Remove this Banner Ad

Everyone Please Read

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Hurrah, hurrah!!:)

As a few would know; I enjoy a good healthy debate. I don't mind receiving critisisms against my posts/threads as long as it is constructive.

It always takes a minority to upset a majority. Being a relatively new member myself I always keep in mind to 'respect' the esteemed members of our Board.

No trolling or sniping; just healthy conjecture and debate.
 
Kane McGoodwin said:
I encourage good healthy debates, however can we please rid this board of ongoing personal abuse between certain users. It doesn't really add to our discussion. Thanks. :)
Click to expand...

Point Taken. I put my hand up as being abit guilty in this department, even though it has been mostly in good jest...However, I refuse to treat members from the Port board with any sort of respect when they come on here with AFC related insults.
 
Crow-mosone said:
Kane,

you should probably close more threads, sooner. imo.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

As a manager and moderator of other forums both presently and in the past, the key to averting conflict is via preemption.

If things look like they're going south you post a quiet warning in the relevant thread saying "look... stick to the topic at hand, cool it on the insults or I'll have to lock this thread."

The thread that inspired Kane to dig this warning out of the recycle bin was allowed to run for 5? 6? pages?! And this is after one party has been directly warned via PM, but others - who said worse - were not.

It's one thing to let a poisoned thread stay open while watching from the sidelines, it's another thing again to pick one person out of the fray and give them a telling off while letting others go free.

I realise there are time restraints involved for our moderators, but we do have two of them. How long does it take to lock a thread or post a heads-up to the relevant parties?

Why is it that when some overdue policing is undertaken, one and not all are warned for their actions?

Common sense.
 
dyertribe said:
Exactly.

As a manager and moderator of other forums both presently and in the past, the key to averting conflict is via preemption.

If things look like they're going south you post a quiet warning in the relevant thread saying "look... stick to the topic at hand, cool it on the insults or I'll have to lock this thread."

The thread that inspired Kane to dig this warning out of the recycle bin was allowed to run for 5? 6? pages?! And this is after one party has been directly warned via PM, but others - who said worse - were not.

It's one thing to let a poisoned thread stay open while watching from the sidelines, it's another thing again to pick one person out of the fray and give them a telling off while letting others go free.

I realise there are time restraints involved for our moderators, but we do have two of them. How long does it take to lock a thread or post a heads-up to the relevant parties?

Why is it that when some overdue policing is undertaken, one and not all are warned for their actions?

Common sense.
Click to expand...
DT, you would already be aware from correspondence to espoir that I would have closed the thread earlier if I was around when the 1st bickering started.

When I 1st read the thread yesterday AM, the thread was inactive & Dave had PM'd the people involved, so didn't see any point closing it as it had appeared to have come to an end.

When I became aware of a 2nd breakout of bickering yesterday PM, I closed the thread.

Sure, ideally it would have been closed sooner, but neither Dave or I can be around 24/7.

More than 1 party was PM'd about the thread. To suggest Dave & I are singling out 1 person is totally incorrect - we just refused to take sides! Quite frankly DT you should not be making statements which are factually incorrect when it is untrue to suggest we are victiming 1 person & letting others get away with inappropriate behaviour.

Everyone on this board has a responsibility to behave & sometimes that means walking away rather than adding to these personal bickering situations.
 
Kane McGoodwin said:
More than 1 party was PM'd about the thread. To suggest Dave & I are singling out 1 person is totally incorrect - we just refused to take sides! Quite frankly DT you should not be making statements which are factually incorrect when it is untrue to suggest we are victiming 1 person & letting others get away with inappropriate behaviour.
Click to expand...

I know for a fact that neither RooDog (who started the ball rolling), nor myself (who hit her pretty hard with one particular post) were warned via PM about it.

So who else was?!

You've let us both off - who said worse - but espoir gets the warning?

That's a fact.
 
dyertribe said:
I know for a fact that neither RooDog (who started the ball rolling), nor myself (who hit her pretty hard with one particular post) were warned via PM about it.

So who else was?!

You've let us both off - who said worse - but espoir gets the warning?

That's a fact.
Click to expand...
hey!!speak for yourself!!:p... nar joking DT i did say worse than espoir... much worse but i didnt recieve a warning!! perhaps because you and i are fellow crows supporters?? i dont know..;)
 
dyertribe said:
I know for a fact that neither RooDog (who started the ball rolling), nor myself (who hit her pretty hard with one particular post) were warned via PM about it.

So who else was?!

You've let us both off - who said worse - but espoir gets the warning?

That's a fact.
Click to expand...

3 Hail Mary's for each of you.

Perhaps Kane used his discretion, as he has to.

Play on.
 
dyertribe said:
I know for a fact that neither RooDog (who started the ball rolling), nor myself (who hit her pretty hard with one particular post) were warned via PM about it.

So who else was?!

You've let us both off - who said worse - but espoir gets the warning?

That's a fact.
Click to expand...
My understanding of the situation was that this began with a war of words between 2 parties. Both were PM'd by Dave (not 1 as you were suggesting). I have posted this sticky to the remainder of the board as a reminder.

Not everyone is going to agree with how we moderate this board, but I do get peeved when it is suggested that we are victimising certain idividuals just because we are not willing to take sides.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

RooDog said:
hey!!speak for yourself!!:p... nar joking DT i did say worse than espoir... much worse but i didnt recieve a warning!! perhaps because you and i are fellow crows supporters?? i dont know..;)
Click to expand...
Who supports who is irrelevant - refer to post above as Dave PM'd those who were the source of the problem.
 
Kane McGoodwin said:
My understanding of the situation was that this began with a war of words between 2 parties.
Click to expand...

Correct. Namely RooDog and Skippy14.

espoir then made a tongue-in-cheek comment to Roodog before being insulted by Skippy14 numerous times. Other people then weighed in with namecalling and this was allowed to go on for 5 or 6 pages.

In situations such as those you either warn all or warn noone.

End of story.
 
i dont know how true this is... but i think Dave may not have read all the thread just when he had it pointed out to his attention what was going on and read what was at that part which was mainly skip and espoir, but if you go back tot he 1st page it was my fault :( i had a go at skip and probably wasnt necessary and the espoir made a tongue in cheek comment to me which lead to skip unleashing a barrage on her that was unnecessary!!;)
 
dyertribe said:
Correct. Namely RooDog and Skippy14.

espoir then made a tongue-in-cheek comment to Roodog before being insulted by Skippy14 numerous times. Other people then weighed in with namecalling and this was allowed to go on for 5 or 6 pages.

In situations such as those you either warn all or warn noone.

End of story.
Click to expand...
Time to move on as I'm not going to justify the moderators actions any futher.

The behaviour by a few was unacceptable & I would hope that there is no a repeat of this by the same parties in the future.
 
Kane McGoodwin said:
The behaviour by a few was unacceptable & I would hope that there is no a repeat of this by the same parties in the future.
Click to expand...


there wont be on my behalf... and i'm sure you know why kane.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

As long as Fox News moderating is abolished.
 
Jars458 said:
Its a one off incident where the Mods used their best judgment. I am sure there was no malice in their decision.

As I said, time to move on.
Click to expand...
nope just border on hypocrticial that was all;)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

dogs105
    • Like
    • Love
Petition to please sack Matthew Nicks
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
189
Views
10K
Pugsley
Pugsley
CrowBloke
    • Like
    • Disagree
  • Poll Poll
Game Day Round 24 Crows vs NM Marvel Stadium: Win + NO injuries, please!
40 41 42 43 44
Replies
1K
Views
18K
skam85
skam85
1970crow
    • Like
    • Disagree
Just while we're asking for a please explain
2 3
Replies
64
Views
3K
PCORF
P
dogs105
Game Day DELAYED GAMEDAY - for those without Kayo or Fox. (no spoilers please)
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
GrommoT
GrommoT

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom