Ok, i just got to finally read the stage 3 thread. without digging out the mods, that was a complete waste of time and effort. none of my (or others) questions were answered & grif posted the worst post i have seen on this site for about 6 months. Now, bearing in mind how much trouble it caused in the past; I'll post a thread that discusses the relevance of actually being at a match with regards to the validity of someones opinion, if you want. I thought we'd finally finished this and Kiwi's Col and others posts had finally put this to bed? Many were of the opinion that only a person who attends the match has a valid opinion, but after discussion, most of those people changed thier opinions & those that didnt are very much in the minority now. Does that make me right? probably, Do i care? not really but will i listen again to this outdated and allready proven incorrect tripe? No way. SO If everyone is good with it (mods included) i'll put up a thread completely slamming this ridiculous notion. Then maybe WE can ALL come to a conclusion. Like i said, this has caused trouble in the past, so i want to clear it with everyone before i post it and get accused of baiting, trolling or any other stupid excuse from people who refuse to see the truth. I'll not do it till mid week so ANYONE who has any objections please speak up. For the record, it will be candid, honest & to the point. If the minority can convince us otherwise them I'm happy to change my point of view. Fact is: im sick of reading that ****. Time to put up of shut up. Let me know. Thanks guys & girl !
Mate, red the stage 3 thread from brix and the terrible response from grifter. So glad i didnt se it before thread was closed as I'd prob be on a ban right now! Ypu think people are ready to open thier eyes yet?
Sorry Queens, can you remind me/us what the Stage 3 thread was about again - just so's we're all on the same page with all this? Cheers.
http://www.not606.com/showthread.ph...iew-Stage-3-Definitions?p=4320029#post4320029 Post #11 have to say if does come across quite pompous but then most of grifters posts do
Sorry mate, as far as i can make out ( and i aint that sharp) we were asked to agree to certain definitions of certain words most of which were all totally un-enforcable. I questioned these definitions and have still not receieved a reply or response from anyone. we had a terrible post from grifter, the you know i take offence too; and some other crap the post then decended into the usual crap and Nuts rightly closed it Thats how i saw it..was i wrong? and i so then please tell me / us where.? I personally am not sure what kind of response you were looking for in that thread...therefore..i considered it a total waste of time. I hope that is ok? Hope that answers your question? Cheers
For the benefit of others looking in, QLD's concerns related to the closure of 'OT QPR Board Review: Stage 3 - Definitions' thread and my failure to respond to (irrelevant) points made therein. Without wishing (much less having the time) to complicate matters, out of respect, I'll try to answer your points as best I can. Please return the respect I'm showing you by taking the time now to carefully read through my responses with a view to understanding what I'm trying to say. I say this because from where I'm sitting you've sadly for me, completely missed the point and gone off at a tangent so far. Before I begin, the thread was not about applying the terms set out in the OP to individual case studies. It simply sought to clarify the definitions of those terms (that are generally used under the headings of moderation and complaints) and offered users the opportunity to check them and where appropriate, offer proposals for amendment. Nothing more. Have to say, looking at interactions over on the Mod Board, I doubt many of the mods on this site actually share the definition of terms they work with with the users of their boards in this way. Would've thought our willingness to be open and transparent with you all BEFORE the fact, would've been seen as a good thing tbh. Maybe not. Maybe best to just poodle on in our own little world, making decisions on complaints received without letting people in on the criteria we're using. If that's the case, don't complain when a decision goes against you and you can't understand why. If some users didn't get what the OP was asking for, what can I say? (Beyond repeating myself on a number of occasions throughout the thread and now here again, that is.) I closed the thread (not NUTS) at a time when people had had long enough to have seen our definitions - and had a chance to propose their amendments to any of the terms listed if they so wished. In challenging my decision, I think it only fair that you read the thread through with fresh eyes and see how little the replies actually addressed the question put in my OP. To repeat: that thread was a minor clarification of criteria. No big deal. So to address your recent points / comments then... QLD: 'as far as i can make out ( and i aint that sharp) we were asked to agree to certain definitions of certain words most of which were all totally un-enforcable.' To answer this, I'd need you to specify these and explain why you think any of the terms listed are unenforceable. Apply the word 'moderation' in so doing - since that's what we have to do when faced with a complaint. QLD: 'I questioned these definitions and have still not receieved a reply or response from anyone. True, you posed questions - but ones that neither focused on the wording of the definitions as set out in the OP, nor proposed amendments to them as it asked you to do. (If you were to start a thread asking for help to resolve one set of things, and my extensive reply to you simply gave you another set of problems to answer, what would you do without all day to play with? Enter the distraction OR move on?) Here's your post from the 'Stage 3' thread for your convenience. Moving on. QLD: 'we had a terrible post from grifter, the you know i take offence too; and some other crap' Tbh Grifter got me (and the thread OP) dead right in his first paragraph as shown here. '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.' However, he then did what I initially refused to do. Got distracted by your post above. Didn't help the purpose of the thread at all - but gave his opinion respectfully enough I thought. Can't see why you think it was terrible tbh, but you're entitled to your opinion. Not a modding issue though. QLD: 'the post then decended into the usual crap and Nuts rightly closed it' I take it you're referring to the thread. As I said, I closed it, not NUTS - and as clearly stated in my closing comments, for much the reason you've given here. QLD: 'Thats how i saw it..was i wrong? and i so then please tell me / us where.?' Yes, in the context of the purpose of the thread as per the OP, you were wrong mate, for the reasons stated above. QLD: 'I personally am not sure what kind of response you were looking for in that thread...therefore..i considered it a total waste of time. I hope that is ok?' The OP and every subsequent comment posted by me on that thread and again here, have clearly stated the kind of response I was looking for, namely proposals for amendment(s) to the definitions of key terms we work to as mods. If you consider it a waste of time, whose time are you talking about? Your's on that thread, or mine on both? If you'd read and understood the OP, you'd have noticed the last sentence (barring the brackets) warned you to ignore the thread if you had no serious responses. Unless you were proposing amendments, you had no (relevant) serious responses to offer - so you should've just moved on without comment. In failing to do that you've just cost us both a load of unnecessary time. Cheers mate. I'm sure you'll forgive me for not responding to non-issues or misinterpretations in future.
Mate, I'm not asking you to justify your posts in the thread because a I stated in my post, I didnt get to read them until after the thread was closed. TBH i didnt read most of the thread as i must have (obviously) not understood the purpose of the thread. I wasnt clear on the definitions & whether it was what we are currently working too or they are new/revised definitions. Like I said not sure how they can be controlled as any posts are subjective, but thats OT Appologise for saying Nuts closed thread when it was clearly you. Still dont agree with Grif point, but as you said that was OT. you were asking for proposals from what i got reading the thread-correct? i was asking (by using the Tarrabt debate) for a bit of clarification on exactly what would be construed as trolling, etc? Does that make sense? For my understanding and your responses then thats what your going to explain in your stage 4 thread? I appologise if I read but did not understand the (point of) thhe thread. Cheers for the explanation.
I was honestly just posting my opinion on the "at the match/on the telly" debate Queens, didn't realise it would offend anyone. I wouldn't have posted if i thought it would! I don't think i've seen any of the threads discussing it in more detail so just fancied a crack at describing what the differences were. Initially i just intended to write a sentence or two, but it was 4.45AM, so i think fatigue meant i got a bit carried away. Apologies for veering off topic, once i realised there was a small essay in front of me i stuck "OT" before what i'd written. Duno what more to say... Pretty baffled by this response !
Mate, nothing personal We've had some pretty heated discussions on here before with regards to "at the match/not"; fans or supporters" etc & I didnt think you posted it with any malice. Its just a point that irks a few of us & i was just asking if anyone fanicied discuusing it so everybody understood where we are all coming from? If its gonng cause to much hassle or any bad feeling then I wont bother with it. Seems we managed to do the "race" thread without too much slagging off. I'll admit to getting a bit peeved at some of it but like i said eveybody has an opinion. Give it a couple of days and if no-one objects and the mods are ok with it then I'll post it and see how it goes. I know there are/were strong feelings in both camps!
And fair enough queens! I'm always happy to discuss anything football related. There are bound to be differences in the way a match is percieved based on the mode of viewing, so it's probably an interesting topic. As long as no one suggests anyone else is a 'lesser fan' because of the circumstances that dictate whether that person can make a match or not, then a thread wouldn't cause too much hassle i reckon.
