Chris Turner - Which Rovers?

[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...