Poll - should the forum remain? (no plans to close it!)

[dailywaffle]

... and to be honest currently the (very very minor) flamewars are worse on there (stand up Dailywaffle) since Bill and me2 stopped 'aving a go.

Having contributed to a few rugby forums over the years I would agree that 'flamewars' are pretty tame, if I can put it that way, here on the Offy. Most other forums are far more robust, be that the Unoffy, Rugby Rebels, Gwl@d etc. Whether or not the Offy has a problem or could otherwise be improved is not, IMO, anything to do with forum abuse.

Despite Rizzo's protestations I believe that the poll, as constructed, is of little value due to the self-selection of the electorate. What would be more useful would be a thread canvassing suggested improvements. The previously mentioned daily / weekly limit on posts being a rather good idea.

[Rizzo]

Whenever (a politician - small p) says he has no plans to do x this a sure sign he is considering doing x.

Customer service is what marketeers call selling.

Research is what marketeers call justifying their preconceived ideas.

if that is an implied dig at the club, then you are entirely wrong. The poll was constructed and created by me, off my own bat, for my own purpose, interest and curiosity. The club did not request it, instruct on it or comment about it.

Dailywaffle - if people have sensible suggestions for improvements then by all means add them here.

[Bill W (2)]

Whenever (a politician - small p) says he has no plans to do x this a sure sign he is considering doing x.

Customer service is what marketeers call selling.

Research is what marketeers call justifying their preconceived ideas.

if that is an implied dig at the club, then you are entirely wrong. The poll was constructed and created by me, off my own bat, for my own purpose, interest and curiosity. The club did not request it, instruct on it or comment about it..

Rizzo,

It most certainly was not a dig at the club. Or of you.

It was a (apparantly unappreciated) light hearted comment intended to diffuse the conspiracy theorists and others.

PM me if you have a concern.

[Tigers Tiger]

An interesting stat would be how many of the 1st 1,000 or so posters on here, do still post on here, or have found other sites preferable.
I joined this forum on the 1st day it went public, but very rarely post now.

[Bill W (2)]

An interesting stat would be how many of the 1st 1,000 or so posters on here, do still post on here, or have found other sites preferable.
I joined this forum on the 1st day it went public, but very rarely post now.

You could research this yourself via the "Members" button although it would not show what other sites they use.

It maybe that Rizzo and those with higher level access could do this more easily. They could also contact those who no longer post.

[dailywaffle]

Dailywaffle - if people have sensible suggestions for improvements then by all means add them here.

Excellent.

Just to be clear, does my suggestion (shamelessly copied from another poster on this thread) of a daily or weekly post limit for all users pass the sensible test?

[Kinoulton]

Just to be clear, does my suggestion (shamelessly copied from another poster on this thread) of a daily or weekly post limit for all users pass the sensible test?

In my opinion only, no.

Where does one draw this virtuous line? E.g. Some people post more than Dailywaffle and some post less. What's the right amount of posts?

There are days on end when I only get time to dip into a few threads and have no time to write much myself. But I really don't care how much everyone else writes. They can write War & Peace for all I care. I don't have to read it.

[Old Hob]

Just to be clear, does my suggestion (shamelessly copied from another poster on this thread) of a daily or weekly post limit for all users pass the sensible test?

In my opinion only, no.

Where does one draw this virtuous line? E.g. Some people post more than Dailywaffle and some post less. What's the right amount of posts?

There are days on end when I only get time to dip into a few threads and have no time to write much myself. But I really don't care how much everyone else writes. They can write War & Peace for all I care. I don't have to read it.

Agree

(BTW Bill, it's "defuse")

[Cliffeclimber]

It looks like I'm with the majority - I read regularly, but don't post very often.

I really enjoy some of the comments and banter, but find the more pedantic posts rather tedious. I know I don't have to read them, but how do I know they are going to be a waste of time until I have read them?

I hope we've satisfied your curiosity Rizzo.

[me2]

I rarely bother to read this site anymore, preferring to use other forums (fora?) instead.

The principal reasons are that I feel this site is now largely the plaything of one poster who, paradoxically manages to post lots in terms of volume but little in terms of substance.

I do still occasionally lurk on here, waiting for the rare occasion when threads of substance appear (though these are rarely, if ever, started by the site's self-imposed alpha-male) and for that reason I do believe this forum has some degree of purpose.

That said, such threads are increasingly few & far between compared to other Tigers/rugby messageboards, hence why my visits are far less frequent than before. Former regulars such as Dailywaffle, Iain, Dave Angel & Kornboy are sadly, by me at least, and this site is poorer for in their absence/silence.


I'd echo DW's suggestion of a weekly post limit as I believe it would encourage quality over quantity. However I couldn't ever see it working as it would only lead to the same individual(s) creating multiple identities to circumvent the restrictions.

[kpb]

To be honest what does it matter if you post 1 or 101 posts a day? That's what forum/message boards are there for.

I wouldn't use a forum that was 'heavy going' and would rather something more light hearted which is why i post on here.

[tb1]

I have found that some of the 'pedants' have left to post elsewhere, or slag off the Offy, e.g.

"There are a number of posters who want to talk about rugby versus a relatively small number of posters who want to troll every thread with their personal vendettas against the coaching staff or slightly disconcerting fascination with William Wesley F Twelvetrees."

I keep off the UnOffy for that reason - oh and that bizarre love of 'Mornington Crescent'. Funny if it's Humph, not otherwise.

You can quote me if you like, I am not ashamed of those comments.

There are a number of posters on this forum I am interested in reading, a whole bunch more I am ambivalent about and approximately 4 who (for me) trash the experience.

In internet parlance they are known as trolls.

On other forums there is the option to say what you think of them in a more forthright manner and generally castigate their tedious behaviour, or alternatively the moderators remove them in a timely manner.

Since personal abuse is not tolerated on this forum and it seems currently beyond the moderators' purview to deal with these trolls, they continue to damage the forum as a whole.

Since this forum is hosted by Tigers I don't expect they can be seen to allow us to abuse the trolls and have bad language etc. on their website. Therefore my suggestion is that the moderators more strongly police threads and try to keep them on topic. Persistent attempts by any poster to drive threads off topic should be punished with warnings and bans.

If this group want to continue their tedious and endless disparagement (that is what it is, not the excuse of "suggesting improvements") then they should reserve it to a particular thread that can be safely ignored.

[thebearisstilldeano]

Perhas this should be made a "sticky"?

Sorry Bill W (2) - that might just be my dribble.

[dailywaffle]

To be honest what does it matter if you post 1 or 101 posts a day? That's what forum/message boards are there for.

If this message board is a place for individual posters to swamp many threads with oft repeated views and comments, often of little instrinsic value, then it only confirms that this forum is no longer for me. Which is a shame, as I rather enjoyed contributing to discussions on here. At least until it became apparent, following the departure of other regulars, that this had become a personal fiefdom.

Some clearly have no problem with an excess of quantity over quality, and they are entitled to their view. However the unwillingness to curb the excesses of some has, for me and others, completely ruined what was once an enjoyable experience.