[Archived] Has this community lost its community spirit?

[dave birch]

Respects Al.

I took up golf when I realised I was to old for football (60), and have thoroughly enjoyed it.

Thought it was easy, just belt it down the fairway, couple of putts and onto the next...... I wish.....

Hopefully your elbow problem doesn't stop you from bending the elbow to enjoy a glass of red or two.

[Gav]

I was recently banned for calling a fellow poster a c0ck, this wasn’t an ongoing ‘spat’ and also wasn’t derailing the thread IMO, but it was an immediate 2 week ban.

Now call me old fashioned but really? A 2wk ban for calling a fellow poster a c0ck? Seems harsh to me and completely uncalled for, no warning, just an immediate ban.

Having frequented the site since 1996/97 I’ve seen many comings and goings, bannings and some pretty nasty stuff, but during this time I’ve never been banned, when by my own admission I should have been several times!

I emailed the admin on the site to ask for their take on the banning and received nothing back, which was disappointing really.

Its a difficult job, and one thats done on a voluntary basis, and that should never be forgotten, but I think they went overboard on this occasion, and once again didn’t show consistency in their approach to banning someone.

I've tried not to come across as someone who's crying about being banned, because to be honest I couldn't really care less, but if you're going to ban a long standing member for calling someone a 'c0ck' then what chance do the newbies stand?!

The sites on its backside, the quality of the threads are mostly poor, couple that with inconsistant moderating and you've got problems, serious problems in my book.

[Al]

Respects Al.

I took up golf when I realised I was to old for football (60), and have thoroughly enjoyed it.

Thought it was easy, just belt it down the fairway, couple of putts and onto the next...... I wish.....

Hopefully your elbow problem doesn't stop you from bending the elbow to enjoy a glass of red or two.

I'll let you know when I get the pot off. Anyway it's my left elbow and I've always been a right hand drinker.

I really am concerned about my golf though. I'm no Tiger Woods but I do enjoy playing

[T.J.Newton]

I was recently banned for calling a fellow poster a c0ck, this wasn’t an ongoing ‘spat’ and also wasn’t derailing the thread IMO, but it was an immediate 2 week ban.

Now call me old fashioned but really? A 2wk ban for calling a fellow poster a c0ck? Seems harsh to me and completely uncalled for, no warning, just an immediate ban.

Having frequented the site since 1996/97 I’ve seen many comings and goings, bannings and some pretty nasty stuff, but during this time I’ve never been banned, when by my own admission I should have been several times!

I emailed the admin on the site to ask for their take on the banning and received nothing back, which was disappointing really.

Its a difficult job, and one thats done on a voluntary basis, and that should never be forgotten, but I think they went overboard on this occasion, and once again didn’t show consistency in their approach to banning someone.

I've tried not to come across as someone who's crying about being banned, because to be honest I couldn't really care less, but if you're going to ban a long standing member for calling someone a 'c0ck' then what chance do the newbies stand?!

The sites on its backside, the quality of the threads are mostly poor, couple that with inconsistant moderating and you've got problems, serious problems in my book.

Did you call this person a C##k out of malice or friendly banter? (I'd imagine it was said with mean intent and un-called for to get you banned)

Personally I think there is to much emphasise going on how long a person has been a member for, everybody was a newbie at one point and the site would just be entirely full of old men before long if all new posters where made to feel unwelcome(though a short trail period which just entailed a daily post restriction of say 5 posts would be reasonable I think).

I think it should be the content(and intent!) of the post/s that should be scrutinised, then if its deemed inappropriate you punish the poster accordingly(regardless of who it is or how long they have been around)

As I said yesterday id be in favour of more daily post restrictions being given out (with bans just being reserved for aggressive, threatening or malicious behaviour/language)

[gumboots]

The sites on its backside, the quality of the threads are mostly poor, couple that with inconsistant moderating and you've got problems, serious problems in my book.

The fact that the general quality of posting has gone down is a side effect of the ewood circus though. Get back to a satisfactory team on the pitch and the standard of posting will rise and the disputes between members will be about whether Rhodes or Rochina or whoever we get to replace either or both was MOTM. The fan base in general has been so frustrated in so many ways over the years of venkys ownership that its no wonder it spills over into stupid arguments on here and the best way to stop it is for the club to start enjoying more success, even at a moderate level, on the pitch.

And I know I'm old fashioned but I do find the word you used offensive so don't see any reason not to at least warn you, but, if that's genuinely all the ban was for, you're probably correct in that it was excessive

[yoda]

Everyones level of dick and dickishness is different though.

Judging by the liberalism of the board as a whole I am surprised that anyone can not say anything they desire besides for mentioning God positively, Mohammad negatively, or agree that people should defend themselves from physical attack or robbery.

Besides that everything should be kosher.

lets have a dickometer

[Glenn]

I was recently banned for calling a fellow poster a c0ck, this wasn’t an ongoing ‘spat’ and also wasn’t derailing the thread IMO, but it was an immediate 2 week ban.

Now call me old fashioned but really? A 2wk ban for calling a fellow poster a c0ck? Seems harsh to me and completely uncalled for, no warning, just an immediate ban.

Having frequented the site since 1996/97 I’ve seen many comings and goings, bannings and some pretty nasty stuff, but during this time I’ve never been banned, when by my own admission I should have been several times!

I emailed the admin on the site to ask for their take on the banning and received nothing back, which was disappointing really.

Its a difficult job, and one thats done on a voluntary basis, and that should never be forgotten, but I think they went overboard on this occasion, and once again didn’t show consistency in their approach to banning someone.

I've tried not to come across as someone who's crying about being banned, because to be honest I couldn't really care less, but if you're going to ban a long standing member for calling someone a 'c0ck' then what chance do the newbies stand?!

The sites on its backside, the quality of the threads are mostly poor, couple that with inconsistant moderating and you've got problems, serious problems in my book.

I've got to hold my hand up and take the blame for two bits of that.

The initial posting rights remoal, I imagine was down to me and Ste recently having a little hissy fit when yet another thread had degenerated into an embarrassment and we suggested the mods remove the posting rights of everyone involved for a short while. You should however have received a PM that explained what had happened and why (as you obviously didn't and you're not the first person to say you didn't, I'll spend the afternoon looking into why as I agree removal of posting rights without any explanation of why, is both annoying and counter productive.

The lack of an email response is on me too. All the admin the stuff comes to just me and Ste and unfortunately I get 200+ emails a day (not all BRFCS and not all need replying to), so I do tend to skim read the subjects and reply to the ones I think need it, so I can only assume I missed yours. We've already made a changes to address this, at Tom's suggestion we've set up [email protected] so he and Ricky can help answer stuff like this.

[Tom]

To be fair Gav if you are going to outright insult another poster its in clear breach of the posting guidelines and anyone should technically receive a ban for it regardless of status so I think its fair enough myself although I don't know the context of it. I can see your point though and I think the reason it seems harsh is we have slacked a bit recently and possibly let things slide.

Glenn - it looks as thing a note was spent explaining why but it may not have been received I suppose

[DE.]

I was recently banned for calling a fellow poster a c0ck, this wasn’t an ongoing ‘spat’ and also wasn’t derailing the thread IMO, but it was an immediate 2 week ban.

Now call me old fashioned but really? A 2wk ban for calling a fellow poster a c0ck? Seems harsh to me and completely uncalled for, no warning, just an immediate ban.

Having frequented the site since 1996/97 I’ve seen many comings and goings, bannings and some pretty nasty stuff, but during this time I’ve never been banned, when by my own admission I should have been several times!

I emailed the admin on the site to ask for their take on the banning and received nothing back, which was disappointing really.

Its a difficult job, and one thats done on a voluntary basis, and that should never be forgotten, but I think they went overboard on this occasion, and once again didn’t show consistency in their approach to banning someone.

I've tried not to come across as someone who's crying about being banned, because to be honest I couldn't really care less, but if you're going to ban a long standing member for calling someone a 'c0ck' then what chance do the newbies stand?!

The sites on its backside, the quality of the threads are mostly poor, couple that with inconsistant moderating and you've got problems, serious problems in my book.

That's ridiculous. Posters on here are insulting each other all the time, there's no way Gav should be singled out for that regardless of "breaching posting guidelines" - which, I hasten to add, plenty of newer posters do and get away with for far longer.

I also want to voice my opposition against being forced to use "real names". I personally wouldn't have an issue if I was required to do so - I have a few BRFCS members as FB friends after all - but it causes some serious problems.

1) As Topman said, how do you stop somebody using a fake name? Is everybody required to do some kind of "security check" before becoming a member? Are we supposed to send in a copy of our passport/driving license? Link to facebook page? How would you possibly set this kind of thing up without making it overbearing?

2) If somebody wanted to post on here but remain anonymous (there are perfectly good reasons for doing so - journalism, working at the club, etc) they wouldn't be able to do so. This would IMO ultimately be detrimental to the board as a forum for discussion.

3) The whole point of nicknames are that they create individuality for a poster and a uniqueness which real names take away. If we have ten people called Daniel, five called Steve, eight called Shaun, etc ... isn't it going to become a bit awkward when trying to mention somebody in a post? If you just say their first name it could potentially mean a number of posters, and it's both strange and difficult to remember the full names of everybody, whereas nicknames tend to be a lot easier to remember.

4) What if there is somebody posting here who is seriously unhinged and I offend them somehow? They then have my full name and with a bit of internet investigation could attempt to find me. As it stands with my current username and user info I very much doubt anybody could identify me (other than those who already know me personally or via other social media).

I guess that's enough for now... but I think the concept of using real names is very flawed and the negatives of forcing posters to do so would far outweigh the positives. Just my two penneth on the matter...

[rebelmswar]

lets have a dickometer

Mine would be huge.

[ABBEY]

Mine would need a swingometer

[yoda]

Mine would be huge.

Mine would need a swingometer

Small potatoes

I have a PHD

[ABBEY]

Pulsating Hairy Dongle?

[rebelmswar]

I agree wholeheartedly with DE on this one in regard to nicknames and avatars; I like the mental image I make of people and am regularly shocked when I see someone's picture about how far wrong I am.

Seeing some in the flesh may just make me lose my last semblance of sanity.

My name is also boring and am an ugly barsteward.

[yoda]

Pulsating Hairy Dongle?

no,

getting warm though!

[rebelmswar]

Small potatoes

I have a PHD

Penile Hanker Deficiency?

[yoda]

Penile Hanker Deficiency?

think "Friends" and you might get it,

anybody know the score yet?

[Stuart]

Whilst I'm not keen on the idea of full disclosure (a first name is fine - with some differentiator for same names) it would be easy to enforce using *sucks in breath through teeth* "Facebook integration".

Wonder if we could have a field below the pseudonym where people can add their real first name?

It would be good to be able to refer to people with their real life name and would make them seem more human.

[thenodrog]

I'll let you know when I get the pot off. Anyway it's my left elbow and I've always been a right hand drinker.

I really am concerned about my golf though. I'm no Tiger Woods but I do enjoy playing

I wouldn't altogether bet against it helping your game Al. My playing partner 20 years or so ago reckoned my game improved everytime I had a bad back. It slowed my swing down and stopped me overswinging into the bargain.... the ball went just as far but straighter.

[DE.]

Whilst I'm not keen on the idea of full disclosure (a first name is fine - with some differentiator for same names) it would be easy to enforce using *sucks in breath through teeth* "Facebook integration".

Whilst the majority of people do have a FB account, there are also a lot of people who have nothing to do with it. How do those posters get verified?

[rebelmswar]

anybody know the score yet?

About 4"?

[Stuart]

Whilst the majority of people do have a FB account, there are also a lot of people who have nothing to do with it. How do those posters get verified?

Not saying I want it or like it (in fact I hate the idea) but some online services/apps only work with FB.

Maybe I'm just an Internet dinosaur!

[yoda]

About 4"?

has that got something to do with your signature?

[Glenn]

That's ridiculous. Posters on here are insulting each other all the time, there's no way Gav should be singled out for that regardless of "breaching posting guidelines" - which, I hasten to add, plenty of newer posters do and get away with for far longer.

"Singled Out" implies, well being singled out. As I mentioned above we did the same to a lot of people that day, and Gav probably was at the lesser end of things, but somebody always has to be. It seems to popular change is for stronger moderation, but as Rick points out above, everyone days the line in a different place.

I also want to voice my opposition against being forced to use "real names". I personally wouldn't have an issue if I was required to do so - I have a few BRFCS members as FB friends after all - but it causes some serious problems.

"Force" is strong and inaccurate description. Once the defamation bill guidelines are published, we'll know better what we will need to disclose in libel claims, I personally DON'T think this will be a real name, I suspect it'll be a combination of email address and IP addresses. But it *is* a possibility (all be it a slim one in my eyes)

We also currently only mentioned it for a specific area of the site, not the main forum.

I do whoever buy the argument that both the usage of real name /real avatars and real life meetings do lead to people being much warmer to each other, but I don't think anyone was thinking it would be mandatory unless forced into it by the defamation bill.

Majiball's use cases is a good one and as Toppers points out, it would be easily circumventable. If we were ever to implement it, I see Facebook as being a quick and easy method as long as we have an alternative too (for those who don't want to).

... but ultimately, we may strongly encourage real name use (or Facebook linking), but we're exceptionally unlikely to make it mandatory (unless the defamation bill stuff forces us).

[rebelmswar]

has that got something to do with your signature?

Are we talking girth?