Banning of Principle of Q'uo

[stinger]

some posters need to build a bridge

[plugger66]

They were picked based on the criteria set by one person, if you didn't fit neatly into how that person sees the world then you weren't suitable. It's how most regimes operate.

This.

So they should have been picked how?

Popular vote, but I know you will never accept that concept, so don't bother arguing.

I dont accept it because it makes no sense. So just for example i apply and because it seems people either like or hate me I am picked because those who like say he would be good. Well i wouldnt be good because i am one ban away from never being back on here. I would have thought that a popular vote would have got SB and Kosi as mods anyway. And how does it work. Do people apply or do we just vote for anyone we feel like?

[HitTheBoundary]

some posters need to build a bridge

I think a robust discussion of any bans that take place can only be healthy for the site in the long term.

As BM thought, no courage of your convictions. Report the posts otherwise you will be seen for what you are. Which is a showpony taking potshots from the sidelines.

And you are so smart to work out they were BM's post considering BM challenged you to report them.

Blowtorch to the belly and you show your true colours. Take them to the mods and let them decide.

Whatever. lol. Despite your efforts otherwise, this thread isn't about you.
If you can't comprehend my point why debate it with you?
I've stated my viewpoint openly. Why would I need the mods to confirm my own view? Not everyone hides behind anonymous reporting...

Anyway, back on topic....
The mods are who they are. Anyone will have a specific point of view. Bias of some sort is inevitable no matter who the mods are, which is why open discussion and explanations of decisions made are important.
But out of interest, why were those particular posts of POQ's noticed by the mods?
Were they reported?

[GrumpyOne]

They were picked based on the criteria set by one person, if you didn't fit neatly into how that person sees the world then you weren't suitable. It's how most regimes operate.

This.

So they should have been picked how?

Popular vote, but I know you will never accept that concept, so don't bother arguing.

I dont accept it because it makes no sense. So just for example i apply and because it seems people either like or hate me I am picked because those who like say he would be good. Well i wouldnt be good because i am one ban away from never being back on here. I would have thought that a popular vote would have got SB and Kosi as mods anyway. And how does it work. Do people apply or do we just vote for anyone we feel like?

I was right.

[plugger66]

They were picked based on the criteria set by one person, if you didn't fit neatly into how that person sees the world then you weren't suitable. It's how most regimes operate.

This.

So they should have been picked how?

Popular vote, but I know you will never accept that concept, so don't bother arguing.

I dont accept it because it makes no sense. So just for example i apply and because it seems people either like or hate me I am picked because those who like say he would be good. Well i wouldnt be good because i am one ban away from never being back on here. I would have thought that a popular vote would have got SB and Kosi as mods anyway. And how does it work. Do people apply or do we just vote for anyone we feel like?

I was right.

No you werent. Im not not arguing, im telling you why it makes no sense. Anyway good luck with that. It may eventually happen but not in the next 10 years. Just dont be upset for that long as its only only a fun fan forum.

[HitTheBoundary]

when I was banned the last time. got 3 warnings whilst I was asleep.

There's something very wrong, but also very funny about that.

[plugger66]

when I was banned the last time. got 3 warnings whilst I was asleep.

There's something very wrong, but also very funny about that.

I dont sleep anymore in case the same thing happens. Its killing me.

[st.byron]

Is it not fact that the current Mod team applied for the positions because they were sick of certain posting styles, does that not make them biased against the posters who's posting style they dislike?

Do the grey areas of the rules, some of which were specifically rushed in by BFUSA, facilitate the targeting of said posters labelled as the "toxic posters"

Ironically this thread is littered with said "Toxic Posters".

Inconsistency is probably more of a problem than it ever has been and the new cleansing program is killing the place IMO.

I put my hand up because I like the site better without personal abuse. I'd drifted away a bit when there was a lot of abuse and slagging off going on. I liked the changes that led to a lot less abuse and wanted to support that.
Since becoming a mod, there has been zero discussion with any other mods about 'toxic posters' or there being any agenda against any poster. There just isn't.
The only agenda is to stop abuse and playing the man and encourage commenting on the topic.

Going to get it wrong sometimes and each mod didn't come out of a factory with the same points of view and values. There will be differences in interpretation depending on who is assessing a report. That's why there's a check and balance in place. Also we're human and we're volunteers. Doing it with as much integrity as I can apply to it.

[Cairnsman]

Is it not fact that the current Mod team applied for the positions because they were sick of certain posting styles, does that not make them biased against the posters who's posting style they dislike?

Do the grey areas of the rules, some of which were specifically rushed in by BFUSA, facilitate the targeting of said posters labelled as the "toxic posters"

Ironically this thread is littered with said "Toxic Posters".

Inconsistency is probably more of a problem than it ever has been and the new cleansing program is killing the place IMO.

I put my hand up because I like the site better without personal abuse. I'd drifted away a bit when there was a lot of abuse and slagging off going on. I liked the changes that led to a lot less abuse and wanted to support that.
Since becoming a mod, there has been zero discussion with any other mods about 'toxic posters' or there being any agenda against any poster. There just isn't.
The only agenda is to stop abuse and playing the man and encourage commenting on the topic.

Going to get it wrong sometimes and each mod didn't come out of a factory with the same points of view and values. There will be differences in interpretation depending on who is assessing a report. That's why there's a check and balance in place. Also we're human and we're volunteers. Doing it with as much integrity as I can apply to it.

Yep. Understand everything you say and stand for as a mod.

My argument has always been based around a simple question: is yours, BFUSA's and KFs belief system the correct one?

Is your belief system the one that makes this site attractive and sets it apart from all of the other AFL social media products available on the web.

There is growing concern that we are being morphed into a bland and sterilised AFL product.

Is there still a need to cater for the "standing room" type crowd.

How do you objectively know that your way is the right way SB?

[st.byron]

Not having a go at you or any of the mods SB. Really just having an interesting discussion on what is and isnt allowed. hope im not annoying you.

Nope P66. It's all good. Good to discuss it and to get stuff out in the open.

[st.byron]

Yep. Understand everything you say and stand for as a mod.

My argument has always been based around a simple question: is yours, BFUSA's and KFs belief system the correct one?

Is your belief system the one that makes this site attractive and sets it apart from all of the other AFL social media products available on the web.

There is growing concern that we are being morphed into a bland and sterilised AFL product.

Is there still a need to cater for the "standing room" type crowd.

How do you objectively know that your way is the right way SB?

Fair questions. Don't know if my belief system is correct or 'best' for the site. Maybe I have some blind spots that could do with some opening up. Personally I think the site's better without personal abuse. How that is managed and enforced and how strict that enforcement is, clearly is an issue for numerous posters.

I also don't want the site to be bland and without 'character' and I can understand the desire for more of a 'standing in the outer' feel to the forum. I like a bit of that too. I grew up with it at Moorabbin and around Melbourne so I get it's appeal.
It's a difficult balance to strike. You could argue that the forum has gone too G-rated and in some ways I agree with that as well. But, there has to be a line around what's ok and what's not, otherwise it just ends up a free-for-all abuse fest as we ave seen in the past.

[Dave McNamara]

... You could argue that the forum has gone too G-rated and in some ways I agree with that as well...

Hi Byron, this is a genuine question, but please feel free not to answer if you feel that doing so may be compromising re your role as a Mod...

In what ways do you feel that SS has gone too G-rated, and what suggestions would you like to propose re that? Ta.

[st.byron]

... You could argue that the forum has gone too G-rated and in some ways I agree with that as well...

Hi Byron, this is a genuine question, but please feel free not to answer if you feel that doing so may be compromising re your role as a Mod...

In what ways do you feel that SS has gone too G-rated, and what suggestions would you like to propose re that? Ta.

Don't feel compromised. There are going to be differences of opinion all along the way.
Personally, I feel that sometimes a PM would be a better way to deal with minor rule breaches rather than a warning. On the other hand, I understand and support the need for no tolerance of personal abuse. I also think that without the stricter policy that's been activated this year, the changes would not have been so effective in dealing with personal abuse, so I'm seeing those two poles of the argument. I'm sure other posters have other angles and ideas about it.
Despite the best attempts to create very clear and consistent rules, each person acting in a mod capacity is going to have different levels of tolerance and interpretation of the rules, especially in cases where it's a bit borderline. And we each have things that offend us more or less than another person. We do our best to moderate without our personal filters on, but inevitably they will at times have an impact. As I've said, we're human and we're voluntary.
So as mods there will be differences of opinion about some reported posts. That's why having a check and balance between us is necessary and important.

I also feel that the swear filter is a bit pointless. Can't really see the difference between writing the actual word f*** and f***. Everyone knows exactly what it means. Why not just write it as it is?
I also much preferred the general forum the way it was rather than it being split into five sub-categories.

[HitTheBoundary]

Thanks for all the answers St.Byron.

How do warnings work in practice, do only reported posts get scrutinised, or are all threads reviewed, or is it just reported posts and threads that mods happen to read? (I hope my question is clear).

I suppose the scenario I'm wondering about is if there are 1000 posts all very similar, but of those 1000 only 3 by the same poster get reported - once again by only one SS member, then are the other 977 posts also equally scrutinised?

For instance, if I continually report p66's posts, then is he more likely to get banned than non reported posts that were of similar quality? Is there some sort of mechanism to prevent vexatious or vindictive reporting, or the possibility of the person reporting having their own agenda?

My question relates to fairness, it may be that the reported posts are against the rules, but if others (non-reported) are not getting warnings because they weren't reported then the system would be imbalanced, IMO.

By the way, I understand the whole thing is never going to perfect and the mods are in a no win situation, I'm just wondering how it works in practice.

[plugger66]

Thanks for all the answers St.Byron.

How do warnings work in practice, do only reported posts get scrutinised, or are all threads reviewed, or is it just reported posts and threads that mods happen to read? (I hope my question is clear).

I suppose the scenario I'm wondering about is if there are 1000 posts all very similar, but of those 1000 only 3 by the same poster get reported - once again by only one SS member, then are the other 977 posts also equally scrutinised?

For instance, if I continually report p66's posts, then is he more likely to get banned than non reported posts that were of similar quality? Is there some sort of mechanism to prevent vexatious or vindictive reporting, or the possibility of the person reporting having their own agenda?

My question relates to fairness, it may be that the reported posts are against the rules, but if others (non-reported) are not getting warnings because they weren't reported then the system would be imbalanced, IMO.

By the way, I understand the whole thing is never going to perfect and the mods are in a no win situation, I'm just wondering how it works in practice.

I have heard you do actually report my posts but not to get a warning just for the crap that most of them are. Now one question HTB, did you go to the same maths school as Cairnsman?

Seriously though idf a poster continues report posts that are obviously just banter then I reckon a mod should tell them to stop and grow up and if they continue they should get a warning as well. Stops crap reporting and also wasting mods time which could be spent actually reading posts before a report is even sent.

[HitTheBoundary]

Now one question HTB, did you go to the same maths school as Cairnsman?

Oops. lol. Can I claim a typo?

[stinger]

Yep. Understand everything you say and stand for as a mod.

My argument has always been based around a simple question: is yours, BFUSA's and KFs belief system the correct one?

Is your belief system the one that makes this site attractive and sets it apart from all of the other AFL social media products available on the web.

There is growing concern that we are being morphed into a bland and sterilised AFL product.

Is there still a need to cater for the "standing room" type crowd.

How do you objectively know that your way is the right way SB?

growing concern....???/who...???.pray tell....you grump one and the banned poster.........three of you.......hardly a growing concern...oh forgot about your other mate, the one trying to pick the mods brains ...four of you.......not even enough for a basketball team........talk about exaggeration.....

[BakesFan]

it's becoming kindergarten, stinger.............I barely post here anymore because the quality of debate has nose-dived into oblivion....I used to love coming here to discuss/debate issues.....but the quality posters who used to challenge and discuss points of fact (or even opinion) are gone.

SS is becoming a bland and sterile mockery of its former self.

....and what's with Bunk Moreland posting about Bunk Moreland in the 3rd person??.....doesn't bother me in the least...I just find it odd (and a bit creepy in a Hitchcock 'Psycho' kinda of way)....but to each their own.....


BakesFan has no idea if any of his ramblings above have broken any Forum Rules...if they have, Bakesfan wants to sincerely apologise, and he will humbly accept any whack the mods see fit to impose.

BakesFan means no insult with his above comments. BakesFan only seeks open, honest dialogue with his fellow SS posters.

BakesFan loves you all.

[stinger]

it's becoming kindergarten, stinger.............I barely post here anymore because the quality of debate has nose-dived into oblivion....I used to love coming here to discuss/debate issues.....but the quality posters who used to challenge and discuss points of fact (or even opinion) are gone.

SS is becoming a bland and sterile mockery of its former self.

....and what's with Bunk Moreland posting about Bunk Moreland in the 3rd person??.....doesn't bother me in the least...I just find it odd (and a bit creepy in a Hitchcock 'Psycho' kinda of way)....but to each their own.....


BakesFan has no idea if any of his ramblings above have broken any Forum Rules...if they have, Bakesfan wants to sincerely apologise, and he will humbly accept any whack the mods see fit to impose.

BakesFan means no insult with his above comments. BakesFan only seeks open, honest dialogue with his fellow SS posters.

BakesFan loves you all.

[SENsei]

BakesFan is an idiot. BakesFan thinks he is a fool. Bakes.......oh hang on, is that technically in the third person if I type it??

SEN apologises to BakesFan and SEN hangs his headphones in shame.....

[loris]

BakesFan has no idea if any of his ramblings above have broken any Forum Rules...if they have, Bakesfan wants to sincerely apologise, and he will humbly accept any whack the mods see fit to impose.

BakesFan means no insult with his above comments. BakesFan only seeks open, honest dialogue with his fellow SS posters.

BakesFan loves you all.

Oh dearie me "BakesFan", you have succumbed to this terrible disease too

Tough titties, I didn't realise it was so contagious. But hang in there BF, we know what a fighter you are my luv.

One can only hope PUP support TA's $7 co-payment scheme, so money can go to medical research. Then and only then, there may be a cure found for this blight that has infected the SS site.

Forgive BF dear 'Mods'......he knows not what he does It's the blight, the dreaded blight BF is inflicted with

[BakesFan]

BakesFan is an idiot. BakesFan thinks he is a fool. Bakes.......oh hang on, is that technically in the third person if I type it??

SEN apologises to BakesFan and SEN hangs his headphones in shame.....

BakesFan still loves SEN, and loris, and stinger, and Bunk, and Grumps, and PoQ.

[loris]

and PoQ.

Is that what Loris thinks it means? Well BF, what it stood for in Loris' youth was - P!ss off Quick.


Tutt, tutt, Loris thinks BF could earn a reprimand

[BakesFan]

It stood for that in Bakesfan's youth too, Loris....

...however BakesFan would never use such crude forms of address towards his fellow posters who are all Saints after all......

.... as a point of clarification, and to humbly seek your forgiveness for any misunderstanding; Bakesfan wishes to make it known that the use of 'PoQ' in Bakesfan's earlier post is in reference to he that is currently banned from participating on SS.

[desertsaint]

and here we all are then.
well, missing one.