47 replies to this topic

[WOOT]

Ferrari has a bad race in OZ and everyone is like Ferrari sucks, Hamilton is good.
Massa has a bad race in Malaysia and everyone is like get rid of Massa, Kimi rules.
Hamilton has a bad race in Bahrain and everyone is saying Hamilton sucks.

Was it like this during the old days?

[Clatter]

How far back are you looking?

[BlackCat]

in september 1978 quite many were saying Patrese sucks.

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by WOOT
Ferrari has a bad race in OZ and everyone is like Ferrari sucks, Hamilton is good.
Massa has a bad race in Malaysia and everyone is like get rid of Massa, Kimi rules.
Hamilton has a bad race in Bahrain and everyone is saying Hamilton sucks.

Was it like this during the old days?

Depends on the definition of "the old days".

It has a lot do with the popularity of the internet, but in the earlier internet years (pre-2000) people still had the habit to actually think before they posted.

It seems these days everybody thinks he's an digital jedi.....

Behind this all is of course a culture of fanboyism (and near hate versus some other drivers) that was almost completely unknown until, say, somewhere in the eighties.

[Spunout]

Originally posted by scheivlak

Depends on the definition of "the old days".

It has a lot do with the popularity of the internet, but in the earlier internet years (pre-2000) people still had the habit to actually think before they posted.

It seems these days everybody thinks he's an digital jedi.....

Behind this all is of course a culture of fanboyism (and near hate versus some other drivers) that was almost completely unknown until, say, somewhere in the eighties.

Before the eighties it was called "hero-worshipping"

[Ferrim]

I've noticed that, too. I've already left several forums because of that.

The problem is that it requires only a couple of little bastards to destroy a good forum. And here we have more than a couple.

[kar]

The internet and modern media has polarised opinions dramatically, even when compared with just 15 years ago.

I don't think fans are any different to how they were, just the nature of debate has changed. A nuanced viewpoint is an easily attacked one. Nuance here for example is just a synonym for weakness. It's harder to attack a viewpoint that is extreme and so people tend to express things in more extreme terms than they used to.

For example it's harder to defend 'I think Ferrari just had a bad weekend, stuck in traffic, reliability issues due to the late change of spec of the ecu, which they didn't appear to handle well', than 'massa is hopeless can't drive without traction control, ferrari are rubbish without jean todt, mclaren screwed them changing the ecu spec'.

The latter is far more explosive and perhaps more people would disagree with it, but it's completely speculative so you can't prove for a fact its wrong, just state that you think it's ridiculous.

The former you can to a degree argue in fact, since it's a substantiated opinion. But still an opinion nonetheless. In the former the facts can be questioned, in the latter merely the speculation. So in a perverse way it's easier to maintain an extreme and unsubstantiated position than a more two sided one based in part on fact.

That's why, I think, F1 fans appear more fickle. It's not that they are different, it's just the nature of debate and press coverage now makes it easier to defend more speculatory positions than nuanced, substantiated ones.

[Bartus Garoulaitis]

Originally posted by scheivlak

Depends on the definition of "the old days".

It has a lot do with the popularity of the internet, but in the earlier internet years (pre-2000) people still had the habit to actually think before they posted.

It seems these days everybody thinks he's an digital jedi.....

Behind this all is of course a culture of fanboyism (and near hate versus some other drivers) that was almost completely unknown until, say, somewhere in the eighties.

From my tortured memory I recall that RASF1 for example also needed a moderated version according to some of the participants. That moderated version was no success, because a lively forum consists of a group of people ranging from total idiots to selfpronounced experts that tend to take themself far too serious. So what's new?

Bartus(who hasn't figured out yet where he wants to belong to)

[Mat]

Originally posted by kar
The internet and modern media has polarised opinions dramatically, even when compared with just 15 years ago.

I don't think fans are any different to how they were, just the nature of debate has changed. A nuanced viewpoint is an easily attacked one. Nuance here for example is just a synonym for weakness. It's harder to attack a viewpoint that is extreme and so people tend to express things in more extreme terms than they used to.

For example it's harder to defend 'I think Ferrari just had a bad weekend, stuck in traffic, reliability issues due to the late change of spec of the ecu, which they didn't appear to handle well', than 'massa is hopeless can't drive without traction control, ferrari are rubbish without jean todt, mclaren screwed them changing the ecu spec'.

The latter is far more explosive and perhaps more people would disagree with it, but it's completely speculative so you can't prove for a fact its wrong, just state that you think it's ridiculous.

The former you can to a degree argue in fact, since it's a substantiated opinion. But still an opinion nonetheless. In the former the facts can be questioned, in the latter merely the speculation. So in a perverse way it's easier to maintain an extreme and unsubstantiated position than a more two sided one based in part on fact.

That's why, I think, F1 fans appear more fickle. It's not that they are different, it's just the nature of debate and press coverage now makes it easier to defend more speculatory positions than nuanced, substantiated ones.

Yeah well said, pretty much sums it up i think.

[wheelock]

I guess people enjoy motor racing on many different levels, but sometimes I do think that the odd poster could do with going out for run or something to burn off some excess energy!
Too much time in front of the computer and not enough physical activity...

I often find it hard to be at all partisan and it's always great to see teams that have been on the back foot working their way toward some points.
All I really want to see is as close a fought championship as possible for the class of racing.

As for MotoGP I have often followed many of the riders through the other classes so it is even more difficult there!

[Gary Davies]

Good analysis, kar. There is such a tiny margin between a car's aero/tyres/setup... whatever... being a shoe-in for the podium and fighting in the mid-field. And likewise, the smallest of problems or mistakes can make a driver appear, superficially, to have failed.

But on yer average forum such teams or drivers are condemned as rubbish. And their performance in the most recent race is deemed to be a solid pointer to the way it will be for the rest of the season.

The words subtle, analysis and shades of grey seem to be missing from so many people's lexicon. The syndrome is tedious and it discourages friendly and constructive debate.

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by kar
The internet and modern media has polarised opinions dramatically, even when compared with just 15 years ago.

I don't think fans are any different to how they were, just the nature of debate has changed. A nuanced viewpoint is an easily attacked one. Nuance here for example is just a synonym for weakness. It's harder to attack a viewpoint that is extreme and so people tend to express things in more extreme terms than they used to.

For example it's harder to defend 'I think Ferrari just had a bad weekend, stuck in traffic, reliability issues due to the late change of spec of the ecu, which they didn't appear to handle well', than 'massa is hopeless can't drive without traction control, ferrari are rubbish without jean todt, mclaren screwed them changing the ecu spec'.

The latter is far more explosive and perhaps more people would disagree with it, but it's completely speculative so you can't prove for a fact its wrong, just state that you think it's ridiculous.

The former you can to a degree argue in fact, since it's a substantiated opinion. But still an opinion nonetheless. In the former the facts can be questioned, in the latter merely the speculation. So in a perverse way it's easier to maintain an extreme and unsubstantiated position than a more two sided one based in part on fact.

That's why, I think, F1 fans appear more fickle. It's not that they are different, it's just the nature of debate and press coverage now makes it easier to defend more speculatory positions than nuanced, substantiated ones.

Probably not wrong, but you have expressed the point in exactly the way that seems to have become so predominant here. Posters are defined now by who they hate rather than who they support. Your example reinforces my view.

At the weekend I was told that I had called a driver 'dog shit' a thousand times and that one line taken out of context was 'typical' of my views. Both completely wrong, and yet... People just latch onto single sentences and posts and make an assumption about the whole person, it becomes a bit personal and then the whole relationship is clouded by that. Afterwards, people will disagree with posters because of the poster as much as what is said.

It seems that the invincible bravery that some people feel behind an anonymous keyboard robs them of their faculties.

You watch the reaction next time someone hails a good drive by someone - positive thinking is simply not allowed here.

[FonzCam]

Spot on Kar, nuance is exactly what is missing. People in forums seem to forget to think before they type and so arrive at very black and white viewpoints. The subtle shades in between where most people's opinions and view actually lie are steamrolled over by over enthusiastic fans who turn what could be interesting and thought provoking discussions into simplistic two sided arguments.

I don't want to discourage new fans of F1 but I think a lot of it comes from people being drawn to the sport in support of a particular driver (often from their own country). The Alonso vs Hamilton war is at least partly the result of increased interest in F1 from Spain and the UK. If your view of the sport is one of supporting just one driver then your reaction to what is intended as a reasoned discussion of something involving your driver will instantly polarise the discussion as you rush to defend your one and only favourite against all criticism.

I think some people need to accept that even their favourite drivers/teams can be flawed and maybe try to explain why it is that they still support them despite those flaws rather then blindly rushing full force to their defence whatever the charge against them.

[Perigee]

Originally posted by WOOT
Ferrari has a bad race in OZ and everyone is like Ferrari sucks, Hamilton is good.

That doesn't make any sense. Do you mean " and everyone says Ferrari sucks, Hamilton is good..."

"Is like" is not a substitutue for "says", unless you are some drippy teenage girls who thinks Friends offers a reasonable indication of how the English language should be mangled.

Oh, and JPM uses the word "like" every 3 words as well...a further sign it should be avoided at, like, all costs.

[saudoso]

Originally posted by Perigee

That doesn't make any sense. Do you mean " and everyone says Ferrari sucks, Hamilton is good..."

"Is like" is not a substitutue for "says", unless you are some drippy teenage girls who thinks Friends offers a reasonable indication of how the English language should be mangled.

Oh, and JPM uses the word "like" every 3 words as well...a further sign it should be avoided at, like, all costs.

selfpronounced experts that tend to take themself far too serious

[Perigee]

Originally posted by saudoso

Seriously!

And it's not about being a "self-proclaimed expert"...one doesn't need to be an expert to know that using the term "was like" is not a substitute for "says". You just need a little common sense....and an increasing intolerance of people talking like American teenagers.

[abc]

Originally posted by WOOT
Ferrari has a bad race in OZ and everyone is like Ferrari sucks, Hamilton is good.
Massa has a bad race in Malaysia and everyone is like get rid of Massa, Kimi rules.
Hamilton has a bad race in Bahrain and everyone is saying Hamilton sucks.

Was it like this during the old days?

You are prime example of this trend, bickering in every possible thread about Kimi after he finished only second with massive gap of 3 seconds.

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by Perigee

Seriously!

And it's not about being a "self-proclaimed expert"...one doesn't need to be an expert to know that using the term "was like" is not a substitute for "says". You just need a little common sense....and an increasing intolerance of people talking like American teenagers.

I agree with you - it's also for the benefit of non English speakers who try to follow the discussion but who won't necessarily understand the finer nuances of slang.

[se7en_24]

Originally posted by Bartus Garoulaitis


From my tortured memory I recall that RASF1 for example also needed a moderated version according to some of the participants. That moderated version was no success, because a lively forum consists of a group of people ranging from total idiots to selfpronounced experts that tend to take themself far too serious. So what's new?

Bartus(who hasn't figured out yet where he wants to belong to)

This forum is moderated, can you imagine what it would be like if it was unmoderated like r.a.s.f1 was? It would be unreadable.

The problem is the internet used to be the domain of geeks with at least an ounce of intelligence whereas everyone and their dog is registered on the internet now. This means the ratio of intelligent people to dumbasses has altered greatly in favour of the latter. We had Mark J Frusciante, now there are hundreds, thousands even.

[HDonaldCapps]

Kar and Vanwall, two very good observations of this phenomenon. As both of you mention, there is more of an inclination to present an opinion on the part of many participating in these fora rather than participate in discussion. Indeed, there seems to a distinct lack of any discussion, only the cryptic exchanges of opinions, too often laced with ad hominum and acerbity.

As for Ancient Times: Long before the appearance of the internet and the World Wide Web, even before events were routinely televised on television, motor racing fans were fickle. The fans and their letters to the yellow press generally served the same purpose then as boards/fora such as this one does today. In Italy, if Alfa Romeo, Maserati or, later on, Ferrari hit a bad patch, the fans and the yellow press would rip them apart. Before Britain assumed it role as role as the epicenter of the motor racing world, its Alpha and Omega -- and everything in-between, the fans had to be content to whine and bitch about the lack of green at the front of the grid and in the lead at the finish. So, little has really changed, only the ability for someone to mouth off an opinion under the cover the anonymity allowed by this mode of communications.

To use a paraphrase, "Just because you can say something, that does not mean you have anything to say."

[saudoso]

Originally posted by Perigee

Seriously!

And it's not about being a "self-proclaimed expert"...one doesn't need to be an expert to know that using the term "was like" is not a substitute for "says". You just need a little common sense....and an increasing intolerance of people talking like American teenagers.

The problem is: many of us are not native english speakers. Most of our day to day contact with casual english speaking comes from TV and movies, and that's what is learned. Slang.

[kar]

People just latch onto single sentences and posts and make an assumption about the whole person, it becomes a bit personal and then the whole relationship is clouded by that. Afterwards, people will disagree with posters because of the poster as much as what is said.

Certainly don't have to tell me that :-) One of the things I love about here though is there are quite a few people who you can disagree with on one issue and agree with on another. They almost always address the post and not the poster themselves. Gareth is a good example of someone who I've had raging rows with on various subjects and then been in complete agreement with on others. In neither case have we attributed each other's views to who they support or where they live. And that means it's easier to accept and understand others having views that contrary to our own, while still realising that there is much common ground.

Everyone needs to address the post and the topic, not the poster themselves. That's the biggest rule of thumb really, if you're going to even attempt nuanced debate and expect any certainty of success. Often many posters have generally the same basic viewpoints. It's the small differences that tend to polarise the discussion and push people into such bitter and often personal debate.

Generally I keep to the above rule, very, very rarely breaking it. Sadly I did recently, but one exception in some time, I think, means that there is a number of fans here I can have very respectful and nuanced discussion without ad-hominem labelling and the like.

That ad-hominem labelling is poison to any nuanced discussion and is what ultimately causes polarisation. If you cannot make a two sided argument without someone writing off 1/2 of it just on account of whose made it, it's pointless making any rational concessions at all. It's easier to simply polarise the point to make it harder to dispute.

[Orin]

Originally posted by FonzCam
I think some people need to accept that even their favourite drivers/teams can be flawed and maybe try to explain why it is that they still support them despite those flaws rather then blindly rushing full force to their defence whatever the charge against them.

That's what's annoyed me about many Alonso supporters, the inability to accept pretty obvious home truths about 'their man' during 2007, for instance people on this board still deny he wanted preferential treatment in 2007 despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary. The knock on from that is people who questioned his motives during 2007 got lumped into the facile "hater" category. When faced with such idolatry it's hard to hard a reasoned debate.

[metz]

Into this mix we have the whole issue of competitive car.
I'm constantly surprised how fans can not distinguish.
Look how many think Alonso has failed to deliver this year and Kovi is suddenly a star.
Driver ability changes little from year to year. It's always the car.
Kubica was always good. But last year's car did not suit him as well as this years.
So if he beats Heidfeld on points this year, does that drop Nick's stock?
It is said that the casual fan follows the driver. The serous fan follows the team.
Most of the media will cater to the former, due to the sheer number.

[Arion]

Originally posted by Buttoneer

I agree with you - it's also for the benefit of non English speakers who try to follow the discussion but who won't necessarily understand the finer nuances of slang.

English is not my first language, but I actaully find "American teenager" english easier to understand than well-written english, maybe it's just me I guess

[Perigee]

Originally posted by Arion


English is not my first language, but I actaully find "American teenager" english easier to understand than well-written english, maybe it's just me I guess

Yeah, this is it...and it's also down to Americans that much of the world does speak English, so I guess I can't have it both ways!

That said, I was on a bus in London the other day, and there were 2 London teenage girsl talking with a strange hybrid of American and Australian, so it was full of "like" this and "like" that, but also had the Australian inflection on the last one or two words of each sentence, so it sounded like every sentence was a question. It did make me shudder somewhat, but I've no doubt I also spoke like an idiotic pretentious ****** when I was 13 or 14 too, and I expect they'll grow out of it....so long as they don't "blossom" into sounding English like Mark Blundell!

Anyway...please excuse my pedantic interuption, it was just more fun than work for 5 mins...

[Rinehart]

It started with the birth of the internet and its only on these forums that one really witnesses it.

[FonzCam]

Originally posted by Orin




That's what's annoyed me about many Alonso supporters, the inability to accept pretty obvious home truths about 'their man' during 2007, for instance people on this board still deny he wanted preferential treatment in 2007 despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary. The knock on from that is people who questioned his motives during 2007 got lumped into the facile "hater" category. When faced with such idolatry it's hard to hard a reasoned debate.

It's a little unfair to pick out the new Alonso or Hamilton supporters, we don't want to scare off new fans of the sport but those of use who have been following F1 for a while can probably read off long lists of things they don't like about their favourite drivers. Just as they should be able to come up with a list of admirable qualities of even their least favourite driver or team. Maybe I'm an exception but there are no teams or drivers on the grid that I wouldn't be happy to see win the next GP. Maybe it's that I watch F1 as much for the race as I do to support my favourite drivers and team but I was thrilled for BMW and Kubica to grab pole on Saturday even though I don't consider myself a fan of either the team or driver.

I can't tell you the number of times I've thought about replying to threads on here only to stop short when I realise the hail of abuse I'll get back from a particular driver's fans for suggesting their hero was anything but a demigod.

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by kar

That ad-hominem labelling is poison to any nuanced discussion and is what ultimately causes polarisation. If you cannot make a two sided argument without someone writing off 1/2 of it just on account of whose made it, it's pointless making any rational concessions at all. It's easier to simply polarise the point to make it harder to dispute.

Sometimes it's not even a statement that drives people to make assumptions.

"It says in your profile that you are British so your opinions are worthless you good-for-nothing Hamilton fanboy..."

"It's the British posters that are here to abuse people..."

"The Brits are all the same"

Just for balance, it's the same for Spanish. I've even seen zmeej use the nationality card this weekend, which shocked me somewhat.

[Arion]

Originally posted by Perigee

....... a strange hybrid of American and Australian, so it was full of "like" this and "like" that, but also had the Australian inflection on the last one or two words of each sentence, so it sounded like every sentence was a question.

That really sounds like me.......... I'd better grow out it quick!
I blame it on the Americans

[molive]

Originally posted by Bartus Garoulaitis

...a lively forum consists of a group of people ranging from total idiots to selfpronounced experts that tend to take themself far too serious..

Thank Goodness for that.

Molive(who is hoping that Bartus Garoulaitis will finally decide to be where he belongs, in the Atlas family!)

[Group B]

Originally posted by Arion


English is not my first language, but I actaully find "American teenager" english easier to understand than well-written english, maybe it's just me I guess

Except that with this post you've shown that can write perfectly good English, so do persevere

The only reason you might find "American teenager" english easier to understand than well-written English is familiarity, since word for word it makes about as much sense a chocolate kettle.

[Rich]

Originally posted by kar
The internet and modern media has polarised opinions dramatically, even when compared with just 15 years ago.

I don't think it has to do with the media and net per se. These platforms are merely reflecting, rather than causing, the societal changes that we are witnessing.

Our urbanised Western society is, in many ways, a perversion of the natural order. Humans do best when they bond together in tightly-knit small community groupings where members have mutual interdependencies in dealing with external threats. Thus early agrarian communities had to act selflessly in the interests of the group to ward off rival tribal groupings, predators, disease, etc. There was no room for the prima donna who insisted that it was his individual right not to have to stand guard at night.

We haven't had an external threat in sixty years. There is the minor threat of extremist terrorist acts, but it's not a compelling daily presence. Take WW2 by comparison, where London residents were subjected to almost daily bombing raids, and where there were severe shortages of essential goods. Those conditions favour community-mindedness, tolerance, courtesy. Telling your neighbour that he sucks might not be a good idea, because his house might be the only one on the street that isn't demolished during the next bombing raid, and you may need to seek shelter with him.

Today, we are spoilt rotten, we have far too much free time on our hands, and there is no threat facing us. So everybody is able to follow their own selfish pursuits, we don't need our fellow community members. This is why we also have so much litigation happening - there is simply no requirement for people to be community-minded, and to accept some personal hardship for the sake of the group. So everybody else is an eejit looser (sic) who makes life harder for you, not a fellow community member who makes life safer for you.

I recall the father of one of my friends telling us about watching his favourite football team on the terraces during the 40s and 50s, just after the war ended in Britain. If a child fell as people were leaving the stadium, the crowd would pick the child up and pass him over their heads until he was reunited with his dad. Because of the hardships that their society had just been through, there was the universal acceptance that things aren't always perfect and that, if somebody suffers a setback, it doesn't cost you anything to help them.

Today, if that same child fell, he'd be trampled by a crowd interested only in their own selfish goal of leaving the stadium as quickly as possible. Instead of helping the child, the crowd would turn angrily on the father and want him sued or arrested for 'being a negligent parent'. Because they don't need the father in any way (to help their community ward off a threat), they are irked by his 'negligence' in making life slightly less convenient. They now have to wait an extra five seconds to get out of the stadium, and all because some @#$%^ looser (sic) can't be a responsible parent. It's a crime against humanity, I tells ya.

This is the underlying moral of current society, that there are only two groups of people - those who pay your salary (and must thus be treated with the utmost sycophancy) and those who don't (so you can afford to dismiss them with whatever level of rudeness or vulgarity you fancy). This is why middle management is so despised in most companies, because they have perfected the art of sucking up to those above them while treating those below them like dirt.

They might have perfected the art, but they're certainly not the only ones practising it. Everybody falls victim to it, to a degree. In my parents' generation, when you went shopping you stopped and chatted to the people that you even faintly recognised. It was a way of building the community bonds.

How many people talk to others while they're shopping today, beyond barking out requests or orders at shop assistants? In a big city mall, you don't recognise any of the other shoppers and you certainly don't need them. Quite the contrary, they're a nuisance, because it takes you longer to get to the till. And MY time is more important than anybody else's. Why can't other people see this and just get out of my way?

Nobody on this BB needs any other member. We don't face a common threat. So it shouldn't be surprising when people treat each other like dirt. They are merely continuing the trend set in the rest of society.

It's the 21st century way. It's sad, but nothing that another raging world war wouldn't fix in a hurry.

[Dalton007]

A brilliant post. We certainly do live in a climate of individual rights. Today most people don't even recall that families bonded in a community. WW2 had a dramatic effect on society. The women shagged whilst their husbands were fighting the war which lead to the sexual revolution, in the 1960s, where communities began to separate.

[Red ITC]

Well said Rich.

Perhaps we should have a contributory thread on what changes here might make Atlas a better place. My 5 penn'th:

End anonymity - it's not like anyone needs it here. It's not Tibet. IP address noted on all posts, as a visual reminder that people own the comments they make.

Enforce the code of conduct. Obviously there is no way to generate enough income to pay for a positively moderated forum, so why not empower super users and find ways of rewarding them for winnowing out the unpleasant?

If that causes a drop in volume or users, I refer you to the point above - it's not as if anyone is making any money from the board as is.

[HP]

@Rich

Insightful post.


I just would say it doesn't need a war to fix it. An real economic downturn would do the trick as well. Or just plain thinking and fixing the problems instead of the symptoms.

20% of the current world population use about 80% of the available resources. With China and India becoming more affluent, at some stage, we'll hit the ceiling at some time. Before even a war will start, lot of the excesses will have to be cut for the majority of people.

And in some ways people are waking up even now. Signs are there. Many people are happy to not own their own car, and be part of some car sharing scheme.

IMO as an individual, the real key in all of this is to learn to be content. That is 100% opposite direction to what the PR industry does. Some of the BB fights here IMO are because people identify themselves too much with their hero, or to put it more blunt, with their PR product.

Some of this trend has also its roots in the changes after WWII. School started to change in the USA after WWII for example, because of a colossal management failure. So instead of older kids having some responsibility for the youngers, they were replaced with same age kids only. Everybody is now expected to understand the same thing at the exact same time, and earlier each year, rather than to teach kids a bit about responsibility. So responsibility was replaced by peer pressure, and that in turn leads to prove in different ways who's the top dog. That's another reason for those bitch fights here. Some always want to be in the party of the winners. Another serious influence from the change in educational institutions is that they highlight competition. That ain't bad in itself. But so far they're lacking counter measures to promote working together, and preferably with students from different maturity and experience level. The result of this educational disaster in the USA for example? Since the sixties there has been a trend that young people are less able, less fit for life. There are obviously excpetions, but the general trend is downwards. Young people might learn more, but it doesn't make them better able to survive. The most obvious skill lacking is to be able to working together for a common good. And it's not only the USA where this happens, I don't write it to single that country out, it's just that I do have a book at hand that gives me the facts from there. They are to be commend for that, other countries don't have such documents available that are accessible to the public.

I don't think a war is needed, but I anxiously await the day when we stop talking about our rights, but start talking about our responsibilities again.

On a sidenote: If this happens today, then I think the current scandal that's polluting the F1 headlines at the moment would never have happened, or if it happened, there would be no doubt about the right course of action.

Finally. It's just amazing how much stick Massa gets here on this board. I support him, despite his obvious shortcomings and will do so in future. As opposed to a comment above, I do think one can support a driver and not be a fanboy. Where a supporter and a fanboy differ fundamentally is that a supporter sticks to "his" guy even when he is doing bad, without needing to find excuses. I lurked in the Massa threads after Malaysia, but decided to stay quiet. Not much point to defend what has happened, whatever the exact cause. It as bad enough that he had no points prior to this weekend. This weekend obviously was big smiles for Massa (and me), but his success also won't lure me to post anything about Hamilton's disastrous weekend. I don't have to gloat on Lewis misfortune or defend it, because who knows what will happen at the next race.

In short I am a supporter of my driver with all his strengths and weaknesses, not a fanboy of some PR product of which I'm only allowed to see the good side. And it would be the same if my favourite driver would be someone else, meaning I am aware that there is a PR product named Massa. Figuratively spoken, I don't mind pretty gift wrappings, but what really interests me is what's inside.

[HP]

Originally posted by Red ITC
Well said Rich.

Perhaps we should have a contributory thread on what changes here might make Atlas a better place. My 5 penn'th:

End anonymity - it's not like anyone needs it here. It's not Tibet. IP address noted on all posts, as a visual reminder that people own the comments they make.

Enforce the code of conduct. Obviously there is no way to generate enough income to pay for a positively moderated forum, so why not empower super users and find ways of rewarding them for winnowing out the unpleasant?

If that causes a drop in volume or users, I refer you to the point above - it's not as if anyone is making any money from the board as is.

All what I need in addition to what is already there, is that I can sort and show/hide threads in a persistent manner, hiding threads with certain words in the title or context, or with certain poster(s) having a substantial post count in that thread. A practical example: There are numerous posters who just bring up the user name Arrow to almost anyone who is pro Alonso. Usually those posts are just ridiculing the original Arrow and the poster of the message they reply too. Not a worthwhile message to read. So if it could be marked as that, that be great. Would make life for a moderator also waaaaaaaaaaay easier.

Besides that I'd need a tree view of threads. With a tree view I can tell who replied to whom. Usually when I see poster 'b' replies 'a' ad nauseum, then on this board at least it's a flamethrower party.

In other words. All I need is an improved forum tool.

IMO people can write anything they want. We all have our ups and downs. As long as it's within the forum rules and about F1 I don't mind.

[Buttoneer]

HP - In the forum view, if you click on the number of replies, you will get a list of all the posters and the number of replies they have made in descending order. You can then click on an individual name to see only their posts. This should give you some idea of whether you want to contribute to a thread.

I know it's not perfect but...

Regarding the Arrow point, it often IS Arrow with a new nick. He has a very easy to spot way of posting - usually look for the regular comment that someone he replies to 'cannot have been watching F1 for very long' (or similar) and you've got your man.

My own view of the forum is that threads very quickly come to order when Bira posts, but she has not posted in the forum for a long time. Threads also come to order quickly when any of the moderators are involved in the discussion rather than just closing or warning. I appreciate that the mods don't have the time to review everything, but they ought to recognise at least that their involvement is helpful on all sorts of levels. In the main, the level of abuse and expletives thrown around reduces enormously.

[Orin]

...And then you click against a user's post count and get all his posts in that thread - brilliant! It's nice to learn how to use the forum.

[SeanValen]

Internet and F1 brings varying views together.

Not many people discuss football on forums, because everyone watches it at the pubs, you get the fights at the stadiums, and so we get fights in forums, people have opinons, views and values they want to defend.

Schumacher is still the best in retirement, while other drivers in the field look lesser after his impressive performances from a 16 year career. You see this sentence can be attacked, but it's what I believe.

Qualifying is a joke, you cannot celebrate pole properly until we know the fuel on Sunday, this makes saturday foruming less great then it used to be, thanks to crappy fia rules. Forumers can't celebrate pole on Satuday, they can only guess if the pole is deserved after knowing the fuel during the race on Sunday, I think this rule itself has changed foruming through the weekend.

[HP]

Originally posted by Buttoneer
HP - In the forum view, if you click on the number of replies, you will get a list of all the posters and the number of replies they have made in descending order. You can then click on an individual name to see only their posts. This should give you some idea of whether you want to contribute to a thread.

I know it's not perfect but...

Regarding the Arrow point, it often IS Arrow with a new nick. He has a very easy to spot way of posting - usually look for the regular comment that someone he replies to 'cannot have been watching F1 for very long' (or similar) and you've got your man.

My own view of the forum is that threads very quickly come to order when Bira posts, but she has not posted in the forum for a long time. Threads also come to order quickly when any of the moderators are involved in the discussion rather than just closing or warning. I appreciate that the mods don't have the time to review everything, but they ought to recognise at least that their involvement is helpful on all sorts of levels. In the main, the level of abuse and expletives thrown around reduces enormously.

Thanks for the tip with user posts.

As to Arrow, I know exactly what you mean. My point is, there are seemingly never ending replies that rubbish a post of him just because it's Arrow or his latest incarnation. Those posts usually are just noise, it's often just a "Found you out Arrow", etc. dismissing the entire post, not really discussing anything. Now I know it''s easy to dismiss what he writes, because of his writing style. However there are good posters here who dilute their own contribution, with their sidemarks against him. Now when I go into such a thread and see a good source of information, but see him/her trashing Arrow, then I'm a bit disappointed. Hence my call for a smarter sort feature. And as I mentioned, it'd be a big help for a moderator. I have done moderating (on a much more level headed forum) and appreciated any tool that helped me to do my job much more straightforward. The time savings are enormous. Hence the willingness of people to moderate much greater and that leaves time for the moderators to contribute more, which as you point out, help for the overall quality on the board.

I also have installed and extended different BB software, hence my suggestions.

[Most Fastest]

No, they haven't.

First, F1 wasn't this popular, therefore it was a more dedicated and knowledgeable group of fans that followed the season.

Second, the press was serious, competent, proud of its drivers but not absurdly over the top nationalistic as today. Also, garbage as the Daily Star were not dealing with F1 really.

F1 was a more elitist sport, for good and for bad, some people around it tended to be somewhat more educated than, say, football fans. That distinction has been removed today.

Jumpers......those who come in on the bandwagon when a driver/car of their country shines.....last season saw a dramatic increase in viewership in the UK....due to Lewis....those who only started to watch F1 with Lewis winning aren't real F1 fans, they will cheer anything british......just as those Germans who stopped watching F1 after the Schumasteir retired.....not real F1 fans, just German pride at work. Ironiacally, these hordes of people who join only when there is a good chance of winning for their national driver/team are also the loudest and dumbest in their commentary. So, they make the entire group of serious F1 fans appear as fickle and immature.

Obviously, the internet did the rest. While we get so much more info and updates, we also get this boring and virulent ongoing feuds of "my driver is better than yours" which before could not take place, at least not on such a scale. It just builds more resentment and instability in an already highly emotional group of supporters. Perfect for the garbage media of Murdoch, for example, to exploit and incense to build sales.

Like everything else, F1 has been cheapened by its own success, but true F1 fans really only want to watch close intense racing.

[Jerome]

My five cents? I think the 'fickleness' has nothing to do with F1 or the sport itself. You can see it on any internetforum that has an open character. Newspapers start blogs without moderators, for example, and after a couple of weeks they have to shut down the blog, because of a dozen trolls and sick ****s who just are namecalling, threatening and soforth. There is just a fair deal of people who are cowards and they revel in the fact that on the internet they can bully other people without the risk of getting their butts kicked.

At the big Dutch newspaper my wife works for, there are several staff editors who (all in the spirit of 'democratic' press) have started open blogs and they all are forced to stop. Because these good souls, who are really trying to be 21st century-journalists, are threatened verbally, fysically (for example, posters posting the editors personal adress and telephone nummer).

Two examples. 1. I have had the experience myself. Together with Joris Luyendijk en Rebecca Gomperts I got the honour of writing an online column on the website of Intermediair (a Dutch magazine, weekly, 250 thousand copies). After two months of verbal abuse the editor pulled the plug. Joris for his last column wrote a fantastic article in which he hackled the worst trolls in splendid form.

2. Before this weekend Rita Verdonk, a Dutch politician, launched her new political party Trots op Nederland (Pride of the Netherlands). One of the key elements was going to be a website on which the voters for the new party could decide the party's ideas.

The site was shut down today. 'It was all just sick stuff,' the party said. They only left the 'meek stuff' which included things about the female presenter of the Dutch national news, and how she should be 'opened' for all public.

There you have it. Be soothed, it's not because of the sport itself.

[Amrl]

The only internet forums that are not built around some niche subject yet still remain fairly civilized are those that have a registration fee. It doesn't have to be much, 5-10 euros for an account is usually enough to get rid of most of the "noise".

[WOOT]

Originally posted by Amrl
The only internet forums that are not built around some niche subject yet still remain fairly civilized are those that have a registration fee. It doesn't have to be much, 5-10 euros for an account is usually enough to get rid of most of the "noise".

u ever been to somethingawful.com? lol

[GrzegorzChyla]

Niki Lauda in 1976/77?
He returned after his accident and then gave up championship fight in Japan, next year tifozi hated him. I read something like: 'Niki you are ugly and Ferrari beautifull'

[Most Fastest]

Trots op Nederland (Pride of the Netherlands

That sounds aweful......Pride of "name of country" sounds awefully nationalistic. I know close to nothing about this party but sounds terribly different from the open minded traditions of your country in the last 30 years........

Niki Lauda in 1976/77?

Your post is totally missinformed. When Lauda came back at Monza after 4 GPs, still unable to close one eye and arrived 4th, he was celebrated as a hero. His loss in Japan was excused by everyone as understandable, given the conditions.

The break between Ferrari fans and Lauda happened only several months after Japan, right toward the end of 1977, when it was becoming obvious he would leave Ferrari. He left by saying "we'll see in two years where Ferrari will be without me". The Tifosi never forgave him for THAT.

Ironically, 2 years later Ferrari won WDC with Scheckter and WCC with Jody and Gilles, while Lauda was announcing his first retirement after a dismal season with Brabham

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Most Fastest


That sounds aweful......Pride of "name of country" sounds awefully nationalistic. I know close to nothing about this party but sounds terribly different from the open minded traditions of your country in the last 30 years........

Hi Most Fastest. It's terribly offtopic, but the name is indeed awful. But in the polls this party is really scoring well. The Netherlands always was and still is a very open minded country, say for 70 percent, but about thirty percent of the population has just a different opinion about 'foreign culture' in general and the islam in particular. In the past thirty years, they usually they were afraid to speak their mind. Since Fortuyn this silent group has become vocal. It's less pretty than before, but not neccessarily worse.

On topic: what do you all think about this very stern blue flag business? Doesn't that provoke primadonna attitude from drivers?~