[Archived] Has this community lost its community spirit?

[Glenn]

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

We have "optional" Facebook integration already (and have had for a long time), you *can* skip a lot of the normal forum signup stuff and just sign-in to BRFCS as a Facebook instead, or you can sign up on the forum the old traditional way and then *optionally* configure your Facebook account.

[DE.]

"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.

By singled out I didn't literally mean Gav was the only one banned for such a trespass. It was in a broader sense - a lot of people get away with name-calling on a regular basis, something I'm sure mods see and ignore. If somebody then gets banned for doing so they're being singled out as they're within the minority being punished for such a crime. Whilst it is technically against posting guidelines, you can only enforce these with any degree of authority if you're generally consistent with bannings and punishments. Banning Gav for that is, IMO, ridiculous and not at all in line with how the board is moderated normally. As a result I think saying he was singled out is wholly justifiable, and the same would apply to anybody else banned that day or any other day for the same offence.

"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).

My post was based on the possibility of real names being forced upon people, rather than assuming it will actually happen. I have no idea whether it's being considered or not and if it is implemented then so be it. I just see it as a very bad move and just another step away from internet privacy (though admittedly, there isn't much of it left anyway now).

[thenodrog]

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.

It's all about timing with board moderation I think Gav.. Like when to tell er indoors that her arse looks big in something. Most days she'll roll with it and thank you but when the hormones kick in she'll bite your head off!

Ricky TomM, Den and Modes are/were generally OK, Trueblue, Daz and ET come much further down the list for coming in and looking for excuses to come in all guns blazing to throw their weight around. Paul was just weird, odd as a box of frogs as they say, unpredictable as can be and difficult to place in any list, whilst the worst of all who came in carrying lots of baggage and a disgraceful agenda was Hemel Rover... he was like a member of the bloody SS! HR banned me on some jumped up charge for a couple of days and then 'conveniently' forgot to reinstate me. I only came back cos Glenn was the only one to notice I was missing and checked up after a month or more.

As for your use of c0ck (no not that one...... nor the other either!)... Everybody knows Abbey's been potted for using the term 'tossers', Reb for suggesting cannibalism, whilst I've just checked up and I've been banned each time for the following everyday conversational terms..... 'chinks', 'tarred and feathered', 'stupid' and once for calling Jimmk 2 'a sad old git'. None of them violates the swear filter of course. Worse still two of the most consistent offenders for swearing in the not to distant past on here have been SteB and Flopsy. Personally I'm not too fussed until I am hauled over the coals for it but who moderates moderation?

On the topic of ignored emails to admin I think it's general policy to ignore attempts to contact them. They will not overrule volunteer amateur moderation of course so the only alternative is to get involved on a protracted argument on PM and I'm sure they can't be at all arsed with that. If you ever wan't help with anything Glenn is usually the most reasonable and approachable. As far as I am concerned mods are like referees.....bad ones stand out and you never notice the good ones.

[T.J.Newton]

eeeeewwwww just thinking about facebook makes me go cold, ive dipped my toes in a couple of times, but its really not for me, I find it way to intrusive and kind of fake(who really has 000's even 00's of real friends, definitely not me anyway!)

[DE.]

I do pal, but then I am a man of the people

[Glenn]

This is where my day job really helps, because I know understand why we do some of the things that we used to subconsciously do, so I can now explain them better.

There are two types of moderation, letter box and profiling. Letterbox moderation allows you to act based only on that one post, with no outside reference and no context (this is what most of the professional moderation agencies do and it sucks), profiling is where you take a user's behaviour over time and when they cross a certain threshold you act.

Users almost always assume you're doing the former and say "I was banned for saying x" when the truth is because the mods are forum users (nor some outside agency paid to moderate) they subconsciously profile moderate, which means usually a user is banned (well, posting rights temporarily removed, we rarely actually fully ban people) for skating a very fine line for a period of time and one small incident, not necessarily significant on it's own, is enough to tip the scales. This may even seem like victimisation as they may have already issued a couple of warnings, but the truth is they're just watching you get nearer and nearer to that line.

I'd actually love to be able to hook this forum up to the tech our company sells (hell, I'd love to be able to afford to!) as it would firstly save the modes doing all the mundane stuff and let them focus on the stuff that really needs human oversight, it would give everyone a firmly defined set up rules (as they are defined in the tech) and we could even give visibility on who was banned and why. Sadly that level of tech does not come cheap.

Oh and you'll be please to know Gordon, Den, Paul & ET haven't moderated in years, Flopsy in many many years (and even then couldn't moderate ICBINF) and Daz & TB only pop on occasionally compared to the old days. So it is Rick and Tom doing the lions share of the moderation.

.... and yeah, the email thing. [email protected] is much more likely to get a response than [email protected], we don't intentionally ignore admin emails, we just get so damned many, they are easy to miss.

eeeeewwwww just thinking about facebook makes me go cold, ive dipped my toes in a couple of times, but its really not for me, I find it way to intrusive and kind of fake(who really has 000's even 00's of real friends, definitely not me anyway!)

At the risk of taking this off topic, social media has really redefined what a "friend" is. It know equates at best to "people I know in some way".

[Al]

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.

I hope you are right Gordon but I'm 71 now and the bones don't knit that well at my age, or so they tell me. I don't mind too much if I can't play as well, just so long as I can play 18 holes with the Seniors.

[T.J.Newton]

This is where my day job really helps, because I know understand why we do some of the things that we used to subconsciously do, so I can now explain them better.

There are two types of moderation, letter box and profiling. Letterbox moderation allows you to act based only on that one post, with no outside reference and no context (this is what most of the professional moderation agencies do and it sucks), profiling is where you take a user's behaviour over time and when they cross a certain threshold you act.

Users almost always assume you're doing the former and say "I was banned for saying x" when the truth is because the mods are forum users (nor some outside agency paid to moderate) they subconsciously profile moderate, which means usually a user is banned (well, posting rights temporarily removed, we rarely actually fully ban people) for skating a very fine line for a period of time and one small incident, not necessarily significant on it's own, is enough to tip the scales. This may even seem like victimisation as they may have already issued a couple of warnings, but the truth is they're just watching you get nearer and nearer to that line.

I'd actually love to be able to hook this forum up to the tech our company sells (hell, I'd love to be able to afford to!) as it would firstly save the modes doing all the mundane stuff and let them focus on the stuff that really needs human oversight, it would give everyone a firmly defined set up rules (as they are defined in the tech) and we could even give visibility on who was banned and why. Sadly that level of tech does not come cheap.

Oh and you'll be please to know Gordon, Den, Paul & ET haven't moderated in years, Flopsy in many many years (and even then couldn't moderate ICBINF) and Daz & TB only pop on occasionally compared to the old days. So it is Rick and Tom doing the lions share of the moderation.

.... and yeah, the email thing. [email protected] is much more likely to get a response than [email protected], we don't intentionally ignore admin emails, we just get so damned many, they are easy to miss.

At the risk of taking this off topic, social media has really redefined what a "friend" is. It know equates at best to "people I know in some way".

I think the internet generations are pretty delusional to some extent by thinking of acquaintances as friends, lets hope nobody ever pulls the plug otherwise a whole generation will go into meltdown when they realise they only likely have a handful of real friends or family members they can truly count on.

[gumboots]

I don't want even or rather especially my real first name out there - i hate it and try very hard not to use it wherever it's possible. It would also create a totally false impression of me. As for Facebook, well I have a facebook account but I keep that fairly private and only have either genuine friends or family on there or work colleagues I actually like. even those of my friends who have facebook accounts are vetted carefully to decide if I want them as facebook friends too and in most cases I don't. I don't join groups on facebook and don't want any kind of links between my facebook acct and my brfcs account. I know the notion of privacy is spurious in this day and age, but I preserve what bits I can fairly carefully. I even give defunct email addresses to companies who insist I give them one so that they can't contact me.

[DE.]

I'm sure you're not alone in feeling that way gumboots. Any enforcement of FB or the use of real names in any format will result in a big drop off of users on the forum, IMO, and possibly put it into a serious decline. I'd question my own membership if that route was decided upon, though I don't think Glenn would impose such measures on registration anyway.

[Majiball]

Why not have a shameboard, if you post naughty stuff IE go have a play with a mirror then you get banned and it goes on the shame board. Leave it open so all can go check whether the poster saying you should or are something insulting, then it goes on the shame board (like a leader board). At the top sits the biggest cock on the MB.

LOL, sorry GAV but is that really why you were banned?

[Lathund]

These days its like the Python Argument Sketch on here.

This illustrates what I find to be the biggest problem these days: The quality of the debate. It really is at the level of that sketch. Without the humour. I think it's largely just a reflection of how the internet is changing. A change in demographics, in that today almost everyone uses the internet, compared to an overrepresentation of people more educated and/or more intelligent than the population at large like in the past. But also a change in the "tempo" of the internet (for lack of a better term). 10-15 years ago it was forums like these (As well as newsgroups and IRC) that dominated. These days there's facebook, twitter, all kinds of comment sections, instagram etc. What the latter all have in common is that it's easy, and encouraged, to post short, quick comments. They are debates where a lot more people are involved, and where a lot more people post less per capita.

After all, debating is a skill. Not one we're born with, but one we learn. Being able to formulate arguments, discern/dissect arguments, separate oneself from the issue at hand and everything else that's involved takes practice. Uni is a great place to learn these things, but obviously can come from elsewhere too. This is something that's sorely lacking on here. Or I should say on football messageboards in general, this place is pretty bad in this regard but it's still miles ahead of most other football MBs. Attempts to have a good debate gets discouraged pretty quickly on here. Either through them turning personal, or through an inability to grasp the argument being made (Such as not being able to break down in issue into smaller pieces), or through a will not to debate the issue but rather to be right; the point-scoring mentioned many times before in this thread. Some posters live for the opportunity to say "As I said..." (And then linking to the post in question), and that adds absolutely nothing to the MB.

The moderating team, or us as a community, can't really do anything about this. We can't suddenly make users more intelligent, train them in debating, or ban anyone that doesn't have a degree in Philosophy. But the various ways to encourage fewer and more thought over posts could help in this regard. People starting to do many simple things could improve the quality of posting. Reading through the post you're replying to yet again, to make sure you understand it. Read through your own. Try to anticipate some counter arguments the other posters may have, and amend your posts accordingly.

But what can we do in this regard? I really don't know... most of the things I can come up with have other side effects. Such as limiting # of posts or the time between them (i.e more than the short anti-spam protection that I think is already in place), seeing as how that'd have an effect on threads like live match threads where short, frequent updates can be a very good and appreciated thing. Maybe a sub-forum with rules like that? But then again we've seen how well those work; the stuff that's supposed to go there still ends up in the general forum. So yeah, I don't know. Suppose I just really wanted to vent about the quality of the debating on here.

Some other things I've noticed throughout the thread;

- It's not simply a matter of the new users ruining the board. There are many old-timers who are guilty of many of the faults brought up in here. Bring back the exact makeup of posters from the "good old days" and it still wouldn't be like it was. Things grow stale with no change, and the same people posting the same things again and again inevitably leads to things turning crap.

- Which brings me to a related point. The "probation period"/"zero tolerance"/"three strikes" and other ideas in that vein shouldn't just apply to new members. There are members on here who break forum rules on a weekly, or even daily, basis and have done so for many years. And they are still around. Behaviour that would see new members hounded out or banned sharp-ish. Probably because people have just gotten used to the way they are, or because they know them IRL where they're not such @#/?. Neither of which is really a valid reason to not ban them. Everyone should be treated the same, and judged on the basis of what they do on here. Interesting to hear from (I think) Glenn earlier in the thread about how they can only moderate posts brought to their attention, something I didn't know. Perhaps a better knowledge of this could solve some problems (Or create abuse... but let's hope for the former).

- That being said, I agree with the idea of long (Even if they're not permanent) bans of repeat offenders. Someone banned, say, 5+ times for the same thing clearly won't have learned the lesson, or simple considers him- or herself above the rules, and I won't be sad to see that person go. Would need to have more than 1 mod go through the old bans though (Which I think is already the case?), in order to ensure consistency.

- Membership fees. I like this. Even if it's just a symbolic £1 lifetime fee it would do a lot to clean things up. Just look at the difference between completely anonymous boards and ones that require even a 2-minute signup process. The extra little bit of effort, and the fact that there is money involved (Heck, even 1p would help) will improve things. The downside of this is that fans of other teams won't frequent the board as much. For exmaple, the Villa, Fulham and even some of the Burnley fans posting here have made positive contributions, and a membership fee might put a stop to that.

- Requiring sponsors/backers/recommendations etc for membership? No, just no. Would just eventually turn this into a hive-mind.

- I do like the thinking between the up/downvoting types of systems, and creating something from that. Whether that's a subforum where everyone has read access, but only "valued posters" (As chosen by the posters themselves through this system) or something else remains to be seen. I've seen on other forums where there's no change in what users can/can't do, but where certain posters have their posts displayed in a different colour (Through being part of a certain user group), and where there's even an ability to only display their posts in a thread. Now at the same time I can also see why these ideas were put on hold, if not abandoned entirely, since unpopular opinions would be downvoted even when well argued in a non-trolling manner and without breaking any forum rules. And if you remove the ability to downvote, and just have upvoting, you'd simply get people upvoting posts bashing unpopular users/posts. But I do support attempts to make a system like this work.

- I've consciously left out a lot of things that do impact the board, but are out of our control. Such as bad times for the club affecting the mood on here. Splits among fans (Pro/against Nicko, Venky's, BRAG etc). Or for that matter, the good old summertime/schoolkids argument. Never bought into that one, as it's not as if schoolkids can't post during the rest of the year. It also doesn't explain the spats between posters who are old enough to be parents or grandparents of the children in question. Summer does mean there's less to talk about, but I don't feel that this thread (And similar ones before it) are the result of the summertime lull, but rather something that's been going on for years.

Uhm so yeah. TL:DR version: Too few worthwhile debates. I don't know how to fix it.

[DE.]

A good post Lathund, I agree with pretty much all of it. I remember Mercerman a little while ago championing the limitation of word-count in posts so that people could only type small amounts in any one post. I was and am against that idea for the reasons you mention above - it's not conductive to debate and just encourages facebook/twitter-esque arguments with no real merit. It's frustrating to type an entire argument and then have somebody single out a small section of it, miss the point entirely and type something derogatory (come to think of it, I've been guilty of that in the past too... think I did it to Stuart recently, so apologies Stu ).

[Stuart]

A good post Lathund, I agree with pretty much all of it. I remember Mercerman a little while ago championing the limitation of word-count in posts so that people could only type small amounts in any one post. I was and am against that idea for the reasons you mention above - it's not conductive to debate and just encourages facebook/twitter-esque arguments with no real merit. It's frustrating to type an entire argument and then have somebody single out a small section of it, miss the point entirely and type something derogatory (come to think of it, I've been guilty of that in the past too... think I did it to Stuart recently, so apologies Stu ).

No worries buddy. I'm used to it!

[DE.]

If it's of any comfort if I didn't think your opinions were worth debating I'd just ignore you entirely so if I suddenly stop responding to you...

[ross-shire rover]

For me, I think a lot of the problems started with the differences of opinion on Sam's "direct style", then the vitriol aimed at Keith Andrews led to a more and more accepted level of criticism and negativity on here. Of course our owners and Manager of the Century did little to raise levels of positivity , with the added problems of those who agreed with the protests and those who didn't. Over the last few years, we, as fans, have been well and truly shafted both internally by Venkys and externally by the media. Is it any wonder we've started turning on each other.

As someone who doesn't get to games and doesn't know anyone personally on the message board, I enjoy reading many of the comments on here, but have to admit that a/ sometimes people are too quick to start a new topic b/ people are too quick to comment when they've nothing to say and b/ people get far too personal about differences of opinion . So in that respect I don't think we're any different to every other online message board

[47er]

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.

Glenn, I got caught up in the same issue. I posted agreeing with Gav, I didn't even spell out the word "cock", I deliberately censored it.

I was immediately banned for a fortnight with a PM that I had used "abusive language" and to " leave the moderating to the Mods" whatever that meant.

I did however receive a gloating PM from TJ Newton revelling in my ban which, of course I couldn't reply to!

Since that time I've seen plenty of posters referred to as "nobs" or "tools" without any repercussions at all. Personally I felt singled out by SteB and see no reason to believe otherwise.

On the general issue, I don't believe standards have changed much over the years and, given the stress created by Venkys ownership, its a miracle things didn't get worse. A better season will show if that opinion is right or wrong. Over to you Garry!

[Tom]

All I can say is we genuinely try our best to be neutral and fair, none of us are in this for a power trip or to stand out just to make the place run as smoothly as possible.

At the minute it's rare that someone gets banned permanently off the forum as if I'm honest I prefer it that way, if someone has a passion for the club then this IMO is a good a place as any to talk / vent / argue / discuss that.

If people would prefer and accept a harder line of moderation then that's fair enough and we can do that but I tend to feel its best if discussion can flow I just take issue with is when personal issues dominate the topic at hand.

[T.J.Newton]

47er- I didn't even know what you had been banned for until now, I did however pm you to just to say simply that "it was nice not to be hearing from you", a little childish maybe but as you had spent months prior to that giving me stick and putting me and anything I posted down without any sense of humour attached just spitefulness I was glad to see the back of you to be quite honest.

for what its worth I do apologise, the slate is wiped clean and there's no further grudge held as far as I'm concerned.

[ABBEY]

Glenn, I got caught up in the same issue. I posted agreeing with Gav, I didn't even spell out the word "cock", I deliberately censored it.

I was immediately banned for a fortnight with a PM that I had used "abusive language" and to " leave the moderating to the Mods" whatever that meant.

I did however receive a gloating PM from TJ Newton revelling in my ban which, of course I couldn't reply to!

Since that time I've seen plenty of posters referred to as "nobs" or "tools" without any repercussions at all. Personally I felt singled out by SteB and see no reason to believe otherwise.

On the general issue, I don't believe standards have changed much over the years and, given the stress created by Venkys ownership, its a miracle things didn't get worse. A better season will show if that opinion is right or wrong. Over to you Garry!

The irony of this post is that a certain high up member was calling someone a @#/? at the same time ( he was right that he was one) but it proved to me how double standards are alive and kicking .

[47er]

Its a thankless job they do Abbey and some do it with common sense and a touch of humour. (I'd single out Tom and Glenn there). However, there is not a lot of evenness about it and banning Gav and me for nothing special (whatever T.J. Newton thinks about it) while allowing SaxeWhatever to wind up the Board for weeks was not the Mods' finest hour.

To finish up, new rules, protocols,interviews and such like are not the answer. Its not really someone else's job to make us act better, its OURS. My contribution to that will be to continue to read the Board but not comment! What we expect of the Mods is consistency and that is up to them.

[ABBEY]

it is 47er a thankless job but all's I would ask is consistency too. Like you say that saxo wound this board up to tipping point,hence this thread. Certain people get away with calling me a pedo,imbecile ,wa@@er etc (tongue in cheek they claimed) and tongue in cheek whatever way you back peddle it was bang out of order. I have had a post eddited (i know it was sorted) by mods, Ive had my sig written by admin to make me look daft and i had a thread shut because a mod didnt like it. Ive been banned for all sorts of little (well documented things) the funniest was for ,before the villa game away someone said if i was watching i said no i would find a >>I posted a picture of a river >>> and didnt give any links to anything.

Also if you have a dig at muslims then you get warned but posting anti EDL or take the mick out of someone being hung on a cross then thats cool.Again its all down to lack of consistency. Anyhows its too nice to stay in a lunch at Gibbon Bridge beckons and the mrs is wanting me showered ha.

FTR i am not reopening old wounds or stirring just saying .All the above is water under a bridge ( a river not a stream before i get banned again) so like i say i am not posting this for an argument either.

[Glenn]

I did however receive a gloating PM from TJ Newton revelling in my ban which, of course I couldn't reply to!

A posting band shouldn't have stopped you using the PM system, I'll look into that.

Its a thankless job they do Abbey and some do it with common sense and a touch of humour. (I'd single out Tom and Glenn there). However, there is not a lot of evenness about it and banning Gav and me for nothing special (whatever T.J. Newton thinks about it) while allowing SaxeWhatever to wind up the Board for weeks was not the Mods' finest hour.

That actually highlights one of the problems we face. We actually took rather a lot of grief over Saxoman for being too harsh and getting rid when he hadn't really done anything technically wrong (other than being monumentally annoying).

BTW I can't take any credit for moderating. I intentionally only rarely get involved so that I can be impartial when people complain about moderation decisions (although I have just used the new moderation warning system for the first time!)

Its not really someone else's job to make us act better, its OURS. My contribution to that will be to continue to read the Board but not comment!

See, that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. People taking responsibility for what they say is brilliant, but stopping posting is the worst possible outcome (if that was the answer, we'd issue perm posting bans like confetti)

[47er]

OK i'm getting like TJ Newton here, promising to leave the Board but carrying on posting!

I appreciate everything you say but its the parts of my post and Abbeys you haven't addressed that most concern me.Its OK apparently for posters to call others a nob or a tool but not for Gav to call TJ Newton a cock. Is that correct?

Moreover its not OK for me to agree with Gav without using the word?

Finally I seem to remember that the same Mod who banned me for a fortnight for not using the word called Rovers Fan a @#/? and did not, so far as I know ban himself. (He had a very good point by the way but that's not the issue!)

All in or all out eh? Otherwise its an abuse of authority.

I hasten to add that you are as fair a person as we could hope to be running the Board and I have no criticism of you whatsoever.

[DE.]

That actually highlights one of the problems we face. We actually took rather a lot of grief over Saxoman for being too harsh and getting rid when he hadn't really done anything technically wrong (other than being monumentally annoying).

I'd love to know who gave you grief for the decision to ban him. Being annoying to practically everybody on the board is a perfectly legitimate reason to be given a ban.