Adelaide Board - Posting Rules

[Mad Dog]

If we are all welcome MAD DOG, then why do you routinely shut down threads or commnents that may differ with the status quo?

I can't give you links as you have already removed them!

You guys are just too sensitive...like an over eager umpire chasing holding the ball decisions.

Better for you to give posters the benefit of the doubt rather than can them for having an opinion...in my humble opinion of course oh mighty one

Captain - you are refering to threads on The Main Board.............this is a discussion regarding The Adelaide Board.

I can only refer you again to the Forum Rules and the guidelines for posting on the Main Board.

....and if you haven't noticed.....not all of your Threads on the Main Board were removed.......so it's nothing personal......

 

[The Captain]

Captain - you are refering to threads on The Main Board.............this is a discussion regarding The Adelaide Board.

I can only refer you again to the Forum Rules and the guidelines for posting on the Main Board.

....and if you haven't noticed.....not all of your Threads on the Main Board were removed.......so it's nothing personal......

If you are not removing all my threads, one could summise that perhaps.....just perhaps...I AM NOT A TROLLER!!!!

Benefit of the doubt is good. Being a Mod Nazi just creates a bad taste and takes away any desire for people to bother to add to the boards.

Enough said...you understand. You are wise

 

[tribey]

Mods are screwed either way.

If they let unfettered abuse and friction between posters go unchecked the quality of the board drops immensely, if they tighten this up and try to restore some civility by locking threads, deleting offensive posts and/or giving a friendly warning to ease up via PM they get accused of being powerhungry nazis.

Which is it?

We do have a small community of posters from other boards and clubs that post here on a regular/semi-regular basis and they've earned their stripes over time by sparking and adding to ongoing discussion in an open and civil manner - the fact they have an outsider's view and can approach things from another unbiased angle adds another dimension to the board.

Every now and then an outsider's questions or comments may seem obvious or ignorant to us, but that's to be expected given they don't follow the club and all the ins and outs of the team and players as closely as we do - just recently we had Paul Roos, a Premiership coach, refer to Hentschel as a fringe player for instance. We know this to not be the case because we live and breathe the club, others don't.

A prime example of this is Leigh Brown at the Kangaroos. The majority of people outside the club believe him to be an important cog in the Arden Street machine - whereas every Roos man worth his salt thinks he's a dud who should've been dropped long ago.

Bottom line is we shouldn't instantly denounce them as trolls and exile them - whatever happened to good faith or even a bit of friendly banter?

A lot of boards are degenerating to the level of Bay 13, we shouldn't let it happen here.

 

[Southerntakeover]

If you did your homework on this you would discover that a couple of long term and respected posters have been banned recently either for a week or so - or indefinately. It's tough to be objective...and your inference that anyone is treated differently is insulting and ill-informed. Routinely locked ??? - if it's routinely then there must be some examples you can come up with and a comment as to why locking them was not appropriate.

Really? Which long term posters were banned by the Adelaide Board moderators? That does suprise me.

Ill give you an example of what worries me...

How many times have we been reminded that Nikki is a close personal friend of Marty? How then, am i to have confidence that she would bann him? Given that there have been numerous occasions where he and C98 stepped over the lines, ignoring warnings, and he is still here, its a serious concern. This isnt personally about them, but its a good example.

You know what thread i was referencing, the one that was bumped about Craigs appointment. It seemed to me, that thread was locked mainly because of who it was who had made the poor comments. Im sure thats not the official reason given, but im sure whatever reason given could be applied to numerous other threads which remain open.

Again - provide and example and the comments will be removed....perhaps they were missed....??? Maybe too late now but if you report posts they will be dealt with ....no question. Leaving comments in posts would be a matter of not managing to clean up every quoted instance of the commet or abuse......not a matter of favouritism.

Far too long ago for me to have a link handy. To be fair, this predates your appointment as moderator MD.

However, at the time i DID go through the relevant channels, and nothing was done.

Cop out.....
You made an accusation that Moderators place personal relationships ahead of doing the job here.........now you're playing the poor "I'm just a nobody" card.....

This is your Board as much as anyone else's.........you should take some responsibility for setting the tone ............ it's not just up to so called "long term" posters.

Haha, the poor im just a nobody card? No, its true. Arguing with moderators tends to be a bad idea on messageboards, because even if i win, in the long run ill lose.

As for taking responsibility, i try to contribute to this board and i think there are those who appreciate my work. Perhaps my criticism of the moderating system as it stands is taking some responsibility for the board?After all, even if im wrong and all of these examples are perfectly explainable, and ill admit its entirely possible, that the perception exists is damaging in itself, and cant be good for the board.

 

[The Captain]

Mods are screwed either way.

If they let unfettered abuse and friction between posters go unchecked the quality of the board drops immensely, if they tighten this up and try to restore some civility by locking threads, deleting offensive posts and/or giving a friendly warning to ease up via PM they get accused of being powerhungry nazis.

Which is it?

We do have a small community of posters from other boards and clubs that post here on a regular/semi-regular basis and they've earned their stripes over time by sparking and adding to ongoing discussion in an open and civil manner - the fact they have an outsider's view and can approach things from another unbiased angle adds another dimension to the board.

Every now and then an outsider's questions or comments may seem obvious or ignorant to us, but that's to be expected given they don't follow the club and all the ins and outs of the team and players as closely as we do - just recently we had Paul Roos, a Premiership coach, refer to Hentschel as a fringe player for instance. We know this to not be the case because we live and breathe the club, others don't.

A prime example of this is Leigh Brown at the Kangaroos. The majority of people outside the club believe him to be an important cog in the Arden Street machine - whereas every Roos man worth his salt thinks he's a dud who should've been dropped long ago.

Bottom line is we shouldn't instantly denounce them as trolls and exile them - whatever happened to good faith or even a bit of friendly banter?

A lot of boards are degenerating to the level of Bay 13, we shouldn't let it happen here.

Well said

 

[- PC -]

You know what thread i was referencing, the one that was bumped about Craigs appointment. It seemed to me, that thread was locked mainly because of who it was who had made the poor comments. .

I thought it was locked for 2 reasons ( I could be wrong)

1. the argument was becoming circular

2. It seems BF doesnt like old threads re-emerging.

The 2nd one is more to do with a lack of relevance

 

[Mad Dog]

Really? Which long term posters were banned by the Adelaide Board moderators? That does suprise me.

Ill give you an example of what worries me...

How many times have we been reminded that Nikki is a close personal friend of Marty? How then, am i to have confidence that she would bann him? Given that there have been numerous occasions where he and C98 stepped over the lines, ignoring warnings, and he is still here, its a serious concern. This isnt personally about them, but its a good example.
.

I don't want to go on aboout this....and I won't because it won't achieve much and forwarding you all the PMs that were sent (to and by) everyone involved (over nearly a 4 month period) violates the privacy ethic that surrounds these things.

But trust me when I say ............ the reason I have reacted to your comments earlier in a fairly excitable way is because this particular example took up a lot of time that the Moderators would rather be spending posting about Football. I can't give details as I've said.......but suffice to say that site Admins were copied in and kept informed of this particular issue to ensure the correct action was taken. Honestly - you are very wrong in your assessment of this......

 

[Southerntakeover]

I thought it was locked for 2 reasons ( I could be wrong)

1. the argument was becoming circular

2. It seems BF doesnt like old threads re-emerging.

The 2nd one is more to do with a lack of relevance

Yeah, i would have no issue accepting either reason if there was some sort of consistency to it. Are we to lock all threads that fufill these criterion?

 

[- PC -]

Yeah, i would have no issue accepting either reason if there was some sort of consistency to it. Are we to lock all threads that fufill these criterion?

Personally I would hope so. But then again I'm not a mod, nor do I get upset if a thread isnt locked...at my age I forget what I post in about 7 minutes. I wouldnt even know if a thread was deleted

 

[Alex99]

I don't want to go on aboout this....and I won't because it won't achieve much and forwarding you all the PMs that were sent (to and by) everyone involved (over nearly a 4 month period) violates the privacy ethic that surrounds these things.

But trust me when I say ............ the reason I have reacted to your comments earlier in a fairly excitable way is because this particular example took up a lot of time that the Moderators would rather be spending posting about Football. I can't give details as I've said.......but suffice to say that site Admins were copied in and kept informed of this particular issue to ensure the correct action was taken. Honestly - you are very wrong in your assessment of this......

I don’t want to open a new can of worms on that topic but Southern does have a point with a perceived favouritism.

I accept what happened was 50% my fault but I am still dirty that I was the only person served with a penalty. (But that isn’t the issue here)

 

[Southerntakeover]

I don't want to go on aboout this....and I won't because it won't achieve much and forwarding you all the PMs that were sent (to and by) everyone involved (over nearly a 4 month period) violates the privacy ethic that surrounds these things.

But trust me when I say ............ the reason I have reacted to your comments earlier in a fairly excitable way is because this particular example took up a lot of time that the Moderators would rather be spending posting about Football. I can't give details as I've said.......but suffice to say that site Admins were copied in and kept informed of this particular issue to ensure the correct action was taken. Honestly - you are very wrong in your assessment of this......

Look, i do appreciate you trying to be open about this and responding to the criticism i levelled, many moderators at other sites (including me) would be tempted just to send me on a permanent holliday for questioning them.

 

[Southerntakeover]

I don’t want to open a new can of worms on that topic but Southern does have a point with a perceived favouritism.

I accept what happened was 50% my fault but I am still dirty that I was the only person served with a penalty. (But that isn’t the issue here)

Wow...

 

[NikkiNoo]

On what is being discussed above and my ability to act impartiality that is being questioned - yes only one was enforced with a ban at that time. Both members were warned about their behaviour and told not to respond to any more directions from MD and I, just to abide by our decisions. One of them continued to question the directives that were set out for them to remain on the Board and hence an infraction was given after warnings not to respond. The Admins were fully involved in being cc'd in on messages and decisions and they have not expressed any concerns about MD or my moderation on this issue or any other issue.

Trust me that the other party has been annoyed at me too for doing my job as a moderator and if anybody that I personally know on here oversteps the BF rules and our directives towards them, then I will ban or infract them with no hesitation.

If you are unhappy with my moderation and your perception of my possible bias then contact the Admins and let them know. I am assisting them to run their site and I hope to make this board the place it used to be when I first joined.

I didn't ask to be a moderator I was nominated by other posters on this board. Like MD said it takes a lot out of you and you spend less time actually looking at posts and contributing to this board and instead analysing every possible post. I have the easy job in that I only have to look after this Board, MD has to deal with the main board too and I have missed his discussions on this Board.

 

[Alex99]

On what is being discussed above and my ability to act impartiality that is being questioned - yes only one was enforced with a ban at that time. Both members were warned about their behaviour and told not to respond to any more directions from MD and I, just to abide by our decisions. One of them continued to question the directives that were set out for them to remain on the Board and hence an infraction was given after warnings not to respond. The Admins were fully involved in being cc'd in on messages and decisions and they have not expressed any concerns about MD or my moderation on this issue or any other issue.

That is stretching the truth a little bit, I sent you a PM to try and clarify something in relation to that issue and you suspended me. I sent you a pm and you removed my posting privileges.

But lets just move on.

 

[Mad Dog]

I don’t want to open a new can of worms on that topic but Southern does have a point with a perceived favouritism.

I accept what happened was 50% my fault but I am still dirty that I was the only person served with a penalty. (But that isn’t the issue here)

as usual - you have no idea........

 

[Crow Envy]

I think its time for a chill pill and a group hug.

As for being unfairly treated on a team board, we shouldnt complain about our Mods, try contributing on the Port board.

 

[Crow-mo]

these will be specifically targeted from now.

In reality - it's the same half a dozen or so - they know who they are - and they will have their access to this Board removed for good

 

[Crow-mo]

Really? Which long term posters were banned by the Adelaide Board moderators? That does suprise me.

not by the adelaide moderators, but in a cowardly and incorrect fashion nonetheless.

I got an infraction (supposedly)_for calling a swans supporter a "whiny sooky la-la" because he kept calling out how the umpires were screwing his team - which was difficult to take because 1. the free kick count was even at the time 2. he was not even watching the game at the time. how was free kick X right or wrong when you didn't see it?

now, when I went to return the PM with a short "you're having a laugh aren't you?" - I couldn't, all correspondence had been cut off because the message popped up - I'd been banned for a week!

what peeved me was the not the ban - I found that funny. I thought the conduct and manner to be pretty ordinary.

Now, onto this debate. I didn't see the question and dialogue last night, but I do agree entirely with your right to raise these issues. We shouldn't all go along with things just for the sake of it - maybe you're right, maybe you're not.

The real issue is, and anyone who denies this is a fool - we are all guilty - is of cutting slack to someone because we know them (metaphorically or otherwise) . That's probably right and correct too, but it is not judging things on their merits either. We need to not lose sight of this bias.
Bias is not of itself always a bad thing, forgetting that it is there. is.

 

[Southerntakeover]

not by the adelaide moderators, but in a cowardly and incorrect fashion nonetheless.

I got an infraction (supposedly)_for calling a swans supporter a "whiny sooky la-la" because he kept calling out how the umpires were screwing his team - which was difficult to take because 1. the free kick count was even at the time 2. he was not even watching the game at the time. how was free kick X right or wrong when you didn't see it?

now, when I went to return the PM with a short "you're having a laugh aren't you?" - I couldn't, all correspondence had been cut off because the message popped up - I'd been banned for a week!

what peeved me was the not the ban - I found that funny. I thought the conduct and manner to be pretty ordinary.

Now, onto this debate. I didn't see the question and dialogue last night, but I do agree entirely with your right to raise these issues. We shouldn't all go along with things just for the sake of it - maybe you're right, maybe you're not.

The real issue is, and anyone who denies this is a fool - we are all guilty - is of cutting slack to someone because we know them (metaphorically or otherwise) . That's probably right and correct too, but it is not judging things on their merits either. We need to not lose sight of this bias.
Bias is not of itself always a bad thing, forgetting that it is there. is.

Yeah, i was wondering if you were the example of a respected poster who had been banned, considering us Guns know full well who banned you.

Your summary is of course correct. Bias isnt a bad thing in itself. Its simply when it interferes (or is thought to interfere) with a duty that it becomes an issue.

 

[Alex99]

as usual - you have no idea........

Forget about it, play on. It's over and done with....move on.

 

[tribey]

I think its time for a chill pill

I'll pass thanks.

Not after a trade to Richmond.

 

[Crow Envy]

I'll pass thanks.

Not after a trade to Richmond.

Youve lost me on this one I think, not complaining about the umpires are we?

 

[Crow Envy]

not by the adelaide moderators, but in a cowardly and incorrect fashion nonetheless.

I got an infraction (supposedly)_for calling a swans supporter a "whiny sooky la-la" because he kept calling out how the umpires were screwing his team -

Surely your not referring about the bandwagoner?? If so you deserve a medal not a ban.

 

[RoosterLad]

I have already had a post in this thread deleted - it's Official, this board is now like the Port board hooray!

 

[Southerntakeover]

I have already had a post in this thread deleted - it's Official, this board is now like the Port board hooray!

Haha, gold.