Your future at TBF - Poll

[magemanda]

This is poor attitude, Motokid. You started a thread asking for people to show why they do/do not like the forum.

If someone subsequently says something that you don't like/don't agree with, you can't then be all sarcastic.

Stewart is perfectly right. There is one place for General Chat and for threads to go completely off-topic, as that one did, and that is where we are now.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

Jenn is gone now...

Really? That's a shame.

 

[Martin]

I am sorry. I apologize.

I don't think he meant it personally. Lets not make this personal yet again. We've been there and done that.

This is a good thread; lets keep it like that.

 

[magemanda]

"Don't like it, don't read it."

Yes, that's the welcoming attitude we've come to show to people on TBF.

"What? You've got an issue? Well, just don't bother coming by again then."

 

[Peder]

..But maybe it will help.

Scooter,
I think that was very clear-eyed view of life on forums. I have seen all of what you say on different forums and I agree 100% with your take on the matter.
Peder

 

[Motokid]

If someone subsequently says something that you don't like/don't agree with, you can't then be all sarcastic.

I was not being sarcastic. I apologized. I really mean I will try to not pollute other threads. That's the truth. Not sarcasm.

 

[Motokid]

"Don't like it, don't read it."

Yes, that's the welcoming attitude we've come to show to people on TBF.

"What? You've got an issue? Well, just don't bother coming by again then."

Boy, that's really taking something and twisting it. There are thousands and thousands of threads here. Not every thread can be "great" to every person.
Nobody is twisting your arm to read anything you don't like. A clearly labeled thread, no matter what the content (as long as it fits within the guidelines of the forum's membership agreement) has just as much place here as any other thread.

Or does it?

 

[Peder]

P.s.

And if Jenn really is gone, that is a shame!
Peder

 

[novella]

Moto, I really have to agree with magemanda here: if you want to open this discussion and have people go out on a limb and offer their opinions, you should openly listen to the answers.

If someone says that General Chat is inane, takes up too much bandwidth, and is driving them away, it is really churlish to turn around and tell them to just deal with it and post elsewhere. That's ungenerous and unfair.

Further, people who post lots of off-topic baloney should realize that when a person uses the "today's posts" or "new posts" options, they are seeing a whole lot of stuff unrelated to books. The answer is NOT always "just post more about books yourself."

Just for the record, I also agree with Stewart that there are no mythical 'good old days' here. It's business as usual, except the people posting the inane stuff are different--less into games and penguins and more into flirting and profanity. The ratio of good book discussion to nonsense has actually improved somewhat, thanks to Peder, Zoli, cajunmama, Ritkid, and many others.

 

[Motokid]

I have read every post here, and I listen to them all.

I just happen to disagree on a few things.

If the forum is defined by it's members then the members make the forum what it is. If you want to discuss War and Peace all day long start that thread. Discuss it all you want.

Bookstores like Borders have tons of books covering many diferent topics. Why shouldn't this forum be the same. There's great stuff to some and great stuff to others. I would think that Stewarts constant comments in every single Da Vinci Code thread and Dan Brown thread would be way more offensive to "book forum" members than a thread on pizza. If you don't like a tv show don't watch it. Does that mean that you should throw away your tv?

All I'm saying is we make this place what it is. If it's not what you want you have to power to make it what you want. If you don't like to talk about Survivor don't click that thread. If you want to talk about 1984 and you don't see that thread then start it.

 

[magemanda]

I don't agree with Stewart's thoughts on the Da Vinci Code, but equally I don't find it offensive because *at least he's talking about books*!

With regards to pizza/Survivor/every other example you want to throw at me, please see my previous comments regarding bandwidth. I accept your points that everyone is different and uses TBF for different reasons. I also accept your point that I don't need to click on threads (and, believe me, I don't - but it saddens me that there are so many threads that seem so pointless that I find myself avoiding them).

Please address my point about bandwidth. How can you justify all the inanity when there is limited bandwidth (as with any forum) and this forum should be, first and foremost, about books?

Also, please address my point that I make now: there are actually limited places to discuss books on the Net (which surprises me) in terms of lively forums. This is by far the most lively forum on books I've visited and covers all of the subjects I might care to read. There are a million and one places to just do the kind of chat that crops up here including MSN Messenger (please see that as a gentle request that some of the topics covered might as well be done there). So why push away the people who genuinely want to discuss books in favour of those who continue the drivel?

 

[Motokid]

General Chat is a way to get to know the person behind the screen name.

I would assume that if bandwidth was a problem that Darren would step in and ask for cooperation. There could also be a limit as to how long threads are kept active and when they go to the archives....or some threads could just be deleted over time. Especially in the General Chat area Darren could just erase threads after some specific time period and I'm sure most would not complain.

 

[magemanda]

How?

I don't know any of you better than I did when I first started at TBF. The only person I could begin to say I knew a little better is Martin, because we've shared emails etc.

Just reading General Chat does not let you get to know people.

 

[Motokid]

How?

I don't know any of you better than I did when I first started at TBF. The only person I could begin to say I knew a little better is Martin, because we've shared emails etc.

Just reading General Chat does not let you get to know people.

By having conversations and debates with them. By discovering likes and dislikes. Where they live, how they think....when I first signed on I had great difficulty trying to figure out if I liked novella. She seemed very harsh, and without much patience. Now, after having shared many conversations with her I really enjoy everything she posts...even when we disagree. I respect everything about her thanks to general chat topics.

 

[scooter13]

Just reading General Chat does not let you get to know people.

I disagree with you there. That has helped me get to know others on other forums. On the other hand I do understand you disdain for what seems like petty topics. I personally think that a thread about farting or one about someone being gone from the forum for a few days are not needed. Those I just ignore though.

Also, I don't deny that there may be cliques here. Just wanted to point out from my experience that what seems to be a clique may not actually be a clique.

 

[Motokid]

So maybe this weeks assignment could be for those of you who seek more in depth discussion of specific books, to start 5 or 6 "new" threads on the topics of your choice. No posting of silliness. No posting of "we've already done that book, see here..." type comments. No de-railing, hijacking, or spamming. If the 4, or 5, or 6 of you who've posted here about "rediculous forum practices" take on this challenge, there should be 20-30 new topics started for intelligent discussion in no time.

And for those of us who enjoy lighthearted conversation, our assignment is to practice restraint in staying on-topic and not straying into serious threads unless we intend to be serious and focused.

Lets try to do what we can to make this place what we want.

I will personally stop starting new threads in General Chat for the next week. I will personally refrain from any spam, any where.

I would ask that Stewart actually allow one Dan Brown/Da Vinci Code/Angels And Demons thread to surface without any comments from him what-so-ever.
(because everybody here already knows how he feels about those topics, and it might be a friendly forum gesture to not corrupt every thread about a best selling book with barbs and accusations)

I am willing to take this challenge if others are too. What do you say?

 

[Stewart]

So maybe this weeks assignment could be for those of you who seek more in depth discussion of specific books, to start 5 or 6 "new" threads on the topics of your choice.

Why did you join The Book Forum? I rarely see you talking about books. Surely there's more appropriate current affairs forums out there you'd more likely enjoy?

I would ask that Stewart actually allow one Dan Brown/Da Vinci Code/Angels And Demons thread to surface without any comments from him what-so-ever.

And with that I would ask the mods to ensure that there is only one thread per book, as it should be. That way I can take part.

because everybody here already knows how he feels about those topics

The newbies don't. And if they start a thread saying anyone read the da vinci code??? when it shows that they are so damn stupid to think that nobody would have discussed it before deserves all they get. Search before posting, search before posting...it's called good housekeeping.

 

[scooter13]

The newbies don't. And if they start a thread saying anyone read the da vinci code??? when it shows that they are so damn stupid to think that nobody would have discussed it before deserves all they get. Search before posting, search before posting...it's called good housekeeping.

I think it is a little unfair of you to call newbies stupid. That is what I said about not treating others nicely. Of course someone is not going to know enough to search other forums, or be too excited about joining the forum that they will forget to search. (I for one did do searches when I joined and revived old threads because I found them.) Maybe the better solution instead of just "slamming" someone is have the mods post that there is already a thread, post the link, then close the thread to further posts. No need for anyone to get so upset. We all make mistakes. It's a fact of life. But I do agree, there should only be one thread per book.

 

[novella]

My point, Moto, is not whether you've read every post here or not, but how you should 'moderate' this discussion that you've opened. I think it's undiplomatic and bad sportsmanship to ask for opinions and then jump on those people who disagree with you, and use the thread to try to justify your position.

If someone says that the crud in General Chat is driving them away and they hate it, I accept that. Telling them to post more or to ignore something is not the point. They know what their options are. They still don't like to come to TBF and see a load of inane off-topic threads.

Ask the question, take the answer for what it is. It's not up to you to 'hold things together.' Sometimes people leave for reasons you don't know anything about. It's not always a reflection on board dynamics.

 

[Miss Shelf]

If you type in "Davinci Code" in Search, which is how I imagine a lot of people would type it, I got back 72 results, and I didn't see DaVinci Code as a title of a thread on the first page. Sometimes it might be easier to just start a thread and if people tell you there's already a thread with that topic, to go to that. And if people know there's already a thread, please provide a link-without being snotty about it, of course.