Metropol

TIGHazard wrote: ↑Wed 15 Sep, 2021 12.12 Taking Louise's "I'll see you on the other side" a bit too literally?

I honestly didn't understand their schtick either here or on the old place.

As much as I roll my eyes at some of the posts by new members, I think it's worth remembering some of the drivel we all posted when we first started.

If there's anything I learned from the demise of TVF, it's how many people would lurk rather than post because they didn't want to be shot down for saying something stupid. If the new forum is making those sort of people feel more welcome to post, I don't think that's a bad thing.

It is a tricky balance and I'm glad I'm not in Rob's shoes in making those decisions. Making people welcome is one thing but you need to know the rules and etiquettes of the forum you're posting on.

I wonder which ex TVF member is BBCMeridian? He seems to get riled at anything.

Very insistant that CBBC and CBeebies should re-merge too.

I see the trend of PMing the verified people in the BBC rebrand thread has translated into people @ mentioning them in every post thereafter.

Verified users should be free to post on TV Live Forum without fear of pushy users harassing them to spill insider secrets. If a user feels they're experiencing this sort of harassment, as Rob has stated, they are advised to report the offending messages and then the appropriate action can be taken to stop this happening.

However, that being said, I believe that users need to be realistic as regards to what they post and what they expect to follow thereafter. In the case of recent comments in the BBC logo thread, for example, two posts were made on the same day by the same (verified) user which offered no specific information about the rebrand itself other than to let us know that the user works for the BBC, has seen the relevant materials, and teased that we'll all like them when they air. A perfectly reasonable comment to make in itself, but I think to be surprised when a handful of users ask you whether you can offer any further information off the back of making such a statement on a site which you know is popular with TV presentation enthusiasts is rather naïve.

The whole point of TV Live Forum is to allow like-minded enthusiasts to discuss a relatively niche topic about which they're all interested. It's only natural, when faced with people who have knowledge which outstrips your own, for curiosity to lead to questions and requests for further information on subjects which interest those people. Providing it's framed politely and respectfully, I don't see this as a problem. While it's absolutely the verified user's right to politely refuse to provide any further information (whether because they're not allowed to say anything further, or whether because they simply do not wish to divulge it) when asked, it's hardly a surprise when such questions arise, especially when you make it clear in comments in threads that you have an inside insight into 'hot topics' such as the upcoming BBC rebrand.

The input of folks who work in the industry is invaluable to keeping good quality conversation flowing and keeps TV Live Forum a place not only for novice TV enthusiasts to give their thoughts and opinions, but for people to be able to learn from each other, too. Ultimately, a mutual respect for users across the board is required, and users need to have an understanding that (a) if you make it clear that you're knowledgeable about a subject which others are interested in, you are to expect that folks who want to find out more about this topic may well ask you to elaborate on this, and (b) if you ask a question of a verified user, you always need to be prepared to be told they're unable (or simply unwilling) to provide any further information than that which has already been given, and respond graciously if so.

I am aware that the forum is down. TV Live is also offline.

Normal service should resume shortly...

...and we're now back.

DavidWhitfield wrote: ↑Sat 18 Sep, 2021 23.45
However, that being said, I believe that users need to be realistic as regards to what they post and what they expect to follow thereafter. In the case of recent comments in the BBC logo thread, for example, two posts were made on the same day by the same (verified) user which offered no specific information about the rebrand itself other than to let us know that the user works for the BBC, has seen the relevant materials, and teased that we'll all like them when they air. A perfectly reasonable comment to make in itself, but I think to be surprised when a handful of users ask you whether you can offer any further information off the back of making such a statement on a site which you know is popular with TV presentation enthusiasts is rather naïve.

I'd take that with a pinch of salt if I were you. The logo certainly isn't visible anywhere I have seen, indeed things are being produced with the old logo which are new, as we speak. Signs etc. Of course at big places not to be unexpected, but that means this person is part of a project etc, in which case I find it unlikely they would be allowed, or even risk their career over a forum post leaking info. I am not saying the person is fibbing, I am just saying I find it unlikely they would post stuff like that unless they like to live dangerously so to speak. I certainly wouldn't do it...... We know a new logo is coming because it has been in the tabloids, that is all we know so far as much as I am aware....... and anyone would know that.

allwillbewell wrote: ↑Mon 20 Sep, 2021 09.09
I'd take that with a pinch of salt if I were you. The logo certainly isn't visible anywhere I have seen, indeed things are being produced with the old logo which are new, as we speak. Signs etc. Of course at big places not to be unexpected, but that means this person is part of a project etc, in which case I find it unlikely they would be allowed, or even risk their career over a forum post leaking info. I am not saying the person is fibbing, I am just saying I find it unlikely they would post stuff like that unless they like to live dangerously so to speak. I certainly wouldn't do it...... We know a new logo is coming because it has been in the tabloids, that is all we know so far as much as I am aware....... and anyone would know that.

I would suggest that having a blue name doesn't mean you work on the TV pres/branding side of the corporation either. Could be a radio bod? It's not been unheard of so called insiders dropping red herrings to get hype going. Wasn't it Daybreak or GMB or even GMTV that had something similar?

You find yourself wondering if they're making the fact they've seen things up to get attention. After all, you can't get them to prove otherwise, particularly when they're not giving us any hints of what we can expect to see or when to see it.