|
|
Post by space hardware on Jul 19, 2021 22:43:39 GMT 1
2.5 DO NOT POST IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS - Posting in all caps is rude. Hi Positive 👋 HE dOeSNt pOST AlL In CAPitaLs sO HEs OK |
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Jul 19, 2021 22:46:56 GMT 1
2.5 DO NOT POST IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS - Posting in all caps is rude. Hi Positive 👋 HE dOeSNt pOST AlL In CAPitaLs sO HEs OK yOU HaVE no UNDERStanDinG oF THe CAPITal lETterS PrO GAmE |
|
|
|
Post by Porrohman on Jul 20, 2021 7:22:29 GMT 1
No they aren't. Should be level 1 to 3. Level 1 - low level abuse, low level racial or homophobic opinion and language. Probably other things included in this. I.e call someone a card, tell them to fuck off, homosexuals are deviants, Christians are all alcoholics.. just examples. Range of sanctions - warning to 2 week ban. Level 2- moderate abuse, abusing an admin, borderline extreme racial, sexual or homophobic language. Range of sanctions - 2 to 8 week ban. Level 3 - Leeds fan, extreme abuse including threatening language, extreme racial, sexual or homophobic language Range of sanctions - 8 week to lifetime ban. If you have 100 level one offences that is where you stay, just continue to be hit with 2 week bans time and time again, same at level 2, level 3 If you survive a life ban first time. Second offense your a gonner. So you're saying some racial or homophobic abuse is more acceptable than others 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Jul 20, 2021 7:57:02 GMT 1
And by the way, I inadvertently clicked the wrong option as the thread title is opposite to the poll question, so if it's a close vote, bear that in mind. I did the same as well and I'm pretty sure that our votes will cancel each other out. |
|
|
|
Post by townrwe on Jul 20, 2021 8:19:43 GMT 1
No they aren't. Should be level 1 to 3. Level 1 - low level abuse, low level racial or homophobic opinion and language. Probably other things included in this. I.e call someone a card, tell them to fuck off, homosexuals are deviants, Christians are all alcoholics.. just examples. Range of sanctions - warning to 2 week ban. Level 2- moderate abuse, abusing an admin, borderline extreme racial, sexual or homophobic language. Range of sanctions - 2 to 8 week ban. Level 3 - Leeds fan, extreme abuse including threatening language, extreme racial, sexual or homophobic language Range of sanctions - 8 week to lifetime ban. If you have 100 level one offences that is where you stay, just continue to be hit with 2 week bans time and time again, same at level 2, level 3 If you survive a life ban first time. Second offense your a gonner. So you're saying some racial or homophobic abuse is more acceptable than others 🤔 No im saying some racial and homophobic dialogue is acceptable even when not a mainstream view even when it's controversial but isn't necessarily abusive. Just like someone expressing their views on veganism. There is a threshold, but it should be set at a higher level where it becomes abusive. If you don't have opposing views then you don't have discussion and argument. Forums are designed for discussion and argument, not censorship. I genuinely think the ADMIN have this wrong, but also can see why 3 like minded admin may censor homophobic language whilst allowing views they agree with. The problem here isn't the rules or the topics, it's the lack of diversity and representation of the ADMIN team. I offered to be an ADMIN. I totally accept that my views are totally different to the current ADMINS extreme views, so on that basis that I don't fit into the clique I was rejected. Says it all really, the admin are saying what's acceptable and what isn't from a snowflake left position and are unwilling to accept a proper representative committee. |
|
|
|
Post by Manx Terrier on Jul 20, 2021 8:25:43 GMT 1
Well if you had read more than three lines of the rules you would have seen that the administrators are given the " right to ban users either temporarily or permanently depending on the severity of offences either listed or unlisted above " which should cover your point. So they have very wide powers indeed. These words need to be given more prominence. I don't think rules can cover everything and you would need to rely on the common sense of the administrators. I read every word of your post but cut out the rest so folks didn't have to scroll through all the bullshit. So don't try and patronise me. "The present rules are not fit for purpose and need revising and simplifying. They should be designed primarily to protect abuse of specific forum members and not be about hurting feelings of individuals or groups." That gem was from you. You then go on to post the vaguest set of rules imaginable that, at your own admission, depend on admin discretion. Rule one should read. "Racist abuse or language will not be tolerated, at all." No caveats, no sub-clauses, nothing added. It's simple. Do you agree? Yes of course I agree with that. The Liverpool rules was just an example and surely can be improved on. Do you have any other comment on their rules apart from the irrelevant administrative stuff specific to Liverpool ? |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man on Jul 20, 2021 8:27:33 GMT 1
So you're saying some racial or homophobic abuse is more acceptable than others 🤔 No im saying some racial and homophobic dialogue is acceptable even when not a mainstream view even when it's controversial but isn't necessarily abusive. Just like someone expressing their views on veganism. There is a threshold, but it should be set at a higher level where it becomes abusive. If you don't have opposing views then you don't have discussion and argument. Forums are designed for discussion and argument, not censorship. I genuinely think the ADMIN have this wrong, but also can see why 3 like minded admin may censor homophobic language whilst allowing views they agree with. The problem here isn't the rules or the topics, it's the lack of diversity and representation of the ADMIN team. I offered to be an ADMIN. I totally accept that my views are totally different to the current ADMINS extreme views, so on that basis that I don't fit into the clique I was rejected. Says it all really, the admin are saying what's acceptable and what isn't from a snowflake left position and are unwilling to accept a proper representative committee. You make me laugh. Comparing homohibia and racism to vegans moaning about omnivores is laughable. You thinking you know the politics of all three admins based is laughable. You thinking you'd ever be a useful admin is laughable. |
|
|
|
Post by townrwe on Jul 20, 2021 8:28:53 GMT 1
Exactly, but should be reflective of the level of offense. Homosexuals been deviants is hardly up there with offensive posts or abuse that could be used, I'd say its very much a level of warning about future cinduct, you could go down a warning, final warning, week ban, reoccurring two week ban. I think that would be enough after the first or second two week ban. I'm not even sure it really deserves a warning in that instance. I would have probably accepted that as an expression of free speech, despite disagreeing with it. It's at a level similar to a vegan calling meat eaters murderers I'm actually starting to agree with the premise of this thread. The rules do need revision. We need a rule that allows an instant ban for unforgivable levels of stupidity. You are supposed to be beacon on impartiality.... your position really is untenable. Open the Admin to 10 members. The two remaining admin become super admin. Then the new 10 can moderate the site and shut down and delete conversation threads BEFORE they get too close to the wire. Problem with 3 is your putting out fires after the street has burnt down. |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man on Jul 20, 2021 8:33:33 GMT 1
I'm actually starting to agree with the premise of this thread. The rules do need revision. We need a rule that allows an instant ban for unforgivable levels of stupidity. You are supposed to be beacon on impartiality.... your position really is untenable. Open the Admin to 10 members. The two remaining admin become super admin. Then the new 10 can moderate the site and shut down and delete conversation threads BEFORE they get too close to the wire. Problem with 3 is your putting out fires after the street has burnt down. Impartiality in reviewing reported posts, yes. Impartiality in how I post, no. The fact that you think a forum like this can be staffed by people for free with the abuse we get and that you'd then expect those staff to not actually get the benefit of using the site like anyone else shows exactly why you'd be just about the worst choice for the role. |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man on Jul 20, 2021 8:34:56 GMT 1
I'm actually starting to agree with the premise of this thread. The rules do need revision. We need a rule that allows an instant ban for unforgivable levels of stupidity. You are supposed to be beacon on impartiality.... your position really is untenable. Open the Admin to 10 members. The two remaining admin become super admin. Then the new 10 can moderate the site and shut down and delete conversation threads BEFORE they get too close to the wire. Problem with 3 is your putting out fires after the street has burnt down. Also, you've posted here saying we should have let Otis comments go unmoderated and are now suggesting admins delete conversations before they cross the line. Did you watch the Minority Report last night? Guessing you fell asleep before the ending. 🤡 |
|
|
|
Post by townrwe on Jul 20, 2021 8:36:17 GMT 1
No im saying some racial and homophobic dialogue is acceptable even when not a mainstream view even when it's controversial but isn't necessarily abusive. Just like someone expressing their views on veganism. There is a threshold, but it should be set at a higher level where it becomes abusive. If you don't have opposing views then you don't have discussion and argument. Forums are designed for discussion and argument, not censorship. I genuinely think the ADMIN have this wrong, but also can see why 3 like minded admin may censor homophobic language whilst allowing views they agree with. The problem here isn't the rules or the topics, it's the lack of diversity and representation of the ADMIN team. I offered to be an ADMIN. I totally accept that my views are totally different to the current ADMINS extreme views, so on that basis that I don't fit into the clique I was rejected. Says it all really, the admin are saying what's acceptable and what isn't from a snowflake left position and are unwilling to accept a proper representative committee. You make me laugh. Comparing homohibia and racism to vegans moaning about omnivores is laughable. You thinking you know the politics of all three admins based is laughable. You thinking you'd ever be a useful admin is laughable. At a basic dialogue of opposing views there is no difference discussing homosexuality, race, sex, veganism, activax, Jordan Rhodes, Holmes or politics. Its you that's making homosexuality and race taboo subjects. In fact I would say there have been far worse things said on here about Duane Holmes than any of the other subjects. |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man on Jul 20, 2021 8:39:14 GMT 1
You make me laugh. Comparing homohibia and racism to vegans moaning about omnivores is laughable. You thinking you know the politics of all three admins based is laughable. You thinking you'd ever be a useful admin is laughable. At a basic dialogue of opposing views there is no difference discussing homosexuality, race, sex, veganism, activax, Jordan Rhodes, Holmes or politics. Its you that's making homosexuality and race taboo subjects. In fact I would say there have been far worse things said on here about Duane Holmes than any of the other subjects. You're embarrassing yourself now. Seriously. What a plant pot. |
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Jul 20, 2021 8:40:18 GMT 1
Supernovak making his biannual "here's why you shouldn't touch me for admin with a bargepole " plea .
|
|
|
|
Post by Walton-on-the-Hill Terrier on Jul 20, 2021 8:42:12 GMT 1
I'm actually starting to agree with the premise of this thread. The rules do need revision. We need a rule that allows an instant ban for unforgivable levels of stupidity. You are supposed to be beacon on impartiality.... your position really is untenable. Open the Admin to 10 members. The two remaining admin become super admin. Then the new 10 can moderate the site and shut down and delete conversation threads BEFORE they get too close to the wire. Problem with 3 is your putting out fires after the street has burnt down. In the past there have been as many as 8 admins, I believe. By their own admission they realised that was too many, too unwieldy, and meant it took forever to reach any decision. Surely, as well, any admin team should always be an odd number, be it 3, 5 or 7, otherwise what would happen if you had an even split over a decision? The only caveat I’d place on being an admin is that they be UK based, or at least on UK time. I think Philincalifornia admitted that time differences were problematic. You seem keen to be an admin, townrwe, in fact I think you see yourself as a “super admin” to use your terminology. Why not set up a poll to see what level of support you’d get. I think it would be enlightening….. for you, and entertaining for the rest of us. |
|
|
|
Post by townrwe on Jul 20, 2021 8:51:52 GMT 1
You are supposed to be beacon on impartiality.... your position really is untenable. Open the Admin to 10 members. The two remaining admin become super admin. Then the new 10 can moderate the site and shut down and delete conversation threads BEFORE they get too close to the wire. Problem with 3 is your putting out fires after the street has burnt down. Impartiality in reviewing reported posts, yes. Impartiality in how I post, no. The fact that you think a forum like this can be staffed by people for free with the abuse we get and that you'd then expect those staff to not actually get the benefit of using the site like anyone else shows exactly why you'd be just about the worst choice for the role. Yet that isn't your decision to make, which is exactly the reason you're position is untenable. ITS NOT YOUR SITE!!! You have no basis to refuse anyone who offers to be ADMIN. There needs to be one chairman of ADMIN who is ELECTED yearly and manages the ADMIN team. You saying I'm not appropriate is the same as saying otiums comments weren't appropriate. That's in your narrow opinion and seemingly not representative of the members of the site. If you have a larger team then votes for a permanent ban would have been much fairer. Make me an admin, offer it to anyone who would like to be one. I'll vote Kenny as chairman for this season and see how it goes. Put out bin fires before the stadium burns down. Have an amnesty on old posters or at least a vote amongst the new admin team to reinstate. Your now part of an honest and open administration team representative of the diverse range of characters and opinion on the board, running a fair discipline process rather than the current kangaroo Court. |
|
|
|
Post by townrwe on Jul 20, 2021 9:00:35 GMT 1
You are supposed to be beacon on impartiality.... your position really is untenable. Open the Admin to 10 members. The two remaining admin become super admin. Then the new 10 can moderate the site and shut down and delete conversation threads BEFORE they get too close to the wire. Problem with 3 is your putting out fires after the street has burnt down. In the past there have been as many as 8 admins, I believe. By their own admission they realised that was too many, too unwieldy, and meant it took forever to reach any decision. Surely, as well, any admin team should always be an odd number, be it 3, 5 or 7, otherwise what would happen if you had an even split over a decision? The only caveat I’d place on being an admin is that they be UK based, or at least on UK time. I think Philincalifornia admitted that time differences were problematic. You seem keen to be an admin, townrwe, in fact I think you see yourself as a “super admin” to use your terminology. Why not set up a poll to see what level of support you’d get. I think it would be enlightening….. for you, and entertaining for the rest of us. Not really. I've been admin before on a cricket site, I was the young one amongst dinosaurs who didn't understand the Internet. The best tool was delete, thread, comment, blank out words. Yes that's censorship. But when emotions are high its pretty obvious when things are deteriorating, so putting the flames out in the bin is alot easier than turning up the morning after and dealing with the mess. I'm not sure what positions are open on pro-boards, but maybe rather than admin powers, moderator powers could be handed out, so they can't ban folk willy nilly, but do have power to remove/quarantine controversial content before it gets out of hand. A sort of trial for admin roles. Agree an odd number is better, timing wise better to get a view of a number of people than the two folk immediately offended by comments. For me the management of the site is way before it becomes a yellow card or ban, a quick delete post is more effective and a PM to stop with the lager. |
|
|
|
Post by townrwe on Jul 20, 2021 9:03:13 GMT 1
You are supposed to be beacon on impartiality.... your position really is untenable. Open the Admin to 10 members. The two remaining admin become super admin. Then the new 10 can moderate the site and shut down and delete conversation threads BEFORE they get too close to the wire. Problem with 3 is your putting out fires after the street has burnt down. In the past there have been as many as 8 admins, I believe. By their own admission they realised that was too many, too unwieldy, and meant it took forever to reach any decision. Surely, as well, any admin team should always be an odd number, be it 3, 5 or 7, otherwise what would happen if you had an even split over a decision? The only caveat I’d place on being an admin is that they be UK based, or at least on UK time. I think Philincalifornia admitted that time differences were problematic. You seem keen to be an admin, townrwe, in fact I think you see yourself as a “super admin” to use your terminology. Why not set up a poll to see what level of support you’d get. I think it would be enlightening….. for you, and entertaining for the rest of us. P.s if I got one vote then I'm reprentative of someone so should be in.... I'd have to run a strong campaign but I'd hope for one vote especially as i could vote for myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Jul 20, 2021 9:11:23 GMT 1
In the past there have been as many as 8 admins, I believe. By their own admission they realised that was too many, too unwieldy, and meant it took forever to reach any decision. Surely, as well, any admin team should always be an odd number, be it 3, 5 or 7, otherwise what would happen if you had an even split over a decision? The only caveat I’d place on being an admin is that they be UK based, or at least on UK time. I think Philincalifornia admitted that time differences were problematic. You seem keen to be an admin, townrwe, in fact I think you see yourself as a “super admin” to use your terminology. Why not set up a poll to see what level of support you’d get. I think it would be enlightening….. for you, and entertaining for the rest of us. P.s if I got one vote then I'm reprentative of someone so should be in.... I'd have to run a strong campaign but I'd hope for one vote especially as i could vote for myself. Unfortunately the fact you can't spell representative means youd have to ban yourself |
|
|
|
Post by townrwe on Jul 20, 2021 9:15:39 GMT 1
You are supposed to be beacon on impartiality.... your position really is untenable. Open the Admin to 10 members. The two remaining admin become super admin. Then the new 10 can moderate the site and shut down and delete conversation threads BEFORE they get too close to the wire. Problem with 3 is your putting out fires after the street has burnt down. Also, you've posted here saying we should have let Otis comments go unmoderated and are now suggesting admins delete conversations before they cross the line. Did you watch the Minority Report last night? Guessing you fell asleep before the ending. 🤡 I wouldn't have deleted that post on it's own, I haven't seen the context. It's opinion. It may have gone later if it started to explode, but if it just smoked without any flames I'd have just kept an eye on it hoping it fizzled out. |
|
|
|
Post by townrwe on Jul 20, 2021 9:23:33 GMT 1
P.s if I got one vote then I'm reprentative of someone so should be in.... I'd have to run a strong campaign but I'd hope for one vote especially as i could vote for myself. Unfortunately the fact you can't spell representative means youd have to ban yourself You're missing an apostrophe and a full stop Ted. 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by Du bist im verdammten Lettland on Jul 20, 2021 9:34:35 GMT 1
Hello all - been a while. As an ex-admin I want to make you aware of one very important thing. This is a free-to-run Proboards forum - not one person ‘owns’ it or makes money from it - it’s for the fans, always has been. However - if content of a certain persuasion is posted - then pro boards are very quick to issue a warning and/or a takedown notice. They can scuttle this entire board in a heartbeat - I’ve seen and dealt with the threats before. Worth having the context whilst you are all getting frothy at the mouth. The job SUCKS BALLS - admins deserve a medal, easy or not. And I think this (coupled with the repeated warnings detailed by Grimflake) pretty much sums up - even if (like me) you don't like the decision to remove Otium - why the admins were right to take the action they did. It makes it harder to accept because he is/was an entertaining character but also because of his health situation. If he had many healthy years ahead of him it would be perhaps less controversial. Above all though, welcome back. I doubt I'm the only one who has missed your input. Hope you stick around. |
|
|
|
Post by Du bist im verdammten Lettland on Jul 20, 2021 9:42:35 GMT 1
If townrwe became admin, the transfer rumours section would be a lot more accurate. 99.7% success rate thanks to his links to the news networks. |
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Jul 20, 2021 9:56:21 GMT 1
Unfortunately the fact you can't spell representative means youd have to ban yourself You're missing an apostrophe and a full stop Ted. 🤣 I'm in bed with grimflake in a Marxist conspiracy so rules don't apply to me |
|
|
|
Post by townrwe on Jul 20, 2021 10:03:18 GMT 1
You're missing an apostrophe and a full stop Ted. 🤣 I'm in bed with grimflake in a Marxist conspiracy so rules don't apply to me Engaging in deviant behaviour I presume..... |
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Jul 20, 2021 10:05:04 GMT 1
In a bit of an old man perspective I am appalled by a significant minority of the users of social media the rules should be there to allow reasoned discussion on pertinent subjects.
It shouldn't be s forum for anonymous keyboard warriors to cause pain and distress
Least we forget we are all on the same side having read too much shite on here I am not sure that applies
Finally it should be something you wouldn't be afraid of you mum,dad,son,or daughter reading. Deliberately excluding spouces as they are virtually impossible to please
I hope she doesnt read this 🤐
|
|
Wingman
Mental Health Support Group
Posts: 2,270
|
Post by Wingman on Jul 20, 2021 10:07:12 GMT 1
This board really is screwed if Townrwe ever becomes an Admin. Lunatic taking over the asylum comes to mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Jul 20, 2021 10:07:52 GMT 1
This board really is screwed if Townrwe ever becomes an Admin. Lunatic taking over the asylum comes to mind. Agreed I would delete my account |
|
|
|
Post by townrwe on Jul 20, 2021 10:18:38 GMT 1
This board really is screwed if Townrwe ever becomes an Admin. Lunatic taking over the asylum comes to mind. Im in no doubt that the lunatics running this would never allow me in to become chief lunatic..... Just like Labour would never let Jacob Rees-Mogg into their party.Id help with moderation if that was agreeable. You would never notice me as i'm liberal, believe strongly in freedom of speech as long as it isnt too close to the knuckle... something sadly missing in the social media snowflake generation, Its easier to be offended when you look to take the written word out of context as a default position. |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man on Jul 20, 2021 10:29:32 GMT 1
This board really is screwed if Townrwe ever becomes an Admin. Lunatic taking over the asylum comes to mind. Im in no doubt that the lunatics running this would never allow me in to become chief lunatic..... Just like Labour would never let Jacob Rees-Mogg into their party.Id help with moderation if that was agreeable. You would never notice me as i'm liberal, believe strongly in freedom of speech as long as it isnt too close to the knuckle... something sadly missing in the social media snowflake generation, Its easier to be offended when you look to take the written word out of context as a default position. Yet you've just advocated an approach of deleting threads before they break the rules. The circus must be down a member of staff today. |
|
|
|
Post by townrwe on Jul 20, 2021 10:35:20 GMT 1
Im in no doubt that the lunatics running this would never allow me in to become chief lunatic..... Just like Labour would never let Jacob Rees-Mogg into their party.Id help with moderation if that was agreeable. You would never notice me as i'm liberal, believe strongly in freedom of speech as long as it isnt too close to the knuckle... something sadly missing in the social media snowflake generation, Its easier to be offended when you look to take the written word out of context as a default position. Yet you've just advocated an approach of deleting threads before they break the rules. The circus must be down a member of staff today. Incorrect, I advocated monitoring and moderation to stop more serious breaches of rules. Its pretty rare that someone just comes out with a full blown life ban statement without any provocation or build up. As soon as it stepped over the line and flames start is the position to step in.... after the smoke but before the stadium is in ashes. If its smoking leave it. If its burning put it out. If its a burning mess..... its too late and the admin and moderation team has failed in its duty to keep this place safe, moderate and enjoyable. |
|
