Question for Leeds fans

Neil

In fairness to you I did understand the point you were originally making and have some sympathy, but IMVVHO your misjudgement was to link any proposed new systems so closely in terms of time to someone recieving a ban, even if you were only using that individual as an example.

Plus again IMO if you were going to gain traction among the majority with your suggestion you should have avoided any suggestion your idea was linked a poster so many were glad to see the back of (paraphrasing their words in the two threads not mine).

Kneejerk changes to situations are very rarely the best solutions in the long term. Perhaps a more considered response (one that gives our mods a bigger say) not linked to this case in terms of time or the individual concerned is the way ahead.

Now in case you didn't recognise it that was an olive branch.....

Now can I get back to the fishing?

 

I'm closing this thread at 2pm once the poll expires.

I hope there is enough information required for the supermods to then make a judgement on what ever they are using the data collected for, and lets hope we can then park this debate and get back to the football

 

It has certainly been an interesting response to read & I'm amazed to see how many have only considered the current situation involving a recent ban when the question asked was generic.

For instance

if the irritant was one of the fans you personally like

& the others were the supermods

would your answer have been the same ?

 

I think its always going to be subjective Minxy

Thats why as mods we have a party of three who vote on any action. I can tell you that we dont always agree, but we work it out!

 

Bottom line for me is does the irritant lose the board active posters or members. If yes what is the cross over point where the board or forum breaks apart and becomes a ghost town.

 

Is the irritant wholly to blame or should those who chose not to use the ignore button be seen as just as culpable of maintaining the conflict

 

If the irritant refuses to listen to the Mods who modarate the board in question then action needs to be taken for the good of the majority. Which the poll has proved IMO.

Putting it another way, we lost an one poster and three more returned.

 

Didn't the question

 

Wholly to blame, what about if you factor in the irritant admitting that they sought 'confrontation' as a distraction to something in their life, is that acceptable?

What if the irritant caused 3-4 good posters to leave, he moved onto someone else and another 2-3 leave. This caused a mod or two to get frustrated and they left. With so many good posters leaving a few others start posting on a rival forum, when questioned they say "don't bother with Not606 they have a right 'irritant' on there"...

What if there was a particular fans forum on here with just 12 very regular posters and a new member joined making it 13 and he or she was an irritant. What if 3-4 posters left as they couldn't be bothered with it, postings went down by 33%

All 'What If' I know but surely better to fix the problem than a wait and see approach. Leeds60 was banned, three members have returned and started posting again, is this not a positive outcome?

 

Please keep in mind, the irritant on this occasion ADMITTED to going out of their way to cause confrontation. They did this to 'distract themselves' from life's problems.

Someone purposely being an irritant can surely not be classed the same as someone you just find irritating.

 

The Irraitant is to blame

Reason- for Ignoring several requests from moderators and a previous ban to try and correct the behaviour.

 

If you start ignoring people the flow is lost and the forum loses much of it's purpose. IMO
I am trying not to focus on the personality involved but the insults went on for months despite various polite request for it to stop. How many people had to leave before it was adressed?
Something that IMO made the situation worse was that people who were being "ignored" were still getting prods from behind the ignore button. Not sure you would like someone having pops at you at every turn whilst you couldn't reply. But i am sure the board would suffer if various people had others on ignore and were still intent on throwing insults at each other.

If you believe the answer to your question is yes then you would by implication be criticising our mods and that I and it looks like most here think you would be entirely wrong for doing so.
Our mods look after our board in the way the vast majority want as your poll is going to prove unless someone starts manipulating it (hopefully this one is too important to you and Roy) , and that should count for something.

Can you please answer the question you have posed and we at least know where you are coming from, and we can decide where we go from there.

 

Bucks and Ristac are 100% correct in my opinion for what its worth

 

Even if it means Matt spends hours pulling splinters out of his arse.

 

ristac has just highlighted completely why moderating needs to be left at local level.

Theres always going to be grey areas regarding the letter of the law and I'd like to think that our team of moderators view every post on this board and are capable of making a balanced decision on whats good for the forum or not. As an outsider looking in I can see why trying to measure actions up against a set of rules without any flex for common sense decisions is a tough if not almost impossible call to make. That’s why you need to leave it to the people who live and breathe the board and trust them to make the correct decision and back them.

 

I am now very concerned that the focus of this is becoming about the personality(s) involved rather than the policy and procedure.

As I tried to say earlier let the dust settle and let the supermods review whatever needs reviewing in a considered way not linked by time, circumstance or a personality recently banned.

But IMO where boards are successful (ours is at championship level) and have moderators that run the thing well on a daily basis should have a significant say in how things develop. If it's not broke then don't fix it......

 

I did suggest a thread on the moderator board to discuss the issues that had cropped up ... however your mods wanted to stay on here which obviously restricts what is said

 

But it cant restrict you answering the question you posed the rest of us in post #186 ?

A yes or no will do, and we understand it would be your personal opinion unless you said it was the response of a supermod.

 

Just your own personal opinion, not going to even attempt and fail to hold you to it... Taking the Peterborough forum... If there was an irritant causing members to leave or stop posting, how much activity would the board have to decrease by before you 'wanted' to remove them. Would you allow the Peterborough forum to slowly die?

 

I dont think we matter enough to get an answer to a reasonable question....
If I was a board mod I might be a pi55ed about that

Hopefully I might be wrong again.