You can't possibly be that naive.  There is literally no way to protect such a site from intrusion from those who would want to do so, absent a moderator.  It has been tried again and again, and has failed again and again - even WITH moderators.  Don't believe me?  Ask any of the real old-timers in this game about golfonline's grillroom.

OK then, Tom H., so here's a follow-up question: do you think that GolfClubAtlas is ultimately doomed, sooner or later, to follow golfonline into oblivion? That supernovas like this site inevitably flame out, regardless of what is done to protect them?

(I'm trying to figure out which one of us is the cynical one and which one of us is the Pollyanna - and I still have no idea which is which!)

Guys, I guess I do not get it.  I thought the site had a moderator and it is called "Subject".  We also have a second moderator and it is called "Started by".  Is anyone so bored that they read every single thread (Even the ones they know are not their cup of tea).  If you do not like nonarchitecture threads, DON'T READ THEM!!

How hard is that.  Why do we need two sites.  I know what I care about and who I want to read.  As well, I know what topics hold no interest for me and what authors annoy me, so I skip them.  I do not need a moderator to tell me what to do (That is part of what pisses me off about government).

David, let me ask you the same question I just asked one of the Toms: do you have any experience participating in strongly moderated forums? If so, what has or your opinion been about them? If not, am I to understand that your objections are primarily theoretical rather than practical?

I think what you fail to grasp is that GolfClubAtlas isn't merely a collection of threads: it's also a sum of its collective parts. A person who stumbles upon this website for the first time isn't going to know what topics he likes or dislikes - he's going to click on a number of different topics to see what's going on. Some of them may turn him off to the site altogether (this seems to be what happens to many of the industry insiders who visit this site, by all reports). Some of them may present him with a lowest-common-denominator approach with which he can identify - in which case, there's another potentially bad apple to infect other threads in the future. And some of them may potentially challenge him and inspire him to learn more about golf course architecture...but if those threads become harder and harder to find, isn't he less and less likely to pick up that gauntlet into the future? I'm pleased that Robin Hiseman has just started posting - he appears to have found the solid-gold core of this website, and found it to be to his liking. I'm worried that others like him, people who might become valuable contributors in the future, won't make it that far...

Cheers,
Darren

(Sorry if I'm posting a lot in this thread - I'm taking Tommy N.'s posting about "...ask what you can do for your country" a bit seriously.)

Gentlemen, I said it earlier, but wish to restate it:

There is nothing wrong here that a good vigorous sweat playing and hoofing it on a great course wouldn't cure.

For the record, I wouldn't like to see bifurcation, because it too would soon turn into the same group therapy session that is going on here.  A "serious" poster would take umbrage at something another "serious" poster would say because they would feel they "earned standing".  It would start by the manner something was said by a 'doyen'.  There would be a mind-numbing cross examination of motives, a high class subtle and barely detectable insult followed by one just a little more obvious, and before you know it, you'd be at this same point we are now, a food fight.  Then you'd have two romper rooms.

TomP., welcome back from your walking Coorshaw.  But, if you had to be fully registered and accepted to post in the panteon of GCA forums, and the subjects and discussion were of such a focused nature that only archies, supers, and wannabees were to show off their intellect and superior knowledge for the benefit of let's say, greenchairman;  I think few newbies would register their name, and hardly anyone would screw up the courage to ask 'a stupid question' or post what they feel is not up to the treehouse's standard of discourse.  We have already had many come on here saying they are a long time lurker for years and were hesitant to actually add or ask something because they were a little intimidated to ask or say something to such an august body of GCA brainiacs.  That factor would be multiplied if the 'pure' GCA forum were populated with such "serious" posters. IMHO, but I could be wrong or an idiot...

There is nothing wrong here that a good vigorous sweat playing and hoofing it on a great course wouldn't cure.

RJ, for what it's worth I played Gullane No. 1 last Thursday and Muirfield last Friday, and I've been out to North Berwick's East Links three times this week already. So your statement isn't correct as far as I'm concerned - indeed, quite the opposite, in that my exposure to great golf courses has stimulated my mind to try and contribute to the future of this website.

Cheers,
Darren

RJ:

If this site was to create another section with all these august people in there I'm certain they wouldn't let me in there to go on about things---you know what JakaB calls 'dribble'. I doubt they'd let me watch either but I do know there's no way at all I couldn't find out what was going on in there because there's nothing on earth that Coorshaw can't find out for me about architectural matters---particularly when he has an extreme case of diarrhea!

I think the site should try another more serious section and maybe it would have an influence on some of us on here to clean up our act if we want to get into it and stay in it. If we don't then we should just feel comfortable staying on this discussion section and saying whatever we feel like which is pretty much what we've been doing for years now anyway. Which one of those stock brokerage firms is it that keeps saying;

"We have to earn it"?

And furthermore, the more I think about what JakaB said this morning that the worst thing that could happen to architecture would be a section like this---the more I like the idea!

I think the site should try another more serious section and maybe it would have an influence on some of us on here to clean up our act if we want to get into it and stay in it. If we don't then we should just feel comfortable staying on this discussion section and saying whatever we feel like which is pretty much what we've been doing for years now anyway. Which one of those stock brokerage firms is it that keeps saying;

"We have to earn it"?

Yes Tom, that would be great.

BUT... this new site would need a very dedicated moderator (a) to keep out those uninvited;  and (b) to monitor posts and suspend and throw out offenders.  Absent that it just plain won't work.  Don't know if you saw it, but Darren has nominated YOU for this job.  I assume you have the 16-20 free hours each day required for these tasks?

 

And given this reality, and that the fact that the site is pretty damn strong as it is, not to mention all of David Wigler's very valid points... well....

It just seems an idea better in mind than in practice.

TH

I may be committing GCA.com suicide here, but I do it for good reason.


In the 3+ years I have been frequenting this site I have learned much about golf course architecture.  I have come to understand things I would never have learned from any course in the PGA Profeesional Golf Management Program or other forums of discussion.  For this, I owe a great deal to Ran Morrissett and those that help to financially support this website.  I thank you all.

Now, with that said I'll move on to my point.....

GolfClubAtlas.com has had and has some members or frequent posters that have done more to de-rail topics and character assissinate then they have done to enlighten or share with people.  This is true.  This is a scar on this site that seems like there is no hiding.  It really is a shame.

However, let me share what I think is a far greater threat to not only the integrity of this site but to golf course architecture as a whole.  That threat happens to be an EXTREME ELITIST postion that some here not only have, but flaunt.  

Do you know how many times I have tried to get into conversations on certain threads only to be ignored or scoffed at?  Do you know how many times I look at threads where my posts are the last ones?  Do you know how many times I see legitimate questions from newbies or non-industry types get ignored or passed on?  Have you once heard me bitch and moan about how no one takes me seriously or cares about what I have to say?  NO!  Because bitching and moaning are for people with too much time on their hands, i.e self-absorbed egotists.

I think any movement to make a section or all of this website for some good-ol'-boys club of self proclaimed GCA afficionados is not only gregarious and pompous but dangerous to the foundation of what we all seek... a forum in which avid golfers and those passionate for the game can discuss architecture and other golf related topics with those inside the circle.  

It disgusts me that there are people that I have grown to admire and respect advocating an exclusionary vision for this website that has delivered so much good information to those like me who are not as versed in the history and technicalities of GCA.  But don't think for a second that this information flow is a one-way street.  As much as someone like me learns, those in the inner-circle learn from guys like me.  The less informed are the backbone and soul of GCA as they play this sport and love courses for reasons they CAN'T explain with big words like "maintenance meld" or "Redan or Cape like features".  

I'll say this again..... SO WHAT IF PEOPLE SAY SOMETHING NASTY TO YOU!  Are you really going to lose sleep over it?  If you do then you need to check your priorities.  I've got a number for a good shrink if you need one.  I've said it a few times but some people need to get over themselves.  If you have some info or opinions, please share them. Just don't try to make me feel privileged to read them.  

If you want some sort of ELITIST chat room then I suggest you do what Ran did and start your own website.  There you can pick and choose those you want to choose to talk with.  I'm sure it'll be a giant circle jerk with everyone giving everyone reach arounds and you can all go to bed at night without an insatiable desire to masochistically beat your meat.

Until Ran decides that he wants to exclude people from participating in discussions I suggest you all just shut up and and stop wasting the precious bandwidth you all talk about saving.  

Bunch of babies.


Jeff F.

Jeff - Thank you for sincere passion.  Although I do not agree with your conclusion (I feel it paints with too broad a brush) I completely agree with your premise (We need the site to be open to everyone).  This thread (Which BTW is non architecture related and therefore would not be allowed in the proposed Adult GCA section) has more reads and more responses than all the other first page threads combined.

Interestingly, the topic which about 4 pages ago was accused of being the jumping point, was posted almost exclusively by those who (If I understand Darren's premise correctly) would be thrown out of the Adult section for their opinions on that thread.

Put me at the childrens table as well!

Darren, where you and I may be different is that if I could say I'd been to all those places you were lucky enough to have been to this week, I would be sharing ideas and observations I had made at those fine golf courses.  Or, I'd be too tired to post and get caught up in this blabberfest of micro managing a sight that didn't belong to me, was here before me, and if left alone-  will be here after me.  But, the other side of it is also true.  It won't go on for ever, because in the end, we are all dead.

RJ, I'm guilty as charged, of course - especially on the "in the end, we're all dead" part. If I felt I had something new to share about Muirfield or Gullane No. 1, I may well have done so, but I didn't, and I don't believe in regurgitating old ideas for the sake of creating architecture-related content. More to the point, though, I'm at the state with this website at the moment where unlike some others, I don't find the status quo to be acceptable. I do enjoy talking about architecture, and even moreso listening to other people talking about it, but I have other interests as well, and with GCA.com functioning as it presently is, I'm more inclined to focus my attention upon those other interests. So I do. (My participation in this thread is an attempt to suggest reasons for change and methods through which we might pursue it; I could just remain quiet, but it isn't as though I've abandoned my interest in golf course architecture altogether - I'd much prefer to take part in a forum that I enjoyed than not take part in a forum I don't enjoy, if you follow me.) I'm not suggesting that you should miss me if I should remain in the shadows, but you may find it useful to note the reasons for my absence. Or maybe not...as always, your mileage may vary.

Cheers,
Darren

I think the only way this site continues strong long-term is by staying the course.  It has worked damn well for a damn long time - longer than any other golf-related forum, with the possible exception of an equipment forum that Kevin Reilly is familiar with, which has succeeded longer, mainly due to HEAVY attention from moderators and lack of too much interest from malcontents.

The difference between that forum (and a couple of other moderated golf boards) and this forum is that the other forum is a commercial enterprise, with sponsors and membership fees (the board is free to use, but paid membership provides certain benefits).  So the moderators or sysops on that board are doing it with some financial reward in mind.  The board owner in particular makes a decent wage out of it.  Moderating a board is a tedious, largely thankless job that loses its luster within a short time.  Just think how exciting it is behing a hall monitor in school.  That's about what it is.