-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Censor stuff and moderation
- Thread starter Slow Love™
- Start date
- Status
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Anyone who seriously thinks that the bannings in the last couple of days are consistent with the usual moderation policies on this site is deluded or simply doesn't read many threads. As has already been noted, Murphy was banned without a warning, Chaulk's banning resulted in words that are totally inoffensive and normal being added to the swear filter, and the others were mostly banned for reacting to warnings from mods that varied between reasonable and completely absurd. Certainly none of them would have happened under normal circumstances.
In response to PY, I don't have a "beef" with Dan, but I certainly noticed, as I'm sure everyone else did, that as soon as he became a mod things which would have passed without notice suddenly became the subject of warnings. You can call that a power trip or just "enforcing the rules" or whatever, but I find it far more detrimental to the atmosphere on the site to have people getting banned for saying p00 and warned for writing a few asterisks than if they went unchecked.
There are mods on this site that manage to find a happy balance between enforcing the rules and letting things which simply aren't important go, so I don't see why he can't be expected to do the same.
In response to PY, I don't have a "beef" with Dan, but I certainly noticed, as I'm sure everyone else did, that as soon as he became a mod things which would have passed without notice suddenly became the subject of warnings. You can call that a power trip or just "enforcing the rules" or whatever, but I find it far more detrimental to the atmosphere on the site to have people getting banned for saying p00 and warned for writing a few asterisks than if they went unchecked.
There are mods on this site that manage to find a happy balance between enforcing the rules and letting things which simply aren't important go, so I don't see why he can't be expected to do the same.
alternative
Cricket Web Content Updater
I am not sure about others, but Murphy surely didn't deserve to get banned..
Langeveldt
Soutie
Hahah Site discussion, the new Off Topic?
Attachments
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Incidentally, I should add that I don't even necessarily disagree with all the bans. What bugs me is the massive overreaction, where a single justified warning results in the same post in 10 different threads from a single mod, someone getting banned results in half a dozen normal words being censored, and people who do nothing wrong get banned just because a few other people have already been banned that day.
It's every bit as disruptive to the forum as anything that any single poster might do, if not moreso.
It's every bit as disruptive to the forum as anything that any single poster might do, if not moreso.
Loony BoB
International Captain
The 'usual moderation' wasn't up to the standard that it is now. Just because people didn't get warned for breaking rules in the past doesn't mean they can't be warned for breaking rules in the future. The rules are there, if you break them, that's your problem.FaaipDeOiad said:
I asked the other guys if I was going too far. They said keep going. I've even had emails and IM's from members saying I'm doing a good job. Can't please everyone, mind you - that's something I learned very quick a long time ago.
Things are changing, and I respect that some of you will find it hard to adjust to immediately and some of you might find it hard to adjust to at all, but I think (based on those that have been actively involved in discussions) the majority of the guys who run the forums feel that in the long run things will improve if the rules are actually upheld. There will, of course, always be people who disagree - particularly those that have been around for a long time and enjoyed breaking the rules, be it because they are breaking rules or because they simply like to do things that just happen to be against the rules.
It's also worth noting that if you get a light warning, it's not the end of the world. Just go "okay" in your head and carry on. If you get a heavy warning, you might want to start thinking about how well you follow the rules. But as far as I'm concerned, a light warning is nothing to cry over, let alone react to in an abusive or absurd way. There are more mature ways of dealing with things, as you and others are showing quite well, than to go out all guns blazing just because a mod pointed out that you'd broken a rule and told you not to do it. I've honestly never seen people react so badly to such a simple thing, particularly when it's not even their warning.
I don't directly deal with bans at the moment so I'll not comment far on that end of things, but obviously if you keep breaking rules after receiving one or two warnings you will get banned, and if the boss feels that a single offence is bad enough to warrant a ban then that's his decision. Since these are his forums, I can hardly tell him that his opinion of what should and shouldn't happen here is all horribly wrong.
I help run forums that are far more strict than this place (although only in some ways) and I also own/run forums where a large amount of the posts would probably get you warned/banned here... so don't think this is all about my own ideals.
Bit confused on that one. One justified warning results in ten posts from the same mod? If a mod gives a warning, surely that's that, and they don't go around posting about it in ten other threads. If you can clarify that would be great.Fuller said:
As stated in another thread, this is being discussed by the team so we can hopefully settle things.
Not sure on that one either.
As much as it might be an easy way out, I don't think that allowing a member to return and break rules in a 'we surrender' fashion will be taken route. I'm sure anyone with a bit of maturity can learn the rules and abide by them.
Last edited:
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
Jesus Christ, this is the biggest piece of crap post I've ever read. You became a forum moderator, you didn't take over a ****ing political party. Sheesh.Loony BoB said:
Adamc
Cricketer Of The Year
Bit of a false dichotomy there - if you've been reading this thread you should have realised by now that most of the people objecting are not people who get their kicks by going around breaking rules for the hell of it as you seem to be suggesting. The problem is as much with the rules themselves as with their inconsistent enforcement, and I think the initial post in the thread was intended to address the former issue, though it has now headed towards the latter (as SL predicted).Loony BoB said:
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
Yes, obviously what I meant. You obviously got this job because, despite your shortcomings, you have a large amount of skill with words. It's not hard to moderate a forum, a few clicks here, a few clicks there, maybe an email or two, even pinchy could do it. Sections of your post, such as this coming section, show that you're getting by on word skill alone:Loony BoB said:
It's like you're trying to manipulate with affirmative speech or something, one of those books that teaches you how to win an argument without any real argument. And was spoken as though you're taking over a regime.Loony BoB said:
It was essentially propaganda, and points to me that you seem to think you're "in charge where, essentially, you have no power and are , by sounding smart, are trying to show you do. You have more power than me, of course, but that's essentially irrelevent in my point. You click a few buttons here, you maybe send an email there. But nay ye wordsmith, smite me with ye powers of word. Ye be a worthy adversary, despite ye allergy to yonder daylight & RL friends.
Last edited:
Loony BoB
International Captain
Sorry if it looked like I was suggesting that everyone who disagrees with the warns/bans enjoys breaking rules for the hell of it, because I was trying to suggest (as at the end of the part of my post you quoted) that there are some people who enjoy their times here partially due to the rules not being enforced and, as such, their allowance to break rules. Not because they get a kick out of breaking rules, but because they feel that the rules are not neccessary and should not be there. ie "they simply like to do things that just happen to be against the rules".Adamc said:
As for the inconsistent enforcement, I know that my enforcing of the rules - and quite possibly the other mods enforcement of the rules as of a few days ago - might happen to be inconsistent with the past ways the rules were (or were not) enforced. However, this change was pretty much intentional, hence the hiring of new mods and a lot of discussion between the moderating team as to what the changes should be (ongoing in some areas).
I really am sorry, also, for my lack of good wording.
I'm on an off day, I suppose. I can barely understand some of the points I'm trying to get across here myself, but I hope the general points are clear enough...EDIT: Didn't want to make it sound like I'm in charge. As I said in my previous post, this is James place and I'm not going to tell him he's doing anything wrong at all. The only thing I'm doing here is explaining my own actions. Maybe you should join politics too, Smith. Suggesting such things is also a well known political strategy.
I find it amusing that when I thought my words were really struggling, Smith thinks they're manipulative and whatnot.
Last edited:
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
All you've managed to do here is say nothing, over and over and over again. Of course you change the wording each time, so as to sound intelligent.
- Status