|
Post by Headless Chicken on Aug 10, 2017 19:27:40 GMT 1
It is with much discussion and regret that we have banned Nick for two weeks, for repeated breach of the rules over the past two weeks since his last ban. We do not ban people lightly, and we generally try and exhaust all avenues available to us before doing so. One example is the Examiner sub-board - Nick was posting hourly Examiner articles, and the intention was to give him a space where he could scream into the abyss with nobody to hear him, and he would eventually get bored. It worked for a time, but it is clear that it has run its course, and not had the desired effect long-term. We have, therefore, been left with no option on this occasion but to issue a ban. We also generally prefer to keep these decisions private, as we do not like to air our dirty laundry in public. However, on this occasion there are some points that we think it would be useful to make to the board as a whole. Nick has been banned, mainly, for repeatedly doing three things: (1) starting new threads when what is posted could have been posted on an existing thread (i.e. one that is on page 1 of the board), (2) unnecessarily bumping threads that had run their life, for no discernible purpose, and (3) incomprehensible thread titles. He has been warned about this on a number of occasions, and has previously been banned for the same thing. We generally turn a blind eye when posters do the above, but when they do it multiple times we have no option but to intervene. However, what he has not been banned for is generally posting links. As long as a link is posted on a topic not covered by a thread already on page 1 of the board, then there ought to be no issue. Most threads are started in one of two ways: (1) "these are my views, let's discuss" and/or (2) "these are someone else's views, let's discuss". External links fall into the second category, and are a perfectly legitimate way to start a thread, irrespective of who posts them. If the link was posted by somebody other than Nick, it would either be discussed, or it would not. In any event, it would fall off page 1 when it had run its course. If it was not something people were interested in discussing, or it was something that had been discussed in the past, it would generally be ignored and fall off page 1 within the day. With Nick, however, sarcastic comments lead to arguments, which lead to the board polarised on the basis of either being pro or anti Nick. It is petty, it is pointless, and it is counter-productive, because the one thing it prevents the thread from doing is dropping off page 1, which is presumably what those who are gunning for Nick would want. In addition to that, an argument about Nick, whether you are pro-Nick or anti-Nick, is off-topic, and derails a thread. This is, in itself, against the forum rules. I repeat, whether you are rushing to Nick's defence or rushing to put the dagger in, it is a breach of the forum rules. As Admin, we use our discretion to decide whether or not to pull people up for this. Because so many people pile into Nick's threads, we have been unable to take action that we may otherwise have taken, and if we were to warn or ban everyone involved (particularly the repeat "offenders") then we would never get chance to live our lives away from the computer (and the club's XXXL shirt sales would continue to rise). Nick may or may not change his posting style when he returns from his holiday. If he heeds our advice then it will, and we can all live happily ever after. If he does not, however, then the appropriate way to deal with his posting, if you do not like it, is (1) report the post to us, and (2) ignore it. If his threads are ignored, then they will drop off page 1 and the problem is solved. If he bumps them unnecessarily, then he is committing the same offence that he has been banned for, and we will deal with it as we deem appropriate. However, consider this as fair warning. If people decide to take matters into their own hands and start, or continue, arguments about Nick's (or any other person's) posting style, when the appropriate course is to report or ignore the thread, then we will also take whatever action we deem appropriate against those posters, for their respective breaches of the forum rules. Any questions, please PM me. Give it 24 hours. Ban everybody that has 'liked' this original post on the thread. Let Nick back on. You won't have any issues. Easy. I'm ambivalent to the ban, but it's good post and in my eyes any reasonable person would at least accept the decision based on this, even if they disagree. It even implies that that those who are arguably reacting inappropriately may face a ban. Maybe this includes the churlish posts in his defence as well as those going too far in their criticism!
|
|
|
Post by steve65 on Aug 10, 2017 19:31:22 GMT 1
I'm pretty sure Adolf was on Wacco I believe they were singing 'Marching on Together" as they crossed into Poland & the 'sieg heil' evolved into chestwanking
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,320
|
Post by Tinpot on Aug 10, 2017 19:31:30 GMT 1
It is with much discussion and regret that we have banned Nick for two weeks, for repeated breach of the rules over the past two weeks since his last ban. We do not ban people lightly, and we generally try and exhaust all avenues available to us before doing so. One example is the Examiner sub-board - Nick was posting hourly Examiner articles, and the intention was to give him a space where he could scream into the abyss with nobody to hear him, and he would eventually get bored. It worked for a time, but it is clear that it has run its course, and not had the desired effect long-term. We have, therefore, been left with no option on this occasion but to issue a ban. We also generally prefer to keep these decisions private, as we do not like to air our dirty laundry in public. However, on this occasion there are some points that we think it would be useful to make to the board as a whole. Nick has been banned, mainly, for repeatedly doing three things: (1) starting new threads when what is posted could have been posted on an existing thread (i.e. one that is on page 1 of the board), (2) unnecessarily bumping threads that had run their life, for no discernible purpose, and (3) incomprehensible thread titles. He has been warned about this on a number of occasions, and has previously been banned for the same thing. We generally turn a blind eye when posters do the above, but when they do it multiple times we have no option but to intervene. However, what he has not been banned for is generally posting links. As long as a link is posted on a topic not covered by a thread already on page 1 of the board, then there ought to be no issue. Most threads are started in one of two ways: (1) "these are my views, let's discuss" and/or (2) "these are someone else's views, let's discuss". External links fall into the second category, and are a perfectly legitimate way to start a thread, irrespective of who posts them. If the link was posted by somebody other than Nick, it would either be discussed, or it would not. In any event, it would fall off page 1 when it had run its course. If it was not something people were interested in discussing, or it was something that had been discussed in the past, it would generally be ignored and fall off page 1 within the day. With Nick, however, sarcastic comments lead to arguments, which lead to the board polarised on the basis of either being pro or anti Nick. It is petty, it is pointless, and it is counter-productive, because the one thing it prevents the thread from doing is dropping off page 1, which is presumably what those who are gunning for Nick would want. In addition to that, an argument about Nick, whether you are pro-Nick or anti-Nick, is off-topic, and derails a thread. This is, in itself, against the forum rules. I repeat, whether you are rushing to Nick's defence or rushing to put the dagger in, it is a breach of the forum rules. As Admin, we use our discretion to decide whether or not to pull people up for this. Because so many people pile into Nick's threads, we have been unable to take action that we may otherwise have taken, and if we were to warn or ban everyone involved (particularly the repeat "offenders") then we would never get chance to live our lives away from the computer (and the club's XXXL shirt sales would continue to rise). Nick may or may not change his posting style when he returns from his holiday. If he heeds our advice then it will, and we can all live happily ever after. If he does not, however, then the appropriate way to deal with his posting, if you do not like it, is (1) report the post to us, and (2) ignore it. If his threads are ignored, then they will drop off page 1 and the problem is solved. If he bumps them unnecessarily, then he is committing the same offence that he has been banned for, and we will deal with it as we deem appropriate. However, consider this as fair warning. If people decide to take matters into their own hands and start, or continue, arguments about Nick's (or any other person's) posting style, when the appropriate course is to report or ignore the thread, then we will also take whatever action we deem appropriate against those posters, for their respective breaches of the forum rules. Any questions, please PM me. Give it 24 hours. Ban everybody that has 'liked' this original post on the thread. Let Nick back on. You won't have any issues. Easy. I "liked" cheesy's post. Not because I'm pleased that Nick is banned - I'm not. I quite like the guy & his posts don't bother me in the slightest. If anything I find him amusing. I liked it because although I disagree with the decision to put him on the naughty step, it was a fair and detailed explanation of why they made it. Nick is a marmite character on here. His posting style irritates a lot of people & he knows it - but despite repeated requests to stop it he carries on regardless. I like the guy, but he could easily have stopped it from happening if he'd wanted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2017 19:32:15 GMT 1
Nick hasn't been bullied. His constant wind-up style has been criticised, and rightly so. Having said that he shouldn't have been banned. When he's back he'll continue acting innocent but acting like a tool over and over again unfortunately Here is why I believe Nick has been singled out. 1. Thread today titled "Terrier Talk" nothing but a link to Youtube. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion even though I had already seen the video but if Nick had posted that 10 posters would have attacked him saying things like "we know theres a youtube channel you don't need to post a link every time theres a video". Of course, was not Nick so nothing said. 2. August 2nd, thread with the vague title of "In..."! Nothing said about the title being so vague. There were a couple of others in the last couple of weeks too but I can't be arsed to go looking for them. I get some people get wound up by Nick and I know some of it he deserved but the way he is constantly hounded on every thread is nothing short of moronic bullying which spoils the entire forum. While he may have been banned for a valid reason, and I hope he learns his lesson, there are plenty of others attacking him every day that should also be banned. I hope they will moderate their behavior too when he returns or face the consequences.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2017 19:35:32 GMT 1
Even though i blocked him many months ago, I still can't escape from his constant and relentless shite, as i use mobile about 90% of the time and it doesn't say who started thread, plus all quotes still show even when blocked Not sure if banning is far enough to be honest, I'd much prefer all traces that his profile ever existed to be removed. Like a post Amarna period online Akhenaten
|
|
|
Post by steve65 on Aug 10, 2017 19:38:23 GMT 1
I personally think he should have a reprieve, purely because we're on the eve of our biggest day/season (in most peoples lifetimes). Let the guy enjoy it with us then re-ban him or maybe talk to him on Sunday when we've collected our first 3 points & we're all in a good mood !
|
|
|
Post by ShortbreadPete on Aug 10, 2017 19:41:26 GMT 1
Well done Admins. Nick is a deliberate pain and he knows it
|
|
|
Post by mids on Aug 10, 2017 19:43:44 GMT 1
There's plenty divs on here that's for sure and each and every one of us has our moments of stupidity. Nick just does it more often, and frequently on purpose. Nick doesn't annoy me as such and his threads certainly don't. He can start as many as he likes for me. He disappoints me really. When he's been lucid in the past (and occasionally lately) he speaks eloquently and makes some good points. He could be lucid all the time but he chooses not to - surely just to get a reaction and then react all woe is me. Perhaps we should all just ignore his wind-ups and he'd grow tired after a while. But I fear he'd just keep bumping his threads, starting other ambiguous ones, or find other ways to get his DATM kicks Shame it's come to a ban - especially with our first premier league victory being just a few hours away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2017 19:46:02 GMT 1
Will have to put up with him complaining on Facebook that he's been banned on datm now,,,,admins can you ban him off Facebook until his bans lifted on here?
|
|
|
Post by terracesider on Aug 10, 2017 19:47:38 GMT 1
Not really my scene (like football - esp some of the reference the "Good old days") But: For goodness sake; this is an open forum, if you don't like what someone writes --- bloody well ignore it, life is way too short for the kind of childish nonsense that populates this thread. The guy might have a low intellect (or other issues concerned with the space between his ears) but he is obviously a Town fan, live and let live. Especially this week as we start to take it to the first division after 45 years in the wilderness.
Please rescind the ban.
UTT
|
|
cheesyhtfc
Steve Kindon Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 1,644
|
Post by cheesyhtfc on Aug 10, 2017 19:52:12 GMT 1
Damned if we do, damned if we don't - that's the Admin's lot, and we accepted it when we accepted the role.
You guys see the end result and are perfectly entitled to disagree with the action we take. That's your prerogative. If you don't like a decision we make, then we are happy to discuss it and even reconsider it if necessary. One example of this was 3Pipe - he was recently banned, we reconsidered the position, and we substantially reduced his ban. Though he hasn't posted since the ban, he has been at liberty to do so since 2nd August.
We are not inflexible, and we bend over backwards to avoid giving people a ban. Hence why the Examiner sub-board was created, for example.
However, you see the end and not the steps before that have led to that result. We have attempted to micro-manage this issue for months (the older admin may say it's even longer than that), but there is only so much you can flog a dead horse. If we have gone to the length of creating new sub-boards in order to avoid banning someone, then if they do eventually get banned then the blame lies with the person who persistently (and knowingly) ignores the warnings he is given.
The admins' position is very simple. Nick knows what he is doing. Nick knows that what he is doing will provoke a reaction. Even if the inference from the response to his posts wasn't enough, we have explicitly warned him on a great number of occasions. Therefore, if Nick carries on doing what he is doing (as he in fact did) then our view is that he is deliberately trying to wind people up, which is the very definition of trolling. We have done all that we can to try and avoid banning him, and he has continued to take the piss, for which there are consequences.
This isn't a sending off for a straight red card offence. This isn't even a sending off for a second yellow. This is a sending off for a player who has committed a number of bookable offences during the match, and whose sending off is his 5th or 6th of the season, even though it is only December. The action taken reflects this fact.
Similarly, fair (and public) warning has now been given to the people who deliberately derail threads by criticising the initial poster for their post. Any future action taken in that regard will reflect the fact that fair warning has been given.
As to the role of the admin team. We take up the position knowing that we have a significant amount of power. I could, if I wanted to, ban every person who disagrees with us on this thread. I could change their names to something petty like "I <3 Nick 4eva". I could change every post disagreeing with us so that it says "I wish the words existed to describe how wonderful the admins are". I have the power to do that, and more.
What's more, this is not a democracy. There is no obligation on the admin team to throw any decision open for debate. If we were so inclined, this board could be our plaything - we could colour it white and yellow, put a picture of Don Revie and Billy Bremner on every thread, and have Marching On Together play automatically when the page loads up.
However, we do not do any of those things. Why? Because aside from it being nauseating, and aside from us not having the time, energy, or (frankly) interest in treating this board like we are mini-dictators, it would not be in our interest to do so, even if we wanted to. As I have said on a number of occasions, a messageboard is nothing without the posters. If we treated the board like our plaything, then we would lose all of the posters and be ruling over a pile of ash (one for the GOT fans out there).
If a board is successful, with good activity, and generally a good level of discussion, then I consider that is a sign that the admin team are doing something right. It may not be obvious what we are doing, and it may not look as though we are doing anything a lot of the time, but if people are regularly participating on the messageboard and the board is running smoothly then we must be doing something right.
One final point, so that I've covered everything I can think of. The word "consistency" is often thrown about if the punishment given to different posters, with different posts, in different circumstances are not identical. The rules are not laws, they are guidelines. The underpinning principle of posting on this board is "do not deliberately do anything that disrupts the enjoyment of the board for others". As such, a post may be a breach of the letter of the rule, but no action taken, because the admin team do not consider it to have deliberately disrupted the enjoyment of the board for others.
That is why we will generally not act unless posts are reported/we are PM'd, because the only way we can know if posts are disrupting the enjoyment of the board for others is if they are reported. Therefore the number of reported posts, the number of times a poster is reported, and the number of different people who report such poster, is likely to be relevant to whether or not we take action. If posters are not doing something deliberately, a gently PM reminder will solve the problem. If they are, then they will be repeat offenders, and we will have no option but to take further action.
It really is as simple as that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2017 19:58:42 GMT 1
So has someone reported Nick to you ? If so please let us know who the sad bastard is
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2017 20:00:44 GMT 1
Damned if we do, damned if we don't - that's the Admin's lot, and we accepted it when we accepted the role. You guys see the end result and are perfectly entitled to disagree with the action we take. That's your prerogative. If you don't like a decision we make, then we are happy to discuss it and even reconsider it if necessary. One example of this was 3Pipe - he was recently banned, we reconsidered the position, and we substantially reduced his ban. Though he hasn't posted since the ban, he has been at liberty to do so since 2nd August. We are not inflexible, and we bend over backwards to avoid giving people a ban. Hence why the Examiner sub-board was created, for example. However, you see the end and not the steps before that have led to that result. We have attempted to micro-manage this issue for months (the older admin may say it's even longer than that), but there is only so much you can flog a dead horse. If we have gone to the length of creating new sub-boards in order to avoid banning someone, then if they do eventually get banned then the blame lies with the person who persistently (and knowingly) ignores the warnings he is given. The admins' position is very simple. Nick knows what he is doing. Nick knows that what he is doing will provoke a reaction. Even if the inference from the response to his posts wasn't enough, we have explicitly warned him on a great number of occasions. Therefore, if Nick carries on doing what he is doing (as he in fact did) then our view is that he is deliberately trying to wind people up, which is the very definition of trolling. We have done all that we can to try and avoid banning him, and he has continued to take the piss, for which there are consequences. This isn't a sending off for a straight red card offence. This isn't even a sending off for a second yellow. This is a sending off for a player who has committed a number of bookable offences during the match, and whose sending off is his 5th or 6th of the season, even though it is only December. The action taken reflects this fact. Similarly, fair (and public) warning has now been given to the people who deliberately derail threads by criticising the initial poster for their post. Any future action taken in that regard will reflect the fact that fair warning has been given. As to the role of the admin team. We take up the position knowing that we have a significant amount of power. I could, if I wanted to, ban every person who disagrees with us on this thread. I could change their names to something petty like "I <3 Nick 4eva". I could change every post disagreeing with us so that it says "I wish the words existed to describe how wonderful the admins are". I have the power to do that, and more. What's more, this is not a democracy. There is no obligation on the admin team to throw any decision open for debate. If we were so inclined, this board could be our plaything - we could colour it white and yellow, put a picture of Don Revie and Billy Bremner on every thread, and have Marching On Together play automatically when the page loads up. However, we do not do any of those things. Why? Because aside from it being nauseating, and aside from us not having the time, energy, or (frankly) interest in treating this board like we are mini-dictators, it would not be in our interest to do so, even if we wanted to. As I have said on a number of occasions, a messageboard is nothing without the posters. If we treated the board like our plaything, then we would lose all of the posters and be ruling over a pile of ash (one for the GOT fans out there). If a board is successful, with good activity, and generally a good level of discussion, then I consider that is a sign that the admin team are doing something right. It may not be obvious what we are doing, and it may not look as though we are doing anything a lot of the time, but if people are regularly participating on the messageboard and the board is running smoothly then we must be doing something right. One final point, so that I've covered everything I can think of. The word "consistency" is often thrown about if the punishment given to different posters, with different posts, in different circumstances are not identical. The rules are not laws, they are guidelines. The underpinning principle of posting on this board is "do not deliberately do anything that disrupts the enjoyment of the board for others". As such, a post may be a breach of the letter of the rule, but no action taken, because the admin team do not consider it to have deliberately disrupted the enjoyment of the board for others. That is why we will generally not act unless posts are reported/we are PM'd, because the only way we can know if posts are disrupting the enjoyment of the board for others is if they are reported. Therefore the number of reported posts, the number of times a poster is reported, and the number of different people who report such poster, is likely to be relevant to whether or not we take action. If posters are not doing something deliberately, a gently PM reminder will solve the problem. If they are, then they will be repeat offenders, and we will have no option but to take further action. It really is as simple as that. is there an option on Datm where we can listen to posts instead of reading them?
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Aug 10, 2017 20:01:57 GMT 1
Damned if we do, damned if we don't - that's the Admin's lot, and we accepted it when we accepted the role. You guys see the end result and are perfectly entitled to disagree with the action we take. That's your prerogative. If you don't like a decision we make, then we are happy to discuss it and even reconsider it if necessary. One example of this was 3Pipe - he was recently banned, we reconsidered the position, and we substantially reduced his ban. Though he hasn't posted since the ban, he has been at liberty to do so since 2nd August. We are not inflexible, and we bend over backwards to avoid giving people a ban. Hence why the Examiner sub-board was created, for example. However, you see the end and not the steps before that have led to that result. We have attempted to micro-manage this issue for months (the older admin may say it's even longer than that), but there is only so much you can flog a dead horse. If we have gone to the length of creating new sub-boards in order to avoid banning someone, then if they do eventually get banned then the blame lies with the person who persistently (and knowingly) ignores the warnings he is given. The admins' position is very simple. Nick knows what he is doing. Nick knows that what he is doing will provoke a reaction. Even if the inference from the response to his posts wasn't enough, we have explicitly warned him on a great number of occasions. Therefore, if Nick carries on doing what he is doing (as he in fact did) then our view is that he is deliberately trying to wind people up, which is the very definition of trolling. We have done all that we can to try and avoid banning him, and he has continued to take the piss, for which there are consequences. This isn't a sending off for a straight red card offence. This isn't even a sending off for a second yellow. This is a sending off for a player who has committed a number of bookable offences during the match, and whose sending off is his 5th or 6th of the season, even though it is only December. The action taken reflects this fact. Similarly, fair (and public) warning has now been given to the people who deliberately derail threads by criticising the initial poster for their post. Any future action taken in that regard will reflect the fact that fair warning has been given. As to the role of the admin team. We take up the position knowing that we have a significant amount of power. I could, if I wanted to, ban every person who disagrees with us on this thread. I could change their names to something petty like "I <3 Nick 4eva". I could change every post disagreeing with us so that it says "I wish the words existed to describe how wonderful the admins are". I have the power to do that, and more. What's more, this is not a democracy. There is no obligation on the admin team to throw any decision open for debate. If we were so inclined, this board could be our plaything - we could colour it white and yellow, put a picture of Don Revie and Billy Bremner on every thread, and have Marching On Together play automatically when the page loads up. However, we do not do any of those things. Why? Because aside from it being nauseating, and aside from us not having the time, energy, or (frankly) interest in treating this board like we are mini-dictators, it would not be in our interest to do so, even if we wanted to. As I have said on a number of occasions, a messageboard is nothing without the posters. If we treated the board like our plaything, then we would lose all of the posters and be ruling over a pile of ash (one for the GOT fans out there). If a board is successful, with good activity, and generally a good level of discussion, then I consider that is a sign that the admin team are doing something right. It may not be obvious what we are doing, and it may not look as though we are doing anything a lot of the time, but if people are regularly participating on the messageboard and the board is running smoothly then we must be doing something right. One final point, so that I've covered everything I can think of. The word "consistency" is often thrown about if the punishment given to different posters, with different posts, in different circumstances are not identical. The rules are not laws, they are guidelines. The underpinning principle of posting on this board is "do not deliberately do anything that disrupts the enjoyment of the board for others". As such, a post may be a breach of the letter of the rule, but no action taken, because the admin team do not consider it to have deliberately disrupted the enjoyment of the board for others. That is why we will generally not act unless posts are reported/we are PM'd, because the only way we can know if posts are disrupting the enjoyment of the board for others is if they are reported. Therefore the number of reported posts, the number of times a poster is reported, and the number of different people who report such poster, is likely to be relevant to whether or not we take action. If posters are not doing something deliberately, a gently PM reminder will solve the problem. If they are, then they will be repeat offenders, and we will have no option but to take further action. It really is as simple as that. You need to permanently ban Nick then Cheesy. He is what he is, some of us accept him for that, and ignore the mischievous intent in his post, and some posters react to it. But, as long as there's a hole in my arse Nick, will be Nick. I see plenty of stuff that irks me on here, I ignore the vast majority of it. Maybe I'll start reacting to it in future. What's good for the goose and all that.
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Aug 10, 2017 20:03:14 GMT 1
Damned if we do, damned if we don't - that's the Admin's lot, and we accepted it when we accepted the role. You guys see the end result and are perfectly entitled to disagree with the action we take. That's your prerogative. If you don't like a decision we make, then we are happy to discuss it and even reconsider it if necessary. One example of this was 3Pipe - he was recently banned, we reconsidered the position, and we substantially reduced his ban. Though he hasn't posted since the ban, he has been at liberty to do so since 2nd August. We are not inflexible, and we bend over backwards to avoid giving people a ban. Hence why the Examiner sub-board was created, for example. However, you see the end and not the steps before that have led to that result. We have attempted to micro-manage this issue for months (the older admin may say it's even longer than that), but there is only so much you can flog a dead horse. If we have gone to the length of creating new sub-boards in order to avoid banning someone, then if they do eventually get banned then the blame lies with the person who persistently (and knowingly) ignores the warnings he is given. The admins' position is very simple. Nick knows what he is doing. Nick knows that what he is doing will provoke a reaction. Even if the inference from the response to his posts wasn't enough, we have explicitly warned him on a great number of occasions. Therefore, if Nick carries on doing what he is doing (as he in fact did) then our view is that he is deliberately trying to wind people up, which is the very definition of trolling. We have done all that we can to try and avoid banning him, and he has continued to take the piss, for which there are consequences. This isn't a sending off for a straight red card offence. This isn't even a sending off for a second yellow. This is a sending off for a player who has committed a number of bookable offences during the match, and whose sending off is his 5th or 6th of the season, even though it is only December. The action taken reflects this fact. Similarly, fair (and public) warning has now been given to the people who deliberately derail threads by criticising the initial poster for their post. Any future action taken in that regard will reflect the fact that fair warning has been given. As to the role of the admin team. We take up the position knowing that we have a significant amount of power. I could, if I wanted to, ban every person who disagrees with us on this thread. I could change their names to something petty like "I <3 Nick 4eva". I could change every post disagreeing with us so that it says "I wish the words existed to describe how wonderful the admins are". I have the power to do that, and more. What's more, this is not a democracy. There is no obligation on the admin team to throw any decision open for debate. If we were so inclined, this board could be our plaything - we could colour it white and yellow, put a picture of Don Revie and Billy Bremner on every thread, and have Marching On Together play automatically when the page loads up. However, we do not do any of those things. Why? Because aside from it being nauseating, and aside from us not having the time, energy, or (frankly) interest in treating this board like we are mini-dictators, it would not be in our interest to do so, even if we wanted to. As I have said on a number of occasions, a messageboard is nothing without the posters. If we treated the board like our plaything, then we would lose all of the posters and be ruling over a pile of ash (one for the GOT fans out there). If a board is successful, with good activity, and generally a good level of discussion, then I consider that is a sign that the admin team are doing something right. It may not be obvious what we are doing, and it may not look as though we are doing anything a lot of the time, but if people are regularly participating on the messageboard and the board is running smoothly then we must be doing something right. One final point, so that I've covered everything I can think of. The word "consistency" is often thrown about if the punishment given to different posters, with different posts, in different circumstances are not identical. The rules are not laws, they are guidelines. The underpinning principle of posting on this board is "do not deliberately do anything that disrupts the enjoyment of the board for others". As such, a post may be a breach of the letter of the rule, but no action taken, because the admin team do not consider it to have deliberately disrupted the enjoyment of the board for others. That is why we will generally not act unless posts are reported/we are PM'd, because the only way we can know if posts are disrupting the enjoyment of the board for others is if they are reported. Therefore the number of reported posts, the number of times a poster is reported, and the number of different people who report such poster, is likely to be relevant to whether or not we take action. If posters are not doing something deliberately, a gently PM reminder will solve the problem. If they are, then they will be repeat offenders, and we will have no option but to take further action. It really is as simple as that. is there an option on Datm where we can listen to posts instead of reading them? That would play havoc with my titinus.
|
|
|
Post by steve65 on Aug 10, 2017 20:05:04 GMT 1
Damned if we do, damned if we don't - that's the Admin's lot, and we accepted it when we accepted the role. You guys see the end result and are perfectly entitled to disagree with the action we take. That's your prerogative. If you don't like a decision we make, then we are happy to discuss it and even reconsider it if necessary. One example of this was 3Pipe - he was recently banned, we reconsidered the position, and we substantially reduced his ban. Though he hasn't posted since the ban, he has been at liberty to do so since 2nd August. We are not inflexible, and we bend over backwards to avoid giving people a ban. Hence why the Examiner sub-board was created, for example. However, you see the end and not the steps before that have led to that result. We have attempted to micro-manage this issue for months (the older admin may say it's even longer than that), but there is only so much you can flog a dead horse. If we have gone to the length of creating new sub-boards in order to avoid banning someone, then if they do eventually get banned then the blame lies with the person who persistently (and knowingly) ignores the warnings he is given. The admins' position is very simple. Nick knows what he is doing. Nick knows that what he is doing will provoke a reaction. Even if the inference from the response to his posts wasn't enough, we have explicitly warned him on a great number of occasions. Therefore, if Nick carries on doing what he is doing (as he in fact did) then our view is that he is deliberately trying to wind people up, which is the very definition of trolling. We have done all that we can to try and avoid banning him, and he has continued to take the piss, for which there are consequences. This isn't a sending off for a straight red card offence. This isn't even a sending off for a second yellow. This is a sending off for a player who has committed a number of bookable offences during the match, and whose sending off is his 5th or 6th of the season, even though it is only December. The action taken reflects this fact. Similarly, fair (and public) warning has now been given to the people who deliberately derail threads by criticising the initial poster for their post. Any future action taken in that regard will reflect the fact that fair warning has been given. As to the role of the admin team. We take up the position knowing that we have a significant amount of power. I could, if I wanted to, ban every person who disagrees with us on this thread. I could change their names to something petty like "I <3 Nick 4eva". I could change every post disagreeing with us so that it says "I wish the words existed to describe how wonderful the admins are". I have the power to do that, and more. What's more, this is not a democracy. There is no obligation on the admin team to throw any decision open for debate. If we were so inclined, this board could be our plaything - we could colour it white and yellow, put a picture of Don Revie and Billy Bremner on every thread, and have Marching On Together play automatically when the page loads up. However, we do not do any of those things. Why? Because aside from it being nauseating, and aside from us not having the time, energy, or (frankly) interest in treating this board like we are mini-dictators, it would not be in our interest to do so, even if we wanted to. As I have said on a number of occasions, a messageboard is nothing without the posters. If we treated the board like our plaything, then we would lose all of the posters and be ruling over a pile of ash (one for the GOT fans out there). If a board is successful, with good activity, and generally a good level of discussion, then I consider that is a sign that the admin team are doing something right. It may not be obvious what we are doing, and it may not look as though we are doing anything a lot of the time, but if people are regularly participating on the messageboard and the board is running smoothly then we must be doing something right. One final point, so that I've covered everything I can think of. The word "consistency" is often thrown about if the punishment given to different posters, with different posts, in different circumstances are not identical. The rules are not laws, they are guidelines. The underpinning principle of posting on this board is "do not deliberately do anything that disrupts the enjoyment of the board for others". As such, a post may be a breach of the letter of the rule, but no action taken, because the admin team do not consider it to have deliberately disrupted the enjoyment of the board for others. That is why we will generally not act unless posts are reported/we are PM'd, because the only way we can know if posts are disrupting the enjoyment of the board for others is if they are reported. Therefore the number of reported posts, the number of times a poster is reported, and the number of different people who report such poster, is likely to be relevant to whether or not we take action. If posters are not doing something deliberately, a gently PM reminder will solve the problem. If they are, then they will be repeat offenders, and we will have no option but to take further action. It really is as simple as that. is there an option on Datm where we can listen to posts instead of reading them? Its a big one innit ! It would take me about 2 weeks to type all that !
|
|
|
Post by Bassingham Terrier on Aug 10, 2017 20:05:47 GMT 1
Sorry, but I don't understand the reference/insinuation here. I'm probably being thick, but please do explain ... Yes, of course. I am aware of that aspect of history but quite simply didn't make the connection.
|
|
|
Post by ozterrier on Aug 10, 2017 20:06:20 GMT 1
So has someone reported Nick to you ? If so please let us know who the sad bastard is Of course we'll not 'out' anyone - but since Nick came back from his last ban (a week ago today) he's been reported 15 times.
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Aug 10, 2017 20:08:07 GMT 1
So has someone reported Nick to you ? If so please let us know who the sad bastard is Of course we'll not 'out' anyone - but since Nick came back from his last ban (a week ago today) he's been reported 15 times. Ha ha. Sad fuckers. Get a fucking life for fucks sake.
|
|
cheesyhtfc
Steve Kindon Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 1,644
|
Post by cheesyhtfc on Aug 10, 2017 20:08:37 GMT 1
You need to permanently ban Nick then Cheesy. He is what he is, some of us accept him for that, and ignore the mischievous intent in his post, and some posters react to it. But, as long as there's a hole in my arse Nick, will be Nick. I see plenty of stuff that irks me on here, I ignore the vast majority of it. Maybe I'll start reacting to it in future. What's good for the goose and all that. I suspect you may be right about Nick. However, as I also said in my posts, fair warning has now been given to those posters who react to Nick's posts and provoke the argument. If that warning is heeded, then Nick's posts (if they are unlikely to start a genuine discussion) will sink off page 1. If it is not, then we may (once again) be pushed into a corner where we have no option but to take action against those who provoke the arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Aug 10, 2017 20:10:35 GMT 1
3 pages and counting. Nick will be ever so pleased by the attention that the admins have created.
|
|
|
Post by Malvern Tom (WAHLS) on Aug 10, 2017 20:19:50 GMT 1
So has someone reported Nick to you ? If so please let us know who the sad bastard is Of course we'll not 'out' anyone - but since Nick came back from his last ban (a week ago today) he's been reported 15 times. By how many different posters? That is really, really sad. That's twice a day....is it an organized lynch mob. PMs between secret agents is my guess.
|
|
|
Post by arry11 on Aug 10, 2017 20:20:28 GMT 1
3 pages and counting. Nick will be ever so pleased by the attention that the admins have created. Don't you mean what he created.
|
|
|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on Aug 10, 2017 20:22:58 GMT 1
3 pages and counting. Nick will be ever so pleased by the attention that the admins have created. Don't you mean what he created. No I mean the admins with the unnecessary ban and all those sad souls who reported him.
|
|
|
Post by Malvern Tom (WAHLS) on Aug 10, 2017 20:24:55 GMT 1
Don't you mean what he created. No I mean the admins with the unnecessary ban and all those sad souls who reported him. Of the one soul who complained 15 times.😎😋
|
|
|
Post by arry11 on Aug 10, 2017 20:28:23 GMT 1
The guy was given polite and sound advice by the admins but chose to ignore and taunt everyone. He made his own bed.
|
|
|
Post by arry11 on Aug 10, 2017 20:30:43 GMT 1
Sorry Tom i did not report him
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2017 20:31:11 GMT 1
Maybe time to lock this thread before it gets too tedious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2017 20:34:06 GMT 1
The admin explained the problem in his diatribe perfectly...it's a football forum, it doesn't need 'micro managing' FFS.
Reported 15 times? There are some sad, dull, lifeless idiots on here.
|
|
|
Post by upthetown on Aug 10, 2017 20:41:52 GMT 1
Damned if we do, damned if we don't - that's the Admin's lot, and we accepted it when we accepted the role. You guys see the end result and are perfectly entitled to disagree with the action we take. That's your prerogative. If you don't like a decision we make, then we are happy to discuss it and even reconsider it if necessary. One example of this was 3Pipe - he was recently banned, we reconsidered the position, and we substantially reduced his ban. Though he hasn't posted since the ban, he has been at liberty to do so since 2nd August. We are not inflexible, and we bend over backwards to avoid giving people a ban. Hence why the Examiner sub-board was created, for example. However, you see the end and not the steps before that have led to that result. We have attempted to micro-manage this issue for months (the older admin may say it's even longer than that), but there is only so much you can flog a dead horse. If we have gone to the length of creating new sub-boards in order to avoid banning someone, then if they do eventually get banned then the blame lies with the person who persistently (and knowingly) ignores the warnings he is given. The admins' position is very simple. Nick knows what he is doing. Nick knows that what he is doing will provoke a reaction. Even if the inference from the response to his posts wasn't enough, we have explicitly warned him on a great number of occasions. Therefore, if Nick carries on doing what he is doing (as he in fact did) then our view is that he is deliberately trying to wind people up, which is the very definition of trolling. We have done all that we can to try and avoid banning him, and he has continued to take the piss, for which there are consequences. This isn't a sending off for a straight red card offence. This isn't even a sending off for a second yellow. This is a sending off for a player who has committed a number of bookable offences during the match, and whose sending off is his 5th or 6th of the season, even though it is only December. The action taken reflects this fact. Similarly, fair (and public) warning has now been given to the people who deliberately derail threads by criticising the initial poster for their post. Any future action taken in that regard will reflect the fact that fair warning has been given. As to the role of the admin team. We take up the position knowing that we have a significant amount of power. I could, if I wanted to, ban every person who disagrees with us on this thread. I could change their names to something petty like "I <3 Nick 4eva". I could change every post disagreeing with us so that it says "I wish the words existed to describe how wonderful the admins are". I have the power to do that, and more. What's more, this is not a democracy. There is no obligation on the admin team to throw any decision open for debate. If we were so inclined, this board could be our plaything - we could colour it white and yellow, put a picture of Don Revie and Billy Bremner on every thread, and have Marching On Together play automatically when the page loads up. However, we do not do any of those things. Why? Because aside from it being nauseating, and aside from us not having the time, energy, or (frankly) interest in treating this board like we are mini-dictators, it would not be in our interest to do so, even if we wanted to. As I have said on a number of occasions, a messageboard is nothing without the posters. If we treated the board like our plaything, then we would lose all of the posters and be ruling over a pile of ash (one for the GOT fans out there). If a board is successful, with good activity, and generally a good level of discussion, then I consider that is a sign that the admin team are doing something right. It may not be obvious what we are doing, and it may not look as though we are doing anything a lot of the time, but if people are regularly participating on the messageboard and the board is running smoothly then we must be doing something right. One final point, so that I've covered everything I can think of. The word "consistency" is often thrown about if the punishment given to different posters, with different posts, in different circumstances are not identical. The rules are not laws, they are guidelines. The underpinning principle of posting on this board is "do not deliberately do anything that disrupts the enjoyment of the board for others". As such, a post may be a breach of the letter of the rule, but no action taken, because the admin team do not consider it to have deliberately disrupted the enjoyment of the board for others. That is why we will generally not act unless posts are reported/we are PM'd, because the only way we can know if posts are disrupting the enjoyment of the board for others is if they are reported. Therefore the number of reported posts, the number of times a poster is reported, and the number of different people who report such poster, is likely to be relevant to whether or not we take action. If posters are not doing something deliberately, a gently PM reminder will solve the problem. If they are, then they will be repeat offenders, and we will have no option but to take further action. It really is as simple as that. is there an option on Datm where we can listen to posts instead of reading them? There is, but don't press it!!!! I started listening to this post yesterday and it's still going!
|
|