@Chris Unless it comes as a result of sustained racist, sexist, homophobic or libelous posting, it is an absurdity for a regular user to ban other regular users.
I agree that people should only be banned in extreme circumstances. I think we could add a few more reasons to your list, but I don't think we disagree in principle.
I certainly haven't, the closest I can think of is ArgylePhil who was dominating the board with his posting (who I didn't ban but I think everyone was pleased to see the back of).
There is clearly a highly libellous accusation being cast around by this individual poster.
The Gasroom has been set up by private individuals, and is moderated by private individuals, who give up free time (and money) to keep this site going.
The last thing they want is to be pursued by the courts because some muppet is posting something which anyone with half a brain can see is libel. Saying one player hmm hmm hmm is LIBEL, plain and simple.
If you don't like the moderation so much, go make your own free-for-all forum. You'll quickly see how unpleasant it will become, and hopefully you'll get sued for libel too after throwing your toys out the pram here.
This isn't a public street. It is a private forum. You have no right to say anything you want. And even on a public street you cannot level libellous accusations without adequate proof, of which this poster clearly has none.
I must admit I struggle to follow how someone who is already banned can simply reapply and post more rubbish when the moderators know it's the same person.
No disagreement from me @bill_stickers as i've said clearly.
@Chris i can't even remember the poster's name now... he was 'ignored' for a while, but eventually banned for no good reason. You must remember who i'm talking about? All outlandish transfer rumours and hopeless negativity. If you didn't ban him then i apologize...
Rich Mayes? He was banned for a specific reason, not for being annoying. There's a whole thread about it. Although he's back anyway now, as RitM points out.
Libel can be very expensive and in these social media days it is very easy for someone to spot and take action. I think Chris is right to delete rmj's post if he feels as a moderator it crosses the line. It is not outside the bounds of possibility that the club, players or even ex-players keep an eye on this forum so posting libellous material on here without proof is not a good idea. I must admit I packed in the old Gasroom for a few years as it started to become unpleasant and (to be honest) boring - less about football than just a private members insult club. Luckily, the richmayes and banterkings stick out a bit more nowadays.
@Chris said:
I certainly haven't, the closest I can think of is ArgylePhil who was dominating the board with his posting (who I didn't ban but I think everyone was pleased to see the back of).
This site is privately owned and offered as a free service to us all. We should all be grateful for that. The owner of the sate, Dr Congo I believe, has the right to do whatever he wishes with the site, we are all his guests, if he doesn't want any or all of us to access his property, that is entirely up to him. We in turn have a choice and may choose not to visit if we don't like what he does.
As it happens, I think the moderators do a good job in very difficult circumstances. But that's not really the point. If you don't like the job they do on this privately owned site, don't visit it. That's the deal.
Getting a few tetchy comments about my Holloway post. Funny that they waited until he finally scored a couple of goals!
willing to be proven wrong, but lets see where he ends up next year before giving it large eh?
and if he came back here and had the same heart as his potential id be delighted!
no idea what all the deletions are about...although if Richie was involved i expect it was unsubstantiated gossip
To those having a dig at @Chris and/or the other moderators who think that they are wilfully removing posts just because they don't agree with them. There are a multitude of differing opinions on almost every thread on this forum - the moderators obviously can't agree with all of those opinions and yet how many people have actually had their posts edited or removed? It's blindingly obvious that posts are only being removed or edited in very specific circumstances - as the moderators have pointed out - to protect the integrity of this forum.
Not quite sure what @floyd needed to post this for -
@Chris Unless it comes as a result of sustained racist, sexist, homophobic or libelous posting, it is an absurdity for a regular user to ban other regular users.
or this
but eventually banned for no good reason.
when @Chris and @drcongo made it clear exactly what richmayes was banned for at the time, and why the recent posts of his alter ego @rmjlondon were removed. Unless you are deliberately ignoring what other people have posted just to try and justify your own anti-moderation stance? Is it that hard to understand?
I was wondering if we could occasionally intersperse the libel, the accusations of libel and the calls for resignations with a discussion on the games and tactics Wycombe Wanderers play from the actual spectators point of view I realise we're a minority on this board but I think we have something to say.
Back, sort of, to the thread. I wonder what effect the GPS tracking has on a certain type of personality? As an employee I would hate every movement I make at work to be the subject of scrutiny. I like to think before I act but if we were to be measured for action...
So if I was an intelligent, tactically astute footballer and calculated that chasing after that pointless hoofed ball forward was a waste of time and effort I may not take that kindly to my boss having a go at me at work the next day for not running around as much as my other colleagues.
(I'm not saying that the tracking is counter-productive just that it may not be suitable for all)
Comments
I do think that you get a buzz from acting as a censor/dictator on this forum unlike Dr Congo who acts in a reasonable and professional manner.
I'd like a gasroom where no moderation or banning was necessary. And that is, for the vast majority of the time, what we have.
@Chris Unless it comes as a result of sustained racist, sexist, homophobic or libelous posting, it is an absurdity for a regular user to ban other regular users.
I agree that people should only be banned in extreme circumstances. I think we could add a few more reasons to your list, but I don't think we disagree in principle.
I think we might actually but that's ok. Didn't you ban a kid because he was annoying?
I certainly haven't, the closest I can think of is ArgylePhil who was dominating the board with his posting (who I didn't ban but I think everyone was pleased to see the back of).
There is clearly a highly libellous accusation being cast around by this individual poster.
The Gasroom has been set up by private individuals, and is moderated by private individuals, who give up free time (and money) to keep this site going.
The last thing they want is to be pursued by the courts because some muppet is posting something which anyone with half a brain can see is libel. Saying one player hmm hmm hmm is LIBEL, plain and simple.
If you don't like the moderation so much, go make your own free-for-all forum. You'll quickly see how unpleasant it will become, and hopefully you'll get sued for libel too after throwing your toys out the pram here.
This isn't a public street. It is a private forum. You have no right to say anything you want. And even on a public street you cannot level libellous accusations without adequate proof, of which this poster clearly has none.
I must admit I struggle to follow how someone who is already banned can simply reapply and post more rubbish when the moderators know it's the same person.
No disagreement from me @bill_stickers as i've said clearly.
@Chris i can't even remember the poster's name now... he was 'ignored' for a while, but eventually banned for no good reason. You must remember who i'm talking about? All outlandish transfer rumours and hopeless negativity. If you didn't ban him then i apologize...
Rich Mayes? He was banned for a specific reason, not for being annoying. There's a whole thread about it. Although he's back anyway now, as RitM points out.
Libel can be very expensive and in these social media days it is very easy for someone to spot and take action. I think Chris is right to delete rmj's post if he feels as a moderator it crosses the line. It is not outside the bounds of possibility that the club, players or even ex-players keep an eye on this forum so posting libellous material on here without proof is not a good idea. I must admit I packed in the old Gasroom for a few years as it started to become unpleasant and (to be honest) boring - less about football than just a private members insult club. Luckily, the richmayes and banterkings stick out a bit more nowadays.
In any case, @rmjlondon seems to have stopped talking about it now so we could all take the chance to move on.
Loan watch?
I have stopped talking about as I don't want to be banned, once I have the proof then I shall post with that attached.
Good for you.
and then you will need to resign as a moderator on this board, you know what they say fall on your own sword.
Shut up you pillock.
Argylephil I have to say was most anoying.
@bill_stickers nah you shut up
Oh wait, is this the evidence that you're looking for?
http://bit.ly/4kb77v
Moderatorgate.
Hi guys hope everyone is good. Chris you should stop editing/deleting posts for little or no reason. Thanks
This site is privately owned and offered as a free service to us all. We should all be grateful for that. The owner of the sate, Dr Congo I believe, has the right to do whatever he wishes with the site, we are all his guests, if he doesn't want any or all of us to access his property, that is entirely up to him. We in turn have a choice and may choose not to visit if we don't like what he does.
As it happens, I think the moderators do a good job in very difficult circumstances. But that's not really the point. If you don't like the job they do on this privately owned site, don't visit it. That's the deal.
Getting a few tetchy comments about my Holloway post. Funny that they waited until he finally scored a couple of goals!
willing to be proven wrong, but lets see where he ends up next year before giving it large eh?
and if he came back here and had the same heart as his potential id be delighted!
no idea what all the deletions are about...although if Richie was involved i expect it was unsubstantiated gossip
To those having a dig at @Chris and/or the other moderators who think that they are wilfully removing posts just because they don't agree with them. There are a multitude of differing opinions on almost every thread on this forum - the moderators obviously can't agree with all of those opinions and yet how many people have actually had their posts edited or removed? It's blindingly obvious that posts are only being removed or edited in very specific circumstances - as the moderators have pointed out - to protect the integrity of this forum.
Not quite sure what @floyd needed to post this for -
or this
when @Chris and @drcongo made it clear exactly what richmayes was banned for at the time, and why the recent posts of his alter ego @rmjlondon were removed. Unless you are deliberately ignoring what other people have posted just to try and justify your own anti-moderation stance? Is it that hard to understand?
An unmoderated site would soon either be sued or disappear up its own rmjbanterking.
A lot of people struggle to read things on here before making their wild accusations. Perhaps their tin foil conspiracy hats fog their vision?
That comment from @rmjlondon about @Chris having to resign is a priceless comic moment.
Why the hate for the banterking wendoverman?
That comment about a user not being able to ban another user. Hilarious! Are we going to go subscription based to pay for professional moderation?
There are some cases on here!
I was wondering if we could occasionally intersperse the libel, the accusations of libel and the calls for resignations with a discussion on the games and tactics Wycombe Wanderers play from the actual spectators point of view I realise we're a minority on this board but I think we have something to say.
Back, sort of, to the thread. I wonder what effect the GPS tracking has on a certain type of personality? As an employee I would hate every movement I make at work to be the subject of scrutiny. I like to think before I act but if we were to be measured for action...
So if I was an intelligent, tactically astute footballer and calculated that chasing after that pointless hoofed ball forward was a waste of time and effort I may not take that kindly to my boss having a go at me at work the next day for not running around as much as my other colleagues.
(I'm not saying that the tracking is counter-productive just that it may not be suitable for all)