Forum Feedback (Please thank this post so we know you have seen it)

GreeBo

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Greebo I think we need to get a category mod involved in this because you clearly are trying to rail your own agenda and not do what is good for the forum. By all means, ban people discussing politics but to not allow us to discuss Rory's news today is just disillusion on your own part.

Like I said, in my post, I did not mention his nationality or who he should play for. I did not breach the charter.

Cmods are involved.
Again, talk all you want about Rory in the Olympics, it's news, no problem with that.
the ban is on discussion of nationality.

Your warning will be discussed in your drp thread.
I don't know why you feel the need to personally attack me, it's not my personal agenda, it's been agreed and working this way for months. Check out the link Charlie posted in the other thread for what we are trying to avoid.

Attacking a mod is not a terribly useful way of trying to achieve anything tbh.

SnowDrifts

GreeBo wrote: »

Cmods are involved.
Again, talk all you want about Rory in the Olympics, it's news, no problem with that.
the ban is on discussion of nationality.

Your warning will be discussed in your drp thread.
I don't know why you feel the need to personally attack me, it's not my personal agenda, it's been agreed and working this way for months. Check out the link Charlie posted in the other thread for what we are trying to avoid.

Attacking a mod is not a terribly useful way of trying to achieve anything tbh.

There was no "attack" Greebo. I understand you don't want to allow political discussions to take place in the golf forum and that is perfectly fine.

But my post, or indeed the subsequent deleted posts, were not political nor did they discuss his nationality. It was simply a positive news story about one of the world's top players that we should have been allowed to discuss.

GreeBo

SnowDrifts wrote: »

There was no "attack" Greebo. I understand you don't want to allow political discussions to take place in the golf forum and that is perfectly fine.

But my post, or indeed the subsequent deleted posts, were not political nor did they discuss his nationality. It was simply a positive news story about one of the world's top players that we should have been allowed to discuss.

I'm sorry but emotive words like " rail road", "agenda" & " disillusion" are most certainly a personal attack on me and my ethics.

Anything straying.near the topic will be removed, to avoid a shed load of work for mods and bannings for users.

You are allowed to discuss his entry to the Olympics.

GreeBo

Dbu wrote: »

I just really didnt like the 'hard of hearing' punch line from greebo.
The points they both make are fine re nationality and I accept, just the line above irks me and the mod in question should apologise for this as it causes offence.

Most people are responsible adults here.

Well when you have had to repeat the same thing over and over and still people ignore it you have to wonder.

I apologise to anyone hard of hearing that my comments have offended. To those of sound hearing, cop on and stop ignoring moderators instructions, please.

SnowDrifts

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm sorry but emotive words like " rail road", "agenda" & " disillusion" are most certainly a personal attack on me and my ethics.

Anything straying.near the topic will be removed, to avoid a shed load of work for mods and bannings for users.

You are allowed to discuss his entry to the Olympics.

So can my post be re-instated then?

GreeBo

SnowDrifts wrote: »

So can my post be re-instated then?

A I said earlier, you will be dealt with in the drp thread.

LinksLad

Change the charter.

Beasty

Let me just chip in here. I will pick this up with the local mod team to see if we can come up with some wording that deals with the particular concerns raised by them while allowing discussion of this particular "positive" (from an IRL angle) story. To put it in a little more perspective - what if he had opted for GBR? I've seen this sort of stuff descend into chaos elsewhere and the rule was introduced to avoid the type of heated discussions which inevitably follow such decisions. Hence there is very good reason to prohibit discussion of the particular nationality a player opts for.

One thing to add - this ius not the place for anyone to discuss mod actions, be it in-thread warnings, cards or bans. There are procedures in polace which permit discussion with mods and the escalation of issues througn the formal dispute process or directly with CMods if a satifactory conclusion cannot be reached with the mod

ArmaniJeanss

Beasty wrote: »

Let me just chip in here. I will pick this up with the local mod team to see if we can come up with some wording that deals with the particular concerns raised by them while allowing discussion of this particular "positive" (from an IRL angle) story. To put it in a little more perspective - what if he had opted for GBR? I've seen this sort of stuff descend into chaos elsewhere and the rule was introduced to avoid the type of heated discussions which inevitably follow such decisions. Hence there is very good reason to prohibit discussion of the particular nationality a player opts for.

This happened in cricket when Ed Joyce and Eoin Morgan declared for England, and the mods of the cricket forum were able to allow discussion of it.
Obviously one set of moderator decisions isn't binding on another forum, but to me the cricket mods decision is clearly the way it should go. Its a discussion forum, warts and all.

GreeBo

Fyi there is a thread up and running without any issues here on the Irish Olympic golf team.
here

slave1

Is it an idea to have an 'unmoderated' thread? Obviously golf related, let a bit of betting and nationality be discussed as long as it remains civil, at least give it a chance and if it descends into the gutter then it can be closed. Folk can choose to ignore it if they are not interested in the content.
It seems a bit sad that I was out golfing today and found out Rory has chosen to play for Ireland and yet there appears to be a wording game going on here between mods and users on this national topic, as John said, give it a chance...

Felexicon

Greebo, have you ever stepped back and asked why it's always you that seems to become involved in these kind of arguments and not the other mods of this forum.
Generally I don't have any issues with the way you mod but when someone asks for clarification on a ruling you make you can become quite dictatorial and try to shout people down with the threat of bans.

Maybe something to think about.

SaveOurLyric

GreeBo wrote: »

Fyi there is a thread up and running without any issues here on the Irish Olympic golf team.
here

No Problems ???
From that thread :

GreeBo wrote: »

As per the charter, there is to be no discussion of players declaring or not for any country.
Next mention is a ban.
No more warnings.

Beasty

slave1 wrote: »

Is it an idea to have an 'unmoderated' thread?

Absolutely not! This is not going to be allowed anywhere in the public forums. Mods are there to ensure site as well as foruym rules are observed (and, for example, to deal with anything that could put the site at any risk of legal challenge). We are simply not allowed to "not moderate"!!

SaveOurLyric

This one is going OK though :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056750713&page=59

No bans and bolded text about at all.

GreeBo

Felexicon wrote: »

Greebo, have you ever stepped back and asked why it's always you that seems to become involved in these kind of arguments and not the other mods of this forum.
Generally I don't have any issues with the way you mod but when someone asks for clarification on a ruling you make you can become quite dictatorial and try to shout people down with the threat of bans.

Maybe something to think about.

For the record I didn't give the original card.

I'm involved now as there were several follow-up posts that needed moderation.

Bans are threatened when people ignore warnings, then yellow and red cards. I'm not shooting people down, I'm moderating according to the charter.

Beasty

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

This happened in cricket when Ed Joyce and Eoin Morgan declared for England, and the mods of the cricket fora were able to allow discussion of it.
Obviously one set of moderator decisions isn't binding on another fora, but to me the cricket mods decision is clearly the way it should go. Its a discussion forum, warts and all.

I am fully aware of the situation in the cricket forum and the significant problems caused by the "Morgan debate". As I've already indicated if McIlroy had declared for GBR I would have expected a lot of trouble to follow (putting the cricket forum (which is generally a low hassle, and relatively small forum) problems into the shade). It's my experience of those problems in the cricket forum which suggests to me that this sort of thing is probably better off banned from discussion in a forum like this. However discussion of Ireland's Olympic hopefuls/team is certainly permitted - the point is that posters should not make any issue out of the fact someoene has "opted" for one country over another

GreeBo

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

This one is going OK though :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056750713&page=59

No bans and bolded text about at all.

That's AH, a totally different type of forum.
A quick glance shows me several posts that would require moderation on the golf forum, hence we have this rule.

charlieIRL

I zapped the original post, I've seen it too many times on forums when a sportspersons nationality is discussed. Some of the posts were downright slanderous. This is the reason this was nipped in the bud. Chat about the olympics all day long

P_1

charlieIRL wrote: »

I zapped the original post, I've seen it too many times on forums when a sportspersons nationality is discussed. Some of the posts were downright slanderous. This is the reason this was nipped in the bud. Chat about the olympics all day long

Just my 2 cent, when you're zapping things like that might it be an idea to add a few lines explaining why. Perhaps it's just posting style but sometimes mod posts can come across as rather authoritarian and dictatorial.

If for example, "For the hard of hearing, there is no discussion allowed on this forum about a players nationality or who they have or have not declared for.

Next one is a ban.
Arguing with a moderators decisions on thread is also a bannable offence.
There is a feedback thread for this sort of thing."

was replaced with, "Discussions on player's nationalities generally turn into undignified messes and that is something that we'd rather avoid here, as a result we don't allow discussion about a player's nationality on this forum"

it would come across a lot better, people won't get their backs up and chances are things would flow a bit better.

Maybe its just me but generally I find that people react better to being told that they can't don something when the reason why is explained to them rather than a seemingly abrupt order.

FixdePitchmark

On The Rory issue.

Politics and sport don't mix.
"Some people believe that football is a matter of life and death "

Hang with me - this is feedback

Jaysus lads - I can't believe it is as important as all this.

I think I understand the Rory rule - you can understand how some lads may have in the past go - the %£$$ F$$k£r not playing for Ireland blaa blaa blaa.

But at the same time , you can see how the rule has had unintended consequences in this instance.

Opening up the thread on Rio 2016 is a fair compromise - in conflict resolution - such as the Good Friday Agreement for example - you have to compromise , sometimes you have to accept things that are against everything in you, for the greater good.

Just listening to RTE news there - it is on it. There was no mention of Boards BTW.

He is just a kid , who has had a bit of a strange life. He is in an extremely difficult situation, that only a few people on here could understand. I went up the North and spoke to people about it there. And, it would take a lifetime of living there to understand it fully.

It is a no win situation - but he has had to compromise - sometimes you can't win in every situation.

So - we will drive on. It is only a game - most lads on here are not as bad as they come across - a game of golf with them is the way.

mickmackey1

In fairness I don't see how its possible to discuss the olympics without discussing nationality... patriotic, flag-waving jingoism is at the very heart of the entire event!! The mods are tying themselves up in knots here.

ArmaniJeanss

Beasty wrote: »

I am fully aware of the situation in the cricket forum and the significant problems caused by the "Morgan debate". As I've already indicated if McIlroy had declared for GBR I would have expected a lot of trouble to follow (putting the cricket forum (which is generally a low hassle, and relatively small forum) problems into the shade). It's my experience of those problems in the cricket forum which suggests to me that this sort of thing is probably better off banned from discussion in a forum like this. However discussion of Ireland's Olympic hopefuls/team is certainly permitted - the point is that posters should not make any issue out of the fact someoene has "opted" for one country over another

OK, so I think what you are saying is that the cricket forum is smaller than the golf forum and better able to absorb such a heated nationality discussion.

So what about the soccer, rugby and gaa forums?
Soccer had a long running thread about the James McCarthy situation and there were times when it looked likely he would choose Scotland. Debate continued through it all.
GAA had the Seamie Johnson affair (the GAA equivalent of an international tug-of-war) again robust debate was allowed.
Rugby has had debates about the merits of southern hemisphere born players (with no 'blood' links) declaring for NH international sides.

So boards sports forums both bigger and smaller than this one seem to able to host this sort of 'nationality' debate. Why is the golf forum different?

SaveOurLyric

mickmackey1 wrote: »

In fairness I don't see how its possible to discuss the olympics without discussing nationality... patriotic, flag-waving jingoism is at the very heart of the entire event!! The mods are tying themselves up in knots here.

Indeed. Thats what makes the Olympics such a joke of a 'sports' event.

Golf diving into that cesspit is a sad step, where RoMac could have a gold medal of equal value (olympic medals being the debased junk bond of sporting achievement) to one won for beach volleyball or ribbon-on-a-stick-twirling. Add in what tune he has to listen to and flag to shed a tear to as he receives his medal, and it just adds to the farce (hand over the heart is always a touching addition).

I'm just Rors didnt just skip it altogether, and rather than giving the reason that he doesnt know where he is from, just point at the emperors new cloths and sat he would rather stay at home do something more interesting like arranging his tees by size and colour.

GreeBo

P_1 wrote: »

Just my 2 cent, when you're zapping things like that might it be an idea to add a few lines explaining why. Perhaps it's just posting style but sometimes mod posts can come across as rather authoritarian and dictatorial.

If for example, "For the hard of hearing, there is no discussion allowed on this forum about a players nationality or who they have or have not declared for.

Next one is a ban.
Arguing with a moderators decisions on thread is also a bannable offence.
There is a feedback thread for this sort of thing."

was replaced with, "Discussions on player's nationalities generally turn into undignified messes and that is something that we'd rather avoid here, as a result we don't allow discussion about a player's nationality on this forum"

it would come across a lot better, people won't get their backs up and chances are things would flow a bit better.

Maybe its just me but generally I find that people react better to being told that they can't don something when the reason why is explained to them rather than a seemingly abrupt order.

There are already several warnings on that thread and it's been part of the charter that everyone is supposed to read before posting.

The reason was stated abd yet it was ignored, multiple times.

GreeBo

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Indeed. Thats what makes the Olympics such a joke of a 'sports' event.

Golf diving into that cesspit is a sad step, where RoMac could have a gold medal of equal value (olympic medals being the debased junk bond of sporting achievement) to one won for beach volleyball or ribbon-on-a-stick-twirling. Add in what tune he has to listen to and flag to shed a tear to as he receives his medal, and it just adds to the farce (hand over the heart is always a touching addition).

I'm just Rors didnt just skip it altogether, and rather than giving the reason that he doesnt know where he is from, just point at the emperors new cloths and sat he would rather stay at home do something more interesting like arranging his tees by size and colour.

Let's leave it for feedback only please.

GreeBo

mickmackey1 wrote: »

In fairness I don't see how its possible to discuss the olympics without discussing nationality... patriotic, flag-waving jingoism is at the very heart of the entire event!! The mods are tying themselves up in knots here.

It's perfectly possible to talk about the event without discussing ego someone has decided to play for.

bustercherry

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

On The Rory issue.

Politics and sport don't mix.
"Some people believe that football is a matter of life and death "

Hang with me - this is feedback

Jaysus lads - I can't believe it is as important as all this.

I think I understand the Rory rule - you can understand how some lads may have in the past go - the %£$$ F$$k£r not playing for Ireland blaa blaa blaa.

But at the same time , you can see how the rule has had unintended consequences in this instance.

Opening up the thread on Rio 2016 is a fair compromise - in conflict resolution - such as the Good Friday Agreement for example - you have to compromise , sometimes you have to accept things that are against everything in you, for the greater good.

Just listening to RTE news there - it is on it. There was no mention of Boards BTW.

He is just a kid , who has had a bit of a strange life. He is in an extremely difficult situation, that only a few people on here could understand. I went up the North and spoke to people about it there. And, it would take a lifetime of living there to understand it fully.

It is a no win situation - but he has had to compromise - sometimes you can't win in every situation.

So - we will drive on. It is only a game - most lads on here are not as bad as they come across - a game of golf with them is the way.

Patronising drivel :rolleyes:

m r c

I'm using this forum a fair while now and in all fairness it's well run, tbh I have read the charter and I'm a little unsure what can and can't be posted regarding Rory's choice.

The problem post from today probably shouldn't have been deleted the way I read the charter but some of the posts after the post was deleted kinda gave credibility to the deletion.

Really I suppose the mods don't want the topic discussed at all and there is no free speech as we oft hear quoted.

It is nice that the forum and it's etiquette seems to be in the spirit of the game all the same ie no time for bull****

GreeBo

m r c wrote: »

I'm using this forum a fair while now and in all fairness it's well run, tbh I have read the charter and I'm a little unsure what can and can't be posted regarding Rory's choice.

The problem post from today probably shouldn't have been deleted the way I read the charter but some of the posts after the post was deleted kinda gave credibility to the deletion.

Really I suppose the mods don't want the topic discussed at all and there is no free speech as we oft hear quoted.

It is nice that the forum and it's etiquette seems to be in the spirit of the game all the same ie no time for bull****

If I was to try to sum it up simply...
Talk about the fact, not the decision.
Help?

m r c

GreeBo wrote: »

If I was to try to sum it up simply...
Talk about the fact, not the decision.
Help?

Yes that's helpful thanks.

So this is fine.
I see Rory has decided to play for Ireland.

This is not.
I think it's great that Rory has decided to play for Ireland.

That a good example?

FixdePitchmark

m r c wrote: »

Yes that's helpful thanks.

So this is fine.
I see Rory has decided to play for Ireland.

This is not.
I think it's great that Rory has decided to play for Ireland.

That a good example?

That is ridiculous if that is the case.

GreeBo

m r c wrote: »

Yes that's helpful thanks.

So this is fine.
I see Rory has decided to play for Ireland.

This is not.
I think it's great that Rory has decided to play for Ireland.

That a good example?

More like how do you think Ireland will do in the Olympics ( the way that thread is going is fine)
And nothing to do with the decision at all. Assume there was never any question add to who he was to play for, we all know it's Ireland now, basically...time to move on.

charlieIRL

P_1 wrote: »

Just my 2 cent, when you're zapping things like that might it be an idea to add a few lines explaining why. Perhaps it's just posting style but sometimes mod posts can come across as rather authoritarian and dictatorial.

but i did, I left a note reminding the posters of the charter.

PARlance

Why not have some form of access request for the golf forum? Akin to the soccer forum.

My observation is that generally this place is fairly trouble free but you know there's going to be trouble around the majors and the odd time when golf hits the mainstream headlines.
If guys that are just passing by for an off the cuff comment had to send a request to post I think it could save a lot of trouble.
It wouldn't affect regulars or occasional posters.

*****

<MOD SNIP>

Fair enough, posters may have still come in with objections about not being able to discuss it freely but that is standard and to be expected. It may or may not be right, but it should be expected.

Greebo, you have cited people continually posting as the reason you adopted, what I see as, an aggressive approach with "For those of you hard of hearing..." and that tone continued in this thread on a few occasions.
I really think you should know by now that this rubs a lot of the forum up the wrong way.
And considering that these posts get deleted, how are people that don't see them go up going to know that. They just see an overly aggressive post and that's not a good start.

After all, as posters we are told we need to remain calm, I think Moderators need to remain calm as well.
Hassle should be expected and it's just as effective to issue a "Next post will be a ban" without adding other bits that clearly wind a lot of people up.

I also think the other mods should take a step up and issue these "sterner" second and final warnings, it seems to fall to Greebo most of the time.

So, in an ideal word for me:
There would be some way to restrict the Seagull posters who fly by every now and again, making a racket and sh*ting all over the place only to be gone as soon as golf isn't a headline.

The non greebo mods take up some of the sterner warnings and help him crack the whip a bit more... (I'd still love you Charlie )
The Greebo mod continues to crack the whip but maybe acknowledges that the delivery of this can be better.

So, less of a Bad Cop/Good Cop scenario, and more of just a Cop/Cop scenario

It's a good forum and is well moderated for the most part, and it's certainly a thankless job but seeing as it's the feedback thread, I may as give it.

Anatom

PARlance wrote: »

Why not have some form of access request for the golf forum? Akin to the soccer forum.

My observation is that generally this place is fairly trouble free but you know there's going to be trouble around the majors and the odd time when golf hits the mainstream headlines.
If guys that are just passing by for an off the cuff comment had to send a request to post I think it could save a lot of trouble.
It wouldn't affect regulars or occasional posters.

*****
<MOD SNIP>

Fair enough, posters may have still come in with objections about not being able to discuss it freely but that is standard and to be expected. It may or may not be right, but it should be expected.

Greebo, you have cited people continually posting as the reason you adopted, what I see as, an aggressive approach with "For those of you hard of hearing..." and that tone continued in this thread on a few occasions.
I really think you should know by now that this rubs a lot of the forum up the wrong way.
And considering that these posts get deleted, how are people that don't see them go up going to know that. They just see an overly aggressive post and that's not a good start.

After all, as posters we are told we need to remain calm, I think Moderators need to remain calm as well.
Hassle should be expected and it's just as effective to issue a "Next post will be a ban" without adding other bits that clearly wind a lot of people up.

I also think the other mods should take a step up and issue these "sterner" second and final warnings, it seems to fall to Greebo most of the time.

So, in an ideal word for me:
There would be some way to restrict the Seagull posters who fly by every now and again, making a racket and sh*ting all over the place only to be gone as soon as golf isn't a headline.

The non greebo mods take up some of the sterner warnings and help him crack the whip a bit more... (I'd still love you Charlie )
The Greebo mod continues to crack the whip but maybe acknowledges that the delivery of this can be better.

So, less of a Bad Cop/Good Cop scenario, and more of just a Cop/Cop scenario

It's a good forum and is well moderated for the most part, and it's certainly a thankless job but seeing as it's the feedback thread, I may as give it.

Good post there PARlance.

Remember too, that the written word can be easy to misinterpret when compared with saying something to someone face-to-face...

Speaking as one who has been censured in the distant past (cough, cough) I'd have to agree that this forum is pretty well run indeed. Much of that has to do with the time and commitment the mods (GreeBo and CharlieIRL esp) give to it.

However, we need to bear in mind that most regular posters on here are decent enough and are simply interested in learning and discussing a sport they love to play, while knocking a bit of craic out of it as well. <MOD SNIP>
Perhaps everyone can learn something from this and, as someone just said, I think we can all move on from it at this stage...

GreeBo

PARlance wrote: »

Why not have some form of access request for the golf forum? Akin to the soccer forum.

My observation is that generally this place is fairly trouble free but you know there's going to be trouble around the majors and the odd time when golf hits the mainstream headlines.
If guys that are just passing by for an off the cuff comment had to send a request to post I think it could save a lot of trouble.
It wouldn't affect regulars or occasional posters.

We really dont want to go down that route, wanting to be as inclusive as possible. Having to request access might turn away a few people who we would want, I dont think its worth it?

PARlance wrote: »

*****

<MOD SNIP>

Fair enough, posters may have still come in with objections about not being able to discuss it freely but that is standard and to be expected. It may or may not be right, but it should be expected.

It is expected, thats why charlie gave an on thread warning about it. It was ignored, repeatedly. Thats when cards get handed out. We are not here to mother people, each person doesnt deserve an individual warning; this isnt a paid job remember.

PARlance wrote: »

Greebo, you have cited people continually posting as the reason you adopted, what I see as, an aggressive approach with "For those of you hard of hearing..." and that tone continued in this thread on a few occasions.
I really think you should know by now that this rubs a lot of the forum up the wrong way.

I have reviewed this thread and tbh I cant see any post in here that is anyway aggressive?
As I said previously, the "hard of hearing" comment was because people were again breaching the charter despite and on thread warning. I gave a firmer on thread warning. The other option is cards and infractions.

PARlance wrote: »

And considering that these posts get deleted, how are people that don't see them go up going to know that. They just see an overly aggressive post and that's not a good start.

Posters see on thread warnings and that posts have been deleted. Leaving posts in place just increases the churn. We dont just zap them, we zap and comment mod style

PARlance wrote: »

After all, as posters we are told we need to remain calm, I think Moderators need to remain calm as well.
Hassle should be expected and it's just as effective to issue a "Next post will be a ban" without adding other bits that clearly wind a lot of people up.

I'm always calm! Hassle shouldnt be expected though. Why should volunteers expect to deal with hassle for something thats known by everyone and people have already been warned about?
Again, this isnt play school, people need to be responsible and accept the consequences of their actions.

PARlance wrote: »

I also think the other mods should take a step up and issue these "sterner" second and final warnings, it seems to fall to Greebo most of the time.

So, in an ideal word for me:
There would be some way to restrict the Seagull posters who fly by every now and again, making a racket and sh*ting all over the place only to be gone as soon as golf isn't a headline.

The non greebo mods take up some of the sterner warnings and help him crack the whip a bit more... (I'd still love you Charlie )
The Greebo mod continues to crack the whip but maybe acknowledges that the delivery of this can be better.

So, less of a Bad Cop/Good Cop scenario, and more of just a Cop/Cop scenario

It's a good forum and is well moderated for the most part, and it's certainly a thankless job but seeing as it's the feedback thread, I may as give it.

To be frank, there are lots of occasions where I will give a stern on thread warning where the other option would be cards, I can go back to giving out cards but based on feedback on this thread before I had moved away from that.
I think posters need to accept that we, as mods, are really not willing to have to sift through post after post and issue polite warnings again and again. Thats not the job, at least not in my opinion.

GreeBo

Lads stop discussing individual moderations actions towards a poster please, Beasty has already warned about this.

P_1

charlieIRL wrote: »

but i did, I left a note reminding the posters of the charter.

Ah so you did, my apologies in that case

Beasty

PARlance wrote: »

Why not have some form of access request for the golf forum? Akin to the soccer forum.

What makes you think this will improve things? The Soccer Forum access was introduced to help deal with issues specific to Soccer. I guess it also helps stem spammers, but the recent introduction of a 50 post requirement before being able to post links has resulted in a massive improvement on that front anyway

Are you witnessing an influx of low postcount trolls? That's all the access mechanism really helps control. TBH it's pretty easy for posters to post the requisite 50 posts across the site and gain access if they really want to regardless of the process. What it does do though is put of posters genuinely interested in posting as it suggests to them the forum has introduced it to deal with some major issues (which I am certainly not seeing here), and posters prefer not to go through the hassle - indeed they may have a spur of the moment thought they may wish to contribute only to forget all about it when they see they need to go through a convoluted access process

PARlance

Beasty wrote: »

What makes you think this will improve things? The Soccer Forum access was introduced to help deal with issues specific to Soccer. I guess it also helps stem spammers, but the recent introduction of a 50 post requirement before being able to post links has resulted in a massive improvement on that front anyway

Are you witnessing an influx of low postcount trolls? That's all the access mechanism really helps control. TBH it's pretty easy for posters to post the requisite 50 posts across the site and gain access if they really want to regardless of the process. What it does do though is put of posters genuinely interested in posting as it suggests to them the forum has introduced it to deal with some major issues (which I am certainly not seeing here), and posters prefer not to go through the hassle - indeed they may have a spur of the moment thought they may wish to contribute only to forget all about it when they see they need to go through a convoluted access process

I explained why in the following paragraph. Nothing to do with above.

*************

Seperate feedback;
Close the feedback thread.

SnowDrifts

Agreed Parlance... there is no point having a "feedback thread" if the Mods are not even going to consider any feedback they receive. It's a shame the way the forum is moderated in that way.

GreeBo

So you don't get your way and it's toys out of the pram time?
Restricted access:
- is extra work for mods
- drives away new posters
- is not required on a forum that doesn't have a spam problem
The vast majority of mod work is driven by regular posters, there is very little one of posters.

Also it had been considered before, it's not something that we would discuss with posters, no need as you are all already here.

Feedback thread is here for everyone btw.

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

So you don't get your way and it's toys out of the pram time?
Restricted access:
- is extra work for mods
- drives away new posters
- is not required on a forum that doesn't have a spam problem
The vast majority of mod work is driven by regular posters, there is very little one of posters.

Also it had been considered before, it's not something that we would discuss with posters, no need as you are all already here.

Feedback thread is here for everyone btw.

To use a well trotted out line, why the personal attacks?!?!

No toys were harmed in my post.
I kept my response (to Beasty) quite short as I now feel this thread deserves minimum input.

I wasn't going to respond to you because I don't believe there is any point trying to discuss anything with you on here.

Now... That's me out, toys to play with.

dan_ep82

I moderated a busy car forum (100k unique hits per month) and I have to say I can understand where Greebo is coming from concerning some decisions not being made a vote.
Sometimes what the users want would be detrimental to the forum, generally its a group of vocal users, not the entire forum, who wish for these changes.
I believe as Greebo does, making the forum invite only would alienate potential new members for the purpose of stopping near non existent spam. The trade off is way too much IMO.

On another subject, I don't think Greebo is heavy handed with handing out infractions,bans and warnings ( at least not from what I've seen). He seems to only use the above when a poster is in breach of the Charter although there could be exceptions I haven't seen.

I think some of the warnings have to much personality in them, giving the user the feeling that "some guy behind a screen" is giving them a warning as opposed to the moderation team.

I've seen a few posts where this seems to be the case, as posted above the "For those of you hard of hearing..." , it seems to be the result of frustration, while more than likely justified, leaves the post open to smart comments in return ( it can be nothing else but a smart comment as we obviously cannot hear you)
Something like " Next Post On XXXX Topic Will Have To Result In A Ban As It Is In Breach Of The Forum Charter" will remove the moderator and replace it with the moderation team.

GreeBo

PARlance wrote: »

To use a well trotted out line, why the personal attacks?!?!

No toys were harmed in my post.
I kept my response (to Beasty) quite short as I now feel this thread deserves minimum input.

I wasn't going to respond to you because I don't believe there is any point trying to discuss anything with you on here.

Now... That's me out, toys to play with.

it's not a personal attack,
Both yourself and snowdrifts seem to have decided that the feedback thread should be closed simply because you didn't get the particular thing you wanted. You go on to say you won't be posting here again. In my view that's toys out of the pram.

GreeBo

dan_ep82 wrote: »

I moderated a busy car forum (100k unique hits per month) and I have to say I can understand where Greebo is coming from concerning some decisions not being made a vote.
Sometimes what the users want would be detrimental to the forum, generally its a group of vocal users, not the entire forum, who wish for these changes.
I believe as Greebo does, making the forum invite only would alienate potential new members for the purpose of stopping near non existent spam. The trade off is way too much IMO.

On another subject, I don't think Greebo is heavy handed with handing out infractions,bans and warnings ( at least not from what I've seen). He seems to only use the above when a poster is in breach of the Charter although there could be exceptions I haven't seen.

I think some of the warnings have to much personality in them, giving the user the feeling that "some guy behind a screen" is giving them a warning as opposed to the moderation team.

I've seen a few posts where this seems to be the case, as posted above the "For those of you hard of hearing..." , it seems to be the result of frustration, while more than likely justified, leaves the post open to smart comments in return ( it can be nothing else but a smart comment as we obviously cannot hear you)
Something like " Next Post On XXXX Topic Will Have To Result In A Ban As It Is In Breach Of The Forum Charter" will remove the moderator and replace it with the moderation team.

Mods are human, my "personalized" warning posts are the result of frustration and indeed anger. Frankly it's that or just start banning people who ignore warnings and breach the charter. The angry warnings are to avoid bannings, often when they are justified. This is as a result of feedback here that we (i) was too quick to wield cards.
I would point out that tone is notoriously hard to pick up from the written word and that some will find offence and take umbrage at anything.

As you know it's everyone's responsibility to know the charter before posting here, we are not willing or able to give every poster a warning on each topic.

Appreciate the feedback.

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

it's not a personal attack,
Both yourself and snowdrifts seem to have decided that the feedback thread should be closed simply because you didn't get the particular thing you wanted. You go on to say you won't be posting here again. In my view that's toys out of the pram.

Appreciate the feedback.

P_1

GreeBo wrote: »

Mods are human, my "personalized" warning posts are the result of frustration and indeed anger. Frankly it's that or just start banning people who ignore warnings and breach the charter. The angry warnings are to avoid bannings, often when they are justified. This is as a result of feedback here that we (i) was too quick to wield cards.
I would point out that tone is notoriously hard to pick up from the written word and that some will find offence and take umbrage at anything.

As you know it's everyone's responsibility to know the charter before posting here, we are not willing or able to give every poster a warning on each topic.

Appreciate the feedback.

Yes getting the right tone in the written word can be as tricky as the 12th at Augusta with the wind swirling. With that in mind, might it be worth considering depersonalising your mod posts in that case? There is a reason why companies tend to use bland, impersonal language in 'tricky' interactions with customers, perhaps that might work here?

I can understand how frustrating it can be to you if people are constantly ignoring you and the fact that you're trying to avoid handing out cards and bans is admirable. Unfortunately I do think that letting your frustration come across in your mod posts can tend to add fuel to a fire.

This isn't an attack on you by the way and I hope you don't take it that way.

Tiger Mcilroy

GreeBo wrote: »

Mods are human, my "personalized" warning posts are the result of frustration and indeed anger. Frankly it's that or just start banning people who ignore warnings and breach the charter. The angry warnings are to avoid bannings, often when they are justified. This is as a result of feedback here that we (i) was too quick to wield cards.
I would point out that tone is notoriously hard to pick up from the written word and that some will find offence and take umbrage at anything.

As somebody how had a shaky start to posting in the golf forum it was this very reason i got frustrated as the tone of posts is so easy to misinterpret and when mods are leaving a comment like this (however justified) then shutting down the replies it can imo get peoples back.

Obviously being a mod is a thankless task and compared to some other forums i have lurked/posted on the golf forum is by far one of the better run as its golfers talking about golf and things like the golf society are a credit to the site.