What Do YOU Want Bond & Beyond to Be?

Largo's Shark wrote:

I'd agree to it that only if it was more carefully moderated, and it wasn't just a bile spewing contest like it has been for last year or so. If it was home to more reasoned conversation that involved more than just 4 usual posters, it could work. A regular poll and subject for discussion would more fruitful than just ranting about the latest headlines. Something proactive rather than reactive.

Why can't it be between 4 posters? We don't all need to post in every thread. That thread interests a few members so why spoil it for them because it's not in line with how you want the boards to run?

FieldsMan wrote:

Why can't it be between 4 posters?

Because that creates niches and echo chambers, and results in an unhealthy imbalance in the forum. It's happening right now in the Multiplex and Television categories while Film News and Discussion grows cobwebs.

In the case of the American Politics topic - a good comparison would between that old death penalty thread and the American Politics topic in its few months. Variety vs. monotony.

FieldsMan wrote:

That thread interests a few members so why spoil it for them because it's not in line with how you want the boards to run?

What makes you think I'm just speaking for myself?

Quote :

Because that creates niches and echo chambers, and results in an unhealthy imbalance in the forum. It's happening right now in the Multiplex and Television categories while Film News and Discussion grows cobwebs.

I see. So the best way forward to getting a forum that is flourishing with activity is to close some of the only threads that members are actually posting in, instead of encouraging said members to post in other threads too.

FieldsMan wrote:

So the best way forward to getting a forum that is flourishing with activity is to close some of the only threads that members are actually posting in, instead of encouraging said members to post in other threads too.

I'm not planning on closing the STAR TREK thread, if that's what you're worried about. The American Politics thread was closed for other reasons, you know that.

FWIW, I did post a PSA here, but it probably wasn't direct enough.

I echo Sharky's thoughts on the American politics thread. An "echo chamber" really is the best way to describe it. Three or four politically like-minded members shared links with one another until someone else from the other side of the spectrum stumbled into the discussion. That's what tended to cause ugliness.

I'm all for intelligent political discourse but it's got to be better than the way it was. No more sweeping generalizations and no more name-calling. It also needs to be more fairly moderated.

Gravity decides he doesn't belong here after discovering the American politics thread being locked, if that's one of his primary reasons for leaving then maybe he doesn't belong here and that's a real shame. This is a James Bond fan site, not a Greg Gutfeld sanctuary. Bond is what brought us all together in the first place, isn't it? Why should politics supersede Bond? I've had my say in the political thread as much as Gravity, but I don't feel compromised over its lockdown because I understand that it only got ugly for awhile and I am totally fine with the idea of not being able to post a link about the merits of gay marriage.

To be clear, I wouldn't mind reopening the politics thread by the time things simmer down, but the first sign that mudslinging begins, then the sweeping generalizations, ect should bring down an automatic lockdown.

Largo's Shark wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

So the best way forward to getting a forum that is flourishing with activity is to close some of the only threads that members are actually posting in, instead of encouraging said members to post in other threads too.

I'm not planning on closing the STAR TREK thread, if that's what you're worried about. The American Politics thread was closed for other reasons, you know that.

He doesn't know that, and you don't seem to know, and I certainly don't, but more to the point, I don't friggin care and it doesn't matter anyway as there was nothing stopping anyone from opening a similar thread, or introducing topics falling under the same general subject matter. But out of basic "mod respect" I'm not inclined to undo the actions of another mod.
Anyway I don't know what you are still bitching about. FFS!! For double FS, if I may be so dramatic, the board is wide open. Go nuts, post away!!!!! There is nothing stopping you. This is a discussion board, again FFS Isn't there a general bitch and moan thread you can go play in, and I mean that in the nicest kindest and gentlest way of course. Where is Professor Khan. He might afford a calming influence. Alas, probably rolling his eyes, over the insufferable drama. Can't blame him. In the meantime, I got hockey playoffs to watch, plus its suddenly spring, and the girls are out and about in their skimp wear again. The playoffs and beer patios beckon. Fieldsman, you're in a different time-zone, if he keep with the kvetching, toss him in a cold shower or something. "Seriously" as the wise young Fae might say.
Oi vey.

Jack Wade wrote:

I'm all for intelligent political discourse but it's got to be better than the way it was. No more sweeping generalizations and no more name-calling. It also needs to be more fairly moderated.

The American Politics and News thread is wide open, if someone wants to start the thread, go for it!!!! And Wade it is truly encouraging to know that you are all for intelligent poltical discourse. That is indeed encouraging. Please feel free as a citizen of the great Republic to open a topical matter of interest to you, and regale us with your thoughts on the matter, "intelligent political discourse". We can even excuse the odd "sweeping generalization or friendly name-calling." This is not a pc dullard's board, never has been, where provocative discussion or colourful expression is discouraged. Wade, I'm serious, not that I believe you hang off my opinion or anything,;) but you're a smart guy, politically aware and engaged, so I am sure you have something to offer. Just off the top of my head, I've got nothing right about now, ie nothing really comes to mind, that I feel like introducing, although the ongoing Keystone Pipleline discussion does interest me, especially as it pertains to the economy of the Alberta oil sands and the phony green politics that seems to surround the matter, both north and south of the border, but we've heard nothing much of substance in the last little while from the White House energy czars. In the meantime I'm sure Grav will be along at some point to throw something stimulating on the table, and knowing Grav, I'm sure he will welcome your input.

==There is nothing to fear, the whole board is wide open for free and open discussion, even hip hop discussion :suspect:
Look what M the Infallible, has done with the banner. This truly is Bond and Beyond!!! It's the dawing of a glorious new post-SF era!
No-one need be afraid of anyone else's opinions. We might even be able to learn things from each other. God help us.

Largo's Shark wrote:

an unhealthy imbalance in the forum.

Happy Star Wars Day :geek: .

Please, somebody tell me that we haven't just lost a really good member (and Mod) over the closing of a topic. :oops:

No, my understanding is that we lost a long-time member and moderator over a temper tantrum that came about as a result of a thread being locked.

It might be a sad end to his membership, but the moderators can't start bowing to the whims of individual forum members simply for the sake of keeping them happy. I've seen what the end result is when that happens, and it's not pretty. I used to post on a site called Bored of Studies, which started out as a resource for high school students. But after a while, a few forum members started to stick around after they had graduated high school and used the forums for socialising. The site's purpose started to fragment and that handful of members ammassed a whole lot of power because the moderators tolerated their behaviour. When one got banned, the others would start trolling, demanding that their comrade-in-arms have his posting priveliges reinstated, and the moderators gave in. That was the beginning of the end; the moderators had no real power, and so everyone was a salve to the whims of a handful of idiots. A few years later, the moderators tried to reclaim the forums and get the site back to its original state with a series of mass bannings, shutting down entire sections of the forum at a time to try and clean out the filfth, and the idiots still won. I actually knew one of the moderators, and she had a nervous breakdown because of it.

I'm not saying that will happen here. We're probably too small for it to happen. But the point that I'm trying to make is that there is line that needs to be observed. When someone crosses it, the moderators need to deal with it in a way that is fair and consistent. They can't bend the rules based the person who is breaking them.

Python wrote:

Gravity decides he doesn't belong here after discovering the American politics thread being locked, if that's one of his primary reasons for leaving then maybe he doesn't belong here and that's a real shame. This is a James Bond fan site, not a Greg Gutfeld sanctuary. Bond is what brought us all together in the first place, isn't it? Why should politics supersede Bond? I've had my say in the political thread as much as Gravity, but I don't feel compromised over its lockdown because I understand that it only got ugly for awhile and I am totally fine with the idea of not being able to post a link about the merits of gay marriage.

I largely agree with this. I value GS as part of our community but leaving in a tiff because of one off-topic thread is a bit dramatic. But then again, I guess going out in a blaze of glory blaming the PC overlords is cooler than going out with a whimper.

As for the news and politics thread, if I recall correctly, it devolved largely into pure political mudslinging with members only really posting links to news stories that made the other side look stupid. That probably wasn't helping matters.

But whatever. The fact that we're still debating how to properly operate a political thread is probably a sign we're still not ready for one.

Man, I always miss out on the drama.

Don't go away, the next bit of drama won't be too far off.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

No, my understanding is that we lost a long-time member and moderator over a temper tantrum that came about as a result of a thread being locked.

It might be a sad end to his membership, but the moderators can't start bowing to the whims of individual forum members simply for the sake of keeping them happy. I've seen what the end result is when that happens, and it's not pretty. I used to post on a site called Bored of Studies, which started out as a resource for high school students. But after a while, a few forum members started to stick around after they had graduated high school and used the forums for socialising. The site's purpose started to fragment and that handful of members ammassed a whole lot of power because the moderators tolerated their behaviour. When one got banned, the others would start trolling, demanding that their comrade-in-arms have his posting priveliges reinstated, and the moderators gave in. That was the beginning of the end; the moderators had no real power, and so everyone was a salve to the whims of a handful of idiots. A few years later, the moderators tried to reclaim the forums and get the site back to its original state with a series of mass bannings, shutting down entire sections of the forum at a time to try and clean out the filfth, and the idiots still won. I actually knew one of the moderators, and she had a nervous breakdown because of it.

I'm not saying that will happen here. We're probably too small for it to happen. But the point that I'm trying to make is that there is line that needs to be observed. When someone crosses it, the moderators need to deal with it in a way that is fair and consistent. They can't bend the rules based the person who is breaking them.

This sounds like a carbon copy of AJB with its triumvirate of disruptive pals Bondtoys, danjaq_0ff and minigeff. One jumps in to defend the other; they have compromised many good threads over there, as they're protected by a moderator friend, but no-one else not part of the gang gets a look in. There are other peripheral ,members of the gang, too. If you still post over on AJB you''ll know what I'm getting at. So this sort of thing goes on on the James Bond fan forums, too, though not really on BaB thankfully.

Bloody hell! Minigeff's there? He used to be a regular over at the old MI6 Forums.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Bloody hell! Minigeff's there? He used to be a regular over at the old MI6 Forums.

thought the name rang a bell. He was...shall we say, a character

Hilly wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Bloody hell! Minigeff's there? He used to be a regular over at the old MI6 Forums.

thought the name rang a bell. He was...shall we say, a character

True. Though he's not the worst of the Triumvirate; chalk that up to the other two. They're all collecting/merchandise nuts.

I bet GS keeps peeping in, the temptation is just too great :face:

I imagine there are...certain perks.

Love the changes. The 'Focus: James Bond' thing is excellent. Cleans up the board substantially. Good work M.

Vesper wrote:

Love the changes. The 'Focus: James Bond' thing is excellent. Cleans up the board substantially. Good work M.

Yes, I too like the changes. Well done, M. :D

I can't see the banner anymore.

Working for me.

Aye, the banner tis there.

It was missing a while back for me too, but it's back again (though a little too wide for my small computer screen).