What Do YOU Want Bond & Beyond to Be?

Fae wrote:

Why is that hard to believe?

I am completely mature. /sarcasm

I have no idea.

:|

Largo's Shark wrote:

We've lost Harms.

Sent me a PM about half an hour ago on how he's out of sync with the community, and can't see the tide turning.

Would be a shame. Hope with time he reconsiders this decision.

Looks like we've lost 2 members who each crossed the 2,000 posts mark.

I'm wondering who the complainants were...do they even post at all? Will they be taking up any of the slack? Might have just been better to block their access to threads instead of spoiling the fun for everyone else.

I can agree with much of the sentiment GS expressed. If B&B has to bend over to appease a bunch of whingers, it's not going to be fun posting here.

June exams are around the corner...I've been tutoring some students who are doing a couple papers in a UK based Accounting qualification and will be a bit absentee while I channel some 'last lap' attention there...

6of1 wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

We've lost Harms.

Sent me a PM about half an hour ago on how he's out of sync with the community, and can't see the tide turning.

Would be a shame. Hope with time he reconsiders this decision.

Indeed, always valued his input since the KTBEU days.

We are who we are -- a small, "niche" corner of the Bond community. A redesign wouldn't hurt, sure, but other than that, I don't see our identity changing much.

We're here because of Bond so I think it would be unwise to completely rebrand and ignore that, if that's what's being considered. Yes, things die down between Bonds, but that goes for MI6, CBn, etc., too. But given we're the third-biggest forum in the community at best, the fact that we're still relatively active right now given the size of our community ain't all that bad.

Maybe ditching the news and political discussions would help, but that's a point that's already been brought up. Other than that, I got nothin'. I think we're being too self-conscious. We should just be what we are. That's the reason I'm here and not MI6.

Too bad about Harms. I hope he comes back.

I think that the moderation on BaB is rather unfair. It seems like some members get banned, while other favourites stay under the protection of their moderator friends and allies, posting things which are infinitely worse. I've seen similar things occur over at some of the other Bond forums, though I expected rather more from BaB. I can see how there is no parity of esteem here at all. For members like Gravity's Silhouette to be leaving should be a wake-up call to all and sundry on BaB that they really need to get their act together and have responsible members, responsible moderators and equality for all members, old and new, with both high and low post counts. Otherwise, expect to lose more members. I may be new, but I see the way that the wind is blowing here on BaB.

--The Butler.

Bare this in mind:

Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a forum to be permitting the outflow of so many loyal members. It is like watching a forum busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we if we allow this state of affairs to continue.

--The Butler.

The Butler wrote:

Bare this in mind:

Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a forum to be permitting the outflow of so many loyal members. It is like watching a forum busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we if we allow this state of affairs to continue.

--The Butler.

Unfortunately, the Forum B&B is foaming with much blood.

CJB wrote:

The Butler wrote:

Bare this in mind:

Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a forum to be permitting the outflow of so many loyal members. It is like watching a forum busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we if we allow this state of affairs to continue.

--The Butler.

Unfortunately, the Forum B&B is foaming with much blood.

Yes, I agree. I'm just channelling my inner Enoch Powell, but I'm sure you knew that! Like the Roman I am filled with much foreboding. I can see the River Tibris foaming with much blood.

The Butler wrote:

I think that the moderation on BaB is rather unfair. It seems like some members get banned, while other favourites stay under the protection of their moderator friends and allies, posting things which are infinitely worse. I've seen similar things occur over at some of the other Bond forums, though I expected rather more from BaB. I can see how there is no parity of esteem here at all. For members like Gravity's Silhouette to be leaving should be a wake-up call to all and sundry on BaB that they really need to get their act together and have responsible members, responsible moderators and equality for all members, old and new, with both high and low post counts. Otherwise, expect to lose more members. I may be new, but I see the way that the wind is blowing here on BaB.

--The Butler.

Who has been unfairly banned? I'm only aware of a couple members getting the banhammer. j7, for example, had more than enough chances to correct his behavior before he got the boot.

I'm sorry to see GS go but he left on his own accord. I don't want to get too much into the circumstances surrounding his decision to leave, but no matter how he spins it, I don't think some of the language he used in his political opinions would look too welcoming to prospective new recruits. And I don't just blame GS -- the political threads around here tend to result in members embroiled in nasty discussion, including myself, which is why I think we need to considering doing away with them.

I agree about the handwringing, generally.

I don't think censoring political threads/banning them is smart at all. How boring. I don't really think any of the political discussions wound up seeping into other parts/discussions on the forum. I could be wrong. But so long as what goes on in political threads, stays in political threads, I don't see a problem with having them in the future.

Frankly, I think we need to focus a lot more on the BEYOND than the BOND. I am not saying we should not discuss Bond - it's the uniting interest of all the members - but I think using an interest in the BOND films as a base for an open-ended and varied discussion forum, where most topics can be talked about - is not just something that makes sense in terms of where most of the forum activity is (especially between films) but that also makes this site far more distinguishable from the other Bond sites out there where discussion of everything BUT Bond is almost verboten or certainly minor compare to the films.

If a prospective member wishes to discuss the meaning of the Tosca scene in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, there is probably a thousand threads, with a thousand posts, by a hundred members, at CBn and MI6. We can't compete with that.

If they want to have an open political debate where any point of view is welcome, or an in depth conversation about a non-Bond film or novel, or talk about the pros of shaved/bushy vaginas, then that's something we can offer that other forums cannot.

Go with the comparative advantage. Move the Beyond forums above the Bond ones. See how it goes. I think it will be good.

I also think increasing the needs for admin approval for threads or boards isn't the solution. Stuff like that has a tendency to scare off new members rather than keeping them around.

I'm not too crazy about hiding certain sections either. Only reasonable one I thought was making the Bottoms Up club for members who have reached a certain amount of posts, as a way of showing they earned the privilege of talking about what boobs they like. I think the political threads should at least be put on hold temporarily, after things have settled down. If you're not happy about it, just get your political kicks at a Greg Gutfeld fan forum for the time being. Meanwhile, there's more to BAB, or at least there should be.

Also, does setting the forum private from guests really help? All we've gotten from that were SILHOUETTE MAN clones. Doesn't help that the policy in BAB is in a constant sate of flux out of fear of no new members joining. Let's just let this place be itself, try to create various discussions enough to at least show guests that this is a place worth joining discussion, as opposed to having potential members and veterans turn away because of infighting over how this place should be run.

I think making the forum inaccessible to non members is self defeating and can only lead to diminishing membership. Perhaps some particular items should be reserved till people subscribe but for the most part it is better to be seen and recognised for what you are.

Likewise restricting individual sections from subscribing members (save the moderators threads) is also imo a bad idea, the fact that some of us don't contribute to a particular thread doesn't mean it isn't of value to them and by no means is it a case that they will never do so (like me and this thread I just visit once a blue moon etc). What is needed is a greater understanding of what certain areas might contain, a rider that ensures that you enter at your own risk and with minimal recourse should you object to something you see there.

All in all there is too much nannying going on, ensure people are informed but do not restrict freedom. The world is a complex place, nice people can hold some objectionable views and objectionable people can hold nice views. While I recognise moderation is needed the fact remains that everyone has an ignore function, and it is a human ability not a forum button and that ability is something people need to be encouraged to exercise rather than rely on other mechanics to compensate for what really amounts to a lack of their self control.

If you demand someone must be banned or feel it necessary to use the ignore button (aside from alleviating your inbox) I think the problems really lies with yourself. The internet may be making us all paranoid and thin skinned but there is still a difference between 'sticks and stones' and 'calling names' let the rational mind prevail....for once!

Good point. Maybe we can keep the news and political threads going as long as they're more closely moderated.

As for the ignore function, it's all fine and dandy, but if you find yourself in a nasty political debate, for example, with a mod ... well, you can't put a mod on ignore.

Politics threads are notorious for going off track, they should not be a part of the future of BaB. I think this is the policy on all of the other forums that I post on.

The Butler wrote:

I think that the moderation on BaB is rather unfair. It seems like some members get banned, while other favourites stay under the protection of their moderator friends and allies, posting things which are infinitely worse.

Care to post some examples?

Largo's Shark wrote:

We've lost Harms.

Sent me a PM about half an hour ago on how he's out of sync with the community, and can't see the tide turning.

A pity. This place will be significantly less interesting without Harmsway.

Personally, I've never had any problems with Bond and Beyond (or CBn, for that matter), but if quality members keep leaving I can't see myself spending much more time here either.

Largo's Shark wrote:

The Butler wrote:

I think that the moderation on BaB is rather unfair. It seems like some members get banned, while other favourites stay under the protection of their moderator friends and allies, posting things which are infinitely worse.

Care to post some examples?

I won't be naming any names, but I'm sure you know who I'm referring to.

Largo's Shark wrote:

The Butler wrote:

I think that the moderation on BaB is rather unfair. It seems like some members get banned, while other favourites stay under the protection of their moderator friends and allies, posting things which are infinitely worse.

Care to post some examples?

Silo'.

The Butler wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

The Butler wrote:

I think that the moderation on BaB is rather unfair. It seems like some members get banned, while other favourites stay under the protection of their moderator friends and allies, posting things which are infinitely worse.

Care to post some examples?

I won't be naming any names, but I'm sure you know who I'm referring to.

In your rather oblique statement you've accused me, Python and Hilly of cronyism. I'd like some concrete examples.

Well, j7wild for one. I didn't name any moderators by name, so there's no need to take things so personally. I've just been observing from afar shall we say. I can see the wood despite the trees, you might say.

The Butler wrote:

Well, j7wild for one.

Protected or unfairly banned?

If j7 was protected, what hope the rest of us.

Largo's Shark wrote:

The Butler wrote:

Well, j7wild for one.

Protected or unfairly banned?

I don't know all the circumstances, though I doubt he was protected. Perhaps he'd run out of chances? It gives a bad image to newcomers to air one's dirty linen in public. I think it was the right move to remove the politics threads - they don't really thrive on some of the other Bond forums - they tend to get closed a lot.