The State of The Forum - better or worse?

[JuliusHMarx]

First topic message reminder :

It wasn't long ago that were rumblings and mutterings among the chattering classes (that's you) that the forum was a bit bland and sterile, that debate was being stifled and apathy and discontent was setting in. There was even mutinous talk that this was in some part due to the behaviour of your wise and glorious rulers (that's laverfan and myself).

Now everything seems to be back to the halcyon days of yore with bickering, banter, back-stabbing and behind-biting.

So it would actually be useful, I think, for laverfan and myself to know which is preferable to your good selves. The current lively, spicy, on-the-edge feel to the place. Or the somewhat meditative, relaxed, coffee-house ambience of early winter? The more we know about your preferences the more likely LF and I are not to get it hideously wrong and ruin it for everyone.

PM us if you'd prefer - you can name names that way

[Jahu]

Temp, you are very harsh man, bit of a Headmaster of the School

I bet you had good grades at school

[Haddie-nuff]

It has to be said that humour is going out of the forum in buckets.

I'll be frank. The reason the 2 mods worked so well was because they have no personal bias to any of the top players. That is a great recipe for effective moderation. However, you bring someone on board that has a bias to a certain player, and we get a trigger happy mod. I should know because I was once a mod and Jubba Isle before me was and it makes moderation the more difficult if you support a current player. Posters believe that you will protect that player and posters from views that disagree with them and put their favourite player in a negative light. This isn't a personal attack or anything. Just advice. If want debate, allow it.

As a move villain once said: Why So Serious?

I think Falzy is an excellent mod addition. Whilst both JHM and Laver have done an excellent job, they both have a clear preference for Fed over Nadal. Given that the battle between those two players tends to often be the heated issue on a tennis forum, having someone slightly on the other side of the fence gives a more balanced feel to the mod team.

That thread had gone way off-topic albeit in amusing fashion. Good decision to create a new thread to allow the actual point being raised to be discussed.

I don't think they have a clear preference at all. Not saying Falzy isn't doing a good job.

I will call the thread what it was and that was another lets demean an award Federer wins because his "rival" never wins given his popularity in numbers. Now where did that discussion end up going? People beating their heads against the wall because of motives being retracted and regurgitated in different words. Just no need for it.

Simply if the thread was the other way around and aimed at Nadal it would've been "oh look another anti Nadal thread"

So please if posters don't like it when their fav player is under the cosh, don't do it to others.

Well, I suspect if asked they would both say they prefer Fed to Nadal. I don't think they make any secret of that. I think both moderate completely fairly but having someone with a slightly different viewpoint makes sense.

Had the thread been aimed at Nadal I doubt it would have been taken off-topic in the way that it was. If Rafa had won, say, the sportsmanship award then I am sure there would have been several threads generated in relation to it. I don't see why Fed should be treated differently.

 Hooray to that !!![/quote]

[summerblues]

I think just about the worst thing that can happen to a forum is to take itself too seriously.

[Guest]

I think just about the worst thing that can happen to a forum is to take itself too seriously.  

The Moët is in the post

[Johnyjeep]

IMBL let's be honest with this. You are in danger of entering HE territory. You call into question the integrity of an award and then try to play devils advocate by insisting the intention is not the play on words it appears to be. I would sooner you stuck to your original position and not go around the houses and end up back at the original position you stood.

I like you as a poster, I do. However I find it frustrating probably like others when you take a stance and then it is refuted or argued by others you do a 180 and try to take a different position that isn't there with the original one you took. Sometimes trying to be too smart is not a good idea. You might think words mean different things, but in the end they all end up being relative.

With all this turning and twisting you make yourself and others dizzy!!! : hug:

Firstly LK this post exists only to criticise IMBL, which is off topic, and frankly not relevant. Its also clearly not funny either.
Now

Just because you dont like a topic or think its not worth talking about does not, at any point, mean that you can demand that noone else can talk about it. I didnt like the "hate Djokovic thread much", but I will darn well defend people right to have a thread talking about stuff they find annoying about him. I would defend people right to have a "things about Federer/Nadal" thread for the same reason. You dont like the topic? Whilst thats a shame, if it isnt abusive or libellous then people have a right to discuss it, and you can just ignore it. Its not your right to go on it, derail it, and then criticise the OP for perceived inconsistency.

Furthermore, the serious version of the thread you dislike, wasnt made by IMBL, or focused on Federer. I made it and it focused on the conflict of interest in ATP award sponsorship. Dont care? Fine, but in that case let others discuss it without being pre judged by someone sho sees the discussion as somehow beneath them.

Now I apologise for the harshness of the post, but that is how a forum works, not everything is for you, but hey, we segment it soo you dont even have to see that part. Now lets all bury the hatchet, and go back to Goffins pants.

So, if posters vent their hatred of a tennis player (as long as not libellous or abusive - which is a given) they do not know and has no right of reply (unlikely to be a member on this forum), you would defend their right to do so? But a poster is not allowed to even make a mild mannered observation about a fellow poster (which was far from any kind of personal attack) to understand the reasoning behind their behaviour? So yes, carry on an abuse individuals - but only do so behind their back.

LK's post was hugely relevant. In order to better understand anything in life, it helps to understand the reason. The tone of the thread IMBL started about the Federer award changed remarkably as it went on. Culminating in IMBL changing the title to include the word Corruption. And when this was questioned by a poster (lags) why the name was changed, rather than admit to changing the title, this was posted:

Next time the mods change the title, they should make it say underneath the article so it's clear.
I remember once in 2012 during a match thread a member of the admin team kept randomly editing my article to include the live score of the match going on, without saying so or asking me

As if to somehow absolve all responsibility. Surely, knowing full well that Lags was not referring to the addition of the word 'Alleged' to the title. This forced JHM (a moderator) to actually state what had happened. It is always "smoke and mirrors". It was pathetic.

Which leads me to why I am posting on this thread. Is it worse? For me, yes. I drop by less and less. I suppose it depends on why you use the forum? I liked it initially as I found it quite informative about the technicalities and intricacies of tennis. I play a lot of sport. An all out lady of loose morals if you will. And I played a lot of tennis at school and enjoyed it and was pretty good at it (judging by the fact I was in the tennis team and seeded 1 in all our inter-school matches meaning, rather arbitrarily I suppose, that I was the best in the school). However after school, other sports took over (ones that I was better at - cricket, football and athletics) and you can only fit so much in the day. So I like to read from posters who understand the technical aspects of the game far more than me. Posters who play the game at club level and so on. Not picking him out, but i'd make a bee line for socal's comments if I could see them as they'd usually be interesting.

However now..it is almost exclusively about the top 4 (but not in a good way). Now I'm not stupid. They are the biggest stars in the game and 2 of them (at least I would say) transcend both tennis and sport in particular. So yes, most threads will be about them. But there are so many threads trying to degenerate someone's achievements (usually to the benefit of someone else) whether they be in a subtle or unsubtle way.

I just can't abide tribalism. When I retired from playing football (because of injury) I hardly ever attend games because for me, tribalism, and the blindness it inflicts on its person, is so infuriating it is like to talking to a brick wall. And takes away from the enjoyment of sport as a whole for me. There are some posters who do not wish to engage in discussion. This forum is purely a vehicle for their propaganda. This is why for me, to answer the question posed by the thread title, the forum is worse (as of late).

[Guest]

Save your breath JJ.

One rule for one and one for others!

Thanks though.

[It Must Be Love]

And when this was questioned by a poster (lags) why the name was changed, rather than admit to changing the title, this was posted:

This is quite unfair as in the very next post I wrote, I specifically addressed the title, and even gave an analogy to show how the term can be used loosely.

The tone of the thread IMBL started about the Federer award changed remarkably as it went on.

Indeed it did !
I found some of the jokes quite funny actually

[It Must Be Love]

However now..it is almost exclusively about the top 4 (but not in a good way). Now I'm not stupid. They are the biggest stars in the game and 2 of them (at least I would say) transcend both tennis and sport in particular.

I find though that my more controversial articles on the top 4 get more views and comments than any of my other ones.
For example in the past few weeks, a list of threads I started:
-Dimitrov and his future of reaching number 1
-Worst tennis game you've ever seen
-Favourite tennis kit
-Injuries and political correctness post-match
-Analysis of the Nadal vs Berdych match-up
-Style of play of the all time great of the next generation (i.e. not the current crop)


All these 6 were not very controversial, and not debates between the Big 4; but as far as I'm aware JJ- you didn't post in any of them. Not to blame you, in general these threads just didn't many posts in general, if you compare it to any thread with a big debate.
So it's easy to tell me that I only start controversial threads on the top 4 or whatever, when the reality I do write other threads which you don't post on, and on average they get far less comments, so people forget about them.

[Johnyjeep]

And when this was questioned by a poster (lags) why the name was changed, rather than admit to changing the title, this was posted:

This is quite unfair as in the very next post I wrote, I specifically addressed why I changed the title to what it was.  

Actually it is very fair. And in black and white still. Why did you not make it clear initially and have to wait till JHM pointed out what had actually happened?

In fact, it was only after JHM had responded and clarified the matter, that you came clean to lags request and made it clear YOU had changed the title to include Corruption. If JHM hadn't responded we would still be operating under the impression that:

Next time the mods change the title, they should make it say underneath the article so it's clear.
I remember once in 2012 during a match thread a member of the admin team kept randomly editing my article to include the live score of the match going on, without saying so or asking me

You ask for clarity when mods change the title and yet you can't be clear until someone else forces your hand. In your FIRST post you make absolutely no effort to address lags query (see above). Did you forget?! Unlikely as you address the point of name change. Could you not be bothered or unwilling to because it contained libelous language? Possible. Or did you want to not admit to something because it was libelous and completely incorrect? Likely.  

All you did is pass the blame onto the mods forcing them to respond, which then forced you to respond and specifically address why you changed the title.

Yes the tone of thread did change, and yes it was very funny. I was more referring to the heinousness of the "not-right" but perfectly legal actions of the so far under-identified stakeholder in the process of the running of this unimportant on-line poll.

[It Must Be Love]

Why did you not make it clear initially and have to wait till JHM pointed out what had actually happened?

I'm not sure who you are to interrogate me, but anyway.

I had prepared a post explaining why I had changed the title to what I had, but by the time I was about to post, Julius had already posted about the specific issue I was going to address, so I edited my post and quoted him. I was going to post about that topic regardless of whether Lags or Julius brought it up.
You assume I was not going to talk about it anyway which I was.
Edit: In fact, not only was I going to post it, I was even considering adding a paragraph about it in the OP itself.
False speculation does not help things.

[temporary21]

Right OK ive spent hours doing this now, soo I will make this clear to everyone.

The tennis forum is for EVERYONE, to discuss almost any old crap you care to mention. Hateful language towards a player is most likely not tolerated because it adds to a toxic atmosphere, that DOES NOT mean that someone cant be critical of a player or express theyre not a fan of someone.

Case in point, IMBL has not at any point expressed that he hates Federer, or has called Federer any names. They have been critical of some of the things Federer has said, but there no hate speech here. On the other hand if anyone remembers Tenez, youll know how toxic hate speech can become.

I defend the right for ANY of you to talk about stuff, that includes things that might be critical of Nadal, or Federer or anybody, PROVIDED it isnt overly hateful, or libellous or whatever.

That beign said, I have almost ZERO tolerance to posts directed only at a poster of which is hateful in nature. Im am not a complete fool, I know the difference between people bantering with eachother, and when people are getting spiteful. I don't care about the former, but I will enforce the latter. If its Haddie or anyone else I don't care, people should not feel nervous to come here and talk.

In response to off topic discussions and the like. You all seem worried that noone is allowed to have fun anymore. That will not happen. Yesterday was the first time I had to do anything at all, and it was only because the off topic stuff meant the original point was completely lost. Therefore, I left the old thread completely alone for fun, and opened a new one for anyone to wanted a more serious look at it. In other words I gave something for everyone, I dont want to stop any fun.

Normally I dont care to interrupt anything on the forum unless it is either gonna get us sued, or its toxic and/or leading up to some nasty argument, otherwise, go nuts.

That being said if people stop others from trying to discuss things just because they dont like it or become spiteful or otherwise not banterous to each other, that will be stopped. You wouldn't do it to people to their face, soo you shouldn't do it here.

Finally I dont have a preference to any of you, I dont know any of you, and I have no wish to know any of you, we share an interest in tennis and very little else. Soo we should all be able to talk about tennis here politely. Can you say "I didnt like what Fed/Nadal said there", of course you can, can you say "I think FedererNadal is a piece of sh**", no not really, thats obvious. Just treat each other with respect. Thats all

Soo lets get back to tennis shall we

[It Must Be Love]

Thankyou temporary, I agree we should treat people respectfully and focus on the topic being discussed at hand

Just one thing I disagree with you...

On the other hand if anyone remembers Tenez, youll know how toxic hate speech can become.

Tenez did not say anything which even nearly constitutes hate speech. He had a lot of passion for tennis, and did not like Nadal's style of play, but is still actually a very good poster.

[temporary21]

Ok fair enough, maybe my memory of the Tenez is hazier than I remember, but hopefully people know what I'm getting at. I'll interject in conversations as little as is possible, only if the topic gets completely and utterly lost for pages, or if things have gone badly sour. Does that seem ok?

[temporary21]

You should be able to joke and get a bit off topic of course... just not soo much... everything in reasonable moderation.

[It Must Be Love]

Agreed temp.
Also from now on if anyone wants to complain to me about me, then you can do so via PM

I want to get back on topic on 'the state of the forum'- which is more relevant to the title of the thread.
After criticism that some write too many threads on the debates between the top 4, I had a look at my own threads I've started.
15 in the past 2 months. Out of those 15, 4 of them were controversial and either about a member of the top 4 or a debate between them. (Around a percentage of 25%)
Now ignoring the Shanghai match thread, these 4 threads had more comments and views than ALL the other 10 put together.

So people on the whole comment and view these much more, including the people who criticise me for posting these, despite the fact that they actually constituted only around 25% of my overall threads.
So in terms of 'state of the forum'- maybe that shows people are more likely to comment on these threads ?

[Haddie-nuff]

Thankyou temporary, I agree we should treat people respectfully and focus on the topic being discussed at hand

Just one thing I disagree with you...

On the other hand if anyone remembers Tenez, youll know how toxic hate speech can become.

Tenez did not say anything which even nearly constitutes hate speech. He had a lot of passion for tennis, and did not like Nadal's style of play, but is still actually a very good poster.

IMBL I honestly am a fan of yours as a fellow poster, but ( not that this is a discussion I think is necessary to continue), as far as I am concerned, is far from fact.. I have been on the end of his toxic comments... oh yes I remember Tenez       he drove many a Nadal fan from the forum.. He hated Nadal period... the biggest threat to Federer !!!

[JuliusHMarx]

What does 'controversial' mean? (in this context. Obviously I know what it means )

[It Must Be Love]

Thankyou temporary, I agree we should treat people respectfully and focus on the topic being discussed at hand

Just one thing I disagree with you...

On the other hand if anyone remembers Tenez, youll know how toxic hate speech can become.

Tenez did not say anything which even nearly constitutes hate speech. He had a lot of passion for tennis, and did not like Nadal's style of play, but is still actually a very good poster.

IMBL I honestly am a fan of yours as a fellow poster, but ( not that this is a discussion I think is necessary to continue), as far as I am concerned, is far from fact.. I have been on the end of his toxic comments... oh yes I remember Tenez       he drove many a Nadal fan from the forum.. He hated Nadal period... the biggest threat to Federer !!!

OK, we'll agree to disagree on this one

[Jahu]

Tenez was a little rough, thought nitb was on another planet

JHM, I want guarantees that Temp21 can not ban me for none tennis related stuff, till he understands how I function

[Haddie-nuff]

Tenez was a little rough, thought nitb was on another planet

JHM, I want guarantees that Temp21 can not ban me for none tennis related stuff, till he understands how I function

A lethal combination, a Fed liker on one side, and a crazed Piece of cheese on the other....ouch

[temporary21]

Id never ban people for anything other than extremely aggressive, abusive or racist etc language, Jahu you can be as silly as you like otherwise

[Johnyjeep]

Why did you not make it clear initially and have to wait till JHM pointed out what had actually happened?

I'm not sure who you are to interrogate me, but anyway.

I had prepared a post explaining why I had changed the title to what I had, but by the time I was about to post, Julius had already posted about the specific issue I was going to address, so I edited my post and quoted him. I was going to post about that topic regardless of whether Lags or Julius brought it up.
You assume I was not going to talk about it anyway which I was, this false speculation doesn't help anything really.

Indeed. I agree, false speculation doesn't help anything really (I'll circle back to this).

Even though this isn't false speculation. Mainly because if you were preparing this post explaining the reason for the changing of the title as you say, you still found the time to come away from that, and then blame the mods. The impression is unequivocal. It wasn't me - it was the mods.

The time from you changing the title to posting the explanation that you were preparing was 35 minutes. (I hate digital foot prints). The time between you blaming the mods and posting your edited explanation (with JHM comments) was 5 minutes. If you were only 5 minutes away (actually it would have been even less because you had to make an edit for JHM remark) from completing this explanation for the title change (which still hadn't happened 30 minutes after you had changed the title), why come away from that to make a conscious post that blamed the mods when you had a response that was by all accounts, finished? Just post that instead.

IMBL - you need not address any of these points. Because frankly I don't care.

And luckily, as we you do not like false speculation, we will have no more OP's or posts on hypothetical scenarios and lambasting the ATP Tour awards without a shred of evidence.

[temporary21]

JJ, perhaps this is better discussed with IMBl over Pm? As IMBL has requested to do soo in that manner on the thread

[Jahu]

Tenez was a little rough, thought nitb was on another planet

JHM, I want guarantees that Temp21 can not ban me for none tennis related stuff, till he understands how I function

A lethal combination, a Fed liker on one side, and a crazed Piece of cheese on the other....ouch

At least Nadal is on my top 5 likes

[Jahu]

Id never ban people for anything other than extremely aggressive, abusive or racist etc language, Jahu you can be as silly as you like otherwise

You the man

[Haddie-nuff]

Tenez was a little rough, thought nitb was on another planet

JHM, I want guarantees that Temp21 can not ban me for none tennis related stuff, till he understands how I function

A lethal combination, a Fed liker on one side, and a crazed Piece of cheese on the other....ouch

At least Nadal is on my top 5 likes

Im sure he would be happy with that

[It Must Be Love]

The time from you changing the title to posting the explanation that you were preparing was 35 minutes. (I hate digital foot prints). The time between you blaming the mods and posting your edited explanation (with JHM comments) was 5 minutes.

I am not online on this forum 24/7.
There was a gap between me changing the title and me explaining it, because I was doing something else at the time.
Now an interrogation against someone is one thing, but expecting them to be online 24/7 is beyond ridiculous.
I am not the sort of person who runs away from posting about any issue, I much prefer addressing them. I would have addressed the point even if Julius hadn't asked. However I can't always guarantee that my response will be immediately as I can't always be online.
Honestly I know you don't particularly like me JJ, but give up and accept you're just making false assumptions about what I would hypothetically do.

lambasting the ATP Tour awards without a shred of evidence.

I did have evidence, they publicly say they sponsor him and publicly put out a photo of Federer and details of how to vote in the award in the Daily Telegraph !
I'm not claiming that I've found them doing something secretive

[Jahu]

HN are you female?, and what have you "haddie-nuff" of, tired of life or tennis?

[JuliusHMarx]

What does 'controversial' mean? (in this context. Obviously I know what it means )

IMBL which of your topics were controversial, do you think?

[It Must Be Love]

What does 'controversial' mean? (in this context. Obviously I know what it means )

IMBL which of your topics were controversial, do you think?

Everyone's opinions on what is 'controversial' or not- this really is subjective.
In my eyes anything which divides opinion to a great extent can be said to be controversial. Also how strongly people feel about the issue can be a factor.

[JuliusHMarx]

OK - but which of your topics were controversial, do you think?

[Haddie-nuff]

HN are you female?, and what have you "haddie-nuff" of, tired of life or tennis?

Oh Jahu I thought everybody knew.. Im female.. no not tired of Life a bit tired of what life does to you and at the point I chose the name pretty much tired of the way the discussions developed on tennis forums.. I can see where temporary is trying to  lead this forum and I am entirely behind him. Any discussion where two people cannot agree should be left as IMBL did today.. agree that we differ, and leave it at that. I advocate say what you mean, mean what you say, and leave others in no doubt.   Humour yes definitely it should be fun here as well as serious discussion. Name calling is when you have nothing left to contribute to a discussion, or are losing the argument
.. if you recognise this then walk away

[Jahu]

Yeah, agree, thought I'm amazed a little how touchy people get on the forums or how seriously take stuff here.

Man (lady) up people!!

Have a nice weekend

[Johnyjeep]

The time from you changing the title to posting the explanation that you were preparing was 35 minutes. (I hate digital foot prints). The time between you blaming the mods and posting your edited explanation (with JHM comments) was 5 minutes.

I am not online on this forum 24/7.
There was a gap between me changing the title and me explaining it, because I was doing something else at the time.
Now an interrogation against someone is one thing, but expecting them to be online 24/7 is beyond ridiculous.
I am not the sort of person who runs away from posting about any issue, I much prefer addressing them. I would have addressed the point even if Julius hadn't asked. However I can't always guarantee that my response will be immediately as I can't always be online.
Honestly I know you don't particularly like me JJ, but give up and accept you're just making false assumptions about what I would hypothetically do.

lambasting the ATP Tour awards without a shred of evidence.

I did have evidence, they publicly say they sponsor him and publicly put out a photo of Federer and details of how to vote in the award in the Daily Telegraph !
I'm not claiming that I've found them doing something secretive

I shall indeed give up as you have (as usual) completely missed my point about the timing of the post. Nor presented any evidence of Corruption against the ATP.

And I don't dislike you (surely, surely not false speculation on your behalf???!). I just don't understand you.

[It Must Be Love]

OK - but which of your topics were controversial, do you think?

People can make their own judgements, just to make that clear.
I don't want to pick a few, and then suddenly everyone is angry because the ones I picked didn't match theirs.

To an extent all threads can be seen controversial as long as they express an opinion, but some more so than others.
As I posted earlier: out of my 15 threads in the last 2 months; 4 have been controversial as well as being a discussion on either a member of the big 4 or a debate between them.
4/15 is around 27% I think, but yet on these 4 threads there are more views and comments than all the other ones put together (with the exception of the Shanghai match thread).

[JuliusHMarx]

But you'd rather not say which 4? If not, that's OK.

[It Must Be Love]

I shall indeed give up as you have (as usual) completely missed my point about the timing of the post. Nor presented any evidence of Corruption against the ATP.

I don't understand why you're criticising me about the timings of my post. I wasn't online immediately after I changed the title, and you can check my post history- I did not post in those 30 minutes.
When I then logged on I first made the point that a member of the moderation team hadn't stated their edit (whenever LF edits something she puts 'edited by LF' or something like that), the lack of that annoyed me. I then answered the far more pertinent question of the title change on my behalf, and then I noticed Julius had incorporated a bit of my reply in his comment, so it made sense to quote him. I can't see why people would get so angry over this, I didn't even do anything wrong.
As for the ATP thing, I've talked at length of what my evidence is that Moet used adverts to try and boost Federer's vote, I'd say it's ethically corrupt but not technically corrupt. I even pointed this out at the time, comparing it to tax avoidance (which is technically legal but in my eyes ethically corrupt).

And I don't dislike you (surely, surely not false speculation on your behalf???!). I just don't understand you.

OK, that was speculation on my part, I made an assumption.
Alas if I was wrong, this can be a lesson to everyone

[laverfan]

...they both have a clear preference for Fed over Nadal.

No, that is a misperception. I have gone out of my way on another forum to defend unfair accusations, as I have done here too.

I have also stated my tiny shade of a preference for Ferrer the Terrier.

Given that the battle between those two players tends to often be the heated issue on a tennis forum, having someone slightly on the other side of the fence gives a more balanced feel to the mod team.

The purpose of a GOAT sticky was to confine such tribal and internecine trench warfare to one thread and prevent spill-over into other threads. But as HB has pointed out many a time, all threads eventually lead to GOAT debates. I found IMBL's 16 2/3 slams very amusing,  with all what-if hypotheses, another step in that direction. The objections to sponsorship of player X by corporation Y and awards is a non-Tennis discussion but participants chose the direction they wanted.

If Mods have such perceived likes/dislikes and can moderate a forum jointly without such interfering with moderation, this should be considered an example to others of civil debate. Other "Nadal" fans have been offered Mod positions, notably HE and Lydian on several occasions with no reciprocation due to other commitments, etc.

If-you-do-not-listen-to-me-then-i-will-take-my-ball-home is puerile and juvenile in a forum that discusses a sport we all love, and it has as many representative personalities as there are  posters and then some more.

House rules are there for everyone to peruse and follow.

Regarding Fedal debates, if they want one to be anointed King over the other, the sticky is there. As T2 points out, safe, freedom of speech within the confines of house rules, is the goal to strive for.

[It Must Be Love]

But you'd rather not say which 4? If not, that's OK.

Sure I will, people can see my post history and it's obvious which 4 have the most views/comments !

The 4 controversial ones were: Federer jankovic comments, the ATP award and Moet's influence, the W/L ratio, and the Fedal Grand Slam surface comparisons.
Before people lambast me, these 4 as I said actually constitute for less than 30% of the overall number of threads I have started, the other 11 were not that controversial or debates between the Big 4 or discussions about a specific member of the Big 4; and they had less comments and views.

[Guest]

People won't lambast you for that silly!

There are controversial subjects at hand to be had, but sadly it is all speculation and it just adds to the libel risk of this site. So we can only deal with what we have in front of us.

I wish there was like a vault of past matches so we could get a whole view on the spectrum of tennis and how the sport has evolved.

[laverfan]

Before people lambast me, these 4 as I said actually constitute for less than 30% of the overall number of threads I have started, the other 11 were not that controversial or debates between the Big 4 or discussions about a specific member of the Big 4; and they had less comments and views.

Are your posts geared towards a popularity contest, one of "views" and "number of comments"? You are doing a disservice to posters who want to discuss technicalities (as JJ points out).

[laverfan]

I wish there was like a vault of past matches so we could get a whole view on the spectrum of tennis and how the sport has evolved.

Like AO Vault TV, I wish the other three slams, would put the matches for public viewing, to provide better perspective of "eras".

[It Must Be Love]

Before people lambast me, these 4 as I said actually constitute for less than 30% of the overall number of threads I have started, the other 11 were not that controversial or debates between the Big 4 or discussions about a specific member of the Big 4; and they had less comments and views.

Are your posts geared towards a popularity contest, one of "views" and "number of comments"? You are doing a disservice to posters who want to discuss technicalities (as JJ points out).

Of course not, that's why as I said they only make out 4 out of 15. If I wanted to do more of those, it would make up more than 30%, not less.
If not anything I'm saying the opposite, the point is people forget about the threads which don't get many views and then get a misrepresentative and misleading impression.

[Guest]

I wish there was like a vault of past matches so we could get a whole view on the spectrum of tennis and how the sport has evolved.

Like AO Vault TV, I wish the other three slams, would put the matches for public viewing, to provide better perspective of "eras".

Indeed. Heard of the AO Vault and it does sadden me we don't have that. The Beeb entertain us with the 1977 women's final and 1980 mens final at Wimbledon. It's no tennis existed prior or after that.

The US would have many classics! Think Connors run in 1991 and Agassi's in 2005. Pure gold.

[JubbaIsle]

Please be aware that not everyone has a thick skin or should be made to have one.

Personal attacks are not the kind of comment that makes the thread tick. Why there have to be posters who are anarchic, disrespectful and incompassionate enough to believe they have a right to post what they like, regardless of peoples feelings really shouldn't be on a forum, but down the pub, around a table with their mates talking about the guy on the next table.

Criticism is just a word to describe an opinion, and we can all criticise each other till the cows come home, and shouldn't be insulted by any kind of remark in that. Its not taking ourselves seriously, just acting in a sociable manner.

Anyway, this is all moot, the rules we all read when we accepted them to be on these boards are finite and comprehensive.
Trying to hijack a thread for ones own peculiar, schizoid needs is not acceptable behaviour, there are other places on this planet to do such things, like I said before, don't treat the forum as a chat room and you'd be amazed at how convivial and lively it all becomes.



Lets all kick back and chill, just for you Haddie......

[HM Murdock]

Out of curiousity, can someone tell me why my David Goffin pants picture was deleted?

I'm not bothered about it but I'd like to know what rule or standard it fell foul of. Just for future reference.

[Jahu]

So we can all chill out then...

[Haddie-nuff]

JUBBAISLE

Thank you your smilies are great... keep posting love em

[Haddie-nuff]

We seem to come back to Goffin's pants but when he was playing in his white shorts a couple of matches back I had to question... ..erhem...was he actually wearing any ???????

[temporary21]

Out of curiousity, can someone tell me why my David Goffin pants picture was deleted?

I'm not bothered about it but I'd like to know what rule or standard it fell foul of. Just for future reference.

Though inconceivable it was probably removed for being too sexy

[Sponsored content]