Rules Fremantle Board Rules - Start here

[Freo Shark]

...Allikat , I'm sorry and upset that you have been abused here . I'm very upset that poster have seen fit to personally attack you .

couldhavebeen abused, personally attacked? Seriously??
I did not see anyone getting abused or personally attacked. Lets not exaggerate this and it certainly wasnt the intention to do so by any of the posters.

 

[scon]

That whisper's got an accent....

 

[Messenger]

I reckon I'll take you up on this offer. In my opinion, a lot of the problems on this board stem from differing interpretations of the rules.


Well, kinda depends on which troll you are really. How about a modification?
"If you troll our posters/team on this or other boards, your presence on this board will not be tolerated."
A simple check of a posters recent posting history should be able to determine whether they have been trolling. Some posters block access to their profile - I assume moderators can see past that? Quick justice to get them off our board.
The harder issue is when posters with Fremantle as their designated club engage in trolling. We had to put up with a lot of that in 2015. Starting trolling threads on the main board, overly disrespectful comments about the team and its players, which are essentially button pushing exercises.
Perhaps the rules should also state a reminder that "this is a public forum and family members of players are likely to read some of these posts."


Of course the disclaimer at the end negates this statement. There has been a fair bit of playing the man on this board of late.


All good.


Horde.
I agree that conversation evolves. Taylor's initiative in collecting the training reports from the thread is excellent. But I like the meandering discussion of vanilla slices etc. it doesn't hurt anyone. Please only delete posts when they break rules 1,2,3,5,6. Rule 4 infractions should result in dumping of posts to the Purple Horde, at most.


And here is where Bushie has been a great defender on this board. There have been examples of very poor posting recently which was let stand. Bushie, correctly in my opinion, decried the acceptance of some grubby sexist comments.


All the current mods were good posters before being elevated. I've had conversations with a moderator or two in the past, and believe that they are there for the right reasons. Maybe as a board we don't use the report buttons often enough, but I'm guessing that some people use them too often.
There also appears to be a lack of transparency in how infraction points are handed out. Some get them
This disclaimer ( the Ballantyne rule because it reflects his treatment by the umpires) is a pile of horseshit.
The part stating the different histories of each poster should go. Some of us (not just moderators) need to get shorter memories. Bygones.
People who start off trolling can become good contributors, similarly people who come out with racist or sexist comments but who don't repeat them. Moderating should be on the basis of current posts and recent posting history.

How about this for a disclaimer?:
"Whilst enforcing the rules we will take into account the context of discussions. We will endeavour to explain the reason for an infraction to the infringing poster, however; in some circumstances individual feedback is not practicable and we will give generalised feedback through the board or particular thread."

tl;dr: it's not that hard to read a long post. Just read it.

The disclaimer is not defensible as it is clearly unfair. That you wrote it to accurately reflect what is going on in moderating these boards is even more wrong. Both need to change.

This happens all over BF and is completely reasonable.

A poster with a good posting history who posts something they shouldn't will often get the benefit of the doubt. For the most part this discretion isn't misplaced.

A poster with a poor posting record gets less leeway, either because they are less concerned with the site rules or because they are an idiot.

 

[Crippa]

The infraction needs to be explained before action is taken
Allikat ,

The Administrators have thrown out the mods' edict, reversing the infraction. So there's your answer. The infraction couldn't be explained because there was no explanation that was fit for public consumption.

It's all well and good for Stronzo to now come out with shocking statements about the manner in which the mods actually operate. But no mod currently in the role could afford to admit that Bushie was being treated unjustly, that they had penalized him because he was someone they personally didn't like and wanted banned (so that nice chaps like Defacto could wander around the boards more freely). Much easier to play the victim and milk the unsuspecting for expressions of sympathy - telling tales of imagined personal abuse when the only abuses actually inflicted were those heaped on a highly-valued poster with no apology.

 

[Clems Knee]

This happens all over BF and is completely reasonable.

A poster with a good posting history who posts something they shouldn't will often get the benefit of the doubt. For the most part this discretion isn't misplaced.

A poster with a poor posting record gets less leeway, either because they are less concerned with the site rules or because they are an idiot.

Of course you would say that. Your team benefitted from the application of the Ballantyne rule in the Preliminary final.
It is not fair to apply rules differently and opaquely because of an historical opinion. And we see plenty of idiots (trolls) coming on here who get treated more favourably than they should. So there's more to it than just "a poster with a poor posting record".

 

[scon]

The Administrators have thrown out the mods' edict, reversing the infraction. So there's your answer. The infraction couldn't be explained because there was no explanation that was fit for public consumption.

It's all well and good for Stronzo to now come out with shocking statements about the manner in which the mods actually operate. But no mod currently in the role could afford to admit that Bushie was being treated unjustly, that they had penalized him because he was someone they personally didn't like and wanted banned (so that nice chaps like Defacto could wander around the boards more freely). Much easier to play the victim and milk the unsuspecting for expressions of sympathy - telling tales of imagined personal abuse when the only abuses actually inflicted were those heaped on a highly-valued poster with no apology.

Once again Crippa your perspicacity is wasted.
This crew have genuine disregard and disinterest.
It's an agenda deeply disinterested in equity.


EDIT:That post got me a trophy!

 

[Stronzo]

#lockupbushie

 

[scon]

Once an ex mod.....always a ........
Natural exemptions to Moo and Ripper.

 

[Stronzo]

#lockupscon

#freehumour

 

[scon]

Ring the ambulance...

 

[Freo Shark]

Stronzo whilst you may see this as a shit stir and anti bushie crusade. Its actually a little disrespectful. Theres actually some significant concerns among a group of posters. Not alot in number but the calibre of poster who have issues should be respected. Clems Knee , scon and Crippa & alot of others are not trouble makers nor newbies nor prone to rant on about issues.

 

[Dormammu]

Stronzo whilst you may see this as a shit stir and anti bushie crusade. Its actually a little disrespectful. Theres actually some significant concerns among a group of posters. Not alot in number but the calibre of poster who have issues should be respected. Clems Knee , scon and Crippa & alot of others are not trouble makers nor newbies nor prone to rant on about issues.

+1

 

[scon]

Them's the ignorable facts.

 

[Messenger]

Of course you would say that. Your team benefitted from the application of the Ballantyne rule in the Preliminary final.
It is not fair to apply rules differently and opaquely because of an historical opinion. And we see plenty of idiots (trolls) coming on here who get treated more favourably than they should. So there's more to it than just "a poster with a poor posting record".

1. I would say that because it's true. I'm talking about the entire site. The "Ballantyne Rule" isn't peculiar to this board.

2. It's not opinion, it's objective fact. We can see infraction history and view each infraction. Serial offenders usually have their own thread on the mods board/cigar lounge.

 

[Stronzo]

Stronzo whilst you may see this as a shit stir and anti bushie crusade. Its actually a little disrespectful. Theres actually some significant concerns among a group of posters. Not alot in number but the calibre of poster who have issues should be respected. Clems Knee , scon and Crippa & alot of others are not trouble makers nor newbies nor prone to rant on about issues.

I'd describe it more as a pro-bushie crusade, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not privy to what occurred. It seems like an error of judgement may have been made, but I'm only guessing.

My issue is more with the conspirital and hyperbolic posts made by of some of the zombushie disciples. If I didn't know better I'd swear he'd been made a martyr by an oppressive regime (feel free to use that line guys).

This is an Internet forum. He got carded. He might not have deserved it. It seems it was overturned. Some posts were deleted along the way. A thread was closed. Perspective went out the window.

 

[salim malik]

The zombushie's , really. This shit fight is about the apparent unfair treatment of Freo posters while known anti Docker trolls have been allowed carte blanche to lay crap on us on the main board and then come on here and do the same.. It wasn't a one off occurrence ,it was allowed to go on on through the season so much so that some good posters just left the board in disgust . Great for the trolls who achieved their objective but poor form from the mods who allowed it to happen.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

I'd describe it more as a pro-bushie crusade, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not privy to what occurred. It seems like an error of judgement may have been made, but I'm only guessing.

My issue is more with the conspirital and hyperbolic posts made by of some of the zombushie disciples. If I didn't know better I'd swear he'd been made a martyr by an oppressive regime (feel free to use that line guys).

This is an Internet forum. He got carded. He might not have deserved it. It seems it was overturned. Some posts were deleted along the way. A thread was closed. Perspective went out the window.

Zombushie disciples had me giggling.

I think the crusade had more to do with fairness, it just happened to involve Bushie.

He may not have been made a martyr by an oppressive regime... yet. That will probably depend on how long his exile from this board lasts.

 

[Messenger]

That will probably depend on how long his exile from this board lasts.

He requested his own exile.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

He requested his own exile.

 

[Freo Shark]

He requested his own exile.

So is he banned from this forum or not?

 

[couldhavebeen]

couldhavebeen abused, personally attacked? Seriously??
I did not see anyone getting abused or personally attacked. Lets not exaggerate this and it certainly wasnt the intention to do so by any of the posters.

Allikat stated in her post that she had all of the above and I for one don't like anyone of our posters or MODs being abused or attacked .I will always stand up against that no mater what when it comes to OUR posters .

 

[Freo Shark]

Allikat stated in her post that she had all of the above and I for one don't like anyone of our posters or MODs being abused or attacked .I will always stand up against that no mater what when it comes to OUR posters .

With all due respect to Allikat I did not do any of the above and certainly didnt see any such posts made nor would I expect to see such posts.

Surely the test would be if you abused or personally attacked a Mod you would be infracted OR at the very least you would be warned as such. The fact that this did not happen and the VAST majority of posts were "liked" several times would indicate agreement with the post.

Infact I dont like this accusation being tossed around the forum.

 

[couldhavebeen]

With all due respect to Allikat I did not do any of the above and certainly didnt see any such posts made nor would I expect to see such posts.

Surely the test would be if you abused or personally attacked a Mod you would be infracted OR at the very least you would be warned as such. The fact that this did not happen and the VAST majority of posts were "liked" several times would indicate agreement with the post.

Infact I dont like this accusation being tossed around the forum.

I wasn't suggesting that you personally posted anything abusive . I was answering your post as to what I was basing my previous post on .A lot of the poor posting was done on the Mcarthy board which got deleted by MODs

 

[Mudd]

The zombushie's , really. This shit fight is about the apparent unfair treatment of Freo posters while known anti Docker trolls have been allowed carte blanche to lay crap on us on the main board and then come on here and do the same.. It wasn't a one off occurrence ,it was allowed to go on on through the season so much so that some good posters just left the board in disgust . Great for the trolls who achieved their objective but poor form from the mods who allowed it to happen.

how many trolls did we really have though throughout the season?

we were top of the ladder and barely lost a game, i can't remember us being invaded and trolled all year.

some people in this thread need to calm down, go and enjoy christmas and down a couple of eggnog's.

 

[Messenger]

So is he banned from this forum or not?

Doss tells me he has requested his own board ban.