Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 0:29:02 GMT
Thought i would see how the new board was doing ,but am disappointed to see it us mostly the same old bickering and lack of moderation plus trolls..I particularly liked hugh Jarse which probably describes a number of us.
it is ironic that people who use pseudonyms complain about others hiding behind anonymity. Frankly you would be well advised to insist that all posters register and use their correct names. That moderates a lot of stupidity. It will certainly improve the board.
i had hoped to get some insight into the recent members forum but perhaps nobody went.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sussex Meadow on May 13, 2014 1:34:10 GMT
People are being vilified on here for not posting in their own name. I see no John Smith's, Fred Bloggs or Peter Pitkin on here, just "Flashblade", "Triple Century", "Borderman" etc. Triple Century is spot on - it's nonsense. Make the forum actual names only - with proof supplied in the same way it is provided in everyday life. When a forum has real and identifiable contributors, it usually remains civilised.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 1:49:09 GMT
People are being vilified on here for not posting in their own name. I see no John Smith's, Fred Bloggs or Peter Pitkin on here, just "Flashblade", "Triple Century", "Borderman" etc. Triple Century is spot on - it's nonsense. Make the forum actual names only - with proof supplied in the same way it is provided in everyday life. When a forum has real and identifiable contributors, it usually remains civilised. Exactly |
|
|
|
Post by Sussexsupporter on May 13, 2014 7:11:54 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. 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? Ok let me quote the Moderator's three, relevant posts before he closed the Monty thread. First: '' I have just deleted the last post which was one of a long series of posts directed against the journslist George Dobell. Repeated attacks against a specific individual of this nature are not considered acceptable on this Messageboard". Then folloeing some interchange, largely between you and BM, he posted a further explanation: "I have taken the decision after consultation with the other moderators. We were of the view that this seemed to be a very personal vendetta and that this contravened the spirit of the Board. We do not think the ones you mention are in the same category, but I can remember a similarly personal attack on RHB, which we did delete." Finally, after a further post by BM, the Moderator wrote " I think it best if this thread is now closed, as I am rather insulted by your insinuations". It seems to me that the Moderator's reasons for closing the thread are very clear. |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on May 13, 2014 7:23:26 GMT
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? Ok let me quote the Moderator's three, relevant posts before he closed the Monty thread. First:
'' I have just deleted the last post which was one of a long series of posts directed against the journslist George Dobell. Repeated attacks against a specific individual of this nature are not considered acceptable on this Messageboard".
Then folloeing some interchange, largely between you and BM, he posted a further explanation:
"I have taken the decision after consultation with the other moderators. We were of the view that this seemed to be a very personal vendetta and that this contravened the spirit of the Board. We do not think the ones you mention are in the same category, but I can remember a similarly personal attack on RHB, which we did delete."
Finally, after a further post by BM, the Moderator wrote " I think it best if this thread is now closed, as I am rather insulted by your insinuations".
It seems to me that the Moderator's reasons for closing the thread are very clear.
Please don't insert your comments into the post that you're replying to. It falsely attributes your words to me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 8:07:48 GMT
People are being vilified on here for not posting in their own name. I see no John Smith's, Fred Bloggs or Peter Pitkin on here, just "Flashblade", "Triple Century", "Borderman" etc. Triple Century is spot on - it's nonsense. Make the forum actual names only - with proof supplied in the same way it is provided in everyday life. When a forum has real and identifiable contributors, it usually remains civilised. Nobody has been vilified for "not posting under their own name"; there has been widespread criticism and annoyance at people not registering and hiding behind 'guest' status. Real name and proof of an e-mail address are supplied when posters register. Ironically the poster above chose not to register and opted to comment as an unknown guest under a "nonsense" name, so that not even admin/moderators have any idea who he/she is (although we may be able to trace them through the IP address). The reasons why 99 per cent of contributuors to all kinds of messagboards feel uncomfortable using real names were eloquently set out by hhsussex: "I don't use my real name in any internet forums; sadly there are far too many identity thieves, trolls and cranks around to risk that, even in the best-regulated sites." All of the bitching on this new site so far has come from guests who have not registered and as a result feel unaccountable for their comments and believe they have impunity to grind their axes and troll away in total anonymity. I have sadly come to the view that this site is not viable until that loophole is blocked. I suggest we let the site lie fallow until the required changes to the settings are made. Hopefully this will be done today; it is the work of a few seconds by those with adminstrative rights to change the settings to block the option of posting without registering. Meanwhile, there is a cricket match taking place today and tomorrow and Sussex need to take 20 wickets between the showers if we're going to win the match! |
|
|
|
Post by Sussexsupporter on May 13, 2014 8:14:06 GMT
FB my apologies for the way your quote appeared above. It was unintentional, and I thought I had highlighted your original post separately from the rest of my post. I could not edit once my post appeared, as that function is not available to guests.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 8:24:01 GMT
For anybody who steps forward, these are the forum rules from the Inner Circle message board, and could be used as a starting point for this board. These have evolved over the life of the board and are under constant revision.
FORUM RULES
Disagreement and argument is actively encouraged, petty point scoring and personal abuse isn't, neither are arguments that drag on. Threads will be locked and messages will be deleted.
Stick to the subject on a thread, small deviations are fine, but personal blogs and similar attempts at blitzing the board are not. Threads will be locked and messages will be deleted.
We will only allow one account per person, if multiple accounts are discovered then action will be taken.
FORUM ETIQUETTE
These are not hard and fast rules, but more in the realm of 'nice to haves'.
We would prefer people to use their own name and not pseudonyms. The display name can be changed by
Click on 'Profile'
Click on 'edit profile'
Click on the tab 'Personal'
Change your user name to your actual name.
We currently have one admin, and one person who has access to the forum login details. The only admin/moderation tasks we have are to approve new members as and when they are invited. As this is currently an open forum, you don't even have to do that.
So to get this forum moving, you only need one person to administer, and moderators can be decided at a later date.
I hope this is useful, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sussex Meadow on May 13, 2014 8:24:03 GMT
Sussexsupporter, you have now made eight posts in the last 14 hours. Why don't you register as you are probably the most vocal and regular contributor?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on May 13, 2014 8:47:38 GMT
theinnercircle,
Thank you for your most helpful post.
A case now of someone putting their hand up. Perhaps, I should put mine up but my partner has made it
clear that if I do, she will leave me, complaining quite rightly, that I spend far too much time
on the MB already, when I should be chasing the money to keep the wolf at bay! This is an ideal job for a
retiree on a fair pension who is a keen Sussex supporter.
How much time does moderating take? There may be a misconception over the amount of time
required.
Is it possible that a member of Sussex staff could be the administrator in the early days until things
are resolved? There is an obvious candidate but one appreciates he is already busy with the "official"
affairs of the club.
The forum needs to be tweaked so that only signed in members can post and not random guests.
Could the present administrator - the one who set this Board up - do this straight-away, please?
Perhaps, the MB should take a vote on who are to be the moderators? How was this done on your MB?
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on May 13, 2014 8:52:20 GMT
I have a concern that a moderator (who has to be impartial) should not also be a significant contributor to the board. There is an obvious conflict of interest.
I have heard it suggested that Mod3 wasn't always totally impartial, but he didn't post on the old board unless he was wearing his mod hat. I think he did a pretty good job, on balance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on May 13, 2014 8:57:40 GMT
fb,
Too me that is the least of our worries. Until someone/people comes forward and show
a modicum of sanity, wisdom and goodwill this MB may collapse into anarchy and have the
lifespan of a Mayfly.
The moderators on the other MB were excellent, in my view.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 9:01:43 GMT
How much time does moderating take? There may be a misconception over the amount of time required. That is directly proportionate to how much babysitting you have to do. If you get bombarded with PM's or are having to constantly intervene in arguments, then it is a considerable amount of time. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on May 13, 2014 9:59:16 GMT
Surely, the length of time can be shortened if everyone knows the rules, where it's made very
clear that if they are breached, that poster is banned? Perhaps, too much leniency can lead to
a far longer period required for moderating?
From your experience which is the best tack to take. A firm hand or a lenient finger?
The more I think about it, the person with the best qualities for leading this MB moderation is "hhs".
He is my candidate. I would support and back him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 10:21:11 GMT
From your experience which is the best tack to take. A firm hand or a lenient finger? That's a difficult one to answer, we haven't had any moderation issues, but that's due to the way we accept members. If you want to remain an open forum it is going to be difficult to vet members when joining. I would just make sure the forum rules are unambiguous, and make any disciplinary procedure clear e.g. two strikes and out, and then stick to them without entering too much discussion. That way you minimise moderation time. Remember a moderator/admin will have to read virtually every post, and probably doesn't want to pestered with PM's, a certain amount of maturity and self moderation is required from posters. |
|
