Printable View
If you want an in-depth discussion then message me don't go and try and publicly slate a poster constantly. As you can see that's what is driving posters away. The fact I have been away this weekend might be that I don't live on the board and jump when you demand. But I invite you to tell me where I have 'declined' anything!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy_Faber
1. That i up to bloomer but we already have four moderators. It doesn't go to a vote to get ones mate on the board its entirely at the editors discretion. Then you don't get free reign any actions have to be agreed upon .... do you see where a number of assumptions come undone here!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
2. See the sticky thread if I ban for abuse nearly every poster will be banned for one reason (there are very few innocent parties) or another so I have drawn a line ..... one poster has already crossed it its up to others if they want to join them. If posters want to seek specific retribution then they will end up falling foul of this.
Does that answer your questions?
Frankly, 'no'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattea
Resent the implication about 'mates'. Andy wasn't initially suggested by me and I have 'mates' in real life not on a forum. Respect and being 'mates' are totally different things. I regularly disagree with Andy but we always manage it in a civil way and never resort to abuse. He appears to be someone capable of reasoned, joined up thought who is overwhelmingly fair...I respect that and would have thought they were essential qualities in a mod...nothing more!
If there are four mods, who are they? Bloomer's occasional observations aside all this forum ever hears is the gospel according to Rattea. If Ramondo is one of the mysterious four mods, I do - or did - have the greatest respect for him, but what is the point of a moderator who never appears on the forum or no one knows the names of? With all due respect you appear to be turning this forum into something of a dictatorship.
Don't understand your reference to the 'sticky thread'. The thread itself is barely comprehensible in all honesty and I have no idea who the one poster is but personally, seeing as I always try to use reason rather than abuse, I have nothing to fear...do I?
P.S. Just seen...you've banned Stenson for that! The lack of consistency now makes you seriously unfit for purpose imo.
Rattea, we aren't mates. I'm an accountant, we don't have mates.Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
I'm sorry Rats. That doesn't really answer anything. In fact you have made an unmeritted allegation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattea
There has never been an attempt to get a mate as a Moderator. You seem to take your position as a Mod as a right judging from your replies that you don't seem to care of the views of members who have themselves questioned your moderating style.
Your attempt to shift responsibility to Bloomer also doesn't cut much ice. I am also quite aware of what an Editor's scope is. Your answer doesn't square with what HQ has written to me in the past about such functions and what they want to see from the board.
Amongst them include that a Moderator whilst being independent of influence must also take the views of members. As far as possible he should enjoy the confidence of members, there's no use of being an excellent moderator if a majority of users dislike your handling of matters. You say there are 4 including Bloomer.
But as far as can be seen, it's only you who are making decisions. HQ has a rule of moderators are absent then they should be replaced.
I accept that you want a clean slate. That's good. But clean doesn't mean being selective. The user R4J has continuously bypassed the swear filter even in the Barcelona thread and I also believe it has happened since. Now I'm not going to complain because I believe the swear filter rule is pretty dumb. But there are others who 'swear' by it if you pardon the pun. So if you are going to blame others for their 'bullying,' at the very least you must acknowledge that this user has himself frequently breached rules and he must similarly be warned.
I have noticed that even if you have warned him before, his reply is an insult. I can tell you 100% if a Moderator gives a warning and the response is such, HQ would call for a sanction.
For some reason, you instead go on to defend him. Others have some allegation that he's you. I don't believe that but I'm not convinced yet that there's no relation between him and you, judging from your actions. And it's only from your strange actions that this idea floats. If you showed consistency and fairness, this would have never risen.
Now about your sticky and those who have left. Basically it's they abide by your decision or go fly a kite. I can again tell you that this is not what HQ or the owners want. A departure of 1 or 2 perhaps but when several suggest that, HQ doesn't believe something hasn't happened or that it should be ignored. The primary function of this board is to engage users not cause them to leave. Your suggestion that the bullying has caused this is not supported by facts. Rather it's the conduct of the user that caused this to happen. HQ in this situation will do the obvious, remove the user, warn the others. You are suggesting the opposite course of action.
Finally I can say that HQ would not answer in the high handed way you replied. Like any football club it's the fans that matter the same for this board. I strongly urge you to reconsider your moderating style and to take members recommendations seriously and not as dismissely as you have. If they want another Moderator, I'm sure HQ would almost certainly accept that.
Regards
Romanis
As for this mate thingy. It was me who suggested Andy. I'm the outsider. I've only posted frequently in this forum since maybe May. How I can be mates with him beggars belief.
In the short time, I found him fairest amongst all. He also doesn't in any way ' bully ' this user. In fact he's very supportive.
Suffice to say, he would be the best person to be a Moderator. No bias.
And guess what, your own members agreed with my recommendation. Those who have made thousands of posts here.
You ignore them at your peril. If you have carded Stenson, please confirm it. So that members can write to HQ to see whether that decision is justified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
I didn't say your mate its not an old boys network. People have been picked over the years. If action has to be taken it is cleared with all the mods and if one doesn't agree it is discussed. This has resulted in a change in the past.
Bloomer, Ramondo, Chris and myself.
Stenson has circumvented the swear filter which has always been a yellow card. The sticky thread at the top wiped everyone's slate clean ..... so tell me how that lacks consistency and makes me unfit for applying the rules??? This has been a rule for over 10 years!
http://boards.footymad.net/showthread.php?t=38200058
So why hasn't Chris and Ramondo appeared. Only you?
Ramondo has been on holiday I believe and Chris is having trouble logging on atm and we are sorting it. See not only you guys have problems. Bloomer posted a week or so ago to say pack it up to those killing the threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Romanis
'This has been a rule for ten years'...suddenly it's applied for just about the least offensive avoidance of the swear filter imaginable with Stenson, but you know who could say what he said on Friday/Saturday with impunity...and you don't think that lacks consistencyQuote:
Originally Posted by Rattea
...really?
'It doesn't go to a vote to get one's mate on board'. You don't recognise the intimation...again...really? You must be the only one who doesn't.
Never seriously lost respect for you before Rats but you're making yourself...and the board..look ridiculous. When was the last time Ramondo and Chris (?) contributed? 'Ramondo has been on holiday'...what for the last seven months? We need a 'live' contributor as mod...someone who sees what's going on on a regular basis. Andy 'not my mate' Fabre has been suggested but given your current level of intransigence you'll probably appoint R4J!