Unfriendly and Inappropriate Behaviour By Moderators

[Sanz]

IMO, Neil did the perfect thing by closing the thread. If a new member comes on the board and instead of introducing himself, starts with a Scream about Illegal webcast, IMO He deserves that kind of response. If it is the moderator's responsibility to welcome everyone, is it not the responsibility of the new members to intoduce himself before expecting a welcome ? Everyone knows that there are no free webcasts, and if there is any, it would be illegal. Why would anyone pay millions of Dollars to get the telecast rights and then webcast it in North America for free ?

Massive Zebra, If you read the link you provided, the new member was clearly asking about FREE WEBCAST. FYI, WillowTV is not a free webcast. If you can, Kindly show us a cricket webcast which is free and legal.

As for negative threads, I am happy that they are gone. All those Warnie Vs. Murali kinda threads were driving me crazy and basically I had stopped visiting CW for a while. I think the moderators have done an excellent job on Cricket Web. IMO CW is miles ahead of any other forum I have visited in last 5 years.

 

[Richard]

If they are indeed all the same bloke (time for a word with yourself if so fella!) & he went to the trouble of masking his IP(s) (although as a comp dunce that phrase means v little to me, so I've absolutely no idea how hard it would be to do) I bet he'll be back.

He seems incredibly adept at masking his IPs if so - but so amazingly incapable of disguising personality.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Dunno. I thought Belford seemed cut from a different cloth.

If you read their posts I think Camel56 & Belford seem quite different in tone. C56 v earthy, but Belford actually sounded a clever lad; however wasted his intelligence may have been.

Pinkline/Laws/Hadley are more obviously from the same stable.

 

[Richard]

Really?
You honestly took a very careful look and decided they were not obviously very deliberately similar (perhaps it was thought to be funny).
Camel56 and PJ tried to be clever, too, y'know - the whole thing started with them trying to outsmart me on infinitessimally when I didn't say infinitessimally.
I just think, personally, that the more it became clear they weren't welcome the more additions there were to the party.
Anyway - I promised I'd say nought more on the matter *slapped wrist*

 

[Sudeep]

IMO, Neil did the perfect thing by closing the thread. If a new member comes on the board and instead of introducing himself, starts with a Scream about Illegal webcast, IMO He deserves that kind of response. If it is the moderator's responsibility to welcome everyone, is it not the responsibility of the new members to intoduce himself before expecting a welcome ? Everyone knows that there are no free webcasts, and if there is any, it would be illegal. Why would anyone pay millions of Dollars to get the telecast rights and then webcast it in North America for free ?

Massive Zebra, If you read the link you provided, the new member was clearly asking about FREE WEBCAST. FYI, WillowTV is not a free webcast. If you can, Kindly show us a cricket webcast which is free and legal.

As for negative threads, I am happy that they are gone. All those Warnie Vs. Murali kinda threads were driving me crazy and basically I had stopped visiting CW for a while. I think the moderators have done an excellent job on Cricket Web. IMO CW is miles ahead of any other forum I have visited in last 5 years.

IMO, Neil's response, if not perfect, wasn't rude at all. When a new member comes to board, but his first post is about free webcast, 9 out of 10 times he'd have come just for that, rather than any discussion. And even if we let that point go, I think we've a rules thread, which every new member should go through, describing the dos and don'ts.

Neil could have been more polite, but by not being so, he didn't do any wrong.

 

[Slow Love™]

Dunno. I thought Belford seemed cut from a different cloth.

If you read their posts I think Camel56 & Belford seem quite different in tone. C56 v earthy, but Belford actually sounded a clever lad; however wasted his intelligence may have been.

Pinkline/Laws/Hadley are more obviously from the same stable.

For what it's worth, I think it's possible that Camel and Pinkline are two different individuals. They were "made up characters" in that their whole point was to mimic Australian sportscaster/comedians like Roy Slaven and H.G. Nelson, and parodying crap radio jocks like Ray Hadley, Laws etc. Belford was one of them in "true voice" (ie, pompous, bitter drama queen ). Can't see him as a separate individual really, when his sole purpose was to re-iterate what hilarious Wildean intellectuals Camel and Pinkline were (as if they hadn't done this enough under their names already), and continue their little tete-a-tete with Richard - particularly when he emerged with Camel56's first ban.

Their schtick was duller than an episode of "Diagnosis Murder", the abortion bucket comment was WAY over the top and they were lucky to survive that, IMO.

It's likely that you're right about them coming back in some way though. Trolls with a fixation like they had rarely find something "better" to do.

 

[James]

I've got to say that I was equally baffled by that.
Almost invaribly with thread-closures, from any mod, I am in agreeance that the closure was appropriate.
This time, however, I must say I was surprised. Very surprised. Certainly there was never any chance of me getting agitated at SJS, I respect him far too much for that. I could see where he was coming from and was just trying to explain why I always felt the need to carry-on the tec debates.
I'm not criticising, but I would be interested to hear James' reasons for feeling the closure was neccessary.

With lots of threads going around about yourself Richard I felt as though this thread was going down that same track.

...and the Marc/Richard situation has been gone through numerous times before and IMO was just going to finish up like it normally does.

 

[Sanz]

IMO, Neil's response, if not perfect, wasn't rude at all. When a new member comes to board, but his first post is about free webcast, 9 out of 10 times he'd have come just for that, rather than any discussion. And even if we let that point go, I think we've a rules thread, which every new member should go through, describing the dos and don'ts.

Neil could have been more polite, but by not being so, he didn't do any wrong.

Read my post again.

 

[SJS]

With lots of threads going around about yourself Richard I felt as though this thread was going down that same track.

...and the Marc/Richard situation has been gone through numerous times before and IMO was just going to finish up like it normally does.

You know James I might have eventually 'cured' Richard if you hadnt stopped the counselling !!

 

[James]

You know James I might have eventually 'cured' Richard if you hadnt stopped the counselling !!

LOL - you looking for that role are you

 

[BoyBrumby]

For what it's worth, I think it's possible that Camel and Pinkline are two different individuals. They were "made up characters" in that their whole point was to mimic Australian sportscaster/comedians like Roy Slaven and H.G. Nelson, and parodying crap radio jocks like Ray Hadley, Laws etc. Belford was one of them in "true voice" (ie, pompous, bitter drama queen ). Can't see him as a separate individual really, when his sole purpose was to re-iterate what hilarious Wildean intellectuals Camel and Pinkline were (as if they hadn't done this enough under their names already), and continue their little tete-a-tete with Richard - particularly when he emerged with Camel56's first ban.

Their schtick was duller than an episode of "Diagnosis Murder", the abortion bucket comment was WAY over the top and they were lucky to survive that, IMO.

It's likely that you're right about them coming back in some way though. Trolls with a fixation like they had rarely find something "better" to do.

I suspect you may actually be spot on there. Belford maybe Pinkline; I seem to remember a post where he said he (Belford) categorically denied he was Camel56. What he doesn't say is interesting to all connoisseurs of double-speak. His choice of NZ as location was odd tho, perhaps a simple diversionary tactic?

On the "Site Discussion" forum there's a thread titled "Question RE:Banning" started by Cameleon, from its tone and the mention of Richard's name I'd assumed Cameleon was C56. This further gave weight to my impression PL J & he were different posters as why would he be so concerned about being banned with another alias?

 

[Sudeep]

Read my post again.

Done.

 

[biased indian]

the speed with which the Michle jackson related threads get closed i think its better to add his name into the censor list

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

As with anything else, Michael Jackson can be discussed once a certain level of restraint and tact is employed. Unfortunately I can't see that coming about.

 

[biased indian]

i can understand the poll thread getting closed .what was the problem in discussing he is guilty or not.once he is sent free or found guilty there wont be anything to discuss.and by the by i wont be discusiing much into it as i dont follow it (Jackson case)

 

[Richard]

I wholeheartedly agree with Liam that innocent-until-proven-guilty should apply - both on CW.n and in court.
And that eccentric most certainly DOES NOT automatically = guilty.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Any discussion of ongoing court cases can be classed as "contempt of court" and can cause entire trials to collapse. The laws are exceptionally strict and exceptionally harsh on these matters and just seeing the thread titles nearly gave me a coronary...

I've moved the threads into a hidden forum as even the presence of the comments is running it fine, and merely padlocking doesn't do enough. For more on contempt of court go here (it's an Indian site, but it's the clearest and simplest I could find) or here for a recent high-profile case affected by the rules.

 

[Son Of Coco]

well it could be seen that as the poster in question has only made one post, he or she had joined solely for the purpose of getting a free link to watch the cricket. and given that quite a few hours had passed between his post and neil's without him posting, that could be quite correct.
whatever it is, dont worry, neil, i still love you

(i dont mean for that smilie to be as homosexual as it looks)

haha, is that a hand in the smilies pocket or is it just happy to see you?

 

[Richard]

Any discussion of ongoing court cases can be classed as "contempt of court" and can cause entire trials to collapse. The laws are exceptionally strict and exceptionally harsh on these matters and just seeing the thread titles nearly gave me a coronary...

I've moved the threads into a hidden forum as even the presence of the comments is running it fine, and merely padlocking doesn't do enough. For more on contempt of court go here (it's an Indian site, but it's the clearest and simplest I could find) or here for a recent high-profile case affected by the rules.

Wow... I'd no idea it was that easy...

 

[Slow Love™]

Wow... I'd no idea it was that easy...

That's 'cause it isn't.

Cricketweb can control their content in any way they see fit, but they're in no danger of being sued. Individuals on a web forum expressing their opinions (no matter how uninformed or inaccurate) doesn't fall into the realm of contempt of court. Journalists, talkshow hosts and those that report the news are held to higher standards.