A plea for non-discrimination

[Prince EWS]

But then i am sure that if he is capable of posting in several different styles as a Indian fans(really different to each other), he is capable of posting as a member supporting another country too. Infact he has apparently tried to do so in the past too.

Also then though this is regarding one specific member who is notorious for this, it's not like the other banned English/Aussie supporting members are not able to create multi's. Infact there have been quite a few new English/Aussie/other supporting members who would also then stand accused for being a multi then.

That just adds to my point really. The range some of these multis have shown means every new member that posts a lot immediately is going to be somewhat suspicious.

 

[BoyBrumby]

But then i am sure that if he is capable of posting in several different styles as a Indian fans(really different to each other), he is capable of posting as a member supporting another country too. Infact he has apparently tried to do so in the past too.

Also then though this is regarding one specific member who is notorious for this, it's not like the other banned English/Aussie supporting members are not able to create multi's. Infact there have been quite a few new English/Aussie/other supporting members who would also then stand accused for being a multi then.

I'm certainly not suggesting every new Indian affliliated member is a multi and I don't think anyone else is either. In fact, although one presumes our friend is an Indian fan in real life, it's not necessarily the case.

As I've said I disagree with the moderating team's stance on this, but I do thank PEWS for at least engaging with us.

 

[cpr]

Anyone else thinking membership should be on a 3 month trial followed by a vote? Then a further 9 month probation before full membership....


I'm not trying to be Draconian, but it'd solve a load of problems

 

[Furball]

The hardest thing about this place is finding a balance between keeping the quality of the discussion high and giving everyone a completely fair medium to have their say. We don't want to be the opinion police, but I've seen a growing trend of the infractions we've given out following a standard pattern of someone posting a biased or arguably ludicrous opinion (that's genuine, and not trolling) in a patronising way and then someone replying by insulting that poster (rather than the post itself). It frustrates me that some of our (IMO) better members either can't help themselves or don't quite know where to draw the line between attacking an opinion on a specific issue and attacking a member as a whole, particularly as our err less high-quality members seem to get it spot on. I just don't think I'll ever understand why people seem to get so much more satisfaction out of telling someone they're a **** member than saying a specific post they're replying to is ludicrous, remembering of course that one will get you banned and one won't.

I'm working on it.

At the same time, if a member consistently posts absolute rubbish, then the line between playing the post and playing the poster gets blurred. I got an infraction during the WC for telling Tendulkar_200* that all of his posts were crap, which in fairness, they were. Granted, I shouldn't have said it, but is there really a difference between saying "mate, your post there was ****" and reacting to someone like Dhoni_fan and saying "mate, every single post you've made is absolute garbage."?

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm working on it.

At the same time, if a member consistently posts absolute rubbish, then the line between playing the post and playing the poster gets blurred. I got an infraction during the WC for telling Tendulkar_200* that all of his posts were crap, which in fairness, they were. Granted, I shouldn't have said it, but is there really a difference between saying "mate, your post there was ****" and reacting to someone like Dhoni_fan and saying "mate, every single post you've made is absolute garbage."?

Yeah, there actually is a big difference there IMO. The former debates the issue in the post you're replying to by calling it out and the latter just takes a pot-shot at the member. "This post is ****" is just a really strong way of saying that you disagree with its content and it won't get you in trouble (unless there are extenuating circumstances, obv), particularly if you elaborate why. If you reckon every post someone makes is **** and you say so then you're targeting them as a whole rather than what they've said specifically, and it usually goes downhill quickly from there.

 

[Cevno]

We're not going to ban members just because you think you know who they are. I really think the fact that you people think they're multis clouds the issue though. Hell, even I think they're multis, but we're not going to turf people for that unless we're sure.

Yeah, Banning members on suspicion will just lead to accusations flying right,left and centre and just because this guy was a India supporting member in his avatar's more against the Indian fans, which has already happened in the past even when contained.

Then there is the question of some people actually thinking it is a Multi vs some thinking it is not. And some people just accusing someone of a Multi because they disagree with their opinions or are upset of their style of baiting/trolling while they are not so irked by some of the others who are doing the same in the opposite and are even defending them.

The fact that we've banned members for being consistently problematic and then new members seem enough like them to cause multi accusations is the crux of the issue, whether they're actually multis or not. Obviously, if you seem enough like a permanently banned member to have me check your IP, your posting probably isn't great.

That is true for the most part but don't think Blaze18 was a bad member at all in this avatar. Many were surprised including some mods IIRC that he was indeed the same person.

"Reducing the **** count" can be done in different ways - as I said, if you want these members gone, press for more discretionary bannings based on post quality; I'll back the community up on that if that's what it wants. The multi thing isn't going to get anyone anywhere though as we're not going to start guessing in that department and it just clouds the fact that a lot of these members are making the forum worse, be they the same person or not.

If that is done fairly and objectively it will just raise **** storms and more accusations again because some old posters who have a good number of friends could stand to be banned. Even now with a infraction system in place every infraction and in some cases really bad ones are contested, the banning of members straightaway would lead to more accusations of biasness, partiality, catering to new markets and what not from all sides.
Including way more threads like the one in which we are currently posting and another one which was created in a similar regard(not judging either thread or what was said ftr).

Also then there is a risk of a group of people ganging up on someone and asking for their banning openly because they are not conforming with the view of the vocal majority in that regard and saying this and this was banned straightaway, so why not he?
Almost happened to me, as it is even in the current system in one of the threads in the Eng - India subforums where was accused of being ridiculously biased to "Was i this bad when i was banned in the winter?" to getting all kinds of abuses and taunts. Because Me,Bun and a couple other less regular members who just made one or 2 posts were the only ones to argue over a pedantic issue with a quite ardent and vocal majority. And i will still stand on my point of view over every decision and aspect of it that was argued, and was even supported by host of commentators including Nasser Hussain,Alan Wilkins,Sanjay Manjrekar among others. Though the views were polarized there too in some regards. And this is just a example.

This sort of thing only works where you want to run the Forum as not a open one and a private sort of thing where you can arbitrarily judge quality of poster under such pressure and polarized situations. And even in such forums there is a massive thread about each banning with 1/2 members getting banned as a result of it. Infact, i think i have mentioned it before somewhere, that on quite a popular football club forum i resigned as a moderator and then got banned because i disagreed massively on a particular main admin banning someone who was a opposition supporter and i felt as a result was being picked on unfairly by the majority of fans despite being useful in many regards.
As it turned out many agreed with me on it,even if it not be the majority who couldn't care less and the admins were caught in a fix when there was division amongst them too as a result of the subsequent thread that resulted and a points that were raised.And That forum had this quality control program because it was getting too many members more than anything else

 

[GIMH]

I just don't think I'll ever understand why people seem to get so much more satisfaction out of telling someone they're a **** member than saying a specific post they're replying to is ludicrous, remembering of course that one will get you banned and one won't.

Just thought I'd answer this. I don't post here to try and work a system - I don't weigh up the consequences of each post I write. Sure, I sometimes don't hit submit when I've written something OTT, and I'll edit now and again. But it's not a game to try and stay unbanned. I just post what I think. If I think someone is behaving like a ****, I feel they should be told.

 

[Prince EWS]

That is true for the most part but don't think Blaze18 was a bad member at all in this avatar. Many were surprised including some mods IIRC that he was indeed the same person.

You're looking at it backwards. I didn't say that every multi posted poorly. It actually has nothing to do with what I said at all.

 

[GIMH]

Seriously ****s, get over the fact that Blaze18 is a bottom of the barrel scumbag. And then accept that he has 4 other unbanned accounts ( at least). And then ban these accounts for being **** ****s, multi or otherwise.

 

[Furball]

That is true for the most part but don't think Blaze18 was a bad member at all in this avatar. Many were surprised including some mods IIRC that he was indeed the same person.

He was a ****. Regardless of the fact that he might have posted vile ****e under different usernames, to that one, the fact is that he was the same **** **** behind the keyboard.

 

[Furball]

Yeah, there actually is a big difference there IMO. The former debates the issue in the post you're replying to by calling it out and the latter just takes a pot-shot at the member. "This post is ****" is just a really strong way of saying that you disagree with its content and it won't get you in trouble (unless there are extenuating circumstances, obv), particularly if you elaborate why. If you reckon every post someone makes is **** and you say so then you're targeting them as a whole rather than what they've said specifically, and it usually goes downhill quickly from there.

"Every post you make it ****" is shorthand. The alternative is digging up 9,000 seperate posts and saying "this post is ****."

Get what you're saying, but with really dire members I still think that the line between playing the post and playing the poster gets blurred somewhat.

 

[Cevno]

That just adds to my point really. The range some of these multis have shown means every new member that posts a lot immediately is going to be somewhat suspicious.

Yeah, wasn't disagreeing with you, though the start of the most may have made it look that way.

So what?

The point being if you start banning people on suspicion alone, then accusations would start flying every which way openly and most threads would then degenerate into that.

And also lead to a lot of new members who may not be Multi's being banned in any case.

 

[GIMH]

The line always gets blurred. My opinion on posters is formed via their posts.

 

[cpr]

The alternative is digging up 9,000 seperate posts and saying "this post is ****."

8988 at this moment actually

But yeah, quote too many posts saying its **** gets you banned for targetting the person by repeatedly referencing his posts in a derogatory mannor, might aswell call it once and get it out of the way (untill the person sinks even lower)

 

[Cevno]

Seriously ****s, get over the fact that Blaze18 is a bottom of the barrel scumbag. And then accept that he has 4 other unbanned accounts ( at least). And then ban these accounts for being **** ****s, multi or otherwise.

He was a ****. Regardless of the fact that he might have posted vile ****e under different usernames, to that one, the fact is that he was the same **** **** behind the keyboard.

Never disagreed with that(though not in the same expletives)

Was making a different point that he was not bad at all(infact a good poster AFAIC) in this avatar and didn't suspect him at all.

 

[GIMH]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2578015-post256.html

 

[Prince EWS]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2578015-post256.html

Haha, I actually reported that post.

 

[Cevno]

What is wrong with that post?

 

[Prince EWS]

What is wrong with that post?

Nothing in the slightest; that was the point.

I reported it to show the other mods that Bun clearly had no problem posting without txtspk when he felt like it. If it was a second language bridging problem we would've let it go but he demonstrated a high level of English which he was just choosing not to use in the vast majority of his posts, presumably to annoy the people who whinged about it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Just a reminder that if you want me and the other mods to be able to openly talk about moderation policy and ideas in here, you can't turn it into a witch-hunt and start accusing specific current members of being multis, or the thread will be closed. There's a difference between talking about it the issue general and building a case in the thread with circumstantial evidence. If I have to delete any more posts they'll come with a bonus infraction for my trouble. Stay mature and avoid ****-storms in here or you'll lose the general open-ness we're giving you at the moment.