|
Post by Kentish Man on May 12, 2014 18:45:34 GMT
If the Sussex board is to discontinue because of no moderators volunteering then maybe some of us can move back across to the Kent messageboard, although it can be equally problematic over there.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Goff on May 12, 2014 18:50:19 GMT
It really doesn't take much to run a proboards forum guys, it doesn't even require any website experience, just 5 minutes of having a play around in the "admin" section and you're good to go.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on May 12, 2014 18:53:18 GMT
I think Borderman/Boringman? should be Moderator. After all, it was his going after George Dobell that created the difficulty in the first place and caused Sussex to pull the plug on the other place. This was refuted by the moderator: May 3, 2014 at 20:58 burgesshill said:As someone who normally prefers to lurk I think I know the problem. Wasn't there a situation a month ago when a journalist threatened legal action unless a less than complimentary post about his ability was removed? Journalists often rip players apart in print (but that's ok because they are doing their job) but this character obviously couldn't turn the other cheek when something uncomplimentary was written about him. All he had to do was ask nicely if the post could be removed. I can understand why an unpaid volunteer maybe sufficiently hurt by the episode to walk away. I reckon I'm right. Moderator 3 replied:Just for the record this is completely wrong.
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on May 12, 2014 18:59:36 GMT
Nobody is saying there aren't going to be any moderators. The first move has to come from Sussex CCC's Marketing Dept who have to decide and make known what they wish to do with the Admin functions. At the moment this board has been set up by them and they have all the relevant personal details, given names, emails etc. None of us can do anything until they take the trouble to say what they want to do in future and empower others to manage it. Then we can go into all the ins and outs of what's wanted, who is suitable, how it can be managed to keep the trolls out and keep the good things going. They could also say why they discontinued the old board, but I suspect they won't, so its a waste of time speculating or spreading rumours about that unless you know. If you do, give some proof or shut up.
If Sussex CCC can't be bothered to either run this themselves or cooperate openly with those who do show an inyterest and want to talk about cricket and about things we all share - not petty sniping and sour grapes - then perhaps it isn't something worth continuing, because it will put to the lie the notion that Sussex is a friendly, family club that wants to cultivate its members and supporters as something other than cash providers.
|
|
|
Post by Sussexsupporter on May 12, 2014 19:15:43 GMT
I think Borderman/Boringman? should be Moderator. After all, it was his going after George Dobell that created the difficulty in the first place and caused Sussex to pull the plug on the other place. This was refuted by the moderator: May 3, 2014 at 20:58 burgesshill said:As someone who normally prefers to lurk I think I know the problem. Wasn't there a situation a month ago when a journalist threatened legal action unless a less than complimentary post about his ability was removed? Journalists often rip players apart in print (but that's ok because they are doing their job) but this character obviously couldn't turn the other cheek when something uncomplimentary was written about him. All he had to do was ask nicely if the post could be removed. I can understand why an unpaid volunteer maybe sufficiently hurt by the episode to walk away. I reckon I'm right. Moderator 3 replied:Just for the record this is completely wrong.
But FB, are you being accurate here? Moderater3 denied the account of the poster, which implied threat of legal action by GD. Lets not forget the Moderator closed the thread where BM continued his attack on GB, which had bored us for the whole close season. i would not be surprised if the Moderator resigned, because he was fed up with dealing with such issues.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on May 12, 2014 19:34:43 GMT
I'm as "accurate" as I can be. I've quoted the accusation and the rebuttal in full, without any editing.
If a moderator thinks that someone's posts are out of order, he normally tells/warns the poster and deletes any offensive threads. Closing the thread (thus shutting out all posters) would be overkill - unless the overkill was intentional. I'm not suggesting that it was.
I have to say that the recent messageboard saga has been exacerbated by some very childish and amateurish interventions by individuals with an agenda that has proved to be both petty and destructive.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne ki*** on May 12, 2014 19:42:48 GMT
I would like to apologise to all members of this board, and also to Sussex CCC. I wish you all well and I promise not to use this name again.
|
|
|
Post by Sussexsupporter on May 12, 2014 19:44:15 GMT
FB you seem to deliberately avoid the issue. My recollection is the Moderator closed a thread on Monty because of BM's continued attacks on George Dobell. Do you deny this? I am deciding whether to register for this Board.
|
|
|
Post by Sussexsupporter on May 12, 2014 19:45:56 GMT
I apologise, too, and will in future register and post under my own name.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on May 12, 2014 20:13:03 GMT
FB you seem to deliberately avoid the issue. My recollection is the Moderator closed a thread on Monty because of BM's continued attacks on George Dobell. Do you deny this? I am deciding whether to register for this Board. I'm not trying to avoid the issue. I thought I'd answered your point by referring you to mod3's reply. He says that burgesshill's allegations are " completely wrong". Maybe I'm not remembering the detailed history as well as you are, in which case I apologise. Can you point me to the evidence for your "recollection", which I will gladly look at. As a matter of principle, if a poster was consistently making inappropriate comments over a period of time, I would expect the mod to have nipped it in the bud before it became too tedious. Wouldn't you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2014 20:45:27 GMT
Nobody is saying there aren't going to be any moderators. The first move has to come from Sussex CCC's Marketing Dept who have to decide and make known what they wish to do with the Admin functions. At the moment this board has been set up by them and they have all the relevant personal details, given names, emails etc. None of us can do anything until they take the trouble to say what they want to do in future and empower others to manage it. Then we can go into all the ins and outs of what's wanted, who is suitable, how it can be managed to keep the trolls out and keep the good things going. They could also say why they discontinued the old board, but I suspect they won't, so its a waste of time speculating or spreading rumours about that unless you know. If you do, give some proof or shut up. If you email Adam Matthews, I am pretty certain he will be more than happy to provide the information you outline. Any admin will have the ability to ban all the trolls and inner circle members they want. They can also mould this forum anyway they see fit, so I am very surprised that no one has volunteered yet. This thread seems to contain a lot of complaining about things that can very easily be fixed by just one person being proactive. Believe it or not, the inner circle message board does not want this board to fail!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2014 20:45:57 GMT
FB you seem to deliberately avoid the issue. My recollection is the Moderator closed a thread on Monty because of BM's continued attacks on George Dobell. Do you deny this? I am deciding whether to register for this Board. Strictly for the record. The "continued attacks" were by George Dobell upon Monty Panesar, and started when he knew Panesar could not respond as he was under a gagging order as part of his settlement terms with Sussex CCC. Dobell's attack had nothing to do with cricketing performance and was of a personal nature. There was one specific allegation (which did not relate to seafront nightclubs, bouncers or pizza parlours) and which Dobell was challenged to repeat in print. Significantly he has to this day declined to do so. The allegation was also investigated by at least two national newspapers who declined to run the story as they could not stand it up and feared legal consequences if they printed it. The attacks started up again at the beginning of this season in a preview of Essex's prospects, which contained further derogatory comments about Panesar's character. Panesar has responded in the best possible way, by keeping his head down, taking plenty of wickets and bowling lots of maiden overs. He is reportedly very popular with his Essex team mates and is said to fit in well. I am delighted to hear this and common decency requires a principled stand against the kind of yellow-bellied journalism to which he has been subjected. Meanwhile, Dobell has moved on to criticising Zaidi - although hopefully he has learnt his lesson from l'affaire Panesar and has restricted his comments to denigrating Zaidi's cricketing abilities, which is fair game. I trust that corrects any misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by Sussexsupporter on May 12, 2014 21:06:38 GMT
FB you seem to deliberately avoid the issue. My recollection is the Moderator closed a thread on Monty because of BM's continued attacks on George Dobell. Do you deny this? I am deciding whether to register for this Board. I'm not trying to avoid the issue. I thought I'd answered your point by referring you to mod3's reply. He says that burgesshill's allegations are " completely wrong". Maybe I'm not remembering the detailed history as well as you are, in which case I apologise. Can you point me to the evidence for your "recollection", which I will gladly look at. As a matter of principle, if a poster was consistently making inappropriate comments over a period of time, I would expect the mod to have nipped it in the bud before it became too tedious. Wouldn't you? Sorry FB lost all respect for you. Yes the Mod said BG's wilder recollections were wrong. But you totally ignore my point that he also locked the monty thread, because of the continued attacks by BM on GD. Is that true?
|
|
|
Post by Sussexsupporter on May 12, 2014 22:05:54 GMT
FB you seem to deliberately avoid the issue. My recollection is the Moderator closed a thread on Monty because of BM's continued attacks on George Dobell. Do you deny this? I am deciding whether to register for this Board. Strictly for the record. The "continued attacks" were by George Dobell upon Monty Panesar, and started when he knew Panesar could not respond as he was under a gagging order as part of his settlement terms with Sussex CCC. Dobell's attack had nothing to do with cricketing performance and was of a personal nature. There was one specific allegation (which did not relate to seafront nightclubs, bouncers or pizza parlours) and which Dobell was challenged to repeat in print. Significantly he has to this day declined to do so. The allegation was also investigated by at least two national newspapers who declined to run the story as they could not stand it up and feared legal consequences if they printed it. The attacks started up again at the beginning of this season in a preview of Essex's prospects, which contained further derogatory comments about Panesar's character. Panesar has responded in the best possible way, by keeping his head down, taking plenty of wickets and bowling lots of maiden overs. He is reportedly very popular with his Essex team mates and is said to fit in well. I am delighted to hear this and common decency requires a principled stand against the kind of yellow-bellied journalism to which he has been subjected. Meanwhile, Dobell has moved on to criticising Zaidi - although hopefully he has learnt his lesson from l'affaire Panesar and has restricted his comments to denigrating Zaidi's cricketing abilities, which is fair game. I trust that corrects any misunderstanding. BM you try to impress you have high journalistic values,but you fail all good taste values. You know perfectly well, my comment above, was about your continued, boring attack on George Dobell. You like to give the impression that Monty was treated unjustly despite all the evidence, including the comments from Robbo et al in the yearbook. Have you read them? Dogs!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2014 22:15:33 GMT
Ignore the wind-up, fb. I think everyone else here has total respect for you and if 'sussexsupporter' wants to tell you otherwise , he should stop being so cowardly and have the honesty to come out of hiding and say it under his own name. And yet he dares to lecture the rest of us about "good taste values". Breathtaking.
It is getting tiresome correcting his inaccuracies. But once again for the record, he is incorrect. If you read the Panesar thread and in particular the last post before it was locked, you will see why it was closed - and it was for a very different reason to the one given by our agent provacateur.
There is a lot more about the Panesar affair to come out, but in the best interests of Sussex cricket for the moment the rest of the story should remain under wraps.
|
|