Can anyone else not get on GBPF forum?
Users viewing topic: & 1 Guest
| Owen |  | Can anyone else not get on GBPF forum? | 10-10-2011 @ 21:08 |
Member 1024, 87 posts SQ 195, BP 140, DL 225560.0 kgs @ 91kgs UnEq | As the title basically, i click on the forum and some s**t for IIS7 comes up...any ideas? Cheers, (not that i like it anymore than this forum btw lol  ) | ||
| Simeon | | ... | 10-10-2011 @ 21:10 |
 tight in the hole Member 2057, 3121 posts SQ 205, BP 140, DL 260605.0 kgs @ 95kgs UnEq | not sure about the forum, but i've found the website to be a bit s**tty with chrome - so if that's what you're using try switching browsers | ||
| Martin1956 | | ... | 10-10-2011 @ 22:14 |
 Old Age Presser Member 75, 7928 posts SQ 0, BP 200, DL 200400.0 kgs @ 105kgs Eq | Sadly, the forum has been taken down for the time being. It was potentially a great tool for GBPF lifters to interact with each other on line, but there was a hard core of about half a dozen relentlessly critical people constantly slagging the GBPF off at any and every opportunity. A great tool abused by a few great tools, you might say. The forum was part of the GBPF website, and ended up giving a hopelessly negative impression of the GBPF, so the powers that be pulled it. Some may call it undemocratic and censorial, but how many organisations would have tolerated so much negativity for so long? My own view is that it should be restarted, but that only members using their real name should be able to post, with maybe a non members section where potential members could post queries. I feel sorry for lifters who kept their log on the site and have no other record of their lifting progress. | ||
| JonA81 | | ... | 10-10-2011 @ 22:14 |
 Member 2216, 2243 posts | There was a message saying the forum would be down until further notice this morning. | ||
| JH | | ... | 10-10-2011 @ 22:18 |
 Member 1739, 1266 posts SQ 365, BP 245, DL 332.5942.5 kgs @ 105kgs Eq | Post Edited: 10.10.2011 @ 22:18 PM by JH Martin1956 said:Sadly, the forum has been taken down for the time being. It was potentially a great tool for GBPF lifters to interact with each other on line, but there was a hard core of about half a dozen relentlessly critical people constantly slagging the GBPF off at any and every opportunity. A great tool abused by a few great tools, you might say. The forum was part of the GBPF website, and ended up giving a hopelessly negative impression of the GBPF, so the powers that be pulled it. Some may call it undemocratic and censorial, but how many organisations would have tolerated so much negativity for so long? My own view is that it should be restarted, but that only members using their real name should be able to post, with maybe a non members section where potential members could post queries. I feel sorry for lifters who kept their log on the site and have no other record of their lifting progress. Agreed, The forum was a great tool to make new contacts and keep up too date with comps/comp reports etc.. Bad move by the GBPF! | ||
| jt | | ... | 10-10-2011 @ 22:35 |
 old age traveller Member 332, 7919 posts | another brick in the coffin | ||
| Steve | | ... | 10-10-2011 @ 22:57 |
nothing to hide, please follow my life on webcam Member 255, 3732 posts | JH said: Agreed, The forum was a great tool to make new contacts and keep up too date with comps/comp reports etc.. Bad move by the GBPF! x2. Modern, forward thinking organisation understand the power of the internet, embrace it and use it to thir advantage. | ||
| brynevans | | ... | 11-10-2011 @ 18:41 |
 Scotbasher - forever Member 59, 2115 posts | I pretty much agree with Martin's comments, it's always concerned me how a new/potential new member would view some of the negative comments about the organisation. The amount of traffic through the site was fairly poor with sometimes only a couple of posts per day. In so many of the defamatory posts the OP could have made a phone call or sent an email to get the right information from one person but instead started a tirade of abuse towards officials which was often fuelled by the bear baiting anonymous posters which inhabited the forum. If it comes back again it will have to be moderated in a stricter fashion, it is a useful resource but it needs a lot of filtering. | ||
| Boar | | ... | 11-10-2011 @ 19:01 |
 Nothing left in the tank. Member 5, 25592 posts Administrator | where any of the troublesome posters lads we know ? (smalls the national coach?) | ||
| Simeon | | ... | 11-10-2011 @ 19:17 |
tight in the hole Member 2057, 3121 posts SQ 205, BP 140, DL 260605.0 kgs @ 95kgs UnEq | maybe a site like this one could have a GBPF section? then it would probably get more use. | ||
| Steve | | ... | 11-10-2011 @ 19:24 |
nothing to hide, please follow my life on webcam Member 255, 3732 posts | brynevans said: In so many of the defamatory posts the OP could have made a phone call or sent an email to get the right information from one person but instead started a tirade of abuse towards officials which was often fuelled by the bear baiting anonymous posters which inhabited the forum. If rather than a mass of behind the behind the scences e-mail the "mamangement" had properly & officially addressed and answered the initial problems on the forum I'm sure many of the problem threads would have been nipped in the bud. The moderators have also come in for much criticsm from management and others, but I for one never received a single request from anybody for posts to be deleted or threads removed. A little guidance might have gone a long way. | ||
| Boar | | ... | 11-10-2011 @ 19:39 |
Nothing left in the tank. Member 5, 25592 posts Administrator | Could they not set it up where you have to be a gbpf member to login? If you play up.....your out! | ||
| brynevans | | ... | 11-10-2011 @ 20:24 |
Scotbasher - forever Member 59, 2115 posts | I don't think anyone is actually blaming the moderators Steve, I just think people find sites like this far more engaging to use with the high volume of posts questions are quickly replied to. I think the directors refrained from posting on there because they didn't want to be drawn into arguments with the trolls. | ||
| OwenL | | ... | 12-10-2011 @ 00:06 |
 has a tiny penis Member 2897, 5018 posts SQ 220, BP 140, DL 270630.0 kgs @ 82.2kgs UnEq | I am the OP (forgot my other account details haha) thanks for the info! I enjoyed logging my workouts but mainly liked it for info on comps! As there are some that popped up that never make the website. | ||
| drew | | ... | 12-10-2011 @ 02:38 |
 I thought Joplin choked on a sandwich? Member 616, 8404 posts SQ 180, BP 130, DL 220530.0 kgs @ 78.8kgs UnEq | OwenL said:I am the OP (forgot my other account details haha) thanks for the info! I enjoyed logging my workouts but mainly liked it for info on comps! As there are some that popped up that never make the website. 5kg on your squat in 3 hours, nice | ||