Election Year or Fear!

[Andy_Faber]

Lighten up, AF. We all know you two aren’t exactly ‘besties’ but I suspect he was ‘only joshing’.

Anyway, back on topic, prior to retirement…that quotation marks thing with two fingers like rabbit ears was one of the more annoying features to spread through meetings I attended.

Very irritating, along with the fact that we still can’t be considered grown up enough to use words like v*tal, s*x, t*en and p*edophile on here.

Nice to see you sticking up for the boss again

The ***** thing is a bit daft and well past its sell by date, the others however have a reason if I recall my modship elsewhere, and that's that they prevent sickos/perverts/scammers and the like from identifying potential conversations that they can infiltrate and influence. In these strange days it also has the unintended impact of keeping away those from totally the other end of the spectrum who seek to find offence in what (in our case for instance) are such words used innocently and pertinently in general discussion.

[Andy_Faber]

Says the Forum's closet racist, openly bigot and bull ****ter, but then you have proven time and time again to be rather more dumb the you think your are.

'...THAN you think you are'. If you're going to be nasty at least make a bit of sense

[Andy_Faber]

IMO, the F word has lost its power to shock except those who simply can't wait to be "offended" by the slightest thing. It's extremely common in its use here in NL from junior schools and upwards. Hardly a talk show goes by or a radio programme without at least one person using it as a verb or noun or pronoun or adjective. You'll hear it in every UK school playground. Every pub, although one didn't used to 40 years ago. Time to stop being offended by its use. As was said in a previous conversation, language evolves...

Respectfully totally disagree on the offence thing, in my example (note for Swale: made up example) just about everyone in the room was offended, although I now recall it was a sunday and the pub was more 'grandparents and kids having a drink with a meal' than dedicated drinkers.

I don't actually know anyone, even my property renovating contractors, who use the F word, apart from one (evidenced last night!) who swears at the footy.

[Geoff Parkstone]

And surely you are openly bigoted, rather than openly bigot.

Even Gen Z, who ordinarily can barely string two sentences together, know the "declension" of the word bigot as it's so close to their hearts 😄

[Andy_Faber]

Its not been a good morning so far for you Swale, your constant bleating about anything right of far left presaging the return of the Nazis is coming home to roost. You have the Syntax Nazis on your case.

[ramAnag]

Nice to see you sticking up for the boss again

The ***** thing is a bit daft and well past its sell by date, the others however have a reason if I recall my modship elsewhere, and that's that they prevent sickos/perverts/scammers and the like from identifying potential conversations that they can infiltrate and influence. In these strange days it also has the unintended impact of keeping away those from totally the other end of the spectrum who seek to find offence in what (in our case for instance) are such words used innocently and pertinently in general discussion.

I’m not ‘sticking up’ for anyone but it’s noticeable that you use the language of the playground which, frankly, is how your never ending spat with Swale comes across. God knows I’ve had my differences with him but it’s almost become a point of principle with you to seek a fall out whatever he says.

It’d be different if you weren’t a/‘the’ ‘moderator’ and meant to set an example. I’m still a little confused about that, btw, given the disclaimer at the bottom of the title page which suggests ‘these forums are not actively moderated’. Could you possibly clear that up…are you just another contributor or a moderator…because if the forum isn’t ‘actively moderated’ any more it’s difficult to see how you remain a moderator?

[Andy_Faber]

I’m not ‘sticking up’ for anyone but it’s noticeable that you use the language of the playground which, frankly, is how your never ending spat with Swale comes across. God knows I’ve had my differences with him but it’s almost become a point of principle with you to seek a fall out whatever he says.

It’d be different if you weren’t a/‘the’ ‘moderator’ and meant to set an example. I’m still a little confused about that, btw, given the disclaimer at the bottom of the title page which suggests ‘these forums are not actively moderated’. Could you possibly clear that up…are you just another contributor or a moderator…because if the forum isn’t ‘actively moderated’ any more it’s difficult to see how you remain a moderator?

You have no idea what moderating I do.

However, I'll confirm that I do 'actively' moderate, I've been dealing with an issue this am as it happens. I've no idea what the disclaimer means, it may well be another way of avoiding litigation, there have been some threats of that nature in the past on here (the whole of Footy Mad, not The Ram Inn), most recently to do with GDPR

[ramAnag]

You have no idea what moderating I do.

However, I'll confirm that I do 'actively' moderate, I've been dealing with an issue this am as it happens. I've no idea what the disclaimer means, it may well be another way of avoiding litigation, there have been some threats of that nature in the past on here (the whole of Footy Mad, not The Ram Inn), most recently to do with GDPR

Again you’re immediately defensive. I’m just puzzled, because I don’t understand how you can ‘actively moderate’ when the small print on the title page states quite clearly, ‘…these forums are not actively moderated, so if you wish to report any comment made by another member please report it.’
What does that actually mean other than that the forums, including this one, have no actual moderation.

[Andy_Faber]

Again you’re immediately defensive. I’m just puzzled, because I don’t understand how you can ‘actively moderate’ when the small print on the title page states quite clearly, ‘…these forums are not actively moderated, so if you wish to report any comment made by another member please report it.’
What does that actually mean other than that the forums, including this one, have no actual moderation.

To answer your exact question, I don't know what the small print means, I'm making an educated guess that its a disclaimer on behalf of the website owners in the absence of properly trained moderators, and I am not aware why the 'contact us' link has been disabled, other than to save forum members the frustration of the long unfulfilled wait that moderators have. There ARE other moderators on other club pages, some I can see are active (as both posters and moderators), some clearly not, some between the two extremes. I have been given no terms of reference for moderation of this forum, and the few other moderators I've spoken to haven't either. If the strict 'assumed' definition of a moderator, one who just oversees activity and doesn't contribute to the ebb and flow of conversation, was adhered to here, there wouldn't be any moderators, nor would there be moderators anywhere else in social media, save for those who are paid or a few genuinely altruistic ones maybe, but most people fall into the task and don't want to give up on 'having their say'. Rest assured though, that based on terms of reference that I've made up myself (and based on moderation of forums going right back to the MSN Groups of the REALLY early 'wild west' days of the internet) I DO moderate this forum in a roundabout way, regretably for your peace of mind that doesn't involve communicating my every deed to y'all. Nor does it involve just banning folk, a bit of a 'word' moderates far more effectively. Communication with 'admin' is poor/infrequent, although as intimated earlier, I've just found an email on a current subject in my junk and will pass it onto a forum member later

[Geoff Parkstone]

Does it really matter or are you being polemic for the sake of it?

[ramAnag]

Does it really matter or are you being polemic for the sake of it?

Can one ‘be’ polemic? Not sure. Am I being critical for the sake of it? No.

There have been some very good and effective moderators on here. You know as well as I do who they were. I just fear that AF is now slipping in the direction of Rats or TTR on the Forest site where ‘moderation’ becomes more aggressive and personal.

I have been chastised in the past for an ongoing spat with Swale…and rightly so. Yet my daft argument with Swale probably lasted about half a season whereas AF and Swale have been going at each other for years.

IMO a decent moderator should try and diffuse a situation rather than actively incite further acrimony. AF, again imo, knows exactly how to wind Swale up. Were he not ‘the moderator’ I think someone - such as Bloomer or Ramondo - would have stepped in to nip things in the bud.

I recently took a fortnight away because the ‘pre-election’ forum had become such an unpleasant place to be. You have taken the same step, threatening never to return, more times than I care to remember and even MA took a step away recently because of a personal attack.

IMO there is no place for a moderator to act in a way which provokes someone who we all know to be as potentially incendiary as he is insightful and so I am simply trying to ascertain whether 1. AF remains a moderator on a forum which now describes itself as having ‘no active moderation’? 2. If he is, wouldn’t it would be more appropriate for him as a moderator to adopt a more conciliatory, rather than openly provocative, tone?

So…no…not criticising for the sake of it but for the sake of the forum.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Perhaps but if you unseat the moderator I rather assume no one will step in and the forum will fold?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Let's face it, any other moderator would likely have banished Swale long ago, so I'd say Andy has been quite nuanced in the role

[ramAnag]

Perhaps but if you unseat the moderator I rather assume no one will step in and the forum will fold?

Absolutely no desire or intention to ‘unseat the moderator’…just like to know if the role actually exists, or is imaginary…and to see a little more impartiality. I’m sure MA would step in anyway. He has offered to share the role which, imo, would still be a good thing.

P.S. Has anyone ever been ‘banished’? Not sure even DCFCA suffered that fate although the two of us…along curiously with Swale…once ‘banished’ ourselves to somewhere in Scotland.

P.P.S. Cricket’s going well. Magnificent run out.

[Andy_Faber]

1. AF remains a moderator on a forum which now describes itself as having ‘no active moderation’?

2. If he is, wouldn’t it would be more appropriate for him as a moderator to adopt a more conciliatory, rather than openly provocative, tone?

1. Yes I do. I've confirmed that to be the case a number of times, you'll be first to know if it changes. Before a pedant jumps in, you'll actually be the third to know, admin and the new moderator will precede you you but even you must accept that. Ask again if you wish, next time you won't get an answer.

2. As a compromise, when I have my moderator hat on, I won't be openly provocative, and when I have my forum user hat on, I won't make use, or threaten to make use, of my moderator 'powers'.

GP makes a good point about what any other moderator would do, my guess is he'd be right and I'd include TTR in that too. If I hadn't exercised a bit of 'pot calling the kettle black' in the past, Swale and TTR would be history just for pissing me off, but as it happens and based on my own idea of a moderator's duties I've probably had words with TTR either in public or private maybe three times, Swale maybe once, maybe not at all.

Note also, my comment on another thread: Politics divides, sport provokes, music unites. We have very few disagreements and none that descend into nastiness regarding football or other sport and none regarding music, all the animostity is generated by politics threads. And this is a football forum