[Archived] Has this community lost its community spirit?

[Stuart]

I said that to Scotty the first time I met him ..... His avatar was (and I think still is) Garfield

Oh Tom, you know that comment will have just sparked another complete email about how we bully people and don't give them the right to reply (so, in advance, sorry Tombo).

..... I do like the idea of making the bear pit "real names only" (or a least linked to a Facebook account), it gives people an incentive to use their real names whilst allowing those that wish some level of anonymity to retain it.

Aaarghh!!

Maybe I'm just stuck in the 20th century but I HATE the idea of having my BRFCS account linked to Facebook. More and more apps and services (e.g. Spotify or Napster) are trying to get everyone to have access to everything everyone is doing via "Facebook integration". Although I have a Facebook presence, I don't post on there often adn I don't want to have people knowing the music I listen to or games I'm playing. They don't need (or probably want) to know everything I'm doing anyway.

Sorry, real pet hate of mine.

[DE.]

A few times we have seen someone be a pest but because they weren't breaking rules as such it was tricky for us as mods to ban them (saxo and Braddock were generally annoying but mainly in there viewpoint) I do think we should be harsher at times but that would have to be two ways and not just newer members.

It's not really tricky though is it? If somebody is being a pest give them a PM as a warning, if they continue winding people up bannings start coming into play. I appreciate there has to be some scale to it, but Braddock even admitted he was posting things "because it's like rattling cages at a zoo" and nothing was done. I'm all for people having different opinions, but if you can't express them with eloquence or without pissing people off then that's a seperate issue entirely that needs to be addressed.

As an aside, I've been here since 2004 and lurked for about a year or so before then, and the sniping/back-biting has always been apparent. It's not a 'new' problem by any means. Admittedly, it rears its head far less in good times than bad times, but at the back end of the Souey days I remember the board being shut down entirely after certain defeats to avoid the outspilling of anger that was going to follow!

The point about the difference between meeting people IRL and on the MB is an important one, too. If you've met somebody personally you tend to have greater tolerence for them in all respects than if they're just a username and avatar on the internet. When the community here was far smaller I imagine this is how it was, but the expansion of the popularity of the site was always going to erode that feeling of familarity and increase friction. There's nothing that can really be done about that.

[Andy]

Fine on real names, I've always posted on forums as 'Andy', so suits me.

Might make some people a bit more accountable for their opinions and actions.

Easy to be a big man and intentionally provocative when you're hidden by the anonymity of the internet.

Nominal membership fee also sounds good.

Nobody can ever really complain with <£5 either as a one-off or as an annual fee.

Could even go, maybe in part, towards the running and maintenance of the site?

Monthly competitions or awards with prizes being paid out of the fund?

It made me sad to read that somebody felt marginalised based on being a younger fan and abroad.

I've said many, many times: it doesn't matter how old you are, where you come from or how long you've been a supporter, all Rovers fans are equal and the idea of one fan being a 'better' supporter than another is absolutely absurd.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Some very good points made I hadn't thought of, particularly the contributions form mobiles which is the least reasoned debate friendly invention known to man. I've been on since the late 90s and can vouch for the observation that back then you really had to think hard before posting just to keep up with the standard of debate.

I don't agree that the problem is a losing team, when I joined we had just sacked Kidd and were pretty much where we are now, yet it was a great place to come on. Venky's, while a complete disaster, do not absolve the individual poster for accountability for their own behaviour.

I think there is an inherent problem with pub analogy in that the serial posters have the ability to shoulder into every discussion going on at every table, so the bores take over the whole place rather than are confined to being propped at the bar. I've found putting the most frequent posters on ignore partly solves this - everyone has something interesting to say but no-one has 25,000 interesting contributions. A feature which flags up if someone has replied to you would be useful then you know you are in a conversation.

The most distasteful aspect of here at the moment is there is more of a pack mentality from cabals of regular posters, rounding on and sometimes, imo, verbally bullying other members. This is where I would ask for more heavy-handed moderation.

Finally, I would ban for life any poster who ends a point with "end of".

[yoda]

Some very good points made I hadn't thought of, particularly the contributions form mobiles which is the least reasoned debate friendly invention known to man. I've been on since the late 90s and can vouch for the observation that back then you really had to think hard before posting just to keep up with the standard of debate.

I don't agree that the problem is a losing team, when I joined we had just sacked Kidd and were pretty much where we are now, yet it was a great place to come on. Venky's, while a complete disaster, do not absolve the individual poster for accountability for their own behaviour.

I think there is an inherent problem with pub analogy in that the serial posters have the ability to shoulder into every discussion going on at every table, so the bores take over the whole place rather than are confined to being propped at the bar. I've found putting the most frequent posters on ignore partly solves this - everyone has something interesting to say but no-one has 25,000 interesting contributions. A feature which flags up if someone has replied to you would be useful then you know you are in a conversation.

The most distasteful aspect of here at the moment is there is more of a pack mentality from cabals of regular posters, rounding on and sometimes, imo, verbally bullying other members. This is where I would ask for more heavy-handed moderation.

Finally, I would ban for life any poster who ends a point with "end of".

its been nice reading your last ever post

[Mike E]

its been nice reading your last ever post

Ha, that gave me a giggle too haha

[bob fleming]

Finally, I would ban for life any poster who ends a point with "end of".

"Wow, just wow".

That's another annoying one.

[matt83]

I'm relatively new to this compared to most and initially I just signed up to be able to see this humorous time counter ticking over that showed our significant events, how long burnley last achieved anything of note, etc, and didn't even realise there was a message board until stumbled across it. But I find it quite interesting and dare I say informative on rovers issues.

And while reading opinion posts you find the people you tend to agree with more often and some rarely agree with and some never agree with but as long as its someone's genuine opinion its worth reading if nothing else for a different view. Think that applies to 99% of it.

There are, however, people on here and in life generally that love a good wind-up and if the majority say black they'll say white just to be controversial. But fortunately they don't seem to last long.

Also as weird as this sounds I work with a burnley fan who openly admits to going on to comment sections/message boards posing as a blackburn fan just for the crack of pissing people off. Odd stuff eh. (As a side note same fella looks at our scores before Burnley and has said he prefers a rovers loss to a burnley win.) As I said odd stuff.

So to the lads on here that get wound up more easily just remember its the biting back that feeds them if you just ignored them (as hard as it is sometimes) they'd get bored very quickly. Also with regards to my "mate" at work take what apparent rovers fans say with a pinch of salt.

[Tom]

As an aside I think things are better at the minute than a few months back

There was a time when every topic came back to the action group and had 2 distinct sides that would argue their side irrespective of the merit of the argument. Thankfully that has faded out now but Saxo got people's backs up, now he's gone we can hopefully settle a bit again.

[Exiled in Toronto]

its been nice reading your last ever post

:lol: :lol:

[PAFELL]

I would gladly pay for membership if it meant a return to the site as it was and maybe it would be a good idea to contact some old members and invite them back. New members should need a proposer to join.

How could you propose somebody you don't know.

[Ozz]

"Wow, just wow".

That's another annoying one.

+1.

(Thats another)

[Al]

How could you propose somebody you don't know.

That's the point. You don't.

[Majiball]

Understand, Maj

cheers.

A very small fee seemed to fix problems on other sites with a large membership. I remember on Kevin Smith's site ViewAskew, it was someone like 1 dollar to post on the forums and the dollar went to charity. It also lasted in perpetuity so wasn't just a money making racket.

And what about, if banned more than once, you must use your real name and confirm who you are.

Since it would seem I can't be banned not matter what I post I could live with that.

See you in a week

What if you're a spit of someone from Eastenders?

Sorry bout that, but if it's any consolation that bird he ended up with was bloody hot.

[Majiball]

[sparky12]

it all died when bluephil left in my opinion haha there's always been handbags on here but i think its got too much now, can ruin what is/was a good thread and makes me stop reading the rest

[Amo]

it all died when bluephil left in my opinion haha there's always been handbags on here but i think its got too much now, can ruin what is/was a good thread and makes me stop reading the rest

I was going to say something similar. I wasn't here during the old old days, but in the five years I've frequented the forum there's always been plenty of petty squabbles, ego clashes, and repressed sexual tension between members. Me doth think perhaps some members are looking back through rose-tinted spectacles. All the same, I do agree that there's a correlation between the state of the club and the general feeling on the forum.

[PAFELL]

I said that to Scotty the first time I met him ..... His avatar was (and I think still is) Garfield

Oh Tom, you know that comment will have just sparked another complete email about how we bully people and don't give them the right to reply (so, in advance, sorry Tombo).

..... I do like the idea of making the bear pit "real names only" (or a least linked to a Facebook account), it gives people an incentive to use their real names whilst allowing those that wish some level of anonymity to retain it.

Real names / false names / nicknames, I suggest, t does not matter what a poster calls themselves. But what they post. Is what they post respectful and none abusive etc. What a person calls themselves on a message board forum would not have any baring on creating a community spirit.

But being respectful to others opinions - even if you disagree with them. Complete ban on insults. These are what would create a more friendly site.

That's the point. You don't.

Are you saying that somebody who is not known to anybody on here, could not join.

[thenodrog]

Real names / false names / nicknames, I suggest, t does not matter what a poster calls themselves. But what they post. Is what they post respectful and none abusive etc. What a person calls themselves on a message board forum would not have any baring on creating a community spirit.

But being respectful to others opinions - even if you disagree with them. Complete ban on insults. These are what would create a more friendly site.

Bollockkx.. just shut the @#/? up Paf!!

btw just had a bottle of Thwaites Double Century. Lovely stuff. ABV 5.2 and tastes like 4. Not for learners.

[Baz]

It's not really tricky though is it? If somebody is being a pest give them a PM as a warning, if they continue winding people up bannings start coming into play. I appreciate there has to be some scale to it, but Braddock even admitted he was posting things "because it's like rattling cages at a zoo" and nothing was done. I'm all for people having different opinions, but if you can't express them with eloquence or without pissing people off then that's a seperate issue entirely that needs to be addressed.

As an aside, I've been here since 2004 and lurked for about a year or so before then, and the sniping/back-biting has always been apparent. It's not a 'new' problem by any means. Admittedly, it rears its head far less in good times than bad times, but at the back end of the Souey days I remember the board being shut down entirely after certain defeats to avoid the outspilling of anger that was going to follow!

The point about the difference between meeting people IRL and on the MB is an important one, too. If you've met somebody personally you tend to have greater tolerence for them in all respects than if they're just a username and avatar on the internet. When the community here was far smaller I imagine this is how it was, but the expansion of the popularity of the site was always going to erode that feeling of familarity and increase friction. There's nothing that can really be done about that.

Although the number of members is larger, it would be interesting to compare the number of actual people posting today versus say 5 years ago. I think it would be pretty close.

I think cutting out the insults, but not the poking fun, is a good way to go. Its quite difficult to distinguish the 2 though.

[Tom]

Its not just insults though is it, some people carry around with them a viewpoint that can borderline on an 'agenda' (sorry Glenn) and it totally sidetracks discussions. For example in any thread about the action group I could set my watch on the same people turning up to criticise no matter what which in turn brought out another group who would staunchly defend again no matter what, within a few posts the original discussion has lost any merit and people on the outside who maybe post less frequently would want to say their piece and it just turns into a back and forth going nowhere.

It got to the point recently when I just decided to lock a thread before it got that way because it was obvious where it was going. If the whole user base can see we are going to crack down on that sort of thing and if people think it will help then let's do it.

There was also the + / - feature which I believe can be set so it automatically hides any posts rated beyond a certain level but again it was at the point where certain people would have their posts downmarked no matter the merit

I'm not privy to any figures but posting may have been higher 5 years ago but the club was more successful, crowds were bigger and lets be honest a good bulk of the posts amounted to 'any 11 o clocker tonight Nicko?'

[Baz]

I was talking pre Nicko really Tom (my god, has it really been 5 years since that started?)

I was also talking active number of users posting, not volume of posting too.

I agree on the agenda thing too, again not a easy thing to deal with.

[PAFELL]

Its not just insults though is it, some people carry around with them a viewpoint that can borderline on an 'agenda' (sorry Glenn) and it totally sidetracks discussions. For example in any thread about the action group I could set my watch on the same people turning up to criticise no matter what which in turn brought out another group who would staunchly defend again no matter what, within a few posts the original discussion has lost any merit and people on the outside who maybe post less frequently would want to say their piece and it just turns into a back and forth going nowhere.

It got to the point recently when I just decided to lock a thread before it got that way because it was obvious where it was going. If the whole user base can see we are going to crack down on that sort of thing and if people think it will help then let's do it.

There was also the + / - feature which I believe can be set so it automatically hides any posts rated beyond a certain level but again it was at the point where certain people would have their posts downmarked no matter the merit

I'm not privy to any figures but posting may have been higher 5 years ago but the club was more successful, crowds were bigger and lets be honest a good bulk of the posts amounted to 'any 11 o clocker tonight Nicko?'

But that works both ways. At onetime if anybody said anything either in favour or against the action group or any other group for that matter. Or gave opinion for or against things such as protests, boycotts. posters were insulted / abused by either side. So a poster may have started without an agenda, but developed one because of the abuse and threats received.

Any poster should be able to post their opinion - even have and agenda - without being subjected to abuse etc. Folk should debate the issue, if they are in disagreement.

[Rover_Shaun]

btw just had a bottle of Thwaites Double Century. Lovely stuff. ABV 5.2 and tastes like 4. Not for learners.

Flipping eck Gordon that's so 2007

[Ricky]

Right on cue PAFELL.