OT - Concluding the QPR Board Review

Over the past few months the standards of content on here has gradually been slipping downhill beyond what they were in our first year or so. As such things became increasingly difficult to mod without us resorting to personal judgement, especially in borderline cases, which ran the risk of biases creeping in based on the extent to which we liked the ‘offender’ or not.

We therefore decided to consult you for opinions on where the lines should be redrawn.

The outcome clearly suggested that whilst the visible majority were in favour of a single board comprising both football and moderate off-topic (OT) threads free from interference, some favoured further facility for less moderate OT commentary and images. The notion of a sub-forum (a QPR board version of this site’s ‘General Chat’ forum became the obvious solution and applications to site management were duly submitted.

PART 1: The Verdict

One (Moderate) Board Only

There will be no sub-forum (see Part 2 for details).

The board will continue as the moderate single entity it has been to date. Both football (not just Rangers) and moderate off-topic threads will be permitted.


Off-Topic Threads

Since football is our primary purpose, off-topic threads should be distinguished by the letters, ‘OT’ at the beginning of the thread title, e.g. ‘OT Summer Holidays’.


What Does ‘Moderate’ Mean?

All content must show due respect for:

• gender, race, disability, sexual orientation and belief systems, aka the ‘isms’ (bearing in mind that the latter being more voluntary is therefore more difficult to judge / mod);
• fellow users; and
• children either posting or viewing inadvertently.

Light-hearted Banter

Considered moderate and therefore acceptable, banter is defined as:

• good-humoured, playful conversation;
• to speak to in a playful or teasing way; and/or
• to exchange mildly teasing remarks.

NOTE: banter will not be accepted as a defence for what mods judge as wumming (see below).


What Constitutes an Offence Against House Rules?

Things considered immoderate and therefore unacceptable:

• personal disrespect / abuse
• the ‘isms’
• wumming
• baiting
• trolling
• thread hijacking

See below for the agreed definitions of these offences.


Extremes such as bigotry and sectarianism are by their nature immoderate and must therefore also be considered unacceptable.

Similarly extreme forms of expression relating to the following non-exhaustive list may equally be considered unacceptable:

• politics
• religion
• regionalism
• nationalism

In order to maintain board harmony, best to avoid all such content.


Definitions of Main Offences

Personal disrespect, personal abuse and the ‘isms’ are self-evident. The others are as follows:

• WUM(ING) (Wind-Up Merchant): Vexatious banter. Comments made with the intention to cause disruption by goading others. (Goad means to provoke or annoy (someone) so as to stimulate actions or reactions.)
  
  
• BAITING: Selectively challenging a named user / poster into a direct response. Considered over-personal and a form of bullying.
  
  
• THREAD HIJACKING / DEVIATION: (Purposeful and/or repeated) deviation from thread topic / title / OP.
  
  
• TROLLING: Practice of posting a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

Processes of Moderation

Mods cannot be expected to read every post on every thread or intervene in immoderate content automatically. In any case moderation will be effected by means of the following:

• essential self-moderation (proofing or re-reading your post to ensure acceptable standards before pressing reply (send));
  
  
• open challenges (posters pointing out immoderate comments in the threads in question in the hope that ‘offenders’ see the error of their ways, apologise and move on);
  
  
• formal complaints (PMs to both mods copied in giving the link(s) to the thread(s) and the number(s) of the offending post(s) e.g. #23, #27 etc.; and
  
  
• mod rulings (actions to close / delete threads / posts or and/or sanction offenders based on verified* complaints received or unsolicited mod interventions).

* Verification will be made by with reference to offence definitions as shown below.


Images

Images will be kept moderate and where depicting the body, remain in keeping with page 3 standards. (Remember: the board freely decided that ‘girlie pin-ups’ are for admiration purposes and therefore not considered sexist in the context of a football forum.)

MUCH WANTED

For those like Norf, Andy, Norway etc. who have an eye for imagery and the ability to post images on here, some of us would love to see more pictures genuinely illustrating threads and posts (both football and OT) like they do in the printed press. Reckon striking photos, cartoons and suchlike would add interest and greatly improve presentation.


‘No Go Zone’

For reasons of board traditions, mods will continue to avoid trawling through the long standing ‘Word Association’ and ‘Here’s a Joke…’ threads, looking for immoderate content.

However, the same standards of moderation apply - and where complaints are received and verified, mod action(s), including individual sanctions, are likely.

There will be no other ‘no go zones’ for mods.


Mod Intervention Trigger / Making a Complaint

Valid complaints will be the essential trigger for action.

Complaints must cite the offence types mentioned above or something similar. Where complaints are made by users (i.e. not the mods themselves) they must be PM’d copying in both / all QPR board mods.

As stated above, complaints must include the browser bar link(s) to the thread(s) and the number(s) of the offending post(s) e.g. #23, #27 etc..

For anyone who doesn’t know, a browser bar link looks like this:

http://www.not606.com/showthread.php...la-v-Liverpool

Without all this information to hand, it can be difficult for mods to find what a complaint is all about. Consequently such unspecific complaints may go ignored.


Update for Our Rules and Guidelines

Over the next few weeks we’ll get round to updating the Rules and Guidelines document to reflect the outcome of the review / consultation.

I will post a thread with the new contents.

For those who don’t know, the rules can always be accessed by clicking on my signature.



See Part 2 below.

 

PART 2: Application for a Sub-Forum: Totally Blanked

In formally reviewing our needs on here, those relating to users who’ve both demonstrated and expressed a wish for a less moderate sub-forum have been heard and their wishes respected and duly acted upon by NUTS and me.

Step 1: Application to the SuperMod (Early February)

Response: Beyond his powers. Referred us to the Administrator (site owner). However, he did explain later that he had had an earlier application for a sub-forum for his Gillingham board (albeit for different purposes to ours) turned down without a reason given.

Step 2: Application to the Administrator (Mid February)

No reply to our PM. Later discovered he doesn’t answer PMs.

Step 3: Application to the Administrator (26.02.13)

This time opened a thread addressed to site owner on the Mod Board. Received some supportive responses from mods from other boards but nothing whatsoever from the man himself. Mods had suggested this could happen. Thread’s been there for over a month now - and still nothing.

In Reply to Our Critics…

We can’t help but to have noticed the cynicism, expressed by Secret Ranger and Swords in particular, that suggested that we mods had planned a stricter regime without accommodating their wishes for a sub-forum.

That baseless distrust of us did little to persuade us to act in their interests but GUESS WHAT? We’ve got EVIDENCE to show we were actually making every effort to facilitate them throughout the consultation and review stages.

I’m sure the SuperMod (brb), if asked, will be happy to come on here and confirm that I PM’d him at the beginning of February exploring the possibilities of a sub-forum for all the reasons relating to the need to protect parents and similar sensibilities AND cater for those craving less moderate interactions and materials.

I’m equally sure he will bear me out on the PM I subsequently sent to the owner pleading our case since I copied both the SuperMod and NUTS in on it.

As for the thread we set up on the Moderator Board on 26 February, whilst I can’t provide you with a link to it, a number of mods from other clubs have replied to it including some of those we’re familiar with on our board: people like Hull’s Ricardo and Swansea’s Mustyfrog. Norwich’s Canary Dave is also a regular on the Mod Board and he’d have seen our thread too.

These people all know that for reasons best know to himself, we’ve been blanked by the owner. Other mods suggested this would be the case and so said…

The fact is, even without making promises, we’ve done all we can to facilitate your wishes.

General Chat

As it happens, whilst we appear not to count with the site owner, apart from his function as the site’s techie, he’s also known for having a particular passion on not606 - and that is the GC board.

Strikes me that the owner and those on here calling for an immoderate sub-forum have something in common - AND an ideal place where you can all communicate directly.

Maybe one of you would see an opportunity in going on GC and posting a thread headed ‘FAO Maltese Mick’ with an OP stating your case.

Best of luck. Be a bit of a slap in the mush for us mods if you got a result. Tbh, wouldn’t hold me breath though.

Words of Advice

While we’ve been waiting for Goddo and reviewing where you want the lines redrawn, we’ve been watching with interest the interactions between those demanding the more moderate approach we’ve now settled upon, and those advocating so-called ‘free speech’.

Whilst it’s clear the two don’t mix well, tend to dilute the quality interactions we have in potential and become tedious, the fact of a row between Secret Ranger and Swords over unacceptable / loose comments speaks volumes in terms of everyone’s need for moderation.

---------------------------------------------------------------

That's it. Thanks for your input.

 

.