Is the moderator fair?

[SmiffyPie]

Rather a rose tinted view in my opinion Smiffy. There was definitely some good chin wagging back then, but there was also a rather unpleasant racist element on here that went unchecked (if you want names I'll provide them privately). I've always thought that a messageboard without argument is a dead messageboard, but those arguments have to be within the rules.

That's why Swale's role is so difficult.

Yes there were issues (limited to a small number of posters) but I seem to remember there was a strong reaction from the majority of board members. The difference between then and now is if there was no football to talk about then we generally had some good topics of conversation and the camaraderie was at times biblical! Now if there is nothing football it becomes a slanging match between three or four posters.

[Elite_Pie]

Yes there were issues (limited to a small number of posters) but I seem to remember there was a strong reaction from the majority of board members. The difference between then and now is if there was no football to talk about then we generally had some good topics of conversation and the camaraderie was at times biblical! Now if there is nothing football it becomes a slanging match between three or four posters.

So back then it was "limited to a small number of posters", nowadays it's a "slanging match between three or four posters".

As the French might say, plus ça change!

[SmiffyPie]

So back then it was "limited to a small number of posters", nowadays it's a "slanging match between three or four posters".

As the French might say, plus ça change!

No it doesn't change. The only difference between then and now is it used to be a few among many (and many topics) now it is a few regurgitating the same base argument and they take over everything it seems. Of course the old argument of "Don't look if you don't like" is valid but then what is the point of logging in?