Liverpool FC Forum

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:33 am

GYBS wrote:In all seriousness - The mods are only human and im prettty sure they are just doing what they feel is best for the forum. Being a mod is never an easy job and always the first target when someone feels they have been wronged. As supersub says a lot of it must be self moderation. Im pretty sure most people can debate football without insulting people or each other - surely thats not that hard.

Not all bans are because of abuse. I would consider them the majority and the easiest to decide though.

by **GYBS** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:34 am

s@int wrote:
GYBS wrote:In all seriousness - The mods are only human and im prettty sure they are just doing what they feel is best for the forum. Being a mod is never an easy job and always the first target when someone feels they have been wronged. As supersub says a lot of it must be self moderation. Im pretty sure most people can debate football without insulting people or each other - surely thats not that hard.

Not all bans are because of abuse. I would consider them the majority and the easiest to decide though.

Why else would someone get banned mate ?

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:41 am

GYBS wrote:
s@int wrote:
GYBS wrote:In all seriousness - The mods are only human and im prettty sure they are just doing what they feel is best for the forum. Being a mod is never an easy job and always the first target when someone feels they have been wronged. As supersub says a lot of it must be self moderation. Im pretty sure most people can debate football without insulting people or each other - surely thats not that hard.

Not all bans are because of abuse. I would consider them the majority and the easiest to decide though.

Why else would someone get banned mate ?

Posting a PM is apparently one of the deadly sins

Still not really sure why peewee got banned (personality clash?)
Racism
WUM's
Spamming ? (not sure about that one)
Posting porn ? .... getting desperate now

making 13128 posts ? :down:

But quite honestly I would prefer we kept the discussion general rather than individual cases.

by **Judge** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:55 am

s@int wrote:
GYBS wrote:
s@int wrote:
GYBS wrote:In all seriousness - The mods are only human and im prettty sure they are just doing what they feel is best for the forum. Being a mod is never an easy job and always the first target when someone feels they have been wronged. As supersub says a lot of it must be self moderation. Im pretty sure most people can debate football without insulting people or each other - surely thats not that hard.

Not all bans are because of abuse. I would consider them the majority and the easiest to decide though.

Why else would someone get banned mate ?

Posting a PM is apparently one of the deadly sins
Still not really sure why peewee got banned (personality clash?)
Racism
WUM's
Spamming ? (not sure about that one)
Posting porn ? .... getting desperate now

But quite honestly I would prefer we kept the discussion general rather than individual cases.

you forgot some member sha'gging yer missus

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:00 am

Judge wrote:
s@int wrote:
GYBS wrote:
s@int wrote:
GYBS wrote:In all seriousness - The mods are only human and im prettty sure they are just doing what they feel is best for the forum. Being a mod is never an easy job and always the first target when someone feels they have been wronged. As supersub says a lot of it must be self moderation. Im pretty sure most people can debate football without insulting people or each other - surely thats not that hard.

Not all bans are because of abuse. I would consider them the majority and the easiest to decide though.

Why else would someone get banned mate ?

Posting a PM is apparently one of the deadly sins
Still not really sure why peewee got banned (personality clash?)
Racism
WUM's
Spamming ? (not sure about that one)
Posting porn ? .... getting desperate now

But quite honestly I would prefer we kept the discussion general rather than individual cases.

you forgot some member sha'gging yer missus

I didn't even get a warning for shagging yours

by **GYBS** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:03 am

A health warning maybe

by **woof woof !** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:09 am

s@int wrote:
And there's the rub . Who exactly decides just who deserves it ? Whats the point of having moderators at all when there is a "committee" to vet all decisions. Perhaps mods should sit in their mod shop and only react to complaints received? or perhaps members should just complain directly to the "committee" ?.

Who decides who deserves it now? All the committee would be doing is making sure that mistakes, errors of judgement and personality clash errors didn't occur, or in short that the correct decision was made.
How long before we start a thread on the "Committee's" accountability ?

If the committee is seen to be fair and impartial hopefully a long time. At least it would give some sort balance to the vagueries of the individual MOD's.

We all know that at the moment different Mod's handle problems completely differently. Perhaps it would add a degree of consistancy ?

And you believe that a "Committee" will not display any of the individual vaugaries exhibited by the mods and if they do it will balance out those of the mods ? A kind of "two wrongs might make it a right" plan ? .

Natural evolution surely suggests that eventually someone will call for the need of a committee to vet the committee who are vetting the mods.

side note

Hopefully I neither implied or questioned Supersubs integrity, or I wouldn't have suggested that he head the comittee.

No you didn't mate, I was referring to a comment made by another member, apologies for not being clearer on that.

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:28 am

And you believe that a "Committee" will not display any of the individual vaugaries exhibited by the mods and if they do it will balance out those of the mods ? A kind of "two wrongs might make it a right" plan ? .

Not really mate, more of a second bite at the cherry rather than two wrongs making a right.

Natural evolution surely suggests that eventually someone will call for the need of a committee to vet the committee who are vetting the mods.

Hopefully because the committee or panel would be seen as the opinion of a group rather than an individuals opinion, people would be less likely to consider personality clashes (there must be a better phrase) as a motive. i.e. If 4 people think you are wrong it's much more telling than if just one does (who may have a motive), especially if they are seen to be independent of the initial problem.

by **Sabre** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:29 am

andy_g wrote::laugh:

stop taking it so seriously!!!!

as far as i can see there is a handful of people who have some bad feelings or dissatisfactions towards one or two mods. hardly quite a lot of unrest as far as i can see.

It's a common thing in forums to not distinguish well that your opinion and a your mates' opinion is not all the forum's opinion.

Actually we might be talking about 7 or 8 members talking for a hundred of members.

People need to realise that when you and who you consider respectable agree in something, it's just you, and your mates, not all the forum.

As much as that should be obvious for anyone with a basic empathy, it's a common internet phenomena. I often found as a mod that in some threads some people -- always the same people -- said what should the mods do, while privately I gathered the opinion of many members who also stated their opinion, and needless to say they're part of the forum aswell.

As far as I can tell as a mod you can't do whatever you want, decissions are reviewed. And are reviewed internally and externally. I for instance placed a yellow card to peewee, and it was removed by supersub, probably with a right criteria.

Other mods were dropped because of the complains of members.

So even before the mods had that internal board to discuss their decissions, the mod's job was always controlled at some extent. There's no need to put extra people to control them further. I'm sure that when they make a mistake -- we all do mistakes -- the other mods will help the mod to reconsider his decission.

So the main point of that comittee is already accomplished.

by **GYBS** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:33 am

Quick question-when it comes to issuing cards or bans etc do the mods have a chat about it or is it down to that one mod ?

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:40 am

GYBS wrote:Quick question-when it comes to issuing cards or bans etc do the mods have a chat about it or is it down to that one mod ?

I wouldn't think in most cases there is time or opportunity to consult other Mod's. Which is why I thought that a 48 hour review might be of benefit. Presumably thats why Stu got 2 warnings for the same offence (if he did ?)

by **andy_g** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:45 am

how about the mods open up their secret area for a day of guided tours and let all us mortals have a look around? kind of like the anfield tour but with less trophies and more whips and chains. i've heard the mods jacuzzi is massive and they have their own troupe of lesbian ninja dancing zebras.

by **Judge** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:51 am

s@int wrote:
Judge wrote:
s@int wrote:
GYBS wrote:
s@int wrote:
GYBS wrote:In all seriousness - The mods are only human and im prettty sure they are just doing what they feel is best for the forum. Being a mod is never an easy job and always the first target when someone feels they have been wronged. As supersub says a lot of it must be self moderation. Im pretty sure most people can debate football without insulting people or each other - surely thats not that hard.

Not all bans are because of abuse. I would consider them the majority and the easiest to decide though.

Why else would someone get banned mate ?

Posting a PM is apparently one of the deadly sins
Still not really sure why peewee got banned (personality clash?)
Racism
WUM's
Spamming ? (not sure about that one)
Posting porn ? .... getting desperate now

But quite honestly I would prefer we kept the discussion general rather than individual cases.

you forgot some member sha'gging yer missus

I didn't even get a warning for shagging yours

your not big enough

enough of this frivolity. ban s@int

by **GYBS** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:52 am

s@int wrote:
GYBS wrote:Quick question-when it comes to issuing cards or bans etc do the mods have a chat about it or is it down to that one mod ?

I wouldn't think in most cases there is time or opportunity to consult other Mod's. Which is why I thought that a 48 hour review might be of benefit. Presumably thats why Stu got 2 warnings for the same offence (if he did ?)

Yeah can understand the 48 hour thing- One mod sees an offence- gives an inital warning then gets another mod to clarify if warning was correct or not strict enough so then mod has backing of fellow mods so poster knows its not just a personality clash per say as a number of mods have agreed with the decision

by **bigmick** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:54 am

It's an interesting idea saint but not one that works I don't think. Thanks for giving me a mention in the topic starter for instance, but I definately have finished with all forms of modding and wouldn't touch any responsibility with a ten foot barge pole.

I know many thought Woof was out of order for his banning of the guy the other day. I didn't FWIW, I just think he was a bit harsh. Not the same as being out of order, perhaps Woof is human after all and made a mistake. As it was the guy was banned for a week or so so it didn't do any harm, and I've long felt that timed bans are the way to go. People should be warned and then given a ban for a couple of weeks to cool down. None of this "lifetime ban" stuff and then letting them come back, as it only serves to p!ss of other members of which Ciggy is a good example.

I actually think the mods do a very good job. My only gripeis that they post less on football because they are sorting out nonsense. Also IMHO one or two members are allowed to patrol the boards rarely if ever posting about football but simply on a wind up mission, with inanities, insults and silliness being their stock in trade. That though is simply my opinion, and I don't think they'd be my biggest fans either.

Liverpool FC Forum

Mod accountability - Do we need an appeal/review committee ?

Who is online