Liverpool FC Forum

[red37]

A poster in another thread suggested the possibility that two 'other' members be appointed in a kind of over-arching role, responsible for perhaps liasing between and betwixt the moderators and the 'shop floor' (for want of a better phrase) In order to maintain a degree of harmony on this forum. This is what i felt personally:


Well....thats kind of over-egging the pudding dont you think. The moderators are there to help ensure (uphold) the smooth running of the site in accordance with the guidelines set by the gaffer and to an extent, the fundamental principles which are exclusive to the virtual realm we all are a part of here: (certain 'unwritten laws' also extend beyond the base requirements of that mandate)  Such as, the anticipation (i avoided the word expectation  for good reason) - that the majority of those willing to participate fruitfully and who intend to offer worthwhile input, can regulate their own business/behaviour on here - or at least thats the intention. The minority who choose otherwise, will fall foul of the rules and be held accountable as a result ***

Unfortunately that simple mantra will never exist as a working reality. There is simply too diverse a demographic to contain and impose the model effectively. The best you can achieve is balance and hopefully an objectivity which is both equal and fair to ALL parties. This is where topics are arising, discussing the very same thing. People are feeling a sense of injustice...of an 'impartiality' that isn't seen to be practised.  Of favouritism and 'jobs for the boys' etc....

*** I can only speak from my own perspective here and nor would i want to pre-empt anyone's agenda. But, by and large - on the whole and even more 'ambiguously' - in the main. Those insinuations are not grounded in fact - they are not the 'way of things' (there ARE flaws...sure) But none of us (mods) set out to implicate or persecute one side of the 'fence'.  Neither are there specific 'camps' targetted.....this really has snowballed into some half ar5ed 'urban myth' in my view.

The people who are banned are excluded for good reason. Thats all there is to it. They weren't turfed for being 'anti's..they weren't booted out because they dared to challenge the idea that everything in the garden is rosy. They haven't been sent to coventry because they contribute better than others - victimised.....No, they were ejected because they fully deserved to be.

And if that isn't clear, there really cannot be much more to say. There truly isn't any ulterior motive at work here....if i see the need for a card. I will issue one - regardless of who the recipient is. (My aim...is to avoid reaching that point at all) Although I think you'll discover everyone of the moderators follow the same criteria. In translation the minutia are never as interesting as the actual kerfuffle which follows though are they?.....and that is as much a part of why there is so much controversy stirred up, hornets nests disturbed - Fabricated 'tittle-tattle' and generally a sense of 'us against them' mentality.

Its not necessary and generates nothing but antagonisation and leads to pointless exasperation on the part of those who seem to think the whole world is on their shoulders. Or their 'mates' - Not the case. And if anybody needed to quote that last bit...let me rephrase: It is simply fantasy - maybe its a convenient one....but put quite bluntly, it IS bollox.

[bigmick]

B0ll0x it may well be Red, but it is an indisputable fact that every regular member on here who is banned is from one side of a particular fence. It maybe entirely coincidental, as it may also be entirely a quirk of fate that it just so happens that the mods to a man sit on the opposite side of the fence to the banees, but then again it may not.

It may well be the case that young Bills wind ups are much worse than some of the people who remain, or that Peewee's outbursts are worse than some who remain, I guess we'll never know.

I do know that some people patrolling the boards on a regular basis appear to me to have done things every bit as bad as some of those who are banned, but they remain to "do their stuff".

And so they should. As I've said many times we should be doing everything in our power IMHO to keep people on the forum who are genuine Liverpool fans. I do think though that anyone who has read the boards over the last few days has had any questions visa-vis impartiality well and truly answered.

I think the rules and proceedures should be changed so it's less about interpretation and more about sticking to the guidelines. Until that happens, and certain people continue to be given carte blanche to do whatever they like whilst others are banned, there will always be concerns over fairness unfortunately, b0ll0cks or not.

[woof woof !]

It maybe entirely coincidental, as it may also be entirely a quirk of fate that it just so happens that the mods to a man sit on the opposite side of the fence to the banees, but then again it may not.

What "fence" are we taking about here Mick ? . Are you suggesting that members have been banned because they have a political affiliation that differs from the mods ?

Seems to me a major problem in the forum over the last few years has been the erection by some of so called "fences" that surround so called camps coupled with their haste to place people in them.

[red37]

Ive said me piece mick...there simply ain't no agenda here.

The 'system' has a framework of conformity which must be working as is....otherwise there would be chaos and anarchy running roughshod all over the place. You'd have to be daft to concede that the thing is perfect, of course it isn't. But that my friend is a two-way street you know?  I have time for all members, whether they hail from halfway up Rafa Benitez' backside or infact wishing they were wrapped tightly around his throat.  Makes no difference to me....there is that perceived notion of 'bias' that is readily labelled 'bollox' - simply because there isnt any notion of the sort.

From my end of the bargain (wiling to bet the case is the same acorss the board, regarding the other mods)...cards are dished out when called for. End of. Fence/camp/pidgeon-hole - doesn't matter a to$$ to me what f*cking flavour you are. So long as you dont leave a trail of s.hit in yer wake.

As for these 'banees' - well put it this way. They certainly were not terminally binned because of any wind-up...or outburst......nor any 'assumption' cast.  They had fair warning (more than ample time to change) and when that strategy failed to produce...we really did get to see their true colours. But then...none of you are privvy to the things that go on behind the scenes. You might have the odd PM flitting between each other, you know, forging your own 'plan of action' like.  But there are FAR greater factors taken into account here when somebody gets jibbed than simply what choice of 'camp' they reside in!!

[bigmick]

It's the fence which is erected around every debate about football, footballers and Liverpool woof. If you think that we possibly might have considered signing Owen on a free, you "hate Rafa with a passion" and are just using the debate as a stick to beat him with. It's the old pro and anti thing mate, But why do you ask when you knew that anyway?

It would be nice to be able to discuss football without all that nonsense, but that's very much a forlorn hope these days. You can say Torres is the best striker in the World and that's Ok, but if you say you don't think N'Gog is up to it, you hate Rafa with a passion, or "dream of his wedding tackle"    I can't get over that one

So anyway my point is that the people who are long term posters who fell foul of the mods, are coincidently peoiple who have been on the side of the debate which has at times criticised the manager. Like I say though, I've a hunch you already knew that anyway. Perhaps it's just coincidence, who knows.

[Bad Bob]

It may well be the case that young Bills wind ups are much worse than some of the people who remain, or that Peewee's outbursts are worse than some who remain, I guess we'll never know.

My two cents.  Peewee and Bam's offenses are much worse than what others have come out with.  We're not talking the odd use of the c-bomb here, we're talking the kind of stuff that earns you a permanent Newkit vacation.  I'm afraid you'll just have to trust us on this point, mate.

As for Bill, I guess we see it rather differently.  To me the fella is someone who, while no doubt being a good, fervent Liverpool supporter, is also someone who relishes winding people up.  Yeah, well, we all do it from time to time, some will say, and that's true.  Bill has always taken it to another level, though.  We're talking multiple alter-egos, sometimes posting at the same time, which you've already suggested would be a no-no under your suggested no guidelines.  But, this is just the symptom of the larger issue: he thrives on winding people up and that is a recipe for strife, flame wars and a whole level of nonsense that frankly we don't need.  The primary function of this place is genuine football discussion, not taking the p!ss out of others and that's where Bill comes up short.  In fact, by his own admission, a lot of his football views were concocted nonsense designed to get a rise out of people.  We can't be having that, I'm afraid.

So, as I hope you'll appreciate, the permanent banees have been shown the door for valid reasons and not because they've sometimes been critical of Rafa.  I understand how it might appear one-sided but the situation is more complex than that.

[bigmick]

Quote me "I'm not saying people have been banned because they are anti's."

Quote Supersub. "No ban has been issued according to which side of micks fence you sit on."

Ah we agree on something. All good.



EDIT: sorry I fecked up there. In about 2000 words i essentially said that I wasn't saying that anybody had been banned because they were anti. I was saying though that if a spat breaks out, it is those on one side of the fence who generally incur the wrath of the mods. Anyway, the post is lost forever into cyberspace, i can't be bothered to type it again anymore than anyone can be bothered to read it 

[supersub]

No ban has been issued according to which side of micks fence you sit on.

[Judge]

this issue keeps getting raised - not solely by the same person, but different members at different times.

there must be some ounce of truth in it, or this topic would never raise its head !!

obviously something is wrong. that guy aytron77 raised an issue, only for him to be banned. i read the thread opener and when i clicked on the link that s@int provided, there was the proof .

i have no idea what went on behind the scenes, but if he said owt out of place then a banning is in order. if its done by PM, then he shouldnt recieve a ban, as we dont know the whole picture.

PMs can be and have been manipulated when forworded on. this implies guilt on the original sender - but it is not guilt. its a manipulation to cause guilt.

anyway, it appears that a large minority feel things are not right with this forum, and they have the right to that opinion, whether me, anyone or the mods like it or not !!

i do feel that personal feelings do play a large part in how things are done - but thats life. however, issues can be raised and should be met with an impartial reply. in that sense then one can feel justice is at least being heard, and that person will not be lambasted by something that has been blown out of proportion in the first place.

1. there should be 3 strikes (warnings sent by pm) and then a card for open swearing and belittlement of a member by any member (including mod team). duration of card to last 2 months, whereby the member takes it upon themself to pm a mod for removal

2. for a second card to be issued then it should be made public in a designated pinned thread (each card is issued with only one further warning). it must state why this person has recieved such a card. these cards providing it does not exceed 2 months from the first one, should remain for a further 3 months.

3. each subsequent card is issued with a further month each on top of the prevoius ones and so forth.

4. banning to last 2 further months on top of the previous cards (to have a ban removed the member must pm a mod for removal and await confirmation)

5. permanent bans should be issued to folk posting deliberate explicit porn and links to dubious sites from the off. Other permanent bans can include persistent offenders, depending on the nature of the offence (this should be open for a poll discussion with all members to have there say democratically - the poll should remain for 1 week at least then the votes counted and the judgement passed)

just my opinion. lets hope no fool reads it another way

[bigmick]

Hey that was strange, I unitentinally edited and deleted my own post there is a god!

[dawson99]

I don't see the prob. People get banned, and they more often than not deserve it...

I think the Mods are awesome

[Judge]

dawson you  self-seeking, servile flatterer, fawning parasite of a sycophant

[account deleted by request]

I don't see the prob. People get banned, and they more often than not deserve it...

I think the Mods are awesome

This is why no one likes you Dawson

[dawson99]

nobody likes me, everybody loves me, i think i'll eat some worms

(or something like that)

[Roger Red Hat]

dont let Judge read that, he'll have is worm out ready