Player Sections

First topic message reminder :

ok guys. It's been a crazy week and I have been chatting to the other admin to try and come up with a solution.
First off, we can not have the feature that allows the thread starter to delete comments made on their thread. That was something the BBC had on 606, but our software here simply doesn't allow it.

There have been complaints that threads are derailed because of 'outside' interference and that positive threads are 'highjacked' and spoilt.

What we can do is have the player sections again. But we can set up usergroups so that only members in that usergroup can post in that player section. People not in the usergroup will not see the section, or any posts in it.

Obviously, if it is set up, we would need someone to 'head' their section, so that they can receive pm requests to join the usergroup. That 'head' can then ask the Admin to add said member to the usergroup, thus enabling them to post in the section. Our site rules would still apply to these sections.

If you would like this feature, please vote on the player (representing your own section) so that we can have an idea on numbers, and whether it is something you would like.

If this is set up, we would still like you all to post in the main tennis section also.

carrieg4 wrote:I know I am talking about a utopian forum and it is unlikely to happen TP. The kind of repetitive dross I was talking about has been written in various forms about many, many players. Isn't the point that this is our forum and we want it to be better than that?

BTW I would prefer not to have segregated sections as they may be counter-productive.

I guess the thing is carrie - I already think it is better than that - just look at how we are all talking here now, civilly with strong opinions and able to accept other views.

I don't think there is anything wrong with hoping for a utopian forum at all , but I am concerned that a utopia that stops all contentious comment may very soon develop into a dystopia where we can't say anything.

As long as we are able to keep listening to each other and exchanging frank views like this, I am hopeful that won't happen

time please wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

time please wrote:Legend - BB put it quite starkly, but I have to agree somewhat I am afraid with his sentiment because he is not talking about character assination - the points he mentioned about each player are, imvho, up for mentioning - they are all issues in the press or from comments from other players. Are we saying we can't discuss issues that are being so by other people. I don't think BB has crossed a line that I have seen - he is expressing a little frustration over an issue that is whether you believe in 'censorship' and he is doing it forcefully to make his point.

I think we should give a sh*t, but I think we must be very very careful that this is not the thin end of the wedge and we probably do need to debate this with some stronger opinions amongst regular posters to see where the line between contentious opinion and unallowed opinion is going to be drawn in our forum of choice.

And I reiterate - this is what worries me that we are actually beginning to talk about unallowed opinion when I know, and others know, that the fan forums have a much more relaxed attitude to remarks about other players than the one the forum is supporting.

I have to say TP I disagree.

If you adopt a 'debate everything' and nothing is taboo then tempers will boil over. What would I sooner discuss, tennis or what Murray's anti-english comment from 5 years ago?

Yes you can ignore it, but if I log in and see 9 out of 10 articles which are just inflamatory threads what will that encourage? Non-participation.

Then Non-participation = Forming of cliques, which you have said you are not keen on.

For me what did people want from this forum that they didn't get at 606? Civility and Sensibility.

If you want change and not willing to change the attitude before, then nature will run it's course and end up like this below....

I understand your point legend and I agree we don't want mindless threads clogging up the system - I just think we could handle this better. I do actually think the points BB put - are we able to discuss MTOs of Novak, Rafa's time wasting and is it deliberate, Fed's arrogance and sometimes starkly honest appraisal to the point of appearing ungracious, Murray's grumpiness and whether he has what it takes - if we are saying that we cannot discuss or mention points like these, then I have to say:

It's been great knowing you all, but I don't see the point of a forum that we can't as JHM says write things that may upset other people, when we are not doing so to cause offence but to express our opinion.

And, I will ask again - all of you that are on Murrays fan forum or Rafateers or both, if this place has player sections are you going to abandon those quiet forums and post here more regularly?

I have never had a problem with MTO's being discussed. I have always had a problem people saying 'it is fact that it was tactical' without the proof to back such a claim. It is much easier to discuss MTO's as a subject, then the player using them. That discussion did encourage innovative ideas, even Tenez suggested a tariff for them which was a very good idea.

The whole respect a poster comes down to the 'opinion' of the poster. For example Tenez's views tend to have him labelled as an unpleasant individual. Which is far from the case.

Posters like Tenez is what this forum needs.

Posters like SDB, Djoker and Eraldeen is not what the forum needs.

actually this thread has seen plenty of civilised debate, and in an ideal world if we could all keep civilised like this then the forum would be absolutely fine. Of course this could also be because the more perturbative elements (I'm sure people know who I'm talking about) have stayed away from it (given that these people don't actually want to improve the forum IMO).

Building a 'wall' (aka fan sections) is building a place which will become a ghetto sooner or later. Fan sections can be considered in-breeding.

The slow death of 'variety' of the debater pool is very much on the horizon with the partitioning of 606v2 Tennis.

If based on a personal like/dislike of a specific comment on a thread, it can be ignored, or a whole article can be avoided.

If there is sh*t on the side-walk, there are some who walk around it, while there are some who wallow in it.

I agree with JHMs elitism, separatism comments. Sections are just a manifestation of all such and similar qualities.

To the unified 606v2 Tennis section.

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't think worthwhile contentious opinion would be supressed.
But if the board is full of repetitive mindless player-bashing, or mindless player-worshipping for that matter, whilst I wouldn't want it censored, it's just boring and I probably wouldn't bother much with the forum. And I doubt new members would bother either.

You still would because we all did on 606 and it was far much worse there. If there are 5 great posters and a 1000 wums one can still manage to have a great tennis discussion with those 5 posters. That is without considering that many wum articles have led to the greatest threads. I am not posting here cause I find you all sensible and knowledgeable just because I enjoy some discussions with some posters and even enjoy those against I completely disagree.

If CC hadn't bitten on SDB's post(s) (I haven't read any of it so I don't really know)....we probably woudl have had no need of such a thread and the Congrats Andy thread would have been history a long time ago.

But then that's why SL and yummy become outspoken because while CC tried to debate with Smelly But Deadly, it wasn't becoming constructive in the slightest. SL and yummy will stick the boot in because it is almost like trying to put a flame out before it becomes a fire.

Why not then say to the poster being annoying, make a valid informed opinion or clear off. CC tried to engage in sensible debate before being labelled a 'worshipper or fanboy'

Change can only happen if those want it to change.....

I am sorry I don't think those two posters have conducted themselves well at all. Yummy was very sweet and funny at one time but only comes over to pick a fight and sounds out of it almost always nowadays - her extraordinary attack on socal just because she was bored of seeing him post the same thing (no one was aware she had been around) and resulting, once again, in several of her posts being removed because they were abusive and aggressive in the extreme. Boo has made it perfectly clear that he has a great dislike for 3 posters which has clouded, unfortunately his comments and his judgement - I loathed seeing him publicly 'out' one poster as having a different id on 606 and in a particularly unpleasant fashion, his use of 'toilet man' in a sneering way to BB who has not sunk down to that kind of insult in return.....shall I go on.

Please, don't let us use yummy or Boo as yardsticks or what is acceptable or understandable - because that is my line in the sand - unacceptable to behave like that to fellow posters, just totally not on.

time please wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't think worthwhile contentious opinion would be supressed.
But if the board is full of repetitive mindless player-bashing, or mindless player-worshipping for that matter, whilst I wouldn't want it censored, it's just boring and I probably wouldn't bother much with the forum. And I doubt new members would bother either.

You still would because we all did on 606 and it was far much worse there. If there are 5 great posters and a 1000 wums one can still manage to have a great tennis discussion with those 5 posters. That is without considering that many wum articles have led to the greatest threads. I am not posting here cause I find you all sensible and knowledgeable just because I enjoy some discussions with some posters and even enjoy those against I completely disagree.

If CC hadn't bitten on SDB's post(s) (I haven't read any of it so I don't really know)....we probably woudl have had no need of such a thread and the Congrats Andy thread would have been history a long time ago.

But then that's why SL and yummy become outspoken because while CC tried to debate with Smelly But Deadly, it wasn't becoming constructive in the slightest. SL and yummy will stick the boot in because it is almost like trying to put a flame out before it becomes a fire.

Why not then say to the poster being annoying, make a valid informed opinion or clear off. CC tried to engage in sensible debate before being labelled a 'worshipper or fanboy'

Change can only happen if those want it to change.....

I am sorry I don't think those two posters have conducted themselves well at all. Yummy was very sweet and funny at one time but only comes over to pick a fight and sounds out of it almost always nowadays - her extraordinary attack on socal just because she was bored of seeing him post the same thing (no one was aware she had been around) and resulting, once again, in several of her posts being removed because they were abusive and aggressive in the extreme. Boo has made it perfectly clear that he has a great dislike for 3 posters which has clouded, unfortunately his comments and his judgement - I loathed seeing him publicly 'out' one poster as having a different id on 606 and in a particularly unpleasant fashion, his use of 'toilet man' in a sneering way to BB who has not sunk down to that kind of insult in return.....shall I go on.

Please, don't let us use yummy or Boo as yardsticks or what is acceptable or understandable - because that is my line in the sand - unacceptable to behave like that to fellow posters, just totally not on.

I didn't say they conducted themselves well. I said that they react to such comments like SDB's because it is the 'fireman putting the fire out mentality' which is almost like a hangover from 606.

I said CC had conducted himself well and was very much at the end talking to a fence post by the end of it.

Well it's unnecessary and juvenile and aggressive legend - I don't really care what the provocation was - I'd expect a d*mn sight more from my 10 year old.

I don't think anyone has ever had any issue with the way Craig conducts himself, have they?

I have to go now, but I did just want to just ask you to clarify one point: you say you don't mind MTOs being brought up, but you don't like them described as tactical because there is no proof - you see, this is the kind of thing that worries me - if you and I were sitting on a sofa watching a match where a player took a timely MTO, we might turn to each other and say 'y'know what, I think that was a bit tactical' Now nearly all opinion on here - will Fed retire in 2012, can we win another tournie, is subjective and you have to allow that.

This is a case maybe that is slightly dangerously close to us being able to say 'well I just don't like that opinion' or 'I don't like it being expressed twice' and that is what we must be careful we don't tip into, that's my worry I guess.

Anyway, gotta run now see you all soon

time please wrote:Well it's unnecessary and juvenile and aggressive legend - I don't really care what the provocation was - I'd expect a d*mn sight more from my 10 year old.

I don't think anyone has ever had any issue with the way Craig conducts himself, have they?

I have to go now, but I did just want to just ask you to clarify one point: you say you don't mind MTOs being brought up, but you don't like them described as tactical because there is no proof - you see, this is the kind of thing that worries me - if you and I were sitting on a sofa watching a match where a player took a timely MTO, we might turn to each other and say 'y'know what, I think that was a bit tactical' Now nearly all opinion on here - will Fed retire in 2012, can we win another tournie, is subjective and you have to allow that.

This is a case maybe that is slightly dangerously close to us being able to say 'well I just don't like that opinion' or 'I don't like it being expressed twice' and that is what we must be careful we don't tip into, that's my worry I guess.

Anyway, gotta run now see you all soon

I think the issue with MTO's TP has always been down to one individual who has taken quite a few in the past. There are those who will say if your fit, play and if your not, don't. What is subjective and debatable is the demands of the human body and what can be sustained.

Being a former footballer I can say one thing. I have played with broken toes, torn groins and even with blood pumping out of my forehead. Now some would probably not play though that and some like me who are stupid with no regard for personal well-being will play on.

I have played tennis too and taken an MTO as have my opponents. Sometimes when winning and sometimes losing. Can't say for me it has changed the outcome of those matches.

There is however, 'speculation' now Nadal being the most discussed with MTO's. 2 situations I can put forward with the intent will generate different views.

1 - AO v Murray 2010 - Pulled out when 2 sets down. Would he have carried on at 1-1?

2 - Wim v Del Potro 2011 - Took the first set, but was debatable whether he would've continued had he lost the first set?

But like I said he has a label for it, and it follows him with certain posters. Isn't though labelling something we are trying to avoid?

speak again soon TP

The thing LK is that as mentioned views might be seen seen as extreme or groundless at first, or even expressed in a wum way but they might turned out to be true or have something in it that is true and therefore worth discussing.

I mentioned your example about people saying" Nadal being 1D have never watched tennis nor played the game". Yet we know Federer said so and we know he has picked up a racquet. DId he say that because he was bitter or else...all that can be discussed. That is the purpose of a forum.

When a sport consists of sending the ball back and forth over a net, interesting subjects about it might be limited.

I was of the view for a long time that Murray had a positive H2H v Federer cause many of their first encounters had "special circumstances". I remember having argued endlessly with people like Banbro. Then came teh USO08 and AO10...and the debate was sorted. Now of course things are different as I think Murray could have the better of the other top 4 in a slam(bar Djoko though imo) . But there is still a case to it as Murray was beaten 3 times in a row this year in slams by Nadal but managed to bagel him in their last encounter.

SDB is in my view well entitled to make a point about it. It's not absurd. It's not like saying Vincent Spaeda or Seppi are the goats.


So CC or whoever participated shoudl either argue or ignore. I ignore most of the AM threads because of the sensitivity of some posters. Maybe they prefer it like that. I personally woudl not want not to be challenged in my views.

Tenez wrote:The thing LK is that as mentioned views might be seen seen as extreme or groundless at first, or even expressed in a wum way but they might turned out to be true or have something in it that is true and therefore worth discussing.

I mentioned your example about people saying" Nadal being 1D have never watched tennis nor played the game". Yet we know Federer said so and we know he has picked up a racquet. DId he say that because he was bitter or else...all that can be discussed. That is the purpose of a forum.

When a sport consists of sending the ball back and forth over a net, interesting subjects about it might be limited.

I was of the view for a long time that Murray had a positive H2H v Federer cause many of their first encounters had "special circumstances". I remember having argued endlessly with people like Banbro. Then came teh USO08 and AO10...and the debate was sorted. Now of course things are different as I think Murray could have the better of the other top 4 in a slam(bar Djoko though imo) . But there is still a case to it as Murray was beaten 3 times in a row this year in slams by Nadal but managed to bagel him in their last encounter.

SDB is in my view well entitled to make a point about it. It's not absurd. It's not like saying Vincent Spaeda or Seppi are the goats.


So CC or whoever participated shoudl either argue or ignore. I ignore most of the AM threads because of the sensitivity of some posters. Maybe they prefer it like that. I personally woudl not want not to be challenged in my views.

While Federer has the view that Nadal is 1D, does not speak volumes of his own game if he cannot find a forumla to improve his H2H record with Nadal.

The problem I had with SDB was that he was not willing to 'accept' CC's view, while bashing out his own views. You can't have the cake and eat it I'm afraid. I would sooner people debate, then resort to arguing which becomes petullent.

I don't think I have viewed your posts as 'wumming' more of the basing your views around a player that models the factors behind your argument.

CC pointed out that AM had been successful and SDB was using the 0 Slam as his argument which in my view again is taking the 'Slam success is the only success' view which is blinkered.

time please wrote:it perfectly clear that he has a great dislike for 3 posters which has clouded, unfortunately his comments and his judgement - I loathed seeing him publicly 'out' one poster as having a different id on 606 and in a particularly unpleasant fashion, his use of 'toilet man' in a sneering way to BB who has not sunk down to that kind of insult in return.....shall I go on.

Doesn't bother me, I'll eat two of him before breakfast.

I have seen 'peer-rating' systems where posters can rate peer members of the community. It does require a certain level of objectivity but does allow balanced posts to be created.

The downside to such a system is 'cliques' and 'gangups' on members by one or more individuals.

On forums, which support Q&A, posters can rate posts rather than posters, and then a 'star' rating is calculated based on how many 'good' posts, 'helpful' posts, WUM posts, etc. a poster generates.

legendkillar wrote:While Federer has the view that Nadal is 1D, does not speak volumes of his own game if he cannot find a forumla to improve his H2H record with Nadal.

That's not actually logical. Something can be 1D and impossible to combat.

laverfan wrote:I have seen 'peer-rating' systems where posters can rate peer members of the community. It does require a certain level of objectivity but does allow balanced posts to be created.

The downside to such a system is 'cliques' and 'gangups' on members by one or more individuals.

On forums, which support Q&A, posters can rate posts rather than posters, and then a 'star' rating is calculated based on how many 'good' posts, 'helpful' posts, WUM posts, etc. a poster generates.

How would that change what gets posted? And speaking personally, I always used to get a mix of 5 and 1 star ratings for my articles on 606 which were based on my friends and enemies. Completely meaningless.

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillar wrote:While Federer has the view that Nadal is 1D, does not speak volumes of his own game if he cannot find a forumla to improve his H2H record with Nadal.

That's not actually logical. Something can be 1D and impossible to combat.

Actually it is. Surely if Nadal was really 1D a player as talented as Federer would be able to take the match away from that 1D?

Straying a bit here

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillar wrote:While Federer has the view that Nadal is 1D, does not speak volumes of his own game if he cannot find a forumla to improve his H2H record with Nadal.

That's not actually logical. Something can be 1D and impossible to combat.

Despite someone being hailed as having 'variation'? It is perfectly logical, just not resonable in this case

legendkillar wrote:While Federer has the view that Nadal is 1D, does not speak volumes of his own game if he cannot find a forumla to improve his H2H record with Nadal.

That is certainly debatable in my view. A 1D great server could blast off anybody and win many tournaments on fast surfaces. Karlo has has very close matches v Nadal on grass....so imagine on 90s grass conds.

CC pointed out that AM had been successful and SDB was using the 0 Slam as his argument which in my view again is taking the 'Slam success is the only success' view which is blinkered.

That is the very point. Had Murray won 1 slam or even 3, CC and other Murray fans would probably not be as sensitive about the subject. SDB's baiting works as well as the Murray fans are desperate to have Murray being worshipped. I am quite convinced they will be more relaxed about it if/when Murray wins this damn slam. I suspect it;s essentially their wish to have Murray to be appreciated by all that is the origin of the problem.

I coudl have wrote a thread last week congratulating Tsonga for winning in Austria. Some would have probably reminded me that he was teh highest seed and that Delpo is still not 100%. My sensitivity coudl have generated more response from those who think Tsonga was lucky none of the top 4 were there.

If one is cool about his own prefered players debates can go on peacefully. Like most posters are here. I woudl not have minded had woffie stayed here...but I woudl certainly not have stayed around if she had dictated the tone to be used on this forum. All happy friendly when saying nice things about Nadal but pretty agressive when saying no such nice things.

It;s all about being a moderated and balanced poster in the first place. I am not saying Balnaced views cause that is very subjective but having a balanced behaviour in public place...even if virtual.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillar wrote:While Federer has the view that Nadal is 1D, does not speak volumes of his own game if he cannot find a forumla to improve his H2H record with Nadal.

That's not actually logical. Something can be 1D and impossible to combat.

Actually it is. Surely if Nadal was really 1D a player as talented as Federer would be able to take the match away from that 1D?

Straying a bit here

No, just because something is 1D doesn't mean you can necessarily do anything about it. If a guy could serve at 200mph into any corner with 100% 1st serves in he would be unbeatable and 1D.

EDIT: You got there just ahead of me Tenez. As for another poster you mention, that person is unmatched in being nice if you're saying what they want you to say and actually bloody evil if you don't.

bogbrush wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillar wrote:While Federer has the view that Nadal is 1D, does not speak volumes of his own game if he cannot find a forumla to improve his H2H record with Nadal.

That's not actually logical. Something can be 1D and impossible to combat.

Actually it is. Surely if Nadal was really 1D a player as talented as Federer would be able to take the match away from that 1D?

Straying a bit here

No, just because something is 1D doesn't mean you can necessarily do anything about it. If a guy could serve at 200mph into any corner with 100% 1st serves in he would be unbeatable and 1D.

no he wouldn't, because in a TB you could get one serve back, and then win the point, because he could only serve

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:While Federer has the view that Nadal is 1D, does not speak volumes of his own game if he cannot find a forumla to improve his H2H record with Nadal.

That is certainly debatable in my view. A 1D great server could blast off anybody and win many tournaments on fast surfaces. Karlo has has very close matches v Nadal on grass....so imagine on 90s grass conds.

CC pointed out that AM had been successful and SDB was using the 0 Slam as his argument which in my view again is taking the 'Slam success is the only success' view which is blinkered.

That is the very point. Had Murray won 1 slam or even 3, CC and other Murray fans would probably not be as sensitive about the subject. SDB's baiting works as well as the Murray fans are desperate to have Murray being worshipped. I am quite convinced they will be more relaxed about it if/when Murray wins this damn slam. I suspect it;s essentially their wish to have Murray to be appreciated by all that is the origin of the problem.

I coudl have wrote a thread last week congratulating Tsonga for winning in Austria. Some would have probably reminded me that he was teh highest seed and that Delpo is still not 100%. My sensitivity to eat coudl have generated more response from those who think Tsonga was lucky none of the top 4 were there.

If one is cool about his own prefered players debates can go on peacefully. Like most posters are here. I woudl not have minded had woffie stayed here...but I woudl certainly have stayed around if she had dictated the tone to be used on this forum. All happy friendly when saying nice things about Nadal but pretty agressive when saying no such nice things.

It;s all about being a moderated and balanced poster in the first place. I am not saying Balnaced views cause that is very subjective but having a balanced behaviour in public place...even if virtual.

I see the view. Honestly I do. I did say on another thread I think that Murray not winning a Slam is a cold hard fact, but it is something that is often repetative, same for when Murray fans list his achievements. Arguing the same points tend to end in frustration, but takeaway the temptation will mean that it is something that is less discussed.

Karlovic in the 90's would be scary, though it would be hard to see how he would break someones serve though

A suggestion??

Delete old topics?

Give them a timeframe so that some old topics may not be re-visited all the time?

time please wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:I know I am talking about a utopian forum and it is unlikely to happen TP. The kind of repetitive dross I was talking about has been written in various forms about many, many players. Isn't the point that this is our forum and we want it to be better than that?

BTW I would prefer not to have segregated sections as they may be counter-productive.

I guess the thing is carrie - I already think it is better than that - just look at how we are all talking here now, civilly with strong opinions and able to accept other views.

I don't think there is anything wrong with hoping for a utopian forum at all , but I am concerned that a utopia that stops all contentious comment may very soon develop into a dystopia where we can't say anything.

As long as we are able to keep listening to each other and exchanging frank views like this, I am hopeful that won't happen

It is sometimes better than that TP. I am all for a frank exchange of views as long as debate is possible.

If a poster expresses an opinion that Murray won't win a slam because of x, y and z tennis (I include temperment in this) related reasons then fair enough. I may not agree but I will strongly defend their right to say it and it is a great starting point for civilised and interesting constructive debate.

If however a posts says "Murray will NEVER win a slam and his fanboys/girls just can't face facts. He is an Anti English grumpy git and a poor excuse for a sportsman" then reasoned debate is not possible.

There is also the scenario where some posters have been very flexible with the goalposts when their views are challenged.

It is this simple distinction that is the whole point. No topic is taboo as long as it is handled constructively. Utopia is possible

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillar wrote:While Federer has the view that Nadal is 1D, does not speak volumes of his own game if he cannot find a forumla to improve his H2H record with Nadal.

That's not actually logical. Something can be 1D and impossible to combat.

Actually it is. Surely if Nadal was really 1D a player as talented as Federer would be able to take the match away from that 1D?

Straying a bit here

No, just because something is 1D doesn't mean you can necessarily do anything about it. If a guy could serve at 200mph into any corner with 100% 1st serves in he would be unbeatable and 1D.

no he wouldn't, because in a TB you could get one serve back, and then win the point, because he could only serve

Nope, not if he could serve at 200mph into a corner of his choice with 100% accuracy you couldn't.

carrieg4 wrote:

time please wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:I know I am talking about a utopian forum and it is unlikely to happen TP. The kind of repetitive dross I was talking about has been written in various forms about many, many players. Isn't the point that this is our forum and we want it to be better than that?

BTW I would prefer not to have segregated sections as they may be counter-productive.

I guess the thing is carrie - I already think it is better than that - just look at how we are all talking here now, civilly with strong opinions and able to accept other views.

I don't think there is anything wrong with hoping for a utopian forum at all , but I am concerned that a utopia that stops all contentious comment may very soon develop into a dystopia where we can't say anything.

As long as we are able to keep listening to each other and exchanging frank views like this, I am hopeful that won't happen

It is sometimes better than that TP. I am all for a frank exchange of views as long as debate is possible.

If a poster expresses an opinion that Murray won't win a slam because of x, y and z tennis (I include temperment in this) related reasons then fair enough. I may not agree but I will strongly defend their right to say it and it is a great starting point for civilised and interesting constructive debate.

If however a posts says "Murray will NEVER win a slam and his fanboys/girls just can't face facts. He is an Anti English grumpy git and a poor excuse for a sportsman" then reasoned debate is not possible.

There is also the scenario where some posters have been very flexible with the goalposts when their views are challenged.

It is this simple distinction that is the whole point. No topic is taboo as long as it is handled constructively. Utopia is possible

If someone posts rubbish like you say then call him for the idiot he is, watch as everyone else does and the guy will push off.

No censorship or tyranny required.

carrieg4 wrote:
If however a posts says "Murray will NEVER win a slam and his fanboys/girls just can't face facts. He is an Anti English grumpy git and a poor excuse for a sportsman" then reasoned debate is not possible.

Or you can choose to relax and answer with humour like many of us did when AIR, Impartial, Saint Seppi, or UE did...or ignore...etc... the options are multiple. The problem is when they created so many threads about it that it became annoying. We are not close to that here.

That's true, it's not like the place gets spammed with the same material. 606 used to have pages of articles with hardly any replies once the madhouse let out.

Mind you if you call someone an idiot, likelihood is that you get banned.

bogbrush wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

time please wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:I know I am talking about a utopian forum and it is unlikely to happen TP. The kind of repetitive dross I was talking about has been written in various forms about many, many players. Isn't the point that this is our forum and we want it to be better than that?

BTW I would prefer not to have segregated sections as they may be counter-productive.

I guess the thing is carrie - I already think it is better than that - just look at how we are all talking here now, civilly with strong opinions and able to accept other views.

I don't think there is anything wrong with hoping for a utopian forum at all , but I am concerned that a utopia that stops all contentious comment may very soon develop into a dystopia where we can't say anything.

As long as we are able to keep listening to each other and exchanging frank views like this, I am hopeful that won't happen

It is sometimes better than that TP. I am all for a frank exchange of views as long as debate is possible.

If a poster expresses an opinion that Murray won't win a slam because of x, y and z tennis (I include temperment in this) related reasons then fair enough. I may not agree but I will strongly defend their right to say it and it is a great starting point for civilised and interesting constructive debate.

If however a posts says "Murray will NEVER win a slam and his fanboys/girls just can't face facts. He is an Anti English grumpy git and a poor excuse for a sportsman" then reasoned debate is not possible.

There is also the scenario where some posters have been very flexible with the goalposts when their views are challenged.

It is this simple distinction that is the whole point. No topic is taboo as long as it is handled constructively. Utopia is possible

If someone posts rubbish like you say then call him for the idiot he is, watch as everyone else does and the guy will push off.

No censorship or tyranny required.

In my utopia that is exactly what would happen . Sadly it doesn't always happen in the real world and this leads people to become defensive which doesn't help the situation. Subsequently there may be a much more reasonably worded article or post that some fans will leap on because they have become hypersensitive because of the original rubbish statement. That is what has led to the current situation. I don't think anyone is demanding censorship just common sense. If we as a forum make it clear that any OPINION is fine but statements such as the one I alluded to are not then utopia is ours . BTW the statement I alluded to is an almagamation of actual statements I have read on here and 606.

Tenez wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:
If however a posts says "Murray will NEVER win a slam and his fanboys/girls just can't face facts. He is an Anti English grumpy git and a poor excuse for a sportsman" then reasoned debate is not possible.

Or you can choose to relax and answer with humour like many of us did when AIR, Impartial, Saint Seppi, or UE did...or ignore...etc... the options are multiple. The problem is when they created so many threads about it that it became annoying. We are not close to that here.

I did ignore them (mostly ). I also tried the humour route but this seemed to encourage them . As for being relaxed, I am not exactly losing sleep over it. When posters are hijacking positive threads with garbage then it is a problem. Obviously nowhere near 606 yet but now is the time to set the tone for the future. No tyranny, no censorship, no topic off limits just simple common sense.

Calder106 wrote:" Where people post threads quoting erroneously or cherry picking from Neil Harman articles that you have to buy The Times to read I will point out what they have done

Only skim read through all posts but this jumped out.

Calder106. What have I done? Neil Harman is one of the best tennis journalists around and he knows Murray personally. I think its sad that his writing isn't more widely available because he knows his stuff. If he was intrigued by Murrays entry in Basel you can bet that this is something that is being dicussed in tennis circles. Because it wasn't what Murray fans want to hear shouldn't mean it was wrong to discuss it on a general tennis site. It was a shame so many comments were so defensive of Murray it was impossable to do so.

Initially, I voted in favour of the players sections but I now feel it is not a viable option. As some here have rightly said Murray fans already have forums of their own to post on unharrassed so I can't see why they would go to the sections here really. I am pretty sure I'd still just post on the main board in any case.

I really hope people with different opinions from mine are not discouraged from being inflammatory. It gives me enormous fun.

Could we have a slap icon?

I am sure most posters would use it too (I know I would) and it might help release some un-harmful stress. The boxing icon doesn't do enough!

Have just checked the results of the poll. Where's Roger? Also is it Andy Roddick or Murray?

hawkeye wrote:

Calder106 wrote:" Where people post threads quoting erroneously or cherry picking from Neil Harman articles that you have to buy The Times to read I will point out what they have done

Only skim read through all posts but this jumped out.

Calder106. What have I done? Neil Harman is one of the best tennis journalists around and he knows Murray personally. I think its sad that his writing isn't more widely available because he knows his stuff. If he was intrigued by Murrays entry in Basel you can bet that this is something that is being dicussed in tennis circles. Because it wasn't what Murray fans want to hear shouldn't mean it was wrong to discuss it on a general tennis site. It was a shame so many comments were so defensive of Murray it was impossable to do so.

Hawkeye I know that Neil Harman is a respected journalist and his articles are taken seriously by many including myself. That's why I feel it is important that when someone uses as article of his to raise a thread they represent it it in a fair manner. Two examples.

First on a thread two weeks ago based on a Neil Harman article you said that Murray had said all the top four had improved this year. I couldn't get a hold of the article that you were quoting but from reading other sites and as verified by Time Please what he had actually said was he felt the level of mens tennis was higher this year. I said then that either way I actually thought Murray was wrong but that I felt it was important that you quoted accurately and did not put your own spin on it.

Second on the Federer Cool On Murray article this week you did quote a couple of quotes accurately (I got the article this time) but missed out some of the other quotes where Federer said he fully understood why Murray would be wanting to play when his game was on song and his confidence high. When I challenged you on cherry picking you came back with. "Of course I'll "cherry pick" the interesting bits. Federer doing the usual bla bla bla about how great everything is what we are usually fed." (i.e. if it doesn't suit my agenda I'll ignore it).

So I have no issue with you posting what you wish about Murray. I don't always think he is right. Where I feel someone is misrepresenting what was actually said I'm quite entitled to challenge it.

Calder106 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

Calder106 wrote:" Where people post threads quoting erroneously or cherry picking from Neil Harman articles that you have to buy The Times to read I will point out what they have done

Only skim read through all posts but this jumped out.

Calder106. What have I done? Neil Harman is one of the best tennis journalists around and he knows Murray personally. I think its sad that his writing isn't more widely available because he knows his stuff. If he was intrigued by Murrays entry in Basel you can bet that this is something that is being dicussed in tennis circles. Because it wasn't what Murray fans want to hear shouldn't mean it was wrong to discuss it on a general tennis site. It was a shame so many comments were so defensive of Murray it was impossable to do so.

Hawkeye I know that Neil Harman is a respected journalist and his articles are taken seriously by many including myself. That's why I feel it is important that when someone uses as article of his to raise a thread they represent it it in a fair manner. Two examples.

First on a thread two weeks ago based on a Neil Harman article you said that Murray had said all the top four had improved this year. I couldn't get a hold of the article that you were quoting but from reading other sites and as verified by Time Please what he had actually said was he felt the level of mens tennis was higher this year. I said then that either way I actually thought Murray was wrong but that I felt it was important that you quoted accurately and did not put your own spin on it.

Second on the Federer Cool On Murray article this week you did quote a couple of quotes accurately (I got the article this time) but missed out some of the other quotes where Federer said he fully understood why Murray would be wanting to play when his game was on song and his confidence high. When I challenged you on cherry picking you came back with. "Of course I'll "cherry pick" the interesting bits. Federer doing the usual bla bla bla about how great everything is what we are usually fed." (i.e. if it doesn't suit my agenda I'll ignore it).

So I have no issue with you posting what you wish about Murray. I don't always think he is right. Where I feel someone is misrepresenting what was actually said I'm quite entitled to challenge it.

I agree with Calder on this.

The second article indidcated in the title as if Murray needed special permission from Federer to participate.

When quoting someone, please place link for people to actually view what has been written as you a doing a dis-service to the person writing it and also causing potential negativity between posters.

the trouble with posting links to articles LK is that the best tennis journalist around by some considerable distance (IMO) is Neil Harman, and for obvious reasons we can't post links to his articles. I have an online subscription, so am able to track down the articles in question.

Reading through the comments, and judging by the votes, it doesn't look like the usergroup sections are wanted. So things will just stay as they are.

Y I Man wrote:Reading through the comments, and judging by the votes, it doesn't look like the usergroup sections are wanted. So things will just stay as they are.

Can't say I'm unhappy.

That said, we all have a duty to behave as we would in someone else's place, because that's where we are. pms from Admin to slap on the wrist/head should suffice to any miscreants.

Meanwhile, can I now go and look for an argument with someone?

bogbrush wrote:Meanwhile, can I now go and look for an argument with someone?

No, but you can go and look for a debate with someone

bogbrush wrote:

Y I Man wrote:Reading through the comments, and judging by the votes, it doesn't look like the usergroup sections are wanted. So things will just stay as they are.

Can't say I'm unhappy.

That said, we all have a duty to behave as we would in someone else's place, because that's where we are. pms from Admin to slap on the wrist/head should suffice to any miscreants.

Meanwhile, can I now go and look for an argument with someone?

spot on

If we respect some elementary courtesies, as has happened on this thread, there's no reason why healthy debate can't happen, and ultimately that's what this forum should be all about.

Just have users pass an IQ test to a fluent level, we will then see who are causing the 'disruptions'. If they don't pass, disown them from the forum.

We did that Josiah, and Im still disputing your results with the other Admin.

That's the way you're gonna be, have a sad christmas.

Calder106

Now isn't the time or place but the best way to kill a discussion is nit pick about the truth of "evidence". In both aticles I wasn't just giving my opinion but had a reliable source and some good quotes. Dissapointed that many chose to not to believe rather than discuss.

hawkeye wrote:Calder106

Now isn't the time or place but the best way to kill a discussion is nit pick about the truth of "evidence". In both aticles I wasn't just giving my opinion but had a reliable source and some good quotes. Dissapointed that many chose to not to believe rather than discuss.

So I'm wrong for questioning the veracity and slant of the original thread. Don't think so.

laverfan wrote:Building a 'wall' (aka fan sections) ... I agree with JHMs elitism, separatism comments. Sections are just a manifestation of all such and similar qualities.

To the unified 606v2 Tennis section.

To a point Laverfan I agree but I suspect some of our members would benefit from sectioning.

Can we have a slap icon?

can this one not be used?

May not have the same impact as a slap YI.

Anyway here is to the 606v2 tennis forum and heated yet civilised debate