Liverpool FC Forum

[andy_g]

stop taking it so seriously!!!!

as far as i can see there is a handful of people who have some bad feelings or dissatisfactions towards one or two mods. hardly quite a lot of unrest as far as i can see. all the people whinging about how nasty and unfair the mods are should take a step back and get a little perspective. barry, fool that he is, has been banned a few times and come back with no problems and no hard feelings, he's received cards again but doesn't spend a second of his time bitching about it. crazy as it sounds, he is the example we should follow

an appeals committee for fecks sake

[andy_g]

And yet you whinge in PM about how many people are leaving and certain Mod's being "heavy handed" ?

Make your mind up Barry

you could have let me see that before i posted saint.

 

[Judge]

not sure about this one !

difficult to set up and difficult to police

i think it would just compound what is already happening

however, if a banning takes place, then perhaps a concensus of opinion is needed in the form of a poll, with the ability to post comments etc. Then and only then will democracy win. ie: the majority wins

just a thought

[Number 9]

So people reckon we should set up a mod ombudsman,watchdoggy sort of thing??
FFS wind yer necks in,its a football forum not the house of fuc'king commons lads.

Besides to much whinging and politics on here already,this would only make things as complicated as the debauched Shennanigans at Stormont buildings in Belfast.
Im sure Maxi will be allowed to post again anyway,ffs the likes of me and Stu have been allowed back after being banned several times in the past!

And yet you whinge in PM about how many people are leaving and certain Mod's being "heavy handed" ?

Make your mind up Barry

Yeah some mods have been heavy handed at times but people have been allowed back!As for people leaving well thats down to rows and politics and the general feel of the forum Saint as much as anything else.

But the place is a lot better than it was about a month ago IMO!
Starting threads like this only brings the tone down... thes issues are much better dealt with by PM..just my opinion.
Cause threads like this only go one way mate!

[supersub]

I cant help but feel however he is enjoying the peace from the earlier days !

damn right brother

[supersub]

Just a few words relating to this thread because I haven't read the whole thing. I have always advocated self moderation...it would be easier for all concerned if the members helped themselves by being nice to each other.

got to rush

[supersub]

all mods are accountable to the administrator of the forum.
Mods in the past have had their positions removed and others have retired gracefully...things are going swimmingly and Dirk Kuyt is bagging the winners

[woof woof !]

Some interesting ideas Saint, no doubt your vehement disagreement of my recent sin binning of another member is whats inspired it.

Having spent six days in the bin that members sin binning is due to end within the next 24 hours, something I have indicated to yourself and the binned member more than once.

On the broader issue of accountability. Whilst opening a general discussion on the subject is the perogative
of any forum member surely if members are not happy with a mods performance they should communicate their displeasure to the senior moderator (Supersub) who despite the implied question of his integrity does not automatically back a mod just because they are a mod. Repeated complaints about a mods performance if deemed valid will ultimately result in that mod being ejected from office.


But, back to just some of the nitty gritty of you proposal.

The second problem is it may put Mod's off doing their job properly if they feel their actions are going to be constantly questioned.

Mods are members too. And like all members they like to come in here talk/read a bit of footy, have a laugh sort out the spats and curb the wums and stirrers. If every decision a mod makes is going to be challenged (usually by the offender and/or his mates) I think you would find that many day to day moderating decisions will be let go, suspected wums will have more time in the forum, small flame wars will be allowed to burn into larger ones and those with their own agenda will find they have an even longer spoon with which to stir.

They may decide its easier to ignore or just card someone rather than take the appropriate action of banning someone who deserves it.

And there's the rub . Who exactly decides just who deserves it ? Whats the point of having moderators at all when there is a "committee" to vet all decisions. Perhaps mods should sit in their mod shop and only react to complaints received? or perhaps members should just complain directly to the "committee" ?.

How long before we start a thread on the "Committee's" accountability ?

[Judge]

poll the Fu*king lot of em

[GYBS]

Can you take a No Win No Fee Lawyer to the Appeal

[Judge]

Can you take a No Win No Fee Lawyer to the Appeal

not with you, ban him, ban him i say 

[GYBS]

Can you take a No Win No Fee Lawyer to the Appeal

not with you, ban him, ban him i say 

goddamn it where is the door

[laza]

Just a few words relating to this thread because I haven't read the whole thing. I have always advocated self moderation...it would be easier for all concerned if the members helped themselves by being nice to each other.

got to rush

screw that

Kindness costs nothing but cruelty is more fun

[GYBS]

In all seriousness - The mods are only human and im prettty sure they are just doing what they feel is best for the forum. Being a mod is never an easy job and always the first target when someone feels they have been wronged. As supersub says a lot of it must be self moderation. Im pretty sure most people can debate football without insulting people or each other - surely thats not that hard.

[account deleted by request]

Some interesting ideas Saint, no doubt your vehement disagreement of my recent sin binning of another member is whats inspired it.

It was actually a chat with another Mod that inspired it , not really connected to the banning of any member. Obviously my disagreement with your decision added spice to it, but no it didn't inspire it. I have in fact raised a similar idea before when questions about Modorating where being discussed. 

On the broader issue of accountability. Whilst opening a general discussion on the subject is the perogative
of any forum member surely if members are not happy with a mods performance they should communicate their displeasure to the senior moderator (Supersub) who despite the implied question of his integrity does not automatically back a mod just because they are a mod. Repeated complaints about a mods performance if deemed valid will ultimately result in that mod being ejected from office.

Hopefully I neither implied or questioned Supersubs integrity, or I wouldn't have suggested that he head the comittee. I do however acknowledge peewee's point that Supersub or ANY MOD could feel he has to support and give backing to his fellow MOD's ,even if he feels an error of judgement has occured.

Mods are members too. And like all members they like to come in here talk/read a bit of footy, have a laugh sort out the spats and curb the wums and stirrers. If every decision a mod makes is going to be challenged (usually by the offender and/or his mates) I think you would find that many day to day moderating decisions will be let go, suspected wums will have more time in the forum, small flame wars will be allowed to burn into larger ones and those with their own agenda will find they have an even longer spoon with which to stir.

A fair enough point and one I raised, to which I have no real answer but the one I gave originally.... which was poor at best.

And there's the rub . Who exactly decides just who deserves it ? Whats the point of having moderators at all when there is a "committee" to vet all decisions. Perhaps mods should sit in their mod shop and only react to complaints received? or perhaps members should just complain directly to the "committee" ?.

Who decides who deserves it now? All the committee would be doing is making sure that mistakes, errors of judgement and personality clash errors didn't occur, or in short that the correct decision was made. 

How long before we start a thread on the "Committee's" accountability ?

If the committee is seen to be fair and impartial hopefully a long time. At least it would give some sort balance to the vagueries of the individual MOD's.

We all know that at the moment different Mod's handle problems completely differently. Perhaps it would add a degree of consistancy ?