|
Post by milhouse on Oct 31, 2006 8:59:08 GMT
Had a read tonight, I thought it was a bit much to put the "ranting" first! It did put me off a bit, then I got to my favourite part with the rankings and reviews. Very well put together. Delightful even! I am only making a suggestion Pete, you should put the "ranting" at the back so it is "optional" for people to read. The reviews and rankings are why people subscribe! Very good though. Well Done. Sorry, Johnny, but i think you are wrong here. I support Pete 100% on this. Plus, everything in the BBQ is optional to read, if its at the front, you can just turn over the page if you don't want to read it !!!!!
|
|
|
Post by fazza on Oct 31, 2006 9:05:42 GMT
Have you ever seen a more blatant exercise in "buttering up your partner"?
But thanks anyway!
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Oct 31, 2006 9:14:17 GMT
Have you ever seen a more blatant exercise in "buttering up your partner"? But thanks anyway! Don't say things like that, you know people will take it the wrong way when you start going on about buttering people up...... :o
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2006 10:44:39 GMT
Marlon Brando in The Last Tango In Paris ?
Do I get any points for that ? ;)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2006 11:57:03 GMT
Bloody Hell Pete,
Constructive criticism slammed back in my face with an essay :o
No wonder some people don't subscibe, if you don't care about them or there opinions.
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Oct 31, 2006 12:20:37 GMT
Bloody Hell Pete, Constructive criticism slammed back in my face with an essay :o No wonder some people don't subscibe, if you don't care about them or there opinions. I think you misread what he has said, he said he doesn't care about what people say who DO NOT subscribe.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2006 15:03:59 GMT
I still thinks its a bit much!
I do not subscribe, because of the "reputation" of it.
However the reviews and rankings were very well put togehter and I enjoy reading them. If it was plainly reviews and rankings with introductions to the forum, then I will always try to be first in line to get it.
Great job though Pete, I can understand the effort gone in to it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2006 15:31:56 GMT
Great job though Pete, I can understand the effort gone in to it. ................................multiplied by a factor of 63.
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Oct 31, 2006 15:46:30 GMT
I still thinks its a bit much! I do not subscribe, because of the "reputation" of it. However the reviews and rankings were very well put togehter and I enjoy reading them. If it was plainly reviews and rankings with introductions to the forum, then I will always try to be first in line to get it. Great job though Pete, I can understand the effort gone in to it. This means that you are just getting a free read and thats not really on. If you want to see the rankings and reports, then subscribe, just don't look at the bits you don't want to read. If you don't want to subscribe and don't want to read all the other bits, then don't make comments about them.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Pringle (R.I.P.) on Oct 31, 2006 22:38:15 GMT
This means that you are just getting a free read and thats not really on. If you want to see the rankings and reports, then subscribe, just don't look at the bits you don't want to read. If you don't want to subscribe and don't want to read all the other bits, then don't make comments about them. So when you taking over as editor then Mark, you seem to have the same attitude as the present one. I guess you would never read any of the magazines or newspapers, in the doctors waiting room, dentists, hairdressers etc as you never 'paid for them'. I was told from the present editor in an email I still have on my other PC that the costs was solely to pay for postal/printing costs and not to charge for the magazine. So non-subscribers have no rights in your opinion to see what is written about them or what their 'unofficial' ranking is then. On the point of the rankings, if a mistake is made then that puts someone well down the ranks that person cannot check on this because he never paid for the free magazine that is only charged for for the P&P? So the follow on from this is what are the subscribers paying for, the sarcastic editorial and reports which someone feels is important or the rankings itself, if its the former then the full rankings should be put in the public domain as that is where they were awarded. Finally to post 'a biting post' allegedly as I am not allowed to read the BBQ referring to a moderator of this forum, whoever that may be, without sending a copy to the person without an invitation of reply shows the BBQ to be the same as other trash newspapers that could be mentioned. It is also rather ironic that the moderator concerned basically accused him of that sort of behavior.
|
|
|
Post by fazza on Nov 1, 2006 7:39:27 GMT
I repeat in simple terms:
I will always listen to people who subscribe, and will replicate anything they choose to say (good or bad) about it if they express their wishes for me to do so.
I think it is a bit of a liberty to have a go at it if you just have a peak at somebody else's copy, and I will not now take any notice of what their opinions are about it, full stop.
I also feel that subscribers of the BBQ who do not use the forum have a right to know the reasons for the uncertainty of whether the BBQ would continue. And I have been totally buoyed by their privately-expressed regrets that it would not.
Johnny would not remember Mary Whitehouse who watched all the porno programmes, then complained about them and became totally depraved by them, without realising there was an OFF switch.
It is called "choice"!
|
|
|
Post by Q on Nov 1, 2006 8:22:13 GMT
Why is this all starting up again???
Pete, I think that you're doing a great job, its a good read, 'sensible' people will understand that any comments made are your comments which, as editor you are quite entitled to make (IMHO).
As for subscribers/non subscribers, well I agree with Pete again, I want to read his reports/ rantings/ rankings, I realise that, 'free magazine with P&P, or not, IT COSTS MONEY TO PRODUCE, therefore it is only fair to subscribe to help meet these costs.
Personally I am getting angry with non-subscriber(s) critisising (constructive or not!!) a publication that I have paid to read and they havent, I follow KP's theory on magazines/ waiting rooms but that is totally irrelevant to a subscriber only, limited production journal. And in any case how many times have you bothered to write and complain to a magazine after you had a 'free' read in the doctors??
BBQ is, and shall probably remain, an unofficial publication for the people who want to read it.
IF YOU WANT TO READ THE BBQ SUBSCRIBE OR SHUT UP (unless slandered that is ;) )
|
|
|
Post by fazza on Nov 1, 2006 8:22:51 GMT
Thanks Q Bloody Hell Pete, Constructive criticism slammed back in my face with an essay :o No wonder some people don't subscibe, if you don't care about them or there opinions. Now, if you would rather have my original two word response to your "constructive" criticism, just ask. I thought I would rather honour you with a fuller response, but it was probably against my better judgment! Yes, Ok, some people do NOT subscribe, but nearly 100 do, and THEY are the ones whose opinions I value. Now, hopefully, back to the real reason for me starting this thread. I would "love" to hear your comments about the new rankings system, good or bad. A lot of points were raised a few months ago when you thought you would be putting together an official ranking system to put to the AGM. I have heeded some of those "better" ideas, and laughed out loud at some of the others. The length of the BBQ editorial was mainly due to having to explain these changes to those who do not see this forum. I am not claiming the new system to be perfect, like the perceived extreme difficulty in County Championship Div 3 players getting big points, but that is (IMHO) how it should be.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2006 8:44:44 GMT
What Q said basically, excellent comment.
It is the ONLY publication which covers bar billiards at a National level, is comprehensively packed with facts and figures, and provides a quarterly journal recording everything that has gone on in the bar billiards world.
Johnny speaks as if it were the first one Pete has ever attempted to produce, whereas it has been going for 15 years plus and has a hundred subscribers - which in my book counts as a success.
Pete's last editorial I found both witty and entertaining. He does not deserve any criticism at this juncture especially as he has bent over backwards to accomodate the wishes of THIS FORUM by modifying the ranking system to 95% what we want.
BBQ is worth every penny of the measly two pounds that you charge, Pete: My eight pounds for next year's publications is there for you whenever you want it. Don't listen to those guys who would seek to undermine or belittle you, Pete, they're jealous of your success and in my view a bit sad.
|
|
|
Post by fazza on Nov 1, 2006 8:55:14 GMT
Didn't know I had that many fans.
That's 3 now!
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Pringle (R.I.P.) on Nov 1, 2006 10:04:14 GMT
Why is this all starting up again??? Pete, I think that you're doing a great job, its a good read, 'sensible' people will understand that any comments made are your comments which, as editor you are quite entitled to make (IMHO). Personally I am getting angry with non-subscriber(s) criticizing (constructive or not!!) a publication that I have paid to read and they havent...... Q, this is a public forum for all to read, even non-subscribers to it. BBQ as I have mentioned before and commended Pete on, it is the only and best source of information available to our game. I WAS a subscriber for a few issues until its editor decided his humor was funny by taking the p155 out of my friends weight etc who were deeply hurt by the comments, some of which were NOT subscribers. So I stopped subscribing to it on principle. When I made a comment in here to that effect, and pointing out to Pete that as a moderator I would not allow those equivalent insults to continue here he didn't like it. If BBQ is supposed to be so private then why ask in a public forum for comments, he has an 'audience' via subscription to get feedback from so why not use them for that, instead of bringing it to a 'public forum' and then post sarcastic comments to a member(s) of this forum that comments on it and not expect comments back. Pete used BBQ to take a swipe at this forum and one person in particular and then hide behind his 'its a private newsletter' so don't read it attitude. How many people here would enjoy it if I decide to go make a website slagging loads of people off without right of reply, remember 'I am not allowed to read it' !!! To reply to your final comment, if things are brought to this forum they will be commented on, that is what forums are for. This is not a personal go at you Q, but to the points you raised m8.
|
|
PaulS
Full Forum Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by PaulS on Nov 1, 2006 10:06:09 GMT
Pete, forgot to mention, big bruv spotted the Paul Lawson/Gary Johnson error after I had sent the first batch out so I corrected it. This means some people will have a copy with Gary's name in the final.
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Nov 1, 2006 12:54:08 GMT
So when you taking over as editor then Mark, you seem to have the same attitude as the present one. I guess you would never read any of the magazines or newspapers, in the doctors waiting room, dentists, hairdressers etc as you never 'paid for them'. Who can tell - watch this space ;) Your comment about reading papers/magazines in waiting rooms have no relevance to this at all !
|
|
|
Post by milhouse on Nov 1, 2006 12:59:18 GMT
I was told from the present editor in an email I still have on my other PC that the costs was solely to pay for postal/printing costs and not to charge for the magazine. So non-subscribers have no rights in your opinion to see what is written about them or what their 'unofficial' ranking is then. So the follow on from this is what are the subscribers paying for, the sarcastic editorial and reports which someone feels is important or the rankings itself, if its the former then the full rankings should be put in the public domain as that is where they were awarded. Finally to post 'a biting post' allegedly as I am not allowed to read the BBQ referring to a moderator of this forum, whoever that may be, without sending a copy to the person without an invitation of reply shows the BBQ to be the same as other trash newspapers that could be mentioned. It is also rather ironic that the moderator concerned basically accused him of that sort of behavior. What you are failing to realise is the time and effort that goes into producing this. So for people who do not subscribe, but still have a read are not appreciating the effort that goes into publishing it IMO. I also think that if you don't subscribe, you do not have a right to see what is written about them or comment on anything. Maybe in Pete's write-ups, he will only mention subscribers in the future ???
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Nov 1, 2006 13:46:51 GMT
Wearing my moderator's hat Sav
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2006 14:46:33 GMT
Your comment about reading papers/magazines in waiting rooms have no relevance to this at all ! Oh the pain the pain ! :'( :'( :'( Picking up a stray copy of BBQ in the Dentist's waiting room and being forced at gunpoint to read one of Fazza's editorials, and then straightaway afterwards having to have teeth pulled ! ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by fazza on Nov 1, 2006 15:08:15 GMT
Pete, forgot to mention, big bruv spotted the Paul Lawson/Gary Johnson error after I had sent the first batch out so I corrected it. This means some people will have a copy with Gary's name in the final. You ARE so good to me!
|
|
|
Post by fazza on Nov 1, 2006 15:13:05 GMT
Maybe in Pete's write-ups, he will only mention subscribers in the future ??? No, I will include "comments" about anybody I believe my subscribers are interested in. But I fully intend to have all subscribers' current ranking position included in all future BBQs. That is, if I can avoid cocking up when I cut and paste in future.
|
|
|
Post by fazza on Nov 1, 2006 15:15:45 GMT
Oh the pain the pain ! :'( :'( :'( Picking up a stray copy of BBQ in the Dentist's waiting room and being forced at gunpoint to read one of Fazza's editorials, and then straightaway afterwards having to have teeth pulled ! ;D ;D As we speak, I am preparing a box of BBQs for distribution around all the dentists in Northants. I will move nationwide whenever I find the time. How did you know I was into S&M.
|
|
|
Post by fazza on Nov 1, 2006 15:26:03 GMT
by taking the p155 out of my friends weight etc who were deeply hurt by the comments, some of which were NOT subscribers. So I stopped subscribing to it on principle. Sorry not to have commented quicker, but I have been working hard for the last few hours, and still got some more to do, and then I still have to look after my birthday girl later tonight..... So now, I do not "flaming"-well have to bother. ;D I suppose I was asking for trouble when I started this thread, but I thought comments would be about the rankings as "so many" (well about 12) of the forum members were so up-in-arms about it a few months ago. Others seem to have moved the thread into just "raking up" old arguments!
|
|
|
Post by Q on Nov 1, 2006 15:28:07 GMT
That is, if I can avoid cocking up when I cut and paste in future. Can you check your spelling Pete, shouldn't that have been ½cut & piste? ;D
|
|
|
Post by fazza on Nov 1, 2006 15:53:40 GMT
Wilco
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2006 16:16:45 GMT
I think it is a bit of a liberty to have a go at it if you just have a peak at somebody else's copy, and I will not now take any notice of what their opinions are about it, full stop. Not really bothered now, I hope the next person to comment on a negative gets as much abuse as me! Also why does everyone feel they should have a pop at me? I comment on something Pete has done and everybody else sees it as a way to get at me! Stop it! I have had enough of the BBQ and any more about this topic. I shall repeat myself too, I enjoyed the Bar Billiards content, well done! Thats it from me.
|
|
|
Post by NigelS on Nov 1, 2006 23:43:19 GMT
I will only comment on the rankings part of the BBQ as I am pretty sure this is why Pete started up this thread.
Pete has made more changes than I thought he would and I think the system he now has is much more fitting to our current bar billiards calender and the weighting of events much more appropriate.
The capping of certain events should work I predict very well, and I am pleased that you can't gain more ranking points in county champs or team champs or international where you only play maximum of 4 legs than for winning open where you have to win 6 or 7 2 leg matches.
I have disagreed in the past with Pete on what should be included in the rankings (ie pairs, team events etc) and knew any ammendments that Pete make would certainly keep those events in which is fair enough. But as I say I am very pleased that the RP weightings now given to all the tournaments fit a lot better and I would say that we have ended up with a much better system than before.
|
|
|
Post by fazza on Nov 2, 2006 8:00:03 GMT
Ok, fine, but I must point out that the ranking system was never designed to be weighted in favour of the number of games you had to win. The prestige of the event you won the games in was always much more important. All-England events were the true nationwide events, as illustrated by the number of "local" players that take part in the various Opens. If only we could work out a way of getting more of the locals who only play in THEIR local event to take the step up and do a few more in other counties, like Ian lelliott has for example.
What also needs to be mentioned, I feel, are the big counties like ............................ (not having a go, just illustrating my point) who promote their own Opens and expect to see all other counties send loads of players, but only show up at other Opens in single file.
names of counties deleted to avoid offence
|
|