The atmosphere in Cricket Chat - Suggestions & Discussion

[Richard]

It's the line between them being a bit of fun and meandering around a bit, and going totally off topic onto the same-old things, that is presumably difficult to define.

It's impossible to determine. What is needed is a "not this nonsensical claptrap AGAIN - cut it out!", not a "this is off the topic of this thread's title - cut it out".

 

[four_or_six]

If so, they'll soon learn if they stick around. There are many things about just about anywhere which would baffle a newcomer to it - that's the nature of being new to a place.

And BTW, WAG isn't something which can be singular, WAGs is a plural-only noun. If a singular is required, it's WOG, which for obvious reasons is unlikely; thus, W\G is the only solution.

I think you'll find, technically, WAG can actually be a singular noun.

 

[four_or_six]

It's impossible to determine. What is needed is a "not this nonsensical claptrap AGAIN - cut it out!", not a "this is off the topic of this thread's title - cut it out".

Agreed. But I spose one person's nonsensical claptrap is another's well-spent evening in with their laptop.

 

[Richard]

I think you'll find, technically, WAG can actually be a singular noun.

Well, in theory one can be a "wife and girlfriend", but I'd say the more appropriate term in that case is "cheating slut".

 

[Richard]

Agreed. But I spose one person's nonsensical claptrap is another's well-spent evening in with their laptop.

Ind33d it is. Unfortunately, the only way to determine it is by elitist means - the fact that the long-term members are sick of it and don't want to see any more of it. And some people seem ranged against the elitism-dictates idea. Personally, I don't automatically mind it.

 

[four_or_six]

Well, in theory one can be a "wife and girlfriend", but I'd say the more appropriate term in that case is "cheating slut".

I meant the dictionary definition. I'm sure you can be 'a WAG'.

Ind33d it is. Unfortunately, the only way to determine it is by elitist means - the fact that the long-term members are sick of it and don't want to see any more of it. And some people seem ranged against the elitism-dictates idea. Personally, I don't automatically mind it.

No, me neither, certainly not to an extent. But it is difficult because you want to be welcoming to everyone rather than too cliquey. It's inevitable a place like this is so, but it can be quite a bit at times and I think it'd be daunting to new members.

 

[GIMH]

People were upset at other stages as well, and rightly so. But there was no magic-bullet or alchemist's formula solution then, same way there's none now. We avoided the danger of doing long-term damage by trying something that's not possible on those previous occasions, and we'll hopefully avoid doing so again now.

What I consider an overreaction is "we must do something, CC is at an all-time low!", not "CC is pretty crap currently". I'd advise "wait until it gets better, it always does - but not in a 'for good' capacity".

I've said it before - nothing, I mean no amount of off-title-topic posts stops you, or anyone else, making responses to anything cricket-related that you want to make.

I'd just rather irrelevant crap (like "Ponting scores 40 when he goes to the wicket at 13:27 whereas Sehwag only scores 76 when he goes to the wicket at 16:11 which is clearly an easier time because <insert list of batsmen> have shown this") was kept-out of CC altogether TBH - but sadly, there's really no way of achieving that. Except, of course, from banning posters who are given to such things. Something personally I'd not be averse to (and BTW I should add I'd not be averse to it because those who engage in such debating tend to be poor-quality sorts, not because that in itself is a poor character trait), but I don't think it's an approach favoured by many, else several posters would be long-gone. And no, not me included - I've never remotely descended to that level, so anyone who tries to group me with such a group is wrong, plain-and-simple.

Right, but there is no reason why the forum being crap should be accepted because we know it can be better. If something can be done, it should. The absolute worst thing to do is say, this isn't fixable, let's just sit it out

And you're right that nothing stops me from responding to whatever I want whenever I want. But when discussion is as ugly as it sometimes gets, it makes me not want to read said thread, nevermind bloody reply. And I ain't the only one.

That's an awfully negative example though. Standard X vs. Y threads become really interesting discussions sometimes too.

edit: @ Corrin

Yeah but you've missed my point - I don't actually have a problem with X V Y threads. I hate the way every 3rd thread becomes an X V Y thread, though.

 

[Furball]

2. Off-topic nature of discussions - I post at another forum (it's non-cricket, don't judge me) and tbh there are a lot of things I don't like about it, but I wanted to throw this out there. One of their rules is that topics stay on topic. Off topic posts are deleted as spam, repeat offenders are infracted. Now I think it can go a bit too far, you can find your post removed when you've replied to something a poster has said but isn't specifically related to what was referenced in the opening post, which can stagnate discussion, but at the same time it would prevent Ricky Ponting's record in India from being brought into a topic about who has the prettiest ODI kit. Sometimes the evolution of a thread can be fine but more often than not it's ridiculous and repetitive these days.

This. Some of the direst threads in CC drift wildly off topic and you can end up with pages of absolute dross which has nothing to do with the original topic. If there's a decent discussion going on that's branched off from the original topic, move the posts to create a new thread, if it's dross, just chop it and warn the offenders.

 

[Richard]

I meant the dictionary definition. I'm sure you can be 'a WAG'.

Wasn't aware acronyms could be found in a dictionary TBH - thought they were marginally more informal.

No, me neither, certainly not to an extent. But it is difficult because you want to be welcoming to everyone rather than too cliquey. It's inevitable a place like this is so, but it can be quite a bit at times and I think it'd be daunting to new members.

It's easy to be welcoming, but there's a difference between "welcome - here's how we do things here, if you don't like it you can post somewhere else" and "we do things like this here, go somewhere else cos you're unlikely to be able to make those standards".

In being welcoming there is no way anyone should allow n00bs to say "but I want to do it this way so you should change because I want it that way". CricketWeb, believe it or not, is the property of CricketWebbers - it's a private entity, not a public one. It's been made the way it is because of what the people who got here and stayed here have made it.

Also, however much people worry about CW being unwelcoming, the quality new posters always just keep coming. And always have, down the years.

 

[Richard]

Right, but there is no reason why the forum being crap should be accepted because we know it can be better. If something can be done, it should. The absolute worst thing to do is say, this isn't fixable, let's just sit it out

As I said, there's no way you can make something that causes the forum to be "good" all the time. Some problems are indeed not fixable - and the worst thing you can do is try to find a fix for an insoluble problem and end-up creating more problems instead of solving what you're vainly trying to fix.

As I say, there is no such thing as something which cannot be improved - there are always things everyone can be trying to do to make CW better.

There's a difference between saying "this can be done to make things better - let's do it" and "there's a problem here - we must do something".

And you're right that nothing stops me from responding to whatever I want whenever I want. But when discussion is as ugly as it sometimes gets, it makes me not want to read said thread, nevermind bloody reply. And I ain't the only one.

Well, personally I don't have much of a problem with that. If I see a thread's filled with crap, I just don't read it - and it doesn't bother me, I don't think "damn, I wish this wasn't filled with crap because then I could read it". If you do, that's of course the way you are and we're just different - but it's not something I consider to be a problem.

 

[GIMH]

If it's just one thread, then fine. If it's four or five, then, hmm, I think I'll give CC a miss, that's how I think. And probably others. And all of a sudden you've lost quality discussion in CC. I don't think I add a lot to many non-tour CC threads, but a lot of posters who do are less and less visible round these parts, and it must be due to the quality of discussion.

 

[Furball]

There's got to be sensible modding WRT off topic posts though.

Theoretical example: Mahela Jayawardene has (off the top of my head, cbf checking cricinfo) about 9,200 Test runs and is probably likely to be the next batsman to join the 10,000 Test runs club.

This is a pretty exclusive club, containing only 8 players currently, and comparisons between Mahela J and the other batsmen who have achieved it, and where Mahela J stands in comparison to the all time greats of the game are naturally going to occur.

One might very well argue that Jayawardene shouldn't be considered an all time great because of the disparity between his home and away record. At that point, it would be perfectly valid of me to point out that Ponting's poor record in India doesn't preclude him from all time great status. That's not necessarily going off topic.

If the thread then turned into a dire discussion about Ponting's record vs India/Sachin being rubbish against South Africa etc etc, then bin the offending posts and warn those responsible.

 

[Richard]

If it's just one thread, then fine. If it's four or five, then, hmm, I think I'll give CC a miss, that's how I think. And probably others. And all of a sudden you've lost quality discussion in CC. I don't think I add a lot to many non-tour CC threads, but a lot of posters who do are less and less visible round these parts, and it must be due to the quality of discussion.

And as I say - I think that can be blamed on poor-quality posters making poor-quality posts, and it's next to nothing to do with divergence from title-topics.

It's poor-quality posts that need to be stamped-out, not divergence from title-topics. If there were hundreds of threads with titles inviting posters to make the sorts of ridiculous posts that are indeed conceivably driving away good-quality posters, do you imagine things would be happening similarly? No, they'd happen a damn sight faster.

 

[Richard]

There's got to be sensible modding WRT off topic posts though.

Theoretical example: Mahela Jayawardene has (off the top of my head, cbf checking cricinfo) about 9,200 Test runs and is probably likely to be the next batsman to join the 10,000 Test runs club.

This is a pretty exclusive club, containing only 8 players currently, and comparisons between Mahela J and the other batsmen who have achieved it, and where Mahela J stands in comparison to the all time greats of the game are naturally going to occur.

One might very well argue that Jayawardene shouldn't be considered an all time great because of the disparity between his home and away record. At that point, it would be perfectly valid of me to point out that Ponting's poor record in India doesn't preclude him from all time great status. That's not necessarily going off topic.

If the thread then turned into a dire discussion about Ponting's record vs India/Sachin being rubbish against South Africa etc etc, then bin the offending posts and warn those responsible.

As I say - for me, that's advocating the removal of rubbish posts, not the removal of off-title-topic posts.

 

[ret]

There is in fact a need to create an 'atmosphere' here that ecourages people to have meaningful discussions. Define what constitutes meaningful discussion, take steps to encourage that and there would be improvement

Usually you would want a thread to have intelligent discussions, humor, some debates, etc. Sometimes there are many layers to a discussion so what's a layer to one could be mean being OT for another. So I wouldn't put too much weightage on going OT unless it's ridiculosly OT

A big negative is personal confrontations. Before telling someone anything negative, you should ask yourself that would you say the same to someone you don't agree with in a bar

But ofc, it's easier to write all this but difficult to practise what you preach!

 

[JBH001]

To be honest, I think this whole issue something of a beat-up. CC has always been somewhat cyclical in nature with troughs and peaks in terms of threads and quality of posts. I think it is currently in one of those stages, but its nothing to get too worked up about. Although, I may be a little biased as I dont post very much although I look at the page almost daily (CC is the only part of CW I really look at - I go elsewhere for other than cricket stuff). I just look at threads I am interested in and ignore those I am not. Also, if a thread looks like it is a multi-quote thread with lots of laugh emoticons then I simply exit it as it is a sign that the thread is degenerating, and usually dont come back. So, as I said, I think this something of a beat-up.

That said, and having read and skimmed most of the posts thus far, there are a couple of points where I would like to add my voice, as I think it may improve CC.

1. No sub-forum for player vs player discussions. This remains an integral part of the game, indeed any sport, and stats is essential to cricket. If you dont like it, dont take part. Although I give a cautious "yes" to a hot-topic sub forum.

2. Less moderators but better moderators and better quality moderation. I think CW is already inundated with moderators for a site with a small membership (especially in terms of active posters). I have pointed this out a few times before, but I think moderation on this forum is sometimes poor, one sided and not equitable which tends to breed a poor atmosphere. The moderators are culpable here.

3. Senior and more active members need to take a hand and post more. Especially where newbies from other forums are concerned, oldies here need to show what is expected of them in terms of quality posts and standard of discussion or to guide a thread in that direction. Existing and senior members help create and maintain the required atmosphere - if they dont, then it will become something else.

4. No need to branch of threads that go OT as long as the participants are getting something from it, and the standard of discussion is good. A thread is, after all, a conversation, and conversations tend to go off in all sorts of directions. The only exception to this, of course, is if it looks the thread is sinking into the mire of Warne vs Murali or Ponting vs Tendulkar type discussions and so on.

 

[Uppercut]

2. Less moderators but better moderators and better quality moderation. I think CW is already inundated with moderators for a site with a small membership (especially in terms of active posters). I have pointed this out a few times before, but I think moderation on this forum is sometimes poor, one sided and not equitable which tends to breed a poor atmosphere. The moderators are culpable here.

I'd be interested in hearing some more details on this, maybe a few examples? Personally I think the moderation here is excellent, but obviously everything is open to improvement.

 

[vic_orthdox]

On the point of number of moderators, I personally think it to be quite important. Because of the global nature of cricket and its followers we need moderators who can cover the whole spectrum of times that members post.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, and I don't think the number of mods is high at all. Certainly, I know plenty of forums with less members and more mods.

 

[JBH001]

I'd be interested in hearing some more details on this, maybe a few examples? Personally I think the moderation here is excellent, but obviously everything is open to improvement.

Cant remember all the details of instances off hand, CW and CC isnt that important to me that I keep all of this stored in my head, and I dont want to start naming names either. Just instances over the last few years where it seemed to me that moderation has either under-reacted or over-reacted and been one-sided. So, yeah, I'd disagree in that I dont think the moderation here is excellent - in fact, overall, I think it quite poor, or at best, average.