general nz-wi tour thread metathread

[Blocky]

The point is that the type of posts we're talking about don't prove anything because they're irrelevant, though, they just wind people up.

I guess we're just a playground in a school then, because I feel people should take responsibility for their own feelings and not be so wound up by something "irrelevant" - which ultimately is about 90% of the content posted here if I'm being honest.

 

[Spark]

I guess we're just a playground in a school then, because I feel people should take responsibility for their own feelings and not be so wound up by something "irrelevant" - which ultimately is about 90% of the content posted here if I'm being honest.

Clearly there's a point where it becomes unreasonable. PEWS explains why.

 

[Blocky]

I've agreed with most of the stuff you've said in this thread but I actually do really disagree with this. I don't think a forum should be a battleground between competing sets of fans looking to conquer to opposition in the name of their team. It should be a place to discuss cricket; not have a separate competition for the fans to point-score with. If I think Roach is **** and I say so then "but a bowler on the team you support is ****!!!!" is just simply not a valid retort because I'm offering an opinion; not challenging the West Indies Supporters Union to a duel. It really stifles debate if people are treated as big flag-waving caricatures rather than individuals with differing opinions. At the end of the day, the qualities of the players who play for the team I happen to support are totally irrelevant to my opinion of Roach, so it really detracts from individual opinions and just becomes and nationality.


People are going to be biased sometimes, and there's going to be some banter and some cheering, and that's all fine. I've said a bit to Spark on Skype today about how we run the risk of having very samey members if let the pack run anyone they don't like out of town... but if you're coming to the forum to stick it to the opposition and wave the flag for your own side at every opportunity in order to win the war of the fans, then CW probably isn't the place for you. We pride ourselves on not having a forum like that. Having posters with different styles, different interests and different things they enjoy about cricket is great, but this is a discussion forum and we draw the line at that sort of warmongering.

I'm just used to 90% of the sporting conversations I have about players being comparisons which is why I just don't see it as a major inflammatory statement. It's like "Ok, you can compare Neesham and Anderson and talk about their strengths and weaknesses and who is better, but don't for the life of you compare Neesham or Anderson with Ben Stokes."

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm just used to 90% of the sporting conversations I have about players being comparisons which is why I just don't see it as a major inflammatory statement. It's like "Ok, you can compare Neesham and Anderson and talk about their strengths and weaknesses and who is better, but don't for the life of you compare Neesham or Anderson with Ben Stokes."

There's nothing wrong with comparing Neesham with Ben Stokes; the problem is when someone brings up Ben Stokes just because the person who brought up Neesham happened to be English.

If I follow England and say that Neesham is ****, then Stokes being **** just doesn't refute my point at all. Following England wouldn't make me a walking representation of all things England Cricket to have my argument refuted by the status of English cricketers when they're irrelevant.

To use an example that might hit closer to home -- lets say you make a post about how you don't think Lyon is very good, and then some Aussie bogan rocks up to tell you that you're wrong because Sodhi is rubbish, then disappears in a smug sense of self-content at how he's chalked up one for the good guys on the Great Forumers Cricket War tally. The fact that you're a New Zealander doesn't mean the performance of New Zealanders can make your opinions invalid, in particular with the case of Sodhi given you don't rate him at all in the first place. That sort of stuff just stifles debate in general. There's nothing wrong with debating the merits of Lyon v Sodhi if there's anyone out there who actually thinks Sodhi is better, but the point I'm making is that Sodhi's direness shouldn't be used to refute a point that has nothing to do with Sodhi in the first place just because of your nationality or which team you support. That's warmongering, and that's what we don't stand for here.

 

[GIMH]

Yellow and red cards should show, of course they should, been saying it for years.

Meanwhile I'm gonna enjoy a Flem free week

 

[Dan]

Everyone's gonna enjoy that tbh.

 

[Hurricane]

I think the mods have to be more open to change and suggest alternatives that will work rather than using their intellects to shoot everything down.

Justice is too slow and problems fester for 24-48 hours before action is taken.

 

[Athlai]

Trialling a new system wouldn't end the world would it?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Blocky, a lot of what you are saying I agree with in theory, but historically it becomes an issue when it gets wrapped up in a tour thread when the game is going on.

Tour threads are more like a big dinner party. No-one else at the table really enjoys a big political debate between two people, they're rolling their eyes hoping for things to move on.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Simply, the delays come about whenever there is a bit of tit-to-tat situation; we all know that one person is going to be annoyed because "the other one started it", and combining some context from those posting at the time with sober analysis with those who may not have been ends up being a decent way of sorting out what the result should be.

When someone simply starts namecalling, it needs to stop and usually the moderator will quickly issue an infraction because simply it will continue to escalate.

Everyone' happy with the system till they get an infraction, basically.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Simply, the delays come about whenever there is a bit of tit-to-tat situation; we all know that one person is going to be annoyed because "the other one started it", and combining some context from those posting at the time with sober analysis with those who may not have been ends up being a decent way of sorting out what the result should be.

That's massive oversimplification. I rarely get involved in these tit-for-tat debates. However, when I do report such things nothing appears to happen, so why should I bother? I say appears because I have no idea because there's no mechanism to let people know whether someone's been censured. Basically, it's not always about 'the other person starting it' when other people happen to report an exchange. Hell, when it happens you should probably infract both parties and tell them both to pull their head in.

 

[Blocky]

There's nothing wrong with comparing Neesham with Ben Stokes; the problem is when someone brings up Ben Stokes just because the person who brought up Neesham happened to be English.

If I follow England and say that Neesham is ****, then Stokes being **** just doesn't refute my point at all. Following England wouldn't make me a walking representation of all things England Cricket to have my argument refuted by the status of English cricketers when they're irrelevant.

To use an example that might hit closer to home -- lets say you make a post about how you don't think Lyon is very good, and then some Aussie bogan rocks up to tell you that you're wrong because Sodhi is rubbish, then disappears in a smug sense of self-content at how he's chalked up one for the good guys on the Great Forumers Cricket War tally. The fact that you're a New Zealander doesn't mean the performance of New Zealanders can make your opinions invalid, in particular with the case of Sodhi given you don't rate him at all in the first place. That sort of stuff just stifles debate in general. There's nothing wrong with debating the merits of Lyon v Sodhi if there's anyone out there who actually thinks Sodhi is better, but the point I'm making is that Sodhi's direness shouldn't be used to refute a point that has nothing to do with Sodhi in the first place just because of your nationality or which team you support. That's warmongering, and that's what we don't stand for here.

OK sure, in that instance I can see your point but I just haven't seen him act that way in the time I've been here. I just see people over-reacting whenever he says something, I saw the same thing during the WI vs NZ series. In any case, I honestly think the way you guys moderate works well, I think we've just got a bunch of squeakers in the forum who can't sort their own feelings out and expect you to do it for them.

ps - half my issue on Sodhi is that people do try to debate that he's a better option than other players and I've actually seen someone state "Well he's better than Lyon" - then they turn around and say "Well all of us think Sodhi is ****, so I don't know why you think we defend him"

 

[Blocky]

Blocky, a lot of what you are saying I agree with in theory, but historically it becomes an issue when it gets wrapped up in a tour thread when the game is going on.

Tour threads are more like a big dinner party. No-one else at the table really enjoys a big political debate between two people, they're rolling their eyes hoping for things to move on.

haha... See I'm the type of person that loves the political debate or the religious discussion over the dinner table, because I don't mind conflict and I don't believe in being nice/agreeing for the sake of being polite.

 

[vic_orthdox]

haha... See I'm the type of person that loves the political debate or the religious discussion over the dinner table, because I don't mind conflict and I don't believe in being nice/agreeing for the sake of being polite.

What has been done in the past that has worked well is creating a thread, moving a few posts into it, regarding the discussion in the tour thread, so it can be continued on in that thread. E.g. there was regular discussion about Ish Sodhi in that Pak vs NZ test, maybe we could have helped get a thread started in Cricket Chat so that continual discussion regarding him could have been diverted and people who just wanted to talk about the game at hand can keep on going.

We don't want to stop the discussion, we just need to find the right place for it; often it's not the tour thread.

 

[vic_orthdox]

That's massive oversimplification. I rarely get involved in these tit-for-tat debates. However, when I do report such things nothing appears to happen, so why should I bother? I say appears because I have no idea because there's no mechanism to let people know whether someone's been censured. Basically, it's not always about 'the other person starting it' when other people happen to report an exchange. Hell, when it happens you should probably infract both parties and tell them both to pull their head in.

I've got a foot in both camps about this; I agree some form of notification is desirable, but I don't think that you can do it within this system that we have at the moment.

Generally, both people do end up with an infraction, but there are different types of infractions, with different weightings and fit different individuals within the one exchange. Maybe it's a little complicated, but a bit of discussion does end up being necessary.

It also prevents too many infractions being reversed or changed which, when happening too regularly, creates issues of itself.

 

[Howe_zat]

I don't believe in being nice/agreeing for the sake of being polite.

That's why, if it were my party, I wouldn't invite you back; and if it were my website, I'd show you the door as well.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

How are being nice/agreeing the same thing? You can disagree while not being a ****, it's really not hard.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I didn't mind dishing out insults to people because I believed it was banter and people weren't a bunch of skirt wearing nancies.

It's good to have it confirmed that not being nice is a male trait

 

[Johnners]

haha... See I'm the type of person that loves the political debate or the religious discussion over the dinner table, because I don't mind conflict and I don't believe in being nice/agreeing for the sake of being polite.

 

[Blocky]

That's why, if it were my party, I wouldn't invite you back; and if it were my website, I'd show you the door as well.

Just as well your passive aggressive party isn't one I'd want to attend and any website you hosted probably wouldn't tick my boxes either.