brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Nov 3, 2014 13:13:19 GMT
. . . and I would totally agree with you on that one, chewbacca. But surely the forum's rules should be applied equally to ALL members, and not just one of them? Just because someone has posted on here from the year dot, it surely doesn't mean that he should be allowed to spout unpleasant views on others, whilst either laughing up his sleeve or sulking, in equal measure. I've noticed quite a bit of ''cosying up'' to the moderators, and I must say that I'm not impressed by it. Sorry but I'm genuinely not sure what it is you're getting at here. From my point of view - I reluctantly agree with the decision taken (which I think is the case for all of us really). No one wants to ban anyone and in general we use a light touch except in issues where we are concerned that there might be legal implications to things that people have written. When it comes to the 'rough and tumble' of message board posting I think all mods would rather less abuse was thrown around and more posters respected each other because ultimately it's a waste of time abusing someone on a message board, it creates a bad atmosphere and it spoils threads. However, in general we prefer this to police itself. We only step in if we think it is consistently spoiling threads or if we are getting a lot of complaints from people. Ultimately with ZFC it was an issue of engaging - he didn't seem to be interested in engaging with the topics on the board anymore and was just bringing everything back to the same things (which has nothing to do with Rovers or football in general) whenever the vaguest opportunity presented itself. Again, I think it's about persistent behaviour. Obviously the odd thread will drift into other territory but the difference is between the conversation naturally going that way (like some conversations around the stadium sometimes becoming discussions about planning law or local politics etc) and there'll be the odd throw away comment here and there which is generally fine. What isn't fine is persistently crow-barring in the same topic over and over again that has nothing to do with the topic thread and seems to have no other motive other than to provoke. In the past we have warned and suspended other people for behaving like this but in general either they stopped posting or amended what they were doing - this is the first time we've felt we had to ban someone I think and it's because it makes the message board dysfunctional and unpleasant. Most of his posts since the Current Affairs forum closed either involved posting off topic provocative messages or abusing people who called him on it. It felt like he was just disrupting threads at any opportunity in order to prove a point. He was repeatedly warned and carried on doing it -so it's not as though he hasn't been warned and it's not as though he was banned at the drop of a hat; it was done very reluctantly. I found it childish more than anything else. Also I agree with pretty much everything Cheshire has just said re; the purpose of the board. I'm sorry that I didn't make my point with more clarity, irish. But as I don't agree with reporting any complaints that I may have (regarding fellow posters) to the moderators, then I cannot make my point any clearer than I have already done already. In fact I was not aware that posters were reporting fellow posters on a regular basis, until quite recently. I believe that this was the cause of the old Current Affairs section biting the dust, and speaking personally that is not the way that I choose to live my life. In a nutshell I don't find ''snitching'' to be a particularly attractive trait, much better to ignore I think. I totally agree with you as regards the ''rough and tumble'' aspect of the forum though, but again it should be applied to all posters to be acceptable and effective. After all none of us wants a forum where we are all equal, but some more equal than others, surely?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 13:21:28 GMT
I was laying odds with myself on who would be first (and only) to offer the bogus 'freedom of speech' argument on this topic. I owe myself a pint now.
The mods run this place, they make the decisions. He's welcome to say what he likes elsewhere, but not here. It seems that most people are happy to support that.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 3, 2014 13:29:55 GMT
Sorry but I'm genuinely not sure what it is you're getting at here. From my point of view - I reluctantly agree with the decision taken (which I think is the case for all of us really). No one wants to ban anyone and in general we use a light touch except in issues where we are concerned that there might be legal implications to things that people have written. When it comes to the 'rough and tumble' of message board posting I think all mods would rather less abuse was thrown around and more posters respected each other because ultimately it's a waste of time abusing someone on a message board, it creates a bad atmosphere and it spoils threads. However, in general we prefer this to police itself. We only step in if we think it is consistently spoiling threads or if we are getting a lot of complaints from people. Ultimately with ZFC it was an issue of engaging - he didn't seem to be interested in engaging with the topics on the board anymore and was just bringing everything back to the same things (which has nothing to do with Rovers or football in general) whenever the vaguest opportunity presented itself. Again, I think it's about persistent behaviour. Obviously the odd thread will drift into other territory but the difference is between the conversation naturally going that way (like some conversations around the stadium sometimes becoming discussions about planning law or local politics etc) and there'll be the odd throw away comment here and there which is generally fine. What isn't fine is persistently crow-barring in the same topic over and over again that has nothing to do with the topic thread and seems to have no other motive other than to provoke. In the past we have warned and suspended other people for behaving like this but in general either they stopped posting or amended what they were doing - this is the first time we've felt we had to ban someone I think and it's because it makes the message board dysfunctional and unpleasant. Most of his posts since the Current Affairs forum closed either involved posting off topic provocative messages or abusing people who called him on it. It felt like he was just disrupting threads at any opportunity in order to prove a point. He was repeatedly warned and carried on doing it -so it's not as though he hasn't been warned and it's not as though he was banned at the drop of a hat; it was done very reluctantly. I found it childish more than anything else. Also I agree with pretty much everything Cheshire has just said re; the purpose of the board. I'm sorry that I didn't make my point with more clarity, irish. But as I don't agree with reporting any complaints that I may have (regarding fellow posters) to the moderators, then I cannot make my point any clearer than I have already done already. In fact I was not aware that posters were reporting fellow posters on a regular basis, until quite recently. I believe that this was the cause of the old Current Affairs section biting the dust, and speaking personally that is not the way that I choose to live my life. In a nutshell I don't find ''snitching'' to be a particularly attractive trait, much better to ignore I think. I totally agree with you as regards the ''rough and tumble'' aspect of the forum though, but again it should be applied to all posters to be acceptable and effective. After all none of us wants a forum where we are all equal, but some more equal than others, surely? it's not about anyone being more equal than others. Shane is not being treated differently. He is his own case. He is not taking part in any rough and tumble on Rovers matters. If he were he would get the same give and take as everyone else
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Nov 3, 2014 13:31:46 GMT
OK Oxon, as you say, it's a FOOTBALL FORUM. I'm not sure how that argument fits in with the forums available on the site..........Let's see how you manage in the future whenever a thread goes 'off-message'.
As I said earlier, you've made a rod for your own backs. I'm not arguing with you, just pointing out the consequences of pandering to the vocal minority.
|
|
Teigngas
Steve White
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 265
|
Post by Teigngas on Nov 3, 2014 13:42:38 GMT
I would like to thank the mods for doing a thankless task (if that makes sense). People have different opinions, that much is obvious by the replies to this thread and not everybody is going to agree with every decision made but I think what we must do is appreciate the difficult tasks the moderators do.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 13:50:27 GMT
I'm playing right wing cliche bingo with Nobby's posts - I only need him to say 'silent majority' and I can call House
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 3, 2014 13:51:33 GMT
OK Oxon, as you say, it's a FOOTBALL FORUM. I'm not sure how that argument fits in with the forums available on the site..........Let's see how you manage in the future whenever a thread goes 'off-message'. As I said earlier, you've made a rod for your own backs. I'm not arguing with you, just pointing out the consequences of pandering to the vocal minority. Nobby, it's not about threads going off message. Some topics do that naturally.
Crow barring in references to Islam, Muslims, The EU into threads to provoke whatever Shane was trying to provoke is a different story
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Nov 3, 2014 13:53:42 GMT
I'm playing right wing cliche bingo with Nobby's posts - I only need him to say 'silent majority' and I can call House Oh dear, is that the best you can do?
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Nov 3, 2014 13:53:54 GMT
ignore = 'bury my head in the sand' for me. We all agreed to the rules, there are processes for dealing with things outside of rules, people use them. That seems simple enough to me
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Nov 3, 2014 13:55:24 GMT
ignore = 'bury my head in the sand' for me. We all agreed to the rules, there are processes for dealing with things outside of rules, people use them. That seems simple enough to me apologies for the technical fail above - I was trying to respond to 'In a nutshell I don't find ''snitching'' to be a particularly attractive trait, much better to ignore I think.'
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Nov 3, 2014 14:10:38 GMT
Cor ... that Justin Bennett has banged in a few goals at Gosport hasn't he? Wonder if we could nab him until the end of the season?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 14:21:54 GMT
I'm playing right wing cliche bingo with Nobby's posts - I only need him to say 'silent majority' and I can call House Oh dear, is that the best you can do?
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 3, 2014 14:42:15 GMT
So he hasn't been banned for being a glory hunting manure supporting tosser? Mods need to up their game here
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Nov 3, 2014 14:46:52 GMT
Sorry but I'm genuinely not sure what it is you're getting at here. From my point of view - I reluctantly agree with the decision taken (which I think is the case for all of us really). No one wants to ban anyone and in general we use a light touch except in issues where we are concerned that there might be legal implications to things that people have written. When it comes to the 'rough and tumble' of message board posting I think all mods would rather less abuse was thrown around and more posters respected each other because ultimately it's a waste of time abusing someone on a message board, it creates a bad atmosphere and it spoils threads. However, in general we prefer this to police itself. We only step in if we think it is consistently spoiling threads or if we are getting a lot of complaints from people. Ultimately with ZFC it was an issue of engaging - he didn't seem to be interested in engaging with the topics on the board anymore and was just bringing everything back to the same things (which has nothing to do with Rovers or football in general) whenever the vaguest opportunity presented itself. Again, I think it's about persistent behaviour. Obviously the odd thread will drift into other territory but the difference is between the conversation naturally going that way (like some conversations around the stadium sometimes becoming discussions about planning law or local politics etc) and there'll be the odd throw away comment here and there which is generally fine. What isn't fine is persistently crow-barring in the same topic over and over again that has nothing to do with the topic thread and seems to have no other motive other than to provoke. In the past we have warned and suspended other people for behaving like this but in general either they stopped posting or amended what they were doing - this is the first time we've felt we had to ban someone I think and it's because it makes the message board dysfunctional and unpleasant. Most of his posts since the Current Affairs forum closed either involved posting off topic provocative messages or abusing people who called him on it. It felt like he was just disrupting threads at any opportunity in order to prove a point. He was repeatedly warned and carried on doing it -so it's not as though he hasn't been warned and it's not as though he was banned at the drop of a hat; it was done very reluctantly. I found it childish more than anything else. Also I agree with pretty much everything Cheshire has just said re; the purpose of the board. I'm sorry that I didn't make my point with more clarity, irish. But as I don't agree with reporting any complaints that I may have (regarding fellow posters) to the moderators, then I cannot make my point any clearer than I have already done already. In fact I was not aware that posters were reporting fellow posters on a regular basis, until quite recently. I believe that this was the cause of the old Current Affairs section biting the dust, and speaking personally that is not the way that I choose to live my life. In a nutshell I don't find ''snitching'' to be a particularly attractive trait, much better to ignore I think. I totally agree with you as regards the ''rough and tumble'' aspect of the forum though, but again it should be applied to all posters to be acceptable and effective. After all none of us wants a forum where we are all equal, but some more equal than others, surely? Sorry I really am trying to understand the original point here. So were you suggesting that some people have been reporting posts to moderators/administrators and that we're more likely to agree with them? Is that the point? Or is it that certain posters get more leeway than others? A hypothetical example of where it is you think double standards are applying might be helpful. Certainly on the Current Affairs board the main problem was the amount of work it was generating for moderators - we passed a point where we were moderating a Rovers forum but the vast majority of board management we were doing was on the subject of Current Affairs which was daft and not what we wanted to be doing with our time. It was less to do with specific viewpoints being reported actually than multiple copyright infringements and concerns about legal implications of certain posts; I think most people who posted there did accept that it was basically a free for all on opinions (though undoubtedly we were sailing close to the wind with the rules of our host I think) but it was when we started consistantly straying into legal territory that it became impossible to manage. None of us had the time time, the will or the neccesary expertise to make those judgements. Pure equal treatment and consistancy (on a post by post basis) would be pretty much impossible to achieve and I'm not sure people would want it anyway because of the amount it might stifle which is why we apply a light touch approach. We try to be as fair as possible within that - I think it would be unrealistic to try and claim anything beyond that. What we're primarily trying to do here is run a functional Rovers discussion board - when a posters behaviour persistantly makes that difficult then we will ask them to amend it (as we have with others a number of times) and unfortunately if they don't it doesn't give us many options.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Nov 3, 2014 14:48:25 GMT
I'm sorry that I didn't make my point with more clarity, irish. But as I don't agree with reporting any complaints that I may have (regarding fellow posters) to the moderators, then I cannot make my point any clearer than I have already done already. In fact I was not aware that posters were reporting fellow posters on a regular basis, until quite recently. I believe that this was the cause of the old Current Affairs section biting the dust, and speaking personally that is not the way that I choose to live my life. In a nutshell I don't find ''snitching'' to be a particularly attractive trait, much better to ignore I think. I totally agree with you as regards the ''rough and tumble'' aspect of the forum though, but again it should be applied to all posters to be acceptable and effective. After all none of us wants a forum where we are all equal, but some more equal than others, surely? it's not about anyone being more equal than others. Shane is not being treated differently. He is his own case. He is not taking part in any rough and tumble on Rovers matters. If he were he would get the same give and take as everyone else PP, I haven't gone back through the thread and re-read my posts, but I don't think that I have mentioned zfc once because that is not the point that I am making. It seems to me that we are unable to communicate because you (and the other moderators) talk exclusively about the banning, whilst I am trying to look at the bigger picture. Having said that I'm just off to re-bury my head in the sand. And yes that is an attempt at humour on my part, so no need to report me for that one . . . hopefully.
|
|
|
Post by tbonegas on Nov 3, 2014 15:15:43 GMT
The idiot wil return as Saab Gas. Just as he did on the original forum.
|
|
|
Post by Global Gas on Nov 3, 2014 15:54:38 GMT
Just out of interest; using the logic of freedom of speech meaning you can say what you like, do you reckon I could get nuclear launch codes under the freedom of information?
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,165
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Nov 3, 2014 16:29:15 GMT
Just out of interest; using the logic of freedom of speech meaning you can say what you like, do you reckon I could get nuclear launch codes under the freedom of information? Best of luck with that one! Or alternatively you could ask a certain Mr Snowden.....
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,165
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Nov 3, 2014 16:33:57 GMT
Cor ... that Justin Bennett has banged in a few goals at Gosport hasn't he? Wonder if we could nab him until the end of the season? That's a first warning to you for going off topic and talking about football!!
|
|
kwoodgas
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 675
|
Post by kwoodgas on Nov 3, 2014 18:40:27 GMT
So he hasn't been banned for being a glory hunting manure supporting tosser? Mods need to up their game here Come on mate get your facts right, he supporting Man Utd can hardly be described as glory hunting! The ***** bit on the other hand is completely accurate. As you're blatently reading this ****** YOU THOUGHT IT WAS YOURS YOU THOUGHT IT WAS YOURS WE SAW YOU CHEERING THEN SERGIO SCORED!
|
|