Sticky threads & the tenor of the Discussion Group

[Garland Bayley]

C'mon Tom. Let Ran have a life. Deleting all the obnoxious posts? You are trying to insure Pat wins all future matches with him due to his rustiness. Now delete that obnoxious post!

[TEPaul]

"You are trying to insure Pat wins all future matches with him due to his rustiness."


That's some really bad analysis, Pal. It's quite the opposite. I try to insure that Morrissett wins all future matches against Mucci and the last two times out I was on hand to hopefully help that that would be the case and it was!!   

[Alex Miller]

Speaking of large corporate threads, ESPN's comments, like Yahoo's and many others has a "report to moderator" option so posts which shouldn't see the light of day are disposed of as quickly as possible. This way if anyone has a problem with a post someone can review it without having to search for the blight in question

[Bill_McBride]

Speaking of large corporate threads, ESPN's comments, like Yahoo's and many others has a "report to moderator" option so posts which shouldn't see the light of day are disposed of as quickly as possible. This way if anyone has a problem with a post someone can review it without having to search for the blight in question

Good call, Alex.  Those "Report to moderator" buttons must get a real workout, I have never seen such savagely incoherent, moronic posts as those you'll see every day on boards like MLB.com or even the Washington Post.  It's facilitated by the anonymity of the Internet with aliases, one reason I think the level of decorum in our barroom brawls seldom gets down to moronic.

[Jud_T]

Sidebar:

Those looking for a more hands-on moderator might want to take a peek and make sure their name appears on the annual contributions list before making more work for our hosts...

[Bill Brightly]

Ran,

I know how much you abhor the idea of acting as a policeman on this site. However, please consider this: when you (or someone you assign to the task) happen to read a post that is totally inappropriate, suspend the poster for 30 days. Hit a button that sends this type of message:

        Your last post was deemed to be inappropriate and your posting privileges have been suspended for 30 days. After 30 days you are welcome    to post again but any further failure to adhere to the standards expected at CGA.com will result in permanent removal.

I am NOT suggesting that you have to read every post, but rather, when you happen to read one that is inappropriate, hit the button and suspend the guy.  I realize that this requires a bit of extra work, but I also know that this site and how it is perceived by others is very important to you. Once the word gets out, I bet ALL posters will finally stop and THINK before they actually hit the post button. I think many of the personal attacks will stop. I think the DG will improve very quickly.

Not everyone is a Southern gentleman. Sadly, many men are just grown up boys who need someone to define the boundaries, but after they have been punished once and the boundaries are known, they actually do follow the rules.

[Philip Gawith]

Clearly Ran faces some tough calls in his purging mission because we all know that some of the people with most to add (orders of magnitude more than me) are also the worst sinners when it comes to obnoxious behaviour. Sadly, as Tony's post hints but does not explicitly say, some of the behaviour displayed on this site is of a pathological nature - that is, far too deep-seated to be reasonably capable of reform.

I am completely with Ran in his desire to clean up the site and from where I sit, no amount of fine content can justify the behaviour of some posters. As SL Solow points out, it is entirely possible to hold strong opinions and voice them in a civil fashion. Manners do indeed maketh the man, and those who find this dictum too hard to live by should find a happier home elsewhere.

It is impossible for many of us to be appreciative of content when it is coated in poisonous bile. It is like being asked to look for diamonds in a stinking sewer. Why should we bother? There is enough good stuff around without needing to put up with the stench which attaches to too much of the posting.

[Ian Andrew]

x

[Ulrich Mayring]

How many people are actually knowledgeable and (occasionally) aggressive at the same time? Can't be more than a handful on this site. What I've seen in other forums is that certain users can be set to "moderated" in which case their postings will not appear until a moderator approves of them (possibly in an edited form).

Yeah, it's childish and a lot of extra work, but the only way to have your cake and eat it. Otherwise you're going to have to weigh people's contributions against their malfunctions.

Ulrich

[PThomas]

Ran's a man of his word:  the number of participants is way down

random thoughts:  .i hate to read that other potential participants are scared away by some behavior of current participants;

Ran shouldnt have to babysit, he must have better things to do...but how to stop some of what he describes without doing so??

[RJ_Daley]

A couple of random thoughts about being a cop on GCA.com and 'laying down the law' if you will indulge someone that was a cop and has an idea that laying down the law in forums or on the street has similarities and comes with certain after affects and unintended consequences. 

When you have a disorderly situation, or environment that is becoming dominated by a few wrong actors, you can put the iron boot down, take them off (so to speak) and you might get a measure of compliance, but you more often create a reign of terror that actually makes you less respected, if not hated, even by those that wish you'd do something.  That is because, you not only arrest (or delete) one person that may have broken the law, but you usually piss off all his kin, friends, and supporters that see you as the bad guy.  Even those that wished someone would do something about that bad actor, sometimes end up criticizing how you went about it. 

Maybe that is a little obscure or criptic.  But, what I'm trying to say is that measured and subtle, yet focused on moving forward, sort of enforcement is way better than those black and white, death penalty (banishment) sort of approaches.  You will inevitably make a decsion to to banish someone that others find some kinship or identify with, and then you make those others angry, withdrawn, perhaps afraid to speak freely, and you kill the spirit of participation.  If you set this up as elite and heady of golf course architecture only, and tolerate nothing else, or tolerate something else depending upon who it is as a favorite fair haired poster, you will become effete and breed yourself out of existence.

Personal attacks are an offense to the community, and need a cop.  If you step up to be the cop, that is fine and measured enforcement is supported by the community.  But, beware of becoming John Wayne and dropping the hammer excessively, because it does have ripple effects you may not want for the overall product.

Actually, people all like firemen because they always help.  But, when a cop does the job, someone don't like it and neither do many others in sympathy.  Some will praise you, but many will still criticise you because they believe they could have done it better.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Thank you Dick as usual a thoughtful reply that seems to be entirely appropriate to the situation. You are right to point out the possible pitfalls of one course of action.

Can I ask you a few questions?

Why do you so rarely post these days, I’ll bet you reached the 9000 mark some time ago?  Do you perceive a different atmosphere over the whole site, is it a less attractive place to hang out or is that just my take on the situation?  Do you think there is a problem?


For this community to thrive IMO something needs to be done.  Ran has limited time. So assuming you do think there’s a need for change, I’d be interested to hear how you’d go about it.

(I have to add that it’s only a discussion group and shouldn’t need the full resources of the Police and the Fire Brigade to sort out ).

[Colin Macqueen]

I think R J’s post #61 is timely and insightful. I realise I am a very much a freshman as far as this forum is concerned and do not necessarily know or understand the history, connections or friendships that some of the protagonists have. I was, and still am, enthralled by the content but was somewhat surprised at times at the overly adversarial approach taken.

I am hoping (beyond hope?) that the simple act of this laundry being aired will induce a tempering in the behaviour of any who believe they are at fault. That would make Ran’s life a lot simpler.

Colin

[RJ_Daley]

Tony, it is probably correct that I haven't been posting too much lately.  It is not necessarily about being turned off by the quality of posts by various participants.  I have been on this site long enough to generally realise when a thread has gone stale or is regurgitation of what we have covered in depth many times before. 

Personally, I find I have little more to say on the subject that isn't repeating myself over and over.  Just ask my wife about my repeating myself over and over... 

I had gone through a period of not getting around much to play other new and interesting golf courses, and the new courses that have come about in recent years are well covered.

For instance, I just got back from Nebraska and had a wonderful and satisfying couple of days play at the new courses at Prairie Club.  I'm ruminating a bit, trying to come up with something insightful or useful to say about them that hasn't already been said in a couple of good threads on the two new courses, already.  I'll say this now, they are great, different in character and degree of difficulty, but both wonderful new additions to sand hills golf. 


But, it isn't a matter of being offput by some of the notable personal detractions that have ocurred here.  I don't like it but in my view they are avoidable if you don't read it, and still plenty of interesting new stuff by people still getting around to see the good stuff.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

I hope I don't ruffle any feathers with this post. Here's what I think is the good, the bad and the ugly about the DG.

The Good ...

I think the DG is a brilliant resource. I love checking it every day, and I still cannot believe that I am a member of a forum that allows me to converse with the top names in golf architecture.

I was flicking through the list of contributors to one of Paul Daley's Golf Architecture volumes, and as I read down through the contents, I kept repeating to myself "He's on GCA.com, ohh and he's on GCA.com, and him, and him, etc." Isn't that an incredible thing? I can read their articles and then pop onto the DG and ask them a question.

Two other areas that make the DG such a remarkable forum :

The numerous course reviews that are posted. I won't mention names as you all know who you are, but you're effort and dedication is really appreciated by me anyway. It's a lot of work to take the pictures and upload them to a host site, re-size them, and then begin the difficult task of writing about each hole. It can take hours, and it must be a big letdown when your course review plummets down the DG page quicker than Michael Campbell's world ranking. Because of the large number of new topics posted each day, these course reviews sometimes get lost in the noise created by OTs, course ranking topics, etc. I think that all course reviews should be sticky topics for at least one day.

The construction, and pre- and post-renovation pictures that are unfortunately not posted so often. More often than not, these pictures are the only means us people not in the business, have of learning how a course is constructed. For those of you involved in the business, I'd ask you to post more photos of clearing, grading, drainage, construction, etc. if you can. I'd also like to see pictures showing maintenance in action (and I'm not talking about Anthony hijacking a triplex mower at TOC).

The Bad (but I can live with it)...

Too many topic are exclusionary. Take this altered example of a topic that has appeared in the past;

"How would architect X renovate course Y?"

where X is usually TD or C&C. This is not an actual topic that appeared, but it's very similar to some topics that were posted in the last year or so. I mean no disrespect to TD and C&C, as they are not at fault, but what kind of signal is a topic like this sending to the other GCAs on the DG?

Which begs the question: why do some of the architects on the DG remain here. I'm thinking of people like Jeff, Ian, Ben, Adrian, Brian, Ryan, Kelly, Robin, Mike, etc.. (Sorry I've left loads out, but I don't know who all the GCAs on the DG are). I think they have all shown a lot of guts to stick with the DG, despite being ignored most of the time.

I haven't played a TD or C&C course, so I cannot comment on whether I like their courses or not. But I would ask you guys to make the effort and play courses by other architects on the DG, and then file a report with pictures. Isn't it a shame that I cannot name one Jeff Brauer course. I know I can check him up on Google! but I'd rather read the opinions of members of this DG that have played one of his courses.

I had an astronomy professor at university who absolutely loved listening to Shostakovich. As you are well aware, when you're observing the night sky at a telescope site, you need to open the dome of the telescope otherwise you'll see nothing. It's rule no 1 in the "Dummy's Guide to Astronomy". Anyway, my professor was once quoted as saying;

"If Shostakovich forgot to open the dome, it would be a masterpiece!".

Of course Shostakovich wasn't an astronomer, but do some here revere certain GCAs in the same way that my astronomy professor revered Shostakovich.

I find that the course rating topics are a total bore. I choose not to read topics that compare one course to another, without actually giving valid golf architectural reasons why one course is better than another. Arguing if course X at position 34 on "The Really Interesting Golf Magazine that promotes course rankings because it sells this magazine" should be ahead of course Y at position 23 is futile and a total waste of time in my opinion. By all means, compare courses, but forget about the position and the magazine. I stopped buying golf magazines a long time ago as they are total crap. Think about it, do you really need a golf magazine to tell you that course X is no 27 in the world?

As far as I'm concerned, the ranking of courses only perpetuates the problem. It steers us away from the lesser known courses, which in turn ensures that we do not get to know the lesser known, but probably very talented architects.

and finally the downright ugly...(which doesn't bother me at all)

The bickering, the name calling, the insults, the sarcasm, etc. I just don't understand it. Thankfully this type of behaviour is confined to a few very specific topics. It's not a true representation of atmosphere of the DG. It's quite easy to gauge beforehand if the topic will degenerate into a slagging match, so it's easy to avoid in most cases. What surprises me, is that even after all these years, some of those involved haven't realised by now, that it's futile to argue with certain people. You must know by now that person X always takes a certain stance, so why flog a dead horse?

[George Pazin]

Which begs the question: why do some of the architects on the DG remain here. I'm thinking of people like Jeff, Ian, Ben, Adrian, Brian, Ryan, Kelly, Robin, Mike, etc.. (Sorry I've left loads out, but I don't know who all the GCAs on the DG are). I think they have all shown a lot of guts to stick with the DG, despite being ignored most of the time.

I haven't played a TD or C&C course, so I cannot comment on whether I like their courses or not. But I would ask you guys to make the effort and play courses by other architects on the DG, and then file a report with pictures. Isn't it a shame that I cannot name one Jeff Brauer course. I know I can check him up on Google! but I'd rather read the opinions of members of this DG that have played one of his courses.

Helluva post, mostly terrific.

I do take issue with this segment. Why do the folks you mentioned post on here? The same reason as all of us - they love golf course architecture. And I don't think they are even remotely ignored - in fact, I'd go so far as to say your brief list encompasses some of the most respected posters on here. Damn near all of us regular guys genuflect to these gcas on a regular basis.

Most of us have taken the time to play courses built by less well known architects who post on here and have written extensively about them. There is a gigantic amount of praise for Jeff Brauer's Giants Ridge courses, for instance; there has been widespread acclaim for Ian's work on restoration work at some of Thompson's greats; nary a month goes by with some lucky poster gushing about Mike N's Wolf Point (hopefully I will be one of them soon); and there have been actual organized outings at Kelly's courses. I can't say much about the overseas guys, but I'd guess a lot of our overseas posters have sought out their work as well. (Except maybe Ryan's - he's in China!)

This may simply be a product of how long you've been on here, but I think you'll find most if not all of the architects who post on here are almost as beloved as Golf's Most Beloved...

And as for any perceived bias toward Tom or C&C, I'd say they have more than earned it, many times over. It still blows my mind that I can ask Tom questions and he always answers them promptly and thoroughly. And anyone who was lucky enough to attend the Hidden Creek outing will likely always hold Bill Coore in high esteem. The fact that we hold these two architects in such high regard in no way whatsoever detracts from the feelings we have for the others who post on here.

[JC Jones]

I had an astronomy professor at university who absolutely loved listening to Shostakovich. As you are well aware, when you're observing the night sky at a telescope site, you need to open the dome of the telescope otherwise you'll see nothing. It's rule no 1 in the "Dummy's Guide to Astronomy". Anyway, my professor was once quoted as saying;

"If Shostakovich forgot to open the dome, it would be a masterpiece!".

Of course Shostakovich wasn't an astronomer, but do some here revere certain GCAs in the same way that my astronomy professor revered Shostakovich.

This is not only a great quote but a great job on your part of making a very persuasive point.  Well done.

[Ran Morrissett]

Jeff,

There is no planned or pre-determined end game for GolfClubAtlas.com other than world domination  of course. All we want is for the site to grow and flourish and add to the subject of golf course architecture. By 'growing', I mean reaching more people, in the hopes (false or not) that it might help people get enthralled by this great subject. The more knowledge there is out there on golf course architecture, the better the land will be treated. The better the land is treated, the better the playing environment, and the better the playing environment, the more likely the sport is to attract new players IMO. Personally, I have been hooked on golf course architecture for thirty-five years and I don't see my interest level waning until some one makes a book out of Tom Paul's one million posts and forces me to read it .

All,

In addition to some of the excellent points suggested above (I really like Bill Brightly's for instance), I have received some very interesting instant messages. One suggested a cap of 1000 posts per annum per poster so that no one (or few) personalities dominate the Discussion Group. They suggest that an average beyond three posts a day isn't 'healthy' and is bound to lead to some ridiculousness. Several people note that it is the most frequent posters who let the site down the most. Another suggested getting rid of the post count as it confers some sort of knowledge base (i.e. the more posts, the more the person has to add to the subject which, alas, isn't true). Another suggested a Tom Doak-isque star system. Triple stars for the Mark Rowlinson, Sean Arble, Chris Buie types who 1) make highly informative posts and 2) stay on subject year after year,  down to single stars for people on board for over over twelve months that add to the overall tenor. Also, questions marks for Tom Paul et al who have great information but who also act like they weren't held as a child . Not to worry, Ben and I certainly won't be grading posters so the star system won't get off the ground but it WAS thought provoking in terms of acknowledging those who contribute in a meaningful manner.

Also, as part of this cleansing process, look at the most recent addition to the Discussion Group. Yes, one of the infamous old guard has returned, a man whose ability to create thought - as well as rage - provoking posts needs no introduction:  John Kavanaugh. We are after vigorous intellectual debate here and he delivers on that score like few others.

It has been a tough week but the best days of GolfClubAtlas lie ahead and Ben and I thank you for your support.

Cheers,

[Tom Huckaby]

LOL
The fox is allowed back in the henhouse, after killing most of the chickens before.

Gotta love it.

OK, why the hell not?

It shall be interesting to see how John behaves.  His track record of avoiding personal attacks was not great his first go-round.  But I am all for redemption.  Welcome back, John.  I shall come back with you.. haven't posted much myself in the last year or two.

As for the rest, this forum ebbs and flows, ebbs and flows, always has, always will.  Nothing happening now is much different that what's ever happened in here.  Oh, we have been forced-fed Merion to a nauseating extent, but hell, other topics dominated before that.

Long live GCA.

[TEPaul]

Ran:

Vis-a-vis your #68, I can certainly back off on the quantity of my posts in the future, but for me, as I mentioned to you yesterday, there is one really burning issue that needs to be addressed by this website and logically that would be you!

That burning issue is the treatment of various clubs and their memberships and friends on here when it comes to accessing and discussing historical information at or about those clubs. I believe this website is desperately in need of an SOP articulation of what you expect and do not expect in this vein from the participants and contributors to this website. It may even be helpful to you and the website to get some feedback from some of these signficant clubs about how they would ideally like to be approached and treated when anyone shows interest in researching, writing about and discussing their historical material and their histories on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com or its DG.

If this website really wants ultimate respect, I believe THIS is the most important place and issue for it to begin!

I believe that this issue is what is fundamentally behind the on-going disaster on here that can collectively be called "The Merion Threads."

What do you think and say about this particular issue, Ran, and perhaps the need for a really good SOP articulation on this issue from and by GOLFCLUBATLAS.com?

[George Pazin]

I had an astronomy professor at university who absolutely loved listening to Shostakovich. As you are well aware, when you're observing the night sky at a telescope site, you need to open the dome of the telescope otherwise you'll see nothing. It's rule no 1 in the "Dummy's Guide to Astronomy". Anyway, my professor was once quoted as saying;

"If Shostakovich forgot to open the dome, it would be a masterpiece!".

Of course Shostakovich wasn't an astronomer, but do some here revere certain GCAs in the same way that my astronomy professor revered Shostakovich.

This is not only a great quote but a great job on your part of making a very persuasive point.  Well done.

It is indeed clever, but do you find it true on here? If there's one thing I've seen repeatedly over the years, it's a willingness to call bullshit on just about anyone at just about any time, which does not seem to equate to the pithy remark.

And I have no doubt that had Shostakovich forgotten to open the dome, it would be a masterpiece...

[JC Jones]

I had an astronomy professor at university who absolutely loved listening to Shostakovich. As you are well aware, when you're observing the night sky at a telescope site, you need to open the dome of the telescope otherwise you'll see nothing. It's rule no 1 in the "Dummy's Guide to Astronomy". Anyway, my professor was once quoted as saying;

"If Shostakovich forgot to open the dome, it would be a masterpiece!".

Of course Shostakovich wasn't an astronomer, but do some here revere certain GCAs in the same way that my astronomy professor revered Shostakovich.

This is not only a great quote but a great job on your part of making a very persuasive point.  Well done.

It is indeed clever, but do you find it true on here? If there's one thing I've seen repeatedly over the years, it's a willingness to call bullshit on just about anyone at just about any time, which does not seem to equate to the pithy remark.

And I have no doubt that had Shostakovich forgotten to open the dome, it would be a masterpiece...

I think there are very few people on here that are willing to call bullshit on SOME, relatively untouchable, people.  I also think, just look at the way Dismal River has been discussed by those who haven't played it vs Sand Hills by those who haven't played it, that certain architects get a benefit of a doubt and others do not.  I'm not saying those particular architects haven't earned it, I'm just saying Sugarloaf Mountain is not very good regardless of who the architects were (I happen to really like Hidden Creek, by the way).

[Mike Sweeney]

 I'm not saying those particular architects haven't earned it, I'm just saying Sugarloaf Mountain is not very good regardless of who the architects were (I happen to really like Hidden Creek, by the way).

Sugarloaf has 17 good holes.  No spectacular holes and only one bad hole (the 18th).  WPB had 18 good holes, no weak holes and a couple great holes.  To me, Belvedere has 3 weak holes (though 1 of them could be great if restored to its original form), 6 great holes and 9 good holes.  Belvedere is more fun than WPB which is more fun that Sugarloaf.

Keep in mind though, these are all really good courses and I'd give them all a 6.5-7 on the Doak scale.

Other than the move to Carolina, what happened at Sugarloaf ?

[George Pazin]

I think there are very few people on here that are willing to call bullshit on SOME, relatively untouchable, people.  I also think, just look at the way Dismal River has been discussed by those who haven't played it vs Sand Hills by those who haven't played it, that certain architects get a benefit of a doubt and others do not.  I'm not saying those particular architects haven't earned it, I'm just saying Sugarloaf Mountain is not very good regardless of who the architects were (I happen to really like Hidden Creek, by the way).

Waaaaaaaaaaaaay too easy to refute, my friend.

How many people have played both Sand Hills and DR? Are those who prefer one to the other saying the other is terrible?

Haven't played Sugarloaf, wish I owned one of those McMansions...or more accurately, my wife wishes I owned one of those McMansions.

Are there some untouchables on here? Not in my experience. Are there some who have earned the right to be given the benefit of the doubt? Sure, that's human nature. I'll tell you flat out I will go out of my way to play a Tom D before I play my next Pete Dye - and I know Tom D has a really really really high opinion of Pete Dye!

There are favored, there are unfavored - this happens in every group, every field, every thing. That's life, not a shortcoming of this site or group of posters.

[Mike Benham]

My obligation is to make this the best site it can be in regards to golf course architecture and we will always continue to seek people with those two qualities around the world.

Pretty simple right there and some should remember the Golden Rule "He who has the gold, makes the rules".