OT - The QPR Board review
- Thread starter Swords Hoopster.
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
It's theads like this I generally shy away from, because it always ends up getting crappy. However, in this case, Swords, you're completely wrong. I echo the others - if you have stats, names, specific quotes and threads that support the claims you are making in the OP, then post them (in the spirit of having an open and frank discussion, as you say you want).
We await your next comment with barely disguised indifference....
We await your next comment with barely disguised indifference....
I'm on a number of forums for the various life interests I hold and I've never come across anything like this.
Internet forums are meant to be a place to discuss with your fellow hobbyists about various areas of your favourite pastime or hobby.
Not some annoying political fight for attention, where grown men act like school kids in a play ground.
Some of you guys are twice my age and I'd be hard pushed to believe you were anything other than half of it.
I won't put names out, but some of you guys are embarrassing.
Internet forums are meant to be a place to discuss with your fellow hobbyists about various areas of your favourite pastime or hobby.
Not some annoying political fight for attention, where grown men act like school kids in a play ground.
Some of you guys are twice my age and I'd be hard pushed to believe you were anything other than half of it.
I won't put names out, but some of you guys are embarrassing.
Here we go again.
I wasn't going to comment but since I was a Mod during this period, I feel that I should clarify a few points.
The reason we had a review was very simple. Over a period of about 8-12 months this forum started to alter from a predominately football forum to one that suddenly discussed the world and its mother. It muddied the water greatly for us Mods and we felt that the house rules weren't clear enough on OT topics. We were concerned that members would accuse us of imposing our own personal thoughts or beliefs on Modding decisions. As Mods we needed clarity as to what you the members deemed as acceptable and what was not.
We had a huge divide in option as to OT topics. Some on here wanted this to be a football only forum. Some wanted limited OT topics as they often provide an acceptable platform to discuss interesting/funny/current news topics. Some wanted a more liberal approach with all OT topics allowed. We were never going to be able to satisfy everybody's needs. The problem with having OT threads is that what one person finds funny, another can find offensive.
As Mods we tried to establish exactly what you wanted. Definitions were agreed to clarify what different offences were. Brix applied to the site owner for permission to establish a sub- forum to allow all OT threads to be discussed away from the main football forum. We were not the only forum to look for this. The site owner blanked us. He is apparently completely against the idea. Brix genuinely did everything he could here and exhausted that route. To even suggest that he is draconian is ridiculous and an insult to a man that gives so much of his time on a voluntary basis to this board. I will admit on record that it was me who did not want this sub-forum and argued robustly with Brix against him. To his credit he stood firm and would have agreed to it if the site owner had of played ball.
The house rules need to be updated now to reflect the review. I know Brix is working on it as we speak. Will it make a difference to the vast majority of people on here. NO. Will it make a difference to Swords. Probably, as a leopard doesn't change his spots and he will continue to show disrespect to others.
This thread is ridiculous. The vast majority on here have shown that they can discuss all matters both QPR and OT while continuing to show respect to others and their opinions. You Swords, by your own admission continue to bait others for your own amusement. Personally I'd love you to take the challenge and set a poll on your ridiculous allegations and I am more than confident that will show you exactly what the members think of you and your ideas.
I wasn't going to comment but since I was a Mod during this period, I feel that I should clarify a few points.
The reason we had a review was very simple. Over a period of about 8-12 months this forum started to alter from a predominately football forum to one that suddenly discussed the world and its mother. It muddied the water greatly for us Mods and we felt that the house rules weren't clear enough on OT topics. We were concerned that members would accuse us of imposing our own personal thoughts or beliefs on Modding decisions. As Mods we needed clarity as to what you the members deemed as acceptable and what was not.
We had a huge divide in option as to OT topics. Some on here wanted this to be a football only forum. Some wanted limited OT topics as they often provide an acceptable platform to discuss interesting/funny/current news topics. Some wanted a more liberal approach with all OT topics allowed. We were never going to be able to satisfy everybody's needs. The problem with having OT threads is that what one person finds funny, another can find offensive.
As Mods we tried to establish exactly what you wanted. Definitions were agreed to clarify what different offences were. Brix applied to the site owner for permission to establish a sub- forum to allow all OT threads to be discussed away from the main football forum. We were not the only forum to look for this. The site owner blanked us. He is apparently completely against the idea. Brix genuinely did everything he could here and exhausted that route. To even suggest that he is draconian is ridiculous and an insult to a man that gives so much of his time on a voluntary basis to this board. I will admit on record that it was me who did not want this sub-forum and argued robustly with Brix against him. To his credit he stood firm and would have agreed to it if the site owner had of played ball.
The house rules need to be updated now to reflect the review. I know Brix is working on it as we speak. Will it make a difference to the vast majority of people on here. NO. Will it make a difference to Swords. Probably, as a leopard doesn't change his spots and he will continue to show disrespect to others.
This thread is ridiculous. The vast majority on here have shown that they can discuss all matters both QPR and OT while continuing to show respect to others and their opinions. You Swords, by your own admission continue to bait others for your own amusement. Personally I'd love you to take the challenge and set a poll on your ridiculous allegations and I am more than confident that will show you exactly what the members think of you and your ideas.
I Have to agree with Franckster, this is a good board interspersed with some very odd characters who seem to want to be the constant focus of attention.
(I think i shall invent the term - E-tention Seekers)
Its get really boring reading the same **** slinging fest between the same people, going on and on and on...
We are approaching the close season, where there will be less football related stuff to break up the constant supply of inane playground squabbles, and i think a period of Not606 abstention looks likely again for many, which will be a shame as it will mean only the E-tention seekers remain caught in some weird mutual attention seeking loop.
Maybe some will be happy with this....
(I think i shall invent the term - E-tention Seekers)
Its get really boring reading the same **** slinging fest between the same people, going on and on and on...
We are approaching the close season, where there will be less football related stuff to break up the constant supply of inane playground squabbles, and i think a period of Not606 abstention looks likely again for many, which will be a shame as it will mean only the E-tention seekers remain caught in some weird mutual attention seeking loop.
Maybe some will be happy with this....
Excellent! Goes hand in hand with 'anetophobia' - the fear of being cut off from the net for any substantial period of time. Glad I read this thread now.
This is precisely my point. In response to my criticism of the way the whole process was handled, I get told that under the new rules from that very process, I could be banned for bringing it up!
Sorry Brix, I love ye mate, but that's a joke.
A number of others did exactly what I said they did. They voiced concerns about the Moderator bringing in new rules that would over-sanitise the Board and restrict freedom of speech.
Off the top of my head and without trawling back through pages of threads, I can clearly remember the following saying as much: Oddball, COL, Cerny, Uber, Queens, Sooper. If I went back through the threads I'm certain I'd find many many more.
(Of course COL will probably come on now and say that he never said such a thing and if he does, it'll force me to go sifting through all the sh*t to find his quote. But find it I will.)
Well that's bloody charming that is COL. I thought you was my mate!
Well there were obviously changes or else why would you have said earlier that Brix is working on publishing the new regulations as we speak?
But insofar as I see it, the previous rules were mainly in relation to sanctions for offending someone via the "isms". Fairly moderate stuff and something that nobody could possibly have argued with. However now, as I pointed out above, one could be banned if the Moderator thinks that someone is baiting someone else. Now that sounds fine in theory but in practice it opens up a whole can of worms. How can one define baiting? For example, someone might have a strong view about a particular player and it goes against the grain of most others who think that player is brilliant. How long do you think it will be before Queens, for example, gets accused of baiting someone with regards to Taarabt? After all, COL has accused people numerous times in the past of deliberately winding him up when they've highlighted how poor Taarabt was in a game. Under the new guidelines, Queens could be banned for an indefinite amount of time just for having a genuine opinion on a player who represents the Club he loves. There are countless other scenarios where these new measures could effectively be used to gag members from expressing their opinions.
But the biggest problem I have with all of this, is that the outcome of the procedure isn't reflecting the debate at all! Whilst some wanted tightening up of off-topics etc and others wanted loosening of restraints, by and large, the majority expressed the preference for the status quo. But that's not what we're getting! And I'm sorry if I sound cynical but that leads me to suspect that the whole thing was a red-herring in order to detract the Mob's attention while a whole raft of undemocratic statutes were hammered through before we even knew what hit us.
I'm not happy at all with this situation.
Swords this is now a new era ... I am on record as supporting you and didn't agree with your ban ... I believe the key issue was is that you clashed with a naughty turd ... he ... Cerny has gone now as he completely blew up and exposed himself as the giant idiot he was. I would rejoice if i was you and accept the new era we are all about to embark on ... The stale is clean in my book and I am sure Colin is just pulling your pisser a bit ... live and let live you tosspot
I understand it can hurt when you feel you have been a victim of an injustice ... but show the other cheek and if it happens again then use your facial features
I understand it can hurt when you feel you have been a victim of an injustice ... but show the other cheek and if it happens again then use your facial features
From above "by and large, the majority expressed the preference for the status quo."
If you go through this thread alone...the majority...well I think all of us except you....seem to think nothing has changed...we have the "status quo".
Nothing has changed, no "whole raft of undemocratic statutes were hammered through before we even knew what hit us." has happened
If you go through this thread alone...the majority...well I think all of us except you....seem to think nothing has changed...we have the "status quo".
Nothing has changed, no "whole raft of undemocratic statutes were hammered through before we even knew what hit us." has happened
Och I couldnae give a toss about the ban, Oddball. I don't mind getting banned now and again. But for the future of the Forum as a whole, I really think the Mods have gone totally OTT with this. This particular Board has always been a brilliant setting for debate, helped in no small measure by Brix' excellent Moderation skills throughout. So why tinker with it?
If it ain't broke...............
Thanks mate..nice to know you are better than us....!
No surprise you're on "fantasy Island' eh?
good luck!
Betty, one small example: Cerny was given a lifetime ban a couple of weeks ago. Now I know he can be a bit of a blockhead now and then but to give the Geezer a permanent ban was a bit much, wasn't it?
Wasn't there a system of due process here before when if a bloke stepped out of line he was put in the cooler for a week or two to calm down? Now you're having people flung out into the wilderness for eternity for one offence!
The board and the rules weren't broke, Swords - however some members acted as if they were, or acted as if those rules didn't apply to them - Cerny being the latest example. Much of his 'banter' was deliberately aimed at getting a reaction from other posters, and people (myself included) ended up feeding the beast. In the end he imploded, as we know.
But the board and the rules still aren't broke - they have simply been clarified. Putting OT in front of an off-topic thread helps those who only want to talk QPR and don't want to be bothered with jokes / current affairs etc., whilst identifying the reasons behind why certain board behaviour is not accepted simply clarifies the existing rules, so that nobody can argue that they 'didn't know' that personally attacking someone was unacceptable.
There's been no massive change in the board or how it's run, so I think you're seeing gunmen on grassy knolls where none exist, mate.
Swords, its pretty clear that only you are worked up by this, and are prepared to spend considerable thought and energy arguing about it when no one else cares. Why not turn this energy and your forensic arguing skills and enormous sense of justice somewhere more productive? Join Amnesty International, be a volunteer for the Irish version of Citizen's Advice, train as a lawyer........just give it a rest on here!
