OT QPR Board Review: Stage 3 - Definitions

Far too much navel gazing at the moment. There isn't a lot wrong here tbh just a few usual suspects and clarification on posting porn to be dealt with.

I personally liked the mix of football / non-football related threads.

 

I'd like to add to this re self moderation the moment before you push the send/reply button. Ask yourself, is this something I would say to someone/this guy/girls face? If not then rephrase or drop it.

Would save this board a lot of aggro.

 

The problem is that what to one poster might be seen as a WUM...to another might just be seen as banter, and vice-versa
Also with regards to thread hi-jacking...I've seen many threads that start on one topic that quickly deviate to another, very interesting topic (without abuse).

All in all this board is getting a little bit too serious for me now and is in serious danger of losing it's character. Fair play to Brix and Nuts for trying to keep it all together but i'm fearing the outcome.

 

Exactly this - a bit of tinkering re porn, better self modding by individuals (we all know who they are) - job done I.M.O.

 

Well I missed 2 stages already but I must say these rules are a little bit strict. From time to time I do a little bit of baiting/trolling whatever you call it. I don't think anybody take it too seriously as I admit my action in the next post but it's all in good spirit

 

Excellent summary of the issues, Nutso. May be you should add after the question for us whether we want you to Mod OT threads :- "Do you and Brix want to mod them?" because if they expand, they could increase your work exponentially.

As to whether we have a separate OT area, the first question to be answered by the supermods is - is it technically possible? If not, we can drop it from future discussion.

On the OT stuff, separate area or not, since you and Brix cannot be all seeing and (surprise, surprise) have lives outside this site, you have to rely on posters taking responsibility to moderate their behaviour. As I've said in another post, I think that subject to certain parameters of decency, the board can be more relaxed about what is fair comment on OT matters of public interest that do not involve the bullying or abuse of a board member.

 

Right there you've highlighted the very danger of such rules. For example, against the Swans people were calling Mackie a waste of space etc (as is their right) and I interjected to ask what exactly had Taarabt done in the game, just to balance it up a bit. Immediately I was accused of wumming.
If you bring in such a draconian system, any alternative point of view can be seized upon by the usual bunch of cranks and termed "wumming" and that person's opinion silenced.

COL below backs your point up Queens - probably without realising it. He has accused us two of perpetually wumming about Taarabt even though our opinions on him are 100% genuine. I can see it now. We play a match, Tarbs has a mare and you and I (and perhaps others) flag it up. COL loses his rag and accuses us of wumming and looks for us to be banned under the new laws. Its a disaster waiting to happen.

Who else could have come up with such a brilliant line?

Very good point.

I tend to agree with that now. Initially I thought the ideas being put forward were a good idea but with the way this discussion has turned, I'd be very happy to let things as they are.

I'd be interested in the deeper motives behind this whole process.

 

Absolutely this. Well said GC.

As NUTS points out, NO DECISIONS have been made yet with regard to what or how things are modded in future; whether we will continue with just the one forum or a be granted a sub-forum as well; or what the acceptable content of either forum may be. Whilst we have applied for a sub-forum facility, we have yet to receive a reply. If the site owner grants a sub-forum in principle, only then can we consider how best we could use the facility and what standards would be applicable.

For the moment all we know is that we have a (main) forum, so that is what we are talking about here. I have edited the OP to make this abundantly clear. It now reads: 'further to our consultations so far, this stage is about the need, for modding and general understandings, for definitions on key terms used on the main forum of this board. (Should a sub-forum be approved, the definition of terms for that sub-forum may be adjusted.)

In this context, if we don't have clearly understood definitions of main terms, how can mods tell whether complaints received are valid or not?

Having such definitions in place simply makes decision making easier and fairer. It does not imply stricter or less strict modding in future.

Most of the responses to this thread to date highlight the gulf in our interpretations of what the OP is asking for. That in itself underlines the need for us to share an agreed understanding of the key terms used in complaints and modding considerations.

Calm down people. You say you trust us as mods so trust us on this. This round of the consultation seeks nothing more than a bit of clarification on key terms. Up till now, we've been modding on OUR OWN INTERPRETATION of these things. Here we're simply letting you in on what our interpretations have been and are now OFFERING YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECONSIDER THEM.

As GC says, 'nothing more or less than that'.

 

Noted. OP amended as follows.

Norway's amendment: Add in 'is this something I would say to someone/this guy/girls face?'

 

I'm very sorry, Brix and Nuts, but I'm fed up and bored with the whole thing. I have been disappointed that some recent threads have been closed down recently, despite the (overwhelmingly vast) majority of contributors evidently behaving themselves for no other reason than it was decided that they had been open long enough.

Do what you need to do. I'll do the same as everybody else: read the rules and continue to post and abide by them, or decide they're too draconian or needlessly complicated and make a different decision entirely.

 

Sorry to hear that Uber.

Having said that, don't really understand the issues.

Purpose of consulting users on future directions isn't meant to entertain so much as openly inform.

Threads were closed primarily for reasons of moderation. For a forum like ours, certain thread topics albeit interesting and poignant, are potentially combustible. The need for moderation suggests such threads probably ought to be closed from the outset. Despite our experience of such thread topics (some good, most not so), we like to give them a sporting chance of healthy debate, so let them live to see what gives.

Opinions expressed suggested the gay footballer one had been well debated and was closed to keep it from deteriorating.

The 'white flight' one had become immoderate and rather than having to consider sanctioning individuals (not you I hasten to add), gave notice that I felt it the right time to close it on the grounds of repetition, increasing anger and the trading of insults. Would it have been moderate of me to watch and let the pot boil over and then get punitive with people? I happen to think not. However, others think differently and have chosen to reopen the debate on another thread. We'll see what transpires.

It is a sadness that our attempt to simply consult users on what are ostensibly mod issues going forward, has led to suspicions of our motives. If you or others no longer wish to participate in the consultation, it's never been obligatory and ain't a problem. The OP does ask that people don't respond to this stage unless they have comments / concerns re. our definitions of key terms used.

Apologies if we've misinformed you in any way.

 

One thing for sure is that we do need other threads as well as threads about QPR
If all threads were about QPR you could only say so much and run out of things to say
We could have sticky threads where other things all come under including, other teams, other sports, other non sports news, etc

 

I have no problem at all with any of those definitions. They seem to me to be no more and no less than just factual, almost dictionary-style interpretations of a bunch of key words.

As Matt says though, ultimately how these definitions are applied is the judgement call of the mods. As I said before, I am perfectly satisfied that our mods use their discretion both wisely and even-handedly. They fully have my mandate to moderate this site as they see fit, and if it helps then I for one agree to the definitions given in the OP.

Thanks. That’s me done.

 

None of this would be necesary if some posters had self moderated in the first place. I really fear for the future of this board now.

 

I wouldn't mate. We're just clarifying our lines, nothing more.

Having definitions and required standards in place doesn't mean we can't overlook something that none of us highlights as a problem. What we don't want is people complaining about others cos they don't like them. Has to be for something we all know is wrong.

 

Being prepared Brix - nothing wrong with that (and thanks for your clarifications).

The definitions are fine but can we add a section for public calls for bans in the new definitions of conduct? I assume it serves no purpose for you guys but adds indignant flames to all fires.

It's as bad as simulation or waving an imaginary card IMO and bugs the life out of me.

The process for complaints against individuals is one of the clearest we have in place.

 

For those of you who are bored or concerned about this, Brix is taking us through a process very similar to one I am heavily involved in at work at the moment with 'the world's most famous management consultancy'. We are defining the problem (if any) and diagnosing the root causes. Soon to move on to design any changes needed and finally implement. The outcome no change needed is obviously still on the table, in fact the process itself seems to be proving cathartic.
I suspect Brix is doing this because he is clever and it comes naturally to him, rather than following branded commonsense like the consultancies do. Also suspect that he isn't being paid anything like as much them. For an old cynic I am thoroughly enjoying both processes, though the work one may be because I get to work with a couple of young, intelligent, hard working French and Italian ladies who are also stunningly attractive. I am putty in their hands, old fool that I am.
No problem with the definitions sir, though WUM, troll, baiter etc could all be rolled into one uber definition of 'being a twat', which I think we will all understand. Jumping ahead to design phase I am hoping tht he 'no change' way forward is the way to go, the discussion is doing its job.

 

Stan....brilliantly put......

I think we all know the definitions so lets move on to the next stage, Brix, Nutso over to you.....

 

Who said Uber was the definition of "being a twat"?



they'd be right!

 

Thanks guys. Dunno about being clever though. Pretty standard consultancy stuff, clearing your lines before moving on - with those that give a **** all mostly on the same page.

People don't like change much, so yes, the object of the exercise is always to avoid fixing what ain't broke.

However, given both expressed and demonstrated wishes for the inclusion of 'adult' (sub-forum) provision for QPR fans less interested in the kind of standards parents and the more decerning are demanding, we can still plan ahead for the standards etc. for the main (tamer) forum at least.