Topic: Opinion poll for Boozer changes

[hoonin]

Its been a week since the Boozer was split down into smaller, topic specific boards. Just wanted to get a basic idea of the numbers that may like or dislike the new format. If you wish to comment on the changes, please use THIS thread.

Cheers.

[matty c]

bozers has gone?

[MichaelA]

bozers has gone?

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?board=3.0

I'mk guessing that this post was alcoholically impaired...

[hoonin]

Interesting results so far. If anything, I think it jst shows how utterly useless polls are. 69 votes

[Rushian]

36.6% is enough to form a Government - we're safe!

[hoonin]

37.5 now.

May as well open this up for comments....

[Roger]

May as well open this up for comments....

 

[bryanod]

i'd change my vote if i could!

warmed to it slowly but i can certainly see the advatanges to this now. Interesting to see if something similar could be done to main forum too.......

[Roger]

There are prolonged periods of inactivity in the niche sections. They also need a wider range of topic starting posters I think.

[The 5th Benitle]

There are prolonged periods of inactivity in the niche sections. They also need a wider range of topic starting posters I think.

Well volunteered Rog!
I think its a great move, particularly beneficial for the general footy/sport forum and the news page is v interesting. Arty types must be delighted too

[Sarge]

Personnaly i think its the dogs bollox.

[AdamS]

Could/should a few threads like "The Boxing Thread" now be split up as it now has a clear section in which to post other sport, it seems a bit limited to post all boxing in one thread?

[Rushian]

Just feel free to post a new thread as you see fit - I don't think there's any concious merging of posts into such catch-all threads (though people can still use them if they want to).

[Mirra]

Aye i like it better now

[Roger]

Technology, Liverpool Life and News bringing up the rear behind General Sport and Media stuff. Boozer still most lively.

[Rushian]

I was tempted to add a Travel, Food and History section but thought it a bit eclectic ...

[hooded claw]

I was tempted to add a Travel, Food and History section but thought it a bit eclectic ...

Sounds like a good idea to me. If a purpose-built board was available we might find people making some good contributions to those areas, if they thought there was more chance of them being read rather than being lost in the faster-moving Boozer?

[Raul!]

I was tempted to add a Travel, Food and History section but thought it a bit eclectic ...

Travel and food going together I can see but history is a bit of the od man out. Goes more with News and Current Affairs, oddly.

[ewok-red]

jeez has it only been that long, seems like its been in the new format for ages..

i think it works a lot, lot better.  i do sometimes think were should i post, but that in itself is better than just throwing it in the one place.

well done to the visionary genius responsible. unless it was bob or matt in which case its shit

[Jon G]

Just think the news bit needs more moderation, as there are a few people who know what they're on about and one or two many people who believe what's going on in the papers. Danny Boys Dad, mod in my view as he's the only one that talks sense. One or two of they others never lived in the real world in MHO. And think they can qualify an opinion. Had more sense coming out of my arse ffs

[Roger]

Just think the news bit needs more moderation, as there are a few people who know what they're on about and one or two many people who believe what's going on in the papers. Danny Boys Dad, mod in my view as he's the only one that talks sense. One or two of they others never lived in the real world in MHO. And think they can qualify an opinion. Had more sense coming out of my arse ffs

You raise a fair point. The 'steer' for that forum is unclear. Having said that it appears to be a 'minority' board. Dunno what to say really. What is news to some is not to others.

[blurred]

The news one is a bit of a misnomer, as any news gets reported in the boozer or the sports or footie forums anyway really. It's more of an 'issues' forum, if you see what I mean, with debates on abortion or right to life or whether it's worth dying for a cause (just a couple of recent ones that spring to mind today).

Oh, I was going to raise this at some point but given that it sort of follows on from my above point I'll dump it in here for the time being - did anything ever come from the 'RAWK debates' idea? I started a thread a while ago and people seemed interested in it, but Bob K hoiked it off at the time as apparently it was under discussion amongst the staff. If such a thing were to get off the ground in whatever guise, perhaps the 'News' forum would be its most natural home?

Oh, and as for the changes. Yes, I'm used to them now (obviously). Still wouldn't go as far as to say they're an improvement, though. While they have certain advantages, they can still be a bit of a ball-ache to navigate (and yes, I'm aware of the 'unread posts' feature, but it's not simply a matter of that) just in terms of extra clicks if nothing else. Think I'd probably change my original vote of 'no' to 'no change' - not that I don't notice improvements/changes, just that I feel they're balanced out by the aspects of it that have changed for the worse.

[Jon G]

The news one is a bit of a misnomer, as any news gets reported in the boozer or the sports or footie forums anyway really.

May have got debated, but nothing in length as it does now, probably would have disappeared past the 'Cheeky Monkey' threads. It gets alot longer airing now.

[blurred]

May have got debated, but nothing in length as it does now, probably would have disappeared past the 'Cheeky Monkey' threads. It gets alot longer airing now.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree that there's a good spot there for people to talk about it and the whole segregation thing, just saying that a lot of news stories still sneak in to the other fora as it is now anyway, leaving the News forum to be more of a debating/discussing forum rather than just a news resource

[Jon G]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree that there's a good spot there for people to talk about it and the whole segregation thing, just saying that a lot of news stories still sneak in to the other fora as it is now anyway, leaving the News forum to be more of a debating/discussing forum rather than just a news resource

Just think the news bit needs more moderation, as there are a few people who know what they're on about and one or two many people who believe what's going on in the papers. Danny Boys Dad, mod in my view as he's the only one that talks sense. One or two of they others never lived in the real world in MHO. And think they can qualify an opinion. Had more sense coming out of my arse ffs

[blurred]

Posted at midnight dead-on to the very second!

And whether it requires 'more moderation' I don't know, but if we were to have the 'debates' in some form then that'd be the equivalent of only allowing people with some form of qualified/researched opinion to discuss (at least in the first instance).

Can't remember when I posted my original thread, but it was back in July or something like that, with a fairly thought out idea of how the debates thing could work. Would be interested to hear some mod input on this.

[Raul!]

Mods - small point on the poll and why it might skew your perception of the actual results.

The question you have asked is:  Have the changes to the Boozer improved your enjoyment of the off-topic portion of RAWK? 

Options 2 and 3 for the responses are - No and No Change.  I guess what you were looking for under the "No" option is responses from people who's enjoyment actually diminished. However, it could equally mean simply that no, their enjoyment has not improved, i.e. that there has been no change, which is exactly what option 3 is.  In other words, there could be a bunch of "No Change" answers hiding under the "No" option.

Pedantic point but it could have substantive consequences to the result.

[Millsee]

did anything ever come from the 'RAWK debates' idea? I started a thread a while ago and people seemed interested in it, but Bob K hoiked it off at the time as apparently it was under discussion amongst the staff. If such a thing were to get off the ground in whatever guise, perhaps the 'News' forum would be its most natural home?

The news thread is rapidly becoming a wider debating thread.

Unfortunately, I think there are too many knobheads about who have the tendancy to spoil a good debate with personal insult, conjecture and statements of "fact".

Whilst supporting the idea in principle, I think the board is too immature to carry that at present.

If it were to go ahead, it would need careful moderation and run on the Dogme principles. I doubt any mod has time for it.

[Armin]

We always envisaged the news forum being a place for more serious debate.  At the moment its probably badly defined as there's a conflict between jokey weird news stories that spawn jokey threads and the more serious stuff.  For instance I nearly moved the religion thread out of the boozer as it deserved more serious treatment.  We may need to look at this.

The moderating team have actually had a lot on recently, so perhaps there have been threads in there that have got out of hand.  Persistent shouting type idiocy of the sort described here is in breach of unwritten rule 34 so we'll happily crack down on repeat offenders if we know about it.

However many people don't know how to debate simply because they've never been taught.  I've been thinking of kicking off a series in the News section akin to the Radio program, 'the moral maze'.  We could run that according to the dogme rules and use it as a reference point for people who don't want to get banned.  Watch this space.

Finally I think the split in the boozer is overwhelmingly positive, like Jobn says the serious stuff gets to stick around a bit more and the boozer is imo better for it as well.  We might run another poll later to pick up on Rauls point, perhaps keep it to 3 choices.

[blurred]

Raul's point is one that I, unsurprisingly as pedant in chief, picked up on. I originally voted no as my enjoyment had not improved, but as I said above:

While they have certain advantages, they can still be a bit of a ball-ache to navigate (and yes, I'm aware of the 'unread posts' feature, but it's not simply a matter of that) just in terms of extra clicks if nothing else. Think I'd probably change my original vote of 'no' to 'no change' - not that I don't notice improvements/changes, just that I feel they're balanced out by the aspects of it that have changed for the worse.

[Raul!]

Raul's point is one that I, unsurprisingly as pedant in chief, picked up on. I originally voted no as my enjoyment had not improved, but as I said above:

You have competition!

[Rushian]

I'd rather it if people didn't use the news forum, to report stories with their own heavy spin on it - this is particularly happening in anything that touches on politics.

If a story is newsworthy it can sit on its own merits.

[blurred]

I'd rather it if people didn't use the news forum, to report stories with their own heavy spin on it - this is particularly happening in anything that touches on politics.

If a story is newsworthy it can sit on its own merits.

If that is the case, though, we'd be left with a page full of one post links, no? Even if the story is not reported with the spin of the person posting it, in their next post they will more than likely impart said spin in their interpretation or in any debate.

Surely it's better to start a topic linking to a news story and saying 'I can't believe that the government are trying to do X, Y or Z' and putting your own interpretation on something and attempting to stimulate debate rather than just putting www.somebbcnewsstory.com and saying nothing?

I agree that some times it can get emotive (never discuss religion, politics or toast), but I know which of the above two 'posts' I would be most likely to a) read the link of and b) reply to

Just a few thoughts, like

[Rushian]

Surely it's better to start a topic linking to a news story and saying 'I can't believe that the government are trying to do X, Y or Z' and putting your own interpretation on something and attempting to stimulate debate rather than just putting www.somebbcnewsstory.com and saying nothing?

No problem with people replying etc but some of the news stories posted recently have barely "bordered" on news and instead being used to push a political point of view.

The two aren't the same.

[Millsee]

No problem with people replying etc but some of the news stories posted recently have barely "bordered" on news and instead being used to push a political point of view.

The two aren't the same.

There's nothing wrong with that though, is there? Surely politics is an integral part of the news, eg - Blair's defeat in the commons - loss of authority; Blunkett's resignation; Bush and his cronies; Tory leadership campaign

If there is a problem with this, why not have a separate "politics" board? I can't see what the difficulty on people putting forward political points of view is, really.

[Raul!]

No problem with people replying etc but some of the news stories posted recently have barely "bordered" on news and instead being used to push a political point of view.

The two aren't the same.

I think it would be fine for the debate section to be more strongly moderated with guidelines on what would be tolerated and what would not. 

Anyone pushing a point of view unreasonably could first get a warning.  Further steps could include preventing a person from starting topics or even posting on that board and then of course, the ban.  Couple of months ago, on an LFC thread some bugger came on and made some seriously racist comments and was thrown out double quick - similar standards could apply to someone taking a patently offensive stance or tone.  Having said that, the level of discussion in the recent religion thread has been rather reasonable and good natured, while at the same time opinionated and strongly argued.

I have no problems with someone pushing a point of view strongly if they have sensible argument and are decent about it.  I'm not looking to convert people to my views forcibly, certainly not on an internet forum.  I do however think that the freedom to express views (however different from the norm) comes with the responsibilty to express them in an inoffensive manner.  The same should apply to any part of RAWK I imagine - for example people who said gratuitously nasty things to Paul Tompkins should be thrown out.

[BIGdavalad]

No problem with people replying etc but some of the news stories posted recently have barely "bordered" on news and instead being used to push a political point of view.

The two aren't the same.

I've had a couple of run ins with you over similar things, but I actually agree with you.

Maybe the first post in a new thread could just be the news story with a link, and you could put your own opinion in a seperate reply?

[hoonin]

There's nothing wrong with that though, is there? Surely politics is an integral part of the news, eg - Blair's defeat in the commons - loss of authority; Blunkett's resignation; Bush and his cronies; Tory leadership campaign

That would be my take on it. For political type stories you cant avoid poeple giving their own view.. So long as the origianl article is posted for others to make their own minds up.

Anything less would just be reguritating news sites. May as well visit bbc.co.uk/news if all you want is static news reports.

[MichaelA]

Maybe the first post in a new thread could just be the news story with a link, and you could put your own opinion in a seperate reply?

That's the way to do it.

[Armin]

Or if not a separate post, at least put your opinion in after the article.  That way you're not skewing peoples thoughts before they've had a chance to read the piece and form their own position.