Liverpool FC Forum

Igor Zidane wrote:That dude fella sure has got alot to answer for . The sh!t he's caused in this thread.

  Ban him !

     

Bad Bob wrote:I'd like to take the opportunity to address several of the points raised by JBG, as I'm clearly in the middle of many of the incidents he's mentioned.  I want to be clear that JBG was a moderator who I had a lot of respect for when he was in the post and so I don't take his criticisms lightly.  I do think it's important to give my perspective on matters, however, and to disagree with a few of his views.  I've highlighted a few of his points below and I'll address each in turn.

JBG wrote: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.

First, let me be clear that I fully appreciate that Saint is a long-standing and respected member of this forum and that the initial responses to his posts in the world philosophy thread were respectful.  So, I resent the notion that I wasn't paying attention to the tone of the thread when I locked it.  On the contrary, I doubt I've ever paid more attention to a thread on this board because the comments contained therein were some of the most objectionable remarks I have ever read during my time here.  Please understand where I'm coming from.  I teach students history and geography, which fundamentally involves teaching them about some of the more reprehensible things that powerful peoples have done to less powerful peoples in the course of human history.  Slavery, genocide and other atrocities are an all too frequent blight on humanity's historical record and, in virtually every instance, there has been some specious moral or scientific argument deployed to justify the unjustifiable.  From my perspective, then, there can be no reasonable, rational, respectful discussion concerning the morality of 3rd World organ harvesting.  The idea is morally bankrupt and no amount of rationalizing will ever change that.  So, I completely disagree with the suggestion that "the thread should have been given a chance to see where it was going" because it had already gone too far.  Under the circumstances, locking the thread was the prudent option.

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.

I'll refrain from commenting on this one in detail for the sake of the members mentioned but I will say that I don't think you have all the details of the various incidents between these two straight.  I would add, though, that I too have regretted Ciggy's self-imposed hiatus from the board but feel that I was well justified to take the action I did when she and Stu last clashed. 

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.

This is probably a fair point.  It was a judgment call to ban Dude Love based on a pattern of behaviour that has been favoured by WUMs in the past.  In all probability I was too hasty to pull the trigger.  It happens but it should not be taken to mean that I prowl the board looking for any excuse to ban newbies.

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.

Fair enough.  Some have suggested I've been too quick to intervene in the last couple of months and I think there's something to that.  So, apologies to those who feel I've treated them harshly...it was nothing personal and I'll try and strike a better balance between stepping in and hanging back. 

Fair enough Bob, I see where you are coming from.

I'm a teacher (now) myself of sorts (a uni lecturer) and I do disagree with you on one of the points you made. IMO banning all talk on extremely controversial subjects actually lends some form of legitimacy to the views, my own attitude (within reason) is to allow these views to be aired and then go in and attempt to demonstrate the inherent wrongness of these views. In the end if these views are contempable it is not enough to ban their expression, one needs to go in and show how they contemptable (I mean other posters, not necessarily the mods).

If the debate can be held without too much bloodshed I'm in favour of letting it go, but you are right in stopping it if it degenerates into a slanging match.

I think you have been somewhat vindicated by the slanging match in this thread and so on that point I admit I was wrong, my own initial feeling was that as Saint is very well known around here and generally well liked people would have disagreed with him without it getting personal, however, I was wrong.

As for the Dude, he matters little to me, he could have been any of the new members over the past couple of months, but he seemed to be coming from the Honululu Bob/Manhattan direction rather than a WUM from what I was reading of his posts.

As for HB, don't look at me... 

JBG wrote:Fair enough Bob, I see where you are coming from.

I'm a teacher (now) myself of sorts (a uni lecturer) and I do disagree with you on one of the points you made. IMO banning all talk on extremely controversial subjects actually lends some form of legitimacy to the views, my own attitude (within reason) is to allow these views to be aired and then go in and attempt to demonstrate the inherent wrongness of these views. In the end if these views are contempable it is not enough to ban their expression, one needs to go in and show how they contemptable (I mean other posters, not necessarily the mods).

If the debate can be held without too much bloodshed I'm in favour of letting it go, but you are right in stopping it if it degenerates into a slanging match.

I think you have been somewhat vindicated by the slanging match in this thread and so on that point I admit I was wrong, my own initial feeling was that as Saint is very well known around here and generally well liked people would have disagreed with him without it getting personal, however, I was wrong.

As for the Dude, he matters little to me, he could have been any of the new members over the past couple of months, but he seemed to be coming from the Honululu Bob/Manhattan direction rather than a WUM from what I was reading of his posts.

As for HB, don't look at me... 

The bottom line is that this whole incident could have been handled better by all involved and I definitely include myself.  I truly harbour no ill will towards anyone, including Saint, and I hope we can all move on.

As a first step, Dude Love's cards have been rescinded.  I think we could all use a laugh. 

Dude Love wrote:To the Dude, there's only one organ that counts. 

Sh!t sturrer, ban him.  















Only kiddin mate , happy posting.

Dude Love wrote:To the Dude, there's only one organ that counts. 

That is the most offensive thing I have ever read on this forum

Dude Love wrote:who the hell is Roberts?

dunno, but i know who the hell is diarra