The other side

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Robin van Bergkamp said:
...Perhaps there ought to be a warning system of some sort and if a poster has transgressed habitually and to the detriment of others then any ban may only be applied by a super moderator.
Click to expand...



The trouble with that is that it would simple perpetuate the current system, where idiot mods issue "friendly" warnings to good posters merely for (as NowSufferingSpain puts it) merely having the temerity to stand up to idiots who have no intention other than to hijack a sensible debate, merely because one of the main participants in that debate happens to be a fan of an opposing team.

I think we've got to get away from this idea that boards are the proprietary domain of one set of fans. Too often one reads the pathetic complaint "what are you doing on our board?" when it's perfectly obvious to anyone with half a brain-cell that boards are split up into the respective teams to enable topical debate to be engage around those teams and not as barriers to opposing fans coming on and entering into debate.

The only way one can stop this pathetic call of "wum" against bona fide posters is to remove the sanction to ban posters. Or restrict any such bans to those who enter into cyber-bullying or who open use foul language and/or personal abuse against a fellow poster. There should be zero-tolerance towards that sort of behaviour; and mods who are found to not be enforcing such bans (eg because they are siding with mates of theirs) should be stripped of their powers and reduced to the ranks.



It would help in the initial process if moderators were selected with due care in the first instance...
Click to expand...


<applause>

I think there should be a massive review of mods right now, with many of them being stripped of their powers and reduced to the ranks, simply because they have proven time and time again that they are not fit to moderate their own toilet-business, let alone adult debate.
 
I'm not going to comment on individual cases and have only had to ban a couple of people from this board, but it's a useful tool to have available and I certainly wouldn't like to see it removed.
I don't know the ins and outs of what happened on the Arsenal board, so I won't offer an opinion, but it sounds like you've got a problem with the use of the ban rather than the possibility of the ban itself, HIAG.
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
Why not adopt something along the lines of Yellow card- Red Card? Or Maybe, two yellows, and then a final Red - three strikes - you're out, sort of thing.
Unless of course it qualifies for a straight Red. There has to be a way of banning these idiots, IMO. If we didn't, we would still be being plagued by the Michigans of the world.
Click to expand...



But it simply won't work, because there are mods on this site who clearly have great empathy with the worst of the site's idiots, and who will always side with those idiots. So, what would happen is this:-

1. I make a post on the Gunners' board, which is mildly critical of something another poster has posted, but is polite and well-argued.

2. An idiot like Jayram comes along and, with no intention of entering into debate with me, calls me a wum.

3. I receive a PM from a Gunner mod giving me a "friendly" warning that any more such nonsense and I will be banned.


Under the system that you propose, Mr NSS, I'd be banned for making another sensible post, because all that would have to happen is an idiot (like Jayram) simply cries "wum!"

The only way to put an end to this pathetic turn of events is for:-

1. a policy of no bans for polite posts (whether wumming or not) to be put immediately into place

2. bans to be issued against posters (like Jayram) who consistently use personal insults and foul language as a means of attacking fellow posters (whether partisan fans or rival fans)

3. mods who exhibit even passing biased moderation tactics to be instantly stripped of their powers.


That would shake things up on this site.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
I don't know the ins and outs of what happened on the Arsenal board, so I won't offer an opinion, but it sounds like you've got a problem with the use of the ban rather than the possibility of the ban itself, HIAG.
Click to expand...



The problem I have, Mr PNP, is simply with the abuse of power of certain mods. Our mods (including your good self) are extremely tolerant of rival posters, and that is something that I very much applaud. You (and we) have suffered the antics of many wums without the need to ban them, and that's usually because our board consists mainly of very sensible and mature posters who simply refuse to rise to the overt wumming of other fans. Most of us even have the strength of character to enjoy the (sometimes inadvertent) comedy of some wumsters. But that certainly cannot be said of all mods, who use their power to ban as an extremely draconian censorship tool. That is completely and utter out of order.
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
Why not adopt something along the lines of Yellow card- Red Card? Or Maybe, two yellows, and then a final Red - three strikes - you're out, sort of thing.
Unless of course it qualifies for a straight Red. There has to be a way of banning these idiots, IMO. If we didn't, we would still be being plagued by the Michigans of the world.
Click to expand...

I like that! But perhaps we shouldn't give the power to give out cards to someone with Poll in their name on our board!

The bans should only be a month or so and then they're given a chance to behave themselves before a full ban.
 
That's not the system though HIAG, it's individual examples of moderation.
I'm far from perfect, so I'm certainly not going to start telling other mods how to run their boards, but I can see how hard it is to strike a balance.

Dealing with fans of your own club is much harder than dealing with fans of other clubs, in my opinion.
I dread to think how I'd cope with a Jayram, if we had one, to be honest.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
Dealing with fans of your own club is much harder than dealing with fans of other clubs, in my opinion.
Click to expand...


I do appreciate that, and very much understand that mods will find it difficult to deal with their own fans, as there will be a fear that others will turn on them. That is why I propose bans being sanctioned only for those who use personal insults and/or foul language against other posters. "Wumming" by itself should not be a banning offence, since any post from a rival fan that is critical of partisan opinion, no matter how reasonably and politely argued, can be considered to be a wum comment. Indeed, by very presence on the Gunners' board was enough to wind up some of their idiots, even before I wrote anything. If "wumming" is used as the yardstick with which to justify the banning of a site member, then mods will simply have the right to ban posters for merely being a rival fan.

How on earth is that conducive to open and lively debate?

On the other hand, any poster who resorts to insults and foul language against another poster has shown him (or her) self to be incapable of engaging in proper debate and should be excluded from doing so.



I dread to think how I'd cope with a Jayram, if we had one, to be honest.
Click to expand...



I think you do yourself a huge disservice, here, Mr PNP. I think if any Spurs fan openly used personal insults and foul language regularly against other posters you would, at the very least, PM them and tell them to calm things down. You certainly would not threaten to ban the person (rival fan or otherwise) they were openly insulting, unless that poster, himself, was being openly offensive.

To me, it's all so very simple.
 
Posting an alternative or even critical opinion isn't WUMing though HIAG, regardless of the source.
Disagreement is basically the point in this kind of forum.
If there's no difference of opinion, then there's nothing to debate.

I don't agree about foul language.
If it's abusive, then it's generally not acceptable, but then the problem is the abuse and not the language.
There's a swearing filter for those that don't like that sort of thing.

Thanks for the vote of confidence on how I interact with my fellow Spurs fans, but it's a tricky balance.
 
Each to their own, ja606 has some good lads on there but to me some of the threads on there feel like a private joke that I don't understand.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
Posting an alternative or even critical opinion isn't WUMing though HIAG, regardless of the source.
Disagreement is basically the point in this kind of forum.
If there's no difference of opinion, then there's nothing to debate.

I don't agree about foul language.
If it's abusive, then it's generally not acceptable, but then the problem is the abuse and not the language.
There's a swearing filter for those that don't like that sort of thing.

Thanks for the vote of confidence on how I interact with my fellow Spurs fans, but it's a tricky balance.
Click to expand...



I think you misunderstand me, Mr PNP. I don't mind foul language as such, only when it is directed at another poster (as in "you are ****ing tool" or some such), as that is not only never constructive, but should not be tolerated, on any site. Indeed, I think any poster engaging in such behaviour should be banned, and any mod who fails to ban such a poster should be stripped of his powers.

The other thing is that I was given a "friendly" warning for doing nothing other than entering into debate on the Gunners' board. I'm sorry, but by any standard that you care to apply that is an abuse of power, and that mod should have his powers stripped from him, as he is clearly not mature enough to be a moderator.
 
Is it possible that you misunderstood what the moderator was trying to suggest, HIAG?
Perhaps he was trying to say that it might be best for you to ignore Jayram altogether, as interaction between the two of you was never going to end well?
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
Is it possible that you misunderstood what the moderator was trying to suggest, HIAG?
Perhaps he was trying to say that it might be best for you to ignore Jayram altogether, as interaction between the two of you was never going to end well?
Click to expand...



No, it was not possible to have misunderstood him. He had absolutely no grounds for contacting me, let alone issue me with any kind of warning, "friendly" or otherwise, unless it was to inform me that he was disgusted by the way I was being treated by one or two posters on the site that he is supposed to be moderating, and that he had warned THEM that any repeat of their abusive behaviour would result in an immediate and permanent ban from the board. Unfortunately, he chose not to do that, rather he had a pop at me for daring to post on the Guuners' board.

I replied by telling him that I was disgusted by his behaviour in encouraging the idiots on his board, to the detriment of sensible debate, and that I was imposing my own voluntary exile from "his" board with immediate effect.
 
As I say HIAG, I'm not really familiar with the situation, but it sounds a bit odd, to me.
Each board has their own way of doing things though, I guess.
 
The main difference here over JA606 is the software and what it allows mods and users to do.

vBulletin lets the user control what and who they see. For example, one of the first things I did was turn off people's signatures. I beleive they have the right to post large images, but I also have the right not to look at them. The same is true about WUMs and my ability to add them to my ignore list.

We had a "sin-bin" on another forum. It was called ****wit Central. Us mods abused that when we took offense to people's posts, but it did work most of the time. I'm sure there is a staff forum on here and, if it's anything like ours, most of the threads are discussing problem users.

Being a mod is a hard task, but I still prefer the power to be with the user. Remember the site is called NOT606. :)

(I didn't mention Nazi once)
 
Hoddle Is A God said:
I do appreciate that, and very much understand that mods will find it difficult to deal with their own fans, as there will be a fear that others will turn on them. That is why I propose bans being sanctioned only for those who use personal insults and/or foul language against other posters. "Wumming" by itself should not be a banning offence, since any post from a rival fan that is critical of partisan opinion, no matter how reasonably and politely argued, can be considered to be a wum comment. Indeed, by very presence on the Gunners' board was enough to wind up some of their idiots, even before I wrote anything. If "wumming" is used as the yardstick with which to justify the banning of a site member, then mods will simply have the right to ban posters for merely being a rival fan.

How on earth is that conducive to open and lively debate?

On the other hand, any poster who resorts to insults and foul language against another poster has shown him (or her) self to be incapable of engaging in proper debate and should be excluded from doing so.







I think you do yourself a huge disservice, here, Mr PNP. I think if any Spurs fan openly used personal insults and foul language regularly against other posters you would, at the very least, PM them and tell them to calm things down. You certainly would not threaten to ban the person (rival fan or otherwise) they were openly insulting, unless that poster, himself, was being openly offensive.

To me, it's all so very simple.
Click to expand...


Personally, I don't think it is that simple. There's more to being a WUM than swearing, or using insulting language. Some, like the aforementioned Michigan, are just a damn persistent nuisance - a bit like a tooth ache. The only way to get rid of the pain, is to extract it.
As for banning people from their own board, I agree with PNP, that's far more difficult. The only fair way I can think of dealing with people like that apart from,, obviously if they continually resort to foul, personal abuse, is to go by how many complaints there are from other members about a poster. Then, if the Moderator believes that it's become too much - and that person has been warned about their conduct - they should be banned.
 
Go to Control Panel and then General Settings, SF.
You can turn off avatars, signatures and all pictures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back