Sticky threads & the tenor of the Discussion Group

[Tony Weiler]

It's striking how 'multi-dimensional' this site is, i.e. how it operates on a number of levels at once, from the sacred (well, rarified at least) to the profane. When, say, the Paul Turners and Sean Arbles discuss some English course; or when the Tom Ds and Jeff Bs go back and forth on some practical draining issue; or when the Tom Ps and Tom Macs and Mike Cs and David Ms get into the details of co-temporaneous Merion documents  -- well, in those instances how many of us are NOT merely spectators and/or cheerleaders and/or dead weights dragging down an otherwise high-flying discussion. On the other hand, many of us deadwights might, for example, occassionally and in the very next post enliven a ranking thread, or a theoretical discussion on the nature of the sport, or an OT topic, or at least we might bug the hell out of Pat Mucci.

I think this is just fine, this variety - but the question (that no one really wants to ask or answer definitively) is: "What SHOULD gca.com be about?"...and if that answer is "Highly informed, articulate voices of opinion debating and discussing the great architecture of the world based on personal experience and extensive reading", well then someone needs to cut down the membership around here to about 100 people, and be done with it once and for all.  I'd be fine with that too.    

Peter, that is well said.  I have learned much here, but certainly don’t have the knowledge of architecture to contribute nearly as much as others.  I will say, however, that I hope to one day, as my knowledge of GCA and great golf courses continue to grow.  I am often reminded of the saying:  “Keep your mouth shut and others may think you are stupid, instead of opening your mouth and proving them right!”  If I am one who meets an end here, I will miss the friendships I have made just as much as what I’ve learned about GCA.  Fortunately, I know I do have some new friends for life. 

[Cristian]

I understand your concerns, it happens more and more that the first page of the DB is half or more filled with OT, or non-GCA or Banter-threads.

Your entire post is excellent, but I am picking out this sentence to highlight what I think is the misperception on here: I count 34 topics on the front page, and I only see 5 that are OT, and that is counting the Dixie Cup thread and the "How is your club surviving?" threads as OT, both of which could be called on topic.

I think we all tend to make much ado about nothing on here - the site is terrific. Could it be better? Maybe. But I am concerned that attempts to improve it will end up being counterproductive.

I agree with your assessment of the current DG front page. A testament perhaps that we are moving in the right direction. I did check before posting, but I have done the same check before and believe me, on many occasions the split has been far far worse in recent times.....

For the record:: In general your posts on this topic seem to stress that there is a lot more good than bad on this site, and of course you are dead right....

[George Pazin]

George - I wasn't talking about making sure the the toilets are clean and the grass trimmed... and you know that. The best clubs are run by one or two people who make all the serious decisions about who gets in and how everyone should act when they are on property. The problem here, IMHO, is that too few people are allowed to control the tone of conversations without any checks from "management." There have been a LOT of people shouted off of this site (or pushed into being non-contributors) by a few who are skilled at bullying their "opponents" into submission. An occasional "stop that" or "please change your tone" from a moderator would go a long way to improving the discourse here. Those kinds of requests from the rank-and-file on this site do not carry enough weight to do any good. How many threads have you seen where NUMEROUS requests have been made for someone to "tone it down" by the "ordinary" members of this site... only to be ignored or, often, make matters worse.

On occasion, even in the 19th hole at your favorite club, someone might have to say to a group having a "serious" discussion... "guys, you're getting a little out of control." In your setting most would heed the warning. On this site, however, that type of rebuke is often taken as an opportunity to try and come up with another "brilliant" or smartass comeback. Moderators would put a stop to that stuff in a hurry... just like a president/captain of a club looking up from his pint with a disapproving scowl.

The problem here is that no one with any authority ever challenges over-the-top comments or conversations until they are so far out of control (or feelings are so damaged) that there is nothing left to do but remove the offender from the site. We had one of those happen this week. I feel well timed comments... on an ongoing basis... from someone who carries weight... would prevent most of these situations from escalating beyond the point of no return.

Very fair points, Michael. I can't say I disagree with the intent behind your ideas.

But set aside the theoretical objections I have and consider the practical:

Who is going to read all the threads and act as moderator? Is someone going to pay someone to do this? I read as many threads on here as almost anyone and I'm lucky to read 10% of what's out there - a quick scan of the front page confirms that.

How is it going to affect the personal relationships of this one person, if they are a poster? If they are not a poster, how can they stay current on who's friends and who isn't?

I look at my own interactions with Matt Ward. We fight all the time, because we fundamentally disagree over what golf course architecture is. We shout at each other every week, yet neither of us changes. Should one of us be banned? Scolded? I sure don't think I should be, and I'm equally sure Matt doesn't think he should be, and others would likely agree with one of us.

There are no easy answers when it comes to managing group interactions on the net. I think it's too big a job for one man, or even a few.

It has to be unbelievably frustrating for Ran to have created this beautiful thing and then get a handful of people b@#$in at him to make it more beautiful....

And just to be clear, I don't count you among those b@#$in at him. I consider you a considerate and thoughtful post who leads by example. I understand your concerns, I just don't agree with the solution.

[JC Jones]

Is this Russia?  This isn't Russia, is it?

[Ulrich Mayring]

Limiting to 1000 or even less isn't going to change much, I think. There are maybe 100 or 150 active participants here, so that's the real limit where it would get interesting. Still, I'm all for quality and against personal attacks, so whatever floats that boat has my support.

Ulrich

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kelly

At times guys it seem like the United States of Russia, but that not the problem, we have been unable, no unwilling to police ourselves.  ALL are at fault, silence is no excuse for not stepping in and stopping the comments or bullies. Whatever happens we all must take our share of the blame.

Melvyn

[JNC Lyon]

It's striking how 'multi-dimensional' this site is, i.e. how it operates on a number of levels at once, from the sacred (well, rarified at least) to the profane. When, say, the Paul Turners and Sean Arbles discuss some English course; or when the Tom Ds and Jeff Bs go back and forth on some practical draining issue; or when the Tom Ps and Tom Macs and Mike Cs and David Ms get into the details of co-temporaneous Merion documents  -- well, in those instances how many of us are NOT merely spectators and/or cheerleaders and/or dead weights dragging down an otherwise high-flying discussion. On the other hand, many of us deadwights might, for example, occassionally and in the very next post enliven a ranking thread, or a theoretical discussion on the nature of the sport, or an OT topic, or at least we might bug the hell out of Pat Mucci.

I think this is just fine, this variety - but the question (that no one really wants to ask or answer definitively) is: "What SHOULD gca.com be about?"...and if that answer is "Highly informed, articulate voices of opinion debating and discussing the great architecture of the world based on personal experience and extensive reading", well then someone needs to cut down the membership around here to about 100 people, and be done with it once and for all.  I'd be fine with that too.    

Peter, that is well said.  I have learned much here, but certainly don’t have the knowledge of architecture to contribute nearly as much as others.  I will say, however, that I hope to one day, as my knowledge of GCA and great golf courses continue to grow.  I am often reminded of the saying:  “Keep your mouth shut and others may think you are stupid, instead of opening your mouth and proving them right!”  If I am one who meets an end here, I will miss the friendships I have made just as much as what I’ve learned about GCA.  Fortunately, I know I do have some new friends for life. 

Tony,

I agree, I think the friendships and the people are just as important as the discourse on Golf Club Atlas.  I've gotten opportunities to play courses and play golf with people that I never would have gotten anywhere else.  Posting on GCA has changed my life, no question about it.  It's very near and dear to my heart.

Peter,

Surely you don't feel there are only 100 people who are qualified to post on the site?  I agree, some people are more knowledgeable than others on here, due to breadth of research and experience with the World's Great Courses.  I certainly haven't seen nearly as many of the world's great courses as others on here.  Yet I still feel like I have enough knowledge of GCA (through extensive reading) and am a good enough writer to have a spirited and relevant debate with the likes of Sean Arble or Pat Mucci.

I am all for raising the intellectual level on this site, don't get me wrong.  I dislike the off-topic posts and personal attacks as much as anyone.  However, I think part of the charm, interest, and greatness of GCA is the variety of opinions.  Some of those opinions might not be on the mark, but that sort of stumbling around is how we get ourselves thinking. The level should be higher, but limiting the group to a panel of learned scholars is that the best way to reach the site's objective.

[SL_Solow]

I post on this topic with some reluctance because like everyone else, I consider myself an invited guest.  The host is free to make the rules and if I do not like them, I am free to take my conversation elsewhere.  Nonetheless, as a long time participant, I like many others, feel a certain sense of belonging.  That said, let me suggest that much of the response to Ran's message constitutes overreaction in varying degrees.  Putting aside the intention to shrink the number of participants, the remainder of the message is simply a plea for good manners.  Let me be clear; I am no shrinking violet when it comes to intellectual discourse.  I make my living, such as it is, taking positions on behalf of clients and arguing them to the best of my ability.  Those of you who know me on a social basis realize that I enjoy a good argument as much or more than most. I usually give as good as I get.  But I also appreciate that, other than the occasional good natured sarcastic barb, arguments that degenerate into personal attacks educate no one and dramatically change the tenor of the entire site for the worse.  As a rule I try to ignore this "trash talking" and instead focus on the substance of the discussions.  But too often it overwhelms the valuable material.  Worse yet it carries on to other discussions and permeates the site.  I am certain it discourages some people from participating.  Unfortunately, pleas for civility have gone unheeded in the past.  I suspect that is why the more draconian steps have been proposed.  I always thought that this site was a place where friends from all over the world with common interests could meet to have frank and enjoyable discussions about a topic we love.  Given that it was intended to be a gathering of friends, I also believe that we can disagree with a degree of civility that makes it a pleasure to argue rather than an ordeal.  If we try to behave in this fashion, the other problems will take care of themselves.  Again, I am not suggesting that we should not disagree; I am merely suggesting that we do so while respecting our antagonists.  Attack the ideas, not the proponent.  Sorry if this comes across as "preachy" but this issue should not continue to arise.  Those who must resort to personal attacks are either insecure in their views or have nothing of substance to add and thus are left with ad hominem attacks.  Better to withdraw from the fray under those circumstances.

[Carl Nichols]

JC-
It isn't Russia, but neither is Merion, and I seriously doubt you think you can speak or act however you please when at Merion.

[Carl Nichols]

SL_Solow-
Well said.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Ran thanks for the game at Hoylake and for introducing me to many a fine fellow and some great  reading. The annual Buda tour is the highlight of my golfing year.

However if you think a cull of a few verbose members is going to turn this site around then I conclude you don’t spend enough time here or on cyberspace generally to understand what a cess pit this place has become.  Carefully read the posts of Mike Whittaker and SL Solow who have politely alluded to the daily attempts at bullying and the complete lack of manners on here. I was attracted here by the intelligence, knowledge and wit that was on show, now I find there’s a stench of nastiness and I spend my time avoiding the outpourings of certain posters.  You need to cull the offenders and if I’m one then I have to go.  I have sent you names of people who wish to have nothing to do with this place because of the behaviour they have observed. Personally I no longer refer anyone here and I’ve lost all interest in spending quality time i.e. adding new materials and photo tours.  Someting tells me I’m not alone in feeling this.

To effect a solution you have to understand the problem. Do you really think by culling a few marginal figures, the old guys on here are going to go back to behaving the way they did when you posted regularly? I have to believe you haven’t read the tens of Merion threads, the personal attacks and slights because if you have I think you are delusional about the current nature of this site.

Frankly if you do succeed in removing the odd O/T threads (which as others have pointed out have always existed) then we can all look forward to more threads on the front page about...Merion.

[JC Jones]

JC-
It isn't Russia, but neither is Merion, and I seriously doubt you think you can speak or act however you please when at Merion.

Carl,

I want you to kill all the gophers.

[John Kirk]

Could you do something about the debating style Mr. Mucci learned during his undergraduate days at Notre Dame?   

Congratulations.  Your 11,793rd post was among your best.

[Bob_Huntley]

Ran,

The only thing that this site needs, is to improve the tenor of debate by remembering the motto of Winchester College, "Manners Makyth Man."

Bob

[Bill Brightly]

I say give Bob Huntley the power to suspend or delete a poster if he does not like the tone of a post, and let everyone know about it. I bet manners and the quality of discourse on this site would change over night...and he would have to actually suspend very few...

[Chip Gaskins]

Bill

There is the answer! Let Sir Bob decide! The ship would right itself instantly!

[Ian Andrew]

Ran,

Thank you for pulling up an exception post like Overhills – I will leave all other matters to you – but I do encourage you to continue to find the exceptional and bring it forward like this. The piece is simply magic and an exceptional example of why after 10 years I’m still around.

Best Regards,

Ian

[Mark Chaplin]

Pat - 2nd Annual Midwest Mashie should not be a major, there are currently 3 in the USA and 1 in Britain. If there is a 5th it should be in Australia or move around the world...............heard that argument somewhere else?? 

I've said before many of us and I include myself do not have the capabilty to correctly and accurately get our feelings and views across in the  written form causing upsets and worse.

I'm prepared to depart.......once I've secured the 1010 slot at CPC!

[Ran Morrissett]

Tony,

True,  I rarely read any thread past the third or fourth page as ~ 98% of the time all the information has come forth by then. After that, it devolves into personal attacks that invariable lack fresh, meaningful content, not to mention panache. Many, many people feel the same way and that is why I haven't acted sooner as most people don't bother reading page 22 of a thread gone berserk unless they are doing so just to watch people mud wrestle.

Tony, tell me what you would do in the case where Tom Paul gets into it with X - they go back and forth and it gets brutally ugly.Should I get rid of a) the posters who lack manners (which is fine with me as their boorish behavior reflects poorly on this web site and stunts it from attracting new people) and/or b) delete the entire thread so that they have ended up wasting tons of time and energy? I don't like option B because some good information could be lost and other people who have added content will find their time was for naught (which I hate). The problem with option A is I could be deleting people with lots of knowledge. Option C is to 'police' it better, send warnings, delete certain posts, etc. but GolfClubAtlas.com was never meant to be a babysitting service for people who lack manners and/or self-control. However, I very much appreciate what Michael W. is saying and maybe Option C is indeed best.

Chris Buie remarked to me yesterday over a Fat Tire that golf attracts gentlemen and that finding participants who are knowledgeable re: golf course architecture and who can also post in a gentlemanly fashion is easy to achieve BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE MANY OF THEM. 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.

Cheers,

[Tim Gavrich]

Ran--

On other forum websites, moderators have the ability to "lock" certain threads that they perceive have run their course/gotten out of hand.  When such is done, the thread is not deleted, it just ceases (by force) to receive any new posts.  Perhaps such a feature could develop on GCA to combat situations a), b), and c)?

I like the "sticky thread" idea very much and will continue to pay attention to the topics in that region of the DG's front page.

GCA is the best website I know of.  It has to be among the very best, most civilly conducted forums (warts and all!) on the Internet.  And for that, you should be proud of your efforts.  The problems that you seek to fix will, I hope, be resolved without too much digital bloodshed.

--Tim

[TEPaul]

"Tony, tell me what you would do in the case where Tom Paul gets into it with X - they go back and forth and it gets brutally ugly.Should I get rid of a) the posters who lack manners (which is fine with me as their boorish behavior reflects poorly on this web site and stunts it from attracting new people) and/or b) delete the entire thread so that they have ended up wasting tons of time and energy? I don't like option B because some good information could be lost and other people who have added content will find their time was for naught (which I hate). The problem with option A is I could be deleting people with lots of knowledge. Option C is to 'police' it better, send warnings, delete certain posts, etc. but GolfClubAtlas.com was never meant to be a babysitting service for people who lack manners and/or self-control. However, I very much appreciate what Michael W. is saying and maybe Option C is indeed best."


Ran:

Obviously by this thread of yours you are looking for opinions from the participants of this website on what to do about the occasional tenor of this Discussion Group (what you call above posters who lack manners and boorish behavior).

So, here's my opinion. I would endorse what Michael Whittaker and SL Solow said and also George Pazin. Even though they are not of a complete consensus, it seems to me the essence of what they are suggesting is that this website could use a more participatory moderator or at least some moderation and moderating by a moderator on the subjects and posters who get into bad manners and boorish behavior in the opinion of the website and in your opinion.

I just don't see that to be something that is totally structural or pandemic on this website or very hard to do frankly. I say that but I admit I probably don't even open 75% of the threads on here because often just the title of them is something that doesn't really grab my interest.

So what are the threads that really do exhibit bad manners from certain posters and boorish behavior? Well, according to some on THIS thread (and others) they mostly involve Merion, and sometimes by extension C.B. Macdonald!

I think what you need to do (and others do as well) with that subject is just examine when it all began and why. Once you’ve done that obviously you may need to examine what’s perpetuating it, who’s perpetuating it and why. It’s not that hard to do that and when you’ve done that I’m sure you can put an end to it by either just asking the people who are doing it to stop doing it or throwing them off the website if they don’t stop it to your satisfaction. Frankly, I doubt we are talking about more than three people on here and maybe four, me included. If there are other subjects and threads on here with posters that are exhibiting bad manners and boorish behavior, in the opinion of you and others, I guess I’m not aware of them.

I note you mentioned my name above as ‘getting into it with X.’ Who is X?

If it is just the subject of Merion you’re referring to as creating a bad tenor on here or boorish behavior or as me getting into it with X, I can guarantee you, Ran, that I sure do have a very strong opinion on why this all began with Merion, who began it and to some degree who’s responsible for perpetuating it and what to do about it.

I am all for freedom of speech, opinion and expression but come on---just look at what has been gratuitously said about some from Merion and their friends on here and continuously----eg the club’s historian who isn’t even on this website has been called ‘the poster boy of unethical archivists’ and Morrison (a Merion member) and I have been constantly accused and recently of hiding documents, blocking access to archives, altering documents and such, not to even mentioned I’ve been called a creep, drunk and a liar (just refer to Mucci’s latest thread on Merion if you need evidence) by who I happen to think is the most deleterious participant this website has ever had. Call him X, call him by name; call him whatever you want to but I think neither of us is unsure who we are speaking of here.

The long and short of it is I do love this website or the idea of it; I’ve been on it from the beginning but if it comes between me and my allegiances to my hundreds of friends from the likes of Merion and Pine Valley for about the last thirty years then the choice for me of allegiance is without question and it is not and will not be to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com if I have to watch the kind of charade I have seen over that club and its history go on endlessly by who I believe are only two people on this website.

I think you have a number of choices that you just articulated (A, B and C). I just gave you my opinion (basically C). But the choice is yours, and if you think A or B is the best choice then by all means you have my full support and encouragement to cancel my registration on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.

By the way, you and I have known each other a long time now and we've been around together and we obviously share a lot with our common interest in golf architecture, and so if you want to take me off the site I do understand and will tell you it won't have any influence on our friendship. You, not me, have got a website to run and if I'm not on it (I can't tell you how many have told me to get off it) I do have plenty of other things to do on my plate that involve the subject of golf architecture in one way or another.

[Bill_McBride]

I'm not sure it is possible to choke off an ongoing debate, no matter how long it drags out, when (1) the participants are diametrically and unalterably opposed; and (2) neither side will ever give up!  My personal approach is to avoid threads over say half a dozen pages like the plague!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ran,

I think if you want to minimize input and have some control, the lock thread option is the easiest to implement.

Question - Do you really plan to run this thing forever as is, or have you ever really given any thought to how this web site ends?  I can picture it selling out to SI or ESPN as a sub section at some point. Of course, its popularity will go way down because it feels corporate.

BTW, I also sort of envision it ending with a version of the old Mary Tyler Moore show "group hug" but with an all time list of participants shuffling off the 18th green of some famous course.  Who will play the Ted Baxter role?

[Garland Bayley]

...
At present, the Discussion Group unfortunately isn't one of them as too many threads devolve away from their original subject matter and turn into nothing more than childish spitball contests  - and people are tired of such personal attacks.
...

If they devolve into childish behavior, give the participant(s) option D, a timeout. Each succeeding time out will be longer. Hopefully, after a few time outs they will get the message, or leave the site on their own.

At least one regular poster seems to have clean up his act after a time out.

[TEPaul]

Garland:

I agree; your option D is good too. Even though I have no real idea about the technological mechanics of the website, I think an Option E of just deleting obnoxious posts by Ran or by request from Ran can't be very hard to do if they are reported to him or simply requested on the website's DG. I've never been hesitant to delete my posts that some think are obnoxious by request but some on there are hesitant or very resistant to do that for some reason.