Off Topic Some Questions for the Mods

I paid 99.7p last night [emoji106]


NOT Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I have a witness!
Leeds always seems dearer than Harrogate for fuel. Feck knows why.

 

I spotted it first

 

Only cos I was watching the road... You soon got back.

 

Not posting tonight my arse just had to bite didn't you.

 

I've stuck up for 60 a lot on here,but its finished,the MODS have decided,unless you want the job yourself let it go.

 

She had made her own way home so I came straight back....
Was home earlier than usual....
As we discussed only you find it impossible not to take bait.......

 

Not true just after the first day he cant remember the next three

 

I'm not going to like any of this, but for me, what attracted me to post on here and not ja was the banter AND everyone responded to the post with their opinion, no one belittled or insulted a poster for their opinion (which face facts can't be wrong or disproved)
The point is be honest, I base my opinion on the limited time I get to see lufc on the telly (Cellino ). I absolutely value the opinions of the people that go regularly to fill me in (**** off wallies, that's not fight season).
And my big confession is my son is a junior gooner

 

Better a gooner than chelski or scum.... At least Arsenal try to play football the same way we do.

 

Bet she was a babe

 

I'm not a fan of ignore buttons or people being banned unless it's for continual verbal abuse and degradation.

If there's an ignore button, what's the point of having a mod/s, if there's mods, what's the point of having an ignore button.

The ignore button at least gives people the option of not having to communicate with someone without having to ban them, unless the negative behaviour truly warrants it.

With respects to the mods, I personally haven't seen anything that I feel warrants Leeds60 being banned, I probably didn't read every single one of Leeds60's comments or replies, but many replies I saw seemed to be within the boundaries.

Again, with respects to the mods, and any others involved, I think it's unfair to tell Leeds60 he's not allowed to imply any reference to anyone unless it's because of regular past abusive comments/behaviours/attacks of course. Leeds60 has the same rights of reply to any comments on here as anyone else, there can't be one rule for Leeds60, or anyone else, and 1 rule for the others, it's unfair and a suppression of a persons right to free speech.

I've seen profanities used regularly on here, spelt correctly or not, which is suppose to be in breach of the regulations and guidelines of this, and any other forums, if in fact they are included, banter and humour aside, there's been other occasional behaviours which would also be in breach of the forum regulations.

Based on what Jock wrote, which I agree with, and the fact proper procedure wasn't followed to begin with, may I suggest that Leeds60 be allowed back after a 7 day suspension.

I myself am not aware of all the rules and regulations, therefore, for the benefit of everyone on this forum, both members and staff alike, I'd like to suggest that the rules and regulations are brought to everyone's attention by either/or,

firstly, by a clear visible/highlighted link or button that can take people to copies of the rules,

secondly, any upgrades or additions to the rules are brought to all members attention, by staff, by way of a new thread, but not an ongoing thread,

thirdly, any new members are made aware of the most important rules, and any button or links to the rules/regulations are brought to their attention.

Another option, and probably one of the better options could be, every member, vintage and new are sent a copy of the rules and regulations to their email address, this also gives the members the opportunity, and right to reply/challenge if he/she believes they have been unfairly treated, and believe the unfair treatment is a breach of the rules/regulations of the Leeds United forum.

Also, may I suggest, that any member who has a complaint brought against them be allowed to exercise their right of reply/defending themselves before any suspensions or bans are put in place. I can appreciate that any evidence may be visible on the forum itself, but options are available to also communicate away from the forum, such as in private message.

When I first joined not606, everything seemed very equal and on a level playing field, in my opinion it has dwindled slightly, after all, you can't have the best not606 forum without the fairest rules and regulations.

Just a thought of course....

 

R O I

no

 

LL. Bottom line in a forum is we debate our opinions. It should never degrade to insults or snide put downs as a way of bigging up the person posting. I've never had a personal issue with Leeds60. But his "see I was right" type posts used to annoy me, if a player joined another club doesn't make him right, they might still be ****e. I've read but never posted on ha for that very reason, there is no debate, everyone on their seems to throw insults to "prove their right".
Maybe I'm odd but I happen to enjoy hearing others views on the club, players etc, particularly those close that see them first hand. In my humble opinion 60, came across as the sort whose entire motive was to agree that his was the only viewpoint.

 

We don't want to be like other forums where we police by the rules 24/7, if someone persistently causes problems we intervene,

We deal with situations on a case by case basis and make the decision as a collective, anyone who is banned gets a warning and an opportunity to change their behaviour.

If anyone has any problems with the decisions we make can I suggest you raise it with the SuperMods.


NOT Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I've only just seen this thread today, but would just like to clarify that I wasn't baiting Leeds60 at Glorys request, I do my own thing on here, what I am guilty of his winding up both of them over their "feud" I quite enjoyed seeing Glory get his arsed kicked every day from the old timer.
To be hones,t I didn't want him banned even though most of his posts were repetitive, but, I can understand why our mods have come to their decision.
I thought he was a good wum, then realised he was being serious, I genuinely thought he was TC's alter ego at one point.
Anyway, thanks to that moaning **** Glory, how the **** are we gonna get our daily weather forecast from Bardsey

 

Kissa, Elland & Bucks,

I think I need to make my position clear.

I am not criticising our Leeds mods for working within the framework that is in place. They haveno option, currently. The questions I am asking are challenging that very framework - not specifically for the Leeds forum, but across the whole NOT606 site. And I agree with Kissa that it should be the SuperMods or the owner that should address this.

If the decision is made to retain the status quo, then so be it, we all have to accept this & get on with it. However, in the interests of transparency & fairness to all, I believe some detail should be added to the T&Cs, describing key processes & procedures. Examples should definitely include the 'hearing' process, the sanctions menu, the appeals procedure, and reporting results in the form of a brief paragraph published on an individual site to inform everyone of what sanctions have been applied, and why. There's no request for War & Peace - simple lists of bullets would be enomously helpful, so little effort required.

I don't think this is counter-productive. On the contrary, it should help the mods, and keep all posters clear on any miscreant actions/sanctions, preventing incorrect assumptions & the associated prolonged discussion (argument!)

Edit: Forgot to mention that I did actually criticise the fact that Leeds60 didn't receive a communication before being banned, but that has been cleared up & I fully accept that adminstrative cock-ups are always going to happen. Except for me, of course - I've never made a cock-up

 

Mick, to be clear - I don't for a moment think it was malicious on your part, but it was ultimately provocative for Leeds60.

Those that understand the ignore function (I didn't, never having used it or thought about it), would realise that Leeds60 would get to see what should have been filtered. It's a hole in the 'ignore' sanction, and for me, the provocation allowed by this should have been considered in mitigation. (It might well have been, but with the current way of working, we plebs don't get to find out). I'm pretty sure it would have been if Leeds60 had been allowed to present a 'defence' case, or an aeal on the decision. Again, us plebs would normally never get to find out - I only found out through speaking to Mike personally.

 

No problem Neil
Yes it was provocative, that was the point of it, just a bit of fun and mischief on my part, you know me and what i'm, like,
I found the Glory /Leeds60 feud funny most of the time, my warped sense of humour maybe, but some of 60s post were repetitive and patronising if you didn't agree, or questioned him.
I don't think he "got it" on here, you can get to know someones ways, traits or whatever without ever meeting them and sort of know what kind of person they could be, and so treat them accordingly, forgive me if I'm wrong Neil, I think it was you who told me at a meet up that he wasn't used to being told what to do , he was a boss or something like that, well, you can see that in his posts if he doesn't like what other people say, I cast a bit of light bait his way a couple of times and he gave me it back, and rightly so, but my respect for my elders stopped me from going to town on him, plus the fact he's a Leeds United fan.
I would never ask for anyone to be banned for the stuff that's gone on here recently, but he had been repeatedly warned apparently, so he's got only himself to blame.
Maybe instead of banning our own Leeds fans we should have something like a naughty corner, a Naughty sticky thread, where serial offenders, like Gloryare banished and only on that thread they can post, can you imagine it, the prison thread, Glory and Leeds60 banged up together for a month with no one else to talk to

 

Hey'LoL,

I agree with what you wrote, and you're certainly not odd, nor alone in being interested in other peoples views, I'm interested in others views too, it's the food for debate on any forum, and I'm 100% in agreement with your views about JA.

in general, no malice or pointing fingers at anyone,

like everyone else, I saw the ongoing friendly and intelligent debate between 60 and chippy, I'm sure from both sides there would've been things that annoyed some, and not others,and vice versa, hey; even my long opinions on matches I listen too, and watch via my Mars satellite relay link on the dark side of the moon annoy some, but as the saying goes, we can't please all the people all the time.

I put forward my suggestions, which were in agreement, and alignment with Jocks suggestions to hopefully contribute in keeping this forum fair for everyone, members and staff alike.

From what I've been reading, from the time I joined, I personally can't see a difference between someone saying "I told you so, I'm right etc" to someone saying "you're wrong", while being opposite ends of the spectrum, they can both be seen as forceful statements being made from any side, and said based on an opinion.

I once mentioned to Chippy, some may remember it, but I said, "we can both go outside and beat the crap out of each other, and after we've given each other major facial surgery, we're both still going to have a different opinion", and the only good point is, we both get the major facial surgery that we needed.

We have, arguably, the best forum, even some wall fans think so, but once personal agenda becomes the main focus, then the wheels begin to wobble and eventually fall off.

Just a thought.....