Could you tell us how much further? As you seem to believe it is easy (and necessary) to lay down rules, when would the point of moderation intervention have been triggered; would it have been a hard defined point in the discussion or would you rely on a moderators judgment? Do you really believe a warning would have stopped it? I would say that OLM is consistent, as are the other Mods, but all in their own way; so is the truth of it you are having a dig at OLM, rather than the rules? If you were a little more consistent then fair enough . . .
I am posting this whilst the news is on. I do not need to debate the subject and fail to see the point. As fez says, I do not seek education to clarify my political view. On the Royal thread I posted nonsense and it goes unchecked, but the whole debate was a non starter. This site gets diluted by the o/t threads anyway. Look at today's thrilling offering pregnant royal, and abandoned dogs, its like Hello magazine on here at times. Just accept the fact that not everyone shares an interest in posters political or religious views.
As I’ve stated many times, the thread should have been given the oxygen beyond the short time it was given as it had a football context. To repeat myself further, threads without any sort of football context are given this oxygen. I can assure you nothing dangerous would have occurred. No one would have been hurt, it was low risk. If the thread turned into all out politics, with no shred of football, then close the thread. Pretty simple. What consistency of mine are you referring which would be relevant, or was that an attempt at being clever?
I do. But it should be accepted that people are adults and should perhaps be 'allowed' to discuss issues within the margins (when football and politics meet -for example, Hillsborough) seeing as, as you point out, many of these topics are discussed unchecked in many cases anyway.
Just as a matter of interest (serious if you can ) does anyone else feel let down by this lack of explicit rules?
Not at all. But I never claimed that the explicit rules existed, I merely asked to see them after they were cited as cause.
I think the rules are explicit enough. "Rules for the Hull Forum We only really have the 3, and these are the rules we all agreed on when we first came over from the BBC 606 site, before we even had any moderators. 1) We don't talk about politics unless it's related to the club/football - ie the Allams vs the Council over the stadium. 2) We don't talk about religion. 3) We don't act like arses with each other or be otherwise offensive." http://www.not606.com/announcement.php?f=41 I especially like point 11 in the hints & information list. "11) How to tell you're wrong in an argument Everyone should be familiar with Godwin's Law, in an online debate if either side brings the Nazis into it with an extreme comparison then that side has lost. On here we also have Tickler's Law, that is if there's an argument that's going round in circles, if Tickler is on your side you should step back and look again because you're probably wrong."
Thanks. The thread I asked out had a clear football link so shouldn’t have been closed so prematurely.
No, Leon, I'm not trying to be clever, believe me, I am in your shade. Now can you be consistent and follow your rules and give us some? we might as well judge you as you are judging others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unspoken_rule Now, like many, I am not the biggest follower of Wiki, but it does have its uses. These rules you seek might be considered as covered by common-sense or mutual agreement - unwritten rules that aren't too hard to live with; unless you have an agenda - do you?
I’ve already explained above how I would moderate a thread. What other rules do you ask of me to set you? Some sort of ideal for living? Seems odd. Also, thanks for the link. It might have been relevant if that concept was referred to when I initially asked on Saturday.
. Generally they are, the problem comes when the discussion is about politics rather than the topic, or when it just sinks to abuse swapping. It's a bit like Sky Sports, they mention associated topics, but discuss the sports elements. Mind you, I can't explain them showing the Pistorius trial.
Come on, Leon, you're not a daft lad. You knew this, so to claim it not being referenced is the cause of your indignation is hypocritical in the extreme. You've had your pointless argument; goodnight.
They might still work Stan, never say never. Despite, from what I gather you were a whipper snapper in the sixties, I think your unborn children are probably more unknown rather than unborn.
You’re not making sense. What exactly, in this instance/this thread, am I being hypocritical about?
