The atmosphere in Cricket Chat - Suggestions & Discussion

[GIMH]

He argued in favour of Scott Parker's international career for about two years, make your own mind up

 

[Lillian Thomson]

He argued in favour of Scott Parker's international career for about two years, make your own mind up

He's a better wicketkeeper than Alec Stewart.

 

[Beleg]

- the moderation is very heavy handed.
- the atmosphere isn't particularly n00b friendly


not every thread's going to be an in-depth discussion without posturing and trollish one-liners. the place'd be more boring were that true.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Has anyone worked out Fiery's current user name yet?

 

[Richard]

Probably yreiF.

 

[zaremba]

Here's a quiz if you don't agree with me.

*runs away*

 

[GIMH]

The Murali thread is a shocker at the minute. Highly tedious to see people arguing with the mods. What's especially irksome is posts from absolutely months ago being dragged up as an example of double standards. Aside from the fact that Jack legitimately justified his actions, is it not reasonable for us members to assume that we will see warnings given for things that may have been allowed to pass in the past in this attempt to clean up CC?

 

[G.I.Joe]

The Murali thread is a shocker at the minute. Highly tedious to see people arguing with the mods. What's especially irksome is posts from absolutely months ago being dragged up as an example of double standards. Aside from the fact that Jack legitimately justified his actions, is it not reasonable for us members to assume that we will see warnings given for things that may have been allowed to pass in the past in this attempt to clean up CC?

Way to miss the point, GIMH. Mods aren't superhuman, and it isn't expected that they'll deal with each and every infaration if the report post function isn't used. However you can't justifiably claim that members shouldn't make themselves heard when they try to explain away an inconsistency with the sort of flimsy reasoning employed there.

 

[GIMH]

No, you're missing my point. I am not under any circumstances suggesting that we shouldn't question mods decisions. It's tiresome to see entire threads taken over by it though. Additionally my point about Brumby's post being months ago stands - we are going to see some stricter moderaion now than in the past, to make CC more pleasant.

 

[Prince EWS]

The Murali thread is a shocker at the minute. Highly tedious to see people arguing with the mods. What's especially irksome is posts from absolutely months ago being dragged up as an example of double standards. Aside from the fact that Jack legitimately justified his actions, is it not reasonable for us members to assume that we will see warnings given for things that may have been allowed to pass in the past in this attempt to clean up CC?

Yeah, fully agree; this is something I found particularly puzzling.

The member base as a whole has told us they'd like us to handle things a little differently, and then they dig up old posts to point out double-standards. We can't have long-term consistency and change. Obviously if we decide to make a change in the way we deal with something we'll try to be as consistent as possible from that point onwards, but we're not going to retrospectively re-do our evaluation of every post in Cricket Chat history; you have to take things into context.

 

[Sir Alex]

I don't think anyone dug up old posts to prove any point other than that there have been instances in the past when some members used to get away with such posts that I and Migara were booked for. It is not as if Cricket Web was un-moderated or worse was moderated by a completely different set of individuals one month back (or whenever that "suggestions" thread came up). The ironic thing is now members are getting called on for whistleblowing and that is ignoring the core aspect of why the legitimate complaint came up in the first place.

 

[GIMH]

Nice try Alex, but the post Migara brought up was from September 2009 - you know, six months ago. I think even if we hadn't had this thread and new beginning that's too long ago to call inconsistency, in all honesty.

I don't want to point any fingers but there are certain posters who see fit to argue with every warning they ever get and justify why they made the post in the first place.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't think anyone dug up old posts to prove any point other than that there have been instances in the past when some members used to get away with such posts that I and Migara were booked for..

Yeah, that's obviously going to be the case though. We're changing the way things are being run slightly, so there are going to be instances of posts that would have been let go six months ago that action will be taken against if they are posted now.

It's completely impossible to bring about changes to the way we moderate if we have to follow past precedents.

 

[Sir Alex]

Nice try Alex, but the post Migara brought up was from September 2009 - you know, six months ago. I think even if we hadn't had this thread and new beginning that's too long ago to call inconsistency, in all honesty.

I don't want to point any fingers but there are certain posters who see fit to argue with every warning they ever get and justify why they made the post in the first place.

I understand moderating panel have not gone a drastic change (Please correct me if it did). So I believe there is value in questioning how something acceptable for discussion 6 months back suddenly became unacceptable now.

Also that Matt79's post was made about a month or month and half back iirc. The thread was rightly closed but not a word of warning was issued to the member despite it being completely and without any sort of provocation. Anyway I wish not to continue on this as vic_orthodx has acknowledged that it was unacceptable.

I don't find the wrong in defending one's pov as long as it is made in the good faith. Cricket Web imho is not an autocracy where members cannot speak back to the forum members. Moderatoring is trust me a very difficult job, but two or three feedbacks doesn't really hurt it in the long run.

 

[Sir Alex]

Yeah, that's obviously going to be the case though. We're changing the way things are being run slightly, so there are going to be instances of posts that would have been let go six months ago that action will be taken against if they are posted now.

It's completely impossible to bring about changes to the way we moderate if we have to follow past precedents.

It would also be really helpful as to if a moderator could list down some examples of posts that were perfectly acceptable 2 months back but not now. Because that would help members to steer away from going down that route believing that would be acceptable (based on precedence) and later getting warned. Thanks.

 

[GIMH]

Things aren't black and white Alex, it's just a case of thinigs being more stringent. Brumby's post was hardly excessively abusive - neither were the ones in the Murali thread. It's just that we as members all agreed that the little things were causing big problems. The mods have been acting on what we all said we wanted. i think we should cut them a little slack on that basis, this is an instance where I think they deserve a lot of credit. Bringing up what they didn't do six months ago is pointless.

 

[Furball]

It would also be really helpful as to if a moderator could list down some examples of posts that were perfectly acceptable 2 months back but not now. Because that would help members to steer away from going down that route believing that would be acceptable (based on precedence) and later getting warned. Thanks.

The forum rules are available for any member to read.

 

[Sir Alex]

Things aren't black and white Alex, it's just a case of thinigs being more stringent. Brumby's post was hardly excessively abusive - neither were the ones in the Murali thread. It's just that we as members all agreed that the little things were causing big problems. The mods have been acting on what we all said we wanted. i think we should cut them a little slack on that basis, this is an instance where I think they deserve a lot of credit. Bringing up what they didn't do six months ago is pointless.

Did you miss Matt79's post then?
Anyway I guess this debate has run it's course. I am done.

 

[GIMH]

Okay, but Matt's post was also BEFORE this thread

 

[Sir Alex]

Okay, but Matt's post was also BEFORE this thread

Calling someone "cretin" **** off without provocation WAS "acceptable" back then?