The Footballers beg their fellow Scots to vote "no" closed thread

[balkan tiger]

Why? When there's apparently a set of clear and precise rules that have existed for four years.

If only I could see them.

The rules cannot be cast in stone, we need the flexibilty and freedom that the no politics and no religion rule gives. This also requires a bit of trust in our mods to do the right thing. It seems as most are happy overall.
In the thread footballers and scotish independence i posted the very 1st reply to the OP" can't see this lasting long" by post 4 we were already at the end.
Like i said if your not happy with what we have now, draft a set of rules and put them up for debate.

 

[Leon...]

The rules cannot be cast in stone, we need the flexibilty and freedom that the no politics and no religion rule gives. This also requires a bit of trust in our mods to do the right thing. It seems as most are happy overall.
In the thread footballers and scotish independence i posted the very 1st reply to the OP" can't see this lasting long" by post 4 we were already at the end.
Like i said if your not happy with what we have now, draft a set of rules and put them up for debate.

There's been plenty of opportunities for OLM to talk about the need for these rules to be flexible, but he hasn't.

 

[DMD]

If the thread (football/Scottish Independence) had been allowed to go further and then closed after a warning, that'd been fine.

Too many threads just closed by OLM in a heartbeat - it's boring.

If consistency was applied then fair enough, but there's little consistency.

I think we're broadly consistent with which threads get closed, where we may differ is when we close them. I reckon there's plenty out there would agree with the timing of OLM's closure's, some that would agree with mine, others that would say they should be closed sooner and some that would say none should be closed.

We can't please everyone, but you can't seriously argue those threads were adding much to the board?

 

[Leon...]

I think we're broadly consistent with which threads get closed, where we may differ is when we close them. I reckon there's plenty out there would agree with the timing of OLM's closure's, some that would agree with mine, others that would say they should be closed sooner and some that would say none should be closed.

We can't please everyone, but you can't seriously argue those threads were adding much to the board?

I appreciate that.

But I’ve been fobbed off since I raised this.

Some of the threads which would be instantly closed now were not closed when OLM was not a moderator. He even actively participated in some of these threads.

No one got hurt and most people seemed to enjoy the debate.

 

[WhittlingStick]

i did ask for a clarification , but **** it , the way some have carried it on seems to prove the point .

some just cannot help themselves and would probably be at home on General Chat

 

[Spook]

I appreciate that.

But I’ve been fobbed off since I raised this.

Some of the threads which would be instantly closed now were not closed when OLM was not a moderator. He even actively participated in some of these threads.

No one got hurt and most people seemed to enjoy the debate.

I think you should discuss the aforementioned "taboo" topics with someone in a private message conversation. We had a pretty decent discussion about Wales this way, and it was a civil discussion with no "****s" or "pricks" flying about.

 

[Leon...]

I think you should discuss the aforementioned "taboo" topics with someone in a private message conversation. We had a pretty decent discussion about Wales this way, and it was a civil discussion with no "c**ts" or "pricks" flying about.

Truth.

But ultimately, I only requested a bit of tolerance and asked for clarification and it ended up this way.

 

[DMD]

I appreciate that.

But I’ve been fobbed off since I raised this.

Some of the threads which would be instantly closed now were not closed when OLM was not a moderator. He even actively participated in some of these threads.

No one got hurt and most people seemed to enjoy the debate.

That's quite possibly true, but there were complaints about me not closing them soon enough. I've joined in on threads I've later closed. Sometimes I've posted, then looked at the rest of the thread and closed it, which is clearly wrong. Point being, it's not an exact science, we try our best for the good of the board, so we'll never be absolutely right for everyone, every time.

 

[DMD]

I think you should discuss the aforementioned "taboo" topics with someone in a private message conversation. We had a pretty decent discussion about Wales this way, and it was a civil discussion with no "c**ts" or "pricks" flying about.

I think it's better done on the board. The board doesn't belong to the mods, it belongs to the board users, including those that don't post, so I believe it's important to get an idea of what people want and for us to be answerable.

EDIT

My mistake, I thought "taboo subjects" meant moderation.

 

[Spook]

Truth.

But ultimately, I only requested a bit of tolerance and asked for clarification and it ended up this way.

When we had that conversation, you asked me why I didn't make my points on the thread, and I said the mods would've closed it. I think if people want a discussion about politics or religion, they should do it via private messaging to avoid heated debates between several different people.

 

[Leon...]

That's quite possibly true, but there were complaints about me not closing them soon enough. I've joined in on threads I've later closed. Sometimes I've posted, then looked at the rest of the thread and closed it, which is clearly wrong. Point being, it's not an exact science, we try our best for the good of the board, so we'll never be absolutely right for everyone, every time.

I understand that you may experienced complaints, but how many?

I, as stated in this thread, appreciated that tolerance towards thread topics yet I didn’t think to message you to tell you this.

So, unless you received complaints from a majority of forum members, or even an average of active members, I think it’s wrong for you to believe that your moderation was in anyway, at that time, incorrect or not correctly serving the interests of the forum.

 

[Leon...]

I think it's better done on the board. The board doesn't belong to the mods, it belongs to the board users, including those that don't post, so I believe it's important to get an idea of what people want and for us to be answerable.

Fine.

But OLM was obtuse and rejected what I wanted and has apparently already decided (through some secret forum pleblicite) that I'm in the minority.

 

[DMD]

I understand that you may experienced complaints, but how many?

I, as stated in this thread, appreciated that tolerance towards thread topics yet I didn’t think to message you to tell you this.

So, unless you received complaints from a majority of forum members, or even an average of active members, I think it’s wrong for you to believe that your moderation was in anyway, at that time, incorrect or not correctly serving the interests of the forum.

That's a fair point. I did argue at the time that some of the issues raised on moderation were from a minority with personal issues, but the majority will never complain, they'll just stop posting.

Since the last flare up, I've deliberately taken a back seat to see how things panned out. There were times I would have stepped in, and nobody did, but overall, I don't think the board's a worse place for it, especially now the season's started and it's nearly all positive news.

 

[DMD]

Fine.

But OLM was obtuse and rejected what I wanted and has apparently already decided (through some secret forum pleblicite) that I'm in the minority.

I suspect he's right. How would you suggest we test it?

 

[Leon...]

That's a fair point. I did argue at the time that some of the issues raised on moderation were from a minority with personal issues, but the majority will never complain, they'll just stop posting.

Since the last flare up, I've deliberately taken a back seat to see how things panned out. There were times I would have stepped in, and nobody did, but overall, I don't think the board's a worse place for it, especially now the season's started and it's nearly all positive news.

Like I said, I like the mature, tolerant approach and it contributes to a healthy forum.

So, if I may ask you, do any specific rules actually exist that define what the limits to 'political' discussion? Or is it always moderator discretion?

 

[Leon...]

I suspect he's right. How would you suggest we test it?

OLM wrote:

“but you're self evidentaly not in the majority here and if you don't like it, there's plenty of other boards.”

It’s unclear what he believes me to be in the minority about.

 

[DMD]

Like I said, I like the mature, tolerant approach and it contributes to a healthy forum.

So, if I may ask you, do any specific rules actually exist that define what the limits to 'political' discussion? Or is it always moderator discretion?

I've never seen any list of rules as such, but I recall a discussion quite early on where the no politics, no religion rule was offered, and generally agreed. Since then, I think we've seen plenty of examples of why it's a good idea and I'm of the opinion people have a feel for what goes and why, and are in favour of it, but I'm happy to hear alternative views if I'm wrong.

It is, and can really only ever be down to moderator discretion. There are times when something is so prominent in the news, it's bound to be discussed. In such cases, we can get people pushing party politics, which is beyond the general discussion. That then needs a decision to let it run, close it or prune it. Each will upset someone, and mods can differ on which they'd choose, but I think most people see why things are done, but granted, we sometimes get it wrong.

 

[Fez]

Tried to politicise you?

I suggest you read that thread as your first contribution (not directly addressing anyone) states that education has been 'meddled with over the years', yet somehow I politicised you on that thread?

You, like others on this forum, don't understand what politics actually means in its full sense. It's not all about the explicit, the 'loony left' or 'tax dodgers' you know. It's a little more broader, more subtle than that. Read about it sometime.

Also on that thread, OLM is happy to engage in political talk too and nobody died.

I’d still like to see where the parameters of political talk were defined on this forum, as the unchecked royal thread today proves that these agreed and strictly codified rules exist inside a person’s head only.

Pretty sad really.

If you wish to display your superior grasp of politics then why not join a politics board where you can feel amongst your peers and give us mere mortals a break? Many of us see situations, such as education, as something that should be beyond politics, just something that requires educationalists and the public working together for the good of their children. I understand politics as much as I need to, just as I recognise folk who use these political intrusions to further and impose their own (often narrow) point of view. Thank god the democratic system allows the layman to express their choice.
The unchecked royal thread soon found its level and proved the need for the rule; just as it was always likely to - just as the Referendum one would have done. The rules are defined in the reasonable minds of a very small group of people who volunteered and were then elected to moderate on the basis that we all know exists and, frankly, having read the later drivel on that royal thread, I'm quite glad about that - not sad at all.

 

[Leon...]

I've never seen any list of rules as such, but I recall a discussion quite early on where the no politics, no religion rule was offered, and generally agreed. Since then, I think we've seen plenty of examples of why it's a good idea and I'm of the opinion people have a feel for what goes and why, and are in favour of it, but I'm happy to hear alternative views if I'm wrong.

It is, and can really only ever be down to moderator discretion. There are times when something is so prominent in the news, it's bound to be discussed. In such cases, we can get people pushing party politics, which is beyond the general discussion. That then needs a decision to let it run, close it or prune it. Each will upset someone, and mods can differ on which they'd choose, but I think most people see why things are done, but granted, we sometimes get it wrong.

Thanks for the clarification.

Strange how OLM couldn’t have provided me with this answer on Saturday.

 

[Leon...]

If you wish to display your superior grasp of politics then why not join a politics board where you can feel amongst your peers and give us mere mortals a break? Many of us see situations, such as education, as something that should be beyond politics, just something that requires educationalists and the public working together for the good of their children. I understand politics as much as I need to, just as I recognise folk who use these political intrusions to further and impose their own (often narrow) point of view. Thank god the democratic system allows the layman to express their choice.
The unchecked royal thread soon found its level and proved the need for the rule; just as it was always likely to - just as the Referendum one would have done. The rules are defined in the reasonable minds of a very small group of people who volunteered and were then elected to moderate on the basis that we all know exists and, frankly, having read the later drivel on that royal thread, I'm quite glad about that - not sad at all.

You might well be correct but we’ll never know.

The football/Scottish Independence thread was strongly linked to the effect independence might have on footballers, whereas the royal thread had no such football context.

The moderators are voluntary and generally do a good job. However, I didn’t ask for much and there was no real need for the bullshit and disrespect shown.