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.

I have also had time to think about fan threads. I can see the thinking behind them but I don't like the segregation aspect. The joy of talking about matches is talking to other tennis fans regardless of whether you support the same player. Let's face it, all players have earned respect so all will have their supporters. Also we are all tennis fans so surely we can see the merits of all players?

All posters have to do is behave like adults. Debate, criticise, express whatever opinion you like but don't do the following:

State what is clearly an opinion as a fact.

Believe nonsensical media headlines and assert them as fact when they have already been shown to be nonsense.

Go on to a thread that is clearly a positive thread and moan and whine about the subject of the thread.

Make sweeping statements about personality etc. when all you know is from the media.

Say anything that is liable to get 606v2 sued.

That pretty much covers it - express opinion but don't act like an a*se. If we all follows it we can debate to our hearts content and don't need to be penned in to do so.

Where can I vote for a Potro section?

Disgraceful behaviour.

Marcus wrote:Where can I vote for a Potro section?

Disgraceful behaviour.

Good job GD the Aussie isn't still around or we'd have to have Sod and Baggy sections. And don't get me started on SaintSeppi.

bogbrush wrote:

Marcus wrote:Where can I vote for a Potro section?

Disgraceful behaviour.

Good job GD the Aussie isn't still around or we'd have to have Sod and Baggy sections. And don't get me started on SaintSeppi.

BTW where IS Stud?

bogbrush wrote:

Marcus wrote:Where can I vote for a Potro section?

Disgraceful behaviour.

Good job GD the Aussie isn't still around or we'd have to have Sod and Baggy sections. And don't get me started on SaintSeppi.

SaintSappi is my fav poster. Anybody knows where he posts now? If so, please do tell: I can pay for the information (payment is in Dracma).

BTW: Anyone for a Sharapva thread?

Just for arguments sake imagine I am an avid Murray fan with the strong opinion that he needs to get a full time coach and every time he loses I rant on about why IMO he has lost... and what he should do about it... and how he will continue to lose if he doesn't.

I can imagine this might begin to annoy the Murray fans who believe he's on the right track. This could be solved by having 2 seperate Murray fan sites within 606v2. One in favour of a new coach and one in favour of keeping things as they are. Everyone would be happy. Until another Murray fan comes along with the theory that he should ditch gym work and concentrate on improving his forehand.

Do I need to go on?

No hawkeye if you wanted to discuss whether he should have a new coach in the Murray section should it come about I am sure it would be a welcome conversation. Like I said constructive criticisms I can handle and chat about and have done in the past and will in the future.

Hawkeye imagining you as a Murray fan is too great a leap to take.

hawkeye once again completely missing the point

OK, I can't go through the entire thread, so can someone sum it up and tell me WHAT IS THE POINT????!!!

The point is to prevent 'certain mischievous posters' ruining the forum for other posters with agendas against certain players. Let me re-iterate that is not to say there aren't excellent posters here as well as there are.

Can someone explain what's the difference between honest criticism and constructive criticism?

More importantly what does constructive criticism mean knowing the chance of Murray reading this forum is close to nil but even if he did, the chance of him taking up those "constructive" criticism and work on them are not as good of me winning the lottery twice in a row?

Can we simply just talk about Murray?...anywhere?

Only if you like him

Tenez: "constructive criticism" is saying something like 'to win a slam Murray needs to improve his first serve percentage/be more aggressive in the earlier rounds so that he's ready to be aggressive when taking on the rest of the top 3 (against who his counter-punching style isn't enough". I have no problem with people expressing this sort of opinion, and if it's expressed in a reasonable way, with arguments to back it up, than fine, and in fact, all for it, as debate is what we're after.

What we don't like to see is "Murray is a trouble-maker", "Murray is grumpy", "Murray only wins when no one else is trying". That's not criticism or even debate in my opinion, it's just mindless player bashing and serves no purpose on a message board.

Not sure what you mean by "honest criticism"...

I'd just ask MFC for you to look around the forum today and say who do you think warrants such strictures?

We are talking about a minority of posts - and not all reasonable posters can agree that all the posts in dispute deserve censure.

Can't we just try once more and let' s all be accomodating and try and reach a middle ground.

Once you start imposing sanctions, you will inevitably kill the remaining humour and goodwill.

well if I scroll down the page the one with most posts is the "well done Andy" thread, and about 80% of the posts on that aren't IMO constructive (ie they're either boring anti-Murray rants, or responses to these rants). Right now thay're probably only about three posters who I wouldn't want commenting on a "congratulations Andy" thread (and no, you're not one of them), but the trouble is they're the ones making the most noise.

It's what everyone ended up getting fed up with on 606, and I'd like the same not to happen here. So while I agree that being accomodating and finding a middle ground would be great, we've tried that several times and for me it hasn't quite worked out.

I really don't think having separate sections will change things that much, we used to have them and the main board was still active. I think it's a good idea, and certainly worth a try. If it doesn't work we can go back to where we are now.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:What we don't like to see is "Murray is grumpy"

That would be an honest criticsm to me. Not one I'd expect anyone here to lose sleep from though.

A criticism hasn't got to be constructive, has it? Can't people say that Federer is or seem arrogant? Nadal takes too long between points, Djoko should stop trying to embrace his losing opponent at the shake of hands.

Wouldn't it be easier if fans could simply let it go? No need for players sections and sub-sections with warnings of minefields everywhere?

Tenez wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:What we don't like to see is "Murray is grumpy"

That would be an honest criticsm to me. Not one I'd expect anyone here to lose sleep from though.

A criticism hasn't got to be constructive, has it? Can't people say that Federer is or seem arrogant? Nadal takes too long between points, Djoko should stop trying to embrace his losing opponent at the shake of hands.

Wouldn't it be easier if fans could simply let it go? No need for players sections and sub-sections with warnings of minefields everywhere?

I promise I'll dress up appropriately for 606 v2 from tomorrow on:
https://www.mainemilitary.com/productcart/pc/catalog/germanchemicalsuit.jpg

I'm not sure we have the same definition of "constructive criticism". Basically, what I don't mind is criticism backed up by reasonable arguments and expressed in a reasonable way. I also would prefer if it adds something to a debate.

What I don't like to see is player "bashing", and that for any player (well except Karlovic we're all allowed to bash Karlovic ). Like I said I don't think the subsections would change much, for me the main debate (and where I'd spend the vast majority of my time) would still be on the main general board.

But I'd be happier if I could write a "well done [player X] article" without fear it'd be over-run with anti-[player X] sentiments, which is IMO what happened to the "well done Andy" thread. Hence why I'm supporting the experiment of player sections.

the number of threads on 606 with Federer is arrogant, Federer is a bad loser etc, etc.

Yeah, sometimes he is - sometimes I think the comments were unfair. The thing about tennis, (and it is very obvious when you look at nostalgia threads remembering past greats and their charisma and contribution to the sport, not just in terms of titles but of bringing the crowd in) is that it is a personality driven sport and people react to those personalities.

Murray will sometimes be mentioned as being grumpy, just as Fed will be mentioned as being a tad arrogant - if it goes beyond and a real character assination that's a different issue. I will read the thread again, I was sort of catching up on it cause not on here at weekend so I didn't read as was unfolding and so sped read - but I don't, if I am honest, see a reason to censure - take issue with a poster's argument and refute it forcefully - sure, but that is a different thing altogether. But maybe we are just different, and this has to be a majority decision I would think?

I reckon we have one full-on bashing thread, vent-out stuff, the topic title could be stg like: Enter at your own peril....

We'll agree to disagree there then TP, for me there were some posts on there which went way beyond what should be acceptable, including probably a couple of mine. It's easy to say "refute [a poster's argument] forcefully" but my problem is when it isn't an argument, just a senseless attack on a player. The only valid option is to ignore him, but for some of us it becomes too much to see post after post bashing your favourite player. Hence why it would be better if the inflammatory post wasn't there at all, and hence why I'm supporting the experiment of player sections.

That sounds cathartic NITB

Get it all out of the system and move on Any takers?

Hey MFC - just about to post and saw yours. The thing is, you think one of yours went beyond (haven't seen) but you are recognising and apologising for that (again, I have no idea atm whether you should). I have really lost my temper (several times actually) this week - rather unfairly with Jubb and I've apologised. That's what grown-ups do, and that's why I am not really in favour, in my heart of hearts of sectioning off bits of the forum and treating posters like misbehaving children - and before you all leap on me and say that is how they were behaving - can I just play the 'mummy card' here and say that when I expect more of and trust my children I get a far better response than when I am irritated by their attitude or behaviour and I being to censure in some way.

Let's give posters a chance. I would guess that most of us are quite well seasoned forum users, but sometimes people forget that they are actually writing not just to an inanimate forum but to a bunch of human beings with sensibilities - with posters who seem not to have grasped this, can't their point of view be acknowledged but then someone politely requests that they rephrase their post in line with accepted levels of courtesy.

I guarantee that you will win more battles this way - whereas the proposed heavy handed approach will lead to many being afraid to use their humour (and then we are all the poorer) and the 'naughty guys' being even more determined to do mischief. What's the phrase - you can catch more with honey than with vinegar - I would say, expect more of people and you will get it, d*mn them and you will have just temporarily have buried the problem.

fair enough TP, I'm too young to know much about parenting

What you say makes sense, BUT we've been here before (several times), done this whole "new, fresh start" thing before, and we seem to constantly come back to where we are now, and it has driven posters away, or at the very least to post less often (Lydian, Jubba, LK and my good self spring to mind) which is a shame.

I'm not sure having the player sections will have a negative aspect, as long as the admin continue to monitor those too (ie no "ganging up" on other posters just because the section is private - that could indeed have a very detrimental effect.

Basically I've reached the point where the whole "fresh start" thing for me is a case of "been there, tried that, didn't work" so would like to give this new idea a go, and see where it leads. Once again, I can't see posters only posting on their own player's section, as they're plenty of fan forums out there for posters to do that.

going to get some sleep now, catch you tomorrow.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I'm not sure having the player sections will have a negative aspect, as long as the admin continue to monitor those too (ie no "ganging up" on other posters just because the section is private - that could indeed have a very detrimental effect.

Well obviously it is a done deal then?

I have to say I think it is a vocal minority deciding this, but so often in life that is the way.

What I don't quite understand from the posters' point of view is why they need a fan section when the posters concerned all belong to a fan forum, so presumably they are already getting both experiences: posting to the faithful, and posting on a mixed forum.

I can, however, see from your point of view YI Man that it is a conciliatory move to keep posters.

Of course, I will accept the decision and continue to post here because I really enjoy talking with a lot of guys on here. I would just leave you with one thought.......one of the strike threads where there was criticism of both Murray and Rafa brought the brilliant branbotam to this forum.......okay he is not here atm, but that may well be because it went very quiet on here for a while after that debate, until this week, of course

The arrogance of some people really is breathtaking. They stroll in to a forum they do nothing to maintain and support and they start telling other members what are acceptable criticisms, what constitutes constructive criticism and list examples of what is not acceptable, such as "Murray is grumpy".

Can we please have supporters special sections so these people can vacate the open forum, and I appeal to the Admin to allow vigorous debate in that area.

BB, you don't think posters should be allowed to express their opinions on what is 'constructive criticism' and what is 'player-bashing'?

Hmmm, I don't like arrogance. But I don't like intolerance either. But which is worse? There's only one way to find out - FIGHT!

Tenez wrote:Can someone explain what's the difference between honest criticism and constructive criticism?

More importantly what does constructive criticism mean knowing the chance of Murray reading this forum is close to nil but even if he did, the chance of him taking up those "constructive" criticism and work on them are not as good of me winning the lottery twice in a row?

Can we simply just talk about Murray?...anywhere?

I think honest criticism and constructive criticism is more the less the same thing with the primary being a manipulation of the latter.

I don't mind constructive criticism at all. Sometimes when people come on board with radical idea's for improvement in his game it is an intriguing read.

I think what annoys Murray fans is posters coming on branding him unsuccessful as Slam success is the only form of success. And also those who lambast him as a character based on the 'Anyone but England quote'

I would never say it is a bad thing if he is accused of having a 'strop' on court, because it is there for us to witness. Doesn't mean he is like that off court which tends to be something that 'un-informed' posters seem to assume.

An example of what I think was 'mis-interpretation' was Federer's 'finger wagging' at the FO after the Djokovic match. For some reasons Fans thought of it as 'Arrogant' when for me well and truly I think he done it as to say 'Don't count me out just yet' which is a massive difference.

Federer being given the 'Arrogant' tag is easy given that he handles himself quite comfortably off court. I think some people expect for him to say 'I am so lucky' to be where he is, when infact luck has nothing to do with it.

Back to the subject at hand, I could see gang warfare develop if a poster is a member of more than 1 player group.

Could YI Man please clarify if posters were allowed to vote for more than one player section?

Because if so, I don't think we are seeing a true representation of the forum. If not, well it seems that player forums is what the majority do now want.

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:Can someone explain what's the difference between honest criticism and constructive criticism?

More importantly what does constructive criticism mean knowing the chance of Murray reading this forum is close to nil but even if he did, the chance of him taking up those "constructive" criticism and work on them are not as good of me winning the lottery twice in a row?

Can we simply just talk about Murray?...anywhere?

I think honest criticism and constructive criticism is more the less the same thing with the primary being a manipulation of the latter.

I don't mind constructive criticism at all. Sometimes when people come on board with radical idea's for improvement in his game it is an intriguing read.

I think what annoys Murray fans is posters coming on branding him unsuccessful as Slam success is the only form of success. And also those who lambast him as a character based on the 'Anyone but England quote'

I would never say it is a bad thing if he is accused of having a 'strop' on court, because it is there for us to witness. Doesn't mean he is like that off court which tends to be something that 'un-informed' posters seem to assume.

An example of what I think was 'mis-interpretation' was Federer's 'finger wagging' at the FO after the Djokovic match. For some reasons Fans thought of it as 'Arrogant' when for me well and truly I think he done it as to say 'Don't count me out just yet' which is a massive difference.

Federer being given the 'Arrogant' tag is easy given that he handles himself quite comfortably off court. I think some people expect for him to say 'I am so lucky' to be where he is, when infact luck has nothing to do with it.

Back to the subject at hand, I could see gang warfare develop if a poster is a member of more than 1 player group.

So what if a comment annoys a fan? I mean seriously, who cares a jot if Craig gets annoyed because someone says Murray isn't up to it, or if lydian doesn't like nadal being called a cheat for time wasting, or noleisthebest for Djokovics MTOs? Who cares if I didn't like someone calling Federer arrogant or a shanker or he only won stuff in a weak era?

Tough, just suck it up and get on with it. Honestly, some of this is truly pathetic.

JuliusHMarx wrote:BB, you don't think posters should be allowed to express their opinions on what is 'constructive criticism' and what is 'player-bashing'?

Hmmm, I don't like arrogance. But I don't like intolerance either. But which is worse? There's only one way to find out - FIGHT!

No problem them expressing their opinion but they don't want to stop there. They want to impose their opinion on everyone else by censorship, which i do object to.

I do think we should remember we are talking about battle hardened tough world class sportsmen sometimes, not tentative eight year olds about to take their first swing in a tournament.

As Lydian says on another thread, the fact that we are all sports fans means there is a pretty good likelihood of us all being quite competitive ourselves - which is why arguments rage on rather than someone conceding when challenged.

I am resigned now to the player sections if it is truly what the majority want, but I think it is an admission of defeat by all of us.

BB - your last point is my fear, I must admit that it will extend into surpressing a lot of contentious opinion in the main forum and just kill it off.

Do we know yet whether we are allowed to vote for more than one player section everyone? Presumably you are each time you post on this thread?

time please wrote:As Lydian says on another thread, the fact that we are all sports fans means there is a pretty good likelihood of us all being quite competitive ourselves - which is why arguments rage on rather than someone conceding when challenged.

Yes, it's a good parallel. So imagine how upset some would be here if they had to play their life and career against a player who takes an awful lot of time between every point and disrupt their rhythm.

Intolerance and condescension are definitely worse.

To take your example BB - there is nothing particularly wrong a poster posting "Murray is grumpy" except it has been expressed around 6 million times (often by the same posters) on here and 606. Each time it has been shown to be nonsense off court (he has had the odd well documented hissy fit on court) he is just quiet and ill at ease in press conferences. This issue gets debated although what it has to do with tennis is entirely beyond me, the evidence of non-grumpiness ( not sure that is a word) is put forward and the debate dies down. Twenty minutes later the whole thing starts again

I remember one poster on 606 had a permanent link to the "Murray not anti-English" DM article as they had to post it so often!

These are just examples but there are many with regards to a certain GB player. I can think of a couple with regards to the other players too. The point is that every positive thread seems to descend into tired old themes that have been done to death.

I don't like the idea of segregation - I would prefer it if we could just debate as adults. Criticise the tennis, express opinion but leave cheap insults in the playground.

I haven't voted but I would have liked to see the option:

No player section

[quote="bogbrush"]

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:Can someone explain what's the difference between honest criticism and constructive criticism?

More importantly what does constructive criticism mean knowing the chance of Murray reading this forum is close to nil but even if he did, the chance of him taking up those "constructive" criticism and work on them are not as good of me winning the lottery twice in a row?

Can we simply just talk about Murray?...anywhere?

I think honest criticism and constructive criticism is more the less the same thing with the primary being a manipulation of the latter.

I don't mind constructive criticism at all. Sometimes when people come on board with radical idea's for improvement in his game it is an intriguing read.

I think what annoys Murray fans is posters coming on branding him unsuccessful as Slam success is the only form of success. And also those who lambast him as a character based on the 'Anyone but England quote'

I would never say it is a bad thing if he is accused of having a 'strop' on court, because it is there for us to witness. Doesn't mean he is like that off court which tends to be something that 'un-informed' posters seem to assume.

An example of what I think was 'mis-interpretation' was Federer's 'finger wagging' at the FO after the Djokovic match. For some reasons Fans thought of it as 'Arrogant' when for me well and truly I think he done it as to say 'Don't count me out just yet' which is a massive difference.

Federer being given the 'Arrogant' tag is easy given that he handles himself quite comfortably off court. I think some people expect for him to say 'I am so lucky' to be where he is, when infact luck has nothing to do with it.

Back to the subject at hand, I could see gang warfare develop if a poster is a member of more than 1 player group.

So what if a comment annoys a fan? I mean seriously, who cares a jot if Craig gets annoyed because someone says Murray isn't up to it, or if lydian doesn't like nadal being called a cheat for time wasting, or noleisthebest for Djokovics MTOs? Who cares if I didn't like someone calling Federer arrogant or a shanker or he only won stuff in a weak era?

Tough, just suck it up and get on with it. Honestly, some of this is truly pathetic.[/quote]

That is the type of crap that will attract the sh1t that truly ruined 606.

Is this not suppose to be something different?

Kinda goes against the grain if you want posters to adopt a 'who gives a sh1t' mentality. Kills a forum.

One of the things, if I am honest, that sticks in my throat a bit carrie is that I know that both the departed R's and people on the Murray forum do express less than flattering views of other players, their advantage in slams or their home tournaments? - these posters are often no better than we poor criticised people, they are just doing it under cover.

Now I don't have time to set up a forum and maintain it on my own, and I have disliked cliques since I watched gossipy little groups in the playground who just had no tolerance for those outside their orbit.

There is a whiff of hypocrisy about this whole issue that is a little frustrating.

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 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. So how about actively discouraged, rather than censored?

The problem currently is that some people just want to enjoy their player's success and have a thread that celebrates a player, without it becoming an argument about the player's relative strengths, weaknesses etc. Not something I'd participate in much personally, but I don't see anything wrong with the idea. But that doesn't happen - or rather, posters don't allow that to happen - such a thread would invariably get hijacked.

As for not giving two hoots about any of the other posters, I assume there's a difference between expressing an honest opinion even if it means upsetting a few people, and writing something purely with the intention of upsetting a few people?

" I think what annoys Murray fans is posters coming on branding him unsuccessful as Slam success is the only form of success. And also those who lambast him as a character based on the 'Anyone but England quote'"

As a Murray supporter (don't call me fanboy or you will get an earful ) who has said on this thread that I am not interested in seperate players sections I am quite happy to debate on the main forum. Whether he is successful or not without winning a slam is fair game (not going into the argument on here). The anyone but England thing I ignore because it is an obvious wind up. 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. Where I do get annoyed is when people start silly name calling and trying to belittle others because they have different viewpoints.

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....

JuliusHMarx wrote:As for not giving two hoots about any of the other posters, I assume there's a difference between expressing an honest opinion even if it means upsetting a few people, and writing something purely with the intention of upsetting a few people?

That is the issue in a nutshell JHM But who is going to decide that.

I have to say to the founders, I do think there is a case for telling some to 'strap a pair on' sometimes, but I think they are being emotionally blackmailed with the threat of departure all the time and so are in danger of listening primarily to only one particular group.

I agree that we should 'actively discourage' rather than 'censor' too

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.

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.

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?

But I just don't think player sections would stop the constructive debate, the main debate would still all be on the main forum. Don't think it's that big a deal, but it's clear that the forum at the moment isn't working all that well, so why not try YI's idea (unless some of you have got a better one - and "just suck it up" isn't, because that's led to where we are now)...

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.....

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?

OK, maybe the "Murray is grumpy" was poorly chosen. No I think we should be able to debate these points, if we can do so in a reasonable manner (ie without resorting to cheap insults like "fanboy" at someone defending a player for instance). What I don't like to see is threads high-jacked by someone with an agenda. As for your last question, yes I would post more on here but no, I wouldn't abandon the other forums either (though I would probably mostly abandon MTL).

noleisthebest wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Marcus wrote:Where can I vote for a Potro section?

Disgraceful behaviour.

Good job GD the Aussie isn't still around or we'd have to have Sod and Baggy sections. And don't get me started on SaintSeppi.

BTW where IS Stud?

... On MTL....