Liverpool FC Forum

by **JBG** » Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:06 pm

Whats all dis jibba jabba?

by **account deleted by request** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:09 am

woof woof ! wrote:There's some paint drying in the kitchen mate and I really should be keeping an eye on it.

If that ever gets too exciting for you Woof, I think you may have a couple of PM's you haven't quite got round to reading yet

by **Dundalk** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:14 am

JBG wrote:Whats all dis jibba jabba?

Hed have the whole thing sorted out in 5 mins

by **bigmick** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:17 am

woof woof ! wrote:
Thanks for the reply Woof, and it's a good one.

No need for thanks Mick, when you go on to say

Just to say again though from my perspective, I've never said that people only recieve cards and bans because they are anti's/critical of the manager etc.....................
...............My point is quite simply that you have significantly more chance of being carded and banned on a permanent basis if you sing from a particular hymn sheet

It's obvious to me that you've given little credence to what i've said , and as we now seem to be approaching the interminable hair splitting stage it's probably best that we follow your suggestion and just agree to differ.
There's some paint drying in the kitchen mate and I really should be keeping an eye on it.

I don't think that me "going on to say that" means I've given little credence to what you've said Woof. It means I don't agree with you which isn't the same thing.

I do believe that the mods overriding intention is to be impartial, but I also believe that it is inevitable under the current system that personal preferences for certain posters or particular trains of thought is bound to influence decision making.

If a mod is himself frustrated with the constant talk of rotation or people having a go at the boss for example, then it stands to reason that if somebody comes on the boards and says "listen here you fecking c..., stop going on about rotation" the mod is going to be more sympathetic to that particular abuser than he would be to somebody who said "stop sticking up for Rafa you one eyed c...".

Just human nature Woof at the end of the day, which probably explains why some posters are continually banned but allowed back, whilst others are just permanently banned.

Unfortunately everyone is a bit touchy at the moment and thinks the minute you start a debate on anything you are naturally having a pop at somebody. If you start a debate on whether or not we should have signed Owen, you "despise Rafa with a passion".It doesn't mean that obviously, but such is the touchiness right now that's how it turns out.

Similarly, if you start a thread on the card system which you have been have going on about for four years, suddenly you are having a pop at all the mods, and are trying to get people banned. Not so.

Don't know about the paint drying thing though mate :cool:

by **Dundalk** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:37 am

This is all getting a bit boring now lads - on both sides

At the end of the day its an internet forum, i come on here for a laugh and for the latest info. I have never used the 'report this post to a mod button' nor have i ever complained to a mod about someone. If someone has a go at me or has something to say i will sort it out with them. I'm a grown man and i don't see the point of crying to the mods.

As regards to to peoples use of words and what is acceptable and what isn't, i think the rules should be re read over and updated where needed. At the moment the rules are bent all over the place by everyone and people don't pay them enough respect. Lets start a fresh and wipe everyone's cards.

ALL MEMBERS should be then given the chance to have a look over the new rules and digest. The mods should really highlight the fact that these are the new rules and that they are going to be strict with them.

Then after a week or two they kick in and its up to the Mods to enforce the strictness of them. Nobody can complain they weren't informed about them and everyone can start on a even keel and its up to them where they go from there. You break a rule you get a card, 5 cards and your out - simple. If the place was more strict then there wouldn't be as much drama.

I for one would not want to be banned from here and not be able to re register. At least this way everyone will be given the choice and if they get banned, can have no complaints

by **aCe'** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:56 am

Anyone who doesnt think that people are banned simply for being anti-rafa should take a look back at a thread started by Ciggy some time back where she was basically blaming refs and the FA for us missing out on the league.. some disagreed and blamed the manager instead... and next thing you know everyone who had anything critical to say was banned....

the excuse I was given by the mods... cant remember who it was.... was that the ban wasnt because any forum rules were broken or anything.. they just thought theyd do me a favor by giving me a break from the thread and the forum for a few days until things cooled off to avoid name-calling and things getting out of hand...

that same thread.. if anyone had a look at it... all the namecalling and bs came form the pro-rafa -do no bad- clan... pathetic really...

sorry if this is a little off topic couldnt be bothered reading through the whole thread but im guessing it couldnt be wide off the mark..

by **red37** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:06 am

Well, no not really. (response to mick)

For instance im first and foremost a Liverpool supporter - then im a mod. If i dont happen to agree for example, with the constant reference to rotation being an issue directly relating to the poor fortunes of the club - i will both think that...and say that. Mod or no mod.

Personally i dont give a flying f*ck how many others agree/disagree with my take on football things....I have absolutely no desire to be proven right or wrong either way. I just have my voice and use it in the best way i know. Sometimes you nail it..other times you make a plantpot of yourself, no big deal. Nor do i judge somebody if any argy-bargy incorporated into the debate pops up with this 'inevitability' of which you mention, where it boils down to them having the same or a different angle on the subject and being punished according to who ever they are. That in my opinion is a ludicrous assumption.

Sure, there is a list of posters we have that has several names on it who are considered 'ones to watch' But whether they are in any designated 'camp' or not - doesn't matter one iota.

However....it appears that when a mod does have something to add to the debate, he has automatically aligned himself with some cryptic 'side of the fence' based around his own beliefs and is prepared to wave the big stick about just incase one of his sworn enemies (or even just a simple minded fool) dares to challenge it?

Come on....there is no 'personal preferences' at work here at all. Otherwise i for sure would hand in me 'keys' and return to being as long-winded about footy matters as you are mick!

We are trying to help people here who fall foul of the rules by and large...not engineer some exclusive club where you are invited in.

* Dundalk

You make good points. We've had these Amnesty's before and the next thing you know, theres a whole new batch of posters banned who are asked to be re-instated after a period of time. I've nothing against anyone having a fair crack - im not even in disagreement with the idea (this time around) if it can steady the ship and get everybody singing from the same hymn sheet..

However, if that were to happen. There are still a couple of members currently banned who have a cat in hells chance of regaining any credibility back. So, anyones bezzie mates (

) presently who are languishing out there in limbo - will have to stay slapped im afraid.

aCe (sigh)

Aswell you know, it was me who 'lifted' you from the forum for a short while as things were indeed heating up. You had some 'admirers' at the time who basically couldn't say enough about you....it was a decision which did no harm and turned you into the model poster you are today. Right?

Or do you really want me to drag up all kinds? No best leave it there shall we.

by **Dundalk** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:09 am

Fair enough Red, i just think if the Mods had a more no nonsense approach and the rules were the rules then people wouldn't try to bend them as much. Which again comes back to my point that stricter mods = less hassle

by **red37** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:17 am

Dundalk wrote:Fair enough Red, i just think if the Mods had a more no nonsense approach and the rules were the rules then people wouldn't try to bend them as much. Which again comes back to my point that stricter mods = less hassle

This is where you most definately are 'Damned if you do - damned if you dont'

Firm but fair. Compassionate, yet suffering no fools is a place which must be in some Hallowed ground somewhere a very long way from here.

Its occasionally fun trying to get there fast on one good leg though!

by **bigmick** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:28 am

Thanks for the reply Red. Just to clear up a couple of things. I'm not "bezzie mates" with anybody on the forum, be they banned or otherwise. Peewee was on occasions overly pedantic (that's one thing in people which I just can't tolerate :laugh:

), Bam overly aggressive, Stu overly dismissive and abusive, Bill overly wind-uppish. Of the members we currently have who could be considered "anti", Ace is overly provocative with his "I hope Owen succeeds" line, I'm overly boring etc etc.

I'm not saying the rules need changing because I'm best mates with any banned people, not at all. I'm saying that the rules need changing because I think it would make the thing fairer and better. If as all the mods say the whole thing is absolutely 100% impartially looked after, that's great. It's just that it doesn't always look like that.

Anyway, nfortunately people are obviously getting cheesed off with the whole idea that there could possibly be a better way of doing things than is currently the case so I'll leave it. It was worth a mention as I have felt it for around three or four years, but I get the strong feeling there is no appetite to look at it so I'll leave it alone, agree to differ and all that stuff.

by **red37** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:35 am

bigmick wrote:Thanks for the reply Red. Just to clear up a couple of things. I'm not "bezzie mates" with anybody on the forum, be they banned or otherwise.

The comment was in response to Dundalk regarding these Spring/Summer clear out sales...Amnesty's and all that. Generally tongue-in-cheek about the way in which 'odd' members have been mourned by other members who feel the place, lacking somewhat as a result.

Nowt to do with your end.

by **red37** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:37 am

And...right on cue ----

by **aCe'** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:43 am

red37 wrote:Well, no not really. (response to mick)

For instance im first and foremost a Liverpool supporter - then im a mod. If i dont happen to agree for example, with the constant reference to rotation being an issue directly relating to the poor fortunes of the club - i will both think that...and say that. Mod or no mod.

Personally i dont give a flying f*ck how many others agree/disagree with my take on football things....I have absolutely no desire to be proven right or wrong either way. I just have my voice and use it in the best way i know. Sometimes you nail it..other times you make a plantpot of yourself, no big deal. Nor do i judge somebody if any argy-bargy incorporated into the debate pops up with this 'inevitability' of which you mention, where it boils down to them having the same or a different angle on the subject and being punished according to who ever they are. That in my opinion is a ludicrous assumption.

Sure, there is a list of posters we have that has several names on it who are considered 'ones to watch' But whether they are in any designated 'camp' or not - doesn't matter one iota.

However....it appears that when a mod does have something to add to the debate, he has automatically aligned himself with some cryptic 'side of the fence' based around his own beliefs and is prepared to wave the big stick about just incase one of his sworn enemies (or even just a simple minded fool) dares to challenge it?

Come on....there is no 'personal preferences' at work here at all. Otherwise i for sure would hand in me 'keys' and return to being as long-winded about footy matters as you are mick!

We are trying to help people here who fall foul of the rules by and large...not engineer some exclusive club where you are invited in.

* Dundalk

You make good points. We've had these Amnesty's before and the next thing you know, theres a whole new batch of posters banned who are asked to be re-instated after a period of time. I've nothing against anyone having a fair crack - im not even in disagreement with the idea (this time around) if it can steady the ship and get everybody singing from the same hymn sheet..

However, if that were to happen. There are still a couple of members currently banned who have a cat in hells chance of regaining any credibility back. So, anyones bezzie mates ( ) presently who are languishing out there in limbo - will have to stay slapped im afraid.

aCe (sigh)

Aswell you know, it was me who 'lifted' you from the forum for a short while as things were indeed heating up. You had some 'admirers' at the time who basically couldn't say enough about you....it was a decision which did no harm and turned you into the model poster you are today. Right?

Or do you really want me to drag up all kinds? No best leave it there shall we.

If I’m not getting this the wrong way, this is exactly what some of the other posters are talking about...
You have an anti-Rafa poster making an anti-Rafa post.... then a pro-Rafa gang comes along and starts name calling and calling for the member to be banned, then -surprise surprise- the anti poster is banned... why ? To make the situation better... name-calling doesn’t warrant a card, not at all.. Airing a controversial opinion that others don’t agree with on the other hand.... deserves a straight ban

Sorry red but i dont get the logic in that.... And the whole best leave things at that stance is one i don’t understand either... if I come out and call someone a kunt, you can be sure that its because that person came out before that throwing insults around at me without mods doing anything about it... Lando understands it and hes okay with it, that i have to come to realize now... hes pretty much the only one i use such language with anyways...

Personally i dont have much of a problem with the cards system as it is... just think its the mods who have a problem employing it... then again it could be just me
:glare:

by **Bad Bob** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:55 am

Mick, I'm open to discussing an updating of the rules, a greater degree of transparency and all the things you've advocated (and others as well). But before that can happen we have to address the comment below because it is a HUGE stumbling block to the discussion. In fact, it will probably make anything else a non-starter because we'll just keep tripping over it again and again and again.

Here's the comment:

bigmick wrote:Just human nature Woof at the end of the day, which probably explains why some posters are continually banned but allowed back, whilst others are just permanently banned.

As you've correctly noted, there are two types of bans, the temporary kind and the permanent kind. But, with all due respect mate, you're completely, categorically and fundamentally wrong about what motivates us to select between the two. Contrary to your suggestion, we do not, have not and will not make this decision based on whether the bannee is a so-called 'pro' or a so-called 'anti'. No, the key difference is that people who are temporarily banned (and this has included many members from both 'camps') have been a little bit naughty and have been given a bit of a timeout to cool off and sort themselves out. Whereas, the VERY FEW members who have been permanently banned have all done something serious enough to merit that decision (one that none of us take lightly). Now, as I've already said, I'm not going to broadcast all the sordid details of the offenses I'm eluding to here but I have not a shred of doubt in my mind that if you were sat in my place, you'd feel exactly the same way about the correctness of these permanent bans and would see that it has absolutely nothing to do with one's allegiance to Rafa, views on Kuyt etc. Can you not accept that?

by **red37** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:03 am

I've already told him that Bob.

And aCe - it was me who agreed to have you reinstated even after you kicked off via PM after that event. So don't start getting silly.

Best move on.

Liverpool FC Forum

This 'ere myth - One sided bullying

Who is online