Administration Forum Rules

[st.byron]

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.

POQ, I disagree with you on both of these things.

The first one is a fair call bu BFUSA. As Administrator he has the right to make a timeframe for Announcements or other 'official' threads. Cairnsman or you and anyone else is totally free to start a thread about moderation and mods at any time. In this case, in the context of Cairnsman's ongoing sniping and bitching without any actual substantiation of his accusations, it seems fair enough to me to set a timeframe for making a post an 'announcement'. 'Put up or shut up'. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. Of course, if there was a more cooperative atmosphere it might be different. If it's not forthcoming within the allotted time, which is plenty, to be an announcement, then there's unlimited time for posting your own thread or threads about moderation.

The second part of your post reads as reactive to me. I agree that there's a reminder in there of the consequences of breaking the quoted rules - and in the context of this thread that it's a reminder to Cairnsman. Again, it's fair enough. As I have made plain, IMO Cairnsman is in 'vexatious litigant' territory. Spamming the mods with spurious reports and constantly, in numerous threads, posting accusations about bias, favouritism and heavy handed-ness by BFUSA in particular and the mods in general. CM has been given the opportunity via PM to bring the issues forward and he refused. He is being asked in this thread to bring them out into the open for forum wide discussion, but when it comes to actually detailing or substantiating the accusations, nothing is forthcoming. So it seems it's just a personal agenda, driven by who knows what - and it's got to the stage where the mods have had enough. How do you propose the mods should deal with something like this? Dispute is a two way street and if one party refuses to come out of their blaming, finger pointing, accusatory corner and actually bring the issues out in the open, then how else would you deal with it?

It seems to me, that CM, yourself and possibly some others, are unhappy with BFUSA's management style. It's inevitable that significant change in rules is going to piss some people off and they're not going to like it. Seems like you're also in that boat. But it seems to me like a reaction against authority as much as anything. Just that you don't like having someone take the forum and shape it into a different place, even if it's better and more people are using it.

It's a logical conclusion for me to draw - that yourself, CM and I don't know who else are arcing up against authority as much as anything else. But IMO, the re-structure of the rules and a firmer approach to their enforcement has made the forum better. If there are genuine issues of bias and favouritism, then I'd like them to be aired and cleaned up. But the only way to do it is to have those issues clearly on the table, not via an ongoing campaign of sniping, bitching and accusations without actually bringing anything to the table when asked.

[asiu]

big post st.b

i dont know if i'm mistaken ,
but i feel as if ... in this thread ... we have made a gentlemans agreement
that i shall 'lay out my perception' of things
after
this issue with Cairnsy is / has been worked through.

but
re ... what would i propose the mods do about something like this ?

imo ... genuine , open , in public conversation conversation
is the only option.
... this as i read the current situation ,
is what U are engaged in.
... of course , an obviously , its a pity that such a low base
is the New starting point for these type of endevours around these parts now.

... which couldnt have anything to do with management style !!!
could it ?

[GrumpyOne]

Now that we've given dictatorship a fair go, any chance of democracy getting in?

[st.byron]

big post st.b

i dont know if i'm mistaken ,
but i feel as if ... in this thread ... we have made a gentlemans agreement
that i shall 'lay out my perception' of things
after
this issue with Cairnsy is / has been worked through.

but
re ... what would i propose the mods do about something like this ?

imo ... genuine , open , in public conversation conversation
is the only option.
... this as i read the current situation ,
is what U are engaged in.
... of course , an obviously , its a pity that such a low base
is the New starting point for these type of endevours around these parts now.

... which couldnt have anything to do with management style !!!
could it ?

POQ, please lay out your perception of things whenever you want to. If you feel it might move us towards more clarity or getting dirty laundry aired, then sooner rather than later would be good.
Management style is always going to piss some people off. Have never been in a work or community environment where there weren't people pissed off with management. For balance, it's good if those people can bring their grievances into the open to get reflections and opinions from others. It also gives management a chance to reflect and adjust their own behaviour.
Bottom line is if everyone involved can see past their grievances to where they might be stuck or needing to adjust your own behaviour and how they are contributing to their own dissatisfaction. Otherwise, we just end up with people standing "in their corner" pointing the finger and blaming. Self reflection from all parties is a wonderful thing.

[st.byron]

Now that we've given dictatorship a fair go, any chance of democracy getting in?

GO, this is exactly the kind of post that snipes without actually providing any substance to back it up. If you're pissed off, let's hear it. Preferably without personal abuse. Just what your beef is.

[GrumpyOne]

Now that we've given dictatorship a fair go, any chance of democracy getting in?

GO, this is exactly the kind of post that snipes without actually providing any substance to back it up. If you're pissed off, let's hear it. Preferably without personal abuse. Just what your beef is.

Ok... My beef is that this forum is run like a self-appointed junta with no input from it's posters, especially the long-standing ones.

The opinion of the few is foisted on the many with the justification that it is the wish of the "Silent Majority", which by the way, still remain incredibly silent.

You asked for it, now give me my warning. I've dared to question the almighty.

[plugger66]

Is this place that important that we carry on like kids. Its just abit of fun surely.

[st.byron]

Now that we've given dictatorship a fair go, any chance of democracy getting in?

GO, this is exactly the kind of post that snipes without actually providing any substance to back it up. If you're pissed off, let's hear it. Preferably without personal abuse. Just what your beef is.

Ok... My beef is that this forum is run like a self-appointed junta with no input from it's posters, especially the long-standing ones.

The opinion of the few is foisted on the many with the justification that it is the wish of the "Silent Majority", which by the way, still remain incredibly silent.

You asked for it, now give me my warning. I've dared to question the almighty.

Great GO. That's a start. Thanks. Don't reckon you should be worried about a warning. Your opinion is welcome whether it's agreed with or not. I'm sure we're all big enough to hear what each other think. So long as it doesn't descend into personal abuse. Bring it on. Let's get it out in the open.

[st.byron]

Is this place that important that we carry on like kids. Its just abit of fun surely.

No Plugger it's not in the scheme of things. It's an anonymous internet forum. But....... it's important enough for me to want to contribute by being a mod and important enough for you to contribute every day. So to me that means trying to iron out whatever crap surfaces that might hinder the functioning and growth of the forum.

[BackFromUSA]

Now that we've given dictatorship a fair go, any chance of democracy getting in?

GO, this is exactly the kind of post that snipes without actually providing any substance to back it up. If you're pissed off, let's hear it. Preferably without personal abuse. Just what your beef is.

Ok... My beef is that this forum is run like a self-appointed junta with no input from it's posters, especially the long-standing ones.

The opinion of the few is foisted on the many with the justification that it is the wish of the "Silent Majority", which by the way, still remain incredibly silent.

You asked for it, now give me my warning. I've dared to question the almighty.

Hi GO

Thanks for your honesty. A few key points in response.

1) I am not self appointed. I was appointed as a mod originally and then on February 3 this year I was given the admin role by battye, who had previously held it since being appointed by Damien who started and owns this site. Since then I have met with Damien, confirmed his wishes for the site and have his blessing. He can remove me at any time.

2) As for input, I have sought input on every issue. The post remain in the Admin forum and you can see the forum discussion. Granted some inout was via PM but the majority of the conversations and discussion is there for all to see. Whilst we have maintained the original rules, the changes reflect the owner's desires, community input, legal requirements and circumstantial clarifications BUT do not differe greatly in spirit to the original set of rules.

3) I can strongly argue that the silent majority are far from silent. The fact is that there are 3 times as many posters visiting this site compared to almost one year ago and double as many visitors than the start of the season. The reduction in abuse and mindless and stupid bickering which distracted from footy talk has led to more readers and visitation.

As for a warning - you don't get a warning for disagreeing with what I have done. You are entitled to disagree. We always welcome input and discussion. There is no rule breach here at all. We moderate to the rules. Pure and simple.

Simon

[GrumpyOne]

Hi GO

Thanks for your honesty. A few key points in response.

1) I am not self appointed. I was appointed as a mod originally and then on February 3 this year I was given the admin role by battye, who had previously held it since being appointed by Damien who started and owns this site. Since then I have met with Damien, confirmed his wishes for the site and have his blessing. He can remove me at any time.

Perhaps self-appointed is the wrong term in reflection. Divine right of succession is probably more appropriate. I was however reflection on the method of selecting Mods. There was strict conditions on nomination and they had to met your approval. As nearly every long-standing poster has had to defend themselves against a certain trolling poster, those actions disqualified themselves from the position.

2) As for input, I have sought input on every issue. The post remain in the Admin forum and you can see the forum discussion. Granted some inout was via PM but the majority of the conversations and discussion is there for all to see. Whilst we have maintained the original rules, the changes reflect the owner's desires, community input, legal requirements and circumstantial clarifications BUT do not differe greatly in spirit to the original set of rules.

Were there any items of input that were accepted? Or was it like when the Government seeks public opinion, solely so they can say that they did, and still do what they intended to do all along?

3) I can strongly argue that the silent majority are far from silent. The fact is that there are 3 times as many posters visiting this site compared to almost one year ago and double as many visitors than the start of the season. The reduction in abuse and mindless and stupid bickering which distracted from footy talk has led to more readers and visitation.

I think this has a lot to do with the muzzling of a certain obnoxious trolling poster, for which you and the Mods deserve credit. Also the fact that for a long period of time, nobody could register to post. It's pretty boring just reading and not being able to respond.

As for a warning - you don't get a warning for disagreeing with what I have done. You are entitled to disagree. We always welcome input and discussion. There is no rule breach here at all. We moderate to the rules. Pure and simple.

Simon

My suggestion for the site would be to bring in an optional membership system, where each member pays a fee to cover the hosting costs. This membership would entitle the holder to vote on rules and mods etc. People who decide not to take up the membership still have full access to the site, they just don't have a part of the decision making process. In other words, democracy.

Regards,

G.O.

[asiu]

3) I can strongly argue that the silent majority are far from silent. The fact is that there are 3 times as many posters visiting this site compared to almost one year ago and double as many visitors than the start of the season. The reduction in abuse and mindless and stupid bickering which distracted from footy talk has led to more readers and visitation.

U could argue that.
... common sense tells everybody else
that before a year ago
the doors had been locked to new members for eons
'n the Fan Forum could only be accessed by logged in members.

how do those two actions ,
begged for by other posters way before u turned up with your big stick
somehow make u the saviour of the Silent Majority ?

is this the humour forum ?

[BackFromUSA]

Hi GO

Thanks for your honesty. A few key points in response.

1) I am not self appointed. I was appointed as a mod originally and then on February 3 this year I was given the admin role by battye, who had previously held it since being appointed by Damien who started and owns this site. Since then I have met with Damien, confirmed his wishes for the site and have his blessing. He can remove me at any time.

Perhaps self-appointed is the wrong term in reflection. Divine right of succession is probably more appropriate. I was however reflection on the method of selecting Mods. There was strict conditions on nomination and they had to met your approval. As nearly every long-standing poster has had to defend themselves against a certain trolling poster, those actions disqualified themselves from the position.

==> fair comment re the selection criteria but the good news is we had several willing candidates to moderate given the new rules, increased protection for moderators and a better (not perfect) implementation of the rules. A far cry from the days when mods were quitting due to abuse and being hounded and nobody wanted to moderate.

2) As for input, I have sought input on every issue. The post remain in the Admin forum and you can see the forum discussion. Granted some inout was via PM but the majority of the conversations and discussion is there for all to see. Whilst we have maintained the original rules, the changes reflect the owner's desires, community input, legal requirements and circumstantial clarifications BUT do not differe greatly in spirit to the original set of rules.

Were there any items of input that were accepted? Or was it like when the Government seeks public opinion, solely so they can say that they did, and still do what they intended to do all along?

==> there are several examples in the new rules where the rules were adjusted with community input and do not reflect my personal opinion. One example is the current swearing rule. It allows swearing and certain words in certain conditions. I am against the C word in any context or condition but it is allowed as there was a significant portion of the community that wanted the swear filter to decide appropriate or not and allow it to mask the swearing. I personally strongly disagree with this.

3) I can strongly argue that the silent majority are far from silent. The fact is that there are 3 times as many posters visiting this site compared to almost one year ago and double as many visitors than the start of the season. The reduction in abuse and mindless and stupid bickering which distracted from footy talk has led to more readers and visitation.

I think this has a lot to do with the muzzling of a certain obnoxious trolling poster, for which you and the Mods deserve credit. Also the fact that for a long period of time, nobody could register to post. It's pretty boring just reading and not being able to respond.

==> it is a combination of things. The increase in unique visitors per day and the number of people online at nights etc mostly reflects the combination of changes made - the rules, the moderation, the fixing of new membership but we have only had about 10-20 genuine new members, the upgrade in software and some technical adjustments.

As for a warning - you don't get a warning for disagreeing with what I have done. You are entitled to disagree. We always welcome input and discussion. There is no rule breach here at all. We moderate to the rules. Pure and simple.

Simon

My suggestion for the site would be to bring in an optional membership system, where each member pays a fee to cover the hosting costs. This membership would entitle the holder to vote on rules and mods etc. People who decide not to take up the membership still have full access to the site, they just don't have a part of the decision making process. In other words, democracy.

==> this system has been proposed before and ultimately rejected because this system gives an advantage to those more financially capable than others - for an example say Poster A was wealthy and could afford to buy numerous memberships to gain control of the vote - he / she could easily do so by setting up dozens or hundreds of free email accounts / registering on Saintsational then become a member for each identity and win the vote. The ONLY way to have a democracy is to have a one person / one vote system and this would require people to attend an AGM to vote in person and this would disadvantage interstate members. Proxies would also not be allowed because of the multiple identity issue. But all of this is a mute point as the site has an owner and it has survived for 15+ years under the current ownership model. Having said that - each and every issue regarding rule changes has been open to discussion since I have been involved as admin (February this year) with draft rules / community consultation and then finalization of the rules. The discussions etc are here in admin forum as a matter of record too.

[BackFromUSA]

3) I can strongly argue that the silent majority are far from silent. The fact is that there are 3 times as many posters visiting this site compared to almost one year ago and double as many visitors than the start of the season. The reduction in abuse and mindless and stupid bickering which distracted from footy talk has led to more readers and visitation.

U could argue that.
... common sense tells everybody else
that before a year ago
the doors had been locked to new members for eons
'n the Fan Forum could only be accessed by logged in members.

how do those two actions ,
begged for by other posters way before u turned up with your big stick
somehow make u the saviour of the Silent Majority ?

is this the humour forum ?

New members were unable to register only from July 10 2013 until recently as you know.

Since members were able to register we have only had 10-20 genuine new members.

I shall take some time to explain the numbers and what they mean - but the increases I am outlining are based on daily unique visitation by members and across the board online activity at nights and these have increased in essentially equal proportion in terms or registered; hidden and guests ... For example right now at Sunday lunchtime:

In total there are 75 users online :: 20 registered, 7 hidden and 48 guests

20 registered users are online and signed in to their account from the IP address they registered on

7 hidden users are online from an IP address that was used to register a member but that member has not logged in

48 guests is a combination of:
- readers who have never registered as a member
- members who have registered but have not signed in and are viewing from an IP address other than the one used to originally register as a member e.g. They registered at work (one IP) and viewing from home (a different unrecognized IP) or from their mobile phone (another different unrecognized IP) or from a hotel room while on holidays or away on business (yet another a different unrecognized IP)

As you have clearly indicated I have no sense of humour - so how could my original statement be a joke?

That isn't logical. I like to deal in logic.

I hope that this clears up any confusion for you, Cairnsman and your friend "confusious" backtothechinacafe from Germany.

[GrumpyOne]

this system has been proposed before and ultimately rejected because this system gives an advantage to those more financially capable than others - for an example say Poster A was wealthy and could afford to buy numerous memberships to gain control of the vote - he / she could easily do so by setting up dozens or hundreds of free email accounts / registering on Saintsational then become a member for each identity and win the vote.

BFUSA, you have posted this as if it is my quote by having my signature at the end.

Please correct that.

But to get on to the subject, don't you have a system to catch out multiple nicks? Or is this post the recipe for everybody to successfully register many alternate nicks?

Have you checked all the new members to see if this very practise is in use?

Might explain the increase in membership

[asiu]

get off your high horse.

are u insinuating something about my relationship with
'Confuscious' that u'd like to bring out into the open ?

[asiu]

what does my exchange with u
have to do with Cairnsman.

why mention it.
... are u attempting to paint a character assination on my good self
by utilising the name of a poster u have on ignore ,
have publically proclaimed to be a trouble maker
that u have disrespected via pm and your public posts.

why mention me in the context of Cairnsman ?

or did u forget that slippery word 'friend'.

[Cairnsman]

Isn't belittling a poster a breach of rules? Gee I would have thought that you had to be above that type of behavior as the sites administrator/head of moderation.

[Cairnsman]

Hi GO

Thanks for your honesty. A few key points in response.

1) I am not self appointed. I was appointed as a mod originally and then on February 3 this year I was given the admin role by battye, who had previously held it since being appointed by Damien who started and owns this site. Since then I have met with Damien, confirmed his wishes for the site and have his blessing. He can remove me at any time.

Perhaps self-appointed is the wrong term in reflection. Divine right of succession is probably more appropriate. I was however reflection on the method of selecting Mods. There was strict conditions on nomination and they had to met your approval. As nearly every long-standing poster has had to defend themselves against a certain trolling poster, those actions disqualified themselves from the position.

==> fair comment re the selection criteria but the good news is we had several willing candidates to moderate given the new rules, increased protection for moderators and a better (not perfect) implementation of the rules. A far cry from the days when mods were quitting due to abuse and being hounded and nobody wanted to moderate.

2) As for input, I have sought input on every issue. The post remain in the Admin forum and you can see the forum discussion. Granted some inout was via PM but the majority of the conversations and discussion is there for all to see. Whilst we have maintained the original rules, the changes reflect the owner's desires, community input, legal requirements and circumstantial clarifications BUT do not differe greatly in spirit to the original set of rules.

Were there any items of input that were accepted? Or was it like when the Government seeks public opinion, solely so they can say that they did, and still do what they intended to do all along?

==> there are several examples in the new rules where the rules were adjusted with community input and do not reflect my personal opinion. One example is the current swearing rule. It allows swearing and certain words in certain conditions. I am against the C word in any context or condition but it is allowed as there was a significant portion of the community that wanted the swear filter to decide appropriate or not and allow it to mask the swearing. I personally strongly disagree with this.

3) I can strongly argue that the silent majority are far from silent. The fact is that there are 3 times as many posters visiting this site compared to almost one year ago and double as many visitors than the start of the season. The reduction in abuse and mindless and stupid bickering which distracted from footy talk has led to more readers and visitation.

I think this has a lot to do with the muzzling of a certain obnoxious trolling poster, for which you and the Mods deserve credit. Also the fact that for a long period of time, nobody could register to post. It's pretty boring just reading and not being able to respond.

==> it is a combination of things. The increase in unique visitors per day and the number of people online at nights etc mostly reflects the combination of changes made - the rules, the moderation, the fixing of new membership but we have only had about 10-20 genuine new members, the upgrade in software and some technical adjustments.

As for a warning - you don't get a warning for disagreeing with what I have done. You are entitled to disagree. We always welcome input and discussion. There is no rule breach here at all. We moderate to the rules. Pure and simple.

Simon

My suggestion for the site would be to bring in an optional membership system, where each member pays a fee to cover the hosting costs. This membership would entitle the holder to vote on rules and mods etc. People who decide not to take up the membership still have full access to the site, they just don't have a part of the decision making process. In other words, democracy.

==> this system has been proposed before and ultimately rejected because this system gives an advantage to those more financially capable than others - for an example say Poster A was wealthy and could afford to buy numerous memberships to gain control of the vote - he / she could easily do so by setting up dozens or hundreds of free email accounts / registering on Saintsational then become a member for each identity and win the vote. The ONLY way to have a democracy is to have a one person / one vote system and this would require people to attend an AGM to vote in person and this would disadvantage interstate members. Proxies would also not be allowed because of the multiple identity issue. But all of this is a mute point as the site has an owner and it has survived for 15+ years under the current ownership model. Having said that - each and every issue regarding rule changes has been open to discussion since I have been involved as admin (February this year) with draft rules / community consultation and then finalization of the rules. The discussions etc are here in admin forum as a matter of record too.
Regards,

G.O.

I'm going to suggest it again. If you had a voting system that was similar to our match day voting system then the counting would be very transparent and if you wanted to add extra integrity you could probably make it that only posters with a minimum number of posts or years of membership could have a voting right. Maybe for extra integrity in the system if the voting was close and within an close tolerance of integrity then maybe you could roll the vote up to a second tier voting system say longer time voters who's identity has been validated. There are so many ways to skin this cat and for the life of me I can't see a reason not to trial something until a workable and secure system is devised. Democracy, can't have it without a voting system.

And for the record you didn't bring the mysterious Damien into view, well sought of view, well into the discussion on ownership and administration. You never made a visible attempt to invite him into an open discussion.

Also for the record you have never been able to provide statistics from past years for comparison with your recently presented statistics. Whilst these statistics now present a baseline from only as far back as a month ago I would suggest that what they do tell us is that we have not improved the number of registered posters contributing to the site and that was one of the original problems identified.

[Cairnsman]

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.

POQ, I disagree with you on both of these things.

The first one is a fair call bu BFUSA. As Administrator he has the right to make a timeframe for Announcements or other 'official' threads. Cairnsman or you and anyone else is totally free to start a thread about moderation and mods at any time. In this case, in the context of Cairnsman's ongoing sniping and bitching without any actual substantiation of his accusations, it seems fair enough to me to set a timeframe for making a post an 'announcement'. 'Put up or shut up'. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. Of course, if there was a more cooperative atmosphere it might be different. If it's not forthcoming within the allotted time, which is plenty, to be an announcement, then there's unlimited time for posting your own thread or threads about moderation.

The second part of your post reads as reactive to me. I agree that there's a reminder in there of the consequences of breaking the quoted rules - and in the context of this thread that it's a reminder to Cairnsman. Again, it's fair enough. As I have made plain, IMO Cairnsman is in 'vexatious litigant' territory. Spamming the mods with spurious reports and constantly, in numerous threads, posting accusations about bias, favouritism and heavy handed-ness by BFUSA in particular and the mods in general. CM has been given the opportunity via PM to bring the issues forward and he refused. He is being asked in this thread to bring them out into the open for forum wide discussion, but when it comes to actually detailing or substantiating the accusations, nothing is forthcoming. So it seems it's just a personal agenda, driven by who knows what - and it's got to the stage where the mods have had enough. How do you propose the mods should deal with something like this? Dispute is a two way street and if one party refuses to come out of their blaming, finger pointing, accusatory corner and actually bring the issues out in the open, then how else would you deal with it?

It seems to me, that CM, yourself and possibly some others, are unhappy with BFUSA's management style. It's inevitable that significant change in rules is going to piss some people off and they're not going to like it. Seems like you're also in that boat. But it seems to me like a reaction against authority as much as anything. Just that you don't like having someone take the forum and shape it into a different place, even if it's better and more people are using it.

It's a logical conclusion for me to draw - that yourself, CM and I don't know who else are arcing up against authority as much as anything else. But IMO, the re-structure of the rules and a firmer approach to their enforcement has made the forum better. If there are genuine issues of bias and favouritism, then I'd like them to be aired and cleaned up. But the only way to do it is to have those issues clearly on the table, not via an ongoing campaign of sniping, bitching and accusations without actually bringing anything to the table when asked.

Right in the beginning of our discussion about the site ownership and administration, BFUSA and myself discussed a constitution or something to that effect that would declare that the site is owned by the members and that the site always remain independent and be protected from external entities trying to shut down or influence how the sight was run. Initially it seemed BFUSA was supportive of the idea and for whatever reason all of a sudden backed away from the idea. He is on the record as saying he agreed that the site is owned by the members and again he changed his mind and decided otherwise. I would be certain that BFUSA understands that it is the long time members of this site that have given it its value and place on the social media landscape. Some of these same members donated their own money to keep the site running when Damien aborted his ownership and proper running of the site. It was then quite offensive for BFUSA to recently suggest that the donations made were not enough for him to accept them as voting members of the site. And his offensive suggestions that because he shouted a bit of grub and throws around his hard earned somehow makes his love for the site and club so much more significant than others.

BFUSA' refusal to make any attempt to formally make the site owned and operated by it's members and give them voting rights is not right. The way he went about taking over this site was not right. To conveniently wheel in the invisible Damien in the 11th hour and claim that BFUSA is now only carrying out the wishes of Damien is just plain offensive and contemptuous. To not acknowledge the value that the long time posters have contributed to SS is even more offensive and contemptuous. So yeah I am having a hard time letting go of these types of issues. His behavior IMO was dishonest and misleading.

So you are so wrong with your accusation, finger pointing and ascertains which I believe only stem from your dislike for me and your obvious bias against me. Like I previously said, you are not fit to be a mod if you continue to behave in the manner you currently are.

[stinger]

Hi GO

Thanks for your honesty. A few key points in response.

1) I am not self appointed. I was appointed as a mod originally and then on February 3 this year I was given the admin role by battye, who had previously held it since being appointed by Damien who started and owns this site. Since then I have met with Damien, confirmed his wishes for the site and have his blessing. He can remove me at any time.

Perhaps self-appointed is the wrong term in reflection. Divine right of succession is probably more appropriate. I was however reflection on the method of selecting Mods. There was strict conditions on nomination and they had to met your approval. As nearly every long-standing poster has had to defend themselves against a certain trolling poster, those actions disqualified themselves from the position.

==> fair comment re the selection criteria but the good news is we had several willing candidates to moderate given the new rules, increased protection for moderators and a better (not perfect) implementation of the rules. A far cry from the days when mods were quitting due to abuse and being hounded and nobody wanted to moderate.

2) As for input, I have sought input on every issue. The post remain in the Admin forum and you can see the forum discussion. Granted some inout was via PM but the majority of the conversations and discussion is there for all to see. Whilst we have maintained the original rules, the changes reflect the owner's desires, community input, legal requirements and circumstantial clarifications BUT do not differe greatly in spirit to the original set of rules.

Were there any items of input that were accepted? Or was it like when the Government seeks public opinion, solely so they can say that they did, and still do what they intended to do all along?

==> there are several examples in the new rules where the rules were adjusted with community input and do not reflect my personal opinion. One example is the current swearing rule. It allows swearing and certain words in certain conditions. I am against the C word in any context or condition but it is allowed as there was a significant portion of the community that wanted the swear filter to decide appropriate or not and allow it to mask the swearing. I personally strongly disagree with this.

3) I can strongly argue that the silent majority are far from silent. The fact is that there are 3 times as many posters visiting this site compared to almost one year ago and double as many visitors than the start of the season. The reduction in abuse and mindless and stupid bickering which distracted from footy talk has led to more readers and visitation.

I think this has a lot to do with the muzzling of a certain obnoxious trolling poster, for which you and the Mods deserve credit. Also the fact that for a long period of time, nobody could register to post. It's pretty boring just reading and not being able to respond.

==> it is a combination of things. The increase in unique visitors per day and the number of people online at nights etc mostly reflects the combination of changes made - the rules, the moderation, the fixing of new membership but we have only had about 10-20 genuine new members, the upgrade in software and some technical adjustments.

As for a warning - you don't get a warning for disagreeing with what I have done. You are entitled to disagree. We always welcome input and discussion. There is no rule breach here at all. We moderate to the rules. Pure and simple.

Simon

My suggestion for the site would be to bring in an optional membership system, where each member pays a fee to cover the hosting costs. This membership would entitle the holder to vote on rules and mods etc. People who decide not to take up the membership still have full access to the site, they just don't have a part of the decision making process. In other words, democracy.

==> this system has been proposed before and ultimately rejected because this system gives an advantage to those more financially capable than others - for an example say Poster A was wealthy and could afford to buy numerous memberships to gain control of the vote - he / she could easily do so by setting up dozens or hundreds of free email accounts / registering on Saintsational then become a member for each identity and win the vote. The ONLY way to have a democracy is to have a one person / one vote system and this would require people to attend an AGM to vote in person and this would disadvantage interstate members. Proxies would also not be allowed because of the multiple identity issue. But all of this is a mute point as the site has an owner and it has survived for 15+ years under the current ownership model. Having said that - each and every issue regarding rule changes has been open to discussion since I have been involved as admin (February this year) with draft rules / community consultation and then finalization of the rules. The discussions etc are here in admin forum as a matter of record too.

i don't read that particular poster's posts but seeing you have put it up in colour i want to record my objections to lies being posted against me........muzzle me...you would have to be joking you $%&@ .........i would say more but some posters one should just ignore and not react to..........fancy a would be bully having the hide to blame me for his unsuitability for higher office on this forum....now i have read it all..... leave it up to you simon...but some posters should never be quoted especially when they are putting s*** on a fellow poster....


...by the way...i have no objection to how this forum is being run or moderated...whether i count as part of the silent majority or not, i wouldn't hazard a guess...but my advice to you simon...is stop giving these dissidents air.........they have been carrying on like this for years........

<warning for abuse>

[stinger]

[quote="Cairnsman"]



Right in the beginning of our discussion about the site ownership and administration, BFUSA and myself discussed a constitution or something to that effect that would declare that the site is owned by the members and that the site always remain independent and be protected from external entities trying to shut down or influence how the sight was run.[quote]


...that's just plain rubbish cairnsman.........this site has never been owned by the members and it never will be.............i have as much interest...if not more than you...in this site.......and i'm happy for things to stay the same as they have always been.....you and your fellow agitators are just that.....agitators...spoilers....and are becoming a right royal pain in the bum........you should always remember that you are judged by the company you keep...and your present supporters are on the nose..........give it a rest ffs......

[GrumpyOne]

Hi GO

Thanks for your honesty. A few key points in response.

1) I am not self appointed. I was appointed as a mod originally and then on February 3 this year I was given the admin role by battye, who had previously held it since being appointed by Damien who started and owns this site. Since then I have met with Damien, confirmed his wishes for the site and have his blessing. He can remove me at any time.

Perhaps self-appointed is the wrong term in reflection. Divine right of succession is probably more appropriate. I was however reflection on the method of selecting Mods. There was strict conditions on nomination and they had to met your approval. As nearly every long-standing poster has had to defend themselves against a certain trolling poster, those actions disqualified themselves from the position.

==> fair comment re the selection criteria but the good news is we had several willing candidates to moderate given the new rules, increased protection for moderators and a better (not perfect) implementation of the rules. A far cry from the days when mods were quitting due to abuse and being hounded and nobody wanted to moderate.

2) As for input, I have sought input on every issue. The post remain in the Admin forum and you can see the forum discussion. Granted some inout was via PM but the majority of the conversations and discussion is there for all to see. Whilst we have maintained the original rules, the changes reflect the owner's desires, community input, legal requirements and circumstantial clarifications BUT do not differe greatly in spirit to the original set of rules.

Were there any items of input that were accepted? Or was it like when the Government seeks public opinion, solely so they can say that they did, and still do what they intended to do all along?

==> there are several examples in the new rules where the rules were adjusted with community input and do not reflect my personal opinion. One example is the current swearing rule. It allows swearing and certain words in certain conditions. I am against the C word in any context or condition but it is allowed as there was a significant portion of the community that wanted the swear filter to decide appropriate or not and allow it to mask the swearing. I personally strongly disagree with this.

3) I can strongly argue that the silent majority are far from silent. The fact is that there are 3 times as many posters visiting this site compared to almost one year ago and double as many visitors than the start of the season. The reduction in abuse and mindless and stupid bickering which distracted from footy talk has led to more readers and visitation.

I think this has a lot to do with the muzzling of a certain obnoxious trolling poster, for which you and the Mods deserve credit. Also the fact that for a long period of time, nobody could register to post. It's pretty boring just reading and not being able to respond.

==> it is a combination of things. The increase in unique visitors per day and the number of people online at nights etc mostly reflects the combination of changes made - the rules, the moderation, the fixing of new membership but we have only had about 10-20 genuine new members, the upgrade in software and some technical adjustments.

As for a warning - you don't get a warning for disagreeing with what I have done. You are entitled to disagree. We always welcome input and discussion. There is no rule breach here at all. We moderate to the rules. Pure and simple.

Simon

My suggestion for the site would be to bring in an optional membership system, where each member pays a fee to cover the hosting costs. This membership would entitle the holder to vote on rules and mods etc. People who decide not to take up the membership still have full access to the site, they just don't have a part of the decision making process. In other words, democracy.

==> this system has been proposed before and ultimately rejected because this system gives an advantage to those more financially capable than others - for an example say Poster A was wealthy and could afford to buy numerous memberships to gain control of the vote - he / she could easily do so by setting up dozens or hundreds of free email accounts / registering on Saintsational then become a member for each identity and win the vote. The ONLY way to have a democracy is to have a one person / one vote system and this would require people to attend an AGM to vote in person and this would disadvantage interstate members. Proxies would also not be allowed because of the multiple identity issue. But all of this is a mute point as the site has an owner and it has survived for 15+ years under the current ownership model. Having said that - each and every issue regarding rule changes has been open to discussion since I have been involved as admin (February this year) with draft rules / community consultation and then finalization of the rules. The discussions etc are here in admin forum as a matter of record too.

i don't read that particular poster's posts but seeing you have put it up in colour i want to record my objections to lies being posted against me........muzzle me...you would have to be joking you $%&@ .........i would say more but some posters one should just ignore and not react to..........fancy a would be bully having the hide to blame me for his unsuitability for higher office on this forum....now i have read it all..... leave it up to you simon...but some posters should never be quoted especially when they are putting s*** on a fellow poster....

Why do you think I was referring to you Stinger?

I did not mention any names or leave hints in my post about who I was referring to.

Anyhow, If the cap fits.......

[BackFromUSA]

this system has been proposed before and ultimately rejected because this system gives an advantage to those more financially capable than others - for an example say Poster A was wealthy and could afford to buy numerous memberships to gain control of the vote - he / she could easily do so by setting up dozens or hundreds of free email accounts / registering on Saintsational then become a member for each identity and win the vote.

BFUSA, you have posted this as if it is my quote by having my signature at the end.

Please correct that.

==> apologies for that - the perils of posting using a mobile phone and on the run ... fixed now

But to get on to the subject, don't you have a system to catch out multiple nicks? Or is this post the recipe for everybody to successfully register many alternate nicks?

==> we do have mechanisms to catch out multiple nicks, but the process is time consuming as we are holding ourselves to a high standard before pulling any trigger on them because we believe the penalty is very severe and we only want to use it when we are 100% sure. We are also working on a few things to make it even harder to create them.

Have you checked all the new members to see if this very practise is in use?

==> yes. we have 19 new genuine members in just under one month since the mechanism was repaired. one test member account (to see if it was working) and one mber who created a new entity and asked for their old entity to be deleted and one new member that is probably in breach of the multiple nick rule and is being monitored for now.

Might explain the increase in membership

[BackFromUSA]

get off your high horse.

are u insinuating something about my relationship with
'Confuscious' that u'd like to bring out into the open ?

I must be confused I thought that you must be friends with BackfromtheChinacafe ... because you find them funny, brilliant and they have your respect and admiration.

This is what gave me that impression. Perhaps I misread it? This is what you wrote:

by Principle of Q'uo » 08 Jun 2014, 01:54

Bwhahahahaha

Love your work Confuscious.

Ancient Aliens has nothing on U
at this time of night.

How very funny 'n Omnisciently brilliant U are.

My Respect & Admiration.