[QUESTION] closing threads

[crossref]

the long threads are the ones where we don't reach a general consensus!

 

[Phil E]

the long threads are the ones where we don't reach a general consensus!

Or where one or two people don't accept the general consensus :chin:

 

[crossref]

but nevertheless, perhaps smeejdad's idea is not a bad one - on contentious threads we could experiment with the idea of a summary post summing up the arguments and the consensus, the differing view, and the conventional approach on the pitch.

It would be quite a task to sum up in a neutral and objective manner, but we could try it.

 

[didds]

we could - but I think the mods would have to close the thread at that point, otherwise the summary will get lost in extra and later comments.

And almost by definition the mods couldn't close a thread until its clear no more new info or debate will be forthcoming eg when it becomes a yeah-but-no-but argument.

maybe worth trying for sure, but with sopme self evident protocols in place

didds

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Or where one or two people don't accept the general consensus :chin:

Or where one or two people challenge the general consensus, and the consensus spokesperson feels the challenge. The resulting statements occur. "In my 37 years as a ref" , "ping that and you be laughed off the park", "that would be a tick mark in knowledge of law"

It is actually very enjoyable and shows the frailty and fallacy of the game. It is after all a game, providing its highest the benefit of perhaps national esprit. Esprit that is temporary and quickly extinguished.

 

[crossref]

Perhaps we could have a single thread, called 'Long running disputes'
- this thread would have one post for each dispute
- the post would be a summary of the dispute, with a link to the threads that contain it
- the thread would be closed - if you don't think the summary is fair, dispute it on the dispute thread, and it can be changed.
- when new disputes come up we'd add a post to the thread
- if really new information came up, the summary would be edited

the posts would cover
- advantage played after an attacking knock on in goal
- player on the ground, ball arrives, can he play it
- can players handle a loose ball in touch to prevent a QTI
- at a lineout, if a player stands with feet behind 5m line, can he catch the ball, or does the ref have to judge the plane

+ others...

I'd by happy to be an author (obviously we'd need a review process to agree each summary was fair)
one way we could do it : each summary could be co-written by a pair of posters, one on each side of the argument, who have to come up with a fair first draft.

 

[Wedgie]

Just to speak up as a new member and referee:

I often search for old threads on topics on which I need advising, and often this is very beneficial, but it does tend to take a lot of muddling through complicated debates. Often the thread will start with a simple answer to a question, which would be satisfactory to me, but then descends into a complicated debate - all of which I feel compelled to read through fear of misinterpretation and shoddy law application during a match. If there was a way of retrospectively highlighting what the general consensus is on the thread so that new members could direct themselves straight to it that would be really beneficial... even if everyone just gives it a load of likes? I don't know how this would work.

Seconded - I have often thought this in the past. This would HUGELY increase the value of this site - especially if the summary can be stickered/attached/very visible on the thread in question. But, like most things, it will take effort from individuals who are willing to put in the time to succinctly write up the scenario and answers (maybe Majority and Minority views?), and then others to check/agree.

I must say though that, the site as a whole, has been the most valuable recourse I have come across since taking up the whistle and I really value the support and advice from all members. So thank you!

Seconded.

 

[Dickie E]

Just to speak up as a new member and referee:

I often search for old threads on topics on which I need advising, and often this is very beneficial, but it does tend to take a lot of muddling through complicated debates. Often the thread will start with a simple answer to a question, which would be satisfactory to me, but then descends into a complicated debate - all of which I feel compelled to read through fear of misinterpretation and shoddy law application during a match.

Easy solution. Just go straight to my posts for the good oil.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Easy solution. Just go straight to my posts for the good oil.

:biggrin: epper:




OK, I'll get me coat :noyc: