A new name for the forums? Submit ideas here

You could add warmth to it by using vibrant colours in the banner.

Sorry, but where did this obsession with culture come from? I see the name "CULTUREVOX" and I immediately think of a shitty, pretentious group of Hollywood neo-liberals like Paul Haggis - the kind of people that most forum members around here despise.

I think distancing ourselves too far from James Bond is a bad idea. The forum was founded on the idea that it was the James Bond forum that Keeping the British End Up and CommanderBond couldn't be, or stopped being. And while I appreciate the idea that we're expanding outwards, I think rebranding the forums in a way that forgets the origins is the first step down the path that KTEBU and CBn took.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I think distancing ourselves too far from James Bond is a bad idea. The forum was founded on the idea that it was the James Bond forum that Keeping the British End Up and CommanderBond couldn't be, or stopped being. And while I appreciate the idea that we're expanding outwards, I think rebranding the forums in a way that forgets the origins is the first step down the path that KTEBU and CBn took.

As A Watcher said, Bond on over-catered for market. and in this downtime between films interest and hype is at an all-time low.

This doesn't meant that Bond discussion will be outlawed. Just that it will second or third fiddle to film and music.

BTW, I've got no idea what you're on about your Paul Haggis rant. CULTUREVOX sounds more like a 60s Goddard film than anything (i.e. ALPHAVILLE), though I doubt you've heard of him.

Culturevox reminds me of this :roll:  I'm not too enthused about Bond playing second fiddle.

Quote :

I think distancing ourselves too far from James Bond is a bad idea. The forum was founded on the idea that it was the James Bond forum that Keeping the British End Up and CommanderBond couldn't be, or stopped being. And while I appreciate the idea that we're expanding outwards, I think rebranding the forums in a way that forgets the origins is the first step down the path that KTEBU and CBn took.

The problem that I have is that I just don't see any of these changes bringing about any meaningful results. The ultimate goal of this renewal is to bring in new members from what I've heard. And how will a new background and new name do that? People still will have never heard of the site.

And it's going to be a place for people to talk about any random subject? There are millions of forums and places on the internet like that. I highly doubt a forumotion site is going to bringing in a few more hundred people. What's going to make us stand out and attract attention? A darker color scheme? A new font? I don't know why there have been months of discussion on such small points that will have little influence on swaying new people to join.

Maybe if a main site is started up it might help bring in some traffic, but what are the odds that will happen/work?

The fact is this site was started for a select group of people who didn't care for the changes at MI6. It was always meant to be a very small group of individuals. That's why membership was invite only for the longest time to keep others out (and "troublemakers").

All websites have slow periods. All Bond websites do because for a year or two there might be very little news or anything going on in the world of Bond. Maybe if we did orient the forum towards more general topics then it might encourage current members to participate a little more. The general topics seem to be the hub of life on here.

Not that I'm trying to be negative about the changes. Change can be good. I'm all up for trying new things, let's give it a go and see what happens. I'd be all for new members. But I just don't see it having good odds of being successful. Maybe if we're lucky we will add 100 new members? And what guarantee will we have that they will become daily/weekly posters? I hope I'm wrong, I hope we add tons of members, but I'm not very optimistic we will succeed at the moment.

I hate it. I'd rather the name stays as it is.

Largo's Shark wrote:

CULTUREVOX sounds more like a 60s Goddard film than anything (i.e. ALPHAVILLE), though I doubt you've heard of him.

"CULTUREVOX" amounts to "culture voice". It's not too far from that to "the voice of culture" ("vox populi" being "voice of the people". Anyone who proclaims to be the voice of culture is probably a pretentious wanker with a Pabst blue label in hand.[/quote]

Largo's Shark wrote:

I came up with CULTUREVOX due to Laz wanting a punchy one-word title like NME, Uncut, Pitchfork, Mojo or his own suggestion - CULTURECIDE. I've given him that, and now he wants to use the name of one of the shittiest Bond films and a poor man's SPECTRE. I don't get it.

I'm still 100% behind a non-Bond name, but not everybody else is. Thus, I'm merely searching for a possible compromise.

Here's a worrying thought, though: Do we have some members here who would leave over something as relatively small as a name change? That's something we'd need to consider.

Moore wrote:

I just don't see any of these changes bringing about any meaningful results. ... how will a new background and new name do that? People still will have never heard of the site.

Very true. A lick of paint won't stem the loss of talent. Content is everything.

So if we accept that as the problem, why did the old favourites leave?

They probably didn't find this place fun any more.

Santa wrote:

So if we accept that as the problem, why did the old favourites leave?

I've no idea why Salome, Control and Trevanian stopped posting on a regular basis, but there was a running battle between Tiffinywint (aka timmer) and Jack Wade in the U.S. politics thread. It culminated in Wade insulting Tiff and Tiff retaliating by deleting Wade's post. About half the active membership had mod powers back then, but when mods start deleting each others posts it's a sure sign that things have broken down.

I'd been absent from the forum for a while, but I remember looking in about a year ago and finding that the political disagreements had degenerated into a discussion on eugenics and racial superiority. I was amazed that M allowed it to continue as he is legally responsible for content in this forum. (I suspect that some of the posts would have been classified as a hate crime under British law. The fact that all the people involved were mods might have made it an open and shut case.)

When I returned I suggested the race and politics threads be closed. Some time later, Sharky locked the U.S. politics thread, but maybe that ended up looking discriminatory when the UK and Australian politics threads continued. Anyway, Gravity, Khan and Timmer departed.

[quote="Erica Ambler"]

Largo's Shark wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Some time later, Sharky closed the U.S. politics thread, but maybe that ended up looking discriminatory when the UK and Australian politics threads continued.

I think that was simply because those two threads were in comparison pretty sedate.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Some time later, Sharky closed the U.S. politics thread, but maybe that ended up looking discriminatory when the UK and Australian politics threads continued.

I think that was simply because those two threads were in comparison pretty sedate.

For some reason, most of the forum's active membership seem to be Stateside or in Australia. There were many British members when the forum started, but most have fallen away, possibly because of a lack of UK content.

I'll fly the flag for Blighty. However ineffectually.

Hilly wrote:

I'll fly the flag for Blighty. However ineffectually.

You do well, Hilly. I like your posts on early British films. I just wish that some of the membership would respond to them instead of posting on the latest Hollywood stuff. Trevanian and Salome were good in that respect; they knew that film making didn't start in 1977.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Hilly wrote:

I'll fly the flag for Blighty. However ineffectually.

You do well, Hilly. I like your posts on early British films. I just wish that some of the membership would respond to them instead of posting on the latest Hollywood stuff. Trevanian and Salome were good in that respect; they knew that film making didn't start in 1977.

Most kind. I'm no film expert and cannot profess to write on the matter eloquently but...well, my upbringing. Kenneth More films early on etc.

Modern stuff doesn't grab me :)

So if perceived censoriousness was what put them off, can we not make it clear that whoever was involved has learned from the mistake? I'm erring on the side of optimism by seeing it that way because I for one have always found its laissez faire attitude the most attractive thing about this forum, and if that no longer applies then imagine the names mentioned will be shortly followed out the door by various others. Was being able to say whatever the fuck you like not part of the B&B ideal?

While I like the forum's adolescent silliness, idle flirtations and your incomparable tits, I'm less keen on white supremacism. Partly because I have no wish to go to jail - my arse likes a quiet life.

So don't read it. I'm no fan either, but no-one's forcing you to read that portion of the forum and, as you of all people should know, a certain amount of that kind of behaviour is deliberately designed to provoke. I understand that a particular thread must have got quite out of hand but have we not used a sledgehammer to crack a nut here?

Santa wrote:

have we not used a sledgehammer to crack a nut here?

Yeah, it's not what anyone wanted. Unintended consequences and all that.

I didn't want Khan and co to leave, just to redirect their talents elsewhere. Roasting you, perhaps.

I don't know. Maybe being sued left its mark on me.

Right now I'm thinking BRIANVILLE.

Glory Hole? Or Old Glory Hole in honor of the currently missing stars and stripes. Ought to lure them back surely.


Though if it's all the same to you I'd rather vote for CULTURECIDE.

Anyone would understand that the politics/racial thread was not contributing anything positive to this forum, yet locking that was what made them leave. Is that all they came here for in the long run? I don't want to believe that because they contributed very well in the non-political threads, they were valued. It just baffles me that anyone would put more onto those negative threads than what this forum should have been.