Hey it wasn't me this time. But I'll say what I've said before, if your posts were of an acceptable standard (and it's a pretty low bar) then they wouldn't need to be edited.
On principle, I agree strongly that the editing of a forum contributor's posts by other froum members, without their prior agreement, is out of order. Unless it clearly breaches acknowledged rules for the forum, each post should be allowed to stand is written. Anyone disagreeing with its content or tone may respond with a post of their own; not edit the post that they disagree with.
Where a clear breach of forum rules has occurred, then it may be appropriate for a post to be edited or deleted, preferably by an appointed moderator. In this case, it would be helpful if the reason for editing or deletion was indicated or communicated to the errant poster.
On principle, I agree strongly with @Uncle_T . However Rich Mayes's hijacking of every post, and other forum members' decision to engage with him in a derogatory way, really ruins the experience of logging on here. Given that just banning him would see him pop up again under a new guise, I would advocate a policy of all moderators just deleting the text in each of him comments as soon as they're posted for a set period. All the text, just leaving a blank space each time. After a couple of weeks he might realise it's more fun to engage constructively rather than trying to wind people up all the time, and go on to become a productive member of our community (some of his posts show that actually is possible!)
On principle I would also agree, but Mayes' incessant posting of utter nonsense on every thread is a tedious affair. Nothing wrong with disagreement and debate but posting endless dribble is just frustrating for all.
Reading @richmayes999 stuff and the ensuing exchanges does waste a lot of time and in general it is not positive, interesting, accurate, relevant, balanced or amusing (unlike my own revered posts!).
On the other hand, he/she does very occasionally display a measure of rationality and common sense and the amateur psychologist in me is intrigued by his maverick mindset and would quite like his/her identity to be revealed. I would also find a face to face conversation interesting and potentially revealing. The spare nature of his/her comments make it impossible to form a mental image. He/she could be any age - but my guess is between 12 and 30.
I know in a different place I advocated banning and editing of posts, but I am a bit concerned in this instance that posts are being edited simply because they are 'stupid' . And I'd also like the moderation on this site to be more transparent. I don't at the moment know who the moderators are, or who is doing the editing. This differs from other fora I use, where the specific moderators actions can be identified. The new ignore user function is however very welcome as a way to address the main concern. And some self restraint on the part of the wider Gasroom community to WUMs would also reduce the attractiveness of posting.
I totally agree with Baldric's comments here and hope the moderators will review their current practices. As long as any view is not libelous, racist, threatening or abusive to others on this forum, then such posting should not be edited or deleted. If such a post is edited/deleted the moderators should give reasons why.
I agree with Baldric . It very much feels like "big brother" watching over this forum . I think we need to be careful that things don't become too censored or edited and I too would like clarity as to who does this . If it is a case of someone who has the authority starting to edit posts just because it does not fit with own personal views then it would be a real shame
I can see who edited what, and believe me you're really not missing anything. However, hopefully the ignore feature should make it unnecessary now anyway.
I've edited and deleted a small number of posts for being libellous and for personal abuse. I've also edited a handful of richmayes (formerly blueh_w) posts to correct the tone from stating a fact to stating an opinion.
I agree that posts shouldn't be edited unnecessarily or because a moderator simply disagrees with the opinion stated. If that were the case there wouldn't be many of your posts left @bourne70!
@Chris, to me, editing someone's post 'to correct the tone' does cross a line. It's not ok for someone to present what they believe is a fact, only to have it presented as an opinion. Of course, you have the material in question, so i'm happy to be corrected, but i do wonder if you've taken things a step too far.
Far more concerning is the idea that certain posters should be banned simply because they're annoying.
I did think twice about doing it, but I continue to think it was the right thing to do.
If someone reads the board who doesn't have the context that Rich is a bullshitter and they read that x player is on such and such wages or we will definitely be signing x in the next few days it could be misleading. I've made it clear the post has been edited and put my changes in italics (generally just the insertion of 'I think that' and 'but I might be wrong' around his spurious claim).
This is a really good discussion for us to be having. It has identified some of the moderators and some of the rationale they use for moderating. Moderators have a thankless task in many ways which is why the Gasroom has to be largely self policing and members need to behave reasonably. I am however detecting different standards being applied by different moderators, and I also wonder whether some get a buzz out of moderating which may affect their objectivity.
Well as long as you don't use your "power" to win arguments Chris . I for one will be watching to see if you do indeed seem to be getting some sort of sad power kick from what you are able to do .
While I agree that @richmayes999 is on a complete wind up with every single one of his/her posts, I'm not sure posts should be edited unless, as on every single other forum, it's made clear by an 'edited by 'XXX' at 'XXPM' style message at the top of the post.
I don't think anyone has edited anything out of any malice, but it is probably the least transparent way of going about things possible. I'd be more in favour of an outright IP ban on him.
Comments
How do we know if we don't like what you write unless we read it first? Chicken & egg situation.
I use to at first think people were being unfair to @richmayes999, but to be frank you are now showing yourself up
Hey it wasn't me this time. But I'll say what I've said before, if your posts were of an acceptable standard (and it's a pretty low bar) then they wouldn't need to be edited.
On principle, I agree strongly that the editing of a forum contributor's posts by other froum members, without their prior agreement, is out of order. Unless it clearly breaches acknowledged rules for the forum, each post should be allowed to stand is written. Anyone disagreeing with its content or tone may respond with a post of their own; not edit the post that they disagree with.
Where a clear breach of forum rules has occurred, then it may be appropriate for a post to be edited or deleted, preferably by an appointed moderator. In this case, it would be helpful if the reason for editing or deletion was indicated or communicated to the errant poster.
On principle, I agree strongly with @Uncle_T . However Rich Mayes's hijacking of every post, and other forum members' decision to engage with him in a derogatory way, really ruins the experience of logging on here. Given that just banning him would see him pop up again under a new guise, I would advocate a policy of all moderators just deleting the text in each of him comments as soon as they're posted for a set period. All the text, just leaving a blank space each time. After a couple of weeks he might realise it's more fun to engage constructively rather than trying to wind people up all the time, and go on to become a productive member of our community (some of his posts show that actually is possible!)
On principle I would also agree, but Mayes' incessant posting of utter nonsense on every thread is a tedious affair. Nothing wrong with disagreement and debate but posting endless dribble is just frustrating for all.
Reading @richmayes999 stuff and the ensuing exchanges does waste a lot of time and in general it is not positive, interesting, accurate, relevant, balanced or amusing (unlike my own revered posts!).
On the other hand, he/she does very occasionally display a measure of rationality and common sense and the amateur psychologist in me is intrigued by his maverick mindset and would quite like his/her identity to be revealed. I would also find a face to face conversation interesting and potentially revealing. The spare nature of his/her comments make it impossible to form a mental image. He/she could be any age - but my guess is between 12 and 30.
I genuinely love @micra's contribution to this board.
Thank you very much Dr Congo.
I know in a different place I advocated banning and editing of posts, but I am a bit concerned in this instance that posts are being edited simply because they are 'stupid' . And I'd also like the moderation on this site to be more transparent. I don't at the moment know who the moderators are, or who is doing the editing. This differs from other fora I use, where the specific moderators actions can be identified. The new ignore user function is however very welcome as a way to address the main concern. And some self restraint on the part of the wider Gasroom community to WUMs would also reduce the attractiveness of posting.
I totally agree with Baldric's comments here and hope the moderators will review their current practices. As long as any view is not libelous, racist, threatening or abusive to others on this forum, then such posting should not be edited or deleted. If such a post is edited/deleted the moderators should give reasons why.
I agree with Baldric . It very much feels like "big brother" watching over this forum . I think we need to be careful that things don't become too censored or edited and I too would like clarity as to who does this . If it is a case of someone who has the authority starting to edit posts just because it does not fit with own personal views then it would be a real shame
I can see who edited what, and believe me you're really not missing anything. However, hopefully the ignore feature should make it unnecessary now anyway.
posts should not be edited unless they are abusive or racist.
I've edited and deleted a small number of posts for being libellous and for personal abuse. I've also edited a handful of richmayes (formerly blueh_w) posts to correct the tone from stating a fact to stating an opinion.
I agree that posts shouldn't be edited unnecessarily or because a moderator simply disagrees with the opinion stated. If that were the case there wouldn't be many of your posts left @bourne70!
Oh and I also deleted posts from Plymouth & Bristol Rovers fans after our Wembley trip.
Chris , if I had the power I would delete your post
Good job you don't then
I also deleted a Mayes post speculating about a player's personal life. I don't think that's the sort of thing that should be forum fodder.
@Chris, to me, editing someone's post 'to correct the tone' does cross a line. It's not ok for someone to present what they believe is a fact, only to have it presented as an opinion. Of course, you have the material in question, so i'm happy to be corrected, but i do wonder if you've taken things a step too far.
Far more concerning is the idea that certain posters should be banned simply because they're annoying.
Annoying posters are the lifeblood of this football club
I did think twice about doing it, but I continue to think it was the right thing to do.
If someone reads the board who doesn't have the context that Rich is a bullshitter and they read that x player is on such and such wages or we will definitely be signing x in the next few days it could be misleading. I've made it clear the post has been edited and put my changes in italics (generally just the insertion of 'I think that' and 'but I might be wrong' around his spurious claim).
This is a really good discussion for us to be having. It has identified some of the moderators and some of the rationale they use for moderating. Moderators have a thankless task in many ways which is why the Gasroom has to be largely self policing and members need to behave reasonably. I am however detecting different standards being applied by different moderators, and I also wonder whether some get a buzz out of moderating which may affect their objectivity.
Chris likes to think he is in charge abit like a referee, very embarassing tbh !!!
FFS @richmayes999 give it a rest you tedious oaf. Haven't you got something better to do down at the WWFC shop?
I am afraid he does have a point though EwanHoosaami .
I'm going to give the points to Ewan, and a drop ball to restart.
Well as long as you don't use your "power" to win arguments Chris . I for one will be watching to see if you do indeed seem to be getting some sort of sad power kick from what you are able to do .
While I agree that @richmayes999 is on a complete wind up with every single one of his/her posts, I'm not sure posts should be edited unless, as on every single other forum, it's made clear by an 'edited by 'XXX' at 'XXPM' style message at the top of the post.
I don't think anyone has edited anything out of any malice, but it is probably the least transparent way of going about things possible. I'd be more in favour of an outright IP ban on him.
So the mixture of opinion, fiction and pointlessly aggressive put-downs richmayes posts is AFTER it has been moderated??