Swords: Verdict and Poll

I trust our mods to do the right thing. They work hard and Swords has created a lot of unnecessary work for them.

 

As delightful as always. Thanks, DT.

 

I'll put you down as a "Don't Know" then?

 

In Brixton We Trust!
In Nines We Trust!

 

Fair enough westie..I am in no way defending him and if it has been very personall then i have missed most of it. In which case i appologise to Imaz and can say I'm only commenting on what i have seen.
Didnt mean to take anyones side...!

Westie.you are completely correct in everything you have said .

 

I think we forget one poll option here.......

O. Couldn't care less

 

I don't think he should be permanently banned. Nuff' said

 

I note all that's been said so far, and encourage comment from anyone who hasn't spoken thus far. It must be understood that any attempt at democracy on here is limited to those who speak up openly. PM-ing me with such opinion cannot count on this matter at this stage of the game. As we see, that opinion is strong and divided, which makes decisions going forward that much harder to justify to one side or the other.

And that's the rub isn't it? There are a set of rules / standards (available by clicking my signature) around respect that very, very few if any have contested to date. Swords has certainly acknowledged them several times over. The fact is, we / I choose not to sanction those who breach those rules unless absolutely necessary, e.g. levels of abuse (StanleyBowlesNo10), repeated 'offences' (Swords). A clear 'calm-it' warning should and does suffice most of the time.

Whilst I appreciate that the anti-gay stuff yesterday went way beyond the pail, much further in fact than Swords one-liner and follow-up post that's earned this ban, there's a context to consider. Swords is a serial offender with several recent bans (from different mods) to his name. The guy yesterday isn't. It's the first time I've seen anything like it from him.

So why does the knowledgeable Swords persistently target others so personally? (The strength of Imaz's reactions to Swords is testament to kick-back when that happens. I can tell you that, whereas I got no PMs complaining about Swords prior to July / August this year, I've had many since that have taken far too much time and effort responding to.)

Who knows? Some say he's a troll, an attention whore, who just loves the sight of his name in lights. Others maintain he's a covert fascist with a dumbed-down agenda. Many condemn the way he (and DT) take over or hijack otherwise perfectly good threads for no good reason.

Personally, I don't give a **** what Swords' reasons are - just that every time he fails to show due respect and self-moderation, it gives us even more work (both openly and behind the scenes on PMs) trying to keep things moderate. If we turn a blind eye, we simply set precedents and open the floodgates for more of the same from others and even more work for ourselves as QPR mods.

So do we want written rules / standards applied to this board of ours or not? If we don't, we certainly don't need club board moderators like NUTS and me. Question is, would the site accept the 'free' speech that followed - or input their own mods? Either way I doubt many of us (including me) could be arsed treading over the bullshit and other effects of anarchy and/or site repression that would in all probability follow.

So whilst a permanent ban for Swords is in my personal interest since it would clear the vast majority of our mod in-trays, warning to Swords or not, we still have a problem. The fact that there remain numbers of regular posters who support Swords' flagrant disregard of the moderate rules / standards set. In order to maintain a semblance of board harmony, we have to recognise the feelings of these people too.

That's what brought us to the decision not to invoke the permanent ban but to indicate our displeasure at the persistent offences and repeat bans by stopping short with a longer ban on this occasion.

But what do the majority of posters on here think? A poll would certainly help find out. Problem is the one that's gone up omits both the context set out in my post above and the action taken (i.e. a four week ban). These things are important because they explain the criteria that led to our decision. The result of the poll is therefore unlikely to establish the true feelings of this board on the precise matter in hand.

 

Given the polarised division of opinion on this matter, good to see a poll looking to establish the balance. Finding such balance is key to what we mods are expected to do as we act for or against this and that.

However, this poll just ain't going to achieve that is it? There's no context to the decision taken and nowhere to indicate support for that (4 week) decision. For that reason, as an active member and responsible for the decision made and currently under review, I cannot possibly register my vote to support the decision made.

This was the scope of the poll I requested since these were the criteria that informed our decision.

Context

Having been banned 3 times over a couple of months or so, and having been allowed to sneak back in under a new user-name on each occasion, Swords sinned again and was given a final warning that said 'next time it's permanent'. Swords acknowledged the forewarning and said 'no hard feelings come what may'. The next time came with complaints about stereotyping Jews, which some considered disrespectful if not plain racist in this day and age.

Question

What were we to do?

Possible Answers

Carry out our warning and make the ban permanent?
Give him yet another one week ban?
Give him a longer ban to justify postponing the permanent one?
Do nothing and **** those offended or bored by Swords' persistent wumming our own mob?
Tell him off (again) but otherwise do nothing?
Something else (details posted below).

Should've included 'Couldn't care less' since that's an opinion already expressed that says leave it to the mods' discretion.

 

Can I vote twice ?

 

Depends what the choice is.....

 

I don't think there are many who actually support his more outlandish outbursts but just feel that others should be grown-up enough to be able to ignore him if they want. The problems come when people feel the need to get into an argument with someone who clearly always needs to have the last word. You wouldn't waste your time on someone you found obnoxious in a face to face situation so why do it on here? If you want to go down that route you need to consider banning all those that get into childish tit for tat posts of which there are many. This is what really puts people off.

 

As I said above - he knows the triggers that provoke people, and targets those who have responded to him in the past (such as myself, and Imaz). Ignoring him isn't the easiest thing.

What would be better is that if you put someone on Ignore, their posts don't even show up. As it is, the software shows the post in a collapsed state, so you know that he's posting over and again. The tendency to check ad see what is being said is hard to resist, and when you find out he is abusing you, or he is mocking your 'non-response', sometimes you just bite, and he knows it.

He's a very, very clever little troll who has this thing down to a fine art.

 

Looking at the results so far it's clear that we're not going to arrive at a concensus here. If the poll is broadened further to include the list of questions in Brix's post concensus will be even further away. We may have a front runner in one or other poll choice but in terms of majority viewpoint, no.

My view is that Brix and Nuts are the mods here, they give up their time to serve the contributors on here and as has been pointed out we have a table of values set out in the guidelines for posting.

We are all subject to those boundaries and if any poster repeatedly transgresses they really are giving two fingers to all of us.

As far as I'm concerned whatever action our mods consider appropriate is ok by me. No clique should be allowed to get away with bullying either individually or collectively.

 

Swords is an interesting fellow. Of course, his preferred modus operandi is to post something provocative to raise your hackles. And, of course, raise hackles it does. If you respond with aggression, he tends to ratchet up the provocation (sometime subtly, sometimes as subtle as a brick) until inevitably he oversteps the mark, goes off on one and ends up with a ban. But I have found that if you take him to task with good humour, or explain politely why you take an opposing view, or better still offer to educate him as to why his position is offensive, there is much evidence that he backs down and apologises. Yeah, this could be his tactic all along - I never said that he was unintelligent.

The problem is that he is now becoming a parody of himself. He does what he does because his reputation dictates that that is what he must do. And it is this reputation that is getting him repeatedly banned. There's a few examples around here where he was the agent provocateur, but it has sometimes been the strength of the reaction to him that has got him banned, more so than the content of what he's actually posted himself. Because he's the catalyst and at the epi-centre of the storm, he pays the price. This is probably correct, but often seems a little harsh.

In the interests of balance, however, there are also examples where he has stepped way over the line. Particularly distasteful are his run-ins with his favourite quarries. But, there are occasions when he simply has to post something (maybe quite innocuous) and some of his usual sparring partners leap in with unnecessarily antagonistic retorts that kick it all off again. He fails to learn that he can be as much the target (because of the reputation he's carved out for himself) as the provoker.

I say let's have him back. Those that don't want him back, put him on 'ignore' and let's see how it goes. Lifetime ban without consultation next time, Brix. Just do it. For the rest of us: three strikes and you're out, I say!

 

Über, that's a great post, as most of yours are.

Only thing to say in addition is that I like Swords and hope he can stay around. The people who are most upset with him are those who feel he has 'targeted' them. But he stopped doing this after his last ban. I know Imaz ( who I also like ) left (for the second time), but that wasn't down to Swords. But if this is taking up too much of Brix and Nuts' time, and the board rules are being consistently flouted, lets get it over and done with - a controlled Swords with mojo intact is good, a neutered one is pointless.

One thing this is not about is freedom of speech or democracy. It's a football forum with rules, and if you break them you run the risk of being kicked out of the club. Out there in the real world freedom of speech is a life or death issue - as the family of the former US ambassador to Libya can testify. If people want to get all moral about this I suggest that they save it for a more important issue.

 

Leave his pork sword alone!

 

I say bring him back and help the infected that just can't typing a reply and finishing out their sent

 

Right, time to head off down the M40 to Loftus Road. Just to warn you, me and the boy plan to spend the journey inventing an extremely offensive chant to the tune of 'Fat Sam's Speakeasy' from Bugsy Malone, which seems appropriate. Hope we don't upset anyone.

 

Uber and SB are, as usual, spot on.

There is a vibrancy on this forum that is sadly lacking in his absence.

His last chance was tainted by people trying to get him banned once and for all.

That said, the forum can't be a one man circus and I'd hate hate see the likes of Imaz and Willy leave at Sword's hand.

Uber points out how to communicate with him perfectly.

The only thing I'll add is that he must do something right because Flyer seems to be the only one capable of ignoring him.

A mutual agreement of ignorance would be a condition of his return but the aggrieved need to stick to this as well as Swords. Everyone else needs to give him A fair crack.