Election Year or Fear!

[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

[ramAnag]

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

It is indeed, first and foremost, a football forum, but the fact is that the three political threads have generated 11,223 responses between them.
Probably only fair to discount the Brexit one, which has been running since Adam was a lad, but even allowing for that the other two have an average of 1003 responses each compared with 52 for the current top 5 football responses.

As a moderator what’s more important…a small number of posts where everyone agrees…or a far greater number but with far more contentiousness? I genuinely don’t know the answer.

[Andy_Faber]

It is indeed, first and foremost, a football forum, but the fact is that the three political threads have generated 11,223 responses between them.
Probably only fair to discount the Brexit one, which has been running since Adam was a lad, but even allowing for that the other two have an average of 1003 responses each compared with 52 for the current top 5 football responses.

As a moderator what’s more important…a small number of posts where everyone agrees…or a far greater number but with far more contentiousness? I genuinely don’t know the answer.

As a moderator neither are important, I'm not on pay per click

As a person the political threads just make me thankful I never talk politics, or suffer others doing so, in real life

[Geoff Parkstone]

It is indeed, first and foremost, a football forum, but the fact is that the three political threads have generated 11,223 responses between them.
Probably only fair to discount the Brexit one, which has been running since Adam was a lad, but even allowing for that the other two have an average of 1003 responses each compared with 52 for the current top 5 football responses.

As a moderator what’s more important…a small number of posts where everyone agrees…or a far greater number but with far more contentiousness? I genuinely don’t know the answer.

Ah but of those 11223 posts, about 7500 have said "Brexit baaaa'd" (no sheep intended) and another 1500 have said ""Tories are baaaa'stards". The remaining 2223 belong to Tricky-bollux.

[ramAnag]

Forever grateful to Biden, but after the latest two embarrassing and sad gaffs at the NATO summit, enough is enough.
Trump will never be fit for office but Biden, for entirely different reasons, surely isn’t any more. Thanks, but time to go, Joe.

[SithHappens]

Forever grateful to Biden, but after the latest two embarrassing and sad gaffs at the NATO summit, enough is enough.
Trump will never be fit for office but Biden, for entirely different reasons, surely isn’t any more. Thanks, but time to go, Joe.

Agree, it's sad but he'll lose votes to trump because of it. It only increases trumps chances .

Go enjoy your life Joe.