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.

That one is like an angry mother with a misbehaving child.

We need one demonstrates the impact of a slap!

Nore Staat wrote:

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.

Not against fan sections, but the principle of segregation is anathema. If sections were built and, for example (hypothetically) , Tenez wanted to post on the Nadal section, would the 'partition' help in anyway? It would taking away the basic principle of 'equality' away from Tenez, and would deprive him of his right to post on a thread of his choice, if he was denied access, based on his current proclivities.

Still waiting for the Potro section to appear. Such disrespect shown towards the great man. Unacceptabubble.

Marcus wrote:Still waiting for the Potro section to appear. Such disrespect shown towards the great man. Unacceptabubble.

We are a waiting, Marcus....come on, do something!

I haven't got the power to create a Potro player section. Anyway, I am still exhausted from my substantial efforts at converting everyone on the old 606 from Potro dislikers to Potro respecters.

Got there in the end though!!

You mean 1 slam wonder Delpo? Why not we have 1 for Roddick, or Ferrero, then?

Feel free to start them JM

laverfan wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

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.

Not against fan sections, but the principle of segregation is anathema. If sections were built and, for example (hypothetically) , Tenez wanted to post on the Nadal section, would the 'partition' help in anyway? It would taking away the basic principle of 'equality' away from Tenez, and would deprive him of his right to post on a thread of his choice, if he was denied access, based on his current proclivities.

If I were to wear my serious hat for one minute, then indeed, having a hidden subsection within this tennis section of 606v2, where a subsection leader has sole discretion to allow members to join or not (with accompanying viewing rights), will very likely lead to resentment and a sense of justified paranoia to those excluded from that subsection. The furthest move towards "exclusion" that would be possibly acceptable was practised on 606 - i.e., the OP has the ability (limited by house rules and subject to moderation) to remove posts. Since this feature is not possible in this forum, then the "foe" option seems to be the only acceptable solution.

This has been tried before - having fan sections - where the "foe option" was available. This failed with both the "Rafateers" and the "Murray fans" heading off to form their own exclusive forum. Consequently there is no reason why the fan section should be reintroduced.

Consequently if you want to be "exclusive" then don't join 606v2, go somewhere else. We still welcome your debate on 606 v2, but if you wish to debate in an "exclusive" forum then please do this off-site.

Please note that 606v2 has house rules and is moderated by a group of dedicated volunteers who endeavour to do their best to ensure debate is undertaken with civility. But ultimately each member should take responsibility for their own behaviour on this forum.

Is this an acceptable judgement based on the discussion we have had on this thread?

Yes on hindsight I would agree with that Nore Staat however that does not paint everything here as perfect. What the solution is I don't know.

Now perhaps admins etc regret the boasts on their 606 plugs for here promising change and it being a WUM-free zone. It attracted many posters wanting civil conversations and believing the promise of no WUM's but that has just not been the case but must say this place is not as bad as 606 for quantity. However, on the other hand 606 was better equipped for keeping a tight grip on articles you created which enabled you to write an positive article with no players bashing by giving you the power to delete sabotagers and hijackers (for want of better words) posts. Okay some here claim it is defeating freedom of speech but I'd disagree saying it was the original poster wanting to keep his article on topic and a space for a pleasant and relaxed conversation AND debate should the poster do so in a calm and constructive manner. That is not really possible here as it just takes one irresponsible poster to post unfounded stuff intended solely to wind others up and so ruin the topic as happened in 'Well Done Andy' thread.

It may be an idea to pin titles to topics intended for sensible, level-headed debate say Andy Murray (or any other player should a person choose) Thread: The Sensible Debate and those who want to discuss his strengths such as return of serve, athleticism, back-hand down the line, his matches, his slam record and his weaknesses such as no slams, under performance in slam finals, his need for a coach, his lack of aggression in matches, poor second serve and his ability to beat up on himself when he misses a shot. Debate sensibly is welcomed and done in a constructive way and you will find all fans willing to contribute.

For anybody wanting to vent their spleen or make for cutting edge remarks that cause conflicts then give them their own thread called Anything Goes and any Murray fans entering into there only do so at their own risk. Also it can be used to direct ant tasteless posts that end up in the sensible thread.

Thoughts?

I think it is now up to us all to understand we are in someone else's place as BB said, and to behave accordingly - we can tease each other, but you don't start abusing another guest (even if you really, really want to!)

Craig - I am against pinning topics because then this place becomes a mini 'nanny state' - posters also have to exercise the responsibility to ignore something as well - the founders are our gracious hosts, they shouldn't have to be our nursemaids as well.

I am going for that mummy card again, but it really is true that if you don't rise to a 'toddler tantrum' or 'naughtiness just for attention', then mindless winding up for the sake of a reaction really, really will stop - it is ONLY done to rile you and for your attention - don't let them win by rising to it. I promise you this is so

There are brilliant members here - I don't care what anyone thinks, just look around at other forums. Of course we will get posters on sometimes not behaving as the established ones would like - a forum is a microcosm of life - and life is just like that. Generally in life though, all but the most persistent quickly suss out a situation and adapt - if they don't and are are abusive, I am sure YI Man will be happy to escort them to the door for a 'cooling off period'

Yes true time please but is it too much to ask to have just one thread solely to debate tennis calmly without some moron spoiling it for everybody else? That is my problem here and why I am looking for solutions.

Craig please next time someone posts something on a 'positive thread' that is negative towards a player, IGNORE IT if you don't want it there.

That is your solution - it has been pointed out to you by lots of posters and it really is as simple as that. You imagine if you came over here and nobody ever talked to you, or acknowledged your presence - would you stay? Not for very long, I don't suppose!

BTW - I do think the SDB thing has been overblown - why not start by saying (as you would in someone else's house) 'Tell you what mate - sure people would love to debate that, but if you don't mind this is a congratulatory thread so could you start your own - cheers' Now the whole forum would back you on that and you have solved the problem in an adult and strong way!

the thing that was so wrong on that thread was the abuse from poster to poster to a more neutral admirer of AM - someone has to be the grown up first, why don't we all make it us?

Please let it go now otherwise this repetitive moan is not moving things forward - I haven't looked at all the posts yet, but do we have anything to be agonising over this morning? And if not, why are we doing it yet?

Can we all breathe a bit on here now - please. I can't go on talking about this for the mo, I think everyone has given valuable input and every angle has been covered and we have talked it into the ground - that is not to say we may not have to revisit the subject

And lastly Craig - while I think we would all like to see you here more, you did acknowledge that you do have somewhere to post undisturbed by others than Murray fans so perhaps you have to try and celebrate that in one place you will have unanimous consensus, and in another not so much. And just remember ignore the WUMS - you keep asking what to do, but you won't try this one thing for more than a day.

You won't convert people - which is what I think you are perhaps hoping to do?

I think we really just have to see how it goes for a while now. This thread has been brilliant for thrashing out some issues (thanks YI man) and I think we all understand each others concerns a lot better. Anyone not behaving as if they are in someone else's place (as BB said) should receive fairly short shrift on all threads so will hopefully see the error of their ways quickly

One last thing on the subject (I promise time please) re-read the article 'Well Done Andy' and on two or three ocassions I asked posters to stay on topic and remember what the thread was there for but it fell on deaf ears so that tactic here is a waste of time.

Right that is me done so see you around some time.

Craig

You are too polite sometimes Craig and too gentle in the way that you ask - which is a nice thing btw :hug

Next time, say firmly 'not the place for that discussion mate' and then IGNORE. Promise you it will work, if not straight away, very soon afterwards, but you have to resist the temptation to back down on the ignoring front

I have to run today too - catch you all on Monday

CaledonianCraig wrote:One last thing on the subject (I promise time please) re-read the article 'Well Done Andy' and on two or three ocassions I asked posters to stay on topic and remember what the thread was there for but it fell on deaf ears so that tactic here is a waste of time.

Right that is me done so see you around some time.

Craig

I fully understand Craig. Hopefully everyone will be a bit more pro-active with this and if they receive the same firm message to take it elsewhere from a few posters they will soon give up and do so. I promise to support the message (when I am on-line of course). We just have to resist the urge to engage them in debate - I may need to actually sit on my hands for this.

CaledonianCraig wrote: ... However, on the other hand 606 was better equipped for keeping a tight grip on articles you created which enabled you to write an positive article with no players bashing by giving you the power to delete sabotagers and hijackers (for want of better words) posts. ...

Thoughts?

I think Craig, you and others would like a return to the fan-based "chat threads" that did work on 606. The "Rafateers," the "AndyMoaners" as well as a few other chat threads worked acceptably well on 606. The reason why it worked was because a) The OP had the power to remove unwanted posts (subject to 606 house rules and open to appeal by those affected (moderator assessed)) and b) After a month the "chat thread" no longer appeared on the front page. It could still be accessed by all from the "back pages" but there was an aspect of "out of sight out of mind" to those not interested in the particular chat thead.

Now when they transferred to 606 v2 (The Rafateers and the AndyMoaners) it clearly no longer worked for them and they felt impelled to move elsewhere. The reason why it didn't work was because 606 v2 lacks both functionality (a) and functionality (b) [may need to check with YIMan regarding functionality b]. Functionality (a) would also involve additional work for the moderators in assessing appeals etc. We must recognise however that on this forum the moderators are unpaid volunteers and we need to be realistic in the amount of time and effort they can give for this (they have their own real lives to live).

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes on hindsight I would agree with that Nore Staat however that does not paint everything here as perfect. What the solution is I don't know. ...

As discussed above the solution is to set up your chat threads elsewhere. Otherwise set them up here but you will get the same problems that led to the "rafateers" and the "andy fans" leaving. You will need to increase your tolerance level, where necessary complain to the moderator to get a post removed from your thread (if you think it breaks the house rule), and perhaps use the foe option.

double post removed.

Question for YI Man: Are you able to give "Moderator powers" to members which only work in one specific section i.e., moderation powers that are limited to one section only and not across the entire forum? If this is the case then a modified functionality (a) can be obtained, with the "chat thread" representing an entire section on 606v2.

Nore Staat wrote:Question for YI Man: Are you able to give "Moderator powers" to members which only work in one specific section i.e., moderation powers that are limited to one section only and not across the entire forum? If this is the case then a modified functionality (a) can be obtained, with the "chat thread" representing an entire section on 606v2.

We can make a moderator of tennis, or the whole forum.
With a moderator in tennis, it is not possible to only give them mod abilities on certain threads, it is the whole tennis section or nothing.

Nore Staat wrote:Question for YI Man: Are you able to give "Moderator powers" to members which only work in one specific section i.e., moderation powers that are limited to one section only and not across the entire forum? If this is the case then a modified functionality (a) can be obtained, with the "chat thread" representing an entire section on 606v2.

My suggestion is to not create a society of 'some more equal than others'.

Consider 606v2 a melting pot, where all opinions and civility is welcome. Courtesy begets courtesy.

laverfan wrote:My suggestion is to not create a society of 'some more equal than others'.

Consider 606v2 a melting pot, where all opinions and civility is welcome. Courtesy begets courtesy.

Ditto LF. Personally speaking, debate gets the blood flowing much more than singing from the same hymn sheet, although both can be welcome at different times. I am viewing all of this as a minor difficulty on the road to a better forum.

What I would really like to have is a poster's section as opposed to a player's section. Where I can post what's on my mind on whatever tennis subject I wish without being censored.

We could call this Speakers corner!

Tenez wrote:What I would really like to have is a poster's section as opposed to a player's section. Where I can post what's on my mind on whatever tennis subject I wish without being censored.

We could call this Speakers corner!

I think those days are long gone, Tenez....I'd like to say so many things but fear that some would drop like flies....we're all the same, great, equal these days and.....bursting at our seams on the inside

laverfan wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Question for YI Man: Are you able to give "Moderator powers" to members which only work in one specific section i.e., moderation powers that are limited to one section only and not across the entire forum? If this is the case then a modified functionality (a) can be obtained, with the "chat thread" representing an entire section on 606v2.

My suggestion is to not create a society of 'some more equal than others'.

Consider 606v2 a melting pot, where all opinions and civility is welcome. Courtesy begets courtesy.

I was addressing CaledonianCraigs and others valid concerns (including YIMan who started this thread) and was trying to find out what was possible. What made the 606 chat threads work was the ability of the OP to "moderate" their own thread (see above discussion). YIMan said that this was not technically possible to do on this forum. I was exploring whether something similar was physically possible.

It seems that it is physically possible but the chat thread would have to occupy its own separate sports section.

For example CC wishes to start his own AndyMurray fan chat thread. YIMan creates a separate sporting section called "Tennis Chat Thread: CaledonianCraigs AndyMoaniums" and gives CC moderator powers for that "section". CC can now remove posts from his chat thread as he sees fit (and nowhere else). Everyone can still view and contribute to the the chat thread. If it is felt that CC is abusing his powers by removing a contributors post unfairly, then there is the appeals system - a member can appeal to YIMan (i.e. the non chat thread moderators).

This would then be very similar to 606. I didn't hear any calls of injustice on 606 over the OP's powers of removing posts from their own threads (off-topic or offensive). It requires a bit of responsibility and balance from both sides, and there is the appeals system as a safety catch. If the chat thread moderator "abused" his powers then he would soon be sent to purgatory (like how 606 was supposed to work at least in principle).

Of course this could mess up the nice front page of this forum, might be an example (if carried through) of the tail wagging the dog (so to speak).

We are not having any more mods Nore, so that cant happen. Also, only posts that break our site rules can be deleted.
We can not allow some mods to delete posts they disagree with, and our other mods cant.

On the old 606 I used to write posts that said
"The author of the article has removed this post' just to confuse people.

Yes, as others have said, inc. BB, some threads on 606v1 became silly when the OP just decided to delete everything they didnt like or contradicted their opinion. The only thing I would carry over from 606v1 are:

1. Rating threads
2. Allowing comments to be made via the mobile version of this forum, and making it easy to navigate to the latest post.

Lydian

1. We are not having thread rating as people used to constantly rate 1 star to wind others up.
2a. You can post from your mobile, if you click to classic view.
2b. You can get straight to the latest post by clicking on the red/orange icon next to the persons name who made the most recent post.

Is the Slap Icon still being considered?

I hope not. There is enough mindless violence in the world...

How is it mindless? I would be fully aware when using it

Well, here's my tuppence worth.

IMO, player sections will kill the main thread for a while. And in themselves, player sections may well self-implode if starved of variable topics. Some of you may know I've gone off and done something else, but that site is not just a specific player forum, its got other sections and scope for more. If I had put it up just as a player pub, then I think it would have died a quick death, deprived of air.
There other underlying reasons I think it might not work.....but there may not be enough fans to perpetuate each different player section.

Of course the upshot of this is that posters who might get a bit bored of their respective player threads will migrate back to the main.

All in all, I think its a waste of time (I do have an ulterior motive saying this, in keeping my "other" site sufficiently bolstered), but it may work to give you all some time to foster understanding and respect for each others opinions.

May I suggest that you keep the players sections open for reading and posting to begin with, but if posters begin wumming then they can have their membership withdrawn from that section. I think that may well attract new members to the site when they roam around looking for topics to talk about.

For anyone considering a "delete" button, be aware that 606 did not police the amount of times that button could be pressed in an article.

I speak from experience....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/F16593347?thread=7383280&show=50

(PS, it was an experiment to find out how many I could get away with it. As you can appreciate, there were some very understanding posters LOL)

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.

Thread locked.