Social City Forum?

[bh red]

If you don't like it don't post. Simple as.

Or just don't read a thread?

Is it just a case that now the moaners cant moan about the performance on the pitch, they need to find something else to moan about?

People shouldnt take life, or even a bloody forum so seriously.

don't class me as one of those constant moaners, only thing I have been fed up this season is people on here moaning about the team/johnson/stewart when actually things are going VERY WELL and look VERY PROMISING under johnson

nice to see your views as a member of the ST, this orginal debate was actually started by a ST members to do with what the ST & SC did? but it got bumped elsewhere something the Chairman of the ST has comfirmed he doesn't understand?

this is actually a valid point, other people have suggested that the orginal poster person has also point?

still if someoneon the panel of the ST, just have the views of "don't like it, don't come on here" whilst elsewhere trying to get funding for the upkeep of the forum? think that says alot on it's own.

[Jay]

fair enough, given time a true view will no doubt become clear,

when the social forum 1st got mentioned I could see the understanding behind it, just to get rid of some of the silly postings, but when decent views and threads get bumped over there it doesn't make sense? postings for example about the forest game, taxi's to the gate, the Arsenal DVD and various others?

if this forum is about just the 1st xi then you have to question why postings about Brentford's new stand, the pinned east end and "we've been relegated" are still left on their? it's all about the balance?

it just seems that this forum has become very diluted with the same talk, lets be honest would those 4/5 stewart moster postings lasted as long if other stuff hadn't been bumped?

fair enough keep the Social forum going, but there needs to be more of a screening process before stuff is dumped over there, many users have posted stuff on here and then gone "why has my post been deleted? when infact it's just been bumped elsewhere

the fact is most people look at this forum, and this forum only, the views on the other forum show that, the only postings with alot of views spent a while on here, before they where moved? which I also don't understand? why is something that is on here for a couple of days with lots of replies then move?

the whole modding just makes no sense?

oh......and just looking at forum again.........Predection League update? surely this isn't 1st team related so should be bumped elsewhere? however I notice the poster is a Mod? is it just a case of one rule for one, one for another?

As previously mentioned, the Social Forum is as new to the forum admin as it is to the forum users. It would seem that maybe a little more definition is required & comments such as yours will be taken in to consideration.

As for the Prediction League update, I'm sure Chris will explain why he has done this or will move it accordingly.

[bh red]

As previously mentioned, the Social Forum is as new to the forum admin as it is to the forum users. It would seem that maybe a little more definition is required & comments such as yours will be taken in to consideration.

As for the Prediction League update, I'm sure Chris will explain why he has done this or will move it accordingly.

don't get me wrong, I understand what a nightmare it must be to be a Mod on this forum, your doing it out of your own time and you don't get paid or any Clubcard points for the privalige,

for the comments of the Prediction League update theyaren't a pop at the mod in general, just trying to further highlight my point, which I think I have done.

just feel that it is a valid point and something that doesn't appear to have really been mentioned on here before just trying back up what others are thinking/saying (if they are) can see what other users are thinking,

as you say it is a new forum and these things understandably take time to bed in, just feel the balance of certain things need to be addressed, which they have........I think.

people views of if you don't like it, don't look at it, don't help, but are a common place (hands up, I've got irrate with a couple of people on here myself, but not unless provoked) we all want a good forum but without suggestions and commets like these, amendments and improvements can't be made

[NiceRed]

The forum has been rather quiet and dull recently as we've actually been winning a few games and there's not too much to moan about. Plus with the transfer window closed there's no real gossip to be had.

Having said that, I'm not a fan of the new Social Forum, due to some of the reasons listed above - dilutes content (when there's not much about in the 1st place) and lots of people with limited time won't bother reading it.

My biggest issue with it though is that the whole point of OTIB is that it is a place where City fans can discuss issues relating to our support of the club. This means discussions on what formation to use for the Forest game are just as relevant as discussions about pre-match pubs to visit, hence both threads should be in the same place.

I do also agree with the mod above however who suggested that there is not yet sufficient support to abandon the Social forum, so here's my additional complaint for what it's worth.

[City Rocker]

OK I'll give an opinion - as an infrequent poster here but as someone who calls in quite often to read, but doesn't have much time.

Personally I'd rather see everything City-related in one forum, whether the subject matter is on-field or off-field. The existence of the social forum in my opinion marginalises discussion about things like tickets, travel, merchandise, etc and makes them appear less important than issues surrounding the current team, latest results, formations & tactics, and so on.

In fact I would guess the so called 'social' issues are of just as much interest to the majority of us as the team topics.

[Jay]

don't get me wrong, I understand what a nightmare it must be to be a Mod on this forum, your doing it out of your own time and you don't get paid or any Clubcard points for the privalige,

for the comments of the Prediction League update theyaren't a pop at the mod in general, just trying to further highlight my point, which I think I have done.

Yes you have & thanks.

just feel that it is a valid point and something that doesn't appear to have really been mentioned on here before just trying back up what others are thinking/saying (if they are) can see what other users are thinking,

...and as mentioned, if enough people feel the same way, changes will be considered & made.

as you say it is a new forum and these things understandably take time to bed in, just feel the balance of certain things need to be addressed, which they have........I think.

It'll get there & comments such as yours help.

people views of if you don't like it, don't look at it, don't help, but are a common place (hands up, I've got irrate with a couple of people on here myself, but not unless provoked)

It's a fair comment. Many people take this approach. The forum even has 'ignore' features should you not like a particular poster. No-one is forced to read or use this place though we hope that you do.

we all want a good forum but without suggestions and commets like these, amendments and improvements can't be made

Agreed

[lukejones2]

I am adding my views purely as this thread seems to be being used as a focus group. I am not a fan of the Social City forum and read far fewer posts in the main forum now that it exists.

I would say fair play to the mods for experimenting with ways to improve the forum, let's not have a pop at these guys who haven't done this to annoy everyone! For me it hasn't improved the forum however and I welcome (as I'm sure the mods do) constructive debate.

[Nogbad the Bad]

So far, only 15 different people have involved themselves in this thread. As previously mentioned, we've only recieved 2 complaints (prior to this thread) about the Social Forum. More people have let us know that it is liked than disliked. However, that said, if there is enough support to either alter the names or the content then we'll take that on board as, after all, this is a fans forum run by the fans. At the moment though, as only 15 people have contributed to this thread and only a handful of those are asking for the Social Forum to either be scraped or changed, the forum may as well remain as it is.

I guess i must be down as one of the 2 previous "complainers" then, because i spoke to one of the mods. soon after the change to let him know i wasn't in favour of the Social Forum.

I'd still like to see the Main Forum revert to how it was, with the variation and added interest all the more quirky posts undoubtedly added to it.

On the Social Forum these threads don't "take off", probably because so few people seem to go there and view them.

[Milo]

it got bumped elsewhere something the Chairman of the ST has comfirmed he doesn't understand?

I think you're referring to my reply on the original Cheltenham Town Supporters Trust thread and just to clarify my comment there I didn't say I didn't understand I just said that I'd like topics relating to the Trust to get a wide readership. I'm sure that the 2 Trust mods would feel the same. However, I think its right that the mods act in a consistant manner and if its classed as 'social city' then it should go there.

For what's its worth I'm comfortable with the idea of separating the forums but I am a bit confused by the forum title 'Social City'. When it was announced I was under the impression that it was designed to sift out the hairstyle / car / saw him in sainsbury's type threads and as a result I figured I'd probably not visit that forum much. I guess the problem is that it also covers other topics related to fans which interest me.

I liked the suggestion of renaming them 'on field city' and 'off-field city' as it appears easier for posters to know which forum to use and will encourage more people to visit both.

[Jay]

I think you're referring to my reply on the original Cheltenham Town Supporters Trust thread and just to clarify my comment there I didn't say I didn't understand I just said that I'd like topics relating to the Trust to get a wide readership. I'm sure that the 2 Trust mods would feel the same. However, I think its right that the mods act in a consistant manner and if its classed as 'social city' then it should go there.

From a Trust point of view it would be good for BCST related topics to have a large readership where possible & that is currently the City Forum. It's early days for the Social forum & we are yet to see whether it achieves a similar popularity. However, from a Mod point of view, we'll try hard to keep the appropriate topics in the respective forums.

For what's its worth I'm comfortable with the idea of separating the forums but I am a bit confused by the forum title 'Social City'. When it was announced I was under the impression that it was designed to sift out the hairstyle / car / saw him in sainsbury's type threads and as a result I figured I'd probably not visit that forum much. I guess the problem is that it also covers other topics related to fans which interest me.

I liked the suggestion of renaming them 'on field city' and 'off-field city' as it appears easier for posters to know which forum to use and will encourage more people to visit both.

On a personal note, I also like the 'On' & 'Off' titles. Would be interesting to see what others think & whether this may help reduce any potential confusion.

[Guest Orj]

FWIW, add me to the list of readers who preferred it the way it was before with a single City related subforum. If the issue that brought about the change is people posting about which player they saw at the Mall or that some dull pundit is going to be talking about something non-City related on Talk Sport then you need to beef up the rules and mod out the inane drivel, not split the stuff worth reading into 2 and split the inane stuff with it.

Mind you, I'd still prefer the unachievable of a threaded forum which allows people to reply to specific individual posts rather than just replying to the end of a thread and using quotes. (Sorry, Tom, I know such software doesn't exist but it's never been the same here since the changeover).

Just my opinion, like.

redrocks is a big poopy pants and smells of cheese.

[redrocks]

FWIW, add me to the list of readers who preferred it the way it was before with a single City related subforum. If the issue that brought about the change is people posting about which player they saw at the Mall or that some dull pundit is going to be talking about something non-City related on Talk Sport then you need to beef up the rules and mod out the inane drivel, not split the stuff worth reading into 2 and split the inane stuff with it.

Mind you, I'd still prefer the unachievable of a threaded forum which allows people to reply to specific individual posts rather than just replying to the end of a thread and using quotes. (Sorry, Tom, I know such software doesn't exist but it's never been the same here since the changeover).

Just my opinion, like.

For once, I agree with Orj 100% on all his points.

[lukejones2]

On a personal note, I also like the 'On' & 'Off' titles. Would be interesting to see what others think & whether this may help reduce any potential confusion.

Personally, as a user with a relatively limited amount of time to browse, I will only visit one forum and I don't think changing the titles will make any difference, if the only forum that I visit is the onfield one, I will miss the off field chat. If the only forum that I visit is the off field one, I will miss the onfield chat.

I think that more moving on non footy/non city posts out would act to do the job better than a new off field forum. Posts about players cars could be classes as non footy.. similarly about players shopping. Those are the things I think we were trying to move with the Social City forum.

[Meh]

If you don't like it don't post. Simple as.

Or just don't read a thread?

Is it just a case that now the moaners cant moan about the performance on the pitch, they need to find something else to moan about?

People shouldnt take life, or even a bloody forum so seriously. Cant please everybody all of the time, and the mods/admin have a thankless job to do.

IMO, this is the sort of poorly thought out response that raises concerns over the trust members. Still, keep them coming; always good for a laugh.

Be interesting if lots of posters took your first line of advice; what a forum this would be then!

As for moaning for moanings sake; why is a perfectly decent concern have to be categorised as a moan? People have the right to question moderators decisions, club decisions, ST and SC decisions. If this is just moaning, how the hell is jack-all ever going to be improved? It is a comment/suggestion/idea. Something to ponder on and not simply to dismiss.

As for the main topic, both on here and the Subbers Site, I rarely read anything but the section that is considered to be the main section.

At times I have read other sections and found some good stuff, but, the general habit of going to the main area is always going to be there with me.

Therefore, some potentially good stuff is going to be missed. Don't know how many more are like me, but, this thread suggests there are some.

[Gerry Gows' Tash]

OK I'll give an opinion - as an infrequent poster here but as someone who calls in quite often to read, but doesn't have much time.

Personally I'd rather see everything City-related in one forum, whether the subject matter is on-field or off-field. The existence of the social forum in my opinion marginalises discussion about things like tickets, travel, merchandise, etc and makes them appear less important than issues surrounding the current team, latest results, formations & tactics, and so on.

In fact I would guess the so called 'social' issues are of just as much interest to the majority of us as the team topics.

Totally agree - so what if there are posts about which player someone has seen in town, who's had a haircut or what sort of car players drive, if you're not intersted don't read them. It's like complaining about what's on a TV channel when there are 50 others to choose from. As I've said before what counts as "frivolous" is a highly subjective judgement, and the current arrangement is effectively censorhip so that the main forum is filled with what the mods deem to be "worthy" subjects - as a result it's becoming incresingly dull and like many people I am visting and posting a lot less.

My interpretation of the "social" forum is that it is for people to talk about social events (pubs clubs, cinema etc) in the area which are not footy related but might be of interst to city fans, as I'm an anti-social bugger I never read it, whereas it seems to be a dumping ground for critical/amusing posts the mods think are beneath them or are too controversial for a wider audience. I would interpret the City forum to be anything involving the club, it's staff, players and fans, whether it's on or off the pitch. In other words everything from a proposed takeover to Louis Careys new boots. As has been seen recently the activities of fans and players "off the pitch" and in a non-football context are of huge interest to the readership.

I dislike the way this forum is going and the way it seems increasingly designed to a appeal to a narrow section of the support. To be honest it has put me off the supporters trust generally, which, when first launched, I was planning to join

[Jay]

I dislike the way this forum is going and the way it seems increasingly designed to a appeal to a narrow section of the support. To be honest it has put me off the supporters trust generally, which, when first launched, I was planning to join

Once again, this is a misconception. The Supporters Trust don't 'shape' this forum, they raise the funds for it. Would you believe that the initial idea for the Social forum was conceived by a mod that doesn't want to join BCST?

[StapleHillPhil]

Mind you, I'd still prefer the unachievable of a threaded forum which allows people to reply to specific individual posts rather than just replying to the end of a thread and using quotes. (Sorry, Tom, I know such software doesn't exist but it's never been the same here since the changeover).

I seem to recall that you researched this and found an alternative forum platform that allowed threaded view. I take it thats no longer available?

[redrocks]

I seem to recall that you researched this and found an alternative forum platform that allowed threaded view. I take it thats no longer available?

I think they are out there. The old forum proved that. I think the main problem with it was that it was easily-hackable and this platform is not.

Quite why any spotty anorak with too much time on their hands would want to hack this pile of toss instead of Jordan's site I will never know.

Such is the world.

[Guest]

I seem to recall that you researched this and found an alternative forum platform that allowed threaded view. I take it thats no longer available?

It was the DC Forum version that ran on mySQL. It's not sufficent for the forum size nor our database options. Security is still the forfront of my fears. No offence to the guy who writes DC Forums, but its a one man job and its not a full time occupation either. Invision is the bench leader alongside vB, and I want the forum to be secure as possible - and even with a full time, proffesionally managed forum software package we've had at least 4 security hack attempts in the last 3-4 weeks.

When 2.2 comes out of Invision I will *try* and find a solution to it. Right now though it would be pointless because the update is 4-6 weeks away.

Anyone who's got knowledge of PHP & MSSQL is most welcome to express an intrest to help me along so drop me an email or pm.

[cheshire_red]

IMO, this is the sort of poorly thought out response that raises concerns over the trust members. Still, keep them coming; always good for a laugh.

Ouch.

It's such a pity that decisions are made without the courtesy of asking the membership for opinions first. It slaps in the face that the Trust will decide things for us. Quite a few of those who make these decisions rarely if ever used the forum before the Trust evolved. In fact, didn't one high ranking member state (sometime before the Trust evolved) that the forum was solely used by the club to get their points over etc etc?

The Trust has 300 members a small percentage of those who post on here (and an even smaller percentage of the fans who attend matches as pointed out elswhere - under 4%), of those 300 not all post on here yet the Trust dictate how the forum should run. One appreciates that decisions have to be made and the Trust are, now, paying the bill but isn't that so that the Trust can get their views over and utilise the database? Such as the unsolicited email sent to all the other day, without our consent, claiming to be from 'Bristol City's Fans Forum'. As Bristol City disowned this forum that's a bit rich.

[Dolman Block B]

If you don't like it don't post. Simple as.

Or just don't read a thread?

Is it just a case that now the moaners cant moan about the performance on the pitch, they need to find something else to moan about?

People shouldnt take life, or even a bloody forum so seriously. Cant please everybody all of the time, and the mods/admin have a thankless job to do.

Good reply Marie.

Totally changed my attitude lately.

Use to reply to anything that got my back up. Now just ignore and move on.

Funny thing is, its usuly the same posters that are a "tad" annoying...

[Jay]

The Trust has 300 members a small percentage of those who post on here.....of those 300 not all post on here yet the Trust dictate how the forum should run.

The Trust don't dictate how this place is run. The responsibility to raise funds for this place has been accepted by BCST but that doesn't buy the right to dictate or shape this forum. This is a fans forum &, on the back of this thread, it may be that the fans help shapre this forum more so.

For what it's worth, if you are concerned about democracy within the admin team: The full admin team (including the 2 new mods) amounts to 8 people. 2 BCST members and 6 non-BCST members.

[cheshire_red]

The Trust don't dictate how this place is run. The responsibility to raise funds for this place has been accepted by BCST but that doesn't buy the right to dictate or shape this forum. This is a fans forum &, on the back of this thread, it may be that the fans help shapre this forum more so.

For what it's worth, if you are concerned about democracy within the admin team: The full admin team (including the 2 new mods) amounts to 8 people. 2 BCST members and 6 non-BCST members.

I'm not in the slightest bit concerned at the democracy of the admin team, I'll reiterate my point as you only picked up on a small part of it:

Bearing in mind one high ranking ST official stated that he felt this forum was run in order to manipulate its readership, I find it hard to believe he now doesn't consider the ST dictates how it's run.

[StapleHillPhil]

When 2.2 comes out of Invision I will *try* and find a solution to it. Right now though it would be pointless because the update is 4-6 weeks away.

Thanks Tom.

[SE23Red]

I'd like to add my name to the list of those with concerns about the 'Social City' forum.

Maybe it is the right idea but when the current 'City Forum' contains threads on Nottingham on a Friday night, Swansea tickets, Yeovil Tickets, Forest by train, taking Yeovil's End it is clear that nobody knows what is going on.

Either all off field matters get moved to the new forum or none do.

If the volume of posts in each forum was more equal then people like me would get into the habit of visiting both, but at the moment I only visit forums other than this main one if the most recent topic title on the main page grabs my attention - otherwise I click through to this forum only.

I'd also add that it does the Trust a lot of harm to be branded as 'Social City' so soon - it took the Supporters Club several years to become nothing more than a drinking club

[Gerry Gows' Tash]

Once again, this is a misconception. The Supporters Trust don't 'shape' this forum, they raise the funds for it. Would you believe that the initial idea for the Social forum was conceived by a mod that doesn't want to join BCST?

Yes I would - as others have said a surprisingly high number of ST members were not regulars on the old "official" OTIB, and apparenty some are not regulars at the Gate either. It isn't therefore surprising that the reverse is also true. I am not making any point about "genuine fans" as far as I am concerned if someone comes to the Gate only once in their life they are as welcome as a geezer who has gone to every game since World War 2.

As for my "misoconception" the point I am making is that IMHO we have excessive forum moderation, which seems to be trying to please everyone. The only thing that needs moderating on this or any other forum is serious bad language, libellous statements or serious personal abuse - which despite apparent compleints I have never seen on this forum or it's predecessor - but then maybe I'm just insensitive !

[Nibor]

Poll set up so the mods can get some numbers.

Click me

[Jay]

Bearing in mind one high ranking ST official stated that he felt this forum was run in order to manipulate its readership, I find it hard to believe he now doesn't consider the ST dictates how it's run.

Do you (or others) feel that this has been the case? Let me offer an example of a recent situation that cropped up...

There is a thread in the Social Forum that has been started by an ST board member. The initial request was to put this thread in the 'City Forum' and pin it. However, in order to try & be consistant, the request was denied & the thread was placed in the Social forum where it (currently) belongs as it relates to an ex-player.

On one hand, I'm a BCST member but on the other I'm part of the admin team here. Personally, I try hard to not let any BCST influence or bias effect how I operate as a moderator. As Miles (Milo) has said in another thread, it would be great for BCST to get maximum exposure on this forum but by allowing BCST threads to stay in the most popular City Forum yet move other threads would be unfair & inconsistant.

We (mods) hope that people continue to add their opinions about the Social forum & maybe we (all forum users) can shape this forum appropriately.

[Milo]

Bearing in mind one high ranking ST official stated that he felt this forum was run in order to manipulate its readership, I find it hard to believe he now doesn't consider the ST dictates how it's run.

On the basis that it sounds like the sort of comment I used to make (why didn't you use a name? ) before using the diplomatic approach needed with the Trust I'll assume you want me to answer your implied question.

Over the years the Club has been able to use these forums to help shape public opinion, primarily through demonstrating an openness and willingness to interact with fans through the Ask Steve L forum. Poor performances on the pitch, shirt and badge issues, increasing debt etc have all worked against the board's popularity and there ceased to be an advantage to the Club in hosting these forums.

Since the Trust took over it has created numerous opportunities for fans to criticise the Trust partly in relation to how we handled the take over of responsibility but mainly through posters criticising decisions by the mods. We have promoted Trust activities here and had them pinned but Clik and the Club used to do that for us when the Club ran it anyway.

In the ten months or so that we have invested a massive amount of time, manpower and resources into the forum, I believe the Trust has only gained positively through the promotion of the Norman Hunter dinner tomorrow night <tickets still available!>. Hopefully some fans who hadn't heard about this event will be able to enjoy what promises to be a cracking Bristol City night out as a result of this email. The mail-out to otib users who had set their preferences to allow emails from otib also contained a clear opt-out instruction.

As an organisation run by unpaid volunteers no member or board member gains anything financially. It's not-for-profit and everything is done simply to try to make the lives of City fans better. We continue to support the forum despite the seemingly relentless criticism because we think life for City fans who use forums will be better if we support it than if we allowed it to die.

In an effort to highlight that the only role the Trust plays here is simply to be the custodian that facilitates the payment of bills and goes to court if litigious comments are posted we reduced the number of Trust mods to 2 out of 8. When it comes to making the decisions on moderating and how the forums develop the Trust is heavily out-numbered. As our ass remains on the line Jay, as an elected Trust board member and mod, can make a final decision on potentially litigious issues but frankly Clik don't want to be sued any more than the Trust does so I don't envisage that situation arising.

[atyeosarah]

would anyone of you really want to be a mod? I know I wouldn't want the job even if i was being paid.

There does appear to be a grey area of what should be appearing in each foum. As a new member and poster I am a little confused as to what goes where, admit I haven't read the rules properly!!! Things can be a bit confusing and there have been times when I've looked at athread and thought it doesn't either make sense of isn't city related but think it's teething troubles more than anything.