PDA

View Full Version : [QUESTION] closing threads



crossref
15-12-16, 11:12
- I recognise that sometimes Mods will decide to close a thread. Fair enough
- I have no real problem with Phil closing the thread below. Fair enough

but ... when a thread is closed it should be closed. It doesn't seem good forum policy that once a thread is closed, some users are able to continue the argument.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?20067-IN-Goal&p=324525&viewfull=1#post324525

Taff
15-12-16, 11:12
I have no problem with a Mod closing a thread, but if the Mods think we're going over old ground, can we please have a link to the old ground first - because some of us obviously missed (or can't remember it) the first time round. :redface:

Eg "This thread is going nowhere gents, and we have been here before - See THIS thread. I'm going to knock it on the head."

Paule23
15-12-16, 12:12
Why do mods feel the need to close certain threads? Yes arguments may be going round and round in circles, but if the participants want to continue the argument why not let it run?

If people are getting abusive, it is the individual that should be dealt with not the thread.

Phil E
15-12-16, 13:12
- I recognise that sometimes Mods will decide to close a thread. Fair enough
- I have no real problem with Phil closing the thread below. Fair enough

but ... when a thread is closed it should be closed. It doesn't seem good forum policy that once a thread is closed, some users are able to continue the argument.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?20067-IN-Goal&p=324525&viewfull=1#post324525

Mods are still able to post in a closed thread, the problem is it doesn't warn you the thread is closed, so unless you happen to notice the little padlock symbol you would just carry on as normal.


I have no problem with a Mod closing a thread, but if the Mods think we're going over old ground, can we please have a link to the old ground first - because some of us obviously missed (or can't remember it) the first time round. :redface:

Eg "This thread is going nowhere gents, and we have been here before - See THIS thread. I'm going to knock it on the head."

Fair point, I thought someone had already done that.


Why do mods feel the need to close certain threads? Yes arguments may be going round and round in circles, but if the participants want to continue the argument why not let it run?

If people are getting abusive, it is the individual that should be dealt with not the thread.

Because it just serves to confuse new referees and achieves nothing apart from feeding peoples pet points.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
15-12-16, 13:12
Yes arguments may be going round and round in circles, but if the participants want to continue the argument why not let it run?


That was never 5 minutes just now..

Guyseep
15-12-16, 14:12
The entire forum needs a big clean up. There are way too many subforums that could be combined, and some eliminated altogether.

"Was it right?" and "what's the decision?" are essentially the same thing. The majority of questions fall into those two subforums anyway. Get rid of the country specific forums altogether as well as a few others. They are underused and just clutter the space.


Finally there needs to be better moderation of threads and yes they should be closed. All too often a thread deviates from the intended question and loses focus or delves into pointless banter and or insults. As pointed out there is a thread on leggings that goes for 125 pages?! It's almost certain that a good chunk of the replies in that thread are off topic.

crossref
15-12-16, 15:12
the leggings thread is more of a running joke :)

Dickie E
15-12-16, 18:12
[QUOTE=crossref;324534
but ... when a thread is closed it should be closed. It doesn't seem good forum policy that once a thread is closed, some users are able to continue the argument.

[/QUOTE]

This.

SmeejDad
16-12-16, 15:12
What's a Mod?

DocY
16-12-16, 16:12
What's a Mod?Start being abusive. You'll find out then!

didds
16-12-16, 16:12
https://youtu.be/19xJIedrrfA

didds

SimonSmith
16-12-16, 17:12
*******. Beat me to it.

Dickie E
16-12-16, 18:12
Translation: You're pissed off because a mod can get the last word.

I agree with OB.. in that thread. "As an assessor I would mark it as a law error if any referee gave the drop out, but in fact I have never seen it since the law change 40 years ago"

and I agree with PhilE in that thread "Stop being a prat."

The content of the discussion is irrelevant.

It is without honour for one mod to hold the arms of a poster while another mod gets the cheap shot in. Disappointing. I would have hoped OB.. would delete his last post in a thread that another mod had clearly closed.

Dickie E
16-12-16, 18:12
What's a Mod?

A Moderator. One of a smallish group that have been appointed by Robbie Burns (who set up this site) to keep the threads nice. Has power to close threads, delete posts, move threads, etc

Dickie E
16-12-16, 18:12
Mods are still able to post in a closed thread, the problem is it doesn't warn you the thread is closed, so unless you happen to notice the little padlock symbol you would just carry on as normal.



The other way is to read the previous post that says THIS THREAD IS NOW CLOSED

crossref
16-12-16, 20:12
I agree with OB.. in that thread. "As an assessor I would mark it as a law error if any referee gave the drop out, but in fact I have never seen it since the law change 40 years ago"



here we go again -- so - is the topic closed or not? Are we still discussing it ? or is it only open to mods ?
will you re-open the thread, or should we continue here? if here, are non-mods allowed to post?

Not Kurt Weaver
16-12-16, 21:12
A Moderator. One of a smallish group that have been appointed by Robbie Burns (who set up this site) to keep the threads nice. Has power to close threads, delete posts, move threads, etc

Kinda like Wikileaks, or Democratic National Committee in the states

Not Kurt Weaver
16-12-16, 21:12
Kinda like Wikileaks, or Democratic National Committee in the states

Dont get me wrong, not like the Russians trying to control the outcome cause we are to stupid to think for ourselves

Ian_Cook
16-12-16, 21:12
I think the new range of leggings available in stores this season look particularly spiffing!!

OB..
17-12-16, 00:12
The content of the discussion is irrelevant.

It is without honour for one mod to hold the arms of a poster while another mod gets the cheap shot in. Disappointing. I would have hoped OB.. would delete his last post in a thread that another mod had clearly closed.
I was unaware that the thread had been closed.That information only appears at the top of a page and I go straight to the next new post.

Phil E
17-12-16, 13:12
:offtopic:
All posts about the In Goal thread have been moved to that thread.
Mod

crossref
17-12-16, 18:12
:offtopic:
All posts about the In Goal thread have been moved to that thread.
Mod

which remains closed, and despite that, another mod post is added !

The Fat
17-12-16, 19:12
Because it just serves to confuse new referees and achieves nothing apart from feeding peoples pet points.

This^^^^
It is my understanding that the core purpose of this site is to educate via discussion/Law reference/management tips.
A lot of people who visit the site are either new or inexperienced referees looking for some guidance/help/life line from the more experienced referees on here. That goal is becoming more and more distant, pushed away in some threads where some posters have decided that they are going to argue a particular point till the day they die. The inexperienced ref who was looking/hoping for a straight forward answer gets dragged into old circular arguments and has to then try to make some sense of 100+ posts to get that answer (if they can be bothered to stay the distance).
At some stage it is fair and reasonable for a Mod to make the decision to close that type of thread.

I sometimes wonder what visitors and new members of the site think when they read such threads. "Bloody hell! No wonder no-one can understand some referee's decisions during a game. These guys can't even agree with each other. They're like a bunch of headless chooks running around in circles".

Let's all remember the new/inexperienced referee seeking enlightenment when posting replies and leading discussions in different directions.

Ian_Cook
17-12-16, 20:12
This^^^^
It is my understanding that the core purpose of this site is to educate via discussion/Law reference/management tips.
A lot of people who visit the site are either new or inexperienced referees looking for some guidance/help/life line from the more experienced referees on here. That goal is becoming more and more distant, pushed away in some threads where some posters have decided that they are going to argue a particular point till the day they die. The inexperienced ref who was looking/hoping for a straight forward answer gets dragged into old circular arguments and has to then try to make some sense of 100+ posts to get that answer (if they can be bothered to stay the distance).
At some stage it is fair and reasonable for a Mod to make the decision to close that type of thread.

I sometimes wonder what visitors and new members of the site think when they read such threads. "Bloody hell! No wonder no-one can understand some referee's decisions during a game. These guys can't even agree with each other. They're like a bunch of headless chooks running around in circles".

Let's all remember the new/inexperienced referee seeking enlightenment when posting replies and leading discussions in different directions.

Worse yet, there are some members (they know who they are) who have decided that they don't like the way a particular Law is applied, so they try to use another Law (usually the advantage Law ) in an attempt to circumvent THE INTENT of the Law they don't like.

This sort of clever-dick re-imagining of the Laws is completely out of order for referees. It only serves to confuse the players and new referees, as well as making a rod for the back of next week's referee, who will interpret the Law the way that 99.9999% of his peers do, i.e. in accordance with their Union's GMGs and their their Society's guidelines.

Ian_Cook
17-12-16, 20:12
which remains closed, and despite that, another mod post is added !

I thought the thread had been re-opened by the mod who moved the other posts there. When I realised the thread was still closed, I removed my post!

crossref
17-12-16, 22:12
Fair enough, well done

Dickie E
18-12-16, 00:12
At some stage it is fair and reasonable for a Mod to make the decision to close that type of thread.



I disagree. IMO the role of a mod is twofold: address offensive posts and merge threads that should be merged. There used to be a third and that was to delete spam. But I don't see that anymore.

Boredom with a thread, thinking a poster is a prat, etc is not justification to moderate.

The Fat
18-12-16, 01:12
I disagree. IMO the role of a mod is twofold: address offensive posts and merge threads that should be merged. There used to be a third and that was to delete spam. But I don't see that anymore.

Boredom with a thread, thinking a poster is a prat, etc is not justification to moderate.

Well how about this suggestion then Dickie.
If a topic has been done to death previously and the subject is again raised (which is likely to happen) by a new/inexperienced ref who is looking for a straight answer, if the poster/posters who don't want to help the new guy out but instead want to continue arguing their lone stance, could they perhaps just post something like, "I don't agree with the general concensus and would like to argue my point in a new thread (insert link) for anyone who is interested", then those who want to continue arguing can go to that thread and others can help the new guy out. The new thread title could be, Arguing Re: ......................

How would your Referee Association handle a member who turned up at every meeting wanting to argue the same view on a piece of Law even when advised from more knowledgable/higher ranking refs that their view was not supported in Law. Would everyone else, hoping to learn something at the meetings, look forward to going over past ground again and again? Would that help new members?

I really think that sometimes there are threads that just decend into the kind of crap you get on the Rugby365 public forums etc and simply end up helping no-one and in some cases are quite destructive. At some point, I think a Mod should be able to lock such threads.
That's just my honest opinion on the matter.

Dickie E
18-12-16, 02:12
If a topic has been done to death previously and the subject is again raised (which is likely to happen) by a new/inexperienced ref who is looking for a straight answer, if the poster/posters who don't want to help the new guy out but instead want to continue arguing their lone stance, could they perhaps just post something like, "I don't agree with the general concensus and would like to argue my point in a new thread (insert link) for anyone who is interested", then those who want to continue arguing can go to that thread and others can help the new guy out. The new thread title could be, Arguing Re: ......................


good idea

Not Kurt Weaver
18-12-16, 03:12
Gentlemen, gentlemen,

Can't we all just get along? It is Christmas time, please be filled with joy and forgive others.

If this is politically incorrect in your country, Happy Holidays you effin grinch.

Not Kurt Weaver
18-12-16, 03:12
Stepping out of my trailer, I never encounter words like Sepo, Bollocks, or 'er indoors. I am very unfamiliar with the funny talk and clever quips of rugbyref posters.

Please consider this, Mr Burns may have asked for Mediators, but "moderators " was the desired job duty that was heard.

Incoming refs need to know all the arguments and every side of each argument, as they will encounter all the arguments on the park.
Incoming refs are smart enough to learn to make their own decisions. They can determine what is BS

The is the folly of the game, every Saturday will be different. Sit back and observe fans, coaches and refs and players. The game is really just a goofy game. When you die, no-one will give an F what you thought

Dickie E
18-12-16, 03:12
I really think that sometimes there are threads that just decend into the kind of crap you get on the Rugby365 public forums etc and simply end up helping no-one and in some cases are quite destructive. At some point, I think a Mod should be able to lock such threads.
That's just my honest opinion on the matter.

I liken chat rooms like this to a cocktail party (but without the cocktails).

Pockets of conversation start up & end and people are free to join & leave as they see fit. If you get sick of a conversation or the manner in which it is being conducted, bid farewell and move on. Sometimes the conversation runs out of steam and everyone moves on. Sometimes, a couple of diehards want to keep at it. So be it. Knock yourselves out, boys.

What I'm not so keen on is someone making unilateral decisions about which conversation can and can't continue. Remember, supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

You may be interested to know that Robbie asked me to be a moderator several years ago, to some degree because he saw me as reliable (well, I'm always here, aren't I?) but mainly because my time zone meant I could detect and delete spam before you guys saw it. I need to remind myself sometimes that just because I wear my undies on the outside, doesn't mean I can jump off tall buildings.

Dickie E
18-12-16, 03:12
Gentlemen, gentlemen,

Can't we all just get along? It is Christmas time, please be filled with joy and forgive others.

If this is politically incorrect in your country, Happy Holidays you effin grinch.

I wished my American boss Merry Christmas. Was that a CLM?

Ian_Cook
18-12-16, 04:12
..just because I wear my undies on the outside, doesn't mean I can jump off tall buildings.

Stop it!. Just stop it!

A short(ish), hairless Australian wearing daks outside his trousers is one of those things that, once visualised, cannot be unvisualised. I didn't need that just a few days out from Christmas!

crossref
18-12-16, 09:12
Meanwhile OB.. has posted AGAIN on the closed thread
So thats three moderator posts after the post was closed (Ian deleting his)
It does seem like this is a topic where the moderators feel that there is still more to say.. but not by anyone else

OB..
18-12-16, 12:12
Meanwhile OB.. has posted AGAIN on the closed thread
So thats three moderator posts after the post was closed (Ian deleting his)
It does seem like this is a topic where the moderators feel that there is still more to say.. but not by anyone elseIN post #19 Phil; E announced that he had closed the thread. A post from you appeared at #23, and I replied to that.

Phil E
18-12-16, 12:12
My fault, I moved the answers on here to the closed thread to try and avoid this thread becoming an extension of the closed one.
As everyone (well one or two really) seems intent on continuing an argument that has been gone through several times already I will reopen the thread and you can knock yourselves out.

I would just like to say though that there is a lot of experience on the forum, but many times now less experienced people seem determined to buck the status quo and insist they are right even when shown differently, or even when told "the law ain't perfect, but thats the way we do it in RFU land" (insert country of preference).

By all means have a debate, but not over and over again droning on in some personal crusade. The only thing this achieves is to totally confuse new referees who, if they want to move up the ladder, will need to follow convention.

It never used to be like that on here.....now it seems the lunatics are intent on taking over the asylum!

crossref
18-12-16, 18:12
Shrug , if it's a topic that's still open for debate then I will join in. If it's closed for debate I'll shut up
If it's open for debate but only on specific threads,i will keep to those threads.

The mods just need to make up their minds

L'irlandais
01-01-17, 20:01
What's a Mod?Mods were a subculture, that began in the United Kingdom in the 1960s and spread, in varying degrees, to other countries. A small number of them appear to have chosen RRF to make their last stand.

SmeejDad
06-01-17, 11:01
Just to speak up as a new member and referee:

I often search for old threads on topics on which I need advising, and often this is very beneficial, but it does tend to take a lot of muddling through complicated debates. Often the thread will start with a simple answer to a question, which would be satisfactory to me, but then descends into a complicated debate - all of which I feel compelled to read through fear of misinterpretation and shoddy law application during a match. If there was a way of retrospectively highlighting what the general consensus is on the thread so that new members could direct themselves straight to it that would be really beneficial... even if everyone just gives it a load of likes? I don't know how this would work.

I must say though that, the site as a whole, has been the most valuable recourse I have come across since taking up the whistle and I really value the support and advice from all members. So thank you!

crossref
06-01-17, 12:01
the long threads are the ones where we don't reach a general consensus!

Phil E
06-01-17, 12:01
the long threads are the ones where we don't reach a general consensus!

Or where one or two people don't accept the general consensus :chin:

crossref
06-01-17, 12:01
but nevertheless, perhaps smeejdad's idea is not a bad one - on contentious threads we could experiment with the idea of a summary post summing up the arguments and the consensus, the differing view, and the conventional approach on the pitch.

It would be quite a task to sum up in a neutral and objective manner, but we could try it.

didds
06-01-17, 13:01
we could - but I think the mods would have to close the thread at that point, otherwise the summary will get lost in extra and later comments.

And almost by definition the mods couldn't close a thread until its clear no more new info or debate will be forthcoming eg when it becomes a yeah-but-no-but argument.

maybe worth trying for sure, but with sopme self evident protocols in place

didds

Not Kurt Weaver
06-01-17, 13:01
Or where one or two people don't accept the general consensus :chin:


Or where one or two people challenge the general consensus, and the consensus spokesperson feels the challenge. The resulting statements occur. "In my 37 years as a ref" , "ping that and you be laughed off the park", "that would be a tick mark in knowledge of law"

It is actually very enjoyable and shows the frailty and fallacy of the game. It is after all a game, providing its highest the benefit of perhaps national esprit. Esprit that is temporary and quickly extinguished.

crossref
06-01-17, 13:01
Perhaps we could have a single thread, called 'Long running disputes'
- this thread would have one post for each dispute
- the post would be a summary of the dispute, with a link to the threads that contain it
- the thread would be closed - if you don't think the summary is fair, dispute it on the dispute thread, and it can be changed.
- when new disputes come up we'd add a post to the thread
- if really new information came up, the summary would be edited

the posts would cover
- advantage played after an attacking knock on in goal
- player on the ground, ball arrives, can he play it
- can players handle a loose ball in touch to prevent a QTI
- at a lineout, if a player stands with feet behind 5m line, can he catch the ball, or does the ref have to judge the plane

+ others...

I'd by happy to be an author (obviously we'd need a review process to agree each summary was fair)
one way we could do it : each summary could be co-written by a pair of posters, one on each side of the argument, who have to come up with a fair first draft.

Wedgie
06-01-17, 13:01
Just to speak up as a new member and referee:

I often search for old threads on topics on which I need advising, and often this is very beneficial, but it does tend to take a lot of muddling through complicated debates. Often the thread will start with a simple answer to a question, which would be satisfactory to me, but then descends into a complicated debate - all of which I feel compelled to read through fear of misinterpretation and shoddy law application during a match. If there was a way of retrospectively highlighting what the general consensus is on the thread so that new members could direct themselves straight to it that would be really beneficial... even if everyone just gives it a load of likes? I don't know how this would work.

Seconded - I have often thought this in the past. This would HUGELY increase the value of this site - especially if the summary can be stickered/attached/very visible on the thread in question. But, like most things, it will take effort from individuals who are willing to put in the time to succinctly write up the scenario and answers (maybe Majority and Minority views?), and then others to check/agree.


I must say though that, the site as a whole, has been the most valuable recourse I have come across since taking up the whistle and I really value the support and advice from all members. So thank you!

Seconded.

Dickie E
07-01-17, 02:01
Just to speak up as a new member and referee:

I often search for old threads on topics on which I need advising, and often this is very beneficial, but it does tend to take a lot of muddling through complicated debates. Often the thread will start with a simple answer to a question, which would be satisfactory to me, but then descends into a complicated debate - all of which I feel compelled to read through fear of misinterpretation and shoddy law application during a match.


Easy solution. Just go straight to my posts for the good oil. :)

Ian_Cook
07-01-17, 02:01
Easy solution. Just go straight to my posts for the good oil. :)


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/DickieTrumpet.png

:biggrin: :pepper:




OK, I'll get me coat :noyc: