I thought this is a messageboard?

[Black_White]

Not that he needsd defending, but NP has raised this subject in the mods forum. Most mods thought that the spread and variety of threads was uncalled for.
The threads therefore have been closed with the moderators support.
As for other boards, yes they have different rules, but to say that FTO is not moderated, or have a policy of deleting posts is wrong. Just ask Flounder about his "No Soup" rule.
If you're unhappy no-one is twisting your arm.
Nicks has certain standards. It's what sets it apart. If that is good or bad, only you can decide.

-Craig

[Black_White]

Elusive thig, consistancy.
As far as I can tell, only 2 Woey subjects are active. That is, have recieved a post in the last 2 days, the others are slipping away.
I count 5 ND threads that are active. Why 5?
I've checked FTO, they have 2 active. 1 in the general discussion and 1 in trade and draft talk. 2 completely different forums.
If you have something to say about ND then do it in the thread that is left. If you feel that you are replying to a post in the closed threads, copy that post and paste it in the active thread as part of your reply.
10 new posts a day? Pure bliss!!!!!!!


-Craig

[Northern Pie]

As Black_White said, not that I need defending..but..I had recieved compliants about all of the threads, there being so many and being so repetitive...and I do not disagree that Nick Davis is a hot topic, this is evident in the fact that before I posted the last replies in each of the closed threads under the Heading "Nick Davis" there were already 98 replies....

I feel I did not go about this matter in a vigilante type manner, if that was the case i wouild have just deleted the topics all together, but they are still there and able to be commented on but has been compacted into one thread....

The Woewodin threads had completely different content, unlike the Nick Davis threads which seemed to be repetitive. Mate I am not closed to suggestions on re-opening a thread, but after consulting with other moderators (something I would always do first) this seemed the best action to take...sorry if I haver caused Offence it was in no way intended...

Cheers

(Besides......this is a Collingwood Board and personally I reakon that 6 different threads on a now Sydney player was entertaining but just a little too much...)

"NEVER LEAVE, NEVER GIVE UP ON THEM AND ALWAYS BE THERE AT THE END TO CLAP THEM OFF THE GROUND. WE ARE COLLINGWOOD SUPPORTERS SON, EVEN IF THEY BEAT US, WE ARE STILL BETTER THAN THEM!"(quote from my mum when I was 8 years old)

[Murray]

Mike - Possibly one for the impending Policy.
BTW happy to assist on that.

McG77B don't get me started on consistency, hence (IMO) the need for a documented unambiguous concise policy which would remove an individual or group of mods (what may appear to be to some) unfair act.

McG77B. As you can see by this post I have discussed this with Mike in a PM, I think Nicks is well on the way to being the first and only BB with a set of workable guidelines on content of threads etc.
It might not happen overnight but IMO I believe Mike will make it happen


DARE TO STRUGGLE - DARE TO WIN

[Joel]

Guidelines take a long time to put together. We do our best. Moderation is not always consistent, however we are all working on that.

JDF

"We've never quit, and we won't."

[MagpieMad]

Guidelines?? Murray get a life, the rest of us understand the "Guidelines" for posting on this board without the need for "documented unambiguous concise policy". all the mods on here are volinteers and do it B'cose they put there hand up when it was getting to much work for Mike and he was talking about closing it down. the amount of posts that they would have to read a day would put most of us off from being a mod, so just cut them some slack and stop whinning about consistency and live with it!.
oh and no I'm not a mod.
If you want to change the world do it some where else.

http://magpiemad.magpies.net/

[Murray]

So why don't you tell me and everyone else what the guidelines are?

Do you know why you can't - because there aren't any.
You make them up as you go along, so do the other Mods
C'mon tell me what they are, and where you got them from, and who developed them and how do we know about them, where can I see them, when did you tell people about them, what do they say.

Thanks for the advice on life, I am sure you have a great grip on it.
Have a nice day

DARE TO STRUGGLE - DARE TO WIN

[Black_White]

First guidline: no swearing (this includes "similar" words)
Second guidline: no personal insults
Third guidline: No harmful to CFC comments

These are the three I moderate by.
Now they may not be set in concrete, and I think it is impossible to draw a definitive line in the sand, but until I see any better ones I shall not abandon these.

And if you think we make 'em up as we go, you're very wrong. We have passionate and heated debates in the mods forum as to what is required of us. It's not easy, and can be a bit of a shock if you forget when you're rostered on as I found Monday night, 136 posts!!! And a fair few from the **shudder** Chicks Channel. Each one needs to be read. How Mike did it on his own I'll never know.

If you'd like to contribute to the site and have your own say, put your hand up to moderate. I cannot guarantee you'll become one, but all applications will be looked at.

-Craig

[MagpieMad]

quote:

---

You make them up as you go along, so do the other Mods

---

ummmm no as I said I am not a mod and I don't think I would like to be with the workload that they have to take on.
as for the guidelines they are right there on the front page

quote:

---

Please note that posts containing abuse, defamation or gratuitous profanity will be removed or modified.

---

duh!

http://magpiemad.magpies.net/

[Murray]

Thanks Graig,
I understand your point. But that is exactly the point, they are rules you go by, what about others.

Let me give you a small analogy.
If a cop says to me I can't do something on the road, I can go to any cop shop and look at the rules - ANY RULE and see what is says.
Then I know those rules are infact the same for everyone.
The cops don't just say to me, "sorry it is too hard to make rules and besides you should know what they are any way". Its a silly argument.

McG77B makes a very good point NP pulled certain posts, would you have done that? Would others have done that? What was the criteria used, is that the same criteria you would use etc etc.

Thee is no malice here Graig, just having a discussion, hope you are OK with that
Regards
Murray



DARE TO STRUGGLE - DARE TO WIN

[Black_White]

I think to equate this, or any site, to being subject to the same rules that the police enforce is a gross overexageration.
This site is a fun thing, we enjoy it and I hope you do to.
Sometimes we need to be intrusive in regards editing posts. There are moral and legal reasons sometimes. This actually detracts from the enjoyment I get from Nicks.

-Craig

[Murray]

Analogy - to compare, to use as an example.
I could have used any thing where there are written rules.
Sorry you missed the point of the post.
I will endeavour to use examples that do not relate to police if it makes it a little easier for you to understand.

Regardless of that, what do you think about the issue being discussed? Is there a solution.

Magpiemaid - Duh is such a great come back. Your quick wit is astounding, did someone suggest you use that in a post some day or did you come up with it all by yourself.

DARE TO STRUGGLE - DARE TO WIN

[Northern Pie]

Murray,

Don't be to quick to judge a persons level of understanding when it is you yourself who has a lack of understanding with this situation, there is no need for personal slanging and questioning ones intelligence, that is definately what this board is NOT about.

This is a messageboard run by volunteer moderators. The process of moderating is not just left to ones devices to do as they please. In this particular instance, I had received a few complaints about the number of threads about Nick Davis that were similar in nature and whether something could be done. I then approached other moderators by way of post in the moderators forum....it only after seeking their advice did I proceed with the action that was taken. If I had just maliciously delted the threads or even closed them without consulting other moderators then I would have expected to cop some sort of punishment for doing so. I beleive that this process is the most effective and fair way of carrying out any action that needs to be taken after a situation has been brought to a moderators attention.

Now what could be more fair or equitable that that.

and once again a reminder that the derogatory remarks in your post are not appreciated, so please try and restrain yourself in the future...

cheers

"NEVER LEAVE, NEVER GIVE UP ON THEM AND ALWAYS BE THERE AT THE END TO CLAP THEM OFF THE GROUND. WE ARE COLLINGWOOD SUPPORTERS SON, EVEN IF THEY BEAT US, WE ARE STILL BETTER THAN THEM!"(quote from my mum when I was 8 years old)

[This message has been edited by Northern Pie (edited 01 November 2002).]

[Blanch]

Why don't we write a rule of logic for Murray? Maybe one on common sense? How about we start with....let's see....if there is 5 threads all talking about the same thing, we'll close 4 and make it a lot easier for everyone to read....yeah sounds good to me. I'm only mucking around Muz...all in jest.

Murray, your point is valid about the rules but sometimes common sense has to prevail. I am talking about this thread only.

Moderators are here to make the common sense decisions. There is no need for written rules to govern this. They are given the right to moderate and this is a discressionary thing. In this instance I would like to say thank you to NP for closing the other threads. I find it much easier to follow the Davis debate now that I only have to reply in one thread. Well done NP!


My oxygen is Collingwood. Without it I die.

[Murray]

NP - You see fairness is in the eye of the beholder,
If I reply to someone else's derogatory remarks, it assists your argument to tell me to stop. You do not approach the instigater.
Why not? As you put it "What could be fairer than that".

Now, as to the debate, I have had long discussions on this board with Mike, who said words to the effect "Censorship is up to the individual moderator, if you don't like what a particular moderator censors just wait a week until there are different moderators". That is unfair and totally inconsistant because only the moderators know the rules that are about to be implemented. NO ONE else does until it happens, because there is no reference point. Mike is well aware of my views and I have no intention of going into PM's between us.

I do not judge a persons level of understanding, I judge what is written. One thing that I have discovered since being on this board is that if a person raises issues that question the operation of the board, the mods or why certain things happen then the wrath of God is poured on the questioner ie "How dare you". It appears that some things are not allowed to be discussed under threat of attack on issues that have nothing to do with the debate, as a way of discrediting the arguement, ie derogatory remarks. Of course one easy way to cop out is to tell me to shut up and do nothing. Good luck on that.
Have a nice day
Murray


DARE TO STRUGGLE - DARE TO WIN