Off Topic ... not so sure

[The Fonz]

As a Moderator on this board I try to be fair in all decisions, and do not take lightly to reprimanding people; sometimes we may get it a bit wrong in some people’s views but it is ok in others, such is life.
A genuine mistake was made by the new moderator, who I don't know personally, and he has apologised to the poster concerned.
We do not want to drive people away from the board and as such decisions have to be made at times fairly quickly on whether a topic is starting to go beyond the boundaries that we try and adhere too.
We do not want the board to degenerate the way the UR board did and thus some decisions may not be to the liking of some posters. Please feel free to contact us by PM if you think we have made a wrong decision and we will further discuss it in a sensible manner without everyone having to dig through possible personal differences.

To a degree this brings into question other issues such as whether pm's between posters are also read by the mods.

To answer this question which was dragged up previously and is posed again by a poster, the answer is no we don't, it is not even possible to read our own PM's without logging in as ourselves. The only thing we can do or see different to any of the rest of you is, we can delete threads, edit them, move them and lock them, what we see is exactly the same as any other poster.

The Fonz [/quote]

[ballpark]

If you want to submit unedited opinions set up your own forum

Unfortunately DB I'd had an unedited opinion foisted on my post by a so called moderator. Don't understand your point, maybe that's not surprising but i use this forum in a responsible and civil manner and expect a likewise response from the people that run it.

Perhaps your applying your own standards here

[Dewi Barnes]

It seems Parky that you only understand what you want to.

If you want to spread the word of Ballpark in its full glory, the only way to do it is to set up your own forum/webpage/blog and do it through that. Otherwise you are reliant on the good will of others.

I think that we should thank the guys that have went to a great deal of trouble to set up this site and run it in such a professional and tolerant manner!

[ballpark]

That's as sanctimonious as it gets Barnesy, in other words I'm reliant on the good will of others in order to be able to make a post on this forum and that is a free ticket for others to abuse my priveleges in posting here.

uhhhhhh!!!

[darkside lightside]

in other words I'm reliant on the good will of others in order to be able to make a post on this forum

Yup! Like all the rest of us.

and that is a free ticket for others to abuse my priveleges in posting here.

let's keep it in proportion, your posts have been edited twice, once clumsily to divert a thread, and once to apologise for the clumsiness. I can't think of any other occassion I've ever seen posts alterted by mods; this, or threads being closed, will happen in a tiny proportion of threads, and on the whole I don't think that anyone can deny that this board generally rubs along very well and in good spirit, with a light-handed editorial touch.

Mod's ability to edit etc at their discretion is of course a bit of a blunt tool - is this a price that i'm willing to pay to keep it rugby? yes.. I'm not denying that there are certain crossover topics, but as mike said, these will inevitably be picked up on slugger, if not email the main man there..

[Cockatrice]

I agree that a mod should have the descretion to amend offensive or vulgar comments, to close threads if required and to endevour to bring discussion back on topic.

However I feel it is an abuse of authority for them to include general 'I can't be arsed' comments within another user's post without making it clear it was they making the comments. This is certainly the first time I have ever seen any occurence like this on this site and hopefully it will be the last.

As I say I have no problem with editing but wholesale paragraphs being added into another users post is unacceptable. Yes they are volunteers and without them this board might not survive but if they want to express a view then do so under their own moniker. Some say it was obvious that the poster in question didn't make the comments but it was far from obvious who had.

Also if we as users are expected to rise above smart Brennan comments from other users then those that police this board should be more careful in how they phrase things. If as the view say the mod can't be arsed then why should the rest of us.



The comments were at best ill-advised a fact that appears to have been accepted

[colinh]

'I can't be arsed'

I do not remember the Mod saying that. All the Mod was doing was moving the post and has apologised to Bp for not saying who it was that amended his post. Everyone makes a mistake. I think it is time we all moved on.

[Dewi Barnes]

I'm not being sanctamonious Parks or trying to bait you. I'm just telling you the way it is!

You'll have undone all the good of your holiday and your bp will be way up again BP!

[mikerob]

Mod's ability to edit etc at their discretion is of course a bit of a blunt tool - is this a price that i'm willing to pay to keep it rugby? yes.. I'm not denying that there are certain crossover topics, but as mike said, these will inevitably be picked up on slugger, if not email the main man there..

I have "blogee" rights on Slugger so if there is an issue that affects both rugby and wider political issues, anyone can PM me and I can start a thread on Slugger.

To be honest, you'll likely get much more heated debate and diversity of opinions on Slugger than on uafc where (quite rightly) most people's primary concern is rugby. And yes, the editor of slugger will frequently edit posts if they break the "play the ball, not the man" rule.

[ballpark]

in other words I'm reliant on the good will of others in order to be able to make a post on this forum

Yup! Like all the rest of us.

quote]

To clarify Caolan, this is a public accessible forum and as such anyone can access it and join, in theory, providing they sign up to the terms and conditions prevalent on it. Those terms and conditions do not include other parties, ie mods adding to posts anonymously. I'm not here by goodwill of others, I signed up to the forum and agree to abide by the conditions and terms of it. This I have done, though I should add i respect the guy that set it up for having the nuts to do so even when it was somewhat underrepresented and generally ignored by supporters.

Whether some like it or not rugby and politics collided when UR tacitly signed up for the Maze. To believe that hasn't happened is either at best naive and at worst disingenuous. That is a cause for discussion on this site because it goes very much to the heart of what fans want or don't want in terms of a stadia. The home page on this site has acknowledged this by running a poll on the subject, should we now remove it to slugger??

Finally I beleive there are some on this site who want to dictate the agenda for it, this shouldn't happen, it should be a broad church for all manner of opinions associated with rugby.

It's hard to put an argument for removing a thread which discusses the supply of UR kit and it's source/s and the potential move of UR to the Maze stadium when you have such weighty rugby discussions on films, muses, cartoons and the like. I'm not denying the posters their chance to discuss these topics but at the same time I'm saying those same posters are attempting to dictate agendas on other which are either not to their liking or worse they're plain not interested. Some consistency would go a long way here. There is an impression otherwise.

PS: your bp will be way up again BP! BP's bp is fine Barnesy, are you a doctor or something to add to your sundry talents such as........................?????

[colinh]

It's hard to put an argument for removing a thread

Good arguments Bp but I dont think the thread was removed just moved. It was admittedly locked but not removed from the Board.

[ballpark]

May as well be removed ch as it is, it's locked. Don't disagree with editorial control on the board, just don't like the way this particular thread has been handled as if it was a hand grenade with the pin pulled, pardon the pun.

[mikerob]

To clarify Caolan, this is a public accessible forum and as such anyone can access it and join, in theory, providing they sign up to the terms and conditions prevalent on it. Those terms and conditions do not include other parties, ie mods adding to posts anonymously.

The Ts & Cs that you signed up to say:

"You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should they see fit."

The webmaster, administrator and moderators can edit your posts.

There is nothing saying they can't do this anonymously. I agree this is not standard practise but this is by convention rather than Ts & Cs.

These Ts & Cs are totally standard for this type of forum. Indeed, other forum Ts & Cs I have seen are even more explicit that the editors can do whatever they like without any explanation required.

[ballpark]

Be clear Mike, my post was in no way inappropriate in any shape or form, it was bang on topic and contained no inoffensive language or subject matter. - So in that context there is no reason whatsoever for a mod to do whatever they like. You seem to imply otherwise.

IMHO and in my extensive experience of being on messageboards, (not just rugby ones) I have never ever seen a moderator plant a message on someones post The person concerned apologised and that should be the end of the matter but I'm somewhat surprised at the number of people who have come on the forum and implied variously the subject:

Was neo political-not rugby
I'm on here by the grace of moderators.
That moderators can do whatever they like should they feel the urge to.
The Maze and UR usage of the stadium is now the domain of Slugger O'Toole's forum.

I would suggest that it is a sign of a certain mentality which still permeates wider political debate here that people get the jitters when certain subjects are discussed.

The Maze Stadium should be of continuing concern to posters on here as it potentially has an impact on your future as a rugby supporter, certainly if you live here both in terms of re-location to it, the wider impact of what it stands for in a political context and it's historical associations which some will and others won't find repungent.

That is the nature of debate, differing views. Some will no doubt find it boring and that is also an entitlement they have but it is not a license to rubbbish others who want to discuss the impact of the Stadium. If you have no interest, leave it alone and let concerned parties debate. I have never understood posters urge to tell other posters that the subject is boring, it's a waste of a post and brain power and tells those debating the subject zilch all.

[browner]

I would suggest that it is a sign of a certain mentality which still permeates wider political debate here that people get the jitters when certain subjects are discussed.

That hit the spot BP.