[Mark Pearce]

I oppose breaking the site into sections. It's not the location of the OT topics that are the problem, it's the time it takes to post on the subject.

I try to keep my pulse on the nature of the discussion of the board in order to time when I want to introduce topics about golf architecture for discussion. Almost two years ago, I started a thread on the amount of time a golf course needs to let pass before the architecture reaches full potential.

It got no responses over the course of the first few months and a bump or two from 20th page oblivion. FINALLY, after my third bump, it generated some good discussion.

Considering that one of the supposed sacred cow architects of the so-called GCA.com cognoscenti responded to the question of what makes a golf course great with one word, "time,"  I figured this was both a germaine and good topic from the discussion board.

While it is not my place to state the objective of the site, I've always come here with the priority of discussing golf courses and golf architecture. Nowhere on this website does it say this is a forum for ANY golf topic. This is not a general golf forum, and this is not a grillroom, where any subject can be discussed. This is not a forum regarding players, golf clubs (the weapon), or clubs (the group of people).

Next time the urge to start a thread on Michelle Wie happens, I suggest the poster remember that and take the discussion to a more general golf discussion group. I'd be much more inclined to post and respond to posts if I knew some of the more keen minds on this site were willing to devote their time to golf course and architecture discussion and not their opinions as to whether or not Michelle Wie should use the lavatory between the 9th and 10th tees, or risk offending her playing partners by going on the 12th tee.

It's frustrating watching time get wasted discussing OT threads when perfectly good golf architecture threads go by the wayside because it's easier to not have to actually think or contribute anything of substance.

I agree with your first sentence and disagree with just about everything else.  I can't believe you can seriously complain about the time taken to reply to off topic threads.  ere's a simple answer - don't.  If you don't want to waste time with off topic thread then just ignore them.  No-on's making you read or post on these threads.  It's also wrong to suggest that having different sub-fora for topics such as "I'm in Chipping Sodbury next week, where should I play?".  People may post in those fora but no-one will read them.  I come here for architectural discussion but I enjoy the banter and I've already met several GCA posters, most of whom I look forward to meeting again .  Take away the OT threads and I believe you'll lose much of the sense of community.

[Michael Whitaker]

Tommy,

I agree that civility should rule on this board. We're all adults and should act accordingly. I don't think veiled threats to cancel someone's membership or reduce the size of the board are very adult... it comes across more like a prepubescent retaliation.

This is obviously not just about OT topics, because I have reviewed your past 100 or so posts on GCA.com and LOTS of them have nothing whatsoever to do with golf course architecture.

You said: This has always been the rule of this website's discussion group and many older members know this, so to make it especially easy for yourself, go by that rule from now on.

Saying "many older members know this" implies that "newer" members don't know the "rule." If that is true, why don't they know the "rule?" Where has this "rule" been posted, Tommy? The only place I can find any mention is within the threads that pop up when someone doesn't like something that has happened on this board.

I've gained a good bit of GCA knowledge, made some great friends and participated in some wonderful outings as a result of this board. For that I'm thankful to Ran for starting this project "back in the day." The event at Hoylake last year was amazing and, you know what, the whole thing was organized by a bunch of non-American newcomers! But, Ran still seemed to have a great time. Gasp!!!

I don't want to be a member of any club (American or otherwise) that is run autocratically by individuals who make up the rules as they go along to suit a handful of old time insiders.

Here are my final thoughts on this subject:

Concerning the board: State the "rules." Set the standard. Then live by it. The moderators should do just that... moderate. Lack of attentive moderators has had as much to do with the board getting out of hand as anything.

Concerning access requests, feuds, and personal problems: This is the INTERNET for God's sake. Caveat Emptor!!!

[astavrides]

I oppose breaking the site into sections. It's not the location of the OT topics that are the problem, it's the time it takes to post on the subject.

I try to keep my pulse on the nature of the discussion of the board in order to time when I want to introduce topics about golf architecture for discussion. Almost two years ago, I started a thread on the amount of time a golf course needs to let pass before the architecture reaches full potential.

It got no responses over the course of the first few months and a bump or two from 20th page oblivion. FINALLY, after my third bump, it generated some good discussion.

Considering that one of the supposed sacred cow architects of the so-called GCA.com cognoscenti responded to the question of what makes a golf course great with one word, "time,"  I figured this was both a germaine and good topic from the discussion board.

While it is not my place to state the objective of the site, I've always come here with the priority of discussing golf courses and golf architecture. Nowhere on this website does it say this is a forum for ANY golf topic. This is not a general golf forum, and this is not a grillroom, where any subject can be discussed. This is not a forum regarding players, golf clubs (the weapon), or clubs (the group of people).

Next time the urge to start a thread on Michelle Wie happens, I suggest the poster remember that and take the discussion to a more general golf discussion group. I'd be much more inclined to post and respond to posts if I knew some of the more keen minds on this site were willing to devote their time to golf course and architecture discussion and not their opinions as to whether or not Michelle Wie should use the lavatory between the 9th and 10th tees, or risk offending her playing partners by going on the 12th tee.

It's frustrating watching time get wasted discussing OT threads when perfectly good golf architecture threads go by the wayside because it's easier to not have to actually think or contribute anything of substance.

I agree with your first sentence and disagree with just about everything else.  I can't believe you can seriously complain about the time taken to reply to off topic threads.  ere's a simple answer - don't.  If you don't want to waste time with off topic thread then just ignore them.  No-on's making you read or post on these threads.  It's also wrong to suggest that having different sub-fora for topics such as "I'm in Chipping Sodbury next week, where should I play?".  People may post in those fora but no-one will read them.  I come here for architectural discussion but I enjoy the banter and I've already met several GCA posters, most of whom I look forward to meeting again .  Take away the OT threads and I believe you'll lose much of the sense of community.

I think Kyle's point was not that he was complaining about his time spent on OT threads, but that it was taking time from others who would otherwise be contributing to the architecture threads.

[Steve Lang]

 

EXCELLENT TOMMIE.. TITLES MAY NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE, BUT..

WE ARE ALL NEWBIES IN THIS CHALLENGE..  

Personal responsibility can make a difference

[Kalen Braley]

Kyle,

I understand where you are coming from in terms of what the site is supposed to be about.  And I think in large part it accomplishes this.  I've posted several course profiles on here which if you look on the home page is one of the most direct and fundamental purposes of this site. Some of them have generated lots of discussion while others only a post or two.  I don't expect people to comment on them, but if they do I'm more than happy to discuss it. And thats all fine with me, I enjoy doing them and will continue to do them.

But I compare this to the people that we work with.  Do you spend every last moment talking only about work related things??  Do you not talk about the local sports team, or thier personal lives, or other stuff like that?  

I play golf with the guys I work with, have BBQs, go out to lunch, and otherwise hang out.  And when we do those things I can guarantee little of the discussion is work related.  I don't see how that can't be any different here.  Shivas has very effectively drilled the reasons home as to why it is this way, and should remain IMO.

I absolutly love this site and look forward to it on a daily basis.  It would be a shame to "sterilize it" and only allow hardcore architecture grindage.....which don't get me wrong, I absolutly enjoy the threads where those in the know banter back and forth...

[Tim Bert]

The Shivas cheater line thread sums up my thoughts on this topic pretty well.

That thread was started under the guise of a GCA topic with a quick comment about cheater lines compromising architecture and then BAM - one post later we were off topic and running for 33 pages of back and forth from some of the best contributors here.  It was 33 pages that couldn't keep me awake for more than 20 minutes, so I admit I didn't check every post but I saw plenty of it to know it wasn't on topic.

I can see Kyle's point about threads like that pulling great contributors away from posting on topic (I hope Kyle didnt take part in that thread after his comments, but I didn't check!)  At the same time, if a thread like that Keeps Mucci, TEPaul, Shivas, and others coming back to the well - why should that bother me or anyone else.

Under the new rules, I'm not sure if a thread like that gets a free pass as on-topic, but it racked up more posts than any other on the entire web site, so several people must have enjoyed it.  Those that found it mindless like myself were free to steer away.  At the end of the day, I don't think it diminished the quality of this site.

[Garland Bayley]

Emotions run high when a small portion of 1500 people (all grown men) get fidgety with their keyboard in the middle of the night.  Very John Wayne-esque. not.

...

Ahem, Eric,

Perhaps you would care to revise that last statement. This, after all, is not ANGC.

[Peter_Herreid]

Tommy,

Before I go off into some self-imposed exile, what is it exactly that annoyed you so much, that you felt that you had to issue a challenge?

If it wasn't for the extraneous banter that takes place here, this site would be deader than a meeting of Shakers. Shall  we discuss the vagaries of the NGLA's 6th greens' angles ad infinitum?

Answers, please.

Bob

Tommy,

In the last few days, you have removed a GCA participant without ever directly communicating with him who in the last year has:

* hosted many GCAers at his own Top 100 golf club

* is hosting a "blind" (never met him) GCA participant on Wednesday at his club despite being tossed off GCA

* organized and ran an unofficial GCA/Golfweek outing at Mountain Lake that was attended by numerous participants here and Golfweek including: Brad Klein, Jonathon Cummings, Scott Wood, Daryl Boe, Tiger Bernhardt, Bill McBride, Mike Policano, myself, a variety of the Board of Mountain Lake that has been very friendly to many members of this GCA group, and many others that may not want to be mentioned here. I remember Brad Klein issuing an email to the group giving his thanks that he did not have to set up the tee times for this assortment of characters who all want to be in the first group!

* arranged a Fishers Island trip for Bob Huntley that Bob called one of his Top 5 experiences. Arranged another Long Island trip for Bob Huntley that unfortunately had to be rescheduled.

* has acted as the "front man" for members of two "top 5 clubs on GCA" that simply don't want to deal with all the craziness of organizing these trips, but do appreciate hosting people who are truely grateful of seeing their courses.

* has sent in a GCA contribution for 5 straight years.

Tommy, you NEVER once communicated with this person by phone, email or IM. You better than anyone know how unappreciated the organizers of these events are from participants. In the words of Bob Huntley, "Answers please?"

If the gentleman, and I use that term specifically, that Mike is referring to is the Mountain Lake member I think it is, then it is an utter embarassment that he has been removed from GCA in this manner, and indeed, answers are required.

Perhaps this is a gross mistake, an accident of a key stroke, in which case everyone is human and mistakes are made--but no apologies!!!

This GCA (ex-) member to whom I think Mike is referring is one of the true gentleman of the game and someone who has done more to foster directly the ability of all different types of golfers to experience the best of golf course history and architecture than just about anyone I know.  To not have him here as a continuing member is just flat-out wrong!

[John_Cullum]

I have participated in several internet discussion groups over the last few years, and in my experience I would observe that far fewer posts are deleted on GCA.com than any of the others. Tommy is very slow to pull the trigger. I believe that when he deletes a post or a thread, it is because he believes it's the right thing to do, and he is not doing it out of some childish pique. Now you or I might think he is mistaken when he deletes something, and it's always a little aggravating, but it's not personal. Tommy has deleted some of my comments in the past, and we remain good friends. He's just doing what he believes is necessary.

Ran has given Tommy the ability to moderate this discussion group. At such time as Ran believes Tommy is doing a poor job, he'll take that ability away. As it stands now, I believe everyone should presume Tommy has Ran's support. Any time a veteran poster gets kicked off, you can be assured it was after much deliberation.

Read Ran's feature interview at item numbers 17 and 19. He gives you a pretty good idea of how things should go.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tommy,
If you're acting as a moderator, I'd get your name added with Ran and Ben to the main page.   That would set your place of authority pretty quickly.  I had to read every post in this thread to sort-of figure out that you're now a moderator.

Fortunately, this is probably the best, most civilized board I frequent.  Disagreements are handled well, and we continue to learn from each other.

Kumbaya

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I have to say that reading the posts in a thread like this saddens me enormously.  Surely we are here because we have a common interest.  When I have met anyone from this site I have enjoyed their company and, boy, I've enjoyed their hospitality!  Of course we don't have to agree about religion, American Football or Ozzie Rules, vegetarianism or female circumcision.  We do, however, have to respect each others' opinions if only because we have this interest in GCA in common.  If someone says that they like Celtic Manor and you don't, don't dismiss them.  Find out what it is about Celtic Manor that they admire and treat their views with respect.  You don't have to agree and are free to post an objective counter-view.  But keep it at that level.

What I find sometimes distasteful about a few posters on GCA is a certain assumption that certain architects and certain courses are unquestionable and certain others are automatically worthy of derision.  There is a dismissiveness that might be found in certain pro-party newspapers, an assumption that everyone who votes for a political particular party signs up to a complete agenda.  I mentioned Celtic Manor.  I don't think it's all bad - 'abhorrent' as someone said of it here.  I don't think the Belfry is all bad - I'm not saying it's Swinley Forest or Royal Ashdown, but it does have some jolly good holes and it has served a very useful purpose.  It is a focus for European golf and for its belief in itself.  You cannot say the same of any Open Championship courses - yes, we've had European winners but we've had a huge number of Americans, Australians, South Africans, even the odd Argentine.  We welcome these winners and they are generally and genuinely loved on these shores.  But only the Belfry has actually provided a partisan focus.

But, then, the liberal in me asks why we should have or need a partisan focus, which brings me back to my original point.  Let us have far less of the GCA party line (as laid down by certain opinionated posters, and certainly not by its founder/moderator) and rather more objectivity.

[Mike Sweeney]

Tommy, we have never met, but I know we would have a great time (and hopefully will one day),

FBD,

Let's see I have met both of you. How can a big Irish guy in New York bring together a  big Italian guy in Los Angeles with a Bald Scottish guy in Fife?

How about a Scottish musician with an Italian name that you both listen to on your next trip to The Old Course and Rustic Canyon.

http://streamos.warnermusic.com/wmedia/wmiuk/paolonutini/buckets/aolsession/PaoloNutini_JennyDontBeHastyLivev_Hi.asx

Now if Paolo Nutini does not create one big happy family, then it is probably time to go!

I miss Tom MacWood and his input and postings but we don't need 1500 Tom Mac's.

Tommy,

I could not answer your phone call in the car or else I would have no chance of negotiating a day of golf from my wife in LA over Labor Day!! I will call after you watch Paolo and he has created good karma for your game.  

[Marty Bonnar]

Mike,
post removed by polite request.

You and I are prime examples of the good of this place. Long may that kind of good continue. Whenohwhen are you coming to visit!?!?!

Paulo is a scream, isn't he! And Dario Franchitti and the DiRestas are coming! Look out, F1...

We do live in such interesting times...

FBD.

[Joe Hancock]

Mike,
post removed by polite request.

I don't recall anything in your post that was even vaguely out of line.....well, at least you weren't removed, Martin.....

Joe

[Mike Sweeney]

Whenohwhen are you coming to visit!?!?!

Ok, this is real insanity. I was invited to Scotland by a good friend who works for Diageo, which you may know, owns a bunch of scotch manufacturers. My wife loves him, it would be a week of scotch and golf treated by a number of local FBDrummers, AND I STILL CANT PULL IT OFF in September 2008!

By the way, I might come over just to play that 3rd or 4th hole at Carnoustie!

[Paul_Turner]

What's wrong with asking for access?

As a friend of mine here said once: "if you don't ask, the answer is always no."

[Mike Sweeney]

....well, at least you weren't removed, Martin.....

Joe

Joe,

We'll he asked for access from me in Orlando and we played Highland Links which is advertised as the greatest kept secret west of Scotland.

Oh wait, FBD paid for me and I have yet to pay him back.

FBD,

I allow you to have at me - off with that tall Irish head of mine!!!!

[Bill_McBride]

In my humble opinion, getting 1500 posters to agree on anything such as a strict code of conduct is like herding cats.  It can't be done, it isn't going to happen.

But there are two important concepts to note:

1.    Civility must be observed - no calling anybody out.  If you disagree, do so in a polite, non-confrontational manner.  Listen to the other person's viewpoint and respect it.

2.    Nobody makes you read those multi-page OT threads.  If you aren't interested, read another thread or start a new book.  "Chill out" as the kids would say.

Just my thoughts.  I enjoy the humorous side of GCA discussions as much as anybody, and I certainly enjoy the social side of GCA, the face to face golf games, trips, and outings.  It's just too bad to see the anti-social face of the internet experience - relative anonymity, non-recourse - get the better of too many discussions here.  If the two "rules" above were followed, this would be a better place.

[Marty Bonnar]

....well, at least you weren't removed, Martin.....

Joe

Joe,

We'll he asked for access from me in Orlando and we played Highland Links which is advertised as the greatest kept secret west of Scotland.

Oh wait, FBD paid for me and I have yet to pay him back.

FBD,

I allow you to have at me - off with that tall Irish head of mine!!!!

...if I could reach.

As I recall, the Guinness was on you! I'll buy the Belhaven's at Gleneagles and you can pay there

BTW, Highlands RESERVE. Some people are immune to marketing, clearly...!

FBD.

PS What my Uncle Bill said.

[Donnie Beck]

2.    Nobody makes you read those multi-page OT threads.  If you aren't interested, read another thread or start a new book.  "Chill out" as the kids would say.

Nobody makes you read those, but Ran has requested they be removed and he is the one paying the bills.. These posts take up 25-40% of the hosted space on this site. I challenge all of the OT posters to foot the bill and maybe they would have a leg to stand on. Until then I will respect Ran's wishes.

[Mike Sweeney]

2.    Nobody makes you read those multi-page OT threads.  If you aren't interested, read another thread or start a new book.  "Chill out" as the kids would say.

Nobody makes you read those, but Ran has requested they be removed and he is the one paying the bills.. These posts take up 25-40% of the hosted space on this site. I challenge all of the OT posters to foot the bill and maybe they would have a leg to stand on. Until then I will respect Ran's wishes.

Donnie,

I am not being a wise guy. I use Site Suite, which host GCA.com, as a hosting site service for a business that I am involved with, and I am more than happy to pay for 50% of the hosting cost here.

I have spoken to Tommy and this thread was mainly about access issues. Tommy gets put in the unenviable position of having to deal with the small percentage who abuse what should be common sense. Sometimes he makes mistakes and with the $0.00 salary that he receives, I think we should all give him a break at times.

There are few here that do not go off-topic at times. Creating the right balance is what is needed, and obviously opinions will differ about where that balance should stand.

I am the first to agree with Tom Paul that we need more Supers here and should allow them "fake" names to protect their jobs. However, too much of anyone group would seem boring to me.

Cheers.

PS. Waiting for your brown pictures, which probably are not too brown right now.

[Paul_Turner]

What are the horror stories of access requests on GCA?

[Mike Sweeney]

What are the horror stories of access requests on GCA?

Paul,

I got stiffed for a bill at the New York Athletic Club by one GCA person. I asked twice but will not ask more that that. To date, I have raised literally thousands of dollars for my son's old school through friends here, so it is a non event for me.

For someone that belongs to XYZ Top 5 club, which I do not, this can get real old after a couple of times when you don't run a charity outing to balance it out.

[mark chalfant]

Paul

I called Wayne M  at 2am last Tuesday and asked if I could play 36 with his contacts  at Mid  Ocean , that great Flynn course in Bermuda. He  hurt me by saying: "Mark  only  if you donate a pink Vespa to the Camden Boys club "  

[Michael Blake]

Posted by: mark chalfant

at Mid  Ocean , that great Flynn course in Bermuda.

I think you mean CB Macdonald?

...or an I missing part of the joke?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()