Administration Forum Rules

[stinger]

And another thing, I wonder how Simon and his "silent majority" would feel if one of the players committed suicide because of constantly being abused and teased about his level of intellect. Surely they would be liable under the cyber bullying laws for allowing third party abuse. Granted it's an extreme example but a plausible one.

I just reckon it is a complete contradiction to take a hard line on poster versus poster type abuse and not poster versus 3rd party abuse. Moreover I don't think the cyber bullying laws make the same distinction Simon and his silent majority do.

give it a rest mate... no one is interested in your private war/vendetta against simon ..and it is giving me the irrates....take it to pms ffs.....

[st.byron]

So there can be repeated and incessant abuse of 3rd parties including claiming someone should be shot but as soon as you tell someone to stick something where the sun don't shine you are accused of breaking the cyber bulling laws...right. That makes complete sense.

That's the situation. The distinction is drawn between abuse directly to or at another poster who is a known entity on the forum, even though we are all anonymous - and a 3rd party who may be a publicly known figure but is not known to be a member of or read the forum.

So calling Eddie Maguire or James Hird or Clint Jones a &#%$*&@&* c*** is ok but calling me or another poster on the forum the same thing is not.
That's how it stands at the moment. There was a third party abuse thread put up primarily at your request Cairnsman. The forum was asked about 3rd party abuse and there were various opinions posted. Without a clear consensus for change, the staus quo remains. If a consensus for change is there, then it can be changed.

The thing is CM, I don't believe you actually give a s*** one way or the other about third party abuse. You didn't when you asked for the 3rd party abuse thread to be put up either. Your agenda is scoring points at BFUSA's expense in any way you possibly can. Lately you seem happy to broaden your scope of attack to "BFUSA's silent majority", whoever that includes, and the moderators in general. If you have ongoing issues with the site rules and moderation, instead of your ongoing sniping about it, why not start your own threads about it and ask for the input of all forum members? Then we can have all this out in the open if there is indeed a significant appetite for moderation change or significant dissatisfaction. And if there isn't, then it will be clear that your personal beefs are just that - personal - and they don't reflect the views of the broader forum.

[Cairnsman]

So there can be repeated and incessant abuse of 3rd parties including claiming someone should be shot but as soon as you tell someone to stick something where the sun don't shine you are accused of breaking the cyber bulling laws...right. That makes complete sense.

That's the situation. The distinction is drawn between abuse directly to or at another poster who is a known entity on the forum, even though we are all anonymous - and a 3rd party who may be a publicly known figure but is not known to be a member of or read the forum.

So calling Eddie Maguire or James Hird or Clint Jones a &#%$*&@&* c*** is ok but calling me or another poster on the forum the same thing is not.
That's how it stands at the moment. There was a third party abuse thread put up primarily at your request Cairnsman. The forum was asked about 3rd party abuse and there were various opinions posted. Without a clear consensus for change, the staus quo remains. If a consensus for change is there, then it can be changed.

The thing is CM, I don't believe you actually give a s*** one way or the other about third party abuse. You didn't when you asked for the 3rd party abuse thread to be put up either. Your agenda is scoring points at BFUSA's expense in any way you possibly can. Lately you seem happy to broaden your scope of attack to "BFUSA's silent majority", whoever that includes, and the moderators in general. If you have ongoing issues with the site rules and moderation, instead of your ongoing sniping about it, why not start your own threads about it and ask for the input of all forum members? Then we can have all this out in the open if there is indeed a significant appetite for moderation change or significant dissatisfaction. And if there isn't, then it will be clear that your personal beefs are just that - personal - and they don't reflect the views of the broader forum.

Clint jones has repeated and incessant abuse directed at him, some of which is incredibly derogatory and degrading and absolutely complies with the definition of cyber bullying under current laws. Can you point out to me how the law doesn't apply because you asume he or any of his family and friends don't read social media.

[st.byron]

Got to say it publicly now Cairnsman, that the mods are heartily sick and tired of your ongoing trouble making. Like an adolescent who can't get his own way and wont let it go. Your sniping and bitching. Your spamming the mods with copious ridiculous reports with zero substance. Enough already. A reminder for you that we're all volunteers here. Doing it for the benefit of the forum as a whole.
Do you think I want to spend my Sunday morning dealing with 10 post reports you've made that are all baseless?

You're obsessed with your own personal agenda against Simon and the new moderation policies and you're manipulating the system to keep on making your point, all the while not having the nuts to put up or shut up to the rest of the forum.

If there's an issue, then put it forward for everyone to hear and talk about it. Start your own thread/s about it. Go right ahead. Please. We'll put it as a sticky at the top of the forum. Let's get all this out into the open shall we and enough already of the sniping and bitching about what exactly?
Then we'll find out if it's actually a real issue or if it's just your personal beefs. And if it is your personal beefs, then how about engaging in a bit of self-reflection instead of the continual and relentless finger pointing.
Had. Enough.

[Cairnsman]

Got to say it publicly now Cairnsman, that the mods are heartily sick and tired of your ongoing trouble making. Like an adolescent who can't get his own way and wont let it go. Your sniping and bitching. Your spamming the mods with copious ridiculous reports with zero substance. Enough already. A reminder for you that we're all volunteers here. Doing it for the benefit of the forum as a whole.
Do you think I want to spend my Sunday morning dealing with 10 post reports you've made that are all baseless?

You're obsessed with your own personal agenda against Simon and the new moderation policies and you're manipulating the system to keep on making your point, all the while not having the nuts to put up or shut up to the rest of the forum.

If there's an issue, then put it forward for everyone to hear and talk about it. Start your own thread/s about it. Go right ahead. Please. We'll put it as a sticky at the top of the forum. Let's get all this out into the open shall we and enough already of the sniping and bitching about what exactly?
Then we'll find out if it's actually a real issue or if it's just your personal beefs. And if it is your personal beefs, then how about engaging in a bit of self-reflection instead of the continual and relentless finger pointing.
Had. Enough.

I am engaging in a public discussion and you are being abusive and breaking forum rules. Are you going to give yourself a warning?

Now back on topic, can you tell me where the cyberbullying laws make the distinction you do regarding sanctioned cyberbullying?

[asiu]

i'm most suprised U are willing to play to that gambit st.byron
... but you have , 'n i thank you .

does your boss agree with what u wrote ?
... not that it really matters ... i have little respect for his twisted ideology , thinking 'n methodologies anyway

once cairnsman has finished with his issue 'n stinger with his little hobbie horse post fest i shall reply .
... but its a long weekend up here

so enjoy this ... like i'm gunna ... but live

[st.byron]

[
I am engaging in a public discussion and you are being abusive and breaking forum rules. Are you going to give yourself a warning?

Now back on topic, can you tell me where the cyberbullying laws make the distinction you do regarding sanctioned cyberbullying?

Cairnsman, I've totally had enough of this nonsense. Dressing up your obsession as 'public discussion' or 'concern about 3rd party abuse' or whatever else it's convenient for you to call it at the time.

Back on topic....Lol....the topic for you is your obsession with BFUSA and whatever it is you perceive to be the issues around the way the rules have been changed.
I tried to have a civil discussion about it with you to find out what your actual issues are, but when it got to the point of you fronting up to detail them and also to take some responsibility for your own part in the dispute, you just went, "nah, I don't like that bit, talk to the hand". That way you don't have to be responsible and can keep on pointing the finger and sniping instead of moving towards resolution.

How about putting up a thread in the forum yourself, outlining your beefs and gauging how much support there is for whatever your beefs are? If there's support for it, then changes can be made. If not, then you can own it for own stuff.

[st.byron]

i'm most suprised U are willing to play to that gambit st.byron
... but you have , 'n i thank you .

does your boss agree with what u wrote ?
... not that it really matters ... i have little respect for his twisted ideology , thinking 'n methodologies anyway

once cairnsman has finished with his issue 'n stinger with his little hobbie horse post fest i shall reply .
... but its a long weekend up here

so enjoy this ... like i'm gunna ... but live

Wrote it off my own bat. But I can tell you for a fact that all the mods are over Cairnsman's ongoing obsession.
Surprised I'm putting this out there? Yep me too. But enough already with the 'behind closed doors' and secret bitching going on via PM and the reporting function.

Look, I've put my hand up to be a mod because I like the site without the abuse and I want to support that. The numbers of readers and posters are up and that would seem to be the proof in the pudding that the new rules are attracting more posters.

I want to do a good job as a mod and part of that is giving regular time to 'modding' and being on the forum. In doing that I've stepped into having to deal with Cairnsman carrying on with his 'issues' without being willing in any way to look at this own part in the situation or even to detail exactly what his beefs are.
FFS, let's have it out in the open shall we? And deal with it and move on one way or another. CM does not though seem interested in doing that.

So yep my frustration has spilled over. This is a voluntary position. I do other voluntary work as well and it doesn't involve dealing with this kind of adolescent nonsense. I remember when BFUSA put Cairnsman on ignore and there was consternation expressed. I too wondered if that was bit extreme, a mod putting someone on ignore. You know, I totally get why he did that. And I'm tired of all this ongoing crap being secret and not known.

I don't need to have my time taken up by having to deal with for example, getting up in the morning and seeing 10 reports made in 20 minutes, all made by the same poster, none of which have any foundation and all of which demonstrate that poster is using the reporting function to push an agenda rather than having any concern about the actual posts. They've trolled through the forum looking for anything they might be able to report just for the sake of it. Immature much?
Each report requires the mods to assess it, which means looking at the relevant posts, consult between them which takes time and then send PM's to the relevant posters. That process x 10 for no purpose = extremely annoying.

So that's where I'm up to. As per my previous post. Had. Enough.

[Cairnsman]

[
I am engaging in a public discussion and you are being abusive and breaking forum rules. Are you going to give yourself a warning?

Now back on topic, can you tell me where the cyberbullying laws make the distinction you do regarding sanctioned cyberbullying?

Cairnsman, I've totally had enough of this nonsense. Dressing up your obsession as 'public discussion' or 'concern about 3rd party abuse' or whatever else it's convenient for you to call it at the time.

Back on topic....Lol....the topic for you is your obsession with BFUSA and whatever it is you perceive to be the issues around the way the rules have been changed.
I tried to have a civil discussion about it with you to find out what your actual issues are, but when it got to the point of you fronting up to detail them and also to take some responsibility for your own part in the dispute, you just went, "nah, I don't like that bit, talk to the hand". That way you don't have to be responsible and can keep on pointing the finger and sniping instead of moving towards resolution.

How about putting up a thread in the forum yourself, outlining your beefs and gauging how much support there is for whatever your beefs are? If there's support for it, then changes can be made. If not, then you can own it for own stuff.

Isn't it ironic that you claim the "talk to the hand" card. So many times BFUSA and yourself have put up the "talk to the hand" card when you are asked the questions you don't like or want to answer.

And what happened to fair and unbiased moderation and BFUSA's claim that moderators will only moderate the post and not the poster. All I see is the complete opposite from you Byron. You abused me and you divulged personal information from a PM in the forum but you conveniently ignore that and refuse to give yourself a warning.

I take it that you suspect your distinction on the cyberbullying laws is baseless and wouldn't hold water if put to the test legally.

I am posting in a thread in a way that is compliant with the rules, can you do the same and try and discuss the topic rather than have a go at me.

[asiu]

Did u look at my link ?
... a mate of mine.
That'll be your stress overload fixed.
(definately after 3 listens anyways)


I will take up your invitation ... to lay it all out there.
...it'll be a big post ... but the 'behind the scenes' way of the current messiah
only serves him 'n his agenda ... so i'm glad to see you promoting the Aussie way
'n not some right wing 1950's American 'I know what you need' approach to leadership
here in little ol Australia , with its quaint but authentic CULTURAL norms.

[stinger]

Me thinks a couple of posters in this thread are obsessed if not...well you know...unbalanced....

[st.byron]

Isn't it ironic that you claim the "talk to the hand" card. So many times BFUSA and yourself have put up the "talk to the hand" card when you are asked the questions you don't like or want to answer.

And what happened to fair and unbiased moderation and BFUSA's claim that moderators will only moderate the post and not the poster. All I see is the complete opposite from you Byron. You abused me and you divulged personal information from a PM in the forum but you conveniently ignore that and refuse to give yourself a warning.

I take it that you suspect your distinction on the cyberbullying laws is baseless and wouldn't hold water if put to the test legally.

I am posting in a thread in a way that is compliant with the rules, can you do the same and try and discuss the topic rather than have a go at me.

You're making stuff up. I've put the "talk to the hand" card up. Um nope. I invited you to express fully and thoroughly your issues and to try and make some headway with them. That's where it ended for you and you shut up shop. Why? Because there's nothing of actual substance that you have a beef with? You just want to keep fighting?
What are the actual issues Cairnsman? Let's have em out there. Put up a thread yourself and let's have em discussed. But FFS enough of this ongoing finger pointing, blaming, accusations of bias and going round in a circle with it.

Re divulging PM contents. Yep I posted that we discussed having a 3rd party abuse thread. Technically I'm wrong and the other mods can go ahead and warn me on that. The truth is you didn't ask for that thread to be put up. I suggested it and you agreed it would be a good idea. I didn't realise at the time that for you it was just another vehicle for your fight. You actually don't care about 3rd party abuse. You just used it as another way to keep the fight going.

Re being a mod and having a go at you. Someone needs to have a go at you CM. In public. Enough of the PM's and secrets already. The forum should know, for anyone who gives a stuff - and I suspect it's not too many, that your ongoing obsession is a total pain for the mods and we're over it. We're not getting ongoing bashing from anyone else and as PM's and any other way of trying to deal with you have only ended at a stop sign, maybe this way we can actually get it in the open and move on.

[Cairnsman]

Isn't it ironic that you claim the "talk to the hand" card. So many times BFUSA and yourself have put up the "talk to the hand" card when you are asked the questions you don't like or want to answer.

And what happened to fair and unbiased moderation and BFUSA's claim that moderators will only moderate the post and not the poster. All I see is the complete opposite from you Byron. You abused me and you divulged personal information from a PM in the forum but you conveniently ignore that and refuse to give yourself a warning.

I take it that you suspect your distinction on the cyberbullying laws is baseless and wouldn't hold water if put to the test legally.

I am posting in a thread in a way that is compliant with the rules, can you do the same and try and discuss the topic rather than have a go at me.

You're making stuff up. I've put the "talk to the hand" card up. Um nope. I invited you to express fully and thoroughly your issues and to try and make some headway with them. That's where it ended for you and you shut up shop. Why? Because there's nothing of actual substance that you have a beef with? You just want to keep fighting?
What are the actual issues Cairnsman? Let's have em out there. Put up a thread yourself and let's have em discussed. But FFS enough of this ongoing finger pointing, blaming, accusations of bias and going round in a circle with it.

Re divulging PM contents. Yep I posted that we discussed having a 3rd party abuse thread. Technically I'm wrong and the other mods can go ahead and warn me on that. The truth is you didn't ask for that thread to be put up. I suggested it and you agreed it would be a good idea. I didn't realise at the time that for you it was just another vehicle for your fight. You actually don't care about 3rd party abuse. You just used it as another way to keep the fight going.

Re being a mod and having a go at you. Someone needs to have a go at you CM. In public. Enough of the PM's and secrets already. The forum should know, for anyone who gives a stuff - and I suspect it's not too many, that your ongoing obsession is a total pain for the mods and we're over it. We're not getting ongoing bashing from anyone else and as PM's and any other way of trying to deal with you have only ended at a stop sign, maybe this way we can actually get it in the open and move on.

I don't think you are fit to be a mod but that is just my opinion based on Simons strict selection criteria which I am certain you have broken many times and that is only since you became a mod and doesn't take into account the conflict you cleary have with other posters also. That stuff about PMs is distorted crap. You should apologize and while you're at it try and explain the distinction you make in cyber bullying laws.

[st.byron]

I don't think you are fit to be a mod but that is just my opinion based on Simons strict selection criteria which I am certain you have broken many times and that is only since you became a mod and doesn't take into account the conflict you cleary have with other posters also. That stuff about PMs is distorted crap. You should apologize and while you're at it try and explain the distinction you make in cyber bullying laws.

You mean this bit ?

"The distinction is drawn between abuse directly to or at another poster who is a known entity on the forum, even though we are all anonymous - and a 3rd party who may be a publicly known figure but is not known to be a member of or read the forum."

That's the way the forum operates with regard to 3rd party abuse as I understand it.
Now then. Let's have that thread of yours up so everyone can have their say on moderation and those who moderate.

[BackFromUSA]

Hi all

Interesting day of posting.

Cairnsman - you have accused St.Byron of "abusing" you. I fail to see where he has used any abusive terms at all. He has argued with you. He has accused you of acts and failing to act, but at no time, that I can see, has he abused you. Can you kindly point out the words of abuse?

Cairnsman - you have accused St.Byron of posting your PM to him in this thread. I also cannot find where a breach has occurred.

A clarification regarding rules that may be helpful to all so I am pasting the actual rule here so the wording can be reviewed and understood:

PRIVACY POLICY

Do not post private details of other posters in the public forums of this Fan Forum, nor post your own private details. It is not appropriate to post private messages in public on Saintsational Forums.

Breach will result in an official Saintsational warning.

==> So Cairnsman has accused St.Byron of posting a private message of his in this thread. I am sorry but not being privy to the PMs between them, I cannot spot it. Where is this PM published??? If this is about St.Byron posting that Cairnsman requesting open forum discussion on 3rd party abuse and agreeing to it being an open thread, then this is NOT a breach of the above rule because it is NOT actually posting the private message itself. It does reference the issue raised in the PMs although I cannot understand Cairnsman's concern that this be exposed publicly given his very real concern for the issue and how passionately he fought for the eradication of 3rd party abuse in that open thread when it was opened to debate ... oh just a second .. did he? Must go and check. Surely he did? Right. The good thing out of it is that we are more aware of what needs to be done when unreasonable 3rd party abuse occurs and we are thankful for that.

And to clarify, 3rd party abuse on a forum does not qualify under cyber bullying legislation as unlike twitter, facebook and other social media sites it does not pop up in feeds, via hash tags etc so UNLESS that 3rd party is directly reading the forum (in which case they are no longer a 3rd party but a member) then the abuse they receive is not covered by the cyber-bullying laws. I stress this DOES change if that party IS a known reader (and they can make themselves known and even communicate with the administrators privately via e-mail in order for us to act of their behalf) or member and our rules then cover member abuse. Also friends and family reading the forum does not qualify under cyber-bullying legislation as the intermediary party has the ability to filter the transmission of abuse.

Now - while I was looking for the rule re PRIVACY ... I also found these two rules. Interesting rules really.

SPAMMING POLICY

Do not spam the forum board with multiple posts designed to disrupt the harmony of the board.

Such disruption may be eligible for an official Saintsational warning / a one month ban, or account deletion by the moderators. The ban will be decided upon by the administrators in this instance.

TROLL POLICY

“Trolls” are defined as posters who have the only goal to create friction and anger in our community.

Any poster, who has the sole aim to create friction and anger in our community may be eligible for an official Saintsational warning / a one month ban, or account deletion by the administrators.

These are EXTREMELY interesting rules.

St.Byron - you seem extremely frustrated at the moment. Would you like to review the above rules and see if any of these may be of assistance to your angst?

Cairnsman - if you want to take ALL your issues to the open forum to gain support for your propositions - NOW is the time - post them in the Fan Forum and I shall make it an announcement as a one time offer. You can gain the community feedback. Post these by Monday 9/6/14 before 11.59pm. It is put up or shut up time.

Simon

[Cairnsman]

Hi All,

On the 19 May Byron and myself engaged in a private discussion regarding the incessant, repeated, derogatory and degrading abuse of Clint Jones that also included a threat towards him. The following was a post to Byron from that discussion:

I am sorry Byron but I totally disagree and I am not questioning the moderation, I am questioning the rules then I suppose that allow a poster to say the following about anyone whether they be a poster or non poster.

The bloke must have learning difficulties or is plain stupid


In the real world this bloke would have been taken out the back and shot years ago.



These types of statements are what cause abuse and bickering amongst posters especially one in particular. It just doesn't make sense to have rules that protect people that can at least have a right of reply on this site but Clint Jones cannot defend himself against these types of gutless attacks and IMO posters will react to this in a way that breaches rules and subsequently make moderating difficult. I'm all for rules and moderation but all BFUSA has done is to try and plug some holes that suit his agenda but are not consistent and clearly do not protect non members. IMO we should be allowed to challenge Redeemer in the same way the rules allow him to make gutless attacks on players. IMO I should be allowed to say to Redeemer "I should be allowed to take you out the back and shoot you for making a comment like that".

So sorry Byron I disagree strongly that I should be allowed to suggest someone should be "shot". I mean BFUSA has even highlighted the bullying cyber laws which does not discriminate the way our rules do. So you are completely wrong Byron. It should be outlawed if you are going to be fair dinkum.

Now what I would like to make clear is I never requested for the topic to be discussed in the forum. Byron's response to my above PM was the following:

CM, I've just forwarded your suggestion and my response to the other mods and will wait to hear back from them. If it takes a little time, don't think it's not being considered.
With there now being five mods and two of us being 'newbies' there are some procedural, technical and organisational things we need to sort out amongst ourselves so everyone is easily across all the issues.
You can imagine that with five mods, if everyone is engaged in discussions like the two of us currently are, there's a lot of traffic going back and forth and the mods panel is just in the process of setting up a centralised place where we can all access all the traffic going back and forth. Transparency like that will also serve as a check and balance mechanism within the mods panel.

So I'll come back to you as soon as I can.

cheers

Byron

Now the point I would like to stress is that I did not request the 3rd Party abuse thread. Byron assumed I requested the 3rd Party Abuse thread, most likely due to his bias but all I thought we were engaging in at that stage was discussion via PMs. It is a lie to suggest I specifically requested that 3rd Party Abuse thread be started. BFUSA posted his 3rd Party Abuse thread on the 21st May. If I was to put up a thread on 3rd Party abuse it would have been written without the bias that BFUSA demonstrates in his OP and subsequent posts on the subject. So to summarise, I took offense to the 3rd Party Abuse thread being created and in the particular the way it was created and saw it as an attempt to vilify myself, hence I refrained as much as I could from entering into the the thread and when it appeared Byron was frustrated by that I even explained to him that I did not want to give BFUSA a free kick. What it looked like to me was that BFUSA and Byron just wanted to drag me out into the open and kick me around a bit when all we were doing was engaging in a civil PM discussion.

BFUSA we must be reading different laws on cyberbullying. I do not see, read or interpret the same distinction you are making, maybe you can quote the act/law/clause(s) that support your claims.

BFUSA I could highlight other examples of how Byron has breached the PM and reporting rule but I won't bother because I know you will just treat them with the usual contempt that the grey areas of your rules allow.

In passing I find it interesting that more time can be spent defending such disgusting behavior towards our players yet as soon as someone breaches a pathetic swear filter rule or doesn't quote properly a warning is slapped down or threatened. Interesting. BTW, I'm looking forward to seeing how the spamming and trolling strategy is rolled out.

[st.byron]

Cairnsman, did you read what I wrote?

A few posts back I wrote,
"Re divulging PM contents. Yep I posted that we discussed having a 3rd party abuse thread. ............ The truth is you didn't ask for that thread to be put up. I suggested it and you agreed it would be a good idea."

So yep you're right. You didn't specifically ask for that thread. I suggested it and you said it would be a good idea.


You also wrote,
"BFUSA I could highlight other examples of how Byron has breached the PM and reporting rule but I won't bother because I know you will just treat them with the usual contempt that the grey areas of your rules allow."

Cairnsman, this is EXACTLY the kind of stuff from you that I'm asking you to substantiate. You do the same thing with BFUSA. Lots of accusations of bias and implications of 'secret' knowledge that you have but when it comes to the point of actual substantiation with evidence, you don't front up. You evade. You claim any response will be biased. You finger point. But you don't provide anything of substance.
Please go right ahead and tell us in full how I've breached the PM and reporting rule. If I've stuffed up then I'll be happy to acknowledge and own it. Let's hear it and get it out of the realm of your 'secret' knowledge that we're all supposed to take notice of and trust even though you wont tell us what it is. Like BFUSA said, put up or shut up.

[asiu]

Point of Order.
... from where in these sacred bloody rules that the Messiah makes up as he
goes along does he grant himself the right to start laying down the law
on dates and times to post by ?
... he has a history with this sort of bullying behaviour.

Point of Order.
... the Messiahs introduction of the Spamming and Trolling sections of his post
are inflammitory & threatening.
... and blatently attempting to lead st.bryron away from the
'Spirit' of the conversation he 'n Cairnsman are participating in.

Shameful behaviour by Simon ,
... yet again.

[Cairnsman]

Cairnsman, did you read what I wrote?

A few posts back I wrote,
"Re divulging PM contents. Yep I posted that we discussed having a 3rd party abuse thread. ............ The truth is you didn't ask for that thread to be put up. I suggested it and you agreed it would be a good idea."

So yep you're right. You didn't specifically ask for that thread. I suggested it and you said it would be a good idea.


You also wrote,
"BFUSA I could highlight other examples of how Byron has breached the PM and reporting rule but I won't bother because I know you will just treat them with the usual contempt that the grey areas of your rules allow."

Cairnsman, this is EXACTLY the kind of stuff from you that I'm asking you to substantiate. You do the same thing with BFUSA. Lots of accusations of bias and implications of 'secret' knowledge that you have but when it comes to the point of actual substantiation with evidence, you don't front up. You evade. You claim any response will be biased. You finger point. But you don't provide anything of substance.
Please go right ahead and tell us in full how I've breached the PM and reporting rule. If I've stuffed up then I'll be happy to acknowledge and own it. Let's hear it and get it out of the realm of your 'secret' knowledge that we're all supposed to take notice of and trust even though you wont tell us what it is. Like BFUSA said, put up or shut up.

Thanks for admitting you were wrong and I assume you agree that the way BFUSA presented the thread was biased.

Look we could go on and not get far with all this too an fro so I'm happy to agree to disagree however what I think we should continue to discuss is the wider issue of the cyber bullying laws as I think they go beyond what you and BFUSA think is appropriate especially considering the public discussion going on outside of SS.

I am looking forward to BFUSA's response regarding my query on the cyberbullying acts, laws, clauses he is referencing to support his claims/stance. My understanding does not include the same distinction. I also think there is the question of whether we think it is acceptable to run a player/person into the ground just because they don't specifically have the abuse addressed to them via an email, facebook or twitter account. To argue that suggests that the person on the receiving end of the attack, will not eventually come accross the attack. Imagine if Clint Jones had kids that come across the attacks, isn't that just as bad.

[BackFromUSA]

Point of Order.
... from where in these sacred bloody rules that the Messiah makes up as he
goes along does he grant himself the right to start laying down the law
on dates and times to post by ?
... he has a history with this sort of bullying behaviour.

Point of Order.
... the Messiahs introduction of the Spamming and Trolling sections of his post
are inflammitory & threatening.
... and blatently attempting to lead st.bryron away from the
'Spirit' of the conversation he 'n Cairnsman are participating in.

Shameful behaviour by Simon ,
... yet again.

The only conversation held here is one of adgitation and then frustration in response. There is no actual real complaint being presented by Cairnsman and his questions have been answered by st.byron - just not the answers that Cairnsman wants to suit his sub agenda - whilst his real agenda appears to be to simply make moderation and administration extremely difficult because the rules are not to his liking for the type of forum he individually wants. We have the Animal Enclosure available to suit his need.

As for your first point of order - I can set any deadline I like in terms making it an announcement - he can post a normal thread whenever Cairnsman likes. More people will see it as an announcement. The deadline is for an announcement as clearly stated.

And in terms of the rules - no threats - just a reminder of the rules and if st.byron believes that Cairnsman's behaviour is solely motivated to disrupt the community then he has the right to report it and feels that the posts are either spamming or trolling behaviour then he can report that behaviour - the rules are there and I am reminding everyone of the rules.

I also remind all that 3 of 5 moderators will need to vote on implementing these rules but interesting it is an administrator that needs to decide the level of punishment.

As for shame. I have NO reason to feel shame. I am here to implement the rules that exist and I believe that the current moderation team are doing an excellent job. Perfect - no. But it cannot be 100% perfect. Ever. The shame should be felt by rule breakers in general as they break the rules forcing us to issue warnings and bans. we dont want to do that. I am sure courts dont want to hand out fines and jail terms but if they dont then people who break the laws of the land will continue to escalate such behaviour to the detriment of society. Shame should also be felt by posters who make our life as volunteers hell for no good reason other than they want a different style of forum to what the rest of the community wants. Instead we as a mod and admin team feel PRIDE because we are now getting 90-120 users online at night midweek and weekends TRIPLE a year ago. DOUBLE what it was at the seasons start. People love the reduced bickering on the fan forum and voting with their presence online.

[st.byron]

So Cairnsman, when it comes to being directly challenged to put up or shut up, there's nothing there? You want to go back to being reasonable and having intelligent discussions about cyber-bullying. Your accusations of bias and mods breaking rules remain unsubstantiated and under the surface but you might wheel them out again when it suits you?

You've been asked in this thread by both BFUSA and I to substantiate and get out in the open your beefs, issues and concerns for all to read and respond to. It would be welcome. Let's have it.

[BackFromUSA]

Cairnsman, did you read what I wrote?

A few posts back I wrote,
"Re divulging PM contents. Yep I posted that we discussed having a 3rd party abuse thread. ............ The truth is you didn't ask for that thread to be put up. I suggested it and you agreed it would be a good idea."

So yep you're right. You didn't specifically ask for that thread. I suggested it and you said it would be a good idea.


You also wrote,
"BFUSA I could highlight other examples of how Byron has breached the PM and reporting rule but I won't bother because I know you will just treat them with the usual contempt that the grey areas of your rules allow."

Cairnsman, this is EXACTLY the kind of stuff from you that I'm asking you to substantiate. You do the same thing with BFUSA. Lots of accusations of bias and implications of 'secret' knowledge that you have but when it comes to the point of actual substantiation with evidence, you don't front up. You evade. You claim any response will be biased. You finger point. But you don't provide anything of substance.
Please go right ahead and tell us in full how I've breached the PM and reporting rule. If I've stuffed up then I'll be happy to acknowledge and own it. Let's hear it and get it out of the realm of your 'secret' knowledge that we're all supposed to take notice of and trust even though you wont tell us what it is. Like BFUSA said, put up or shut up.

Thanks for admitting you were wrong and I assume you agree that the way BFUSA presented the thread was biased.

Look we could go on and not get far with all this too an fro so I'm happy to agree to disagree however what I think we should continue to discuss is the wider issue of the cyber bullying laws as I think they go beyond what you and BFUSA think is appropriate especially considering the public discussion going on outside of SS.

I am looking forward to BFUSA's response regarding my query on the cyberbullying acts, laws, clauses he is referencing to support his claims/stance. My understanding does not include the same distinction. I also think there is the question of whether we think it is acceptable to run a player/person into the ground just because they don't specifically have the abuse addressed to them via an email, facebook or twitter account. To argue that suggests that the person on the receiving end of the attack, will not eventually come accross the attack. Imagine if Clint Jones had kids that come across the attacks, isn't that just as bad.

Cairnsman

Please outline how the thread was biased? And by the wording of the opening post of the 3rd Party Thread was crafted with the input and agreement of the moderation group. To point the finger at me individually is incorrect in fact.

As for the cyber bullying laws - we have answered your question based on our reading of the law and the advice that we have been given. Can you PLEASE point out to us the exact part of the legislation or any of the summary documents / opinion pieces / examples and commentary available online that in your reading leads you to believe that cyber bullying of Clint Jones (or anyone else) exists and we shall not only take legal advice and if advised and if necessary report the cyber bullying to the police as required by law.

You claim that Clint Jones has been subjected to ongoing abuse. I know one severe case. Please demonstrate to us where there are other examples. Can't kick / Can't handball / should be dropped do not qualify!

Very intersting scenario re players kids reading negative comments and abuse and I shall seek legal advice.

[st.byron]

Cairnsman, anything to put up to substantiate your accusations and issues?

[asiu]

Point of Order was called on 'your' behaviour.
... though yet again ... U get to serve up dispute resolution
on your own behaviour.

Seems like a major flaw to me.

Should we be thinking on the issue/s involved with the most obvious
need for some Independance in the Chair.


.... copping another dose of position propaganda after
a few lines arguing your side of the Point of Order
makes me feel like i'm dealing with Bronwyn Bishop.

... a leader of men takes responsibility ,
shouldering the concerns of all his flock
not proclaiming that 'some' of his subjects should be the 'ones' feeling the shame.

[stinger]

to me there is a simple solution to all this ....people not happy with the site are free to leave it........

...and don't let the door hit ya where god spit ya on the way out.....