To All Users of the Tennis Section - Please Read

First topic message reminder :

To all users of the Tennis board,

The Admin Team feels that the overall hostile and unfriendly tone of tennis section is currently detrimental to 606v2 as a whole and that all posters should honestly question whether their posts bring anything positive and healthy to the forum. We would like to emphasise that it is not about rule-breaking but about creating a more friendly, healthy environment that more posters would want to be involved in rather than leave.

If things don't change there are several members who could be removed from the site or the section could be temporarily (at first) closed.

Please take account of the following and if any of the listed changes apply to your posts, please amend your posting style immediately. This is an open warning and any further transgressions will be dealt with accordingly.

The problem isn't rule-breaking, it's the overall negativity of the forum and the endless circular debates to 'prove' one point of contention is correct, or one player is better/worse - often aimed specifically at the expense of other posters. Eventually the posters who post loudest and longest 'win' and the others disappear from the forum, because it has ceased to hold any enjoyment for them. Not from losing the argument, but from the hostility and animosity of the other posters.

It seems most threads are either created for the purposes of criticism and/or battle, or else hi-jacked into a battle.
It's no wonder outsiders look at the tennis forum and think there is more than the fair share of nutjobs on there (as one poster put it on the GOAT thread).

The list of changes that are required from certain posters are:

• Users to stop creating thread purely to deride or post negatives about specific players.
  
• Stop creating endless threads which raise issues that are a thinly-disguised attempt to 'prove' one point or another that has already been debated to death. Please be happy that you believe it and not be so desparate to endlessly 'prove' it to everyone else, or to 'prove' that posters you dislike are wrong.
  
• Users to stop the indignation every time someone says the slightest negative thing about their favourite player.
  
• Users to stop going on about how they are always right and letting their dislike of players and their fans colour their posts.
  
• Not to make disparaging generalisations of other groups of posters/fans of other players
  
• To treat all posters equally regardless of differences of opinion and not to retort in kind if one poster transgresses the behaviour required for a harmonious forum.
  

You may recognise traits of other posters in the above list. However, this is not a name and shame exercise, anybody who says 'x point applies to y user' will receive a 2 day ban without warning or notification.

I see you're trying to demonstrate the effect on another thread. Way to go.

bogbrush. What are you on about. My new thread about Federer and Nadal is not critical of either player. I like them both. In fact they are the players that keep me interested in watching tennis and I like talking about them. What's wrong with that?

My previous comment to you was regarding more controversial views certainly not the Federer v Nadal debate that is a staple of all tennis forums. Naturally!

laverfan wrote:@SB... Diversity of views is welcome, even circular discussions may be entertaining, but repetitious discussions just reflect on lack of the creativity that the community has to offer.

But nobody is forcing posters to only discuss eras or whatnot. If there are any entertaining and insightful discussions waiting to happen, they are free to sprout. If they do not happen, or maybe even more importantly, they do happen but attract only a small fraction of responses relative to the pointless ones, then it seems naïve to think that by weeding out the ones we do not like (but are popular) the ones that we do like (but are currently far less popular) will start growing healthily.

laverfan wrote:
"His BH is really a f***ked PoS..."
v
"His BH needs some work..."

While I hope my style is more of the latter variety, I do not really have problem with either on the forum. That said, I do not mind banning the former – but I think that can again be done via relatively simple rules regarding language and such.

JuliusHMarx wrote:There is a difference between criticize and denigate :-
denigrate - verb, Criticize unfairly; disparage

My view is that while I do not mind putting restrictions on style of presentation (swear words, etc) I do not like seeing restrictions on substance. So, even unfair criticism – as long as it is expressed in civil manner – should be fine. In the end, who is to judge whether criticism is fair or not?

Danny_1982 wrote:That's pretty much spot on. I think we all know who they are...

That sounds good on paper but neither current discussions nor the past history of this forum inspire confidence in me.

At the end of the day, JHM is right when he says that the exact things that some posters want to see here, other posters find detrimental. Some people prefer pub arguments while watching a football match, others may prefer book club discussions while having afternoon tea, and it may be difficult to have both at once. It may be that the forum cannot fit all and has to choose its direction. All I can do is make it clear which direction I prefer.

SB - who is to judge what is civil or not?

JuliusHMarx wrote:SB - who is to judge what is civil or not?

JHM, I said yesterday that I recognize that at the end of the day, a judgment call will be required. Fair enough. But that is not quite what this thread seems to be about. Enforcer’s first bullet point says:

Users to stop creating thread purely to deride or post negatives about specific players

That seems to have little to do with style but seems to be much more about substance. Why should a user not post negatives about a specific player? And even plenty of times if they have a sufficiently negative view of the player? In my mind, the fault lies squarely with those who are offended by that.

Look, at the end of the day, I am happy to agree to disagree, and I also recognize that the forum owners can obviously run it as they see fit.

It's starts at poster level, then we have to place our confidence in the Mods, then Admin to make judgement calls on what is allowable or not. If posters do not like the way this forum is ran, they can either make their views comcerning application of the rules known to Admin and/or post elsewhere - for example, perhaps a forum with no rules, aggressive tone, blatant player bashing and open accusation of PED use is more desirable to some people.

I don't have a problem with era threads, talent discussions, etc, as long they arent thinly veiled Trojan horses for blatant, back door repeated player bashing resulting in heated poster exchanges that result in oher people stopping posting or leaving. Thats what the 'past history' of this forum had. We all want interesting discussions but we all surely agree that freedom of speech also comes with responsibility, its all very well and good allowing negative topics to be discussed with alacrity but a theoretical free for all is a risk to encouraging a broad spectrum forum that encourages posting on a range of views and from different poster types rather than a narrow minded small and non-growing private club of losing reality conspiracy theorists and 1-player bashers.

The forum doesn't really have problems with player bashing, arguments and all that in my opinion.

The big turn off is that just about every discussion is incredibly boring and shallow to the point that it's barely anything to do with tennis.

I don't think the mods should do anything about this. People can't help being tedious.

I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing negative aspects of a players game, or even articles that heavily criticise a player.

Can you tell the difference between those types of articles and player bashing or WUM articles? I know I can. I don't think there are loads of culprits on here really, only a few.

It doesn't make me want to leave and post elsewhere, I'm not 15 (unfortunately) so I'm not bothered by WUMs... and this place is far less aggressive than it was a year or so ago... But I definitely think it would affect new people joining.

Danny_1982 wrote:Can you tell the difference between those types of articles and player bashing or WUM articles? I know I can.

Everybody can. It does not mean they will agree with each other.

Disagreement is fine. Debating is what it's all about.

Again though, I think everyone can tell when someone disagrees and is debating their views and when people are just trying to p**s people off.

I really don't think we have a bad problem in this regard (p*ssing people off) anymore. What we mustn't do is overstate the case and make the place seem a lot worse than it actually is, or stifle open debate. Seems we're all pretty much agreed?

Danny_1982 wrote:Again though, I think everyone can tell when someone disagrees and is debating their views and when people are just trying to p**s people off.

But I disagree with that. Yes, there are many cases where it is abundantly clear which one it is. But there are plenty of cases in the grey area in between. Some people are naturally more confrontational and may be inclined - as part of their natural argument style - to post things that others would only post when WUMing. (To be honest, it puzzles me why people find it hard to ignore even outright WUMs, but that is a topic for another discussion).

Anyway, I do not think I want to get dragged into this any deeper than I have so far. Various people will have varying opinions and we will not all agree. I do not particularly like the direction the forum is taking here, but others will think otherwise, and it is obviously the owners' prerogative to take whatever they find the best course of action.

I agree with you SB. Where it's a grey area I just assume that people are genuinely putting their argument forward. I may be wrong, it may be a WUM but unless someone makes it abundantly clear they have an agenda to irritate then I assume its just a different viewpoint.

Like I said, it's only a few that intend to annoy... The vast majority are within bounds and fine.

Summerblues is dead on, some people don't like certain players or aspects of their game or attitude, they should be free to say so as much as they like, and you should be free to disagree vociferously. IF I ever post a windup it is usually so bizarre and comical that it obvious and maybe poor attempt at humor, ie like demanding a special investigator for federer taking Djokovic's chair. My views are my views and I wouldn't waste my time posting 8,000 posts detailing them as mere windup. The chilling effect of censorship will not serve the interests of the mods or the administrators? How many here honestly felt that IW and the preliminary and post discussions were hostile? Can someone detail a single GOAT debate recently that has become a basis of attacking posters or quote shrill?

And again it isn't about the GOAT debate, I haven't started a goat thread or a weak era thread since 2012, it is about being able to say thing that fans of a certain player don't like. I don't find Roger to be a good sport and find it mind boggling that he has won 8 sportsmanship awards. When I question Fed's sportsmanship or call his competition in his early years weak, Fed fans don't like to hear that an it annoys them. So? Is this website part of the Nike/Federer PR arm or a place for exchanging views? I don't like it when Lydian calls Novak dull and robotic, but I will defend his right to say it as long as he likes and I can't think of a single incident where we have had issues with each other over it.

I didn't want to be dragged back into this debate but Summerblues more eloquently stated my problems with the new direction this site seems to want to take. It isn't my choice. But I will post exactly what I want, on what topic I want, some will be positive, some will be negative; and if people don't like it tough. And if it gets me kicked out of here that is fine, the internet is a big place and I waste too much time talking tennis.

"Weak Fed fans" - mentally weak, physically weak, emotionally weak? Actually weak? Or just that you like to wind up/insult Fed fans?
If, as you say, summerblues is "dead on", then you must agree with SB's statement "as long as it is expressed in civil manner". Yet if a poster disagrees with your questioning Fed's sportsmanship, you call them "weak".
I would say that is not civil.

What are you talking about Julius? When have I called them weak? I have called them much worse than that but that was a long time ago, but I can't remember ever calling them weak. Are we dredging up ancient history and I have plenty of my own grievances we can discuss if that is the case?

As i said if you examine the last two months of this website you will find it by all accounts to have been much more civil than we have previously ever seen. And a place that was adding new members at a faster rate than ever. This opening thread was a mistake. A big mistake, and the idea that we can't post negative threads to slag players we don't like is really non-sensical in my opinion for a tennis thread. YOu guys, ie the management can do what you like. If I chose to post I will post what I like, if you deem it to be a violation of these vague rules and principles as moderator you can use your discretion to banish me. But I won't change my style or censor my own topics.

JHM, Socal wrote "When I question Fed's sportsmanship or call his competition in his early years weak Fed fans don't like to hear that an it annoys them."

Clearly he intended a pause/comma between "weak" and "Fed fans...", you've taken a leap to read that as "weak Fed fans". I didnt read it that way.

That is clearly what I meant, Lydian and there should have been a coma there my bad. Again that is what I mean about walking on egg shells and always having to analyze everything like a UN diplomat.

You're quite right socal, although your previous post says "weak Fed fans", the 'weak' refers to "early years" - i.e. "....early years weak, Fed fans....". I misread it as ".....early years, weak Fed fans...."
I was about to remove my post, but then you posted. Darn internet, I blame Bernard-Lees! Apologies.

The OP was agreed by Admins/Mods and I reckon it had just about the effect we expected, so I disagree that it was a mistake.
I think I've said, as has laverfan, but I will re-iterate, there is a difference between threads that criticise and "thread purely to deride or post negatives".

Ok Julius, you guys do what you have to do and I will post like I have been posting for the last 6 or 7 weeks, when you guys feel that I am bringing the forum down then you can take action as you see fit. But I won't censor myself, I won't change my views and if you feel that I am in violation feel free to act accordingly to your discretion.

PS the comma was added in order to clear up confusion.

socal1976 wrote:That is clearly what I meant, Lydian and there should have been a coma there my bad. Again that is what I mean about walking on egg shells and always having to analyze everything like a UN diplomat.

The only thing about that is that if posters don't take the time to analyze their own posts, then it falls on myself and LF to analyze everyone's. I'd rather everyone did it. It's not that much to ask, rather than expecting the Mods to do it.
I don't think views need to change, no-one has a problem with views, but thought and, dare I say it, consideration, can be given in the way those views are expressed. This need not water down or censor views. A moderate tone can be used to express extreme views and, I suspect, would actually add weight to those views.

JuliusHMarx wrote:A moderate tone can be used to express extreme views and, I suspect, would actually add weight to those views.

I said I would now try to stay out of this but after mostly criticising the forum I have found a statement I can wholeheartedly support, so I may as well.

This is just so obviously true, and perhaps this is why some people may view some of the more colorful posts as WUMing - adding too much color will add the heat to the debate but will also make the poster less likely to be taken seriously, so people will think - rightly or wrongly - "why would he/she do it, if not for WUMing"?

Looks like members have done a Sebastien Vettel with the GOAT thread, leaving Enforcer in the Christian Horner position.

But are they triple World champions?

JuliusHMarx wrote:The only thing about that is that if posters don't take the time to analyze their own posts, then it falls on myself and LF to analyze everyone's. I'd rather everyone did it. It's not that much to ask, rather than expecting the Mods to do it.

And sometimes, the written word carries ambiguities which can cause misinterpretations, of course, coloured by our own biases and it may look like us siding with one or the other side. And labels ensue. JHM and I just trying to ensure a reasonable, civil debate. If the community can stay civil even during GOAT or circular debates, that is all we ask, a bit of introspection, a bit of engage-your-brain-before-you-post.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't think views need to change, no-one has a problem with views, but thought and, dare I say it, consideration, can be given in the way those views are expressed. This need not water down or censor views. A moderate tone can be used to express extreme views and, I suspect, would actually add weight to those views.

Very well put, JHM.

JHM,

Just read your pm. Tried replying, not sure if it got through. Just want to state that my comment was not aimed at the poster you highlighted in the message.

Thanks