Chris Turner - Which Rovers?

[SkStu]

also with the aim of creating a Leinster league to cut down on travel costs to aid Bohs

necessary Mr. Moderator? Or off topic rubbish just too have a wee dig?

[marinobohs]

necessary Mr. Moderator? Or off topic rubbish just too have a wee dig?

that was different, that was about Bohs ;) no double standards on here.

[pineapple stu]

It was a joke, FFS. Incorporating the many conspiracy theories we've seen on this board in the last couple of years.

Bohs fans would really want to stop jumping at anything they perceive as against their club without actually reading it properly first.

[marinobohs]

It was a joke, FFS. Incorporating the many conspiracy theories we've seen on this board in the last couple of years.

Bohs fans would really want to stop jumping at anything they perceive as against their club without actually reading it properly first.
Ah yes, you joke we breach rules. Glad you cleared that up and of course its all bohs fans fault. Obviously.

[pineapple stu]

:rolleyes:

Give me patience...

[SkStu]

Mod note - Can people keep to the point here - don't go dismissing people's points because of the clubs they support. Any more posts like that will be deleted.

seriously Stu, its time you started following your own advice on this. It was a joke with a little dig, thats fine. But dont get all high and mighty about it when someone pulls you up on it and the hypocrisy in your posts. Ive been infracted for less than that dig, believe me. Anyway, i dont care, my point is you cant just pick and choose when you want to wear your moderators cap. A bit of consistency please.

Feel free to reply but ill be backing out of this one now. My point has been made.

[CarrickFan]

do as i say not as i do...........

[pineapple stu]

If you have a problem with a post, report it.

In the meantime, try learning to distinguish between sarcasm/joking and hysteria.

[marinobohs]

If you have a problem with a post, report it.

In the meantime, try learning to distinguish between sarcasm/joking and hysteria.

to make it easier to understand -

sarcasm/joking/allowed - anything by PS
hysteria/ not allowed - anything not liked by PS (or anything by bohs fans) :rolleyes:

[SkStu]

If you have a problem with a post, report it.

In the meantime, try learning to distinguish between sarcasm/joking and hysteria.

forgive me if i fail to see the point of reporting your own posts to yourself Stu. I learned about the futility of reporting your posts when you were moderating the "Letter from Shamrock Rovers to the FAI about Bohs" thread.

I understand the difference between sarcasm and hysteria (considering theyre not even comparable) and either way i think that MarinoBohs post sums it up quite nicely.

[Réiteoir]

You should report posts Sk - we all know how students love to do work

[Dalymountrower]

I find it easier to take every post by PS as a joke.
Anyhow, I reckon that both Rovers in retrospect will be mightily relieved not to have legitimately signed Turner, nasty piece of work.

[CarrickFan]

If you have a problem with a post, report it.

In the meantime, try learning to distinguish between sarcasm/joking and hysteria.


I dont have a problem with any post....everybody is entitled to their opinion whether i think its sarcastic/funny or not..or whether i agree with it or not..surely thats the point of a forum?...so all posts that tickle your funny/sarcasm bone are ok but ones that dont are offensive/off topic/pointless/etc etc etc...

[Ezeikial]

If you have a problem with a post, report it.



This is your standard response to the many and consistent complaints about your double standards

Why not simply address the issue yourself in your contradictory standards of personal posts v moderating

[Mr A]

Holy crap lads- take it to support or report the posts where you have an issue. You click on the thread to read about the issue and it's full of whining about feck all. :p

[BohsFans]

Holy crap lads- take it to support or report the posts where you have an issue. You click on the thread to read about the issue and it's full of whining about feck all. :p

Stu's lap dog -FACT!

Report posts! lol

We know for sure that goes nowhere. Stop acting like the system works A and get back into the real world (although I assume the real world for you exists on foot.ie and not outside of your computer where you seem to spend VERY little time).

[Mr A]

You may have a point about the system not working. If it was, most of the whinging crap and personal attacks would have been binned before now.

The issue around contracts is an important one for the league- especially since the implication here could be that you can't get players committed to your club before the new contract for that year comes out, possibly irrespective of you budget/financial situation.

It's a pity to see it lost under an avalanche of people with persecution complexes.

[Dodge]

Welcome to foot.ie Mr A.

[juan]

Shouldn't this be in the rubbish section not the support section??

[Dodge]

Nope. Why should it? It's people making observations on the Nazi-like modding in this place.


Were people not complaining about the lack of moderation?

[De Town]

Were people not complaining about the lack of moderation?

That's what happens when Sligoman goes away for a few days.

[John83]

Shouldn't this be in the rubbish section not the support section??
Nah, everyone who's posted here needs help.

[dahamsta]

Shouldn't this be in the rubbish section not the support section??

Nope, complaints were levelled and people are entitled to their opinion. They're also entitled to use the post reporting facility. When they don't, and just bitch and whine aimlessly with no backup for their complaints, they generally get ignored.

[SkStu]

isnt the principle though that you shouldnt have to report a moderators post?

Moderators should not have as heavily invested opinions as regular posters or alternatively, if they do, they should have the ability to keep quiet about them (within reason). PS's posts are often inflammatory or dismissive and arrogant. We are told we should report posts but as i said earlier why would i report a post to the person who posted it? Theres no incentive there.

Overall i think the moderating has, elsewhere in the site, been far more relaxed recently than it was when i joined and i think that is a good thing and to an extent it is the same in the LOI forum but there are definitely double standards in play from PS regarding a number of issues/clubs (not just the eternally persecuted Bohs fans) and i think that is clear from an objective reading of his posts. I was surprised by the number of posters who actually backed up my post the other day which shows me that there must be something in it and its not just Bohemian oversensitivity.

Moderators are and should be held to a higher standard, objectivity is the crucial element of their role and that is something that is clearly lacking at times from Pineapple Stu.

[Dodge]

Moderators should not have as heavily invested opinions as regular posters or alternatively, if they do, they should have the ability to keep quiet about them

But then nobody would ever become a mod. People join this site (and others like them) to engage in debate, so why should a moderator be robbed of this?

I'm not saying that they should step out of line in anyway but they should absolutely be allowed express their opinion on whatever the hell they like (just like everyone else)

[dahamsta]

isnt the principle though that you shouldnt have to report a moderators post?

In an ideal world, yes. This isn't an ideal world. People have flaws, and make mistakes.

[SkStu]

But then nobody would ever become a mod. People join this site (and others like them) to engage in debate, so why should a moderator be robbed of this?

I'm not saying that they should step out of line in anyway but they should absolutely be allowed express their opinion on whatever the hell they like (just like everyone else)

firstly i did say "within reason" - i wouldnt expect absolute silence. But look at the way other mods here conduct themselves - MariborKev, Pauro76, yourself, Sligoman. They moderate well but contribute appropriately to discussion aswell.

[SkStu]

In an ideal world, yes. This isn't an ideal world. People have flaws, and make mistakes.

fair enough, i accept that. But then, i report a post and its a moderators post, i cant expect that the complaint will even be considered, therefore i just let it go. The amount of stuff that BYTCWD posted that was just absolute lies and WUM rubbish (and agreed to by PS) that was left on the MB after i had reported the posts. Guess what - he has been banned now but at that time i reported his posts and nothing was done about them because of the absolute lack of objectivity. By the same token LukeO was banned for answering the accusations and maybe getting a bit frustrated in the process. Its a bit ridiculous looking back at it and certainly left a sour taste in my mouth.

[dahamsta]

SkStu, neither of those people are mods, I fail to see the relevance. Complaints about mods are weighted the same as everyone else. The only difference is that most complaints about mods are quite simply retaliatory. LukeO was banned for breaking the rules, simple as. They're not complicated rules.

SlioBrewer, I reject hypothesis number 1, and await evidence of hypothesis number 2 with bated breath.

[pineapple stu]

A couple of comments in response to SkStu, if I may.

There are in effect four mods of the LoI forum - me, Pauro, Maribor and dahamsta. Reporting a post creates a new thread in the moderator forum which all of us - including mods of other forums - can view and discuss. Plenty of moderators' posts have been reported before. You suggested that -

We are told we should report posts but as i said earlier why would i report a post to the person who posted it?
This is clearly untrue. And because there are four moderators in the LoI forum, you can't accuse me - or any of the others - of single-mindedly and subjectively moderating the forum. There's nothing stopping Maribor from infracting BYCTWD even if I think it's funny that he's winding you all up, for example. If none of us take any action on a reported post, then I think you have to accept the possibility that we all thought no action was needed.

You've PMed me before with complaints on two issues in particular - BYCTWD and the whole thread on Rovers reporting Bohs. Both these issues were discussed in the mod forum. It was agreed that on the first, the league is a small place, and people know stuff that isn't necessarily on the internet. In that context, we're not going to enforce a blanket ban on people posting what they've heard through their clubs. Anything blatantly trouble-making (such as an accusation BYCTWD made that Bohs paid off the FAI to ensure Cork's players were paid when they were threatening to strike against Rovers) was deleted and infracted. BYCTWD also received a number of infractions for posting in an inflammatory manner. However, for suggesting, for example, that Chris Turner was going to sign for Shamrock Rovers because Sligo fecked up, there was no infraction. Hindsight has supported some of those decisions; he's gotten banned for his other posts.

On the second point, the moderators are not here to suppress talk against any one club. In fact, we actively encourage discussion about all clubs. It's one of the rules of the main forum that we're all allowed to discuss each others' clubs. What happened on the "Rovers report Bohs (http://foot.ie/threads/128682-Rovers-make-official-complaint-to-FAI-about-Bohs-spending-practices?daysprune=365)" thread was that Bohs fans almost immediately started attacking the post and not the poster (see, for example, posts 7, 9 and 15 from the first page alone). Fans from almost every other club commented on how Bohs fans were clearly dodging the issues. Several Bohs fans reported posts from that thread, but ultimately, there's nothing wrong with most of it. It's unfortunate that it's highlighting serious issues in Dalymount, but that's not a reason to close a thread.

The post to which you took exception in the Turner thread, again, was a joke. It was highlighting the flaw with the Sligo fan's view that the FAI were naturally shafting their club, and i was trying to bring in a few other implausible conspiracy theories to show that. A Bohs poster - Quadruple? - today posted a picture of the UCD club dinner showing a load of empty tables. That was probably trying to have a dig at UCD whereas I genuinely wasn't trying to have a dig at Bohs, but it was a joke, so I didn't start having a go at him. I genuinely think some Bohs fans are far too quick to get wound up over the slightest criticism of their club.

[SkStu]

look, if youre going to defend your moderating as you have and have that defence approved by your "boss", im not going to take this any further. Clearly it is pointless. Ill just try and ignore it when i see it.

I have tried to outline where my problem lies with regards to your moderating. Im not the only one who feels this way as is evidenced in this thread. When it comes to issues regarding Bohemians and certain other issues/clubs i think your objectivity becomes slightly more elastic - obviously other posters, not just Bohs, feel the same. Simply put, As a moderator i think you have a duty to watch what you say and how you say it as otherwise you leave yourself open to accusations such as those levelled in this thread.

by the way, i think Quadruple(1928?) is a Sligo fan.

[dahamsta]

Yes, I approve. It was well thought out, detailed, and addresses all of your points. Your response is the opposite. Are you seeing a pattern here?

I might add that there are 5.7k members on Foot.ie, 1.2k of whom have logged on this month. 600+ posts a day. 45k visitors, 200k visits, 1.5m page views.

Statistically, the 34 posts in this thread don't count for a lot. Realistically, they count for less, since many of them are from the same posters, many of whom in turn are disgruntled because they've received infractions for their documented rulebreaking. That included your good self with no less than 11 infractions.

Most people are booted on their tenth. Yet you're still here despite this inane waste of time and energy. You might want to do a bit more work on your thesis. It isn't very good.

[pineapple stu]

I might add that personally, if I'm going to have accusations of bias and what have you levied against me, the least I think I can expect is a reply to the points in my post rather than a blanket dismissal.

[dahamsta]

Blanket dismissals are usually my area. :)

[SkStu]

Nope, complaints were levelled and people are entitled to their opinion. They're also entitled to use the post reporting facility. When they don't, and just bitch and whine aimlessly with no backup for their complaints, they generally get ignored.

all i am doing is experessing my opinion which you have said is acceptable above. I am not trying to waste anyones time or energy and thought that it was a valid topic for discussion. I dont think i am stepping out of line by saying what i have and i have tried to express it rationally and without annoying you or anyone else. I am not trying to rewrite the rules of moderating (nor am i writing a thesis), i am simply suggesting that PS should be more objective on certain issues. As i have said before, i will ignore any future examples of what i consider poor moderating.

[Dodge]

Oh and back when I was a supermod, I was given infractions, temporary demotion, permanent demotions. Pretty much everything bar a ban

I still maintain I didn't deserve one of them ;) but mods can be sanctioned

[SkStu]

I might add that personally, if I'm going to have accusations of bias and what have you levied against me, the least I think I can expect is a reply to the points in my post rather than a blanket dismissal.

it wasnt intended as a blanket dismissal, im just not sure what i am supposed to say to the post. Youre telling me about foot.ie procedures for reported posts and thats fine, i acknowledge that. I also acknowledged that your initial post was a joke earlier in this debate. None of it changes my feelings on your moderation but im afraid that if i keep saying the same thing over and over again i will get banned. Adam has already pointed out that i am walking a fine line so, for my sake (as i do enjoy this site immensely), i think i need to drop it now. Right?

[pineapple stu]

i am simply suggesting that PS should be more objective on certain issues. As i have said before, i will ignore any future examples of what i consider poor moderating.
Incidentally, can you link an example or two in? If you just make general points without pointing to instances, what can I do to change? That's just a general whine rather than constructive criticism.

(And again, this is where the report post function comes in).

[SkStu]

Incidentally, can you link an example or two in? If you just make general points without pointing to instances, what can I do to change? That's just a general whine rather than constructive criticism.

(And again, this is where the report post function comes in).

noted - i will do so in future to help you change.

[dahamsta]

all i am doing is experessing my opinion which you have said is acceptable above.I have, and you are. As am I, and as is pineapple stu. He expressed his opinion by rebutting your opinion - roundly (in my opinion) - yet rather than address that, you continue to throw around random, undefined sentences that frankly don't make a whole lot of sense at this point. Which is why, although you may not be...


trying to waste anyones time or energy

...in point of fact you are. Time which is important to me. Is it not important to you? Do you not have anything better to do than... this?

[SkStu]

so what would you like me to do?

Go back and dissect his post and provide a point for point reponse? Or drop it, as i have tried to do, rather than waste our time? Because, quite frankly, with that last post of yours, im not too sure what you would prefer?

[dahamsta]

The latter. Ordinarily I'd have locked this long ago, but since right to reply is half the complaint, I decided to let it run. At some point you'll realise that every reply makes your original argument look less and less realistic and reasonable, and more and more like a pointless rant because we don't do things the way you want them. All despite the fact that it's worked just fine for more than 10 years and only a tiny minority have complained. Usually in a manner very similar to this.

It does give me an exemplar to work with in future though.

You realise you don't have to reply, yes? Often I find that not replying is the best way of... dropping it...

[SkStu]

At some point you'll realise that every reply makes your original argument look less and less realistic and reasonable, and more and more like a pointless rant because we don't do things the way you want them.

No. I wont be changing my opinion on this despite how you want to categorise my posts as a pointless rant or me as some sort of spoiled pup. How can my original point be unreasonable and unrealistic when all i want is consistent and objective moderation?


Any minute now I'm expecting a foot stamp.

i really dont see how anything i have written could lead you to believe that. I have tried to present my point calmly at all times. I keep trying to end this conversation as i realise that its an argument i cant win. Yet i keep being drawn back into responding to this "pointless argument" by yours and Pineapple Stu's posts.

If you want this to stop - and i do - then maybe you should lock it as any chance of reasonable discussion on this has ended.

[John83]

How can my original point be unreasonable and unrealistic when all i want is consistent and objective moderation?
He just wants you to give concrete examples of what you're unhappy with. Not narrative ones - that's highly subjective - but quote a post where you think PS has done something you disagree with, and articulate clearly why you think he's done something wrong there. It's very frustrating for a mod to deal with complaints like 'he's inconsistent' because you can't judge it without several hours' reading and a long debate. That's more work than he can reasonably be asked to do.

[SkStu]

i have highlighted instances several times in the past. Im not going to trawl back through posts again but what i will do is report any future posts.

[pineapple stu]

He just wants you to give concrete examples of what you're unhappy with.
Pretty much, but if he says he'll report them in future, that'll do.

What does annoy me a bit though is that we started this discussion with a complaint about my over-subjective moderation. Four concrete examples were given - LukeO, BYCTWD, the Rovers report Bohs thread and the post on this thread. Every one of those has been rebutted, and it's even been shown that I can't, of myself, influence the moderation of the whole forum, and yet at the end, Stu is still complaining about my over-subjective moderation.

On the post in this thread, for example, SkStu complained about it, referencing in my earlier post in the thread -


Mod note - Can people keep to the point here - don't go dismissing people's points because of the clubs they support. Any more posts like that will be deleted.
This was particularly, but not exclusively, for Rasputin, who was trying to say that Shamrock Rovers were obviously guilty here because they had previous financial issues, whereas Sligo hadn't. It was a stupid point, bordering on trolling, and I took him up on it. The post complained about was -


Yeah, cos it could never be the case that Sligo fecked up here, could it?

Occam's razor - the simplest solution is often the correct one. Either - the FAI, in liege with the reverse vampires who don't want to set out to away games before sunset, and also with the aim of creating a Leinster league to cut down on travel costs to aid Bohs, aided another Dublin side in order to further damage the good and virtuous Sligwegians by making up trumped charges against a player, or - Sligo fecked up and are getting what they deserve.

Why is that no-one here will ever, ever, countenance the possibility that their own club is anything less than perfect?
There is no possible way that you could interpret that as dismissing a person's point because of the club they support.

This brings me to the conclusion I've stated in this thread, which is that you get wound up far too easily, possibly to the point of looking to be wound up. However, when I stated that, you replied -


i will ignore any future examples of what i consider poor moderating.
- which implies that you expect me to keep on being snide and underhand, while you stoicly and bravely don't rise to my bait. But I'm not asking you to ignore any examples of poor moderating. I'm asking you not to go actively looking to get wound up about things, which is a completely different point, and one which you seem not to have picked up on.

[dahamsta]

It's a corker alright...