The rugby forum has gone to pot...

ozt9vdujny3srf

Wow, that was a long read. Wish I had spotted this earlier!

First of all, the Rugby forum is one of my favourite places on boards. There are some great posters there with a good knowledge of the game, and it's generally the first place I look before a match to check out the teams that have been picked w/ discussion and after a match to get some opinion and analysis.

I have to agree with the sentiment that the last 4 weeks have not been business as usual, and decisions on how to run the forum shouldn't be based on those last 4 weeks (although thats not to say that a contingency plan shouldn't be made for those busy periods).

It is obvious that the Rugby forum has grown, and these growing pains were inevitable. This isn't the first time a board will have gone a bit unruly because of high volumes of posting and devisive issues, and it certainly won't be the last.

It seems to me that the mods already there have the ability and the desire to nurture the board into a fantastic resource for the rugby fans in this country and I am glad the long term solution we are heading towards isn't zero tolerance banning and post locking (which is last resort stuff, and really does ruin a board).

Trojan

One of the changes we've already implemented is we now have a Rugby Mods forum where the Rugby mods can discuss things as a group. We didn't have that before and a lot of decisions were either once-off, or ended up with 400 Reply-All PMs that were difficult to track and understand (and inevitably someone gets left off the PM list and isn't in on the discussion). This change should make it a lot easier to keep track of things.

Further changes to come: 1) some new mods added (after discussion by current mods), and 2) possible changes to charter to reflect that we don't want to stifle discussion of controversial players, regardless of how precious some folks insist on holding them. Fair comment must and will be allowed.

Aidric

Sherifu wrote: »

Are you guys talking about the scum post or something else? A link would help.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055609213
It was this thread in fact. RHunce & kmart6 make essentially the same post, one is infracted, the other not. I was told by the mod in question that all follow up replies to the original response would be infracted.

Trojan

Aidric wrote: »

RHunce & kmart6 make essentially the same post, one is infracted, the other not.

In this case, it's not true to say that it's "essentially the same post". One is back seat modding (telling mods what to do), the other is linking to Search functionality (telling the OP what to do, and in a positive way).

Aidric

Trojan wrote: »

(telling the OP what to do, and in a positive way).

Ah here come on. It could hardly have been more patronising.

thomond2006

Any news on changes to the forum? New mods etc...

Stev_o

Bang and the problem seems to return.

_blank_

It's being dealth with.

ffs though, all them reported posts came in just as my window for a smoke break in work was starting.
:rolleyes:

Stev_o

Des wrote: »

It's being dealth with.

ffs though, all them reported posts came in just as my window for a smoke break in work was starting.
:rolleyes:

Hence the threatening of the month long ban, no one shall interrupt Des's smoke break.

Trojan

It didn't start again cos we had 2 mods immediately in there. Don't be too quick to write it off.

thomond2006

Any news on new rugby mods lads?

I think Tim Robbins would be good, he has experience with handing out punishments!

Shame about the ROG sh1te. People just don't learn.

_blank_

thomond2006 wrote: »

Any news on new rugby mods lads?.

Stop being so impatient.

When we know, we'll let you know.

As you already know, most of the "regular" mods are kind of tied up at the moment. That's nobody's fault, but it means we aren't all online at the same time, and what we are talking about is taking a bit of time. Don't worry, the world won't end in the meantime, and as far as I can see, us lads who are looking after the fort for the moment are on top of things.

There's no big secret about all of this, it's just taking a bit of time.

I promise that as soon as we have come to agreement, we'll post about it in this thread and probably in the Rugby Forum too.

thomond2006 wrote: »

I think Tim Robbins would be good, he has experience with handing out punishments!

Thanks for the input

thomond2006 wrote: »

Shame about the ROG sh1te. People just don't learn.

It's not just "Rog" shíte.

Aidric

thomond2006 wrote: »

Any news on new rugby mods lads?

I think Tim Robbins would be good, he has experience with handing out punishments!

Twice in a couple of days, the canvassing is embarrassing.

thomond2006

Thanks Des.

justsomebloke

just a quick suggestion on this. Any chance that if we get a new Mod that we could get someone who is loged onto boards during the night as a good few threads just seem to turn to anarchy post midnight when most of the mods aren't probably around to look at it

_blank_

Thanks for that, I agree with you.

Size=everything

Why the hell was I banned? For disagreeing with the opinion that Mick O'Driscoll was selected or for stating Munster had no depth?

I mean its a ****in opinion why the **** was I banned for it?

And if I was banned for back and fro arguing then why wasn't the biggest instigator on the forums thehighground banned as well? Or zenmonk for calling me a child for that matter?

****in ridiculous

Size=everything

Also why is it that only the Leinster contributers seem to get banned? Some of the biggest Leinster contributers to the forum (myself, goose81, dc69 and rugbyfanatic) get banned for expressing an opinion yet thehighground is free to run amok and premierstone only gets banned after personal abuse. It seems there is an agenda to have a Munster love in on the rugby forum.

thehighground

Size=everything wrote: »

Also why is it that only the Leinster contributers seem to get banned? Some of the biggest Leinster contributers to the forum (myself, goose81, dc69 and rugbyfanatic) get banned for expressing an opinion yet thehighground is free to run amok and premierstone only gets banned after personal abuse. It seems there is an agenda to have a Munster love in on the rugby forum.

Hi size

What do you mean by amok?

Thanks, in anticipation.

thehighground

EDIT: How do you know I'm not banned?

_blank_

Size=everything wrote: »

It seems there is an agenda to have a Munster love in on the rugby forum.

Look dude.

There is no agenda.

I support no rugby team.

End of.

Size=everything

thehighground wrote: »

Hi size

What do you mean by amok?

Thanks, in anticipation.

thehighground

EDIT: How do you know I'm not banned?

Hey the thehighground,

I left out a letter as can clearly be seen but let that not stop you from acting like a child and pointing that out. I myself have my own opinions of people who gain enjoyment from pointing out spelling mistakes on the internet but I'll keep them to myself.

Sincerly,

Size=Everything

hullaballoo

Size=everything wrote: »

Also why is it that only the Leinster contributers seem to get banned? Some of the biggest Leinster contributers to the forum (myself, goose81, dc69 and rugbyfanatic) get banned for expressing an opinion yet thehighground is free to run amok and premierstone only gets banned after personal abuse. It seems there is an agenda to have a Munster love in on the rugby forum.

I'd love to agree with that but there's no situation I can possibly imagine whereby ANY of the Rugby forum Mods would like that situation to arise. Each and every one of them is from Leinster and I'm nearly certain I've seen the only two I've met wearing Leinster jerseys in public.



Wait, wait, I've thought of something: maybe the all-Leinster Mod panel want the Rugby forum to become a huge distraction for all Munster Rugby fans and ultimately, players, so that they all get unfit and lackadaisical about actually playing rugby (because the Internet's so much more important), that the Munster rugby team is reduced to shambles and Leinster no longer have to put up with being second-bes... no... that's not right either.

Size=everything

Des wrote: »

Look dude.

There is no agenda.

I support no rugby team.

End of.

I just don't see why I was banned. I criticised Munster but backed it with reason I didn't just come out with ''MUNSTER ARE ****'' I said Munster have no depth and used examples why. I didnt simply say MOD IS **** I gave reasons as to why MOK was a better choice.

Whats the problem?

Size=everything

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'd love to agree with that but there's no situation I can possibly imagine whereby ANY of the Rugby forum Mods would like that situation to arise. Each and every one of them is from Leinster and I'm nearly certain I've seen the only two I've met wearing Leinster jerseys in public.



Wait, wait, I've thought of something: maybe the all-Leinster Mod panel want the Rugby forum to become a huge distraction for all Munster Rugby fans and ultimately, players, so that they all get unfit and lackadaisical about actually playing rugby (because the Internet's so much more important), that the Munster rugby team is reduced to shambles and Leinster no longer have to put up with being second-bes... no... that's not right either.

I was thinking more along the lines of them over compensating for the fact they are both Leinster and trying overly hard to appear non partisan

thehighground

Size=everything wrote: »

Hey the thehighground,

I left out a letter as can clearly be seen but let that not stop you from acting like a child and pointing that out. I myself have my own opinions of people who gain enjoyment from pointing out spelling mistakes on the internet but I'll keep them to myself.

Sincerly,

Size=Everything

Sorry, Size, you've lost me. I didn't and still don't see any spelling mistakes you have made in your post above. I do not understand when you say I (the highground) "run amok". I don't know what I'm doing wrong that offends you so much (other than disagreeing with you on national bench selection) which is to be expected that one or two people on a message board might disagree with you.

And how do you know I'm not banned?

Size=everything

thehighground wrote: »

Sorry, Size, you've lost me. I didn't and still don't see any spelling mistakes you have made in your post above. I do not understand when you say I (the highground) "run amok". I don't know what I'm doing wrong that offends you so much (other than disagreeing with you on national bench selection) which is to be expected that one or two people on a message board might disagree with you.

And how do you know I'm not banned?

I have no problem with posters disagreeing with me its your snide and condescending tone that annoys me and you know exactly what you are doing you would never speak to me in that manner to my face so I don't expect you to do it on an internet forum.

hullaballoo

Size=everything wrote: »

I was thinking more along the lines of them over compensating for the fact they are both Leinster and trying overly hard to appear non partisan

Size=everything wrote: »

Also why is it that only the Leinster contributers seem to get banned? Some of the biggest Leinster contributers to the forum (myself, goose81, dc69 and rugbyfanatic) get banned for expressing an opinion yet thehighground is free to run amok and premierstone only gets banned after personal abuse. It seems there is an agenda to have a Munster love in on the rugby forum.

The sunny weather must be giving my brain cells a rough time because my understanding of the phrasing "it seems there is an agenda to have a Munster love in on the rugby forum" would be that you were implying that there is an agenda to have a Munster love-in on the Rugby forum rather than over-compensating for what is an unperceived bias on the part of the Mods?

_blank_

hullaballoo wrote: »

Each and every one of them is from Leinster

Yeah, I'm from Dublin.

That doesn't mean I'm a "Dubs" fan in GAA, I don't like GAA, and couldn't care less if "The Dubs" win, lose or draw.

Same goes for Rugby. I suppose my nearest club is Clontarf or something like that. Couldn;t give a fiddlers about them, Leinster or the Ireland rugby team for that matter.

I have no bias. If anything, I dislike the "Leinster" crowd more than anything.

Size=everything

hullaballoo wrote: »

The sunny weather must be giving my brain cells a rough time because my understanding of the phrasing "it seems there is an agenda to have a Munster love in on the rugby forum" would be that you were implying that there is an agenda to have a Munster love-in on the Rugby forum rather than over-compensating for what is an unperceived bias on the part of the Mods?

The agenda was in reference to posters seemingly reporting everything they dont agree with and kicking up a massive fuss if a Leinster poster dares criticise anything Munster related forcing the mods who are overly keen to not appear partisan to take action

Size=everything

Des wrote: »

Yeah, I'm from Dublin.

That doesn't mean I'm a "Dubs" fan in GAA, I don't like GAA, and couldn't care less if "The Dubs" win, lose or draw.

Same goes for Rugby. I suppose my nearest club is Clontarf or something like that. Couldn;t give a fiddlers about them, Leinster or the Ireland rugby team for that matter.

I have no bias. If anything, I dislike the "Leinster" crowd more than anything.

And here in lies the problem we have a moderator that admitingly dislikes Leinster. Whatever about ruggiebear who over compensates at least he doesn't actively hate another province.