Administration Forum Rules

[BackFromUSA]

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'.

Are you saying that being associated with Cairnsman is a character assassination on you?

I think that is a little harsh personally.

[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.

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........

Yes quoting is a double edged sword - it does end up exposing unwanted "foes" ... I apologise for doing that - but had to do it in order to respond. Again i apologise.

[BackFromUSA]

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.

...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......

Ahhhhh Stinger - you just did it to me ... now I have to go un-foe Cairnsman to see what other things he has written to ensure they are accurate or corrected. Sigh.

[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.
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.

Hi Cairnsman

Here are my responses to the above.

==> thanks for the voting suggestions. If we ever decide to have a vote, these are very handy suggestions.

==> Damien (Saintsational) did come onto the site around May 11 / 12 from memory (about 4 weeks ago) and conversed with some posters to assist them. He has read your posts and specifically declined the offer to converse with you directly or via the forum. As owner, he is leaving that to me. His call. He is currently in South America for the World Cup and not back until September.

==> I have told you several times that YOU can get statistics on the number of unique users (members) that log on in any 24 hour period yourself if you want them as it available in the MEMBERS tab at the top of the forum.

==> a few months ago I posted numbers in relation to user statistics in snap shots in time, as I have done recently, and I shall track these down and compile them into one summary post ... but the numbers are well up. Prior to that I did not record numbers of users BUT when I started to become involved the numbers were pathetic. I remember logging on one time to see just 6 members logged in! The numbers back then at peak times were less than 20 and at the very peak would be 30. we have come a long way.

==> we have 19 new members in 1 month. Not too bad after being out of business for new members for a year AND considering the main mechanism that I was proposing to reach out and attract new members (a website that allowed us to enter the integrated world of twitter, facebook, instagram and the like) was blocked due to your objection.

==> we now consistently have 100+ people online at peak times ... that is 100+ people online here at one time ... ANY forum would love that level of traffic and interaction

More importantly, what has been achieved is a much more civil and enjoyable footy forum where football discussion flourishes and abuse and bickering has diminished.

What is also available to those who do not like pr want this type of fan forum?

- the Animal Enclosure

- other Saints footy forums

Or anyone is welcome to start their own footy forum ... and do it their own way.

Simon

[st.byron]

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.

Great. Thanks for posting the guts of your concerns. I am unfortunately not in a position to comment on the stuff you've raised with any knowledge, because I wasn't involved.
I'm confused about the site being owned by the members. Isn't it owned by the owner and the members post here as users and members, but not as owners?
I can understand long time posters have a sense of ownership - and in that case they'd want a say in the running of the site. But they aren't actually owners.

The issues around hard earned being contributed - again I can't comment. I don't know anything about all that.

It's so much better when you post stuff like the above and get it into the open forum then we all know what your complaints are. When you wage a campaign of sniping and criticism without actually detailing as per the above, then it just comes across as a bit obsessive and persecuted.

And Cairnsman. I don't dislike you. I dislike your spamming of the reporting function and your repetitive sniping campaign. I also accept that your intentions are sound. I just reckon your method's not very effective.
I'm also not biased against you. You do have a bit of a persecution thing going on. I'll do my best to moderate to the rules and be even handed with everyone. There's no reason not to.

If you can just be up front and straight like you have been above it's all good. It's not overly emotive or snide, you're just laying out your concerns. Great. We might not agree, but at least it's out in the open and clear.

[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.

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.

OK there is only one way to respond and that is bit by bit:

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.

The accurate portrayal of this is that YOU lobbied for a constitution and I was supportive of this and asked you to draft one for consideration but nothing was forthcoming.

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.

I believe and still believe that we all have a type of ownership of Saintsational - we are given a voice to make suggestions and give feedback on rules, we all have to take ownership for our contributions and how we act and react so in essence what Saintsational becomes is based on all of our input HOWEVER the owner is Damien. He allows us to have a say in what this place is and becomes. he appoints administrators to ensure the site remains open to all and civil and sits within legal boundaries. The site has ZERO value as it is not a commercial entity nor seeks to be.

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.

This is factually incorrect on a number of levels.

1) Donations to cover hosting started during Damien's reign as administrator and it was NOT to keep the site running but to share the load as up until then Damien's dad paid

2) Damien never aborted his ownership - he handed administration duties to battye (and retained ownership) and Battye/Damien then handed administration to me on Feb 3

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.

Very hard to understand your lack of comprehension on this matter - at the time and now - they were DONATIONS which specified at the time that it gave donors no voting rights.

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.

This is your extrapolation of facts and not at all how I feel. I am not in the position of administrator because I gave more than anyone else ... I am in this position because I have been entrusted by the owner to operate the site to his wishes.

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.

I am NOT in a position to even make this happen. I do not own the site.

The way he went about taking over this site was not right.

I did not take over this site. I do not own it. I was given the role of administrator by Battye and Damien because they were happy with the moderation AND Damien backed me and appointed me AND assisted me fix the technical problems because he trusted me to take the site in the direction that he wanted. I did not ask to be the adminsitrator.

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.

There are many posters on here that can verify the existence of Damien and his ownership - an issue that you have a real problem with for some reason. I contacted Damien at your request to verify his wishes so that I was best representing his desires. He came on here, fixed the technical problems with the site and has left it to me to administer.
The very fact that he came here, fixed the issues, confirmed in writing that we had met and discussed the problems on the site etc shows his support for what I am doing as the appointed administrator. If at any time he is unhappy with what i am doing, then he has the power to remove me completely. He has definitely read your grievances.

So yeah I am having a hard time letting go of these types of issues. His behavior IMO was dishonest and misleading.

Dishonest and misleading? OK. Hmmm. So I am a liar? Is that what you are saying? Really. Are you sure? Am I offended. Yes. Have taken a screen shot of that accusation. Everything above is the truth. Distortion of facts is something that I leave to others!

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.

Why would anyone dislike you and have a bias against you? What facts do you base this on? What possible reason would St.Byron have to treat you differently to others?

He has opened the door for you to post your grievences / accusations / suggestions on the fan forum for all to see and I have offered to make it an announcement to give it prominence ... I shall happily extend the deadline for the posting it as an announcement ... to give you the greatest opportunity to get all this in the open and debated widely.

Like I previously said, you are not fit to be a mod if you continue to behave in the manner you currently are.

Yet you feel that you were perfectly qualified to be a mod? St.Byron has shown himself to be a very good moderator, although like me before I put you on foe, he is obviously frustrated by your approach to resolving issues that are of concern to you, You obviously prefer confrontation and accusation to any reasonable debate based on FACTS and reality and your inability to accept or comprehend the ownership and management structure of Saintsational is a major barrier in this whole debate. I know you are anti-me (probably just because I implement rules and will not allow abuse of members and bickering which you love so much) and so by extension you are anti any of the moderators.

I believe that the Animal Enclosure is the style of forum that you want and we have made that available for use. If you have any suggestion for that forum we are all ears.

If you are not happy with that, like others before you, you are welcome to start your own fan forum or facebook site or website.

[BackFromUSA]

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.

Great. Thanks for posting the guts of your concerns. I am unfortunately not in a position to comment on the stuff you've raised with any knowledge, because I wasn't involved.
I'm confused about the site being owned by the members. Isn't it owned by the owner and the members post here as users and members, but not as owners?
I can understand long time posters have a sense of ownership - and in that case they'd want a say in the running of the site. But they aren't actually owners.

The issues around hard earned being contributed - again I can't comment. I don't know anything about all that.

It's so much better when you post stuff like the above and get it into the open forum then we all know what your complaints are. When you wage a campaign of sniping and criticism without actually detailing as per the above, then it just comes across as a bit obsessive and persecuted.

And Cairnsman. I don't dislike you. I dislike your spamming of the reporting function and your repetitive sniping campaign. I also accept that your intentions are sound. I just reckon your method's not very effective.
I'm also not biased against you. You do have a bit of a persecution thing going on. I'll do my best to moderate to the rules and be even handed with everyone. There's no reason not to.

If you can just be up front and straight like you have been above it's all good. It's not overly emotive or snide, you're just laying out your concerns. Great. We might not agree, but at least it's out in the open and clear.

For the purposes of transparency here is a summary of the funds donated after the original fundraising event I organised covered many years of the site hosting costs:

October 2008: 36 members donated funds to help pay for monthly hosting costs

Nov / Dec 2011: 21 members donated funds to help pay for monthly hosting costs

It is interesting read as to who contributed ... and who did not contribute. I certainly did. I am not going to mention who else contributed - although i am sure it on the site in archives somewhere ...

My question to cairnsman out of pure curiousity is - has he ever posted here under another name that possibly contributed?

[plugger66]

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........

Yes quoting is a double edged sword - it does end up exposing unwanted "foes" ... I apologise for doing that - but had to do it in order to respond. Again i apologise.

So because you quoted that poster he can then call a person a %@*^. Surely we know exactly what he was calling him but it seems thats ok because you quoted him. That could lead to some interesting stuff. I might foe a few and if someone quotes them I then can have a free for all.

[Cairnsman]

==> thanks for the voting suggestions. If we ever decide to have a vote, these are very handy suggestions.


Simon

So democracy is possible.

[st.byron]

==> thanks for the voting suggestions. If we ever decide to have a vote, these are very handy suggestions.


Simon

So democracy is possible.

It seems to me that yes it's possible. But it's out of the hands of everyone but the owner of the site. It's up to him. He appoints the administrator, he sets the parameters by which it's structured. Seems very clear.

[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.

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........

Yes quoting is a double edged sword - it does end up exposing unwanted "foes" ... I apologise for doing that - but had to do it in order to respond. Again i apologise.

So because you quoted that poster he can then call a person a %@*^. Surely we know exactly what he was calling him but it seems thats ok because you quoted him. That could lead to some interesting stuff. I might foe a few and if someone quotes them I then can have a free for all.

Hi Plugger66

That is actually been referred to moderators for assessment for a warning. These days we need 2 moderators at minimum to agree to a warning (a safeguard against accusations of individual bias) and thus it takes more time than previously. The post is being assessed for breach of the abuse and / or swearing rules.

Thanks for your patience.

Simon

[Cairnsman]

==> thanks for the voting suggestions. If we ever decide to have a vote, these are very handy suggestions.


Simon

So democracy is possible.

It seems to me that yes it's possible. But it's out of the hands of everyone but the owner of the site. It's up to him. He appoints the administrator, he sets the parameters by which it's structured. Seems very clear.

Not disputing that Damien started the site. I am curious though as to what Damien's wishes were when BFUSA announced he had engaged someone to start building the Saintsational.com website. The timing of that announcement was well before his recent re-connection with Damien and subsequent confirmation of said wishes. At no point did BFUSA announce that his plans to start Saintsational.com had included discussions with Damien. BFUSA likes to claim that he aborted that plan because of my objection but don't you think that is somewhat of an interesting claim. Part of what I argued was that time and money should be directed into fixing the technical issues of the site and also trying to find a way to increase contributing members. We've made some head way but there is very little inroads made to increasing the number of contributors. If Simon had of been allowed to direct time and money into his Saintsational.com website all that would have done is signed the death of Saintsational.net.

Also Byron I do wonder about the rights of the members based on the contribution they make. IMO it is the members that give the place it's value and standing on the social media landscape, it is the members that have built it's reputation. It is for that reason that I think there is a rightful claim to some sort of partnership and share ownership between Damien and the members. Labeling members toxic and nutjobs is one thing but being dismissive of these very same members that have helped build the place is not right and offensive IMO. Damiens contribution to building the place over the past 15 years is almost zero with comparison to the members but that is not to detract from the role he has played.

Here's an interesting question for you Byron, who owns the posts that members post on S.S.?

[SENsei]

<deleted at my request>

[st.byron]

Also Byron I do wonder about the rights of the members based on the contribution they make. IMO it is the members that give the place it's value and standing on the social media landscape, it is the members that have built it's reputation. It is for that reason that I think there is a rightful claim to some sort of partnership and share ownership between Damien and the members. Labeling members toxic and nutjobs is one thing but being dismissive of these very same members that have helped build the place is not right and offensive IMO. Damiens contribution to building the place over the past 15 years is almost zero with comparison to the members but that is not to detract from the role he has played.

Here's an interesting question for you Byron, who owns the posts that members post on S.S.?

CM, I agree that it's the members who give the place it's value. Without contributions it would be nothing. I don't know anything about Damien except that he owns the domain name/site, so can't comment on any behaviour attributed to him.

"Rigthful claim to some sort of partnership and share ownership"......I agree with you in principle. But the practical reality is that the site is owned by one person. I also feel that creating a structure that would be functional for 'share ownership' would be very difficult. Can't see how that would work unless we had in person meetings such as an AGM. With everyone being anonymous and membership being purely online based without any in person attendance of any sort required, the system would be wide open to rorting and scheming and virtually impossible to police. With members spread far and wide, it wouldn't be possible for functional AGM's to occur.
The site has no monetary value, generates no income and has no commercial intent. No-one is paid, no-one makes any money. It's a purely voluntary, anonymous cyber entity - nothing more. If you or I or BFUSA or anyone else disappears tomorrow never to post again, it might be sad for the site, but there are no other consequences.
In this context I feel the idea to shift it to a more democratic approach is good in principle but troublesome in practical application.

And......bottom line is....it's owned by Damien. End of story. He can do what he wants, appoint who he wants as administrator and structure it how he wants. Great if he takes the member's wishes as the driving guidelines, but in the end it's all his call. Shifting away from that to a more democratic approach would require him to agree and a significant re-structure to occur...not impossible....but whilst Damien owns the site and is happy for it to stay as is then it's all just hypotheses without any chance of becoming reality.
And then there is the vexed question of a bunch of anonymous cyber-entities controlling and policing the rules, etiquette and functionality without it splitting off into cliques, power games and tit for tat game playing - which, given the history of the site - would be very likely. There has to be a place where the buck stops and hierarchy finishes, otherwise it would be completely unwieldy and I reckon would pretty quickly descend into factional turmoil.

Who owns the posts we post? Don't know. No-one is my immediate response. They exist in a cyber forum that is owned by one person. If anyone does, it's Damien.....interesting one.

[BackFromUSA]

==> thanks for the voting suggestions. If we ever decide to have a vote, these are very handy suggestions.


Simon

So democracy is possible.

It seems to me that yes it's possible. But it's out of the hands of everyone but the owner of the site. It's up to him. He appoints the administrator, he sets the parameters by which it's structured. Seems very clear.

Not disputing that Damien started the site. I am curious though as to what Damien's wishes were when BFUSA announced he had engaged someone to start building the Saintsational.com website. The timing of that announcement was well before his recent re-connection with Damien and subsequent confirmation of said wishes. At no point did BFUSA announce that his plans to start Saintsational.com had included discussions with Damien. BFUSA likes to claim that he aborted that plan because of my objection but don't you think that is somewhat of an interesting claim. Part of what I argued was that time and money should be directed into fixing the technical issues of the site and also trying to find a way to increase contributing members. We've made some head way but there is very little inroads made to increasing the number of contributors. If Simon had of been allowed to direct time and money into his Saintsational.com website all that would have done is signed the death of Saintsational.net.

Also Byron I do wonder about the rights of the members based on the contribution they make. IMO it is the members that give the place it's value and standing on the social media landscape, it is the members that have built it's reputation. It is for that reason that I think there is a rightful claim to some sort of partnership and share ownership between Damien and the members. Labeling members toxic and nutjobs is one thing but being dismissive of these very same members that have helped build the place is not right and offensive IMO. Damiens contribution to building the place over the past 15 years is almost zero with comparison to the members but that is not to detract from the role he has played.

Here's an interesting question for you Byron, who owns the posts that members post on S.S.?

Hi Cairnsman

I am happy to answer.

Not disputing that Damien started the site. I am curious though as to what Damien's wishes were when BFUSA announced he had engaged someone to start building the Saintsational.com website.

My contact at that time, before and after I was a moderator (at that time) were the site administrator Battye and his co-administrator HSVKing. I did not feel it was appropriate to deal directly with Damien at that stage (despite having direct access) as my suggestions were more appropriately placed with the Administration he had charged to look after Saintsational. I respected the fact that they were charged with the responsibility and I in no way circumvented that hierarchy at any time. They will testify to that.

The timing of that announcement was well before his recent re-connection with Damien and subsequent confirmation of said wishes. At no point did BFUSA announce that his plans to start Saintsational.com had included discussions with Damien.

First of all it was not an "announcement". It was a suggestion made to garner support andf feedback. I took all feedback but it was obvious to me that you would never allow it. I never claimed at the time that I had been in contact with Damien. The fact is I diod not contact Damien until I was appointed administrator and only after I had dealt with family tragedy. And as an FYI I was not starting http://www.saintsational.com as it was already owned and administered by Damien / battye AND importantly had been active previously as a website in the early days - and as a news website it was very popular and the articles written by posters were either informative or hysterical. We went to forum only format after the website could not be sustained content wise. I felt / feel that resurrecting this website format with the ability to connect to facebook / twitter etc was a great path. You disagreed passionately. I gave up.

BFUSA likes to claim that he aborted that plan because of my objection but don't you think that is somewhat of an interesting claim.

The PMs, threads and posts still existed. I am happy to open them up to full examination if you agree. Suffice to say I feel that I was hounded into submission.

Part of what I argued was that time and money should be directed into fixing the technical issues of the site and also trying to find a way to increase contributing members.

The technical issue were fixed within a month of me becoming an active moderator if you do not count the 5 - 6 weeks where I was mourning a personal loss. Even if you do count that period - it was done within 10 weeks. It is a completely different issue to "attracting new members" ... you are the one who objected to my outreach strategy. Interestingly I genuinely do not remember you ever suggesting how we could attract new members. Perhaps you can refresh my memory what your suggestions were?

We've made some head way but there is very little inroads made to increasing the number of contributors. If Simon had of been allowed to direct time and money into his Saintsational.com website all that would have done is signed the death of Saintsational.net.

I agree that we would like more contributors. I disagree that we have made "little inroads" - with 19 genuine new members in one month AND some old posters coming back into the fold - the amount and quality of footy content has improved. Sometimes quality is better than quantity. However we definitely do need to have a new member outreach program.

As for your claim that the creation of the integrated website would be the death of saintsational.net - I fail to see how. Santsational.net would remain as a forum entry and would have the added benefit of gaining traffic through the website. Anyway - if you believe it would have killed the forum then you are entitled to that opinion. I disagree.

Also Byron I do wonder about the rights of the members based on the contribution they make. IMO it is the members that give the place it's value and standing on the social media landscape, it is the members that have built it's reputation. It is for that reason that I think there is a rightful claim to some sort of partnership and share ownership between Damien and the members.

That is a very interesting point of view. I ask these questions then:

- who owns BigFooty? The users and posters?
- who owns facebook? The users and posters?
- who owns twitter? The users and posters?
- who owns instagram? The users and posters?

Labeling members toxic and nutjobs is one thing but being dismissive of these very same members that have helped build the place is not right and offensive IMO.

I am not sure if I ever called anyone a nutjob (i stand corrected if I have) ... but I definitely have referred to those that abuse and bicker as "toxic" as they were killing the site. If you were offended then I assume that you feel you were included in that group. That is for you (not I) to judge. If you are offended on their behalf, then that is extremely nice of you. Anyway we have created the Animal Enclosure to allow that style of posting to exist and flourish ... AND I have never been dismissive - I have listened to ALL sides on every issue ... just because the cards don't fall your way does not mean that I or we have been dismissive. I serve the whole community, not 1 individual.

Damiens contribution to building the place over the past 15 years is almost zero with comparison to the members but that is not to detract from the role he has played.

Now that is offensive and shows little regard for history. this place would not exist except for Damien and his father's funding of it for the first 3 or 4 years. The amount of work he put into building Saintsational was incredible. So powerful was this site that coaches and Presidents became contributors. The club and AFL was in complete awe. I don't want break confidentiality but there are stories that verify just how impressed these and other organisations were with what Damien built. If you somehow think that the contribution of posters whether talking about football or bickering among themselves is FAR GREATER than the contribution made by Damien, then you are simply wrong.

I hope that adequately answers each issue raised.

I look forward to hearing your constructive suggestions on how we can increase membership and contributions.

Personally I still believe that a news and opinion based website that allows us to integrate into facebook, twitter etc is the best way to help fans find this forum.

Simon

Simon

[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........

Yes quoting is a double edged sword - it does end up exposing unwanted "foes" ... I apologise for doing that - but had to do it in order to respond. Again i apologise.

So because you quoted that poster he can then call a person a %@*^. Surely we know exactly what he was calling him but it seems thats ok because you quoted him. That could lead to some interesting stuff. I might foe a few and if someone quotes them I then can have a free for all.

Hi Plugger66

That is actually been referred to moderators for assessment for a warning. These days we need 2 moderators at minimum to agree to a warning (a safeguard against accusations of individual bias) and thus it takes more time than previously. The post is being assessed for breach of the abuse and / or swearing rules.

Thanks for your patience.

Simon

nice to know who the dobbers are...thank you for that simon........

[plugger66]

nice to know who the dobbers are...thank you for that simon........

Wasnt dobbing Stinger. Just a little bit of consistancy. Actually never sent in a post to be looked out. The question is can you say the same about my posts. I doubt it.

[Dave McNamara]

==> thanks for the voting suggestions. If we ever decide to have a vote, these are very handy suggestions.

Simon

So democracy is possible.

It seems to me that yes it's possible. But it's out of the hands of everyone but the owner of the site. It's up to him. He appoints the administrator, he sets the parameters by which it's structured. Seems very clear.

Whoo-who, seems colours are back in favour again.


Hi Simon, as the anointed Administrator, what are your given parameters re what can be done on/done to this site?

[Dave McNamara]

Damiens contribution to building the place over the past 15 years is almost zero with comparison to the members but that is not to detract from the role he has played.

Now that is offensive and shows little regard for history. this place would not exist except for Damien and his father's funding of it for the first 3 or 4 years. The amount of work he put into building Saintsational was incredible. So powerful was this site that coaches and Presidents became contributors. The club and AFL was in complete awe. I don't want break confidentiality but there are stories that verify just how impressed these and other organisations were with what Damien built...

Personally I still believe that a news and opinion based website that allows us to integrate into facebook, twitter etc is the best way to help fans find this forum.

Hi Simon, this is all way before my time, so could you please elaborate on the bit I've highlighted in blue?

Stuff like, what actually were the (now lost?) features that created said awe, when and why were they lost, and what is stopping their reimplementation?

For example, if it's article writing...,
We have Winmar7, James Rose, SEN, Everton, Dan Warner, Borat, Loris, the ghost writer whom Pluggs sometimes uses ( ) and Roger Fox, if I remember correctly.
Then we have several other Saintsationalists who could also go to the top as journos'.
Bluthy, Nymeria, Rosputin and Wagga Saint come to mind also.
And I know of at least one other, who is maybe better known for his musicality and physicality (often at the same time )... but that's not where his talents finish...

And I'm only just scraping the surface with that hurried sample list, and wish to sincerely apologise in advance to plenty of others on here whom I know can really write.


PS: How could I forget? What every 'literary' site seems to need these days is a good shock-jock type... I don't need to name names, but suffice to say we have some who are 'top shelf'.

[Dave McNamara]

Damiens contribution to building the place over the past 15 years is almost zero with comparison to the members but that is not to detract from the role he has played.

Now that is offensive and shows little regard for history. this place would not exist except for Damien and his father's funding of it for the first 3 or 4 years. The amount of work he put into building Saintsational was incredible. So powerful was this site that coaches and Presidents became contributors. The club and AFL was in complete awe. I don't want break confidentiality but there are stories that verify just how impressed these and other organisations were with what Damien built...

Personally I still believe that a news and opinion based website that allows us to integrate into facebook, twitter etc is the best way to help fans find this forum.

Hi Simon, this is all way before my time, so could you please elaborate on the bit I've highlighted in blue?

Stuff like, what actually were the (now lost?) features that created said awe, when and why were they lost, and what is stopping their reimplementation?

For example, if it's article writing...,
We have Winmar7, James Rose, SEN, Everton, Dan Warner, Borat, Loris, the ghost writer whom Pluggs sometimes uses ( ) and Roger Fox, if I remember correctly.
Then we have several other Saintsationalists who could also go to the top as journos'.
Bluthy, Nymeria, Rosputin and Wagga Saint come to mind also.
And I know of at least one other, who is maybe better known for his musicality and physicality (often at the same time )... but that's not where his talents finish...

And I'm only just scraping the surface with that hurried sample list, and wish to sincerely apologise in advance to plenty of others on here whom I know can really write.


PS: How could I forget? What every 'literary' site seems to need these days is a good shock-jock type... I don't need to name names, but suffice to say we have some who are 'top shelf'.

PPS: How could I forget 2? The site could have its oven version of 'League Teams,' with the weekly 'ins and outs' dissected by Saintsational's own bickering 'Odd Couple'. No names needed again, but if they were simply given a time constraint to work under and some proof readers...

Better yet, if we could ever come through with Matrix's idea re video content... those two could go viral.

[stinger]

Damiens contribution to building the place over the past 15 years is almost zero with comparison to the members but that is not to detract from the role he has played.

Now that is offensive and shows little regard for history. this place would not exist except for Damien and his father's funding of it for the first 3 or 4 years. The amount of work he put into building Saintsational was incredible. So powerful was this site that coaches and Presidents became contributors. The club and AFL was in complete awe. I don't want break confidentiality but there are stories that verify just how impressed these and other organisations were with what Damien built...

Personally I still believe that a news and opinion based website that allows us to integrate into facebook, twitter etc is the best way to help fans find this forum.

Hi Simon, this is all way before my time, so could you please elaborate on the bit I've highlighted in blue?

Stuff like, what actually were the (now lost?) features that created said awe, when and why were they lost, and what is stopping their reimplementation?

For example, if it's article writing...,
We have Winmar7, James Rose, SEN, Everton, Dan Warner, Borat, Loris, the ghost writer whom Pluggs sometimes uses ( ) and Roger Fox, if I remember correctly.
Then we have several other Saintsationalists who could also go to the top as journos'.
Bluthy, Nymeria, Rosputin and Wagga Saint come to mind also.
And I know of at least one other, who is maybe better known for his musicality and physicality (often at the same time )... but that's not where his talents finish...

And I'm only just scraping the surface with that hurried sample list, and wish to sincerely apologise in advance to plenty of others on here whom I know can really write.


PS: How could I forget? What every 'literary' site seems to need these days is a good shock-jock type... I don't need to name names, but suffice to say we have some who are 'top shelf'.

ypu left me out dave...... ....i have dozens of published "works"...if you only knew where to look......

[Cairnsman]

My contact at that time, before and after I was a moderator (at that time) were the site administrator Battye and his co-administrator HSVKing. I did not feel it was appropriate to deal directly with Damien at that stage (despite having direct access) as my suggestions were more appropriately placed with the Administration he had charged to look after Saintsational. I respected the fact that they were charged with the responsibility and I in no way circumvented that hierarchy at any time. They will testify to that.


First of all it was not an "announcement". It was a suggestion made to garner support andf feedback. I took all feedback but it was obvious to me that you would never allow it. I never claimed at the time that I had been in contact with Damien. The fact is I diod not contact Damien until I was appointed administrator and only after I had dealt with family tragedy. And as an FYI I was not starting http://www.saintsational.com as it was already owned and administered by Damien / battye AND importantly had been active previously as a website in the early days - and as a news website it was very popular and the articles written by posters were either informative or hysterical. We went to forum only format after the website could not be sustained content wise. I felt / feel that resurrecting this website format with the ability to connect to facebook / twitter etc was a great path. You disagreed passionately. I gave up.

The PMs, threads and posts still existed. I am happy to open them up to full examination if you agree. Suffice to say I feel that I was hounded into submission.

I am certain that I made it clear that I was not necessarily opposed to your plans but argued that of equal importance next to the value created by the members was the sites independence from the AFL, club and any other external entities that may want to exert influence over the site. I am certain I offered the suggestion of putting something in place such as a constitution or some other mechanism that would then allow the site to deal with the AFL, club or other external entity in a way that clearly disclosed and protected said independence. I did not say we needed to avoid dealing with said external entities, just merely suggested putting in place something that protects one of the sites most valued commodities.

The technical issue were fixed within a month of me becoming an active moderator if you do not count the 5 - 6 weeks where I was mourning a personal loss. Even if you do count that period - it was done within 10 weeks. It is a completely different issue to "attracting new members" ... you are the one who objected to my outreach strategy. Interestingly I genuinely do not remember you ever suggesting how we could attract new members. Perhaps you can refresh my memory what your suggestions were?

Invite people with profiles to the site was one.

I agree that we would like more contributors. I disagree that we have made "little inroads" - with 19 genuine new members in one month AND some old posters coming back into the fold - the amount and quality of footy content has improved. Sometimes quality is better than quantity. However we definitely do need to have a new member outreach program.

As for your claim that the creation of the integrated website would be the death of saintsational.net - I fail to see how. Santsational.net would remain as a forum entry and would have the added benefit of gaining traffic through the website. Anyway - if you believe it would have killed the forum then you are entitled to that opinion. I disagree.

That claim was based on you diverting time and money away from fixing the problems with Saintsational.com first and I couldn't see the point in starting another website and not fixing the problems with SS first. I also was concerned that a commercial website with ties to the AFL/club would just trade of the SS name and build it's membership by diverting members away from SS.net, goes around a gain in circle and comes back to ownership and independence argument.

Also Byron I do wonder about the rights of the members based on the contribution they make. IMO it is the members that give the place it's value and standing on the social media landscape, it is the members that have built it's reputation. It is for that reason that I think there is a rightful claim to some sort of partnership and share ownership between Damien and the members.

That is a very interesting point of view. I ask these questions then:

- who owns BigFooty? The users and posters?
Big Interest Group
- who owns facebook? The users and posters?
Public Company
- who owns twitter? The users and posters?
Public Company
- who owns instagram? The users and posters?
Facebook.

All of these sites have T&Cs that you agree to before being granted membership. They make sure they can do whatever they like with your material once you agree to their T&Cs. Saintsational does not have the same contracts in place with its members.

I am not sure if I ever called anyone a nutjob (i stand corrected if I have) ... but I definitely have referred to those that abuse and bicker as "toxic" as they were killing the site. If you were offended then I assume that you feel you were included in that group. That is for you (not I) to judge. If you are offended on their behalf, then that is extremely nice of you. Anyway we have created the Animal Enclosure to allow that style of posting to exist and flourish ... AND I have never been dismissive - I have listened to ALL sides on every issue ... just because the cards don't fall your way does not mean that I or we have been dismissive. I serve the whole community, not 1 individual.

Now that is offensive and shows little regard for history. this place would not exist except for Damien and his father's funding of it for the first 3 or 4 years. The amount of work he put into building Saintsational was incredible. So powerful was this site that coaches and Presidents became contributors. The club and AFL was in complete awe. I don't want break confidentiality but there are stories that verify just how impressed these and other organisations were with what Damien built. If you somehow think that the contribution of posters whether talking about football or bickering among themselves is FAR GREATER than the contribution made by Damien, then you are simply wrong.

Well you could argue that because Damien took his eye of the ball that it lost its grounding. That claim also then supports my idea of bringing more people with profiles to the site to increase contributions. You know BFUSA your agenda against the toxic posters has made it sound like a class war at some stages. I fear that if you misread the situation and get so bogged down in being committing to a fatal concept then SS could be lost for good. Now it is one thing to create a life, but it is another to grow a life. SS has not grown into a 15 year old because of Damien, he may have created it, but the members helped grow it. Damien and its members should stand side by side in ownership and administration.


I hope that adequately answers each issue raised.

I look forward to hearing your constructive suggestions on how we can increase membership and contributions.

Personally I still believe that a news and opinion based website that allows us to integrate into facebook, twitter etc is the best way to help fans find this forum.

Come half way and I'll try and help you all I can and if you agree to that then that will mean offering as many constructive suggestions as I can. Now Simon I am sorry if I have not address everything above as I am really tired and still have some work to finish before lights out so better save some brain power. Having said that I will probably read this again and cover anything missed.

Simon

Simon[/quote]

[SENsei]

Is it the intention that this Administration Forum is available to be read by visitors and guests without logging in?

Any chance the dirty laundry could at least be kept in house? It's a bad enough reflection on this site as it is, without making it all public.

IMO.

[asiu]

lol.
always an eye for detail.
... shhhhhhhhhhh.

the only places you have to log in for around here
are the two places no one posts.

[asiu]

I hope that adequately answers each issue raised.

Principle of Q'uo wrote: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'.

Are you saying that being associated with Cairnsman is a character assassination on you?

I think that is a little harsh personally.

why not stop pissing in my pocket , deflecting from my question , insulting my intelligence
and just answer the bloody question.

why mention me in the context of Cairnsman ?