Forum Rule Changes including Introduction of Infraction System

[Burgey]

Why do people take it so personally when someone bags out their cricket team?

If it hurts you that much just log off.

You are a terrible poster.

 

[benchmark00]

You are a terrible poster.

Well sir, consider me logged off.

 

[Flem274*]

Seriously, 47 pages?

Didn't all this happen like a month ago?

 

[biased indian]

Seriously, 47 pages?

Didn't all this happen like a month ago?

change post per page its only 18 here

 

[GIMH]

There's a difference between playing the post and playing all someone's posts at once. When you do the latter, you're effectively playing the poster.

You can call a post ****, because you can't tell someone that all their posts are ****.

Cribb, with all due respect, I have to say I have trouble with your definition of what constitutes playing the post given that you consider calling someone mean directly in response to their post as playing the poster. This latest farce at least has some logic to it but not a whole lot; fairly sure half the people who've ever conversed with Richard on here would have brought to account given the amount of times I've seen people tell him all his theories and opinions are bollocks.

I also notice you have all been very quiet on the 'inconsistent' front :

 

[GIMH]

Bravo you then, Jono! [facetious comment as the Ignore function is largely pointless as you still see other people's quoting the ignored]

Besides, Repeat Offenders won't last on the forum long because their ever lengthening infractions will never have a chance to expire.

My latest one is stuck there til bloody August IIRC! I imagine Furball's will last until 2016.

 

[Prince EWS]

Cribb, with all due respect, I have to say I have trouble with your definition of what constitutes playing the post given that you consider calling someone mean directly in response to their post as playing the poster. This latest farce at least has some logic to it but not a whole lot; fairly sure half the people who've ever conversed with Richard on here would have brought to account given the amount of times I've seen people tell him all his theories and opinions are bollocks.

I also notice you have all been very quiet on the 'inconsistent' front :

Again, you can call a post mean, but you can't call someone a mean person. That's playing the poster. Telling someone their posts are mean is also playing the poster. If you meant that one post was mean then you should have said so instead of calling him a mean person. I don't believe you did anyway though as you called him a **** and then edited it ffs.

You can think whatever you like about members of CW but your not welcome to post those opinions, whether it be that all their posts are **** or that they're a mean person. You may disagree with our position on this but that's how we're going to rule it and you I personally completely agree with this stance. CW is a place to analyse cricket; not other members.

 

[GIMH]

Well let me assure you (as I like you tbf) that I'm playing the post here - your post is total and utter bollocks

1. Yes, I called him a **** and edited it - and why did I edit it? Because I was playing the poster with my comment and it was inflammatory
2. The lack of contextual understanding highlighted in your post above is reflective of the pisspoor way the site is currently being moderated. To distinguish between 'you are a mean person' and 'that post was mean' when the former was clearly a response to said post is semantically ********.
3. Are you going to ignore the shoddy inconsistency yet again? Saying nothing doesn't make your flaws as moderators go away, you know.
4. Forumer world cup FFS

 

[four_or_six]

You well know that you didn't just post 'you mean person', you posted 'Shut up your post is horse****, you are a bona fide mean person', which is quite clearly a different thing. It was a warning, not even an infraction... and completely justified. I don't really know why it needs to be picked over in such detail.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I suspect that GIMP is playing the poster, not the post here Four or Six. We all know how much of a **** Ashwell is and I fear that is what Cozza is playing on.

 

[GIMH]

You well know that you didn't just post 'you mean person', you posted 'Shut up your post is horse****, you are a bona fide mean person', which is quite clearly a different thing. It was a warning, not even an infraction... and completely justified. I don't really know why it needs to be picked over in such detail.

So the fact that I referred to his post in the same sentence means I was obviously playing the poster

I am picking over it because the definition you guys have of what constitutes playing the poster is a joke. Just like your definition of what constitutes an insult. Just like ignoring a huge inconsistency that suggests Furball is falling victim to the sort of mod treatment sledger used to get.

Honestly, recent moderation has been absolutely pathetic, worse than it was during the footy WC and worse than it was in the great purge of 06. An all-time low.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

and worse than it was in the great purge of 06.

No one's been sent to the Gulags yet... Or have they?

 

[Smudge]

Honestly, recent moderation has been absolutely pathetic, worse than it was during the footy WC and worse than it was in the great purge of 06. An all-time low.

It hasn't got that bad yet - I haven't posted a photoshop of Gary Glitter's head on a moderator's body yet.

 

[andyc]

So the fact that I referred to his post in the same sentence means I was obviously playing the poster

I am picking over it because the definition you guys have of what constitutes playing the poster is a joke. Just like your definition of what constitutes an insult. Just like ignoring a huge inconsistency that suggests Furball is falling victim to the sort of mod treatment sledger used to get.

Honestly, recent moderation has been absolutely pathetic, worse than it was during the footy WC and worse than it was in the great purge of 06. An all-time low.

GIMH, are you honestly trying to argue that saying 'shut up your post is horse****' is okay? Because I'd hope that people wouldn't need to see a specific rule to know that it isn't.

 

[GIMH]

 

[Furball]

GIMH, are you honestly trying to argue that saying 'shut up your post is horse****' is okay? Because I'd hope that people wouldn't need to see a specific rule to know that it isn't.

In certain circumstances, yes.

Let's say I make a post saying Tendulkar is the worst batsman in the history of the game. Ideally people should just ignore such a blatant attempt to wind them up, but if people want to tell me my post is **** then they shouldn't be getting punished for it.

 

[GIMH]

GIMH, are you honestly trying to argue that saying 'shut up your post is horse****' is okay? Because I'd hope that people wouldn't need to see a specific rule to know that it isn't.

The issue in the warning I was given was that mean person constituted abuse. Are you now going to move the goalposts and tell me there was another problem with it you just chose not to stick in the warning?

Look at the context of the thread. Sanz expressed pleasure Broad was injured. Myself and others called him on it. He backtracked and accused us of twisting his words. It was horse **** and he was just stirring the pot. Stand by what I said. Have explicitly read a mod saying it's okay to call someone's post ****, and I certainly don't believe the shut up part was offensive either.

In summary, yes, my post was fine.

 

[GIMH]

This is what my warning was for:

I really don't know how many times this needs to be said to make it clear - insulting other members in threads is not acceptable, irrespective of what is going on. If everyone chips in with an insult, we end up with ten pages of crap, and anyone who actually wants to talk about cricket is out of luck.

So it was the 'insult' that was the issue.

 

[four_or_six]

This is what my warning was for:



So it was the 'insult' that was the issue.

The whole post is insulting. The whole post was the issue, as I made clear in our email exchange afterwards.

 

[GIMH]

I'm not going to quote your email, but definitely didn't make it 'clear'. You added in, as an afterthought, the fact that you didn't think calling it 'horse****' was helpful. Is the fact that it was horse**** worse than if it was just ****? Because to repeat, I have explicitly seen a mod saying 'it is okay to call the post ****', so if that's insulting, well maybe you guys need to talk between yourselves and agree what's acceptable.

Look, here's the thing. i think that warning was horse**** and you will never ever change my mind or justify it to me because it was nonsense. But I didn't bring it up to have an eighteen page discussion about it. I brought it up specifically because of the replies I got from Cribb to the same email, where he told me not to play the poster, even though I specifically referred to Sanz's post and as such played the ****ing post. I'm being honest; I don't believe the mods are on the same page, I don't think your definition of what is playing the post V poster is satisfactory or correct, and I think the whole situation at the moment is a complete shambles.

I find it funny that when I use a bad warning/infraction as an example you lot defend it to death and ignore the wider context of what I'm saying; it's pretty indicative of the way some warnings and infractions are currently being given out.

I also find it hilarious that you have all just stopped responding when I keep bringing up the inconsistency in warning v infraction for Furball and me. That would be because you don't have any justification for it. I am used to that now as it's a familiar pattern in my discussions with the mod team as a whole, both in this thread and via email.