Cricket Chat not as exciting as before

[Richard]

Hmm...

You don't know the half of it...

 

[Flem274*]

You don't know the half of it...

What? Is she the mystery girl that sits on your lap whilst you're on CW?

HEY PIPER!!!

Or is there something more sinister going on here?..

 

[Burgey]

Bugger mate.

As long as you don't appear in my bed at 2am then thats fine.

As opposed to when he doesn't have glandular fever?

On the standard of posting, imo there needs to be some leniancy given to newer posters from forum members more so than mods. I'm not saying that in a patronising way, but from experience. This is really the only forum I've ever been involved with, and I joined lateish 2006. It takes a while to get used to what is and isn't tolerated on a forum like this, or where the discussions usually end up.
As an example, I have/ had some views on Murali's action, but it took me a while to realise that the discussion had been done to death before I even joined. Since then, a number of new posters have raised the issue and regulars (myself included at times) have then posted saying it's all been done before, this will get ugly, etc etc. Same with the "players over rated" discussion.
But the new poster can't know thay, can they? I mean, they will of course have a fair idea that it will have been discussed, but should we as a forum discourage the posters from talking about the issues they want to? I just fear that if we do that a lot, newer posters will get discouraged, when they might in the medium to long term have had a lot to offer.
For my part, if a thread gets ugly or raises something that's been done to death, I try not to post on it and just ignore it. Sometimes I think those of us who've been here for a while might need to be a bit more tolerant of newbies, is all I'm saying - obvious trolls excluded like that aussie26 fella from a few days ago. Then again, over time he/she might turn out to be a reasonable poster after being around for a while - who knows?

 

[Langeveldt]

But the new poster can't know thay, can they? I mean, they will of course have a fair idea that it will have been discussed, but should we as a forum discourage the posters from talking about the issues they want to? I just fear that if we do that a lot, newer posters will get discouraged, when they might in the medium to long term have had a lot to offer.

That's already been discussed in the Site discussion forum...

 

[pasag]

God yeah, user comments on Youtube videos.. Actually makes me worry about humanity

Yeah same, if that's representative of society...we're screwed.

 

[sledger]

Glandular fever.

My appearances are likely to be sporadic for a fair while.

oh man that sucks, remember several people I know having that, just tires you out instantly, then you wake up feeling even more tired iirc.

 

[Cameron-Moss]

I totally agree, I couldn't get on the forum for like 1 1/2 years but finally I can now, and I realised that it was better before.

 

[Richard]

As opposed to when he doesn't have glandular fever?

On the standard of posting, imo there needs to be some leniancy given to newer posters from forum members more so than mods. I'm not saying that in a patronising way, but from experience. This is really the only forum I've ever been involved with, and I joined lateish 2006. It takes a while to get used to what is and isn't tolerated on a forum like this, or where the discussions usually end up.
As an example, I have/ had some views on Murali's action, but it took me a while to realise that the discussion had been done to death before I even joined. Since then, a number of new posters have raised the issue and regulars (myself included at times) have then posted saying it's all been done before, this will get ugly, etc etc. Same with the "players over rated" discussion.
But the new poster can't know thay, can they? I mean, they will of course have a fair idea that it will have been discussed, but should we as a forum discourage the posters from talking about the issues they want to? I just fear that if we do that a lot, newer posters will get discouraged, when they might in the medium to long term have had a lot to offer.
For my part, if a thread gets ugly or raises something that's been done to death, I try not to post on it and just ignore it. Sometimes I think those of us who've been here for a while might need to be a bit more tolerant of newbies, is all I'm saying - obvious trolls excluded like that aussie26 fella from a few days ago. Then again, over time he/she might turn out to be a reasonable poster after being around for a while - who knows?

Thread mergers can help a lot with that, IMO - it makes it clear the matter has been discussed without "FFS, not this again!!!"s. TBH, I don't think anyone should apologise for being sick of the number of issues that recur again and again (the Murali-chucker and Tendulkar-choker\overrated\etc. thing being prime examples). If someone is interested in saying Murali is a chucker or Tendulkar is a choker, rather than accepting that it's a view no-one wants to hear and shutting-up and keeping it to themselves, by-and-large they're unlikely to ever be particularly constructive.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

People who post every day (or in some cases every hour) probably don't notice the gradual change as much as the sporadic posters. I often go several months without even reading the board and it's quite noticable this time around that the number of posts outside of the Tour threads is greatly reduced. Often now you can come from work or get up in the morning and log in and there's been very few new posts, where as in the past it was unusual to find the same threads at the bottom half of the first page. It even appears that James is starting spurious threads in order to maintain intererest.

 

[Nate]

Bugger mate.

As long as you don't appear in my bed at 2am then thats fine.