Liverpool FC Forum

JBG wrote:When I left as a moderator I told myself I wouldn't criticise the mod team and by and large, other than sending a PM to them over a year ago about Peewee being a moderator I have left them to it despite my own feeling that the moderation here has been a farce for the past 18 months but recently I find myself having to agree with Peewee (and thats saying something ) that the moderation on newkit has gone to the dogs and back.

I know for a FACT from my time as a moderator that one or two mods DO NOT MODERATE at all in so far as they post regularly but do not partake in daily moderating duties. Whats the point in continuing with these moderators if they arent bothering with moderating?

Furthermore members have no clue nowadays whether or not they are going to get banned, warned or whether their threads or posts are liable to be closed, there's no consistency.

I mean closing Saints thread last week (I was away and am only commenting in hindsight) was a bad call, IMO. While I certainly disagree with what Saint said the thread had not deteriorated into WWIII as Bob said and BOb didn't seem to appreciate that Saint is a long standing and respected member and while what he posted was certainly controversial the reaction to his post was mature and balanced and the thread should have been given a chance to see where it was going. OK, if it deteriorated into a slanging match then close it but the point was it hadn;t and if the moderators actually paid attention to what was being said in the thread they would have saw that the posters who posted in it, while disagreeing with what Saint was saying, respected Saint as a poster and there was no evidence that the thread was going to go downhill.

Furthermore Ciggy ended up leaving the forum over Stu and that was a blunder of the highest order from the moderating team. Stu was a problem back when I was a poster and the solution was to ban him completely unless he could guarantee that he would post without abusing people. So, when he comes back, what does he do? Abuse Ciggy personally about her child and its Ciggy who ends up going, not Stu.

Now that not right.

I'm not saying that to be popular or anything. I'm not great mates with Ciggy and she'll be the first to admit herself that occasionally she sails close to the wind but you have to back up a long standing member like her over a fool like Stu.

As for this Dude Love character, maybe he's a windup, but I read his posts this morning and saw no evidence of any rule breaking and all of his posts were good natured and friendly in tone, so why does he get banned? If it was on the basis of some moderator thinking him to be a "windup merchant" then obviously plenty of other "comic" characters deserve to be banned as well. I mean, whats the difference between johnsnow and Dude Love?

In my day it was obvious that The Manhattan Project was a person prepared to take a comic slant on things but we had a sense of humour and thought nothing wrong with that. Yet, logically, if Dude Love is banned then Manhattan should be banned as well! Nonsense!

Anyway, was it not the thinking that windup merchants were people who were deliberately on here to cause trouble? In my day, by and large, comic posters where left alone provided they didn't cause trouble.

I know I don't participate much in football discussion these days as often I don;t have the time or have simply nothing interesting to say but I've always loved Newkit and thats why I still visit here. But it needs to be said, the moderation here at times (not from all moderators mind) has been farcicial and one or two of the moderators need to get out more and live their lives, not patrolling these boards 24/7 closing threads and banning harmless idiots left right and centre.

all that said and no mention of me in it 

Sabre wrote:I don't care if threads are locked or wums are banned, that's up to the moderators. I find ok that everyone has a moderation standard. In fact I have mine, and I won't never consider others' a farce.

But just as this forum didn't tolerate terrorism because it kills lifes (and in the "tolerant" times of this forum people were banned because discussing it), I don't find acceptable to kill someone or remove a kidney against his will so that somebody has a better life.

The principle is simple, respect to life. If you only respect the life of your countrymates then you don't respect life, you respect your country and nothing else. If you respect life

There are millions of people dying of famine,disease etc all around the world, better they be put to some good use by providing extra life to people who can make a difference in the quality of life of future generations,

This is not acceptable. End of.

You can all be two faced about it but if it was a member of YOUR family dying because they needed a kidney or some other organ, you would WANT them hunting it down

Hunting someone down is not acceptable no matter if you hunt down for God, or for a Kidney. Sorry. The ones who hunt down people for religion also seek a better world, but the civilised people won't accept that.

The reason is power and money, we have it and the animals and 3rd world countries don't. So we may as well use that power and money to save people that can and do make a telling contribution rather than some of those that don't/can't.

So moderators (and ex moderators) around here must think if in newkit human life is respected. If it's not, then we can discuss terrorism and everything from any angle. But if life is respected, it shouldn't be accepted to level the 3rd world population to animal level because they don't have money.

That's my opinion about that topic, it was well locked. Everything else, is ok with me. You can choose the mods you want, you can be lazy about moderation, whatever. But some principles of respect to human life should be respected.

That thread was well locked, but for the wrong reason. The reason should not have been that it could provoke WWIII, the reason should be that some opinions cannot be acceptable, such as, posts defending terrorists, post defending pedophilia, or posts that advocate for removing human organs of poor people.

I don't understand why in this discussion it's relevant whether the one who wrote it is a "respectable" member. I won't find acceptable that Bob or Leon defend terrorism or organ removing just because I respect them. You could talk as well about how nice is to make sex with a 11 year older and see what comes from that, but it's simply wrong.

Judge wrote:i did not have a problem in the army, and/or i do not have a problem with shooting someone, if my government ordered it, providing it aint one of my family

andy_g wrote:

Judge wrote:i did not have a problem in the army, and/or i do not have a problem with shooting someone, if my government ordered it, providing it aint one of my family

but surely if you would be happy to shoot anyone your government told you to, you must believe them to be 100% correct in their decisions. this should include the orders to shoot your own family as well then shouldn't it?

what would you do if your government told you too jump in front of a bus?

It is hard for someone who isnt in the military to understand following orders given to someone . im in the forces myself and follow orders - even if i dont agree with them i still follow them .I dont have any other choice due to the establishment i am in and thats the way it goes . If things go wrong the its the person who gives the orders who gets in the .

andy_g wrote:

Judge wrote:i did not have a problem in the army, and/or i do not have a problem with shooting someone, if my government ordered it, providing it aint one of my family

but surely if you would be happy to shoot anyone your government told you to, you must believe them to be 100% correct in their decisions. this should include the orders to shoot your own family as well then shouldn't it?

what would you do if your government told you too jump in front of a bus?

Sabre wrote:I don't care if threads are locked or wums are banned, that's up to the moderators. I find ok that everyone has a moderation standard. In fact I have mine, and I won't never consider others' a farce.

But just as this forum didn't tolerate terrorism because it kills lifes (and in the "tolerant" times of this forum people were banned because discussing it), I don't find acceptable to kill someone or remove a kidney against his will so that somebody has a better life.

The principle is simple, respect to life. If you only respect the life of your countrymates then you don't respect life, you respect your country and nothing else. If you respect life

There are millions of people dying of famine,disease etc all around the world, better they be put to some good use by providing extra life to people who can make a difference in the quality of life of future generations,

This is not acceptable. End of.

You can all be two faced about it but if it was a member of YOUR family dying because they needed a kidney or some other organ, you would WANT them hunting it down

Hunting someone down is not acceptable no matter if you hunt down for God, or for a Kidney. Sorry. The ones who hunt down people for religion also seek a better world, but the civilised people won't accept that.

The reason is power and money, we have it and the animals and 3rd world countries don't. So we may as well use that power and money to save people that can and do make a telling contribution rather than some of those that don't/can't.

So moderators (and ex moderators) around here must think if in newkit human life is respected. If it's not, then we can discuss terrorism and everything from any angle. But if life is respected, it shouldn't be accepted to level the 3rd world population to animal level because they don't have money.

That's my opinion about that topic, it was well locked. Everything else, is ok with me. You can choose the mods you want, you can be lazy about moderation, whatever. But some principles of respect to human life should be respected.

That thread was well locked, but for the wrong reason. The reason should not have been that it could provoke WWIII, the reason should be that some opinions cannot be acceptable, such as, posts defending terrorists, post defending pedophilia, or posts that advocate for removing human organs of poor people.

I don't understand why in this discussion it's relevant whether the one who wrote it is a "respectable" member. I won't find acceptable that Bob or Leon defend terrorism or organ removing just because I respect them. You could talk as well about how nice is to make sex with a 11 year older and see what comes from that, but it's simply wrong.

Judge wrote:you mock a serious situation andy. i dont know why

it has f'uck all to do with being a sheep. its to do with following mrders when told to do so, in a unti that you have sworn allegiance to queen and country. I dont do the politics of it, and tbh, ive moved on since then, to help people who are vulnerable and need to improve their quality of life (thats the job i do professionally).

during my army days, i did what was asked of me, and that was that

if you mock that, then you seriously need to get a grip of reality

Judge has his serious head on!