References to 'our mates'

W

Warbler

At the Start
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
8,493
At the risk of this spinning out of control, if there is a genuine demand to discuss what is acceptable or otherwise with regards to friendship circles and references to each other, then lets try and conduct it here please.

It follows on from the thread about 'racing post amateurs' which some of you will doubtless have read by now. For my part I'm not necessarily convinced yet that this one 'has legs', nor that we could easily frame any enforcable guidance that wouldn't be open to massive personal interpretation, but let's see.

I'm sure we'd probably be particularly interested to hear from infrequent posters who might have felt detered or excluded etc.
 
Last edited:
Wabler, maybe older hands will clue into this with ease, but I don't understand ....
Could you illustrate your meaning with a couple of examples: the kind of posts you'd expect to see?

Regards
 
Warbler said:
I'm sure we'd probably be particularly interested to hear from infrequent posters who might have felt detered or excluded etc.
Click to expand...

I joined in March 2008, posted about 7x and didn't return until a particularly boring day at work in August, when I saw Michael's request for books to help him expand his racing knowledge.

This was due to a rather aggressive response to something that I had merely relayed from a source close to the matter under discussion.

Rather off-putting for a new member testing the waters.

For that reason I post my observations, rarely my opinions.

I joined because I found the racing discussions interesting, particularly because of the varying viewpoints of those involved in different aspects of the sport. Plenty to be learned from that.

The banter is great, as are the heated discussions. However, when differences of opinions become more agressive and/or personal and a debate turns into a slanging match, that's a big turn-off.

Everyone has different outlooks and experiences, that's what makes it interesting.

Vive la difference!
 
I think there needs to be a balance between healthy adult interchange and the danger of descending into a twee garden party format. I sneer and snipe with the best of them and get plenty of it back, but to be honest I find this interesting.

I think you should avoid any menu of rules Warbler. We have been there and it didn't work. Behaviour is intuitive.

Having said that, I thought Redhead was a great addition and it would worry me if she felt unwelcome through anything I wrote. So I propose the following security protocol for new members.


Defcom 1: 0-50 Posts. Be nice. Always.
Defcom 2: 51-100 Posts. Be nice. Mild criticism/push back allowed only.
Defcom 3: +100 Posts. Help yourselves.

If anybody survives past 99 they should be tuned in and able to fight their corner.
 
I think it's easy to be exclusive when sharing in jokes or making references that can only be understood by those who understand the context (a context which may arise off-forum) and that is clearly not beneficial to the forum as a whole even if well enough meant (I've certainly been guilty of this myself), but actually referencing conversations with other forumites offline or outside of the forum needn't be divisive and can, and should be used for the benefit of the entire forum. The key is the context in which such terms are used.

Idle boasting "I copped off with Kylie Minogue last night and Jimmy can verify it because he had a go afterwards" is clearly not to be encouraged and nor is the ganging up of groups of forumites on other groups or individuals, but as long as language and intent is inclusive, then it should be encouraged. I don't think we need new rules either, merely a reminder that content posted on the forum should be for the benefit of the forum as a whole, with no individual interest championed above the whole. I'm guessing Warbler would like that pseudo-communist concept ;)
 
mrussell said:
Wabler, maybe older hands will clue into this with ease, but I don't understand ....
Could you illustrate your meaning with a couple of examples: the kind of posts you'd expect to see?

Regards
Click to expand...

Not very easily no. Its a response to a post under 'racing post amateurs' where it was requested that we might like to give some consideration to the issue. Whilst recognising that the subject matter has the capacity to spin out of control and degenerate unproductively, I decided to give it the chance to air and see where it went.

It's probably not unfair to reflect that certain informal groups of allegiance have formed, but in itself I personally feel that there is a degree of inevitability about this. In many respects it's no different to the formative years of parliament where like mided MP's tended to sit, and vote with each other, which eventually led to the formation of more formal party structures etc

I also tend to agree with AC that bringing in rules regarding what people can say with regards to their knowledge of other people is a bit draconian, it would be difficult to frame any rules in a fair way, and next to impossible to enforce with any sense of fairness. My own suspicion is that it would lead to more problems than it might solve.
 
Last edited:
In many respects it's no different to the formative years of parliament where like mided MP's tended to sit, and vote with each other, which eventually led to the formation of more formal party structures etc
Click to expand...

And in many cases evolved into a totalitarian single party state. Does that resonate with anybody?
 
Warbler said:
I also tend to agree with AC that bringing in rules regarding what people can say with regards to their knowledge of other people is a bit draconian, it would be difficult to frame any rules in a fair way, and next to impossible to enforce with any sense of fairness. My own suspicion is that it would lead to more problems than it might solve.
Click to expand...

You can do nothing about those who want to be malicious (other than the options currently open) but what you can do is help those who accidentally transgress the guidelines. People like Aidan O'Brien, for example :D
 
an capall said:
Behaviour is intuitive.

Read it twice before you bite! Which can be applied to both posts and responses. (Can't you tell I work for the NHS?)

If anybody survives past 99 they should be tuned in and able to fight their corner.
Click to expand...

Good point. Breaking into a new group is always difficult, both for the newcomer and the established members of that group, as the dynamics always change.

I'm feeling more comfortable with the forumites now. You will know when I feel completely at home because I will start teasing - mischief, no malice.
 
I am deeply troubled by the information in my profile which informs me that "You have no friends" and "You are not a member of any groups". I may have to seek psychological counselling as a result.
 
Melendez said:
I'll be your friend.
Click to expand...

Lol.

Having no friends is beside the point. It's a bit like getting on a flight, where you've psyched yourself up not to smoke for ten hours or whatever and you get on the 'plane and there is a big fat huge picture of a cigarette in front of you with a red sash across it, and then they cabin staff remind you that you can't smoke and then the safety video thingy reminds you that you can't smoke and then they come round offering to sell you loads and loads and loads of cigarettes that you can't smoke. Bastards are just rubbing it in.
 
rorydelargy said:
Idle boasting "I copped off with Kylie Minogue last night and Jimmy can verify it because he had a go afterwards" is clearly not to be encouraged
Click to expand...

Unless said poster managed to take a few pictures; in that case, it becomes wholly desirable! :D

Making rules governing what members post (if even only a general "guidelines" rule of thumb) is contrary to the whole idea of an internet forum.

I trust we're all adults capable of having a laugh without having the rules posted in the corner of the classroom.
 
I don't think there is a need for any rules as such; maybe something that people just need to be aware of.

Imo, juvenile comments such as 'like I told you when we met last week at ....' convey an in crowd and add nothing to the thread in hand, and make many people feel the forum is too cliquey for them.

Several people have referenced TH as cliquey on other forums or offline and it's something which can easily be improved, and benefit everyone I feel.
 
Talking horses "being too cliquey" has become something of a cliche. Certainly there was a time, when there were a smaller number of long term regular posters, that those posters were very comfortable conversing (or whatever the cyber term is) with each other which may have led to the impression that joining in was an intrusion.

This is no longer true. There is a much wider base of frequent posters. If anything, I reckon the lack of cliqueiness(sp?existence?) is a bit of a loss to the forum as, despite a worthy rise in quality, analytical ,posting and debates, there is somewhat less entertainment value which had been brought about by a devil-may-care-posting-amongst-friends approach.

For a new member, posting on a serious, analytical forum without the in depth knowledge that many have on here, can be just as intimidating as posting as a stranger amongst "friends".
 
If you stick around long enough, you will be part of whatever clicque there is. Simple fact is that some posters have been around long enough to know how others will react in pretty much most situations.

I cna remember when Gareth Flynn came on board here. Now look how the youngster has grown up to being one of the main members.

In my opinion, forcing people to be polite to each other here, or even concerted efforts to roll out the welcome mat would be the death-knell of the forum. To me, no-one is selling anything here, and the health of the forum is not really tied to the number of people posting. It is what it is.
 
As with racing itself, some newcomers make more impressive debuts than others. Some are clearly coltish troublemakers while others exude a bit of class and you eagerly anticipate their next contribution. Some start off unpromisingly and improve over the years. The majority are somewhere in between.

I can understand the 'cliquey' allegations but I'm not convinced this place is like that. I think those that make meaningful contributions get a warm reception (in the nicest possible sense).

People are people, though, and we're all different. We all have different perspectives and tolerance levels. I'm a very sensitive soul and very easily offended. I can't help that any more than I can help my eyes being blue. If someone is - as I perceive it - nasty to me, I might retort but I'm just as likely to put them on 'ignore' until I reckon I'm up to dealing with their nastiness. One or two on here are still on 'ignore' and they probably know who they are.

I stopped posting my ratings on here because a minority of replies suggested to me they were at best not appreciated, at worst that I was an idiotic anorak who knew nothing about racing and wasted hours compiling useless ratings. The minority view prevailed and I gave up posting them. I'm still doing them and doing nicely enough on the betting front but I'm no longer prepared to put them up for public humiliation. I suppose that's how some forums work.

This place definitely used to be the best by miles. Now I'm not so sure. Most forums are much of a muchness now and I find myself reading the racing sections less and less. At one point, I used to feel I was missing out on something important if I couldn't access this forum for a day or two. Now it wouldn't bother me too much if it ceased to exist.
 
Last edited:
I stopped posting my ratings on here because a minority of replies suggested to me they were at best not appreciated, at worst that I was an idiotic anorak who knew nothing about racing and wasted hours compiling useless ratings. The minority view prevailed and I gave up posting them. I'm still doing them and doing nicely enough on the betting front but I'm no longer prepared to put them up for public humiliation. I suppose that's how some forums work.
Click to expand...

Well there is not much the majority can do about it if the minority "rule". Which is a shame as I always enjoyed your ratings and the debates they brought up.
 
Garney said:
In my opinion, forcing people to be polite to each other here, or even concerted efforts to roll out the welcome mat... quote]

Not asking for that, Garney. Just not being shot for passing on news from other sources.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Moderators,

It seems to me that the 'levels' under a member's name are a little (a lot, actually) too generous.
It shows me as 'senior member' -- entirely unjustified on grounds of knowledge; as it seems to be triggered by number of posts, perhaps that should be revisited?
Please consider making 'senior' 1,000 posts, not the 100(?) at present, & put me back down a rung or two.

Regards
 
mrussell said:
It seems to me that the 'levels' under a member's name are a little (a lot, actually) too generous.
Click to expand...

Pointless monikers imo. Someone should come up with appropriate nicknames for people, make it a more personalised forum. "Short but Sweet" under Warbler and "AOB Fan Boy" under Galileo would be my suggestions.
 
I'm afraid I can't offer you any insight on the IT aspect, but note that I am a "super" moderator. Clivex beware, you're no longer dealing with a mere moderator:D
 
Back
Top