: Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:00 pm  

The All New Chester Wire wrote:

No he didn't. Moderating a public forum is a matter of judgement. If his let it all hang out policy was allowed to run, we'd find it even harder to get proper debate. We'd still be hearing about Chicago Rock and nasty immigrants (from different posters, I hasten to add).

However the point he makes about threads being locked because there face or topic doesn't fit is completely true, certain mods get the hump over something pathetic and start giving out banning orders i also feel one mod in particular tends to constantly wind certain posters up, on purpose it seems, when they get a reaction BANG here is you ban Mr.
We posters got told a while ago not to swear or put anything with different symbols which would represent a swear word, i agree with this and have seen people get a ban because of this, however the mods are allowed to do it? seems strange that.
We should have somebody higher keeping an eye on the mods i say.

: Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:00 pm  

getdownmonkeyman wrote:

You sign up, you accept the moderation process is in the hands of the moderators.

Simple really.

I, for one, do not envy any of them for performing a thankless task for a largely ungrateful amount of posters.

It is also pretty clear that the only people who get caught up with any issues with the Mods are trolls, or people who are challenging them.

I have very rarely seen issues where people are discussing/debating RL issues, which is surely what this board is about in the first place.

: Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:34 pm  

Why do people get bothered about moderators; what they do or why they do it?

Does it really matter. Its a rugby league forum not a matter of life and death (although I appreciate for those who tend to criticise the moderators it is probably their life).

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

: Sun Feb 15, 2009 10:13 pm  

Wires71 wrote:

It's comments like this which give moderators a bad name in my view. Moderation is supposed to be an objective process based on content and rules not subjective based on mood, antipathy, favoritism or time of the month. I often see threads removed or locked because it seems either the poster's face or topic doesnt fit, yet I scour the AUP and wonder why.

I fully understand the need to moderate thread content which contains bad language or potentially litigious views, but I would rather the "market" decide which threads should stay or go. Afterall, there are four moderators and hundreds of active posters whom make this forum a forum afterall.

In relation to the bet threads, there is enough guff on here and abosolute meaningless posting, of which the aforequoted is not impervious to critique, such that one thread on betting would not seem excessive.

how strictly do you believe that sentance 71? Should i stick to the rules adherently or use some common, as the two posts i quoted that you replied are in breach of the aup, public criticism of the moderation process.

People were complaining about the lack of moderation and control here a few weeks ago, now people are complaining cos it's being moderated.

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

: Sun Feb 15, 2009 10:14 pm  

Latchford Wolvesfan wrote:

However the point he makes about threads being locked because there face or topic doesn't fit is completely true, certain mods get the hump over something pathetic and start giving out banning orders i also feel one mod in particular tends to constantly wind certain posters up, on purpose it seems, when they get a reaction BANG here is you ban Mr.
We posters got told a while ago not to swear or put anything with different symbols which would represent a swear word, i agree with this and have seen people get a ban because of this, however the mods are allowed to do it? seems strange that.
We should have somebody higher keeping an eye on the mods i say.

If you've got an issue, feel free to take it up with one of the admin team.

I'm gonna lock this since it's got way off topic, feel free to set up a new betting thread.