Mod. Notice What do you want to see on the Geelong Board in 2017?

[Biggy_Boy]

IMO the pledge is an attempt to return to that environment of embracing the support for the club. One where pissing matches are gone. Abuse is gone. Discussion is maintained and encouraged but not at the expense of having posters, garden variety or otherwise, feeling compelled to leave as they are either abused, or drowned out by the loudest voice(s) in the room - leaving them gutted by feeling there is no point being here.

But where is the line between "pissing match" and discussion in your mind? How are posters 'drowned out by the loudest voice'? Does that mean some posters should post less or that back-and-forth discussion between people with different opinions should be discouraged?

When I arrived here it was more about embracing and welcoming support for the club and encouraging posters to engage in discussion.
Now its more about trying to avoid s**t fights and like fests.

I must be missing the like fest problem, because a few people have brought it up. I don't understand how people can be ganged up on with likes or how they can be construed in a negative sense. Usually, they're just used to denote a poster concurring with, or enjoying the content of, a post. The only way I see likes being used negatively on the site is when people will use them as a sort of "gotcha" mechanism when someone has been proven wrong or liking negative posts on an opposition boards. I rarely, if ever, see them being used this way on the Geelong board. I think they're mostly being used as intended.

Perhaps if you could illustrate an example of likes being used in a manner that is detrimental to discussion, it would help posters understand how to and how to not use them.

The fact the even one person has felt the need to leave here because of this is repugnant - the fact that it still goes on to this day is repulsive. Soon those loudest voices will be the only ones left. People will leave as they just don't want to hear it anymore. And you cant blame them.

Who has left because of posting conditions on the board?

 

[dazbroncos]

There is no ruler given out by Chief to measure pissing match and discussion. Sorry.

But as you seek something more tangible, the shouting back and forth - and by shouting I mean the same points being gone over and over again. Agree to disagree and move on before it degenerates. Accept another perspective - you dont have to like it - and move on. There can be discussion of issues on both sides of the fence at length as long as it does not become circular or abusive.

People have left, or post infrequently, or dont post at all. I'll leave it at that. There is no ledger kept if thats what you are looking for and even if there was, its not something that needs to be publicly identified.

Go Catters

 

[Biggy_Boy]

There is no ruler given out by Chief to measure pissing match and discussion. Sorry.

You're the one making the determination, so it's up to you to draw the distinction.

People have left, or post infrequently, or dont post at all. I'll leave it at that. There is no ledger kept if thats what you are looking for and even if there was, its not something that needs to be publicly identified.

Go Catters

Because of the way the community is? Surely if there's a causal relationship between the way the board is and people leaving, you can provide an example?

There just seems to be a real vagueness to your assertions and it's hard to pin down exactly what it is you want and what boundaries you want to set.

 

[00VicWard001]

Just some thoughts.

This pledge is a very generic "y'all be nice to each other okay. Please."

The reality is that some people want to be nice and some don't want to be nice and there's not a thing that can be done about it using this method. The only way something can be done is through individual punishments.

A broad social consensus cannot be implemented without there being real punishment for infraction. In real life, there some people are c*nts and villains and they are policed with real punishment.

Essentially, the way this can go is like this:

Step 1: Create a pledge to be nice
Step 2: Convince or cajole someone into signing it.
Step 3: Have a large group of us and a small group of them.
Step 4: The small group of them leave, and it is pleasant for the large group of us.

The problems:
It may become boring if there is no-one to dislike, or no-one is allowed to play the villain
What happens when opposition supporters turn up? Especially irritating ones. Do we give them a pass?
What if the small group don't leave and continue to be irritating to the large group of pacifists?

I am curious to see how this turns out.

 

[dazbroncos]

You're the one making the determination, so it's up to you to draw the distinction.



Because of the way the community is? Surely if there's a causal relationship between the way the board is and people leaving, you can provide an example?

There just seems to be a real vagueness to your assertions and it's hard to pin down exactly what it is you want and what boundaries you want to set.

Next time I see the distinction, ill be sure to call you.

Im not specifically identifying posters. I respect your position to ask and I hope you respect mine with their confidence.
However, the empirical data is available. I suggest you start with threads from Jan 2013 onwards. Look at who posted in threads and who is not here now. Free to PM them and as if they'd like to identify themselves and the reasons they left.

If you want to call bullshit - that's your choice to do so.

To see what I want and think should happen, read my earlier post. I was pretty clear.

GO Catters

 

[catempire]

Just some thoughts.

This pledge is a very generic "y'all be nice to each other okay. Please."

The reality is that some people want to be nice and some don't want to be nice and there's not a thing that can be done about it using this method. The only way something can be done is through individual punishments.

A broad social consensus cannot be implemented without there being real punishment for infraction. In real life, there some people are c*nts and villains and they are policed with real punishment.

Essentially, the way this can go is like this:

Step 1: Create a pledge to be nice
Step 2: Convince or cajole someone into signing it.
Step 3: Have a large group of us and a small group of them.
Step 4: The small group of them leave, and it is pleasant for the large group of us.

The problems:
It may become boring if there is no-one to dislike, or no-one is allowed to play the villain
What happens when opposition supporters turn up? Especially irritating ones. Do we give them a pass?
What if the small group don't leave and continue to be irritating to the large group of pacifists?

I am curious to see how this turns out.

The pledge is separate and unrelated to "punishments" (infractions) which have always existed and continue to do so.

Let's be clear: as a voluntary mechanism reliant on the good will of those involved the pledge cannot solve all the world's problems or even all of those of this board.

But we have already seen a big number of posters go on the record as effectively saying they want to see better behaviour and they are willing to be a part of that. This is unambiguously a Good Thing.

 

[dazbroncos]

Just some thoughts.

This pledge is a very generic "y'all be nice to each other okay. Please."

The reality is that some people want to be nice and some don't want to be nice and there's not a thing that can be done about it using this method. The only way something can be done is through individual punishments.

A broad social consensus cannot be implemented without there being real punishment for infraction. In real life, there some people are c*nts and villains and they are policed with real punishment.

Essentially, the way this can go is like this:

Step 1: Create a pledge to be nice
Step 2: Convince or cajole someone into signing it.
Step 3: Have a large group of us and a small group of them.
Step 4: The small group of them leave, and it is pleasant for the large group of us.

The problems:
It may become boring if there is no-one to dislike, or no-one is allowed to play the villain
What happens when opposition supporters turn up? Especially irritating ones. Do we give them a pass?
What if the small group don't leave and continue to be irritating to the large group of pacifists?

I am curious to see how this turns out.

How does being a villiain or setting out to be campaigner relate to being a GFC supporter talking about footy? Hawks supporter I can understand

But seriously, my take is if you want to do that, go down the local biker gang house, look for the biggest bloke there and have at and act the villain and campaigner all you want. Hope it works out for them.

Go Catters

 

[catempire]

In real life, there some people are c*nts and villains and they are policed with real punishment.

Also, on this, of course these types exist here as in real life too. Always have, always will. We will always try to minimise their disruption to those that want to come here to enjoy good footy discussion.

The pledge is irrelevant for these types. They have no interest in lifting the standard of discussion. They live to drag it down.

The pledge is for those that know they err in the way the behave on here and are good enough and big enough to recognise it and do something about it.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

What is "this" and what should we have done?

I don't even know any more mate.

 

[FredLeDeux]

As a former poster, and therefore an entirely impartial spectator, I have an idea, prompted by a recent re-reading of Catch 22, namely:

Unless and until someone signs the "bourgeois" (see post #355 above) Pledge, they are not allowed to post or reply to any post containing the words coach, chris, scott, leadership or any combos or derivatives thereof.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

The more quality people that return the better off discussions will be, less tripe like the Scott thread bitch fest and more genuine discussions.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Scott coaching thread, it's warranted.

 

[Partridge]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Scott coaching thread, it's warranted.

Of course it is. It's as valid as absolutely any other thread on here.

I find it revealing that it's been described as a toxic stain, yet those who are apparently the most outraged by it still can't resist the urge to visit it. And then complain about its existence. It's pretty simple, if you don't like the thread don't visit it. It's not difficult.

 

[catempire]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Scott coaching thread, it's warranted.

Of course it is. It's as valid as absolutely any other thread on here.

I find it revealing that it's been described as a toxic stain, yet those who are apparently the most outraged by it still can't resist the urge to visit it. And then complain about its existence. It's pretty simple, if you don't like the thread don't visit it. It's not difficult.

Absolutely nothing wrong with the topic - it's an obvious discussion topic for this board to have.

The manner in which that discussion takes place is another matter and is a source of concern if it is turning people away from the board or posting in the thread. We have been and will continue to try to make sure everyone feels the can discuss the topic without being abused or harrassed.

 

[Partridge]

Absolutely nothing wrong with the topic - it's an obvious discussion topic for this board to have.

The manner in which that discussion takes place is another matter and is a source of concern if it is turning people away from the board or posting in the thread. We have been and will continue to try to make sure everyone feels the can discuss the topic without being abused or harrassed.

Yep, and as long as that's the case it's absolutely fine.

 

[catempire]

Yep, and as long as that's the case it's absolutely fine.

And I should add, that people who just find the topic distasteful or don't want to be involved should just avoid the thread altogether.

 

[hbk_aus]

Just caught up with all of this. Bloody hell, paranoia is rampant about a simple voluntary pledge thread. If you don't want to sign it, don't. Simple. But I am not going to apologise for pulling somebody up who just ignores what we are trying to improve on here - common decency and respect for other posters no matter what their view is. Maybe not by mentioning the cursed "pledge" as it apparently rubs people up the wrong way but in another fashion. And I expect people to pull me up on it if i step out of line as well. For example, in hindsight I shouldn't have laughed at Blighty childishly the other day in a certain thread and I am determined not to fall to that level again. For a 40 yr old father of 2, it was immature behavior to get caught up in that sort of crap.

In a way, it is what our club's recent success was built on back in 2007 - brutally honest feedback aimed at improving each other and the club (or board in this case). Nothing about "witch-hunts" or "sinister" or anything like that - I and i assume all of us just really want this board to go back to being a fun, respectful place to discuss our shared passion for Geelong Football Club. Whether we name names or not, there definitely have been people who have ceased posting because of how things turned sour on here last year on both sides of the coin and I want those people to return. The more passionate and respectful posters we have on here, the better the board will become.

The Chris Scott thread definitely should remain as discussing the coach's performance is a very important topic. Because of that, it stirs up the most passion and debate from those who think Scott has had his time, to those who are willing to see if there are improvements this year, to those who want him signed up for longer. As long as we harness that passion the right way in our posts, then it can make for great healthy debate. All it can take is a read-over of your post before you hit the Reply button to make sure is wouldn't be possibly seen as derogatory, condescending or plain insulting towards a person and/or their views on the subject.

I do agree with Willo_ about the like button - you can see the same people liking the same posts all the time and it looks like an internet gang war. Not really sure of a solution though because there are some damn good quality posts on here at times which deserve the plaudits they get.

So pledge sign or not, all everybody wants here is for a lift in standards around here - some chose to promise publicly to do their part in achieving that. Some choose not to and by all means don't if it makes you uncomfortable, but at the very least it might make one and all think twice about the standard of their posts going forward. In turn, that will make a massive difference in the level of civility and behavior towards each other and will make for a much for enjoyable board in 2017.

 

[catempire]

But I am not going to apologise for pulling somebody up who just ignores what we are trying to improve on here - common decency and respect for other posters no matter what their view is. Maybe not by mentioning the cursed "pledge" as it apparently rubs people up the wrong way but in another fashion. And I expect people to pull me up on it if i step out of line as well.

Really good point. Absolutely nothing wrong with this community holding its members to a particular standard, regardless of the pledge.

 

[Cataholic]

Really good point. Absolutely nothing wrong with this community holding its members to a particular standard, regardless of the pledge.

Was happy to read the announcement by the Mods that they will be taking sterner action on insults etc.

However, I don't think this should just be applied until just Round 1, or thereabouts.

I'd like to see it become indefinite, a basic premise of this board.

 

[catempire]

Was happy to read the announcement by the Mods that they will be taking sterner action on insults etc.

However, I don't think this should just be applied until just Round 1, or thereabouts.

I'd like to see it become indefinite, a basic premise of this board.

Understand that and yours is likely to be a common reaction to the Round 1 point in time. We will see how things are at Round 1 and re-assess the need for it to be ongoing.

 

[BotsMaster]

Of course it is. It's as valid as absolutely any other thread on here.

I find it revealing that it's been described as a toxic stain, yet those who are apparently the most outraged by it still can't resist the urge to visit it. And then complain about its existence. It's pretty simple, if you don't like the thread don't visit it. It's not difficult.

That's my view of it.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Scott coaching thread, it's warranted.

Nothing wrong with having the thread...
It's two extreme views are an absolute cancer mind you. Worst thread on the board as a result.

 

[Spazz Cat]

With the CS thread it's just a loop at the moment and only very small loop at that, as we haven't even played a NAB cup game yet. He hasn't even had a press conference.
There's literally no point at even reading it ATM and the only reason to post on it until the season starts is just to get involved in an argument not a discussion.
The only other thing I've noticed on here that really starts fights is Blitz for some reason.
But lately it seems people have been more reasonable in their posts defending/criticising him.

 

[cynical]

As a forum grows the quality of the posts decrease, then some good posters who prefer a tight knit community then move on.

It's just natural progression.

 

[dazbroncos]

As a forum grows the quality of the posts decrease, then some good posters who prefer a tight knit community then move on.

It's just natural progression.

Interesting hypothesis.. I don't see why size necessarily dictates a dilution of quality.

Go Catters

 

[catempire]

As a forum grows the quality of the posts decrease, then some good posters who prefer a tight knit community then move on.

It's just natural progression.

Don't know that there's any evidence of this.