Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
29 September 2009
07:2529486Ive noticed, as have many of you, that we only have a trickle of postings now in this Clubhouse. Bit disappointing but there we are, maybe the limited Members Club idea has got tired and is due for the scrapheap. We have more postings now on the frontpage so maybe we dont need this section any longer. Time perhaps to close it down.
Would be interesting to hear some feedback. Before.. people said they wanted less politics so we have less politics, but instead of helping its got worse. Maybe we shudda went for MORE politics! It was certainly busier with more politics but I guess too much bickering didnt help and people got tired of it.
Some members have clearly quit altogether, others hardly post at all, some have computer failure, some are on holiday and so on, but it has ended up as a relatively defunct section.
Even I myself dont have the time to put a huge effort into it as Im trying to keep too many balls in the air and all at the same time.
We have 70 members and if all posted....!!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
29 September 2009
07:4529487It always seems to go in fits and starts Paul. It will perk up soon I am sure.
Guest 652- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 595
29 September 2009
08:0329488Perhaps the decent weather in the evenings has not helped, people get out while they can.
Things certainly have picked up for us at the Clarendon & Westbury Hall on a Tuesday evening, with our LEGS, BUMS, TUMS & PILATES, perhaps people have decided exercise is more good than sitting at the computor
Sheila
Guest 666- Registered: 25 Mar 2008
- Posts: 323
29 September 2009
08:2429489I for one always enjoy reading the postings even though I do not post as often as some.
Wouldn't be able to be a 'Forum' without it really.
Oh Boy!, That'll be the day.........
Guest 657- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,037
29 September 2009
10:1029491I'm with Buddy on this one, I enjoy reading the posts and chip in when I can. I would really miss it. As Barry W says it goes in fits and starts.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
29 September 2009
10:3529492like wise,i do like reading through and posting when needed to.
Guest 684- Registered: 26 Feb 2009
- Posts: 635
29 September 2009
13:1529494Hi Paul and all,
Personally I enjoy the forum's Members' Club very much and contribute when I can - I'd hate to see it disappear. However, I would love to see much less politics on here (we get more than enough from so many other media channels) and more on subjects like the long-mooted regeneration of Dover, and other constructive dialogue about how to get the town off its knees.
There's too much playground politicking going on..."I'm bluer than you" and "I'm redder than you", which is tantamount to fiddling while Rome (and for that read 'Dover') burns.
We should all focus 100 per cent on improving the town and the district's lot while having a bit of a laugh in the bargain.
Cheers all,
Andy
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
29 September 2009
13:2929495PaulB - if you are open to suggestions, I would recommend more 'open' registrations but to allow there to be other moderators to take the work away from you.
Been nice knowing you :)
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
29 September 2009
14:0629496I can only agree with the other posters - these things go in cycles and it will pick up
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
29 September 2009
15:1629497I have one or more new posts coming up over the next few days which I think you all will like to get your points over,and they are not ones i have done before. Hoping the big one will be done later tonight.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
29 September 2009
15:1629498I find i'm on your side Andrew, there is too much 'tit for tat' when it comes to national politics, it is local politics that deserves more scrutiny and what is being done about the regeneration of the town. Many pertinent questions could be asked as to why it has taken so long but we seem quite content to accept that it is legal problems. I can only say that they must be the longest legal problems in British history.
Regarding the 70 members only a handful contribute, many who have left prefer the more relaxed other forum which attracts a good cross section of contributors. It is not so heavily 'bogged' down with national politics but more in local issues. I appreciate the effort you put into the Forum Paul but I do not share the same optimism as others, I think that unless fundamental changes are made it will slide further, which will be sad as I too enjoy some of the postings on here.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
29 September 2009
15:3629499Lets just put the national politics into perspective.
Out of 30 posts on page 1 - just 7 are regarding national politics. One of those was actually about BBC's Question Time and is debatable as to whether we should class that as political tit for tat as there were no real political lines drawn over it (apart from anti BNP...)
I must agree that sometimes these can sometimes deteriate to the point of uselessness.
Not so long ago when someone else mentioned it there were just two political posts!
So please do not exaggerate that. My own political 'post starting' from now on will be on my blog but that wont stop me joining in on those others start in the members club...
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
29 September 2009
15:4329500I think one of the things I like about this forum is that there are no spoof,stupid or sexist postings as we all post under our names rather than pseudonyms and are therefore ,hopefully, more responsible in our use of language and terminology.
As the darker evenings fast approach and with the prospect of an exciting general election looming I for one am looking forward to a busy posting period ahead.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
29 September 2009
15:4829501Perhaps I should clarify a bit better Barry as I am better at talking than writing. The third paragraph of your post was precisely the point I was trying to make, the political threads de-generate into meaningless, pointless drivel, to the point it becomes boring.
I welcome your blog it is akin to the old politics page, a bit pro-tory but then that is to be expected.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
29 September 2009
15:5429502Quite right Marek I would rather speak to a proper name than a stupid pseudonym. If you have the balls to say something controversial then you should put your name to it.
Signed The dozy Dovorian
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
29 September 2009
17:0129503i must go along with marek and dave on the subject of people hiding behind pseudonyms.
people can have very brave opinions when they are anonymous, i like the style at present where we all know who we are talking down to(no offence barry).
i don;'t think that there is too much politics here, just that sometimes people feel insulted if someone disagrees with them and stops posting.
i don't think that more local poltics(including regeneration) would be much use, it would be down to party lines in no time. just look at the town council issue on the open page to see that.
29 September 2009
17:3329504There have been some stonkingly good debates on here!! Some drivel and a bit of bickering, but that's inevitable and doesn't detract from the seriously high level of debate we have reached from time to time. And the laughs too! I have laughed out loud at some of the posts, and some of them were even intentionally humerous......
It does go in waves - I remember last year saying the same thing, PaulB, along the lines of "where are you all?"!!!!! And then we all trickled back and got going again.
29 September 2009
17:3429505I don't wish this to be seen as a criticism of DF but merely an observation. It might be that there are too many rules and restrictions on DF. Free, easy, accessible media has always been the backbone of the web's social scene and DF doesn't offer that. While we all know why this is (Paul has a specific agenda with this forum in terms of maintaining quality editorial content and a more polite exchange platform) it might well be this very thing that is harming it too. Most - perhaps ALL - forums offer free, open registration, with rules to follow but no restrictions on topics or response types. While most - perhaps ALL - other forums are 95% bullsh*t, nevertheless it is from this bullsh*t that the audience grows and the message is spread. I'd be willing to bet that DF membership would increase with a lighter approach to registration and posting. But I want to assert that this is NOT a criticism of this forum, I actually think Paul is brave and ballsy for doing something a bit different, and the control factor is only to maintain a certain level of quality and not tamper with free speech.
When you look at a lot of forums, they tend to follow one of three patterns:
Firstly, someone starts a topic, someone replies, someone slags off the first person, and then the entire thread descends into rude, insulting nonsense.
Secondly, someone starts a topic, a few people respond positively, then the thread dies off.
Lastly, someone starts a topic and it runs in rich debate for a long time (rarest of all patterns).
However, even in that last scenario there, you will still get a few idiotic comments, single-line drivel, moaners, and flamers trying to cause a fight. The internet's biggest flaw is that it shows human nature for what it really is, and maintaining the level of quality output that Paul wants to achieve may simply be too much to ask.
It's a particularly difficult concept to maintain at the moment given the world's embrace of social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter etc which provides the ultimate model of free and expansive access to this type of media. I know quite a few of you guys use Facebook (I see you on there often enough) and it might be that Paul's more noble model might be a bit out of date and out of touch with the modern digital mindset.
I think it would be a terrible shame to see this forum closed, it has been a brilliant asset for Dover now for 10 years. While it has changed hands and changed philosophically during that time, maybe now is a good time to review the forum rather than close it. Maybe it needs to be re-evaluated and its place in modern digital media looked at.
Let me give you another cracking good example of why forums are important. Quite often you might type a query into Google, for a random example let's say you want to find out if Adobe Photoshop v7 will work on your new Intel iMac. Rather than Google listing information websites that will answer your query, it may find dozens of forum pages which can really blow open the subject for you. This is by no means a rare outcome. Forum pages constitute a lot of Google's content and offer a rich and valuable source of info, but again I think this is only possible because of the free and open nature of those forums.
I'm going to remind you one last time that I am not critical of DF, merely commenting on how I see it based on how the public are using the web these days. There should not really be any steering of "more politics" or "less politics" or any separate forums for politics and non-politics the way it used to be. There should be just one big open forum where all can discuss anything. The price for this will indeed be that a certain volume of the content will be utter utter crap, but given that most other forums survive beautifully on this basis it could do wonders for audience figures and participation. I also think that DF needs a Facebook presence. If I were still running DoverWeb then you can guarantee it would have a massive Facebook and Twitter presence.
I have one more comment to make, which might be why the activity seems to be on a lull. Maybe, given the rather strict registration process and demand to operate under you full real name, it is off-putting for a lot of people and the handful of members that do contribute regularly are probably - how can I put this politely - fed up with each other (or, to be more politically correct, may be suffering from "small membership fatigue"). I don't mean that in a unfriendly way of course, but it must surely be hard to keep things fresh when the same few people argue and debate the same few topics.
My own opinion is that DF has bags of life left in it yet, but might need to have its position reviewed and its philosophy upgraded. The fact that the home page (which requires no registration and adopts the free and open access model) is so busy all the time seems to bear this idea out pretty well.
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
29 September 2009
18:1629506Pseudonyms are a double edged sword. Real names may force a degree of honesty, i.e. 'nothing to hide', they can also work against the truth being spilt, it is quite obvious that having accountability enforced can stifle debate. Certain facts and scandal are more likely to emerge in the public domain if posters feel that they will have no come back via their true identity. It works both ways.
Certain topics can get run into the ground and crop up again and again ad nauseam, but I'm not going to name them for fear of offending the posters. I think also it is true that some of us now know each other so well online and in person that we can predict the type of responses - sometimes it has put me off as I've thought 'I just can't be bothered to argue with so and so' who will reply with 'such and such'.
Despite claims of there are not being too much politics, and maybe there is some validity in the argument, in my experience that's not the generally accepted view. I know people who have looked in and stated they wouldn't bother again as it is always political. Politics, especially national politics, is a massive turn off for many. Andy is absolutely spot on as usual in this regard.
As has been pointed out to keep the forum fresh new blood is needed, this is clear. Maybe Paul needs to go back and reassess the forum. Why not open it to the public again? I am certain it will be very popular. I know this has been brought up many times before before and Paul understandably does not wish to become entangled in legal turmoil, but that was a couple of years ago, and a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. Why not try it again and see where it goes? To put it simply a restricted membership will simply run out of topics, and new debate.
This is absolutely not a criticism Paul, and please don't take it as such, but maybe a problem is the name here. It's not really a Forum for Dover, more of a debating club for a limited group of locals, and I think the perceived exclusivity may deter applications to join. If you are really worried about accountability should you open it up again, why not have a legal contract towards injudicious comments clearly ticked and signed for before a member posts? Most forums operate this way.
Please take the above a positive suggestion, not a criticism. There is some great stuff on here whch is why I'm always looking in every day even if not posting very much.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
29 September 2009
19:0129507
