Vote of Confidence in DMD as a moderator

[Stuart Blampey]

It does strike me that the mods views and their moderating is discussed on here more than I would expect.

It's easy to see why when an issue such as the name change has caused such deep division amongst the fans.

Imagine a scenario where for instance Craig, Happy and TigerFiley were the three mods on here rather than DMD, PLT (and the other one).

Would the Board be less divided? Probably not.
Would there be less personal nastiness being dished out? Probably not.
The difference however is that a different group of posters would be made to feel victimised because of their views.

Maybe I forget the name of the other one because he behaves more like a mod, and therefore I have noticed him less (even though I guess he agrees with the name change).

Just my two cents.

This is the only board where you will find anyone who supports the name change, and even then they are a small vocal minority.

 

[Walter Sobchak]

But now you know Erik has used a racist name for one of our players are you going to reprimand him (or take any action) or do you think simply editing the word makes everything better?

Does hiding the evidence of racism (as you did with Asbo's comment on the bad driving thread) without dealing with the culprit do anything to prevent the same thing happening again in future? Or is it just a way to protect the racist?

You're just contrary for its own sake. Sad.

 

[DMD]

It does strike me that the mods views and their moderating is discussed on here more than I would expect.

However when an issue such as the name change has caused such a deep division between the fans, mods should try to remain impartial.

It's easy to see why when an issue such as the name change has caused such deep division amongst the fans.

Imagine a scenario where for instance Craig, Happy and TigerFiley were the three mods on here rather than DMD, PLT (and the other one).

Would the Board be less divided? Probably not.
Would there be less personal nastiness being dished out? Probably not.
The difference however is that a different group of posters would be made to feel victimised because of their views.

Maybe I forget the name of the other one because he behaves more like a mod, and therefore I have noticed him less (even though I guess he agrees with the name change).

Just my two cents.

The mods get discussed, because as in this case, a few posters will whine no matter what. Craig didn't like another posters comment, so, despite me not agreeing, I changed it. The person whose post it was hasn't complained, but despite getting what he wanted, Craig still isn't happy. How do you please someone like that?

As far as impartiality goes, we're impartial with the moderating, so still have an opinion. This thread alone is testament to that. Some people seem to have a strange idea of the moderators roll. We're more cleaners than anything, the users (not just posters) dictate how that's done.

 

[DMD]

The posts that pointed it out were there for all to see before DMD deleted them.

But for anyone who didn't see the post (using memory for the reasons mentioned) The OP posted a video of someone driving the wrong way up a one way street and your comment was to the effect of; What can you expect from some of the drivers in multi-racial Britain.
There was literally no excuse for bringing race into a thread about bad driving and I even produced a still showing the driver was white.
You can plead innocent for the umpteenth time, but anyone on here who reads a fraction of your posts knows different.

There was no mention at all of race or colour in Steweys reply. By your standards, as YOU have brought race into it, should you be banned?

 

[Be Rugby Tit]

This is the only board where you will find anyone who supports the name change, and even then they are a small vocal minority.

I don't see it like that any more. Certainly that was the issue but now the division is more Anti-name change vs. Pro-Allam.

I know there are posters on here who are anti-name change AND still pro-allam but CTID and Dr Allam himself are forcing this to be the choice for Hull City fans.

 

[DMD]

I don't see it like that any more. Certainly that was the issue but now the division is more Anti-name change vs. Pro-Allam.

I know there are posters on here who are anti-name change AND still pro-allam but CTID and Dr Allam himself are forcing this to be the choice for Hull City fans.

What does that have to do with moderating though? If you're aware of both on here, doesn't that mean they've been given the same right of reply no matter what their stance?

 

[Stuart Blampey]

The posts that pointed it out were there for all to see before DMD deleted them.

But for anyone who didn't see the post (using memory for the reasons mentioned) The OP posted a video of someone driving the wrong way up a one way street and your comment was to the effect of; What can you expect from some of the drivers in multi-racial Britain.
There was literally no excuse for bringing race into a thread about bad driving and I even produced a still showing the driver was white.
You can plead innocent for the umpteenth time, but anyone on here who reads a fraction of your posts knows different.

There was no mention or race in my post and you know it. The post is still viewable. You owe me an apology, and you owe the whole forum one for boring everyone to tears with your absurd, childish, petty, whingeing, not very bright, dull, monotonous, pompous, self-righteous tantrum.

 

[Be Rugby Tit]

The mods get discussed, because as in this case, a few posters will whine no matter what. Craig didn't like another posters comment, so, despite me not agreeing, I changed it. The person whose post it was hasn't complained, but despite getting what he wanted, Craig still isn't happy. How do you please someone like that?

As far as impartiality goes, we're impartial with the moderating, so still have an opinion. This thread alone is testament to that. Some people seem to have a strange idea of the moderators roll. We're more cleaners than anything, the users (not just posters) dictate how that's done.

So you would be happy for Craig, Happy and Tiger to be "cleaning" as mods whilst also expressing their views?

 

[Craigo]

I've already spoken to him. Even though I only found out about just a few minutes ago. How's that for efficiency?

Asbo's comment on the driving thread wasn't racist.

Are YOU going to apologise for not reporting these threads you've seen (but can't link)? If YOU'VE seen them and done nothing, doesn't that make you guilty of the things you seem to be inventing for me? Have YOU challenged these racists you reckon are everywhere, getting away with all sorts?

Yes I've challenged racists on here more than most and it's a lonely job because there's no backing from moderators.
As far as reporting them to you is concerned, I remember having a long debate with you about the Lee Bowyer racial attack, and I couldn't even get you to admit that racism exists even though I put the question to you in it's simplest form repeatedly. So no, I wouldn't see any point in reporting racial posts to you.

 

[DMD]

So you would be happy for Craig, Happy and Tiger to be "cleaning" as mods whilst also expressing their views?

If they did it in the same way, yes. The opinion is irrelevant to the moderating.

 

[Fez]

I've voted for Dutch to stay, although I could understand him saying it's not worth the hassle. I have had my fair share of disagreement with him over his style, but that is a part and parcel of the chosen framework of this site. I have posted previously that I believe some change to how moderation is made should be considered, just as I think a mod post should be labelled as such. Better the Dutch you know IMO.

 

[DMD]

Yes I've challenged racists on here more than most and it's a lonely job because there's no backing from moderators.
As far as reporting them to you is concerned, I remember having a long debate with you about the Lee Bowyer racial attack, and I couldn't even get you to admit that racism exists even though I put the question to you in it's simplest form repeatedly. So no, I wouldn't see any point in reporting racial posts to you.

So basically, you haven't reported any of these posts you can't find, to ANY of the mods or supermods, but these posts you can't produce are somehow MY fault?

 

[GLP]

There was no mention at all of race or colour in Steweys reply. By your standards, as YOU have brought race into it, should you be banned?

Yes please, he's ****ing irritating.

 

[Be Rugby Tit]

What does that have to do with moderating though? If you're aware of both on here, doesn't that mean they've been given the same right of reply no matter what their stance?

As a recent observer of the Board, posters look to moderators as to what they can get away with.
If the see a mod ridiculing a pro-Allam supporter, then they know they can also do the same without fear of consequences.

Don't be so naive to believe that people are not influenced by moderators actions.

 

[DMD]

I've voted for Dutch to stay, although I could understand him saying it's not worth the hassle. I have had my fair share of disagreement with him over his style, but that is a part and parcel of the chosen framework of this site. I have posted previously that I believe some change to how moderation is made should be considered, just as I think a mod post should be labelled as such. Better the Dutch you know IMO.

You've reminded me of something I thought of when you mentioned it before, I thought we could use the Policeman type smiley if we were posting as mods? Problem comes with ones like this, where I honestly don't know if I'm a poster or a mod replying.

 

[Walter Sobchak]

God this is so ****ing boring.

 

[Leon...]

Just my two cents.

Americano?

 

[DMD]

As a recent observer of the Board, posters look to moderators as to what they can get away with.
If the see a mod ridiculing a pro-Allam supporter, then they know they can also do the same without fear of consequences.

Don't be so naive to believe that people are not influenced by moderators actions.

If a comment's defensible, why would it matter? If people can't see an opinion for being just that no matter what's under the username, I think it's them that's naive to be fair.

 

[Be Rugby Tit]

If a comment's defensible, why would it matter? If people can't see an opinion for being just that no matter what's under the username, I think it's them that's naive to be fair.

As I said, you would think differently if the mods on here had the opposite viewpoint on the name change, and you saw the mods ridiculing a poster who shared the same opinion as yourself.

 

[Be Rugby Tit]

Americano?

Ok it was a ****y thing to say.