Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 262
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: A plea for non-discrimination

  1. #211
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    44,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    We had measures beyond IP checking that we use but won't go into for obvious reasons, but we're not going to get into the business of banning new members just because they seem similar to old ones. I find it ridiculous, frankly, that people would call for the banning of a member without any sort of hard evidence of any kind. That Blaze_18 and Avada Kadavra were the same person clearly shows that our common villain is quite capable of posting in many different styles, so banning on suspicion would basically see me turf every new Indian-supporting member.

    If you want these members gone, I think you should tackle it from a different angle than "we think they are multis" because it'll get you nowhere without evidence. I wouldn't necessarily disagree, FWIW, that the place could deal with some more common sense regarding the quality of posting from new members, but that would require us to be openly subjective and almost unfair in the interests of overall forum quality, which is something we'd have to have to utmost trust in the community to do. I'm sure we'd get accused of all sorts of biases if we just started banning members for posting what we believed to be provocative trash but short of trolling, as we already get accused of being pro-subcontinent AND anti-subcontinent on a daily basis.

    The hardest thing about this place is finding a balance between keeping the quality of the discussion high and giving everyone a completely fair medium to have their say. We don't want to be the opinion police, but I've seen a growing trend of the infractions we've given out following a standard pattern of someone posting a biased or arguably ludicrous opinion (that's genuine, and not trolling) in a patronising way and then someone replying by insulting that poster (rather than the post itself). It frustrates me that some of our (IMO) better members either can't help themselves or don't quite know where to draw the line between attacking an opinion on a specific issue and attacking a member as a whole, particularly as our err less high-quality members seem to get it spot on. I just don't think I'll ever understand why people seem to get so much more satisfaction out of telling someone they're a **** member than saying a specific post they're replying to is ludicrous, remembering of course that one will get you banned and one won't.
    I suppose one man's ludricrous opinion posted in a patronising way is another's blatant troll.

    I'm not calling for McCarthyist measures, just a little common sense. When a poster's count is into four figures and it's all too painfully obvious who they are (the fact you'll know who I mean is proof of the pudding IMHO) I think bans should be forthcoming regardless of the lack of an IT papertrail. You aren't making a case for the DPP, just (hopefully) reducing the **** count.

    Albeit on a probably temporary basis.
    Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "The committee discussed the issue of illegal bowling actions, and believed that there are a number of bowlers currently employing suspect actions in international cricket, and that the ICC's reporting and testing procedures are not adequately scrutinising these bowlers."
    - Even the ICC's own official press release thinks things must change

  2. #212
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,393
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    I suppose one man's ludricrous opinion posted in a patronising way is another's blatant troll.

    I'm not calling for McCarthyist measures, just a little common sense. When a poster's count is into four figures and it's all too painfully obvious who they are (the fact you'll know who I mean is proof of the pudding IMHO) I think bans should be forthcoming regardless of the lack of an IT papertrail. You aren't making a case for the DPP, just (hopefully) reducing the **** count.

    Albeit on a probably temporary basis.
    We're not going to ban members just because you think you know who they are. I really think the fact that you people think they're multis clouds the issue though. Hell, even I think they're multis, but we're not going to turf people for that unless we're sure.

    The fact that we've banned members for being consistently problematic and then new members seem enough like them to cause multi accusations is the crux of the issue, whether they're actually multis or not. Obviously, if you seem enough like a permanently banned member to have me check your IP, your posting probably isn't great. "Reducing the **** count" can be done in different ways - as I said, if you want these members gone, press for more discretionary bannings based on post quality; I'll back the community up on that if that's what it wants. The multi thing isn't going to get anyone anywhere though as we're not going to start guessing in that department and it just clouds the fact that a lot of these members are making the forum worse, be they the same person or not.
    ~ Cribbage

    Quote Originally Posted by Riggins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by simonlee48 View Post
    Sanga has done well but Murali has done better. In my opinion, Murali is simply the best off spinner in history of cricket and I can't make that kind of statement for Sanga.
    Sanga isn't the best off spinner in the history of cricket? News to me.

  3. #213
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    44,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    We're not going to ban members just because you think you know who they are. I really think the fact that you people think they're multis clouds the issue though. Hell, even I think they're multis, but we're not going to turf people for that unless we're sure.

    The fact that we've banned members for being consistently problematic and then new members seem enough like them to cause multi accusations is the crux of the issue, whether they're actually multis or not. Obviously, if you seem enough like a permanently banned member to have me check your IP, your posting probably isn't great. "Reducing the **** count" can be done in different ways - as I said, if you want these members gone, press for more discretionary bannings based on post quality; I'll back the community up on that if that's what it wants. The multi thing isn't going to get anyone anywhere though as we're not going to start guessing in that department and it just clouds the fact that a lot of these members are making the forum worse, be they the same person or not.
    Well I don't want to argue in circles, but to my way of thinking creating multis once permanently excluded makes a mockery of the whole process.

    I think CW is a better place for the presence of chaps like Benchy or GIMH and it'd be to its denegration if one of them cocked the nark and left over this.

    There's a whole heap of quality posters who barely visit anymore and still more who give CC a swerve because the atmosphere is more of a twatmosphere.

  4. #214
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,393
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    Well I don't want to argue in circles, but to my way of thinking creating multis once permanently excluded makes a mockery of the whole process.
    No doubt, but we're not going to do anything unless we're sure they're multis. We're not actively deciding to let multis go; we're just not going to do anything unless we're sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    There's a whole heap of quality posters who barely visit anymore and still more who give CC a serwe because the atmosphere is more of a twatmosphere.
    Indeed, and that's a far more pressing issue. If you want to argue that we have too many members posting garbage and that we should be more liberal with forum atmosphere bans I'll be all ears; in fact I'd personally love it if we had community support for such a thing. Clouding the issue with the fact that you think, but cannot prove, they are multis will just make it go nowhere though as you'll get multi-accusation-based replies from the mod team about a lack of proof, and the fact that they're problematic regardless of who they are at home will get lost in the middle. I'm trying to give you a hint here. There's a way to get stuck in an infinite loop like we just did and there's a way to get something done.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 12-09-2011 at 01:13 PM.


  5. #215
    Hall of Fame Member Marcuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Above you
    Posts
    15,471
    Forum atmosphere bans ftw (I am aware of the irony that some members will see in this <_<)

    As for the multi issue, to me it seems as though the majority of the main forum are happy to run along the lines of "If it looks like a duck and it quacks..." whereas the Mods want DNA evidence..

  6. #216
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Jason Koumas is having a party
    Posts
    48,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    The fact that we've banned members for being consistently problematic and then new members seem enough like them to cause multi accusations is the crux of the issue, whether they're actually multis or not. Obviously, if you seem enough like a permanently banned member to have me check your IP, your posting probably isn't great.
    Okay, and this is what I was getting at this morning, and I said it to the mods in an email, and I said it to you plenty too. I said it all the time about Sir Alex - if 95% of the forum think he's Precam, then what the **** does it even matter what proof there is when Precam was banned for being a **** **** anyway? If they are similar enough for anyone who browses here a lot to know they are the same then Sir Alex is obviously a **** **** who should be banned too.

    I used Alex as he doesn't post under that username currently. But plenty of you know with absolute certainty who he is posting as at the moment.

    I find it ridiculous that I tried to make this point without pushing too hard and a mod (one I like, btw) comes back by saying Prince EWS and Uppercut are similar. It misses the point, but now that a mod has made my point for me then it's all good.

    And the reason I didn't say it more explicitly beforehand? One of the infractions that led to my demise was because I said, in a VM, to a certain member, "why don't you and your 47 multis leave this site." So there you go.
    Last edited by GIMH; 12-09-2011 at 01:28 PM.
    "It was an easy decision to sign. I could have gone elsewhere, I had calls, but it never entered my mind it's not about the money."
    Jason Koumas

    SWA

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  7. #217
    Hall of Fame Member Cevno's Avatar
    Simon Champion!
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    15,713
    Quote Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero View Post
    No, they have similar opinions. When you read one of their posts, you don't think it's the other one. And you ignored the rest of my post in attempting to make that point.
    Actually seriously Teja and Pews have made quite some similar posts.Probably uppercut too.

    Infact i mentioned it in a thread i was disagreeing with both in a while back during the SA tour, i think. HB did too IIRC.
    Last edited by Cevno; 12-09-2011 at 01:38 PM.

  8. #218
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    44,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    No doubt, but we're not going to do anything unless we're sure they're multis. We're not actively deciding to let multis go; we're just not going to do anything unless we're sure.



    Indeed, and that's a far more pressing issue. If you want to argue that we have too many members posting garbage and that we should be more liberal with forum atmosphere bans I'll be all ears; in fact I'd personally love it if we had community support for such a thing. Clouding the issue with the fact that you think, but cannot prove, they are multis will just make it go nowhere though as you'll get multi-accusation-based replies from the mod team about a lack of proof, and the fact that they're problematic regardless of who they are at home will get lost in the middle. I'm trying to give you a hint here. There's a way to get stuck in an infinite loop like we just did and there's a way to get something done.
    I ain't no grass, ya slag.

    Nah, seriously I suppose it comes back to one's perception of posts and their intent. If you're advocating bans for know-nothing wuckfits who pollute CC then I'm onboard tho. Start a petition and I'll sign it.

  9. #219
    Hall of Fame Member Cevno's Avatar
    Simon Champion!
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    15,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    That Blaze_18 and Avada Kadavra were the same person clearly shows that our common villain is quite capable of posting in many different styles, so banning on suspicion would basically see me turf every new Indian-supporting member.
    But then i am sure that if he is capable of posting in several different styles as a Indian fans(really different to each other), he is capable of posting as a member supporting another country too. Infact he has apparently tried to do so in the past too.

    Also then though this is regarding one specific member who is notorious for this, it's not like the other banned English/Aussie supporting members are not able to create multi's. Infact there have been quite a few new English/Aussie/other supporting members who would also then stand accused for being a multi then.

  10. #220
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Jason Koumas is having a party
    Posts
    48,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Cevno View Post
    But then i am sure that if he is capable of posting in several different styles as a Indian fans(really different to each other), he is capable of posting as a member supporting another country too. Infact he has apparently tried to do so in the past too.

    Also then though this is regarding one specific member who is notorious for this, it's not like the other banned English/Aussie supporting members are not able to create multi's. Infact there have been quite a few new English/Aussie/other supporting members who would also then stand accused for being a multi then.
    So what?

  11. #221
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Cevno View Post
    But then i am sure that if he is capable of posting in several different styles as a Indian fans(really different to each other), he is capable of posting as a member supporting another country too. Infact he has apparently tried to do so in the past too.

    Also then though this is regarding one specific member who is notorious for this, it's not like the other banned English/Aussie supporting members are not able to create multi's. Infact there have been quite a few new English/Aussie/other supporting members who would also then stand accused for being a multi then.
    That just adds to my point really. The range some of these multis have shown means every new member that posts a lot immediately is going to be somewhat suspicious.

  12. #222
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    44,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Cevno View Post
    But then i am sure that if he is capable of posting in several different styles as a Indian fans(really different to each other), he is capable of posting as a member supporting another country too. Infact he has apparently tried to do so in the past too.

    Also then though this is regarding one specific member who is notorious for this, it's not like the other banned English/Aussie supporting members are not able to create multi's. Infact there have been quite a few new English/Aussie/other supporting members who would also then stand accused for being a multi then.
    I'm certainly not suggesting every new Indian affliliated member is a multi and I don't think anyone else is either. In fact, although one presumes our friend is an Indian fan in real life, it's not necessarily the case.

    As I've said I disagree with the moderating team's stance on this, but I do thank PEWS for at least engaging with us.

  13. #223
    cpr
    cpr is offline
    Cricketer Of The Year cpr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    9,916
    Anyone else thinking membership should be on a 3 month trial followed by a vote? Then a further 9 month probation before full membership....


    I'm not trying to be Draconian, but it'd solve a load of problems
    "All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher." - Ambrose Bierce
    Langeveldt: I of course blame their parents.. and unchecked immigration!
    GingerFurball: He's Austrian, they tend to produce the odd ****ed up individual
    Burgey: Be careful dealing with neighbours whose cars don't have wheels but whose houses do.
    Uppercut: Maybe I just need better strippers

  14. #224
    Hall of Fame Member Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    19,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    The hardest thing about this place is finding a balance between keeping the quality of the discussion high and giving everyone a completely fair medium to have their say. We don't want to be the opinion police, but I've seen a growing trend of the infractions we've given out following a standard pattern of someone posting a biased or arguably ludicrous opinion (that's genuine, and not trolling) in a patronising way and then someone replying by insulting that poster (rather than the post itself). It frustrates me that some of our (IMO) better members either can't help themselves or don't quite know where to draw the line between attacking an opinion on a specific issue and attacking a member as a whole, particularly as our err less high-quality members seem to get it spot on. I just don't think I'll ever understand why people seem to get so much more satisfaction out of telling someone they're a **** member than saying a specific post they're replying to is ludicrous, remembering of course that one will get you banned and one won't.
    I'm working on it.

    At the same time, if a member consistently posts absolute rubbish, then the line between playing the post and playing the poster gets blurred. I got an infraction during the WC for telling Tendulkar_200* that all of his posts were crap, which in fairness, they were. Granted, I shouldn't have said it, but is there really a difference between saying "mate, your post there was ****" and reacting to someone like Dhoni_fan and saying "mate, every single post you've made is absolute garbage."?

  15. #225
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,393
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    I'm working on it.

    At the same time, if a member consistently posts absolute rubbish, then the line between playing the post and playing the poster gets blurred. I got an infraction during the WC for telling Tendulkar_200* that all of his posts were crap, which in fairness, they were. Granted, I shouldn't have said it, but is there really a difference between saying "mate, your post there was ****" and reacting to someone like Dhoni_fan and saying "mate, every single post you've made is absolute garbage."?
    Yeah, there actually is a big difference there IMO. The former debates the issue in the post you're replying to by calling it out and the latter just takes a pot-shot at the member. "This post is ****" is just a really strong way of saying that you disagree with its content and it won't get you in trouble (unless there are extenuating circumstances, obv), particularly if you elaborate why. If you reckon every post someone makes is **** and you say so then you're targeting them as a whole rather than what they've said specifically, and it usually goes downhill quickly from there.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 12-09-2011 at 02:47 PM.

Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. A plea
    By Sir Alex in forum Site Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 14-05-2010, 03:02 PM
  2. New Feature : A plea for a better World Cup
    By gvenkat in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 15-11-2009, 04:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •