The Thorny Subject Of Competitive Eras

First topic message reminder :

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/roger-federer-rafael-nadal-thorny-subject-competitive-eras-170300220--ten.html

 

laverfan wrote:and may help HE moderate her anti-Murray stance.

But why should she moderate her anti-Murray stance?  If she likes posting anti-Andy posts, and if she does it in a polite enough way (as she does), I do not think forum should have any expectation that she should change.

summerblues wrote:

lydian wrote:What would you have done SB?

What would I have done if I had been either an admin or a mod?  I do not think there was much to do in the first place.  If a poster thinks Nadal lacks talent relative to other top players, would never have made it had conditions not changed dramatically, and cheats more than most players, then I certainly think that poster should be able to present that view, robustly if they wish so.

Robustly, perhaps, but not repeatedly, to the extent that such a discussion is the only progression of a many a thread. IIRC, a dedicated thread for such purposes can be created and maintained. WUMmery should be tolerated, but not encouraged. IMVHO.

summerblues wrote:With the exception of PED discussions, I cannot think of anything where I would say Tenez warranted even a consideration for a ban.  Of course, for legal reasons, forums cannot allow PED accusations.  But if that is the issue, it should be dealt with directly - clear warnings with clearly delineated consequences, and ultimately a ban, if needed.

The said poster is quite capable of a sane discussion, but the usual farce of talent vs physicality does not need to be repeated on every thread on which there is a comment by said poster. See the racquet/string Tennis rewind thread on the Other Forum. Talent and physicality, is both needed. Lydian always refers to Paganini articles vis-a-vis Federer. Gasquet and Wawrinka under new tutors are  improving it, to become more competitive.

summerblues wrote:But that is not why Tenez was banned, at least not on the face of it.  So either his ban was a backdoor way to get rid of his PED comments or, worse still, the forum would have been happy to live with his PED comments but was unwilling to keep him because other posters disliked him.

You are willing to forget many a ban on myriad forums, which follow the said poster?

summerblues wrote:HE's case is actually quite similar in a way.  She attracts a lot of negative feelings from many posters for similar reasons as Tenez did - she is quite persistent in her criticisms of Andy.  You feel that something needed to be done in Tenez's case.  There are probably good many posters who similarly feel that something needs to be done in her case.  But if the forum keeps removing posters that attract criticism, it is bound to lose a lot of color over time.

Respectfully disagree, SB. HEs comments can be countered with humor, if necessary. That is not the case otherwise. The latter descends into name calling and juvenile behavior like threats to leave the forum, etc. I am glad that there is a forum which provides a platform for discussions amenable to a certain group of posters. The Divide and Conquer solution works, when communities becomes intransigent and entrenched.

BTW, Denmark and others are willing to start DCRs, perhaps we should have threads for similar purposes.

summerblues wrote: Plus it is not just Tenez and HE that one loses, one loses other posters who - while maybe not as controversial as the posters that are let go - may prefer more freewheeling nature of the forum.  Presumably, the theory is that it is worth it, because in their stead the forum will gain more - and perhaps better - posters.  I doubt it.  As I said before, it would be very interesting to see the stats; I certainly do not have the feeling that bans helped increase the traffic on this forum.

Quite agree. On many occasions, JHM and I have tried to convince posters to a reasonable middle ground for the sake of the overall community, in some cases  with success, in others not. Every ban removes a voice, and mutes an opinion. The razor's edge between chaos and order is bloody.

You're right SB - there's nothing wrong with being anti-Murray or anti-any player per se.
But if I were to write one article a day for the entirety of 2014 on 365 things I dislike about Jock McHaggis or Juan El Toro, then I'd expect other posters to tell me to shut up, and eventually the mods to shut me up.
Equally if I were to repeatedly selectively quote out of context, twist words and misrepresent the truth about Igor Brillovic or Jack Journeyman I shouldn't be surprised at some sort of official censure.

laverfan wrote:The razor's edge between chaos and order is bloody.

The creative writing book you got for Christmas is coming in handy, I see

summerblues wrote:

laverfan wrote:and may help HE moderate her anti-Murray stance.

But why should she moderate her anti-Murray stance?  If she likes posting anti-Andy posts, and if she does it in a polite enough way (as she does), I do not think forum should have any expectation that she should change.

Being a moderator helps reduce bias and IMVHO (as the highlighted part clearly shows), allows a wider perspective of opinions, rather than a long-held view, which may not be supportable. Her becoming a mod generates hope (the ultimate form of despair - ) rather than an expectation.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

laverfan wrote:The razor's edge between chaos and order is bloody.

The creative writing book you got for Christmas is coming in handy, I see

My quota of a good line per day is now fulfilled, JHM.

1 vote for Hawky here.   

JuliusHMarx wrote:Lydian, I didn't feel the need to apologise - if I had felt that need, then I would have done it. I honestly don't know how you could interpret my post on OTF in that way.
 
Amritia wasn't banned for 2 months - it was 1 day! - for a number posts which were personal attacks on another poster, and following warnings about spam posts on one particular other thread. He then asked for the 'Red' ID to be deleted, which it was and he has since rejoined under another user ID, but doesn't post on the tennis section.
 
You may remember that he was banned permanently at one point by the admins for some posts that were not on the tennis forum, but we agreed to let him back in, as IMBL/Red - so we've given him every opportunity - and he can post here whenever he wants.
 
HE was banned for a few days, as I have said before I think, for taking the anti-Murray campaign too far. I was getting more complaints about that than I ever got about Tenez, and people were leaving the forum because of it. Not because it was anti-Murray per se, but because it constantly twisted the truth and misrepresented the facts and was, in effect, wumming. Even then none of the threads were actually removed. In that case, as you say "Was I supposed to sit idly by as posters were leaving - and not all Murray fans?"
 
What debates are sanitised? Serious question. We asked for fewer GOAT debates because everyone was moaning about them, and apart from that we basically asked that the house rules be observed.
 
Once again, I issue an open invitation to anyone who wishes to become a Mod - so far no-one else has been willing to help out, despite plenty of criticism for those who do volunteer.

I've been asked to Mod here numerous times from its outset and declined each time. For the record I recommended Admin appoint you! I don't have the time as travel on business out of the country too much to follow threads. I have no problem with HE as a mod per se either and believe it healthy for forums to rotate the mod chairs now and then.

Fair enough if the "apology" wasn't meant in that way. I'm probably sensitive vs the Tenez/NITB situation and will reply to SB accordingly. Re: Red, my understanding was it was for 2 months but who knows. Sometimes, I wonder if we should just wipe the slate clean with an amnesty and see how it pans out. However, I don't see HE like the situation with Tenez nor feel they hould be equated. How many people have complained about HE...surely not of the same order as per Tenez?

lydian wrote: ... and believe it healthy for forums to rotate the mod chairs now and then.

Absolutely. If Mod for a Week (Mod for the Day may be a bit difficult for admins) is what v2 needs, it would be good to have more posters contribute on that front.

@LS/@SB… would you like to consider it?

lydian wrote:Sometimes, I wonder if we should just wipe the slate clean with an amnesty and see how it pans out.

There have been feelers put out in the past that have been politely and firmly declined, but I am willing to try again. JHM (aka Mikey) was also trying it. It would also require support from posters to do the same, not just the admins and mods.

BTW, have you read about Autobiographical memory?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/12/18/255285479/when-memories-never-fade-the-past-can-poison-the-present

lydian, all I know is that more people have complained to me about HE than ever did about Tenez - I guess they all complained to you about him - and it's not usually Murray fans that complain about HE.

I can assure you Amritia's ban was for one day - unless he got banned by someone else and I don't know about it.

LF - just to reiterate, I've never discussed or mooted a return here with either Tenez or NITB, as far as I can recall.

thanks for that link LF. I finished reading a book titled "How to develop a super power memory" a few weeks ago. Thought my new-found ability to recall 50-digit numbers and 100 unrelated words made me special... nice to be proved wrong! Gotta love the internet

summerblues wrote:If a poster thinks Nadal lacks talent relative to other top players, would never have made it had conditions not changed dramatically, and cheats more than most players, then I certainly think that poster should be able to present that view, robustly if they wish so.

Quite agree in terms of content. However, every thread and almost every post became choked by Tenez's physicality-ergo-PED viewpoint up to April 2012. After all, why do you think he was banned from here at least 3 times to my knowledge and every forum he joined since 2006? Do you wish to merely focus on the permanent-ban of Apr12 in singularity and have it that Tenez was treated unfairly as is the nuance coming across loud and clearly? That despite multiple warnings and short term bans...none of which I instigated, coerced or had any involvement with for the record!

summerblues wrote:With the exception of PED discussions, I cannot think of anything where I would say Tenez warranted even a consideration for a ban.  Of course, for legal reasons, forums cannot allow PED accusations.  But if that is the issue, it should be dealt with directly - clear warnings with clearly delineated consequences, and ultimately a ban, if needed.

As above, it was the accumulative thread-choking behaviour which the Mods, Admin and forum grew tired of. I remember pre perma-ban a thread-analysis stat that Laverfan calculated which showed that out of > 2000 posts or so from Tenez, something like 93% (LF, remember?) contained the word "physicality". The phrase "stuck record" became synonymous with Tenez's behaviour at the time and it was obvious to admin, mds and reasonable posters the terminology had long lost its useful context and was being posted out of obvious wummery. Those in defence of Tenez forget how choked the forum had become...a point not missed by Admin. Again, nothing to do with me.

summerblues wrote:But that is not why Tenez was banned, at least not on the face of it.  So either his ban was a backdoor way to get rid of his PED comments or, worse still, the forum would have been happy to live with his PED comments but was unwilling to keep him because other posters disliked him.

As explained...again, it was accumulative based on 6 months of thread choking and one-sided posting/wummery behaviour and a series of mini-bans to modify said behaviour...which was blatantly ignored.

summerblues wrote:HE's case is actually quite similar in a way.  She attracts a lot of negative feelings from many posters for similar reasons as Tenez did - she is quite persistent in her criticisms of Andy.  You feel that something needed to be done in Tenez's case.  There are probably good many posters who similarly feel that something needs to be done in her case.  But if the forum keeps removing posters that attract criticism, it is bound to lose a lot of color over time.  Plus it is not just Tenez and HE that one loses, one loses other posters who - while maybe not as controversial as the posters that are let go - may prefer more freewheeling nature of the forum.  Presumably, the theory is that it is worth it, because in their stead the forum will gain more - and perhaps better - posters.  I doubt it.  As I said before, it would be very interesting to see the stats; I certainly do not have the feeling that bans helped increase the traffic on this forum.

HE might have some negative feelings towards her but trust me its on a completely different level to the animosity towards Tenez that I'm aware of to the contrary of JHMs view above. It's not like this was the only forum he had been banned from - was every forum/mod guilty of treating Tenez unfairly? Bizarre coincidence if so. He may be a more sensible poster on his own forum these days, or not, but that wasn't the case up to 18 months ago.

However, on the broader point bans are risky. Of course they can lead to followers leaving too. BUT...I can assure, and LF will testify, there was nothing "freewheeling" about the accumulative choking effect of 93% Tenez's 1000s posts. The forum does need more members and a liberal attitude to what topics can be covered but we don't want to see the same topic covered gratuitously ad nauseum as was once the case.

kingraf wrote:thanks for that link LF. I finished reading a book titled "How to develop a super power memory" a few weeks ago.

I read that book a while back. At least I think I did, I can't really remember.....

BTW...re: forum traffic, for the record I believe the forum was in rude posting health up to a few months ago. Its more recently, and Tenez ban unrelated, that the forum seems to be sliding in terms of traffic but it may simply be due to the accumulative effect of 5-6 years of "Top 4 fatigue"? Despite all this, I have no issue with olive branches being extended...I'd like to think all sides have matured in posting behaviour over recent years.

I definitely think Top 4 fatigue has set in. What is there new to write about Fed/Rafa after 8-10 years and Djoko/Murray after 6-7 years? A bit. but not that much.
But also Oct - Dec are always quieter months anyway.

Luckily, come Jan 1st, part 1 of my '365 things I dislike about David Ferrer' magnum opus will be posted.

Fantastic, JHM, I've planned similar musings on 365 reasons why I don't like the Becker/Djokovic partnership won't work (it was 1001, but I quickly realised that the terms "Cupboard" & "Stolen keys" were repeated ad nauseam).

laverfan wrote:There have been feelers put out in the past that have been politely and firmly declined, but I am willing to try again. JHM (aka Mikey) was also trying it. It would also require support from posters to do the same, not just the admins and mods.

BTW, have you read about Autobiographical memory?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/12/18/255285479/when-memories-never-fade-the-past-can-poison-the-present

Interesting article, thanks LF. Even though Tenez & I have 7 years of locking horns up to Apr12 neither of us should be too stubborn to concede ground. If posting could be about things other than the same old hackneyed inflammatory stuff I'm sure informed discussion could still be possible. However, I believe Tenez would be too influenced by another poster to ever reconsider joining here, plus he's lord/judge/jury/executioner over there. Albeit amongst a very narrow forum base. Nonetheless, a heady mix to give up and become mere poster on someone else's tennis forum.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I definitely think Top 4 fatigue has set in. What is there new to write about Fed/Rafa after 8-10 years and Djoko/Murray after 6-7 years? A bit. but not that much.
But also Oct - Dec are always quieter months anyway.

Luckily, come Jan 1st, part 1 of my '365 things I dislike about David Ferrer' magnum opus will be posted.

Quite true on both counts. I'm hoping 2014 - finally - gives us something else, someone else, to talk about in earnest. Surely someone new is going to win a slam before too long? Surely!

I can add to that opus with my musings about the barnyard exponent himself - Marcel 'The Seed Plough' Granollers. His "delights" didn't go unnoticed on TT Warehouse either...

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=391325
"Watched a few games of the third set of his win over Verdasco, because I couldn't stand to watch anymore, his strokes are some of the ugliest since Karsten Braasch. I don't understand how you can get to that level and not fix them. At one point he hit a volley, winner of course, and it looked like someone who had no idea what they were doing, his off hand was awkwardly almost interfering, and his whole body was kind of oddly contorted, and his back swing on both his groundstrokes, reminds me of what a Trex(is that the dino with the tiny arms)might look like hitting them, a really quick, short backswing, the antithesis of Fed for sure."

Think the fact of the matter is that like JHM said, there is a lull from Oct-Dec. The tennis section of V2 (and all sections really,) is more discussion based, unlike other sites which focus on racquet tech, How to improve your serve, how to go from a 6.2 to a 7.5 rated player - the finer arts basically. In a sport which places particular emphasis on Slams, it's inevitable that post-Slam business is slower, given the lack of comparable stories to discuss. Even the rugby section has slowed, and the only section here that I frequent which is doing better now than in general, is the cricket section, but that's because the Ashes in on, and English people seem to prefer discussing how awful their teams are.

@Lydian… Yes, i do recall the specific statistic that you reference. I am glad to see that 'forgetting' and purging of bad memories is a good trait to have, to prevent depression and stress overload.

@SB… there is also a bit of prior history between some posters and one named Wooffie (and some Nadal fans - H-n and Lydian can probably recall). I would be glad to have diversity, even if it is confrontational, if it stays civil. It increases JHM, my (and probably HE's) workload, but if controversy is the barometer of vibrancy and vitality, so be it. As you indicate, polite, but robust discussions are very welcome. The Innocent vs Guilty discussion on OTF was pretty civil, balanced and open-minded, IMHO.

kingraf wrote:thanks for that link LF. I finished reading a book titled "How to develop a super power memory" a few weeks ago. Thought my new-found ability to recall 50-digit numbers and 100 unrelated words made me special... nice to be proved wrong! Gotta love the internet

@KR.. You are special , no matter what others can or cannot do. Every poster on v2 (and elsewhere) is unique (to steal Federer's and Nadal's quotes).

laverfan wrote:If Mod for a Week (Mod for the Day may be a bit difficult for admins) is what v2 needs, it would be good to have more posters contribute on that front.

@LS/@SB… would you like to consider it?

Maybe in a few years' time once I am retired...  I barely have time to post with the time zone difference, and work and other commitments.

Also, I would like to make it clear that even though I hold a different opinion than the forum does (as represented by mods and admins) on a number of these cases, I do not mean my comments as a suggestion that moderating is not done well here, or that I could do it better.

It is sort of similar to when I think that Andy should play more aggressively - it does not mean that I purport to be able to do it better.

LF/Lydian:  In this post I will try to loosely address some of the comments you made in response to my prior posts.

My posts are not as much about Tenez/HE/Amri as about the process that led to the forum's actions against them.  Specifically, I am not as "pro-Tenez" as you seem to be assuming.

I see three separate lines of criticism leveled against Tenez:

1. Accusations of specific players of PED use.
2. Anti-Nadal agenda.
3. Insertion of 2 into numerous threads ad nauseam.

The way I see it:

#1 is clearly a bannable offence.  I do not remember whether or not Tenez was posting direct PED accusations at that time, but if he did then a ban would seem a perfectly reasonable, in fact probably the only appropriate, response.

#2 does not strike me as an offence at all.  Surely it should be perfectly fine to post anti-Nadal views.

#3 is the trickiest one.  At one end of the spectrum, posting negative comments is fine.  At the other end of the spectrum is clear spam, but where one crosses from one to the other is difficult to judge.  Tenez was fairly prolific, but I did not have the feeling at the time he was crossing into the outright spam territory.

My problem with the process that led to his dismissal is that it felt to a large extent like he was thrown out mostly because of #2, rather than because of #3.  To put it differently, I suspect that if Tenez was as monothematic and as prolific as he had been, but on a less controversial topic, he would not have been banned.

I think similar dynamic has been playing out with HE and Amri.  If instead of criticizing Andy all the time, HE had been equally vigorously extolling his virtues, I expect she would have been fine.

laverfan wrote:

lydian wrote:Sometimes, I wonder if we should just wipe the slate clean with an amnesty and see how it pans out.

There have been feelers put out in the past that have been politely and firmly declined, but I am willing to try again.

In principle I like the idea of an amnesty but I think the forum should first clarify for itself how it wants to handle various infractions going forward.  As it stands now, HE operates on the fringes of acceptability, as witnessed by her temporary ban.  If the forum continues to view her posting as bordering on inacceptable, then I think we are better off without an amnesty.

I think the biggest issue with various bans we have had discussed is the ambiguity in the rules and their application.  Specifically, I think the forum should try to provide more concrete rules and penalties around #3 item from my previous post - i.e., around handling of spamming.  I know it is not easy and a perfect solution will likely remain elusive no matter what but I think that, as it is, the process is too vague.

summerblues wrote: As it stands now, HE operates on the fringes of acceptability, as witnessed by her temporary ban.  If the forum continues to view her posting as bordering on inacceptable, then I think we are better off without an amnesty.

That is just ridiculous! If for example I say Djokovic was affected by his loss at the FO and you don't agree. Say why. It's laughable to say that view border the fringes of acceptability because you don't agree. Anyway I stand by my view and I won't be   . The only way by view could be changed (and I admit the possibility is remote) is by reasoned argument not by threats. If this place continues down this nasty line I along with many others would leave anyway.

" The only way by view could be changed (and I admit the possibility is remote) is by reasoned argument not by threats. If this place continues down this nasty line I along with many others would leave anyway"

No not many others would leave, as for you bye bye

hawkeye wrote:

summerblues wrote: As it stands now, HE operates on the fringes of acceptability, as witnessed by her temporary ban.  If the forum continues to view her posting as bordering on inacceptable, then I think we are better off without an amnesty.

That is just ridiculous! If for example I say Djokovic was affected by his loss at the FO and you don't agree. Say why. It's laughable to say that view border the fringes of acceptability because you don't agree. Anyway I stand by my view and I won't be   . The only way by view could be changed (and I admit the possibility is remote) is by reasoned argument not by threats. If this place continues down this nasty line I along with many others would leave anyway.

Also this thread was started with a link that I thought some might be interested in. If they weren't they could have just ignored it or gone "Pfft!" There are a growing list of topics that some are so sensitive about it's getting difficult to say anything without making some cry... Maybe it has something to do with Nadal regaining the number one position? (I hope I'm not in trouble for saying that?)

sportslover wrote:" The only way by view could be changed (and I admit the possibility is remote) is by reasoned argument not by threats. If this place continues down this nasty line I along with many others would leave anyway"

No not many others would leave, as for you bye bye

sportslover. Admit it. You are my biggest "fan". You only post here to say nasty things about me (I have checked your posting history). So as far as I can tell you are only here because of me  

hawkeye wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

summerblues wrote: As it stands now, HE operates on the fringes of acceptability, as witnessed by her temporary ban.  If the forum continues to view her posting as bordering on inacceptable, then I think we are better off without an amnesty.

That is just ridiculous! If for example I say Djokovic was affected by his loss at the FO and you don't agree. Say why. It's laughable to say that view border the fringes of acceptability because you don't agree. Anyway I stand by my view and I won't be   . The only way by view could be changed (and I admit the possibility is remote) is by reasoned argument not by threats. If this place continues down this nasty line I along with many others would leave anyway.

Also this thread was started with a link that I thought some might be interested in. If they weren't they could have just ignored it or gone "Pfft!" There are a growing list of topics that some are so sensitive about it's getting difficult to say anything without making some cry... Maybe it has something to do with Nadal regaining the number one position? (I hope I'm not in trouble for saying that?)

You're not in trouble for saying it, but you do appear ridiculous for saying it, because it's a ridiculous argument. The problem HE is that you're prepared to say any number of silly things, to twist facts, to misrepresent the truth and to quote out of context in order to make your point. As such 2 things happen - 1. Posters think poorly of you and 2. Posters think poorly of the forum that allows such things.
The first one doesn't bother me so much, but the second one does, because it drive people off the forum - something you obviously don't care about, but I do. It seems to me that you're incredibly selfish in that regard. Your anti-Murray arguments rarely hold any water and when it's pointed out to you why, you simply ignore the responses and fail to reply - and move on to raise another anti-Murray thread a bit later. Whilst you may not consider that wumming, there are many, including myself, who do.

You say "growing list of topics that some are so sensitive about it's getting difficult to say anything without making some cry" - please provide a list of these growing topics and gives names of people who are crying - or perhaps this was yet another stupid remark?

hawkeye wrote:

summerblues wrote: As it stands now, HE operates on the fringes of acceptability, as witnessed by her temporary ban.  If the forum continues to view her posting as bordering on inacceptable, then I think we are better off without an amnesty.

That is just ridiculous! If for example I say Djokovic was affected by his loss at the FO and you don't agree. Say why. It's laughable to say that view border the fringes of acceptability because you don't agree.

Just to make sure we have no misunderstanding: I agree that what you are posting should be considered perfectly acceptable. I am not suggesting otherwise. All I am saying is that this forum views your posting as being on the fringes (as evidenced by the fact that the forum gave you a temporary ban).

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

summerblues wrote: As it stands now, HE operates on the fringes of acceptability, as witnessed by her temporary ban.  If the forum continues to view her posting as bordering on inacceptable, then I think we are better off without an amnesty.

That is just ridiculous! If for example I say Djokovic was affected by his loss at the FO and you don't agree. Say why. It's laughable to say that view border the fringes of acceptability because you don't agree. Anyway I stand by my view and I won't be   . The only way by view could be changed (and I admit the possibility is remote) is by reasoned argument not by threats. If this place continues down this nasty line I along with many others would leave anyway.

Also this thread was started with a link that I thought some might be interested in. If they weren't they could have just ignored it or gone "Pfft!" There are a growing list of topics that some are so sensitive about it's getting difficult to say anything without making some cry... Maybe it has something to do with Nadal regaining the number one position? (I hope I'm not in trouble for saying that?)

You're not in trouble for saying it, but you do appear ridiculous for saying it, because it's a ridiculous argument. The problem HE is that you're prepared to say any number of silly things, to twist facts, to misrepresent the truth and to quote out of context in order to make your point. As such 2 things happen - 1. Posters think poorly of you and 2. Posters think poorly of the forum that allows such things.
The first one doesn't bother me so much, but the second one does, because it drive people off the forum - something you obviously don't care about, but I do. It seems to me that you're incredibly selfish in that regard. Your anti-Murray arguments rarely hold any water and when it's pointed out to you why, you simply ignore the responses and fail to reply - and move on to raise another anti-Murray thread a bit later. Whilst you may not consider that wumming, there are many, including myself, who do.

You say "growing list of topics that some are so sensitive about it's getting difficult to say anything without making some cry" - please provide a list of these growing topics and gives names of people who are crying - or perhaps this was yet another stupid remark?

If I can I say my view on the "drive posters away theory; that's absolute subjective and unproven. They said lets get a rid of Tenez and NITB so that more posters will join in: nobody joined. Afterwards they said: let's get a rid of all the wums; still nobody joined. Now the biggest obstacle to the next  massive intake of new members appear to be......Hawkeye! really you serious guys? . The most succesfull and crowded tennis forums (TW and Mentennis forums and the old 606) have/had plenty of posters that you would rate as wums which go happily along with many others who  are,  say more technical and less partisan in their views. As for the job of moderating a forum, I don't think it should focus much on  quality of comments (that's not a corporation or a for profit endevour in first place) which is btw very arbitrary; but rather on personal attacks and other offensive behaviours. Often, writing controversial opinin can spark a debate  while merely reporting objective facts won't do, and I don't think people is much attracted by this kind of sanitised forum anyway. On a side notes: I remember people of other sections of the forum laughing at how serious and self important  was the debate here and not the other way around.

laverfan wrote:

lydian wrote: ... and believe it healthy for forums to rotate the mod chairs now and then.

Absolutely. If Mod for a Week (Mod for the Day may be a bit difficult for admins) is what v2 needs, it would be good to have more posters contribute on that front.

@LS/@SB… would you like to consider it?

lydian wrote:Sometimes, I wonder if we should just wipe the slate clean with an amnesty and see how it pans out.

There have been feelers put out in the past that have been politely and firmly declined, but I am willing to try again. JHM (aka Mikey) was also trying it. It would also require support from posters to do the same, not just the admins and mods.

BTW, have you read about Autobiographical memory?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/12/18/255285479/when-memories-never-fade-the-past-can-poison-the-present

Don't... tempt me LF! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand LF, I would use this mod job from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.

I've no idea about new members J_K. I think the biggest obstacle to new members is that if you google "online tennis forum" or ""online tennis forum UK" 606v2 is nowhere in the list. So if someone was looking to join such a forum, how would they find us?

HE's posting behaviour (i.e. twisting facts, misrepresenting the truth) drew many complaints and drove a few people off the forum, either temporarily or permanently, simply because they thought it made the forum look a bit pathetic, and so didn't want to participate. I know that because they told me in PMs. It was nothing to do with it being anti-Murray, or controversial.

I remember other sections of the forum laughing at all the wummery and juvenile arguments that went on here, but the Admins thought it reflected badly on 606v2 as a whole, and other Mods would tell me how they were glad they didn't have to deal with the tennis section.

@LS… The Galadriel/Frodo references are quite good. I did not know you are/were a Tolkien fan. Have you seen Hobbit Part 2 yet?

@JK… Wall Street has this dilemma that adding new subscribers to the rolls is a reflection of a thriving business, but churn gets measured, ARPU gets calculated, EBITDA and CAGR, etc. Poster counts in a forum are not necessarily a reflection of health. No matter how derisive a poster's opinion is about a player, the requirement is that it should be tolerated, but when it comes to an anonymous poster on an internet forum, such derision is frowned upon and bans issued. Is this truly Free Speech?

@SB…
#1 is a problematic topic because of legal issues and lack of authoritative public domain proof vs. rumours and innuendo.

#2 H-n and Lydian, for example, have shown despite prevalent anti-player sentiments, debate within reason is possible. If you notice, a lot of anti-Nadal opinion which was vitriolic has moved, but anti-Nadal opinions outside that context thrive. (I have not seen talent-less moonballer for several months now).

#3 is the wall for potential posters to review before a decision to wade in the pool is made. Overall , this reflects the diversity and tolerance of opinions. The higher the number of similar discussions, the less attractive it is to posters who may have a different opinion, but others who hold a similar opinion, may want to join.

There is a #4, where posters form an affinity for other posters, like a group identity, and follow the anointed one. Iconoclasts follow, to become the purveyors of a sense balance. IMBL/JS/Red/Amri v Tenez et al. is very similar.

Even if the count of posters is low, but there is a diversity of opinions and good discussions, I would consider it a thriving community. Lydian is alluding to the lack of such discussion.

@SL… be careful, HE will be the Lady of Light very soon.

laverfan wrote:@LS… The Galadriel/Frodo references are quite good. I did not know you are/were a Tolkien fan. Have you seen Hobbit Part 2 yet?

@JK… Wall Street has this dilemma that adding new subscribers to the rolls is a reflection of a thriving business, but churn gets measured, ARPU gets calculated, EBITDA and CAGR, etc. Poster counts in a forum are not necessarily a reflection of health. No matter how derisive a poster's opinion is about a player, the requirement is that it should be tolerated, but when it comes to an anonymous poster on an internet forum, such derision is frowned upon and bans issued. Is this truly Free Speech?

@SB…
#1 is a problematic topic because of legal issues and lack of authoritative public domain proof vs. rumours and innuendo.

#2 H-n and Lydian, for example, have shown despite prevalent anti-player sentiments, debate within reason is possible. If you notice, a lot of anti-Nadal opinion which was vitriolic has moved, but anti-Nadal opinions outside that context thrive. (I have not seen talent-less moonballer for several months now).

#3 is the wall for potential posters to review before a decision to wade in the pool is made. Overall , this reflects the diversity and tolerance of opinions. The higher the number of similar discussions, the less attractive it is to posters who may have a different opinion, but others who hold a similar opinion, may want to join.

There is a #4, where posters form an affinity for other posters, like a group identity, and follow the anointed one. Iconoclasts follow, to become the purveyors of a sense balance. IMBL/JS/Red/Amri v Tenez et al. is very similar.

Even if the count of posters is low, but there is a diversity of opinions and good discussions, I would consider it a thriving community. Lydian is alluding to the lack of such discussion.

@SL… be careful, HE will be the Lady of Light very soon.

laverfan - Pray tell me what is "the Lady of Light"  

laverfan wrote:@LS… The Galadriel/Frodo references are quite good. I did not know you are/were a Tolkien fan. Have you seen Hobbit Part 2 yet?

@JK… Wall Street has this dilemma that adding new subscribers to the rolls is a reflection of a thriving business, but churn gets measured, ARPU gets calculated, EBITDA and CAGR, etc. Poster counts in a forum are not necessarily a reflection of health. No matter how derisive a poster's opinion is about a player, the requirement is that it should be tolerated, but when it comes to an anonymous poster on an internet forum, such derision is frowned upon and bans issued. Is this truly Free Speech?

@SB…
#1 is a problematic topic because of legal issues and lack of authoritative public domain proof vs. rumours and innuendo.

#2 H-n and Lydian, for example, have shown despite prevalent anti-player sentiments, debate within reason is possible. If you notice, a lot of anti-Nadal opinion which was vitriolic has moved, but anti-Nadal opinions outside that context thrive. (I have not seen talent-less moonballer for several months now).

#3 is the wall for potential posters to review before a decision to wade in the pool is made. Overall , this reflects the diversity and tolerance of opinions. The higher the number of similar discussions, the less attractive it is to posters who may have a different opinion, but others who hold a similar opinion, may want to join.

There is a #4, where posters form an affinity for other posters, like a group identity, and follow the anointed one. Iconoclasts follow, to become the purveyors of a sense balance. IMBL/JS/Red/Amri v Tenez et al. is very similar.

Even if the count of posters is low, but there is a diversity of opinions and good discussions, I would consider it a thriving community. Lydian is alluding to the lack of such discussion.

@SL… be careful, HE will be the Lady of Light very soon.

LF that is Gandalf's line not Galadriel's!!!!!

Big Tolkien fan! Off to see the hobbit part 2 tonight. Loved the book, film was a shadow of the book and the lotr films. Hopefully this wiill be better!

LS: I was so disappointed in the first Hobbit movie that I did not go to see the second one, but a friend is telling me it is better than the first - though not as good as LOTR movies.

@SL… Lady of Light is a reference to Galadriel, in Lord of the Rings. She gives Frodo a light of a star (Earendil) in a bottle which helps Sam and Frodo fend off Shelob the Spider when Gollum leads them into her lair. HE becoming the Mod may finally help shed the light of the Star on Murray's talents.

@LS… When Frodo and Galadriel look at the mirror (after Gandalf has fallen into the Shadows fighting the Balrog), Galadriel says the same thing about power and corruption as Gandalf in Bilbo's house. I was trying to cover both references.

@SB… The movies are not faithful to the original story, but Jackson and team's creativity is quite good and in some cases fascinating. Without spoiling it for LS, the Bilbo/Smaug dialog is pretty good, IMHO. Trying to put an Arwen equivalent in Tauriel does not work very well though. I am already looking forward to part 3. A version of Fast and Furious in movies is now becoming a norm, but I did discover Lee Pace.

@HE… apologies for this side-bar. Please excuse.

"In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair!"

That is different LF, I know lotr off by heart !!!

I heard that too. Amazing how they got 3 films out of a small book (although I know they've pulled stuff from Silmarillion too). By that reckoning they could have got 15+ films out of LOTR! I first read Hobbit at 12 yo then LOTR after. Hobbit always struck me as much more child oriented than LOTR to be honest. Both are colossal stories though. Would love Peter Jackson to take on the Dune series!

Back to the forum topic, I'm actually with SB in terms of levity vs control as a whole (and suspect most of us also are...) but feel we need to draw a line under the events of 20 months ago.

My crystallised comments on past events are that if I'm honest I think there was fault on all sides. Ok Tenez should probably have heeded the early warnings and been less repetitive about Nadal, but then Tenez and myself should have fought less and given more ground - there was likely validity in all viewpoints because like in most things not everything is black & white. The Mods at the time should have been more direct in controlling the repetition and arguments (although they were probably trying to maintain said levity in fairness) and Admin should have approached the final bans with much better preparation, clarity and communication. Then perhaps they could have been even avoided. Having performed them though the Admin member in question should have also exerted post-ban discretion rather than running off to JA606 to troll the banned members there - that was childish in the extreme and undermined Admin here.

I have nothing against Tenez or NITB personally because I dont really know them truth be told. Its fine with me in principle if they were to post here again with an open mind but suspect neither would return. However, given the depth of knowledge and passion for the game we have around us its a shame the division couldn't be avoided. Given OTF is basically a small forum consisting of a smattering of 606v2ers plus Tenez & NITB its a shame the residual stubbornness and resentment cant be brushed away.

So....in the spirit of the season of goodwill and after all this time should an olive branch be extended? It's not easy to both extend and accept these branches but perhaps it can be worth it if everyone feels a broader representative forum could be achieved? Tenez & NITB if you're reading this (...and I bet you will...) I say lets give collective thought to learning from past differences & events and if people on both sides are interested then let's see if we can mive forward by accepting there were mistakes made on all sides. An Entente Cordiale if you we're. It doesn't have to be hearts & flowers but it doesnt have to be sticks & stones either.

What do others think the way forward is? If there are a lack of replies to this then we know where people stand and at least the gesture was made.

Lydian   

@LS… Quite the reference I had in mind.

@Lydian… Unlike Burton-Taylor being seven times, it may be a bit harder. It is worth an attempt though. You are addressing the two chief pooh-bahs, but others also need similar accommodations.

Since the reading is bidirectional, but not the writing part, which Admins may also have a say in.

Yes LF, my post is basically asking the question would people be in favour of seeking collaboration, or maintaining the separation...there is a lot of residual feeling from the past 2 years so its a question of whether people are prepared to wipe the slate clean and move forward positively without rekindling the old arguments (I for one have no interest in them any more) or stick to the old entrenched positions.

The Hobbit was good imo. More impressive, rousing & cohesive, still nada on LOTR, but restores the luster of the saga!

Who knows, in years ahead they may decide to do Silmarillion and CofH but not whilst C.Tolkien is alive I would suspect.

As I said before, I would certainly welcome an amnesty but I also really meant it when I suggested that for now we may be better off without it.

As it stands, we as the forum seem to be still unclear as to how to deal with similar cases - most recently with HE and Amri.  Although both cases seem to me as clear non-cases, presumably JHM is getting enough complaints that he feels need to act.  So both HE and Amri got temporary bans.  If we cannot agree that what HE and Amri are posting is fine, any amnesty would lead to more trouble.

I think what we should try to do is firm up the rules on what is and what is not ok.  I definitely vote to allow what HE or Amri post and - except for PEDs - most of what Tenez posts.  But I may be in the minority.

summerblues wrote:I think what we should try to do is firm up the rules on what is and what is not ok.

With ambiguity of language and variety of interpretations possible for a written word, a human analysis is always better, rather than a mathematical formula.

summerblues wrote: I definitely vote to allow what HE or Amri post and - except for PEDs - most of what Tenez posts.  But I may be in the minority.

HE is now using tags like Player 1,2,3 rather than names, so

a. JHM's Dark Arts Class is working wonders for a Mod-in-the-making, and,
b. Amri may have a fifth incarnation (four lives left) on v2, so he is welcome to reveal and post at his convenience.
c. Need to spend a bit more time in other places and keep an eye on the diaspora.