[Archived] Suggested Message Board Reorganisation

[Biddy]

I've always thought there should be a 'ban list' on here which details who has been banned, when and for what offence. I'm sure this is easily implemented via the forum software.

But to what end? Why would you need to see that?

[K-Hod]

Do you not think that the reason for the ban should be private between mods and the person who is banned? There can be discussion behind the scenes between the two parties so that things can be resolved. Mod bashing in public helps no one.

Possibly, but wasn't that the isuse last time around? Abbey didn't seem to know why he'd been banned, thus the outcry?

It's not really for everyone else to know, but as long as the offender knows, then they'll likely tell others surely!

[Biddy]

Possibly, but wasn't that the isuse last time around? Abbey didn't seem to know why he'd been banned, thus the outcry?

It's not really for everyone else to know, but as long as the offender knows, then they'll likely tell others surely!

Unfortunately (or fortunately) that entire thread is now gone so we can't see the end to end saga of it. I'm pretty sure Abbey was told more from the person who banned him than was let on in the thread. The outcry ensued only because a vocal few decided it wasn't right to ban a long term poster who brings so much joy to the site. This resulted in everyone jumping on the band wagon.

[Amo]

But to what end? Why would you need to see that?

For reasons of transparency, that's why. Admins or mods can't arbitrarily ban members without having to justify their decisions publicly.

[Biddy]

For reasons of transparency, that's why. Admins or mods can't arbitrarily ban members without having to justify their decisions publicly.

Technically, they can. Again, why should it be public? The ban or warning is between the member and the mod/admin.

[Amo]

Technically, they can. Again, why should it be public? The ban or warning is between the member and the mod/admin.

I've already explained why. At least a ban list would introduce some measure of accountability. It would also prevent a lot of mistrust and confusion when banned members have suddenly gone AWOL.

[DE.]

On a message board I visited many years ago, there was a 3 strike rule which was adhered to regardless of the poster's popularity status. The three warnings were given via PM, and the offender had the right to respond and dispute the warning in said PM convo. Sometimes they were retracted, most of the time not. After the third strike the offender was banned and a (locked) topic made in a section detailing bannings, citing the posts that resulted in the ban. By constantly breaking the rules despite being warned, the offender basically forfeited their right to the reasons for the banning being kept private. It also kept other posters aware that firstly moderation was taking place, and secondly that the bannings were fair and due to specific rule-breaking. There was also a private admin/mod area where those handing out the bannings had to make a case for the banning before actioning it, which had to be approved by one of the three site admins. The process was detailed in a sticky-thread at the top of each forum so that there was total transparency into how it all worked.

There was a degree of common sense involved, too, obviously. If it was a soft rule break (for example, swearing when such language isn't permitted) a reminder would be sent in the first instance reminding the offender that this behaviour wasn't appropriate and that a warning would follow if repeated. Also in a few sensitive cases where posts contained illegal content were made, the ban was outright and the topic stated this without referring to the specific post or exact circumstances (the post would almost certainly have been deleted, and the content may have gotten the site in trouble if specified).

All I can say is, it worked well. That said, there were a lot more moderators there than there are here, so such a detailed system may not be possible. At the very least I think a three strike rule by PM is a sufficient way to handle the situation.

[Rover_Shaun]

It's a balancing for me. I remember when I first stumbled across the place in 2004 it was very very cliquey and remained that way for quite a few years after. It would be just as bad for it to go back to that

[Al]

There's nothing wrong with this messageboard. People will always have disputes and some will dislike others. I suggest that the moaners should stop being so mard and get on with posting what they want to post. Butting in on other peoples disputes causes more arguments than were there in the first place.

[Stuart]

There's nothing wrong with this messageboard. People will always have disputes and some will dislike others. I suggest that the moaners should stop being so mard and get on with posting what they want to post. Butting in on other peoples disputes causes more arguments than were there in the first place.

Agreed.

Those bemoaning the quality of posting should stick to trying to write quality posts.

[T J Hooker]

Those bemoaning the quality of posting should stick to trying to write quality posts.

The mans got a point.

[OscarRaven]

I think the problem is many see this as a chat room not a debating forum. Apply a limit of one post per topic per day and I'm sure the posts will be organized, professional and thought out. It will also cut out trolling, attention seeking and pages of personal insults (now it will be one insult per topic per day!)

I mean that's the crux of it, the forum is now inhabited by petty squabblers intent on scoring points, the art of debating is dead.

[T J Hooker]

Sorry but where does it say tht the purpose of this site is for debating?

I think you have it backwards, in my view this is a general chat forum for ALL Blackburn rovers fans, mainly used for football news, match commentaries, general news discussions, light-hearted threads, etc.... and inevitably some of those discussions may turn into debates or even flat out arguments. I think the only real issue is when non-football related bickering starts leaking over into the football threads and also when the bickering completely goes off track and no longer relates to a threads current topic of discussion.

[Stuart]

I think the problem is many see this as a chat room not a debating forum. Apply a limit of one post per topic per day and I'm sure the posts will be organized, professional and thought out. It will also cut out trolling, attention seeking and pages of personal insults (now it will be one insult per topic per day!)

I mean that's the crux of it, the forum is now inhabited by petty squabblers intent on scoring points, the art of debating is dead.

Good point. People want different things from the messageboard.

But surely the fact that is called a Community means that we are going to get a mix of people with different backgrounds, opinions and perspectives. You don't choose your neighbours and you can't choose who supports the club. The only thing I'd say is that you normally choose the circles you mix in and, by and large, age group is what segregates us. I know that I could make the same post and it be taken in completely different ways by different people. It would be good to be able to converse with similar folk without others stirring things (for a laugh).

At the moment every post can be read by everyone so it's like me and my mates all stood in the Blackburn end and shouting our conversations to each other from 50 seats apart. Ignoring the fact that people who get fed up with the noise, you can guarantee that there would be plenty of people in between who would disagree and would respond and things would escalate. But all sat together you could enjoy your own brand of banter - without being described as a clique or whatever.

An open plea to the board: Please, please use the ignore function if other people's thoughts or even banter offend you. Please read the posts as though it was written by your best mate and he/she is talking crap - without the insults (at least until you get to know each other better). And if the mate calls you out for being a plant pot then try to take it in good humour. It's amazing the number of times I've seen a critical post replied to with 'yeah fair play' and the original critic immediately apologise. It CAN be done.

Even more, just concentrate of writing the kinds of posts you would like to read and I guarantee that you will get quality replies. The caveat is that, for at least as long as Venkys, Shaw and Bowyer are here there are going to be posts that polarise opinion.

All the best.

[thenodrog]

This does work, its been proven in the past.

I hate the thought of banning people, but its a quick fire way of tidying up the site.

You don't need to ban them indefinitely, just 30 days to start with and have some guidlines.

It's finding people with the qualities required to interpret and implement them that is an issue. Also there is no appeal procedure. It's an old potato of mine. Last time I was banned was just ludicrous and would never have been a. initiated and b. upheld by any right minded person,

[thenodrog]

Glenn and Ste will be doing a reorganisation over the next few weeks, they are just in the process of doing that at the moment.

How on earth could you know that Kamy? Neither of em answer pm's sent to them anymore...... or at least not mine. Poor do and rude at best, height of ignorance at worst. Example..... I've pm'd em both to inform them that since the meltdown Leonard Venkhater cannot log in any more and can they 'sort it'. LV's very articulate, a bloody good poster and an asset to the board. A bloke who has written and recorded a number of rovers songs (including the best club song that I have ever heard "Relegation row"). I saw him in the pub months back and he told me that he can't sign in since the car crash, I then wrote to TomM. Glenn, SteB to ask them if there was any reason and could they fix it. To date not one has even offered a proper reply. As I say damned bad manners at best.

There would be so many 'Fight' threads it would probably overload the Server.

Stick a poll on each 'Fight' thread, run it for a few days and declare a winner. Both 'Fighters' then agree via the MB to stop their bitching in public forums. The loser of the poll buys the beer. Thread closed. Server saved.

Never mind a fight thread. Get a boxing ring set up outside the Blues bar and lets all turn up and kick the sh1t out of each other in no more than 3 rounds. Macca! Jim? Hemel? Fancy it? Any order or all at once ... it'll matter little the end result will still be the same.

[T J Hooker]

There are a lot of new names/members posting with a familiarity more akin to that of site regulars, are you sure LV isnt one of those?

[thenodrog]

Id say its bigger than the town and our club, i think the things you mention are more indicative of our country being governed by tory scum.

I don't understand that. Care to explain.

[Stuart]

Theres a lot of new names/members posting with a familiarity more akin to that of site regulars, are you sure LV isnt one of those?

I've noticed that too.

But trust me, Leonard wouldn't blend in! Top poster.

[T J Hooker]

I don't understand that. Care to explain.

Ok then, nice responce!

(And you wonder why admin aren't eager to communicate with you)

!!!Edit!!! Trust me, the quote of thenos above isnt what he posted initially, but ney mind.

[Rover_Shaun]

There are a lot of new names/members posting

You are right. TJ Batty Man sounds like I must be Batty and he sounds like TJ Newton........hmmm

That Alf Hookem was rather pompous

[Mike Graham]

Ban that fecker Gordon.

[T J Hooker]

You are right. TJ Batty Man sounds like I must be Batty and he sounds like TJ Newton........hmmm

That Alf Hookem was rather pompous

Hmmm I wasnt complaining or having a go about it, just trying to help thenodrog, dont know why i bother though.😕

[Stuart]

You are right. TJ Batty Man sounds like I must be Batty and he sounds like TJ Newton........hmmm

That Alf Hookem was rather pompous

Hardly!

[T J Hooker]

Haha there's been a few more you wont know. Theres a prize if you can guess at least one of them though.