I've changed my mind.

I suggested that my post https://www.606v2.com/t8672-the-st-george-s-flag had run its course.

But maybe I was wrong. Not because it's untrue but because it would have died out anyway in the fulfilment of time. It became controversial. But was still very active.

But I reckon that I was wrong to suggest that it should be pulled.

I realise that I'm not the most popular or inclusive poster on v2 (or v1 for that matter) but it just seems silly to lock a debate just because it's possible.

But controversy is surely better than sycophancy isn't it

So unlock the article and let's hope it dies of natural causes soon.

Oh jeez Portnoy, just post it over in the Current Affairs section would you?

I reported the thread to powers that be for having gone completely off-topic for a rugby forum, and I stand by that because it was.

There is a perfectly good off-topic section on this very website

Portnoy you TOLD the moderator to delete it and they decided it didn't need to be removed just locked.

Notch wrote:Oh jeez Portnoy, just post it over in the Current Affairs section would you?

I reported the thread to powers that be for having gone completely off-topic for a rugby forum, and I stand by that because it was.

There is a perfectly good off-topic section on this very website

Notch, a little tolerance might be in order, otherwise there's a case for shoving the pub over there half the time too?

Don't take it personally my topic on the English national anthem got locked yesterday, they just want this forum for rugby matters. Sadly the old606 got ruined by racist people and childness and their simply trying to avoid nationalistic non rugby debates springing up.

It was closed becasue people were happy for it because people were done with it. Not because of controversy.

Notch, shouldn't the pub be there as well then? Or does it have special privileges that allow it to be off-topic but not kept in the "perfectly good" off-topic section?

AlynDavies wrote:Don't take it personally my topic on the English national anthem got locked yesterday, they just want this forum for rugby matters. Sadly the old606 got ruined by racist people and childness and their simply trying to avoid nationalistic non rugby debates springing up.

I've always been a fan of 'childness', must be the boy in me - ooh er, can I say that?!?!

For what its worth I wouldn't have a problem with the pub if the off topic section.

It had nothing to do with rugby. Just like this.

HammerofThunor wrote:It was closed becasue people were happy for it because people were done with it. Not because of controversy.

Notch, shouldn't the pub be there as well then? Or does it have special privileges that allow it to be off-topic but not kept in the "perfectly good" off-topic section?

In a word, yes.

In fact it's previously been suggested that such discussions should take place there if you don't want to move them to another part of the website.

Ah Notch.

The point is that the original article was bang on-topic. The fact that it strayed has probably more to do with the cerebral nature of the v2 RU posters than anything else.

Mind you I could spend some fruitless time debating whether Quaide Cooper is better than Dan Darter or if Shane Williams or BOD can be considered to be legends.

red_stag wrote:Portnoy you TOLD the moderator to delete it and they decided it didn't need to be removed just locked.

Actually Stag I suggested that I wouldn't mind it being deleted. So the 'TOLD' assertion is bollix.

But as I say, I think (on reflection) I was wrong. The article should have lived out its ephemeral lifespan.

red_stag wrote:For what its worth I wouldn't have a problem with the pub if the off topic section.

Whilst it should be there, at least it's in a place where it doesn't block other articles like off topic ones do on the main board. That's the issue for me.

Thanks Dreamer.

It had run its course but it was indeed rugby related initially. Maybe if the word 'rugby' had been inserted appropriately then

But my point is that the post was soon to meet it's maker anyway.

"the 'St George's flag' thread was locked after it being questioned whether it had run its course and a number of posters agreeing.

Is there a politburo in this place?

Yes I initially agreed that it had run its course but now I see that I was wrong to suggest it be pulled. I'm not Jeremy Paxman or anything but I can smell a rat when there's a rodent around.

I'll continue to post controversial articles until I'm banned.

Portnoy wrote:I'll continue to post controversial articles until I'm banned.

Why don't you just post what you think instead of trying to think up controversy.

red_stag wrote:

Portnoy wrote:I'll continue to post controversial articles until I'm banned.

Why don't you just post what you think instead of trying to think up controversy.

Here here...!

red_stag wrote:

Portnoy wrote:I'll continue to post controversial articles until I'm banned.

Why don't you just post what you think instead of trying to think up controversy.

That's not enough for those who seek attention.

Dreamer - I suspect the pub will have to move then as you cannot have a rule for one and not the other as some will enjoy telling you...even though there are pubs in some other sports sections. It's all so political....

Dreamer, were the questions regarding this thread raised in the public domain or via PMs?

Because I am concerned about the in/exclususivity of v2. It's a fine fledgeling MB with wonderful principles. But there appears to be a number of anomolies/oxymorons/paradoxes around.

Cari wrote:Dreamer - I suspect the pub will have to move then as you cannot have a rule for one and not the other as some will enjoy telling you...even though there are pubs in some other sports sections. It's all so political....

It'll only be awkward if there is reams of discussion. If the pub moves we'll know where it is. If posters don't like the decisions mods make what will they do report to police? No they can find a new place to post.

I don't really mind if I have to click on a different section to find the pub really. We'll be grand

Portnoy wrote:Dreamer, were the questions regarding this thread raised in the public domain or via PMs?

Because I am concerned about the in/exclususivity of v2. It's a fine fledgeling MB with wonderful principles. But there appears to be a number of anomolies/oxymorons/paradoxes around.

yourself included?

Stag - when Portnoys refers to "exclusivity" I think he's just having a dig at the mods as he did with the BBC on the old 606. It's getting boring. If he just posted like everyone else, it wouldn't be such an "exclusive" experience. Incidentally, this is a private forum really - it's not like the BBC so he's got no right to have a dig at people who run it anyway. As you say, if you don't like it, go away.

Less oxy, more .... just kidding, I'll be there in 30 mins, Dai, don't panic

Dreamer - the thing is if Portnoys actually posted more in the pub and read it all the time it actually strays on and off topic quite easily. Today for example you discussed the new Scarlets kits.

Cariadwr, in fairness to Portnoy he didn't mention the pub explicitly, nor am I aware that he has ever posted there on v2, whereas the two posters that raised the pub (myself and Thunor) do post there regularly and occasionally respectively

maestegmafia wrote:

red_stag wrote:

Portnoy wrote:I'll continue to post controversial articles until I'm banned.

Why don't you just post what you think instead of trying to think up controversy.

Here here...!

I always post what think.

I don't endeavour to create controversial issues. I try to examine obvious anomalies and issues. That's why I have pretty much removed myself from the pub. Nobody has to respond to my posts and neither does anyone have to have their conversation interrupted by me.

Asbo - I know that, but I mentioned it before it was raised again. I don't think it needs to be moved because as I said, it goes on and off topic regularly so it's pointless moving it unless you're pandering to pedantry.

I think Portnoys is complaining about the moderators and how they do things is all.

hmmm.. some forums have an ignore button...

Perhaps the issue over closing the St George's flag thread is a red herring (speaking of which, where are the lovel Mr&MrsP?) - the random factor tractor thread is tolerated, altho it was set up with a particular objective in mind, to which it still holds; and curiously one of the mods was very keen originally for us to post rugby-related stuff outside of the pub to reflect better on the overall board's usage, I guess, so in a way encouraging the pub convo to focus on non-rugby issues. Curiosities, maybe, nothing more, and for sure nothing sinister.

the random factor is a bit of a strange one, it's that strange carry on from old 606, where you could say it was never on topic over there either. Personally I like it, tis a nice thread to dip in and out of

rugbydreamer wrote:the random factor is a bit of a strange one, it's that strange carry on from old 606, where you could say it was never on topic over there either. Personally I like it, tis a nice thread to dip in and out of

It came about near the end when I think the moderators lost interest. I reckon it would have got removed a year before it shut.

And the pub should continue to reside on the rugby board definitely and absolutely.

If it goes off to an off-topic area it would be like relocating the Cabbage Patch to Milton Keynes or the City Arms (is that right ?) to Milford Haven.

I still peek in and look.

Cant you just fnd a pub bar to lean up against, you might get to stare down the barmaids boobs once in a while whilst witering on to anyone who will listen. Plus you can get pork scratchings.

Or maybe Mrs Portnoy would like you to take her to the picturesof an evening?

But whatever, get out once in a while! Its cantankerous old men like you who give the Crumbie stand its reputation.

Cari wrote:Asbo - I know that, but I mentioned it before it was raised again. I don't think it needs to be moved because as I said, it goes on and off topic regularly so it's pointless moving it unless you're pandering to pedantry.

I think Portnoys is complaining about the moderators and how they do things is all.

Cari. I am not complaining about the mods or the admins or the v2 initiative in any way.

You consider me disruptive (which is mostly the reason I stay out of the pub). But I'm not really. I just question stuff. I don't intend to rock the boat, but if nobody explores beneath the cosy surface from time to time, then nothing will progress. I think that most other regz recognise that.

Portnoy, I'm pretty sure that we'd all agreethat we should tolerate each other's oddities and idiosyncrasies

Now, where's a mod when you need one? Must be about time to lock this thread?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:... Its cantankerous old men like you who give the Crumbie stand its reputation.

Its cantankerous old men like me that made the Tigers what they are. Defiantly obsessive and independent and uniquely in these professional days - a club.

So don't knock it.

Portnoy wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:... Its cantankerous old men like you who give the Crumbie stand its reputation.

Its cantankerous old men like me that made the Tigers what they are. Defiantly obsessive and independent and uniquely in these professional days - a club.

So don't knock it.

Uniquely a club?

Portnoy wrote:I'll continue to post controversial articles until I'm banned.

What a wonderful ethos!

It's silly season. What we need is some top-level rugby to talk about instead of chewing each others faces of. We just have to wait for the new season.

For the record, during the off-season I think off topic discussion should be treated more leniently. But that thread had run badly off-topic and turned into nationalistic wrangling.

And Portnoys you can't throw around words like 'Politburo' just because occasionally off-topic posts are deleted. People do actually come here to discuss rugby. There are a wide range of forums on the internet dedicated to every topic you can imagine. I enjoy your posts on rugby and wish to continue reading them but the long rambling rants are always going to annoy some people, that's just part of life

AND, I would add, that reluctance to engage with those topics does not constitute refusal to engage with the issues!

I am a regular green-ink e-mail writer to elected representatives/protest go-er. I too sometimes post off-topic- it's very natural to do so, and an over-zealous moderation policy can do more harm than good- but mainly I come here to talk rugby.

AND, finally, the moderators do a very good job here indeed.

Portnoy wrote:

You consider me disruptive (which is mostly the reason I stay out of the pub). But I'm not really.

Don't put words into my mouth and blame me for you choosing to stay away from the pub. I don't consider you generally disruptive. I ignore most of your threads only because of the provocative nature of them. I don't care who posts on them. When you're in the pub it doesn't bother me because you seem to be able to have a civilised conversation with people. If you'd been in the pub at all you'd notice that I'm hardly there anyway and I don't run it anymore.

Notch wrote:AND, finally, the moderators do a very good job here indeed.

They most certainly do

Ok, here's my effort to turn this thread rugby-wards in a way that appeals to all. What makes a rugby club? I'm guessing that Exeter, for one, would meet your definition?

Is it possibly because Leicester's owned by the supporters?

Wikipedia, that most reliable of sources, defines a club as a group of two or move people with a common interest or aim. All rugby teams would come up this definition.

Thunor, so are the Chiefs - owned by members, run by an elected executive, witha board of trustees to protect members interests represented on the exec

That's good to hear. Looking forward to or dreading the new season?

Can't wait, mate, think Rob Baxter has recruited well, but we'll need to get a good start in the first 6 games