Joffa Burns

[dragit]

Firstly posts were reported.

Then there is zero evidence that
- Ted is Parkey (happen to be proven wrong)
- That the info posted is incorrect (have had 2 pieces independently confirmed including the Billings one and at the time of posting it was correct until Billings backflipped)
- Joffa Burns received a warning and instead of ceasing he upped the attack on Ted by adding his signature and trolling every post and spamming the same thing each post ridiculing Ted’s info on Billings.
- ted edited his Billings post because the situation changed!

No matter what Ted’s source is including other sites, he is the first to post the info here and he is entitled to do so. He is not required by rules to name a source.

If the info is available from other sites or media then others are also welcome to post it - quoting a source or not.

I look at reports against the rules.

Joffa was baiting then it escalated to trolling and spamming the same point multiple times.

One week ban is right by the rules.

He can still read.

I'm not sure if it really matters whether Ted is Parkey… unless you are using the "ongoing dispute" catch-all to ban joff and that would require Ted to definitely be PS?

The issue is that the actual posts you have banned him on are way below what most people would consider a reasonable basis to ban someone on.

The posts don't seem to be officially reported because if you click to report them, you don't get the "post already reported" dialogue?

I genuinely appreciate the work you put in, however I don't think that having a sole moderator/judge/jury/executioner is a good way to govern or resolve disputes… it's actually a bit of dictatorship scenario to be honest and we have lost a few good posters that you had a personal gripe with.

It's not fair on you or the people you are trying to moderate, I'm sure we can get a few more mods on board if you allow it?

If a poster claims that our best young talent is a done deal to be traded out, it's pretty upsetting… people will remember that and bring it up, regardless if the poster goes back and edits their post a whole week later to change their false 'done deal'… I have no idea why that would constitute a ban even it were done on multiple occasions. Whether or not the info was even true or not is beside the point, the banning seems ridiculous.

[BackFromUSA]

Firstly posts were reported.

Then there is zero evidence that
- Ted is Parkey (happen to be proven wrong)
- That the info posted is incorrect (have had 2 pieces independently confirmed including the Billings one and at the time of posting it was correct until Billings backflipped)
- Joffa Burns received a warning and instead of ceasing he upped the attack on Ted by adding his signature and trolling every post and spamming the same thing each post ridiculing Ted’s info on Billings.
- ted edited his Billings post because the situation changed!

No matter what Ted’s source is including other sites, he is the first to post the info here and he is entitled to do so. He is not required by rules to name a source.

If the info is available from other sites or media then others are also welcome to post it - quoting a source or not.

I look at reports against the rules.

Joffa was baiting then it escalated to trolling and spamming the same point multiple times.

One week ban is right by the rules.

He can still read.

I'm not sure if it really matters whether Ted is Parkey… unless you are using the "ongoing dispute" catch-all to ban joff and that would require Ted to definitely be PS?

The issue is that the actual posts you have banned him on are way below what most people would consider a reasonable basis to ban someone on.

The posts don't seem to be officially reported because if you click to report them, you don't get the "post already reported" dialogue?

I genuinely appreciate the work you put in, however I don't think that having a sole moderator/judge/jury/executioner is a good way to govern or resolve disputes… it's actually a bit of dictatorship scenario to be honest and we have lost a few good posters that you had a personal gripe with.

It's not fair on you or the people you are trying to moderate, I'm sure we can get a few more mods on board if you allow it?

If a poster claims that our best young talent is a done deal to be traded out, it's pretty upsetting… people will remember that and bring it up, regardless if the poster goes back and edits their post a whole week later to change their false 'done deal'… I have no idea why that would constitute a ban even it were done on multiple occasions. Whether or not the info was even true or not is beside the point, the banning seems ridiculous.

100% all those posts moderated were reported and once moderated as is usual practice I close the report. I have to do that to reduce the moderation log otherwise it builds up very quickly. It is standard procedure - ask any mod.

I have given a one week ban and that was for 5 (not 3) rule breaches. Whether that was 5 x baiting or some baiting / some trolling or some spamming - it was still more than 3 breaches in a week and that is a one week ban.

It is COMPLETELY untrue that I have a gripe with any poster ever. In fact if I was going to have a gripe with ANY poster it would be Cairnsman who made my life a living hell when I first became site admin. I love him as a poster and very glad he is back contributing.

Those that have left have left or been banned because they could not post within the rules DESPITE having multiple opportunities to change their ways and they were unable to do so. On the flip side, there are many here who have reformed and post with the rules.

I moderate 100% to the rules and moderate reported posts 95% of the time. 5% I may catch in my own reading and ONLY if it is really bad would i act without a report. Each piece of moderation takes between 5-10 minutes of time. There are usually 3 to 8 reports per day. It is a significant investment in time. Multiple moderators actually increases that time investment with consultation.

After the past three EXCELLENT moderators were hounded and worn down over time by the abuse sent their way by moderating the site to the rules, I would rather they enjoyed reading the site and participating without the burden of being a moderator and therefore remaining squeaky clean. I am not anti additional moderators and would welcome back those that have proven themselves capable of moderating without regard for who the poster is and purely measure the post itself against rules themselves.

I undertake Saintsational as a labour of love / with respect to it's original founder and have funded it completely for a long time now - including monthly hosting plans and the resolution of technical issues and the subsequent complete overhaul earlier this year.

I assure you that moderation is done first and foremost 100% based on what is written in a post and NOT at all by who has posted it.

The moderators who have worked with me will also know how hard I (and they worked) to help posters stay on this site and posting.

[To the top]

Interesting

I have received a stream of warnings for “baiting” when I call out the fornicated morons polluting this Forum to the level of making it dysfunctional and to be avoided, confirmed by those who obviously had some pertinent information but who longer contribute, starting from Saintbrat

What I now learn is that this is because of complaints - a process I was unaware of

The Forum should be discontinued

It is of no value

[Scollop]

Now that you are aware of it TTT, call people out when you think it's appropriate

The mods allow a thread such as this one for debates and feedback and we are fortunate that they volunteer their time

What do you want...anarchy and fornicators running amok?

[sunsaint]

As in forwarded to you?
There is a mod that that does allow it

oops I meant to write there is a phpbb mod that allows reading PMs by MODs
I suppose it's unimportant and you wouldn't say publicly anyway.
But where I was heading, it struck me as slightly unbelievable that a new poster of only several weeks would get so many likes in such a short period unless the old gang recvd notification of the new identity.
Timely you bring up citywest name as it raises a point on baiting/trolling/spamming
If someone makes a claim that proves to be false where on the above three does that fall?
And one more if I may - I get that a user can report a post but do you give any credence to people reporting via PMs?

[asiu]

!'ve been sayn for a long time

the balance of power was given to the whingers n dobbers

what other 'result' could we expect.

[st.byron]

!'ve been sayn for a long time

the balance of power was given to the whingers n dobbers

what other 'result' could we expect.

Don’t agree the balance of power is with the “wingers and robbers”. Whinging and dobbing is a subjective notion. The alternative, as past experience has shown, is to allow a lot more derogatory, abusive posts. And where that extra leeway was given in the past, there were a number of posters who were just downright nasty and abusive. It was really unpleasant and they tended to dominate the forum.
IMO there is a good balance now.....

[st.byron]

Interesting

I have received a stream of warnings for “baiting” when I call out the fornicated morons polluting this Forum to the level of making it dysfunctional and to be avoided, confirmed by those who obviously had some pertinent information but who longer contribute, starting from Saintbrat

What I now learn is that this is because of complaints - a process I was unaware of

The Forum should be discontinued

It is of no value

Reporting a post is done by clicking on the ! Icon at the top each post alongside the quote button. Why on earth is it wrong to enable people to report posts they consider abusive or inappropriate? Do you think it should just be open slather and people can say whatever they like without any rules or constraints?

[asiu]

as , derogatory n abusive is 'subjective'

i think its natural that the pendulum swings as far right
as it was previously creative

and , a new breed of controller takes advantage
of the environment

i loved the free wheeling intercourse the wild west version of SS provided an opportunity for

though , bullying sh!t me
(as it did many)

the angry version
the divide to conquer version

same ol same ol today , ay.

i find this version a much sadder experience of SS
with the practitioners of the dark arts now given a special button to push instead of sending a series of pm's

still dobbing
still whinging

still bullying via proxy

without the freedom to cane the shallow end of the gene pool back into the pondslime where irrelevance is their nature fully expressed

cant blame em i suppose
need their cosmic moment in the sun

desperate little ignorances

[stonecold]

Joffa, like the rest of us serial offenders, 'knows the rules', so if you break them, you get banned, move on!!!!!

[stonecold]

Interesting

I have received a stream of warnings for “baiting” when I call out the fornicated morons polluting this Forum to the level of making it dysfunctional and to be avoided, confirmed by those who obviously had some pertinent information but who longer contribute, starting from Saintbrat

What I now learn is that this is because of complaints - a process I was unaware of

The Forum should be discontinued

It is of no value

When you call out posters?????

Call out someone in my opinion, is in person according to my background!!!!!

This Forum should be discontinued?????

Don't log on!!!!!
(Like you have said several times, you've threatened more last posts than 100 Anzac Days!!!!!)

You and I don't get along, that's fine with me, but don't trash and run down the forum because you don't get along with some posters!!!!!

Let the mod's do thier jobs, unless you would like to put your hand up and do it for them!!!!!

[asiu]

but of course ,
my beef was

killing the General Forum

Shameful **** behaviour

but
thats an opportunity to practice open hearted acceptance
not the contemptuousness of my youth

[Cairnsman]

So just trying to understnad the details of this conversation, if I was to report posters for making false claims about Richo and the false claims were also in breach of the forum rules, i.e. casting aspersions on his character, as one of the rule breaches, then the poster would be given a warning and or ban?

[BackFromUSA]

So just trying to understnad the details of this conversation, if I was to report posters for making false claims about Richo and the false claims were also in breach of the forum rules, i.e. casting aspersions on his character, as one of the rule breaches, then the poster would be given a warning and or ban?

In the scenario you paint - whether it was a false claim or not is irrelevant - if a post was reported that breached this below rule - then the poster would receive a warning or in extreme cases a 1 week ban.

ABUSING OR DEMEANING A SAINTS PLAYER, FAMILY OR OFFICIAL RULE

Commenting on the performance of a Saints player / official is allowed. In cases where posters abuse or demean a Saints player / official / or their family, OR casts dispersions on their character and it is deemed by the moderators to be unreasonably offensive and inflammatory, then the moderators (if all moderators agree) can issue a Saintsational warning, or in extreme cases a 1 week ban of the offending poster.

However, we recognise that match time and match days are emotionally charged. If a post is made that is deemed by a moderator to be highly inappropriate, offensive or inflammatory during match days, the moderator can edit this post and that moderator has the right to unilaterally issue a 6 hour ban, as a cooling off period for the offending poster or posters, but in extreme cases a 1 week ban.

[Gordo']

i loved the free wheeling intercourse the wild west version of SS provided an opportunity for

ffs!!! free wheeling intercourse and fornication! sounds like the flowering perfect road trip to me. gotta get the band back together! but where's plucker66? and where's the lovely harriet, ffs?

[dragit]

So just trying to understnad the details of this conversation, if I was to report posters for making false claims about Richo and the false claims were also in breach of the forum rules, i.e. casting aspersions on his character, as one of the rule breaches, then the poster would be given a warning and or ban?

Alternatively C-man… if a poster had made a claim (as fact) about a player or coach that turned out to be false, you could be the one banned for mentioning this false claim on multiple occasions.

Spamming / trolling vs robust discussion / banter - it's all in the eye of the beholder… it's not a game of tennis where the ball is either in or out, these conversations all come down to personal interpretation and that's why I don't think it is a healthy situation for one person to be making the call.

That is not a slight on you Simon, clearly you put a lot into this site but obviously we all have biases and varying levels of what we consider acceptable in regard to a conversation or banter. It's really not fair on that one person to be the judge.

As Gaz mentioned, the ones who snipe then report the mildest breaches are the winners here as the rest of us couldn't be bothered reporting regular banter like Joff has just been banned for.

[Cairnsman]

you could be the one banned for mentioning this false claim on multiple occasions.

So you mean if you've made a false claim and it breaches a rule and it's been confirmed to you with evidence that you are making a false claim yet you continue to make the false claims?

But from the way I understand it Simon won't adjudicate unless it's been reported.

[chico2001]

Firstly posts were reported.

Then there is zero evidence that
- Ted is Parkey (happen to be proven wrong)
- That the info posted is incorrect (have had 2 pieces independently confirmed including the Billings one and at the time of posting it was correct until Billings backflipped)
- Joffa Burns received a warning and instead of ceasing he upped the attack on Ted by adding his signature and trolling every post and spamming the same thing each post ridiculing Ted’s info on Billings.
- ted edited his Billings post because the situation changed!

No matter what Ted’s source is including other sites, he is the first to post the info here and he is entitled to do so. He is not required by rules to name a source.

If the info is available from other sites or media then others are also welcome to post it - quoting a source or not.

I look at reports against the rules.

Joffa was baiting then it escalated to trolling and spamming the same point multiple times.

One week ban is right by the rules.

He can still read.

I'm not sure if it really matters whether Ted is Parkey… unless you are using the "ongoing dispute" catch-all to ban joff and that would require Ted to definitely be PS?

The issue is that the actual posts you have banned him on are way below what most people would consider a reasonable basis to ban someone on.

The posts don't seem to be officially reported because if you click to report them, you don't get the "post already reported" dialogue?

I genuinely appreciate the work you put in, however I don't think that having a sole moderator/judge/jury/executioner is a good way to govern or resolve disputes… it's actually a bit of dictatorship scenario to be honest and we have lost a few good posters that you had a personal gripe with.

It's not fair on you or the people you are trying to moderate, I'm sure we can get a few more mods on board if you allow it?

If a poster claims that our best young talent is a done deal to be traded out, it's pretty upsetting… people will remember that and bring it up, regardless if the poster goes back and edits their post a whole week later to change their false 'done deal'… I have no idea why that would constitute a ban even it were done on multiple occasions. Whether or not the info was even true or not is beside the point, the banning seems ridiculous.

100% all those posts moderated were reported and once moderated as is usual practice I close the report. I have to do that to reduce the moderation log otherwise it builds up very quickly. It is standard procedure - ask any mod.

I have given a one week ban and that was for 5 (not 3) rule breaches. Whether that was 5 x baiting or some baiting / some trolling or some spamming - it was still more than 3 breaches in a week and that is a one week ban.

It is COMPLETELY untrue that I have a gripe with any poster ever. In fact if I was going to have a gripe with ANY poster it would be Cairnsman who made my life a living hell when I first became site admin. I love him as a poster and very glad he is back contributing.

Those that have left have left or been banned because they could not post within the rules DESPITE having multiple opportunities to change their ways and they were unable to do so. On the flip side, there are many here who have reformed and post with the rules.

I moderate 100% to the rules and moderate reported posts 95% of the time. 5% I may catch in my own reading and ONLY if it is really bad would i act without a report. Each piece of moderation takes between 5-10 minutes of time. There are usually 3 to 8 reports per day. It is a significant investment in time. Multiple moderators actually increases that time investment with consultation.

After the past three EXCELLENT moderators were hounded and worn down over time by the abuse sent their way by moderating the site to the rules, I would rather they enjoyed reading the site and participating without the burden of being a moderator and therefore remaining squeaky clean. I am not anti additional moderators and would welcome back those that have proven themselves capable of moderating without regard for who the poster is and purely measure the post itself against rules themselves.

I undertake Saintsational as a labour of love / with respect to it's original founder and have funded it completely for a long time now - including monthly hosting plans and the resolution of technical issues and the subsequent complete overhaul earlier this year.

I assure you that moderation is done first and foremost 100% based on what is written in a post and NOT at all by who has posted it.

The moderators who have worked with me will also know how hard I (and they worked) to help posters stay on this site and posting.

Well done mate and keep up the good work

[st.byron]

So just trying to understnad the details of this conversation, if I was to report posters for making false claims about Richo and the false claims were also in breach of the forum rules, i.e. casting aspersions on his character, as one of the rule breaches, then the poster would be given a warning and or ban?

Alternatively C-man… if a poster had made a claim (as fact) about a player or coach that turned out to be false, you could be the one banned for mentioning this false claim on multiple occasions.

Spamming / trolling vs robust discussion / banter - it's all in the eye of the beholder… it's not a game of tennis where the ball is either in or out, these conversations all come down to personal interpretation and that's why I don't think it is a healthy situation for one person to be making the call.

That is not a slight on you Simon, clearly you put a lot into this site but obviously we all have biases and varying levels of what we consider acceptable in regard to a conversation or banter. It's really not fair on that one person to be the judge.

As Gaz mentioned, the ones who snipe then report the mildest breaches are the winners here as the rest of us couldn't be bothered reporting regular banter like Joff has just been banned for.

It’s a good idea, to have more than one mod, but I was interested to read BFUSA’s comment that having more than one mod leads to taking more time to do the job. When I was a mod, a lot of time was spent PMing the other mods to discuss decisions and posts. As I see it, BFUSA has been flying solo for some time now and the nature of the moderating hasn’t really changed because there aren’t other mods involved.

I agree that more than one mod would be ideal, but reality is it’s a time consuming gig. That’s why I stopped, not because I felt distressed umpiring spats. Apart from the time commitment required and sometimes being in the firing line of people’s discontent, the most challenging thing of being a mod was having to zip it and stay squeaky clean and not express my opinion for fear of being seen to take sides in disputes.
So really, huge kudos to Simon for the years of effort, money and consistency in keeping the site going.

[SaintPav]

Why do you need to consult with each other?

Ideas off the top of my head:

Mod A does A - L

Mod B does K - Z

Or

Mods do alternative weeks.

No correspondence required

etc etc...

[asiu]

So really, huge kudos to Simon for the years of effort, money and consistency in keeping the site going.

i'll 2nd that for ya

[stonecold]

So really, huge kudos to Simon for the years of effort, money and consistency in keeping the site going.

i'll 2nd that for ya

+1!!!!!

[SemperFidelis]

Thanks Simon. No qualifications.

[asiu]

but of course ,
my beef was

killing the General Forum

Shameful **** behaviour

but
thats an opportunity to practice open hearted acceptance
not the contemptuousness of my youth

it was loss of community
that pissed me

it was vibrant , funny as all **** , thought provoking ,
and at times little cringeworthy n slightly embarrassing
but it was always the first place i logged into
on the webby thang

who cares if 'those' further up the food chain
were offended by alternative opinions
over their favourite hobby horse

by deceipt we do war

imo ooc ... Shame.

[kosifantutti]

Why do you need to consult with each other?

Ideas off the top of my head:

Mod A does A - L

Mod B does K - Z

...

So posters such as me and Life Long Saint would be moderated twice as much as most other posters! Blatantly unfair!