Media Jabba73 Melt thread

[Ned_Flanders]

Ummm, you missed the joke Numbnuts. Will highlight the important bits for you


The response was

Sigh. You are such hard work sometimes.

When you have to explain the joke, the joke is not funny.

 

[Jabba73]

When you have to explain the joke, the joke is not funny.

Or Scene-whore Melty has comprehension issues, and I am just trying to help him out … again.

 

[thewizardmelon]

Or Scene-whore Melty has comprehension issues, and I am just trying to help him out … again.

This definitely looks like content from a guy who “only ever calls people Numbnuts and nothing worse”.

Aren’t you tired of derailing this thread for superior the actual candidates?

and I don’t even like the Mexican guy

 

[Jabba73]

This definitely looks like content from a guy who “only ever calls people Numbnuts and nothing worse”.

Aren’t you tired of derailing this thread for superior the actual candidates?

and I don’t even like the Mexican guy

Superior? Maybe … to be sure of that it should have been decided by the votes of the clubs, not the Admin.

 

[Senor M]

Let's split this post up into a few parts Jabba73

It's like you have no idea how the league works

Its like you have no idea how the league works

Let's start with the "No, U".

This type of stereotypical response is sad and honestly below someone in my opinion that I'd want to see as the next admin of the SFA.

My understanding of the league doesn't really matter here, I'm not campaigning to become the next admin NOR am I complaining that NaturalDisaster did the wrong thing.

I'm just providing some advice to how to solve your problem, because as I've said above:

But you're not going to change the process by complaining about it in an publicly viewed thread.

If you want to see this changed, get your committee rep to take it to the committee for discussion.

Let me remind you of who the committee are--- 12 people (one from each club) who discuss and vote upon the issues of the league.

Are you suggesting that all club representatives vote on committee decisions purely based on what is best for the SFA and not their own self interest?

Just because you don't agree with the decisions of the committee doesn't mean that their decisions are only in their "self interest". What you might think what is best for the league might not agree with the other 11 clubs. We have a wide range of club personas and personalities and the votes in the committee should reflect that.

But if you don't trust the committee how can you expect decisions to be

decided by the votes of the clubs, not the Admin.

 

[Jabba73]

Let's split this post up into a few parts Jabba73




Let's start with the "No, U".

This type of stereotypical response is sad and honestly below someone in my opinion that I'd want to see as the next admin of the SFA.

My understanding of the league doesn't really matter here, I'm not campaigning to become the next admin NOR am I complaining that NaturalDisaster did the wrong thing.

I'm just providing some advice to how to solve your problem, because as I've said above:



Let me remind you of who the committee are--- 12 people (one from each club) who discuss and vote upon the issues of the league.



Just because you don't agree with the decisions of the committee doesn't mean that their decisions are only in their "self interest". What you might think what is best for the league might not agree with the other 11 clubs. We have a wide range of club personas and personalities and the votes in the committee should reflect that.

But if you don't trust the committee how can you expect decisions to be

The clubs should vote on applications for the Admin role, not the current Admin. They were denied the chance to assess a candidate without due process and that is a grave error of judgement.

Would you be happy to leave it to the committee to sort out without public comment if the Admin had decided that he thought kdavva was unlikely to stick around, PMBangers posting style was too undisciplined and Barrybran was just going to cruise through without trying to improve the league and dismissed them as option for not passing the “sniff test”? You would then be left with Kennedy Parker as the sole candidate deemed worthy of the position based purely on the whim of NaturalDisaster … and may not even be aware who the disallowed candidates were.

Don‘t mix up this process with other committee decisions because they are two separate issues.

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

I feel Jabba73 deserves an apology which has not been forthcoming NaturalDisaster . You ****ed up and admitted it now ****ing own it!

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I feel Jabba73 deserves an apology which has not been forthcoming NaturalDisaster . You f’ed up and admitted it now ******* own it!

The fact Jabba73 answered every post EXCEPT the four questions I asked him about his application confirmed this wasn't serious, and just another bit of faux drama from the bombers.

Be less obvious next time

 

[Jabba73]

The fact Jabba73 answered every post EXCEPT the four questions I asked him about his application confirmed this wasn't serious, and just another bit of faux drama from the bombers.

Be less obvious next time

I have been prevented from participating Biscuits.

Your questions are pointless

 

[Jabba73]

To be serious for one sec, Jabba73 if you want in, don't sook about it - that just reinforces every reason you were excluded.

The way you knock the door down and get back in is to show they were misconceptions, and you do this with a properly thought out and explained rebuttal.

So here is a free kick. Your submission was big on rhetoric and vibe, but sparse on actual details. So...:

1) you want the quality of posting improved. What specific measures will you take to achieve this?

2) you want the tour to be more representative. Thats fine, but how do you manage the previous issues of the Blues, Cats, etc boards, where the moderation on those boards is extremely strict to non locals?

3) you want some rules removed, and some made more strict. Which ones?

4) you want players removed if they don't post 5 times a week. Isn't this an unhealthy approach to supporting players in an era of covid, where all clubs had multiple players taking breaks of various degrees? Also does this not impact upon those with work or personal issues which mean they cannot be on bigfooty for a period of time? How is booting people out encouraging them to engage more?

Two of your four question are framed from a false premise, not sure if deliberate. Anyway, here goes

1. Education and encouragement. Lazy insults like dickhead, w***er etc. should be called out like we do with “no you” responses. People will learn from encouragement to be better with insults and education about what is acceptable from their leadership groups. Be creative and funny, not lazy and vindictive.

Not a quick fix

2. Change the tour party like I have explained many times before. If we have had problems with moderation, that is further proof the current tour set up needs tweaking.

Pick players unlikely to upset the Mods including the locals of that board where appropriate. Change the group to suit the board we are visiting, one size does not fit all.

3. I was talking about punishments, not rules.

Banning two captains from the one team for not including ins and outs for a brand new squad in the first gamewas way over the top and was subsequently overturned.

Penalties for persistent stalking/bullying/harassing rookies by experienced players would be an example where the punishment needs to be more of a deterrent if warnings are not heeded.

4. Never said I wanted players removed for less than 5 games, merely said they would be looked at. Would have been asked what number of posts if I hadn’t listed a number, 5 seems a reasonable number to indicate engagement.

Of course personal circumstances will be taken into consideration, if you don’t at least check why certain posters are not very active then you end up with lists that are not as fun to play against as they leave it to a couple to carry the load. By making a benchmark, you encourage a certain level of effort, or the player gets reviewed.

Clubs can choose to keep them for their own reasons, they simply need to justify why they are taking up list spots with players not actively contributing.

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

The fact Jabba73 answered every post EXCEPT the four questions I asked him about his application confirmed this wasn't serious, and just another bit of faux drama from the bombers.

Be less obvious next time

This reply has nothing to do with Jab getting an apology. Stop butting your ****ing nose in and protecting ****ing ND! Grow a set of balls campaigner!

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

The admin is under no obligation to accept your application mate.

That's fine but he deserved to be treated with respect mate!

 

[Jabba73]

The admin is under no obligation to accept your application mate.

A properly formatted application was submitted per the guidelines. To dismiss it out of hand, without explanation or notification is exceedingly rude and unprofessional.

Why ask for expressions of interest if the Admin is going to hand pick who is allowed to run, based purely on his own biased opinions?

If it was anyone else “but Bombers” there would be hell to pay. The fact that a known antagonist from the Bombers has received support from the wider SFA community shows that this situation stinks and it can’t be dismissed as a Bomber problem.

How would you feel if your efforts to participate were dismissed out of hand two weeks in a row … then this was used against you … citing your lack of experience being involved in the wider SFA makes you fail a biased “sniff test”.

 

[NaturalDisaster]

A properly formatted application was submitted per the guidelines. To dismiss it out of hand, without explanation or notification is exceedingly rude and unprofessional.

Why ask for expressions of interest if the Admin is going to hand pick who is allowed to run, based purely on his own biased opinions?

If it was anyone else “but Bombers” there would be hell to pay. The fact that a known antagonist from the Bombers has received support from the wider SFA community shows that this situation stinks and it can’t be dismissed as a Bomber problem.

How would you feel if your efforts to participate were dismissed out of hand two weeks in a row … then this was used against you … citing your lack of experience being involved in the wider SFA makes you fail a biased “sniff test”.

Once again, take it elsewhere

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

Once again, take it elsewhere

Apologise!

 

[NaturalDisaster]

Apologise!

No,

Kids these days expecting participation trophies...

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

No,

Kids these days expecting participation trophies...

We are older than you !

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Two of your four question are framed from a false premise, not sure if deliberate. Anyway, here goes

1. Education and encouragement. Lazy insults like dickhead, w***er etc. should be called out like we do with “no you” responses. People will learn from encouragement to be better with insults and education about what is acceptable from their leadership groups. Be creative and funny, not lazy and vindictive.

Not a quick fix

2. Change the tour party like I have explained many times before. If we have had problems with moderation, that is further proof the current tour set up needs tweaking.

Pick players unlikely to upset the Mods including the locals of that board where appropriate. Change the group to suit the board we are visiting, one size does not fit all.

3. I was talking about punishments, not rules.

Banning two captains from the one team for not including ins and outs for a brand new squad in the first gamewas way over the top and was subsequently overturned.

Penalties for persistent stalking/bullying/harassing rookies by experienced players would be an example where the punishment needs to be more of a deterrent if warnings are not heeded.

4. Never said I wanted players removed for less than 5 games, merely said they would be looked at. Would have been asked what number of posts if I hadn’t listed a number, 5 seems a reasonable number to indicate engagement.

Of course personal circumstances will be taken into consideration, if you don’t at least check why certain posters are not very active then you end up with lists that are not as fun to play against as they leave it to a couple to carry the load. By making a benchmark, you encourage a certain level of effort, or the player gets reviewed.

Clubs can choose to keep them for their own reasons, they simply need to justify why they are taking up list spots with players not actively contributing.

Thank you for answering, and here are your issues.

1) your reply is a LG action, not an admin one. And for the next part (we'll get the admin to make the lg's do this), you cannot force a suggestion. Just look at how successful mods have been at getting your mob to obey the Adsense rules.

2) we have had moderation issues, multiple times. Before you instigate changes based upon your limited experience, ask TheInjuryFactory how each board we have visited has supported us. To fix the problem you have to understand it's fundamentals

3) write the rule you would have to define stalking of rookies, and the sanction.

Fwiw this is not a SFA issue but a bf moderation one imo.

4) so you as admin will look at each poster who posts less than a certain number of times? And then what? Again you are in LG territory and not admin territory. Many clubs are 100% opposed to posting quotas, and imo your campaign would be dead on this one policy


You answered seriously, so I responded in kind. Imo you don't really understand what the admin does. If you do want to be admin, my suggestion would be rather than run as a relative rookie, learn more about what is going on in and out of committee from your rep.

And don't look at things as "this isn't fair, I could do better". Look at it as "instead I would do this, but how would I do it, and what would be the consequences of this action"

This is important because unintended consequences is a big part of this gig. Ask NaturalDisaster Ant Bear Kennedy Parker The Filth Wizard and so on, just because you say it, doesn't mean it happens the way you want, or even at all.

Remember I will have no vote within a club in the coming vote, so I genuinely don't have a dog in this fight. Imo if you want to be admin you have to have shown two key things:

1) that you can handle the administration of the league.
I
f you cannot do this with an active record in committee, I'd be looking for a very active record is supporting the league's infrastructure outside it.

If the vote happened today, I'd rule out PMBangers because he lacks this experience. I'd also be asking a lot more about what kdavva has done behind the scenes that will make up for his lack of committee exposure. Barrybran and obviously Kennedy Parker clearly meet this hurdle.

2) you have a record of working to improve the league

Being in committee isn't enough. If you were lazy or obstructionist in that role, your track record is a negative. The admin has to work for the benefit of the league, not their club and not their personal legacy.


Get in committee, work in one of the many side groups in the league, and you will be a chance. Right now you have a great rep as a hammer for the bombers, but that's it.

 

[Jabba73]

No,

Kids these days expecting participation trophies...

Can’t get a participation trophy if you are locked out of the race with no explanation, even after you enter correctly.

 

[NaturalDisaster]

Can’t get a participation trophy if you are locked out of the race with no explanation, even after you enter correctly.

Poor analogy.

You expect to be the CEO when you have barely completed an apprenticeship.

 

[Jabba73]

Once again, take it elsewhere

Is this not the thread to discuss applications for the Admin position?

Am I being excluded again???

 

[Jabba73]

Poor analogy.

You expect to be the CEO when you have barely completed an apprenticeship.

Just because I haven’t previously worked in your company, doesn’t mean my experience in other industries and roles isn’t exactly what is needed to save this place from bankruptcy proceedings.

 

[NaturalDisaster]

Jabba73, keep it in here

 

[ImissFrosty]

Disgusting ND, I'm appalled

 

[Metalcrusher]

The fact Jabba73 answered every post EXCEPT the four questions I asked him about his application confirmed this wasn't serious, and just another bit of faux drama from the bombers.

Be less obvious next time

No its not. Trust me, Jabba is a very very very smart cookie and would better the league. His bid IS genuine, unfortunately due to NaturalDisaster ****ing spineless nature and his obviously predilections, this has turned into another ND circus.