• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

What is it about Cricketweb that puts people off taking part?

Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
BOTM usually has 120 fairly active posters which encompasses the wider CW community. Beyond that web forums aren't exactly at the peak of their popularity.
 
Brook's side

Brook's side

International Regular
Spark said:
Like I'll be blunt: the reason that everyone piled onto you in the Paltrow thread is that you were a condescending prick. Burgey makes a, to my eye, reasonable point couched in an entirely reasonable way - no personal attacks, aspersions or even raised tone
Click to expand...
OK, so this is a good place in your post to stop.

So firstly, I don't feel that everyone piled on to me in the Paltrow thread. I generally found it enjoyable except for your contribution (and a brief insignificant niggle with Burgey). I'd actually say that that's not a bad summing up of my experience of this website actually, and if you weren't a moderator I would have looked into whether there was an ignore function very early on.

Secondly, your comment above is from what I've seen a great example of the way you seem to exercise your role as a moderator on the site. Regards the incident you're referring to in which you say that Burgey made no "personal attacks" etc and I was a "condescending prick", what
actually happened is that:

1. Myself and Burgey had a bit of a debate about a point after he criticised a comment I had made
2. My latest comment in that exchange was simply to quote one of his earlier posts about looking into the minds of others (not a personal insult).
3. He responded by saying that he knows that there's not a lot going on in my mind. (i.e a personal insult)
4. I then did make a personal criticism of him which I deleted a few minutes later.
5. You (Spark) then interjected by saying (about my post in which I simply quoted his earlier comment), "...it's impossible for this not to come off as unbelievably smug and condescending".

You made another comment this morning on another thread which I thought was likely intended to be lashing out at me in an obscure way.

You've then (whilst suggesting that people shouldn't make personal insults) called me a "condescending prick".

You've also suggested on this thread that I've supported a war of aggression, which seems to be a reference to my explanation as to why Russia is unlikely to accept a peace deal involving them leaving Crimea.

I don't know the history or politics of the website, but you do not appear to me to be at all suitable for a role as moderator, not least because you seem to have personal agendas and abuse your position of 'authority' to bully others.

Bearing in mind the OP above, I'd reflect, why would people rush to use a website which is moderated in this way?
(no offence to the other moderator who seems absolutely fine).
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Brook's side said:
1. Myself and Burgey had a bit of a debate about a point after he criticised a comment I had made
2. My latest comment in that exchange was simply to quote one of his earlier posts about looking into the minds of others (not a personal insult).
3. He responded by saying that he knows that there's not a lot going on in my mind. (i.e a personal insult)
4. I then did make a personal criticism of him which I deleted a few minutes later.
5. You (Spark) then interjected by saying (about my post in which I simply quoted his earlier comment), "...it's impossible for this not to come off as unbelievably smug and condescending".
Click to expand...
Yeah no this is not at all an accurate summation of what happened in that thread, which is all still there and we can all actually read. This is the post that Burgey made that started the exchange

Burgey said:
So what?
Click to expand...
And

Burgey said:
I repeat. So what?

If I'm blind, deaf, have a brain injury and I'm sitting in the passenger seat of a car when some idiot runs into me, they're liable. If it makes my brain condition worse, they're liable for making it worse.
Click to expand...
To which you replied with

Brook's side said:
Wow, this is genius. It's like Perry Mason's just walked in the room to enlighten us. It's a revelation to listen to your reasoning.
Click to expand...
You don't get to later declaim that people were attacking you unprovoked when you very much threw the first punch with whatever on earth that is. Then when Stephen posts a single opinion to the thread that makes no reference to you at all you proceed to badger him about it for seven posts more or less in a row despite him being very clearly not interested in you badgering him over and over again, going so far as to tag him three times:

Brook's side said:
Defending her reputation as being someone who does not cause ski collisions.

Can see where you're coming from @StephenZA.
Click to expand...
Brook's side said:
He's saying that he's "come to the conclusion" or concluded.

So by your rationale he's saying that he has concluded that in both the following circumstances:

a) she knows she has caused the accident
b) she knows she has not caused the accident

she would defend herself in order to "protect her reputation" (as being someone who doesn't cause ski crashes).

On the basis then that she does know whether she has caused the accident (aside from the question of how he knows that the reason is to protect her reputation), how would it be possible for Stephen to have concluded that she would have defended the case in both circumstances?

Only one of those circumstances exists, so how can he have reached a conclusion on both circumstances? @StephenZA
Click to expand...
Brook's side said:
So anyway, we don't know whether @StephenZA thinks that Paltrow caused the crash or not, because in spite of all the multitude of evidence that she did not cause the crash, he's made no commitment on that. In fact we don't know whether he has even decided himself one way or the other on that question or whether he has simply not decided at all.

All that we know that he's decided, and actually all that he's committed on, is that:

1. she is defending the case in order to protect her reputation (as a good skier?)
2. whether or not she was guilty she would have done the same thing
3. the circumstances which don't exist would - had they existed - have been for the same reason as the circumstances which do exist

That's as far as he's going.
Click to expand...
He doesn't owe you a damn answer. You don't have the right to constantly demand he answer your incessant, pinging like this. He posted one - one - two line post containing an opinion and for that you feel the need to make the entire thread an honest to god cross-examination of this post. This is what I meant by "condescending prick". It is beyond tedious to have the same person demand over and over and over that you respond to the same point made again and again, especially when he's already plainly stated that your point is based on a wilful misinterpretation of his post, and make the entire thread about your demands of him rather than the topic at hand.
 
Last edited:
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
And of course it wasn't just me who came to this conclusion:

Daemon said:
Having read the thread I have concluded that you’re extremely tedious, regardless of whether you try to be or not
Click to expand...
Which is the single most liked post in the entire thread.
 
Daemon

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Brook's side said:
Think I've read somewhere that cricket is the 2nd most widely supported sport in the world. There are an estimated 30 million active players.

Cricketweb seems to be the leading cricket forum, boasting 26,000 signed up members. Perhaps no surprise as it's a universal forum, unlimited to club or country. It's also got a very user friendly programmed format/style, which gives it an advantage over many online sports forums.

Yet there only seem to be about 20-30 likeminded people (out of the whole population of the world) who post on a regular basis.

This compares unfavourably to online forums for say mid tier premier league football teams. There are tennis forums (a sport far less widely followed than cricket) which have probably 10 times the useage and 10 times the regular contributors as Cricketweb.

What is it about the Cricketweb forum which makes the vast majority of potential contributors decide to stay away?
Click to expand...
ok
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top