he could be allowed in the punters thread (relatively little traffic), Non-Crows discussion (High flow, maybe a posts/day limit) and the SANFL thread (where Sam arguably made his most valuable contributions to the board).

I understand some would be pissed off at the suggestipn. But his contributions in the SANFL thread in particular were a great part of the board, and if we can ease him into it, he may perhaps become a valued contributor. He was obviously in a dark place at the time and, should those in the know think he is ready, coming back could help that.

Just an idea.

 

[GrommoT]

Just read the article Sam Jacobs wrote today in the paper about footballers' mental health. Interesting that he singled out three players for a mention with regard to social media - Mackay 'won't go near it', VB won't, and Scott Thompson uses it sparingly.

Does worry me that one day the vitriol we as supporters give to some players will result in some form of break down or worse. It is fine during a game to say he's playing poorly - but sometimes the personal comments go to far. I'm glad dmac keeps away, he's a smart man.

 

[Sanders]

I am surprised that some people still think that the issue is positive versus negative, or criticism is not allowed. Only a fool would argue for that. People are annoyed with the tone of the criticism. I.e. the non-reasoned, non-logical abuse.

Saying someone only wants positive comments distorts the debate and is either disingenuous or poor comprehension. I suspect the former, so let's have this conversation without the strawman.

I assume this is intended to be ironic?

 

[Sanders]

This thread has turned into a pseudo intellectual wank fest.

pseudo is being kind

 

[Southerntakeover]

pseudo is being kind

Oi

 

[Huntercrow]

I'm not sure it's the charter of big footy to be monitoring the type and level of support on each team forum.
Some posters want an exclusive kind of club support that they are comfortable with.
When times are tough posters generally split in to two camps. Those that are angry at the club and those that are protective of the club. I have an issue when one camp tries to silence the other.
The whole point of a discussion forum is to publicise your thoughts. Bigfooty has always been good at allowing people to do this. The moderation system works quite well on the Adelaide board. People including visitors from other boards can generally say what they feel within the rules of our board.

There are good reasons why posters have differing opinions. It amazes me how posters whom I respect for their contributions to the board can be so close minded on certain subjects. It's as if they are the custodians of an idea or a theory either at a club level or of an individual player. It seems once they have formed an opinion on Bigfooty then nothing including positive proof will change that thinking. But this is all ok it's part of the discussion.
Until they try to influence Bigfooty to exclude any other thought process but their own.

 

[dylan123]

New Topic: open threads

When a game finishes, someone opens a Team Changes thread. Then someone starts a Preview / Face-Off thread. Then there's a Game Day thread.

How would posters feel if the Team Changes thread was locked and discussion moved to the preview thread once the P/FO thread opened, and the P/FO thread locked and discussion moved to the Game Day thread when that opened?

Like everything on this board, thread has blows way out of proportion so I haven't bothered to read all the pages nor do I tend to but with the above, I hate when other boards do that.

If people want to continue whatever discussion was happening in those threads or bump a post later on, then so be it. It's not like we need to direct traffic on here to get posting up in other threads and they're all getting hammered as it is.

 

[jenny61_99]

I'm not sure it's the charter of big footy to be monitoring the type and level of support on each team forum.
Some posters want an exclusive kind of club support that they are comfortable with.
When times are tough posters generally split in to two camps. Those that are angry at the club and those that are protective of the club. I have an issue when one camp tries to silence the other.
The whole point of a discussion forum is to publicise your thoughts. Bigfooty has always been good at allowing people to do this. The moderation system works quite well on the Adelaide board. People including visitors from other boards can generally say what they feel within the rules of our board.

There are good reasons why posters have differing opinions. It amazes me how posters whom I respect for their contributions to the board can be so close minded on certain subjects. It's as if they are the custodians of an idea or a theory either at a club level or of an individual player. It seems once they have formed an opinion on Bigfooty then nothing including positive proof will change that thinking. But this is all ok it's part of the discussion.
Until they try to influence Bigfooty to exclude any other thought process but their own.

Who is trying to exclude other thought processes exactly?

 

[jenny61_99]

Distinction between being bullied and people taking the piss?

Very fine line. Taking the piss is ok... as long as it's not sustained and focussed. Once you get a group of individuals constantly "taking the piss" out of another person, it becomes a form of bullying.

 

[Vhaluus]

I know the game day threads are treated with a much laxer attitude than other threads but the mods can't just let anything go in them.

If there is clear harassment of a poster there's still an obligation to step in and sort it if it's reported.

Moderators can't pull the 'Well you should report it' excuse for letting things go and then fail to act on reports.

 

[Deaneus!]

Moderators can't pull the 'Well you should report it' excuse for letting things go and then fail to act on reports.

Example?

 

[Roovolution]

I am surprised that some people still think that the issue is positive versus negative, or criticism is not allowed. Only a fool would argue for that. People are annoyed with the tone of the criticism. I.e. the non-reasoned, non-logical abuse.

Saying someone only wants positive comments distorts the debate and is either disingenuous or poor comprehension. I suspect the former, so let's have this conversation without the strawman.

Bollocks. it pisses most posters off that no matter what mistakes the club/coach/player makes a certain poster will defend the club. That's bordering on propaganda. There is no reasoned debate or genuine contribution to the forum there is only one opinion that's allowed. Have to view the club as being correct in whatever it does. Stupidity and blindness and when others who can actually look at something critically suggest the club has made a mistake then we have to put up with the incesssnt whingeing that the club is on top of the ladder so is therefore beyond reproach.

The mods take care of anything that is offensive etc so your whole argument is invalid. This is their job and if comments get through the 'filter' and yet you're still offended then perhaps you need to drink a cup of concrete and harden up.

And if you're going to argue that the tone of the board is too negative then you need to come to the realisation that the board is a reflection of the sum of its members. If the board is 'too negative' then that shows that the club isn't getting it right often enough otherwise the board would be more positive. And who are you to try and dictate the tone of the board and lecture others who don't drink the bath water?

 

[Roovolution]

Look, I'm trying very hard to convey this in a polite way: I don't care about your lunatic MRA rantings. Repetition won't cure that.

Just to clarify, are you calling MRA's lunatics?

 

[dogs105]

Bollocks. it pisses most posters off that no matter what mistakes the club/coach/player makes a certain poster will defend the club. That's bordering on propaganda. There is no reasoned debate or genuine contribution to the forum there is only one opinion that's allowed. Have to view the club as being correct in whatever it does. Stupidity and blindness and when others who can actually look at something critically suggest the club has made a mistake then we have to put up with the incesssnt whingeing that the club is on top of the ladder so is therefore beyond reproach.

The mods take care of anything that is offensive etc so your whole argument is invalid. This is their job and if comments get through the 'filter' and yet you're still offended then perhaps you need to drink a cup of concrete and harden up.

And if you're going to argue that the tone of the board is too negative then you need to come to the realisation that the board is a reflection of the sum of its members. If the board is 'too negative' then that shows that the club isn't getting it right often enough otherwise the board would be more positive. And who are you to try and dictate the tone of the board and lecture others who don't drink the bath water?

Um, I'm not arguing that the tone is too negative. That's exactly my point. Some posters think the debate is about positive/negative. It should be about how that negativity is framed, and not be like a whinging toddler. People can be as positive or negative as they like. Just don't post like a douche.

Have a read through the post you quoted again, and focus on what it actually says, not just what you want to argue about. I said that only a fool would argue for criticism not being allowed.

 

[jenny61_99]

Bollocks. it pisses most posters off that no matter what mistakes the club/coach/player makes a certain poster will defend the club. That's bordering on propaganda. There is no reasoned debate or genuine contribution to the forum there is only one opinion that's allowed. Have to view the club as being correct in whatever it does. Stupidity and blindness and when others who can actually look at something critically suggest the club has made a mistake then we have to put up with the incesssnt whingeing that the club is on top of the ladder so is therefore beyond reproach.

The mods take care of anything that is offensive etc so your whole argument is invalid. This is their job and if comments get through the 'filter' and yet you're still offended then perhaps you need to drink a cup of concrete and harden up.

And if you're going to argue that the tone of the board is too negative then you need to come to the realisation that the board is a reflection of the sum of its members. If the board is 'too negative' then that shows that the club isn't getting it right often enough otherwise the board would be more positive. And who are you to try and dictate the tone of the board and lecture others who don't drink the bath water?

Can you please show me where ANYONE has suggested that this be the case? Is comprehension a problem in here?