You say that you are receiving "a lot" of complaints from forum users (none of which I have read outside this thread) about there being several different threads that are critical of the club.

There are many different areas of the club of interest to Melbourne supporters, and different aspects of these areas, that are worthy of discussion, analysis and, yes, criticism.

I realise that Demonland is not a democracy, but allow me to complain about how threads offering criticism often seem to get locked or, more recently, merged into almost unreadable "mega-threads" which discourage quality discussion and become nearly impossible to keep relevant.

I can't help but think that this policy has less to do with the complaints of "a lot" of forum users who are too sensitive to handle more than one critical thread at a time and more to do with the views of a very few contributors who appear view criticism of our club as a blight on their rose-tinted landscapes and prefer to have it swept under the carpet.

I don't think it's a conspiracy Hazy. IMO it's more about Demonland not needing 12 Jack Watts threads, 17 Schwab threads, and 174 threads each about separate newspaper articles having a crack at us...

You can say "I understand we don't need a thread for every aspect of everything we want to discuss" or you can say Demonland is "accepting mediocrity because it won't let me start a thread about Jack Watts' beard"... At the end of the day, it's a big, thankless, UNPAID job these guys do, and while I don't always agree with the mods, I do appreciate their efforts to keep the place neat.

I don't think it's a conspiracy Hazy. IMO it's more about Demonland not needing 12 Jack Watts threads, 17 Schwab threads, and 174 threads each about separate newspaper articles having a crack at us...

You can say "I understand we don't need a thread for every aspect of everything we want to discuss" or you can say Demonland is "accepting mediocrity because it won't let me start a thread about Jack Watts' beard"... At the end of the day, it's a big, thankless, UNPAID job these guys do, and while I don't always agree with the mods, I do appreciate their efforts to keep the place neat.

OMG what has the world come to - I find myself (all too rarely as I feel lost a lot of the time) agreeing with you.

It is one thing to consolidate threads for certain topics, e.g. Neeld, or major subtopics, e.g. sponsorship.

Having one nigh unreadable thread for criticism, sorry, 'whinges', is an entirely different prospect.

You say that you are receiving "a lot" of complaints from forum users (none of which I have read outside this thread) about there being several different threads that are critical of the club.

There are many different areas of the club of interest to Melbourne supporters, and different aspects of these areas, that are worthy of discussion, analysis and, yes, criticism.

I realise that Demonland is not a democracy, but allow me to complain about how threads offering criticism often seem to get locked or, more recently, merged into almost unreadable "mega-threads" which discourage quality discussion and become nearly impossible to keep relevant.

I can't help but think that this policy has less to do with the complaints of "a lot" of forum users who are too sensitive to handle more than one critical thread at a time and more to do with the views of a very few contributors who appear view criticism of our club as a blight on their rose-tinted landscapes and prefer to have it swept under the carpet.

You're kidding, right?

Two or three days ago I opened up the home page of Demonland and read through a thread that contained a post about how Mitch Clark had been taken off for a rest after kicking two quick goals and getting us back into the game halfway through the first quarter. I reflected on it for a while and wanted to post my views on that particular point but I couldn't locate the thread. In the space of an hour and a half, the thread had fallen into page two and in between a number of threads had started including three or four by one particular poster who has one agenda and was making his point by opening discussion that could easily have been placed elsewhere in threads that were already started.

I applaud the admin for trying to do something to make the place more readable and if you view the number of threads on this site that cover critical discussion of this club on this site (and which remain open) and believe that the creation of this thread is a conspiracy to stifle it then you're delusional.

You're kidding, right?

Two or three days ago I opened up the home page of Demonland and read through a thread that contained a post about how Mitch Clark had been taken off for a rest after kicking two quick goals and getting us back into the game halfway through the first quarter. I reflected on it for a while and wanted to post my views on that particular point but I couldn't locate the thread. In the space of an hour and a half, the thread had fallen into page two and in between a number of threads had started including three or four by one particular poster who has one agenda and was making his point by opening discussion that could easily have been placed elsewhere in threads that were already started.

I applaud the admin for trying to do something to make the place more readable and if you view the number of threads on this site that cover critical discussion of this club on this site (and which remain open) and believe that the creation of this thread is a conspiracy to stifle it then you're delusional.

No, I am not kidding. I suppose I simply didn't realise quite how onerous a burden it is to occasionally look for a thread on page 2.

No, I am not kidding. I suppose I simply didn't realise quite how onerous a burden it is to occasionally look for a thread on page 2.

This site has so many threads now it is nearly unusable. We are getting threads on any thought that enters someones head. It is not a matter of being too lazy to trawl through threads, but rather people too lazy to post in a thread that covers their new thought.

I can imagine the following threads as an example :

1. Should Pedersen be dropped

2. Should Pedersen have taken that mark.

3. Is Pedersen scared?

4. Pedersen was trying to tap the ball to a team mate.

5. Has Pedersen lost all confidence?

6. Should we have recruited Pedersen?

7. Did Pedersen play well other than the dropped mark?

8. Was Pedersen our worst player?

9. What is Pedersen's best position?

10. Can Pedersen play in the same side as Sellar when Jamar or Spencer plays?

Plus another 100 threads all about Pedersen. This is the way the site is heading.

Most of the threads revolve around last week's game and most could have easily been just posts, in a post game thread.

The current situation is really putting me off the site.

That is my opinion, you obviously disagree.

I suppose I simply didn't realise quite how onerous a burden it is to occasionally look for a thread on page 2.

Well, now you know.

This site has so many threads now it is nearly unusable. We are getting threads on any thought that enters someones head. It is not a matter of being too lazy to trawl through threads, but rather people too lazy to post in a thread that covers their new thought.

I can imagine the following threads as an example :

1. Should Pedersen be dropped

2. Should Pedersen have taken that mark.

3. Is Pedersen scared?

4. Pedersen was trying to tap the ball to a team mate.

5. Has Pedersen lost all confidence?

6. Should we have recruited Pedersen?

7. Did Pedersen play well other than the dropped mark?

8. Was Pedersen our worst player?

9. What is Pedersen's best position?

10. Can Pedersen play in the same side as Sellar when Jamar or Spencer plays?

Plus another 100 threads all about Pedersen. This is the way the site is heading.

Most of the threads revolve around last week's game and most could have easily been just posts, in a post game thread.

The current situation is really putting me off the site.

That is my opinion, you obviously disagree.

I see where you are coming from but you are exaggerating.

As I pointed out earlier, I can see the merit in merging multiple threads on, say, Mark Neeld, or in your example, Pedersen.

This is totally different to merging Mark Neeld and Pedersen threads together because they both happen to contain criticism.

Edited April 4, 201312 yr by Hazyshadeofgrinter

Most of the threads revolve around last week's game and most could have easily been just posts, in a post game thread.

The current situation is really putting me off the site.

That is my opinion, you obviously disagree.

Have taken it on board Redleg.

I do believe the current situation is unique - it's not often I've had trouble keeping up with volume, but I have very recently. And I know I've missed threads recently because of this and hence a lot of posts.

I'd encourage all users to think about something before they post a new topic. Before they do scan down the page of topics and see if a topic is already present that could use their contribution along similar lines.

And really really think before adding a poll.

You say that you are receiving "a lot" of complaints from forum users (none of which I have read outside this thread) about there being several different threads that are critical of the club.

There are many different areas of the club of interest to Melbourne supporters, and different aspects of these areas, that are worthy of discussion, analysis and, yes, criticism.

I realise that Demonland is not a democracy, but allow me to complain about how threads offering criticism often seem to get locked or, more recently, merged into almost unreadable "mega-threads" which discourage quality discussion and become nearly impossible to keep relevant.

I can't help but think that this policy has less to do with the complaints of "a lot" of forum users who are too sensitive to handle more than one critical thread at a time and more to do with the views of a very few contributors who appear view criticism of our club as a blight on their rose-tinted landscapes and prefer to have it swept under the carpet.

Too true !!

Well, now you know.

So whin is Rhino coming back?

So whin is Rhino coming back?

Is this a whinge?

Is this a whinge?

So where is he? Sorely missed.

Edited April 5, 201312 yr by Muvver Jones

So where is he?

I gather he's around.

Redleg you are spot on in the post a few above this one. To that i'd add its tiresome in the extreme to have threads clogged up with the same point being made over and over again (and people responding to those points over and over again).

So where is he? Sorely missed.

You have just out ironied Stuie!!

No, I am not kidding. I suppose I simply didn't realise quite how onerous a burden it is to occasionally look for a thread on page 2.

Not an onerous burden but very difficult when you don't remember what the name of the thread was and its been buried among the dross and threads unnecessarily repeating topics over and over.

Moderators, please ignore this person. He's got an agenda and doesn't give a rat's about this site or its proper moderation for the benefit of users.

Not an onerous burden but very difficult when you don't remember what the name of the thread was and its been buried among the dross and threads unnecessarily repeating topics over and over.

Moderators, please ignore this person. He's got an agenda and doesn't give a rat's about this site or its proper moderation for the benefit of users.

And how difficult do you think it will be to find a response, much less hold a conversation, in a thousand page long thread of unrelated criticisms?

As for your second point, dare I suggest that, instead of derailing this thread with your personal complaints about me, you instead start a thread of your own? Or am I supposed to now beleive that your comments are relevant to this discussion, and indeed all critical discussion, because they contain whingeing?

My view is that there is a balance between mega-threads, which I oppose, and one-thread-per-thought, which I also oppose.

The idea of a "whinging and complaining" thread is okay to me so long as the posts in it are purely just that, and not designed or intended to actually generate any discussion. Threads that contain legitimate, constructive discussion definitely do not belong here.

You say that you are receiving "a lot" of complaints from forum users (none of which I have read outside this thread) about there being several different threads that are critical of the club.

There are many different areas of the club of interest to Melbourne supporters, and different aspects of these areas, that are worthy of discussion, analysis and, yes, criticism.

I realise that Demonland is not a democracy, but allow me to complain about how threads offering criticism often seem to get locked or, more recently, merged into almost unreadable "mega-threads" which discourage quality discussion and become nearly impossible to keep relevant.

I can't help but think that this policy has less to do with the complaints of "a lot" of forum users who are too sensitive to handle more than one critical thread at a time and more to do with the views of a very few contributors who appear view criticism of our club as a blight on their rose-tinted landscapes and prefer to have it swept under the carpet.

Never mind about picking on other posters, hear me out on this.

You infer that I had some ulterior motive in merging a number of repeat subject threads by claiming that you hadn't come across complaints about them other than here in this thread.

Bollocks.

I won't labour over the complaints by posters in various other threads that sprung up over the course of this week - you can look for them yourself if you're really more diligent and capable of finding things than blistering as you claim. It took me about one minute to find one example -

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/33145-keyboard-warriors Post 13

"This forum needs some serious moderation. As well as multiple sub-forums for different topics. It is out of control."

Then there are comments scattered around the threads to the effect of "for this you need to start a new thread?" and people who have sent me personal messages and others who I have spoken with personally. You obviously missed them all.

As a moderator I have a responsibility to everyone on the site and not just opportunists like you who come here selectively and do nothing constructive but carp and criticise the efforts of others.

You can question me over my attempts to moderate this site but your log suggests that once the tanking furore ended in February, you didn't post until after Sunday's game which leads me to conclude that you're the one with the ulterior motive, zero credibility and a bucket load of gall.

My view is that there is a balance between mega-threads, which I oppose, and one-thread-per-thought, which I also oppose.

The idea of a "whinging and complaining" thread is okay to me so long as the posts in it are purely just that, and not designed or intended to actually generate any discussion. Threads that contain legitimate, constructive discussion definitely do not belong here.

And what what is your definition of legitimate, constructive discussion? Could such discussion include criticism of "the club, the board, the administration, the coaches, fitness people, medical staff, bootstudders etc."?

And what what is your definition of legitimate, constructive discussion? Could such discussion include criticism of "the club, the board, the administration, the coaches, fitness people, medical staff, bootstudders etc."?

That was for the CS thread before it was closed, LOL.

Is it possible to cap each members ability to create new threads per day?

To One.

Never mind about picking on other posters, hear me out on this.

You infer that I had some ulterior motive in merging a number of repeat subject threads by claiming that you hadn't come across complaints about them other than here in this thread.

Bollocks.

I won't labour over the complaints by posters in various other threads that sprung up over the course of this week - you can look for them yourself if you're really more diligent and capable of finding things than blistering as you claim. It took me about one minute to find one example -

Then there are comments scattered around the threads to the effect of "for this you need to start a new thread?" and people who have sent me personal messages and others who I have spoken with personally. You obviously missed them all.

As a moderator I have a responsibility to everyone on the site and not just opportunists like you who come here selectively and do nothing constructive but carp and criticise the efforts of others.

You can question me over my attempts to moderate this site but your log suggests that once the tanking furore ended in February, you didn't post until after Sunday's game which leads me to conclude that you're the one with the ulterior motive, zero credibility and a bucket load of gall.

Nice to see you leading by example again there WJ.

I never accused you of any ulterior motive or "agenda". I have always found such accusations ridiculous and I make no exeption when they are directed at others (even imaginary accusations).

I did however infer that there are a small number of people on here who appear to be allergic to criticism of any element of the club, especially the administration, and often try to censor it. Yes, I number you amongst this group.

I am not here to defend every stupid thread that someone starts. I am posting here to complain about your ill-conceived, self-serving proposal to merge all critical threads, including all of the most popular topics, into an unreadble morass.

You say you have a responsibility to everyone on the site well here I am. You say I can question you over your attempts to moderate this site, well that's what I am doing.

You continue to snipe at me but you only make yourself look foolish. The notion that I have not been posting much recently because I have an "ulterior motive" is ridiculous. It's not as if there has been a shortage of things to criticise the club about over the break.

The penny is dropping. It has been a lonely few years holding our administration to account here WJ, but other forum users are starting to realise that pointing out how our club is being turned into a spiritless, hopelessly divided train wreck does not make you a bad supporter - it makes you a good one.

Please don't paint yourself into an embarassing corner out of some misguided loyalty to Schwab and the other "mates". The club will still need you long after they are gone.

Edited April 5, 201312 yr by Hazyshadeofgrinter

Nice to see you leading by example again there WJ.

I never accused you of any ulterior motive or "agenda". I have always found such accusations ridiculous and I make no exeption when they are directed at others (even imaginary accusations).

I did however infer that there are a small number of people on here who appear to be allergic to criticism of any element of the club, especially the administration, and often try to censor it. Yes, I number you amongst this group.

I am not here to defend every stupid thread that someone starts. I am posting here to complain about your ill-conceived, self-serving proposal to merge all critical threads, including all of the most popular topics, into an unreadble morass.

You say you have a responsibility to everyone on the site well here I am. You say I can question you over your attempts to moderate this site, well that's what I am doing.

You continue to snipe at me but you only make yourself look foolish. The notion that I have not been posting much recently because I have an "ulterior motive" is ridiculous. It's not as if there has been a shortage of things to criticise the club about over the break.

The penny is dropping. It has been a lonely few years holding our administration to account here WJ, but other forum users are starting to realise that pointing out how our club is being turned into a spiritless, hopelessly divided train wreck does not make you a bad supporter - it makes you a good one.

Please don't paint yourself into an embarassing corner out of some misguided loyalty to Schwab and the other "mates". The club will still need you long after they are gone.

I fail to understand why you believe that disagreeing with your opinion makes one allergic to criticism of the club.

If someone argues with you over the merit of Schwab then its just two peoples opinion. Unless you would prefer that everyone just shut up and agree with you ?