Kazoholic & C_C - An Official Complaint

[Tom Halsey]

The Richard-TEC wars were similar to this, but they were much more sophisticated. For starters, even if they didn't stay in line with the original point of the thread, they always stayed along cricket lines... so anyone could still contribute if they read something they wanted to add to. A debate over who has greater maths skills out of Kaz and CC isn't something we can add to though.

Secondly, they never argued purely for the sake of doing so when they saw each other post (well, at least I never took it as that). They'd see something they disagreed with, and argue it, just as they would with any other poster. Fair game.

This situation is far beyond that - they argue the same topics in several threads, dish out personal insults and debate the most ridiculous topics that have nothing to do with cricket.

Agreed re: Richard-TEC, although I don't visit CC often enough these days to comment on Kaxo-C_C.

 

[adharcric]

I agree. I even reported them but nothing seems to have happened.

 

[Richard]

Seriously, though - just because nothing obvious to you has come of it, don't presume that nothing is being done.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

We're talking about forum moderation here, not prayers to a higher power. It should be fairly obvious if "something is done".

Anyway, the Richard/TEC stuff of old is a bit different from the current fare. I've had a few arguments of my own in CC, with most of the usual suspects, but there's a difference between arguing over cricket and trading insults. Long winded arguments might be annoying to some posters, but they usually don't bother me, and they can even be somewhat entertaining if the topic is interesting enough. Two posters generally abusing one another in page long posts is a bit pointless though, and C_C and Kaz tend to fall into that a lot. It's especially annoying when it encompasses multiple threads, or entire topics. It's basically impossible to mention a current batsman and their ability at the moment without C_C and Kaz getting involved with the same old stuff, for example. It does get a bit tired.

I'm not as annoyed over it as some people seem to be, but I can see the need for them to at least calm down a bit or find some new topics.

 

[Richard]

We're talking about forum moderation here, not prayers to a higher power. It should be fairly obvious if "something is done".

Not really - emails are sent all the time. I've had more than a few myself, and not always just from mods.

IMO you don't have to give someone a public dressing-down to "do something about" any poor behaviour.

 

[Perm]

While the Richard-tec arguments used to annoy me slightly I never had any problem with what they were doing, they didn't resort to personal slander or degradation in an attempt to prove that they were right. They genuinely disagreed with each other and would proceed to debate it, although I don't pick people's posts apart and reply to every comment I do like to debate and discuss other people's opinions. Nothing wrong with it, so long as some sort of respect is there.

 

[adharcric]

Not really - emails are sent all the time. I've had more than a few myself, and not always just from mods.

IMO you don't have to give someone a public dressing-down to "do something about" any poor behaviour.

Definitely don't need a public dressing-down, but surely there should be some sort of response to members who have reported a post? How am I supposed to know that appropriate action has been taken and that my report hasn't simply been ignored? Mind you, I reported another member in the past but I still don't know if anyone ever cared.

 

[PY]

Definitely don't need a public dressing-down, but surely there should be some sort of response to members who have reported a post? How am I supposed to know that appropriate action has been taken and that my report hasn't simply been ignored? Mind you, I reported another member in the past but I still don't know if anyone ever cared.

I closed the thread didn't I?

And gave a warning and there's other stuff going on which you lot don't know about. How else am I supposed to respond?

 

[BoyBrumby]

I closed the thread didn't I?

And gave a warning and there's other stuff going on which you lot don't know about. How else am I supposed to respond?

Can't beat a good, old school public stoning for mine. Biblical justice, you can't whack it.

Anyway, with regards to Richo/tec they might not have insulted each in quite such a child-like way, but the posts were long, usually tedious & often began with "Errr", which, frankly, bugs the heck outta me.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I remember on one of the threads where the pair went at it (Kazo + C_C, I mean) I was reading through my "unread" posts in the thread, ended up skipping them and thought "probably should close this thing", only to see everyone talking about how they were enjoying it on the last page of the thread. Gave me quite a conundrum. (sp)

 

[pasag]

I usually hate those thread-jacking debates, however that was pretty funny until the end when it got abit meh. Also lol at how I got involved there. I'd respond to some of those points but I don't want that thread to continue in here.

 

[Richard]

Also lol at how I got involved there.

(The smilies are more than they seem...)

 

[PY]

Can't beat a good, old school public stoning for mine. Biblical justice, you can't whack it.

If only one was called Stephen.

I didn't even realise that thread had gone on that long to be honest but as Jack said, people seemed to be enjoying it until the last page and no-one reported it until adharcic did at which point, I did something.

I don't have the time to read all the threads and neither do others (except maybe Jack ) so need people to report stuff if they don't like it.

 

[Richard]

Definitely don't need a public dressing-down, but surely there should be some sort of response to members who have reported a post? How am I supposed to know that appropriate action has been taken and that my report hasn't simply been ignored? Mind you, I reported another member in the past but I still don't know if anyone ever cared.

Reported posts ARE, so far as I know INVARIABLY, checked-up. Sometimes those concerned don't think anything of it, but there'd be no point in the report-post system if said reports weren't always followed-up.

Me, I've honestly never reported a post in my life, but there's heaps of rubbish that I have responded to which mods have castigated. Whether that's due to reports or just them scanning the thread, who knows.

 

[Richard]

Anyway, with regards to Richo/tec they might not have insulted each in quite such a child-like way, but the posts were long, usually tedious & often began with "Errr", which, frankly, bugs the heck outta me.

???

And yes, they were long - as I say, the recourse was simple - just don't bother even opening a thread if you know it's just me and tec.

 

[pasag]

Can't beat a good, old school public stoning for mine. Biblical justice, you can't whack it.

Anyway, with regards to Richo/tec they might not have insulted each in quite such a child-like way, but the posts were long, usually tedious & often began with "Errr", which, frankly, bugs the heck outta me.

Haha yeah, one of the worst things. Absolutely hate it.

 

[adharcric]

I closed the thread didn't I?

And gave a warning and there's other stuff going on which you lot don't know about. How else am I supposed to respond?

I apologize - never realized that the thread was closed in response to my report. In general, I think there should be some form of feedback (if possible) so that a member knows that the problem has been taken into consideration. Of course, it's not much of an issue considering the mods are obviously doing a great job.

 

[adharcric]

but the posts were long, usually tedious & often began with "Errr", which, frankly, bugs the heck outta me.

Haha, we all share your sentiments.

 

[Johnners]

???

And yes, they were long - as I say, the recourse was simple - just don't bother even opening a thread if you know it's just me and tec.

What a great idea lets everyone ignore every second thread because it involves a tedious, monotonous debate between X and Y.

It really quite annoys me when people say "don't open this thread if you know its..." because to me it's quite clear that is NOT the idea of the forum. If everyone took that attitude, as i said before, we might as well ignore 50-60% of the threads in Cricket Chat because they DO involve arguments such as those you and tec had, and now more recently, C_C & Kazoholic.

If we did that, we might as well have the 1 thread called say Richard v TEC or C_C v Kazoholic where the rest of us offer topics for you to debate, and then we all watch as you disect each others argument sentence by sentence.

I don't mind it if it's on topic and relevant, but so often it's nothing of the sort. Threads that had potential, or were great before hand, such as the Matty Hayden Thread, are then screwed over because of a select 2/3 posters who find it relevant to argue about which exact date Sachin Tendulkar started to suffer from the pressure placed upon him, and take up pages to do so.

 

[Johnners]

Can't beat a good, old school public stoning for mine. Biblical justice, you can't whack it.

Anyway, with regards to Richo/tec they might not have insulted each in quite such a child-like way, but the posts were long, usually tedious & often began with "Errr", which, frankly, bugs the heck outta me.

Yup, most annoying habit...glad i'm not the only one who finds it irritating.