I thought this is a messageboard?

[bokka]

When all is said and done it's their board and they have a perfect rigtht to moderate it any way they want, whether anyone else thinks its fair or not. I think anyone would want that rigtht after putting in the sort of work it takes to set up and run a board like this. those who don't like it can start their own.
At any rate the attitude of Nick's seems to me pretty reasonable - it's a kingdom not a democracy and a pretty benevolent one I'd say.

[Mike]

Murray

You like analogies? Try this one. This is a social gathering of a specific interest group - not very different to a social gathering anywhere. We gather and we talk, debate, argue fight... whatever usually happens in social gatherings happens here. Do the social gatherings you normally attend have a list of rules of social behaviour handy when you (undoubtedly) ask for them to be produced? Are there guidelines on the wall at your local pub that govern how you interact with your fellow drinkers? Or do you observe generally acceptable social behaviour? Do you insist that the bouncer participates in a pseudo-intellectual debate on the freedom of speech and ask him to explain the rules to you as he helps you to leave? No? Why not?

Our guidelines are that we observe and expect others to observe generally acceptable social behaviour. We have a group of people who protect the well-being of the BB by:

- ensuring that we meet a standard of behaviour that would be considered to be generally socially acceptable
- intercepting material that might get us into legal hot water
- protecting the good name and well-being of the Club and the Bulletin Board and its members.

We do that using a lot of time, energy and commonsense and we do it inconsistently, just like the police in your analogy do.

I'm not sure why you keep using my name. As I've already pointed out to you "I'm only one of a team of 27 and it's the 27 as a team who make policy decisions." not me.

To quote Magpiemad's fine words, "If you want to change the world do it some where else." I've had enough of you.

[Northern Pie]

Murray,

McGuanes 77 bounces asked a question in regards to why the Nick Davis threads were closed down. I can see in no instance where he was shot down for doing so. He asked and it was promptly explained why the action had been taken. Once again you are commenting on the process, of which you seem to portray a greater understanding of, than those who were involved. In no way did I "shoot" MG77B down at all, as a matter of fact it was quite to the contrary. We explained with great patience and came to a satisfactory agreement, very quickly, simple as that.

I honestly do not see the problem, all I did was close down 5 threads of similar content and "simplified" it so that the argument could be monitored alot more easily than a skew of Threads....I did not delete any of the topics I closed down, they are still on the board for people to peruse and if they wish to comment further they can now do it in the one spot. To my knowledge I have not ever deleted a thread or a post in my time as a moderator nor would I unless it broke the three major guidlines as stated by Craig in an earlier post and if i had followed the process that I have stated earlier as well, that of approaching the other moderators for an opinion, then making a decision based upon their reactions. If a moderator comes on next week and opens the threads again then let it be so, because next week, like you Murray, I will be a regular observer and make occasional comments.

I consider myself to be a fair and consistant person, I feel that there is no place in any sort of derogatory remark, especially about a person integrity or intelligence, so I do retract my statement about your remarks Murray and make it to all generally. This is not the place for it!

(ya no hope, lying, cheating, bunch of dumb butt munches.......lmao)

Cheers

Oh btw GO THE PIES!!!!!


"NEVER LEAVE, NEVER GIVE UP ON THEM AND ALWAYS BE THERE AT THE END TO CLAP THEM OFF THE GROUND. WE ARE COLLINGWOOD SUPPORTERS SON, EVEN IF THEY BEAT US, WE ARE STILL BETTER THAN THEM!"(quote from my mum when I was 8 years old)

[Brown26]

It would be great if we could have a set of rules that this site runs by which covers every situation. This is absoultely not practical. It is also not really necessary.

It would be great to have a set of rules that explains this to everyone, just like the crime laws of Australia, but we don't hae a hundred lawyers and constitutional experts to draw any up for us. And to do it half heartedly would be terrible, imagine the problems when we start associating one hard line rule to all situations - that is why there are so many ammendments to rules. We just don't have the time or the expertise or the foresight or the motivation to do this.

there aren't too many people who complain when their posts are moderated, people usually understand, even if they don't agree, with why a post was altered by a moderator.

I am happy with the current modertors moderating as they see fit. Once again I can only say that everyone does their best, and it's good to see the general level of support for that.

Everyone knows the rule - don't be an idiot, socially acceptable standards of behaviour are the way to go.

Ambiguous - yes. Practical - yes.


That's all I have to say about that.


Pies for Premiers 2002, 3, 4, 5, 6....

[MagpieMad]

Murray thanks for the kind words, of the 1125 Members registered on here, you are the only self apointed watchdog of the "rules and regulations", most of us have the common sense to follow such simple guidelines as those given on the front page of the BB and can handle our posts being eddited or removed by the mods.
at every opitunity you question the mods and their motives for their actions, wich has no other effect than to annoy other ussers of this BB to the point of them having to say something about it, e.g my previous posts.
I, like other ussers of this BB have had enough of you.

http://magpiemad.magpies.net/

[Joel]

The comments on this post made by moderators have the full support of I, as a fellow moderator.

Murray,

We make judgements based on what we believe is acceptable and what is not, usually we ask other moderators if we should take a particular course of action and if the majority speaks then that action is taken. Of course, we are open to suggestions but constant attacks are not necessary.

Not only do we moderate to keep malicious comments off the board, we also moderate to keep the board workable.

You ask for guidelines...well, one has been given, multiple topics on the one subject repeating the same old stuff is not needed. If you want to post on that topic, go to the Nick Davis topic and post on it, otherwise accept the decision.

Murray, you will not achieve anything by getting up the backs of moderators, how about you take the initiative and make some suggestions instead of constantly attacking the volunteer moderators.

JDF

"We've never quit, and we won't."

[Donny]

Ditto, Assasin. Well said.

Donny.

GO THE MIGHTY WOODSMEN !! ALL THE WAY IN 2003 AND BEYOND !!!!

[Bones]

First guidline: no swearing (this includes "similar" words)
Second guidline: no personal insults
Third guidline: No harmful to CFC comments

Oh chit Craig you are a marshmellow head, just like all the softies running CFC...

Oh gewd I bet some dork will take that all the wrong way.

As far as having several threads pertaining to the same subject, its a right pain in the proverbial. An excellent idea to keep them all together.

 <SNIP> 

[This message has been edited by Black_White (edited 02 November 2002).]

[Rohan]

IMO this board has changed a little in the last year. It's always been a bit insular and harsh on any opinions that don't agree with the majority.

I've kind of picked up that ranting it at its most interesting phase when the team is losing. When the team is winning there appears to be little debate amongst the fans and you get a lot of backslapping.

Another change that I’ve picked up is that the board has become a less mature and more of a “kiddies” forum. There was a time when this board was easily the best board with mature and thought out debate. Now sites such as FTO and Hotrod’s have taken that mantle as there are less personal attacks and more thought out topics.



The poster formerly known as Rohan Coventry Tateson

[Murray]

Interesting point of view Rohan.
As a fairly new member to this board I can't talk about the past, but I tend to agree with you that some topics, for no apparent reason become "off limits".
Many people on this board assume I am trying to stir up things or become critical of Mods which is far from the truth.
Some people believe I have been discussing democracy, again that is something I have never mentioned.
My sole point is if the rules are only thses three
1. No swearing
2. No personal insults
3. Nothing harmful to CFC
Then where did all the other rules come from, and where are they, so that I can have a look at them so that I can comply with them.
It appears they may well be locked away in the heads of individuals and only come out when someone breaks them - what ever they may be.
Still I made a promise to someone on this board (in private) that I will not go into the ins and outs of this topic until it comes again seperately in another thread - and so be it.

DARE TO STRUGGLE - DARE TO WIN

[Brown26]

I hope that's the end of it for a while then Murray - maybe when you feel as discrepancy has occured you can contact the individual moderator and they can explain their actions too you, in that way you can develop a better understanding of the "rules" in order to better 'comply'.

- Ben



Pies for Premiers 2002, 3, 4, 5, 6....

[Dr Alf Andrews]

There seems to be a lot of "unwritten" rules around here ... as there are in lots of social situations.

If I understand correctly, I think Murray would like these "unwritten" rules to become written ones. This is quite a sensible and reasonable request in theory, but it's not an easy thing to do in practice, because there are as many sets of "unwritten" rules on this site as there are moderators.

So, until such time as we go through what would, by necessity, be an exhaustive process of drawing up a binding set of written rules acceptable to all, we will continue to be consistently inconsistent in our application of the "unwritten" rules.

Is this a problem?

Many people apparently don't think so.

Murray apparently does think so? And I can see situations where he is right.

A lot of people have been appealing to this nebulous phenonmenon called "commonsense", but it's been my observation over the course of my many years on this planet, that sense is not really as "common" as many people think it is.

floreat pica
**************
My Ph.D. thesis, "Football: the People's Game?" is now available for viewing and/or downloading at http://alf.magpies.net

[Rosewall Woman 3]

Murray, as you are so concerned with these "unwritten guidelines", perhaps over the next 6 months you could apply yourself to collating a draft copy of these "Unwritten guidelines" into written guidelines. After you have written up these guidelines for every possible scenario ( so as there are no areas that moderators would have to make "an unwritten" decision amongst themselves), email them to Mike ( in small emails as it will be too large to send in even 5 emails). Mike can discuss it with the other moderators and then send them back to you with their feedback for you to redraft them. Repeat this process about 10 times,and you might be somewhere near getting these written guidelines. Oh and then someone else will have time to think up of another possible scenario (could be you Murray!) and you would have to go back to the drawing board!!!

Seems like a lot of work??? Have you got the time, energy, resources and drive to make this happen??? Not many of us do. It is bad enough when you get paid at work to do this extensive policy stuff!!! I just come here to read other like minded peoples thoughts, reply and post some of my own stuff. I come here for info and occassionally I am upset/ estatic about something. Most of all it is fun. If I am un happy about something related to this board, I have always found Mike (had no dealings with the rest of you) a reasonable person keen to help in any way. If I was still not happy I could go somewhere else where your opinions are really valued, like Bigfooty!!! LOL

Relax, take a chill pill, and enjoy the board for what it is. Not a Government policy document or the like.

Well done to all of the moderators, I think you do a splendid job and are to be commended. Just how much are you paid??? Oh that's right you do it for NIX (like that pun!!), nada, in your spare time to facilitate enjoyment for the rest of us Collingwood people. Thanks muchly.

[Harrysz]

A little while back someone was posting messages ending with "I hate John Howard". Murray, don't you think all political comment should be banned too?

[Bones]

Maybe THAT Eureka Flag offends some people too. Maybe it should be removed. It is a political statement afterall. Rebel against officials.