OT QPR Board Review: Stage 3 - Definitions

Further to our consultations so far, this stage is about the need, for modding and general understandings, for definitions on key terms used on the main forum of this board. (Should a sub-forum be approved, the definition of terms for that sub-forum may be adjusted.) The ones we'll be looking at here are:

• Self-Moderation
• Off Topic
• Banter
• Wum
• Baiting
• Thread Hijacking
• Trolling

The precise definitions we propose to work to in future are set out below.

If you find any part of our proposed definitions to be unreasonable, please let us know which one you're referring to AND your suggestions for amendments giving clear reasons for them.

We will then consider your suggestions in the context of whether they're likely to help people understand exactly what is or isn't required; and provide us as mods, with a clearer understanding of the lines we're expected to base our decisions on in future.

SELF-MODERATION

Proofing or re-reading your post to check for standards before pressing reply (send).

Ask yourself: ‘is my post disrespectful to other users or in breach of our rules and standards? Is it likely to cause offence? Is it likely to worry parents of children inadvertently looking in?

If it can be construed as such, correct it before sending / replying.

Norway's amendment: Add in 'is this something I would say to someone/this guy/girls face?'

OFF TOPIC (OT)

Non-Football threads (with OT before titles) as demonstrated in the recent experiment.

Such threads should comprise topics / materials of general interest that may intrigue us - but cannot be considered either deliberately or potentially inflammatory.


BANTER

• Good-humoured, playful conversation.
• To speak to in a playful or teasing way.
• To exchange mildly teasing remarks.

NOTE: Banter will not be taken as a defence for what the mods interpret as wumming.


WUM (Wind-Up Merchant)

Vexatious banter. Comments made with the intention to cause disruption by goading others.
(Goad - to provoke or annoy (someone) so as to stimulate some action or reaction.)


BAITING

Selectively challenging a named user / poster in a personal or disrespectful manner.


THREAD HIJACKING

(Purposeful and/or repeated) deviation from thread topic / title / OP (original post).
Safest way to avoid deviation is to comment addressing the OP or a previous 'on topic' post.


TROLLING

Practice of seeking attention by (or) posting a deliberately provocative message with the perceived intention of causing disruption and argument.


Looking forward to your (serious) responses. If you're content with the definitions above, please ignore this thread. (The next round on precise standards for the main board to follow in a few days).

 

I think people are making an effort to behave
The thread Why have the white british left London lasted a long while without really getting out of hand
Some really interesting points made on there from people with different views

 

I don't quite understand this stage to be honest. It appears that these things have been decided upon already and will only be undecided if we try to convince the Mods otherwise.
I thought it was supposed to be the other way round? Weren't we supposed to come up with suggestions and then decide which ones to have implemented - if any?

Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly but the material outlined above straight away looks to me like a new raft of restrictive measures to further curtail the freedom of expression of the Board. We've already had a very good thread closed earlier tonight and that's just one of many in recent days/weeks. This Board already has too much policing in my view and any more censorship, which is what appears to be the proposal above - albeit dressed up in fancy words, will reduce it to a banal, lifeless gentleman's Club suppressing the very thing that makes this Board great - imagination, personality and spontaneity.

I had high hopes for this process and thought it was going well up until now. Members were being asked their opinions, were encouraged to think of new ways to improve the Board and were all made to feel included. Well that's all been blown away now, in my opinion. It looks like it was all a charade to soften us up and lure us into a position where the Moderators will be granted more power (and by implication - us less) to do what they wish with impunity. This is supposed to be a democratic process not a dictatorial one.

If this is all that was on offer in the first place then you can count me out.

 

So Brix,
if i post a thread entitled "Tarrabt is ****", does that come under WUM, Trolling, Baiting or Banter? because it will have all of those effects?

Regardless of that, I MAY honestly believe that and want to say my piece. So am i not allowed to post what i think about any certain player or subject in case it offends someone? If that is the case them I and many others may as well leave now because we are going to cause a stir every now and again.

IMHO, thats what this board is about. diffrent opinions. I may not like player X or i may think player T f**ked up and I'll say so, where as others may disagree. I hope that when i post it does raise some eyebrows in (dis)belief. i dont want everyone to agree with me. It would be incredibly boring if you all (anyone?) did.
i want decent debate about our club, team. performance etc where EVERYBODYS VIEW IS EQUAL AND ACCEPTED.
We have finally moved away from the "you weren't at the game" bullshit & it seems most accept others views. i read lods that i dont agree with, but repspect the fact that every one has an opinion and is entittled to it- no exceptions!
just as a side note: there was an intresting trend on twitter last week where people were posting thier view from thier seats at HQ. how these people saw anything was beyond me. Worht a look if you can find it. Norf may be your man.

So i guess the question is, do you, nuts or anyone know all the posters well enough to be able to tell when we are genuine or not? I know you've got good handle on most of us but i dont think anyone is able to have it totally under control. Thats where the self mod thing comes in i guess, but sometimes there are exceptions.

We're all gonna have disagreements as you would if you put 50 blokes (and a girl) in a pub for the night. Even the landlord cant keep track of that.
for example, Gimme just commented on the "whites leaving" thread. personally i read the title, could see what was gonna happen and thought it should have been closed right ther and then. Just my opinion
Anyway, they may be definitions but i think they may also be very hard to enforce as you defined them. Havent really got the command of the language well enough to improve or alter them. I'll leave that to SB, DT, Ubber and the brains on the board (Swords included i think)!

 

PS..sorry i keep refering to Tarrabt threads, but it is the easiest example of making my point relevant to all that may read. I really dont think he's...

 

that would be Trolling mate

 

Thought it came more under the "baiting" catagory as I named a poster?

 

on holidays Queenslander?

 

Brix,

Would you believe I am with Swords on this one (strange I know). You would drive far more good posters away than the ones you keep.

Can't we tackle this problem another way? How about we name and shame directly the posters responsible for all this stuff and thereby appealing to them to change their behaviour or they get banned like other posters have. Just tell them straight up, exactly what they are doing wrong. You know who exactly is misbehaving, list them and tell us exactly why they are on the list. Give them a date in the near future where their behaviour will not be acceptable and take it from there. The fact they are on the list is their warning. If in (say) 3 months time, you feel the problem has not been resolved, then by all means be the Head Master and wave the big stick at us all.

The way you are proposing, you are waving the big stick at everybody now when the vast majority of the class have done absolutely nothing wrong.

 

I was quite content with the definitions but Queens' excellent post has raised a few questions.

You mods are appreciated beyond compare and a lot of that comes down to your instincts - knowing when to intervene, let a potentially provocative thread persist and when to nip things in the bud (plus whatever you good folk do in the background).

Many great threads have been forged from porential wrecks.

Your use of bans has only really been questioned once and we voted en masse in favour of you both using unqualified autonomy.

Therefore, I don't quite see what these formalised terms will add to the overall running of the forum and, if anything, might reduce your sense of satisfaction in overseeing the board if you were to govern by the letter of the law.

I'd be interested in the deeper motives behind this section because there'll be some reasons that would drive you to ask for our input.

 

I think brix is just defining some 'key terms' prior to having a discussion that is likely to include them. In the next bit i guess we'll discuss whether people carrying out our settled-upon definition of 'trolling' etc. are deserving of punishment, and if so, how severe? Don't think any rules have been made yet.

OT: In response to queenslander, i think bringing into question someone's presence at the game is sometimes valid. I've been on threads where there'll be everyone giving their view in a reasoned thought-out way, except for one guy who bangs on about why everyone else is wrong, and won't let it lie. If someone has a viewpoint that is wildly different to everyone else, and they're very outspoken about it- then i think they're fair game for criticism if they weren't at the game. It's incredibly frustrating coming back from a match to be told your opinion (and everyone else's) stinks by someone who wasn't there. Particularly when you've expended a lot of time/money to be there.

To be honest people will always look for reasons why someone else's opinion is different. It might be suggested they've got a soft spot for a certain player...or have a tendency to dislike a particular style of play. I'm not sure that the difference of where you viewed the match is one that should be immune from discussion?
I'd suggest that different means of viewing have different advantages. It's definitely easier to discern individual player's effort levels whilst in the stadium. Plus you've got the benefit of seeing stuff in 3d, so have a greater appreciation of the skill required to play certain passes, or make certain runs.
The sheer athleticism of those on the pitch doesn't really translate to telly as well either, and in the stadium you can focus on individual players/incidents free from the restrictions of the camera.
Then again, watching on TV provides an unobstructed view with replays. The birds eye perspective probably helps culture a better appreciation of the formations being used, and nothing is ever too far a way to see in detail.

 

I hope the OP above is a generalisation of what the Mods currently work to with a 'light touch'. If they plan to strictly enforce such a schedule most of our regular protagonists will be gone in no time. The cut and thrust of points of view being argued with passion help make this board what it is, if you are having to 'look over your shoulder' when posting a sometimes spontaneous reply this board will lose it's character very quickly.

The example of how not to do it was the original 606 board, we are as near the workable opposite as possible, let's keep it that way, as 'light a touch' as possible please...

 

I tend to agree with this and do worry that we may end up sanitising the board too much. However, that is in no way the fault of the mods and lies squarely on the shoulders on those posters who have pushed the mods to embark on this review. The only change I would like to see is that when someone continually pushes their luck, they get banned for good. Everyone knows when a post is made ONLY to wind people up and cause bad feeling............DON'T DO IT!

We could, I suppose put into the house rules that we don't post porn and generally take into account that youngsters could be looking in?

I wouldn't want to see the arguments and banter tamed as this is a forum after all.

 

Sure looks to me like a decision has been made to NOT have an off topic section...emm

 

Bit bemused by the comments so far here; the OP clearly states that this stage is concerned only with DEFINITIONS, so that we can all agree when we use a particular term or expression that we all know precisely what is meant by that word or group of words. Nothing more or less than that.

 

The definitions wouldn't be needed if the intention was to move to a sub section, which leads me to believe that the plan is to plonk all the threads on our main board

 

Did Brix not say yesterday that that decision could only be made by brb and that the case had been put to him and was under consideration? That's my understanding Cerny, but I have been known to be wrong on occasions.

 

This is a great site that's full of characters and has a reasonably diverse background. The problem is that this site is evolving all the time away from a 'football only forum' and is becoming more and more difficult to Mod. Some are quite happy with this while others are obviously not. What some see as interesting and entertaining OT threads, others see as unnecessary rubbish that only facilitates wumming, baiting, trolling etc etc. very few football threads have had to be closed by us mods while many of us see that certain OT threads are doomed for disaster as soon as they are posted. What one person sees as genuinely funny can be highly offensive to another.

All Brix is trying to do here is get us all to stop and reflect on the way this board is evolving. NO decisions have been made. By asking these questions, Brix is effectively putting you in the role of a Mod and asking you for your opinions as to your current satisfaction with the board and ideas as to how it can be improved.
Modding these OT threads can be a nightmare. To get the balance right we need to know what's your opinions on these threads? What's your opinion as to what's acceptable and what's not? and next will come how do you want us to Mod them?
There are no dictators on this site. The growing phenomenon of OT threads has to be discussed thoroughly in order to try and reach some sort of consensus.
Please take a look again at the OP again and discuss accordingly. OThanks.

 

I'm not having a pop in any way any the mods or you but if would make more sense to poll it up and then see how the voting goes and what the general consensus is before approaching the supermod, but what do I know

 

Taken by this written definition on point then it may become necessary to sanction most of the board as soon as these proposals were introduced

I would certainly be banned as of course I have insulted posters in the past and apologies but some of the bitter post match attacks on our club and players is not acceptable to me and I generally get upset with the negativity and what I see just as an individual poster are at times very naive comments

I caught the Liverpool game just on TV and I was struck on how their fans sung after the match

I have seen a horrible downturn as a QPR fan and sorry I really mean that and I haven't forgotten where we have come from. To even write for example that Park is **** etc is against what I feel

The slating of players and of a team and club fair enough when you are bottom BUT its much deeper than that since I have been on hereabd that's the truth of it .

I couldn't and wouldn't post on here if this toilet duck is sprayed around what is a reasonably clean toilet

The overall social outlook and position of our team is of course reflected currently and blood will boil ... Simply let it IMO and I disagree to any theory about extra work for Mods ... They would certainly have more to do if these rules were introduced as I believe you would be walking a tightrope both as a poster or a mod.

I also sense a good harmony now as most posters who seem to want the club not to succeed are relaxing in their own minds as they believe we are down ... I am just different there and won't ever concede its what I believe a fan should be like.

Other threads well it looks like what I see that we as a group like to discuss anything and the facts that this online 24 hour journal attracts a lot of readers from other clubs suggests at least as a community we have something right apart from the north east numbers backed by a solid football culture and following up there WE are the most successful football forum out there

We entertain its that simple

It will be interesting to see where all this leads us