The mods on this forum

[ozzult]

Here are a few suggestions that I propose. I will outlay them in number list format so it is very easy to follow.


1, Don't put up with people de-railing threads (that means things like when Suzi et al, come in, post something stupid in a sensible thread, and the thread goes off stupidly into a bitter argument). If this means more mods on the AFL board, so be it.


2, I think a relaxation of the swear word filter is also something that could be at least CONSIDERED. Words like piss, and bitch which are completely acceptable on TV in a PG rated time slot. I agree with the admins that harsh expletives such as f*** should be deleted. Only the two above words I think should be removed.


3, An open moderation process. Everyone always wants to know why someone gets banned or suspended. Why not a thread in the suggestions board which outlines why someone got banned? For some reason the mods/admins are always secretive about why somebody got banned. Don't you think that this leads us plebs to thinking that there is a little politics behind the banning if you don't reveal what it was about?


4, Bluey and Groves to openly admit who they follow. (I'm guessing it is the same team anyway
It seems to work OK for Fred, CJH, Danni and the other mods. I'm sure if you ban someone, the team you follow won't come into it.


That is all for now. If I think of more, I'll post it later.

 

[Docker_Brat]

Originally posted by ozzult
4, Bluey and Groves to openly admit who they follow. (I'm guessing it is the same team anyway
It seems to work OK for Fred, CJH, Danni and the other mods. I'm sure if you ban someone, the team you follow won't come into it.

It's St Kilda BTW.


All excellent suggestions ozz, I would add d*ck and c*ck to the list of 'swear' words to be removed so that we dont have the ridiculous situation of valid words having **** in the middle of them. Anyone who uses those words as abuse should be warned/banned.

 

[Fred]

I think people need to differentiate between mods and admins. Point 1 is the only mod function on your list and whilst it doesn't happen every time, many posts (by you-know-who) are removed.
A few off-topic posts in a thread does no real harm, as long as there is some connection to the topic. If removed, the problem then is that the poster would complain about the removal, censorship, over-zealous mods etc.
It's a no-win situation.

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by Docker_Brat
It's St Kilda BTW.

That explains the periodic grumpiness then - comes with the territory.

 

[otaku]

rather than removing a post, why not alter the offending sentence?

or leave a message along the lines of "editind because of language/stupidity or whatever"?

 

[ozzult]

Numerous times I have seen a thread de railed because of off topic posts.

A prime offender of this is Suzi Olsen, go have a look at the thread on the AFL board right now "Dean Laidley apology needed".

 

[ozzult]

Originally posted by Fred
I think people need to differentiate between mods and admins. Point 1 is the only mod function on your list and whilst it doesn't happen every time, many posts (by you-know-who) are removed.
A few off-topic posts in a thread does no real harm, as long as there is some connection to the topic. If removed, the problem then is that the poster would complain about the removal, censorship, over-zealous mods etc.
It's a no-win situation.

I'm not interested in who is a mod or admin. I'm aware who are admins and who aren't. How is this relevant?

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by otaku
rather than removing a post, why not alter the offending sentence?

or leave a message along the lines of "editind because of language/stupidity or whatever"?

95% of edited posts are edited because of swearing. A few, after editing, would have nothing left and they are removed. Posts that are just abuse are removed.

I'm sure that without much effort you can figure out why a few others are removed.

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by ozzult
I'm not interested in who is a mod or admin. I'm aware who are admins and who aren't. How is this relevant?

They have different "powers" and responsibilities.

 

[ozzult]

Maybe more mods on the AFL board is in order.

I'll be the first to put my hand up

 

[ozzult]

Originally posted by Fred
They have different "powers" and responsibilities.

Yes, but my suggestions are relevant to both.

 

[Mobbs]

(These are my opinions, most of them don't even have anything to do with me, but I'm willing to further discuss. I'm more or less giving a personal opinion which would apply whether or not I was a moderator here).

Originally posted by ozzult
1, Don't put up with people de-railing threads (that means things like when Suzi et al, come in, post something stupid in a sensible thread, and the thread goes off stupidly into a bitter argument). If this means more mods on the AFL board, so be it.

A very good point. "Derailing" is one of the most frustrating things I reckon we all come across. Many, many, oh so many threads actually ARE edited to cleanse them of this stuff, but many also slip through.

The hardest part about cleaning threads up is that one 'hijacking' post is usually followed with a dozen attacking and abusive posts aimed at humiliating the person who made the original comment ... often coupled with on-track material in the same posts. The work involved in cleaning a thread of this stuff is overwhelming.

Originally posted by ozzult
2, I think a relaxation of the swear word filter is also something that could be at least CONSIDERED. Words like p***, and b**** which are completely acceptable on TV in a PG rated time slot. I agree with the admins that harsh expletives such as f*** should be deleted. Only the two above words I think should be removed.

"Considered" : definitely. But I stll must ask, why are these terms required? Why do you want them available? So that you can use them? If so, why? What's stopping you using more acceptable terminology? Just because its USED on TV in a PG timeslot doesn't mean its necessarily acceptable. Its USED on TV in a PG timeslot because mature, adult people no longer have control. C/f the current societal disciplinary and moral standards which abound in life these days.

Now the administrator of the site should have the final say on what is and what isn't allowed. That's not to say they shouldn't have their eyes and ears open to comment from the guests. But all in all, they run it, what they say goes. You respect that, if you want to be here. For the record, I swear my arse off in real life, and don't particularly like being censored here, but if I was at my Mum's place for a roast dinner, I would feel the same, but respect it, and still enjoy my time. (that was fully hypothetical because I hate roast, and don't necessarily have a good time at Mum's ... but you get the point).

These are all my personal views on the subject, and I prefer to stand by them, but a) I'm happy to continue debating it and b) it ain't my call.

Originally posted by ozzult
3, An open moderation process. Everyone always wants to know why someone gets banned or suspended. Why not a thread in the suggestions board which outlines why someone got banned? For some reason the mods/admins are always secretive about why somebody got banned. Don't you think that this leads us plebs to thinking that there is a little politics behind the banning if you don't reveal what it was about?

I strongly disagree with this. Each poster's life is their own, and this carries through into their online identity. (I don't any of the booting but) If I booted someone for something, and someone else asked why, I'm not going to tell them! I'd tell them instead to go ask the infringer. Its not my right to just spew forth about the nitty-gritty of the matter. Its the infringer's job to explain what happened if they want. Of course this gives them the opportunity to fabricate a story for their own benefit, but ... well, I guess we just wear that.

A short, simple and most importantly categorised description of the infringement is all that's needed, and that's catered for in the little words below the user-name.

Originally posted by ozzult
4, Bluey and Groves to openly admit who they follow. (I'm guessing it is the same team anyway
It seems to work OK for Fred, CJH, Danni and the other mods. I'm sure if you ban someone, the team you follow won't come into it.

I don't even understand why this is relevant. In fact, no-one has given a tinker's cuss for about 3 years or more of the site's operation, and suddenly its an issue that 3 or 4 have taken up. Are you utterly certain this is has not been raised as an issue simply as an attempt to discredit?

---------

I think the last point is reasonable odd and agenda-based, but the first 3 are valid points of argument, definitely.

 

[otaku]

Originally posted by Fred
95% of edited posts are edited because of swearing. A few, after editing, would have nothing left and they are removed. Posts that are just abuse are removed.

I'm sure that without much effort you can figure out why a few others are removed.

i am talking about transprency issues.

If you leave the post there, but have it edited to read content changed because of abuse, it would do a lot to rid people of the feeling that there is back room politics happening.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Groves
You would think that, but unfortunately that isn't the case. Bluey and I have other names we use to post on footy issues.

(Read "controversial" footy issues.)

Oh my God

Dan26 and Deej

 

[tige19]

MOB you are by far the fairest and most reasnoble moderator on this site and the Regional Leagues Board is by far the most well run of the boards on BF.
I think if all the other Mods had a sneak look at how MOB runs things this whole site would be alot better, he acts in a fair and reasnobale way all of the time and is always replying and posting to any threads of his interest on the Regional leagues boards, it is honestly great to see a bloke who runs the Regional League board actually act and post just like everybody else.

Keep up the good work MOB you are truely a champion bloke

cheers

 

[Mobbs]

Is that you, Mum? I didn't mean what I said about visiting!

 

[Fred]

Isn't it fortunate that everything after the top of page 7 has been decreed off-topic.

Bad luck Mobbs - I'll pen you a short eulogy in the mods room.

 

[jefffff34]

Originally posted by Fred
Isn't it fortunate that everything after the top of page 7 has been decreed off-topic.

Bad luck Mobbs - I'll pen you a short eulogy in the mods room.

4th page for me - I changed it from 15 posts a page to 40 and it is definently more convenient.

 

[Fred]

Ah - forgot about that. Think I use 30. Make the cut-off just above tige19's post then.

 

[ozzult]

Originally posted by me old mate Mobbs
I don't even understand why this is relevant. In fact, no-one has given a tinker's cuss for about 3 years or more of the site's operation, and suddenly its an issue that 3 or 4 have taken up. Are you utterly certain this is has not been raised as an issue simply as an attempt to discredit?

The fourth point I made, I believe is a fair one. At the moment a lot of people get the feeling that Groves and Bluey are the "cops", and that they aren't "one of the group".

I think openly discussing footy issues and the team they support, as we the rest of us do, would help in disposing of those myths.

 

[Mobbs]

Originally posted by ozzult
The fourth point I made, I believe is a fair one. At the moment a lot of people get the feeling that Groves and Bluey are the "cops", and that they aren't "one of the group".

I think openly discussing footy issues and the team they support, as we the rest of us do, would help in disposing of those myths.

Point duly taken. Pros and cons both ways, I s'pose.

 

[Mobbs]

Originally posted by Fred
Isn't it fortunate that everything after the top of page 7 has been decreed off-topic.

Bad luck Mobbs - I'll pen you a short eulogy in the mods room.

Give me a chance to make a screen-saver out of it, first!

 

[lioness]

Originally posted by Docker_Brat

All excellent suggestions ozz, I would add d*ck and c*ck to the list of 'swear' words to be removed so that we dont have the ridiculous situation of valid words having **** in the middle of them. Anyone who uses those words as abuse should be warned/banned.

I completely agree with that suggestion, I mean I can understand why the swear filters are there and all, but if you're trying to use a valid word and it's all blanked out it's VERY frustrating.

Surely ALL members understand the correct context to use these terms and should KNOW not to use them and if they do then it should be a warning/ban as DB suggested.

 

[Former]

Originally posted by Jars458
Oh my God

Dan26 and Deej

ARGH! Who told you???

 

[Former]

Originally posted by ozzult
The fourth point I made, I believe is a fair one. At the moment a lot of people get the feeling that Groves and Bluey are the "cops", and that they aren't "one of the group".

I think openly discussing footy issues and the team they support, as we the rest of us do, would help in disposing of those myths.

This is one of those "it ain't gonna happen any time soon" issues. Sorry.