should moderators be stricter?

[daddy_4_eyes]

I know some of you will say this is just another pointless poll, but it has a point to it. Bigfooty is turning into a forum on which some people's only goal is to get their post count up, or annoy other people.

This is a vote as to whether the Bigfooty moderators should be stricter. What this means is that people get official warnings for unreasonable behaviour, eventually getting banned if they carry on. Stupid threads like "don't read this" get automatically deleted, people who use multiple ID's get banned (their IP address or E-mail or something can be used to identify them), and other such stuff.

I don't mean an evil regime of moderators , but rather let them use their status for more then just having their name in the top left corner of a board.

Anyone with me?

 

[Carltonboy56]

im with you!

Prehaps we could have an internet SWAT team?

 

[mantis]

Originally posted by daddy_4_eyes
I know some of you will say this is just another pointless poll, but it has a point to it. Bigfooty is turning into a forum on which some people's only goal is to get their post count up, or annoy other people.

Have to agree with your statement about some peoples motives for posting, but the moderators do a good job considering the amount of posts & when they do try & moderate, some people take affront, they are in a catch 22 situation.

 

[FreoDocker]

How strict are you talking .... if they make me change my avatar I'm not gonna be happy!!
lol

 

[mantis]

Originally posted by FreoDocker
How strict are you talking .... if they make me change my avatar I'm not gonna be happy!!
lol

Lol that is a shocker of an avatar.

 

[Visro]

I loved your poll before...a poll without any options...BRILLIANT!

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

Originally posted by Visro
I loved your poll before...a poll without any options...BRILLIANT!

LOL, i forgot to tick that little box

Damn you're a fast surfer though, it wouldn't have been on for more then a few seconds before i deleted it.

 

[dee_girl9]

well really when you think about, no matter how hard we try, not everyone is going to be happy with what we do. If we dont delete posts we get people having a go at us, if we delete posts we get people having a go at us, so really what r we suppose to do about it? this website is for people to have their say, and we r hear to "monitor" boards and threads. If we see something offensive towards someone or something, we close it or delete it. If someone complains about a thread, we take a look at it and take the appropriate answer.

There are some people out there that try to bait us, and Bluey deals with them ASAP. Trust me if we were any stricter, it would take all the fun away, and we want people to have fun on here as well as talk about footy.

so yeahi dont think we need to be stricter. Ultimately it is Bluey who makes the final decision as to the fate of posters getting banned etc.

 

[Carltonboy56]

98 guys. I know this is irrevelant. But who gives a damn?

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

Originally posted by Carltonboy56
98 guys. I know this is irrevelant. But who gives a damn?

Shut the hell up!! Are you trying to get attention with all these senseless posts or something?

You are the type of person I was talking about, posting for the sake of getting their post count up.

 

[Carltonboy56]

theres another post mate!

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by daddy_4_eyes
I know some of you will say this is just another pointless poll, but it has a point to it. Bigfooty is turning into a forum on which some people's only goal is to get their post count up, or annoy other people.

This is a vote as to whether the Bigfooty moderators should be stricter. What this means is that people get official warnings for unreasonable behaviour, eventually getting banned if they carry on. Stupid threads like "don't read this" get automatically deleted, people who use multiple ID's get banned (their IP address or E-mail or something can be used to identify them), and other such stuff.

I don't mean an evil regime of moderators , but rather let them use their status for more then just having their name in the top left corner of a board.

Anyone with me?

If getting ones postcount up is an objective then as long as what is posted is not offensive then I have no objection to that. The General forum was created so that a huge variety of subjects not related to AFL could be posted. I have no problems with 'don't read this' posts. I usually don't read them and neither need you so why should it bother anyone? If someone gets a kick out of a joke thread then good on them, why should I vote to stop them. It isn't hurting anyone.
Unreasonable behaviour is sureley subjective and I agree it needs controlling. However, a line needs to be drawn where a level of moderate abuse is acceptable. (Eg If a response to a topic included. "I think you suggestion is stupid", this could be considered abusive, however I think it is an acceptable comment. )
Whilst it is possible to ban a board alias it is impossible to ban a real person because they can simply sign up as many times as they like using another address and alias. The IP numbers are usually those of a service provider (eg aol or primus) and cannot be used to identify individuals. To make things even more difficult even if the IP address of the computer connected to the ISP was found the chances are that it would be a server maybe in an internet cafe even. The user could almost never be identified.

I am concerned about the way moderators are handling this site already. It is in many instances over the top IMO. The real test will come in time when a good alternative site to bigfooty.com appears. At that stage those who have become disgruntled by moderators will leave. Good riddance maybe but don't forget that this site runs on money from sponsorship. This is usually based upon page hits for ads. A drop in membership would affect revenue and could make the site commercially unviable. It would then close, which I don't think anyone wants to see.

So I don't think moderators that are stricter is a good idea at all.

 

[Carltonboy56]

yeah!

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

Re: Re: should moderators be stricter?

Originally posted by Frodo
If someone gets a kick out of a joke thread then good on them, why should I vote to stop them. It isn't hurting anyone.
Unreasonable behaviour is sureley subjective and I agree it needs controlling.

If one such thread is done its funny, but if several almost identical threads are done within a short period of time it is annoying.

Also, people like this "carltonboy" should be banned. He/she is clogging up boards and topics with crap responses. Instead of contributing to topics they post shi_t like "98 guys. I know this is irrevelant. But who gives a damn?" !!

I don't mind abuse if it is in the context of the argument, i don't mind people insulting each other over club rivalries, infact i quite like it. Brings a bit of spice into these boards, but tell me what posts like those made by "carltonboy" contribute to this forum?

A more likely reason for people wanting to leave Bigfooty.com is not because of over-moderation, but rather because the quality of posts is too low.

 

[Carltonboy56]

damn straight mate! You seem to be a top fella!

 

[Fred]

Re: Re: should moderators be stricter?

Originally posted by Frodo


If getting ones postcount up is an objective then as long as what is posted is not offensive then I have no objection to that. The General forum was created so that a huge variety of subjects not related to AFL could be posted. I have no problems with 'don't read this' posts. I usually don't read them and neither need you so why should it bother anyone? If someone gets a kick out of a joke thread then good on them, why should I vote to stop them. It isn't hurting anyone.
Unreasonable behaviour is sureley subjective and I agree it needs controlling. However, a line needs to be drawn where a level of moderate abuse is acceptable. (Eg If a response to a topic included. "I think you suggestion is stupid", this could be considered abusive, however I think it is an acceptable comment. )
Whilst it is possible to ban a board alias it is impossible to ban a real person because they can simply sign up as many times as they like using another address and alias. The IP numbers are usually those of a service provider (eg aol or primus) and cannot be used to identify individuals. To make things even more difficult even if the IP address of the computer connected to the ISP was found the chances are that it would be a server maybe in an internet cafe even. The user could almost never be identified.

I am concerned about the way moderators are handling this site already. It is in many instances over the top IMO. The real test will come in time when a good alternative site to bigfooty.com appears. At that stage those who have become disgruntled by moderators will leave. Good riddance maybe but don't forget that this site runs on money from sponsorship. This is usually based upon page hits for ads. A drop in membership would affect revenue and could make the site commercially unviable. It would then close, which I don't think anyone wants to see.

So I don't think moderators that are stricter is a good idea at all.

Frodo

I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle. The vast majority of posters here couldn't care less about the moderators. They are the ones that post or reply to topics in a serious or light-hearted way that never needs any action by the moderators.
It's the small minority that continually try to push the boundaries that are at all concerned with the mods.
If they leave because of supposed over-moderation, who really cares? Don't forget that if everybody posted in a mature reasoned way, moderators wouldn't be needed at all.
Blaming the mods for what people post is not on. Blame a very few idiot posters.

 

[Mr Ripper]

If I were a moderator (God help yous all), I'd go with the "shoot first, ask questions later" gameplan. Get rid of the riff-raff!

 

[mantis]

Originally posted by Mr Ripper
If I were a moderator (God help yous all), I'd go with the "shoot first, ask questions later" gameplan. Get rid of the riff-raff!

Rip
You wouldn't shoot me would you I am an animal lover remember.

 

[Big Arvo]

You should be the first to go then.


Ha ha ha ha Ha ha

just kidin

 

[Mr Ripper]

I'd only need the slightest whiff of your ciggy smoke, Sandie, and I'd come out all guns blazing!

 

[mantis]

Originally posted by Mr Ripper
I'd only need the slightest whiff of your ciggy smoke, Sandie, and I'd come out all guns blazing!

LOL I have just given up promise.

 

[jod23]

If abuse and senseless up your post count posts were stopped then id be happy as larry.

I think the mods shoudl be stricter and once again they have failed by reopening the grab for posts thread.