• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Oh God Almighty...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sanz

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
sledger said:
Him adding the aforementioned word to the filter was the one I was getting at tbh.
Click to expand...
I don't know which word you are talking about but if that is the only thing you can come up with to point poor moderating/moderator then I think that is a damn good standard for moderating.
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Sanz said:
I don't know which word you are talking about but if that is the only thing you can come up with to point poor moderating/moderator then I think that is a damn good standard for moderating.
Click to expand...
The word in question was "poo", but my comments were tongue in cheek, to an extent anyway. I myself have no major concerns the mod team of present.
 
Last edited:
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's a good idea purely to ensure that newcomers sit there for a few hours trying to figure out what three-letter word required filterage.
 
Matteh

Matteh

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Sanz said:
I don't know which word you are talking about but if that is the only thing you can come up with to point poor moderating/moderator then I think that is a damn good standard for moderating.
Click to expand...
Does no moderating count as poor moderating? Obviously you have to do something to fail, but then the same works the other way.

As for everyone else, none of them have attractive sisters.
 
Sanz

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Matteh said:
Does no moderating count as poor moderating? Obviously you have to do something to fail, but then the same works the other way.

As for everyone else, none of them have attractive sisters.
Click to expand...
I understood the meaning of every word said in this post, but still can't figure out the exact meaning of it.
 
Smudge

Smudge

Hall of Fame Member
NZTailender said:
Pretty sure this has been said before, and the response is always he does a lot behind the scenes.
Click to expand...
I do love those non-specific responses.

I'll be honest - I thought a few days ago that we were in for Townsgate II as some of the new moderating seemed over the top, but thankfully it's settled down.
 
andyc

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Voltman said:
I do love those non-specific responses.

I'll be honest - I thought a few days ago that we were in for Townsgate II as some of the new moderating seemed over the top, but thankfully it's settled down.
Click to expand...
Definitely felt the same but I think it's something we're aware of, not trying to take it too far. Should be said that a lot of the more prevalent moderation that's been happening was in response to the calls from many members in the CC Atmosphere thread for stricter and more present moderation.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
True to my word, I'm going to use this thread to quote the below posts into rather than continuing to disrupt the thread in CC...
Sanz said:
Look I don't give a **** about you going to respond to this or not. But Richard making ridiculous statements that guys like Fleming and Vaas are way ahead of Waqar is about as much baiting as one can do.

Oh and the thread was about Waqar Younis. But thanks to some outrageous claims by one certain member it has become Waqar and Fleming.
Click to expand...
Sanz said:
Richard, I do not need to do anything to undermine your credibility. You undermine your own credibility by saying stuff like Fleming > Waqar in ODIs.

Waqar is an all time Great and Fleming is not even close.
Click to expand...
You don't decide what constitutes ridiculous - you can merely adjudge what you think is ridiculous. You also don't know why I say such things - I do. I say the above because I believe it, and you are wrong to think it's because I'm looking to bait people.

However, the notion that someone is saying "such-and-such thinks such-and-such" is doing anything other than looking to undermine the credibility of the poster in question is contemptible. Much as you might like to think that one person undermining the credibility of themselves in the opinion of another is the same as a deliberate attempt by one to undermine the credibility of another, it isn't. If someone wants to undermine their own credibility, that's their choice; fortunately, of late it's come to be realised that attempts to undermine the credibility of other posters is not acceptable.
 
Sir Alex

Sir Alex

Banned
Richard said:
True to my word, I'm going to use this thread to quote the below posts into rather than continuing to disrupt the thread in CC...



You don't decide what constitutes ridiculous - you can merely adjudge what you think is ridiculous. You also don't know why I say such things - I do. I say the above because I believe it, and you are wrong to think it's because I'm looking to bait people.

However, the notion that someone is saying "such-and-such thinks such-and-such" is doing anything other than looking to undermine the credibility of the poster in question is contemptible. Much as you might like to think that one person undermining the credibility of themselves in the opinion of another is the same as a deliberate attempt by one to undermine the credibility of another, it isn't. If someone wants to undermine their own credibility, that's their choice; fortunately, of late it's come to be realised that attempts to undermine the credibility of other posters is not acceptable.
Click to expand...
Wow! Can someone please translate that in simple English please? :wacko:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top