'The Card' threads on the Rugby Forum

bamboozling

Yesterday morning during the Wales vs France world cup semi final, Sam Warburton, Wales captain, was sent off in the 17th minute for a dangerous and reckless tackle.

This tackle is a massive talking point throughout the rugby world, something that hasn't been seen since the Brian O'Driscoill spear incident during the Lions tour of 2005.

Yet the good moderators of the rugby forum have decided we can't discuss this rather important matter. Incredible! Why is this? No justification, no reasoning, no logic given simply a statement that any more threads will result in instant bannings.

Surely a bit of interaction is needed, what exactly is the point of having a rugby union forum if it won't facilitate the discussion of the most talked incident in world rugby for years?

pickarooney

It's been done to death and just keeps descending into a bitchfight. It wasn't even that big a deal in the first place, despite what everyone is trying to make out.

chupacabra

Both sides just keep regurgitating the same stuff over and over and over again. The argument has gone as far as it can go imo

jaykay74

If people want to waste their time arguing why not just let them. If posts are OTT and reported they can be dealt with then. Seems strange to block discussion of the incident when its very high profile all over the media today. People want to give their take on it I guess. Leave them at it

CouchSmart

There should be a thread to discuss it. If people want to that's their prerogative as far as I'm concerned. It was a big aspect of the game and the whole tournament, surely a discussion is valid?

On another note, the Match thread was locked for the same reason. This is more annoying to me. The thread doesn't even get 24 hours? There's so much to discuss - yes the card will come up (it was a major point of the game) but there's a whole lot else to talk about and closing the whole thing seems a bit over the top.

Sandwlch

Its a terrible case of heavy handed modding and a real mistake in their understanding of their role.

The correct decision was to create a card-only post and mod card discussion out of the general match thread,

Then if people feel they have read it all - then they can read match discussion in peace. If they feel they have heard it all on the card, then dont open the card discussion thread.

BUT let those who do want to discuss it do so.

How do you make a formal protest on this one ?

gearoidc

It's a bizarre state of affairs. Incredible really.

"I notice that one moderator "Justsomebloke" describes himself as "getting himself noticed when he shouldn't"

Tells you all you need to know in regard to his decision-making motives and capabilities.

bamboozling

gearoidc wrote: »

"I notice that one moderator "Justsomebloke" describes himself as "getting himself noticed when he shouldn't"

Tells you all you need to know in regard to his decision-making motives and capabilities.

Let's not forget the reprimand he got 2 weeks ago; he went from

As a point of reference this was in a Live match thread.

An Italian player was caught eye gauging an Irish Player (basically one of the the most shocking fouls a player can commit), people reacted immediately to it on the thread. I gave a warning to everyone going forward to watch what they say.

If a professional sports player commits a career threatening tackle on another player, I think people should be allowed a slight bit on grace in their immediate response to the actions of offending player in a live thread as the player is the one who has left himself open due to his actions. People will be warned to not to carry on past the time of the initial incident though which they were

to

It has been pointed out to me by Dav that they way I handled this matter was incorrect. I would like to apologise for my actions in not upholding the letter of the charter and the inconsistencies that this may cause for the other mods of both the rugby forum and other forums.
As it was my mistake no action will be taken against those involved, however in future no abuse will be tolerated

Very revealing I think. With such inconsistent moderation surely it is time to question the moderating abilities of this user.

thomond2006

CouchSmart wrote: »

On another note, the Match thread was locked for the same reason. This is more annoying to me. The thread doesn't even get 24 hours? There's so much to discuss - yes the card will come up (it was a major point of the game) but there's a whole lot else to talk about and closing the whole thing seems a bit over the top.

My 2c.

There was a bit of nonsense regarding the card issue, but considering it was a World Cup semi-final it should have been given more leeway. This was a very big game and merited more dissecting.

ambid

Agree with what's been said here. In the match thread the Mod didn't seem to issue warnings or isolate individuals who were being unreasonable, but just treated everybody the same. Locking the match thread was bizarre and the Mod said any further threads would also be locked - regardless of how the debate was conducted. That seemed excessive. The second thread seemed to be a respectful debate, but was locked anyway.

The mod chose to treat posters on here as if they are kids. He should be disappointed in how he handled the issue.

g'em

bamboozling wrote: »

Let's not forget the reprimand he got 2 weeks ago; he went from

to

Very revealing I think. With such inconsistent moderation surely it is time to question the moderating abilities of this user.

A Mod made a mistake, held their hands up to it, said they're more than willing to learn from it and you're calling for heads to roll? Come off it. The rugby Moda have been doing a sterling job keeping the forum discussions running smoothly and peacefully in the last few weeks given the volume of activity on the forum. They should be commended for their work.

yimrsg

The match day thread got ruined by people focusing discussion on the card and not looking at the match on the whole. Moving the card discussion outside the thread (even though it was a red!) would have at least given the match day thread it's full life, but knowing how most match day threads end up being locked for going off topic this one reached boiling point sooner.

There is a ridiculous amount of posts and threads being made and I've only seen Des, Ruggiebear and Justsomebloke posting so they might be overworked. That's not meant as a pop or a jibe at any of them; just my interpretation of the forum.

To me it just seems that someone has a bee in their bonnet about the rugby mods as the OP was complaining about them being too lenient previously now when a thread is a carcrash they're looking for clemency for a thread.

.ak

I concur with the above statement to the degree that taking the red card incident off thread was the best idea. Let people open up a thread and discuss it, so long as the rules are applied.

I probably wouldn't add anything to that thread, as I think everything that was said was said in the original thread.

I think the mod had the right idea, but should've worded it differently and warn people to open a new thread on the matter rather then closing a match-day thread were we usually go back and dissect a game for it's merit.

CIARAN_BOYLE

There was a couple of lads who degenerated to personal insults and crap around the red card. Mods should have banned those individuals and allowed discussion. They chose to ban the discussion.

Insect Overlord

bamboozling wrote: »

Let's not forget the reprimand he got 2 weeks ago; he went from

to

Very revealing I think. With such inconsistent moderation surely it is time to question the moderating abilities of this user.

That's a really scummy tactic to take in a feedback thread. Pathetic.

ambid

.ak wrote: »

...I think the mod had the right idea, but should've worded it differently and warn people to open a new thread on the matter rather then closing a match-day thread were we usually go back and dissect a game for it's merit.

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

There was a couple of lads who degenerated to personal insults and crap around the red card. Mods should have banned those individuals and allowed discussion. They chose to ban the discussion.

That's the key issue here IMO. The mod had every opportunity to tackle the individuals concerned, but chose to treat everybody as the problem. That's unfair and unnecessary.

Aidric

No surprise. Typical of the overbearing moderating that exists in the Rugby forum.

EmacB

One of the biggest talking points of the worldcup, and we're not allowed discuss it? I think mods have gone way too far banning all dicussion of it. I appreciate its difficult to moderate but its sill a ridiculous decision imho.

wixfjord

The guy is an over zealous OTT mod and this is a ridiculous way to stop talk of one of the biggest rugby issues of the whole WC. It's a discussion forum FFS.
Where are ruggie bear and crash?

wixfjord

Insect Overlord wrote: »

bamboozling wrote: »

Let's not forget the reprimand he got 2 weeks ago; he went from

to

Very revealing I think. With such inconsistent moderation surely it is time to question the moderating abilities of this user.

That's a really scummy tactic to take in a feedback thread. Pathetic.

Bull****. It's a fact and relevant to the discussion. I'd like to get the mods take on it himself.
Seems to lack judgement sense that is obviously needed for a forum as big as the rugby one.

bamboozling

Insect Overlord wrote: »

That's a really scummy tactic to take in a feedback thread. Pathetic.

I don't see how not, his moderating was deemed to be wrong only two weeks ago and here we have another scenario where the majority of the posters think that he was way out of line in this scenario.

It's relevant to this case and I think your objection should be overruled.

Ciaran-Irl

Ridiculous to prohibit discussion. Every paper is discussing it. Rugby people all around the world are talking about it. Why does someone feel they have to decide that every relevant thing has been said, so now everyone must shut up? It's a forum... For like, discussing things. Completely stupid.

MungBean

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

Ridiculous to prohibit discussion. Every paper is discussing it. Rugby people all around the world are talking about it. Why does someone feel they have to decide that every relevant thing has been said, so now everyone must shut up? It's a forum... For like, discussing things. Completely stupid.

I pm'd Justsomebloke yesterday about the thread and he said he didnt have the time to pick through it. So maybe its not a case of why did he close down the discussion but why isnt there more mods available during the world cup to deal with the forum.

I the same as everyone else have issue with the way this was dealt with but I'm uncomfortable with the attacks on Justsomeblokes character when it looks to me likes its down to the fact that he just didnt have time to babysit a thread that had degenerated or any more that would probably go the same way.

Just out of curiosity did anyone pm him to ask for the second one to be left open based on the fact that it was more civil ? Or for the match day thread to be reopened for match day talk other than the red card ?

Insect Overlord

bamboozling wrote: »

I don't see how not, his moderating was deemed to be wrong only two weeks ago and here we have another scenario where the majority of the posters think that he was way out of line in this scenario.

It's relevant to this case and I think your objection should be overruled.

One solitary decision was deemed to be wrong, and not, as you're trying to suggest, his moderation in general. As MungBean has already said, you're attacking the guy's character. That's a heinous way of trying to get attention.

BoarHunter

Coming back on the fact, I think you can't accuse rolland of being inconsistent

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056125885?page=22#post_70253885

Being in a wc semi should't change the laws of the game.

Funny to hear the sky commentators adhering totally with the red card when it's a french man being sent off

thomond2006

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056422005

No offence to justsomebloke personally, but this is an appalling rule. "Instantly banned", seriously? Seems a reactionary rule more than anything else. As someone said why shouldn't there a thread on the card itself if it is derailing the match thread?

IMO it wasn't derailing the match thread in the first place because it was the key event of the match. I really think the moderating is OTT at times, some users have stopped posting on the forum because of it. I appreciate the mods are volunteering their time to help out but I think the mods need to adopt a laissez faire attitude sometimes.

The match day thread got ruined by people focusing discussion on the card and not looking at the match on the whole

But this happens all the time. It's rare that you get a general discussion/reaction to the whole game right after it. Normally the key issue of the game dominates for the first few hours (we see this in Ireland match threads after almost every game for example) and subsequently this filters out and more components of the game start getting mentioned.

MungBean

I think we just need another mod to be available. When a thread is let degenerate for 10-15 pages the thread is beyond manageable.

I've seen Justsomebloke handling certain things well when he caught them early. Delete offending posts, issue warning and the discussion proceeds in a civilised fashion. But it takes time and if the mods doesnt have it he only has one alternative, kill the discussion rather than allow a free for all.

I understand where people are coming from wanting to discuss it but from a mods point of view is it as easy as tell everyone to be nice after 10-15 pages of arguments or is closing the thread the best solution. I think the problem was that there was nobody there to moderate the actual discussion.

As for the next thread discussing the same point he did make it clear the thread would be closed, so I dont see why the OP couldnt have cleared it with him first or waited to get feedback from the cmods before starting it and putting Justsomebloke in an awkward position where the OP had clearly and openly argued with his decision.

Its all very nice in retrospect to say people want to discuss it but people did discuss it and it turned into a mess. So I dont think Justsomebloke was wrong to do what he did. I just think the Rugby forum needs more attention maybe. With another mod available if the other listed mods are not. Bar Justsomebloke, Ruggiebear and maybe 1-2 posts from Des I havent seen hide nor hair of the others since I've been posting there.

No doubt the forum will quieten down after the world cup anyway though. During the world cup though I think a regular poster should have been drafted to help out with spam and trolls and keep the discussion from becoming personal.

TL;DR - Problem is nobody moderating the discussions and that leads to whats seen as heavy handed decisions when things get out of control.

thomond2006

Why didn't we just re-open the old thread?

hellofromanon

Well I'm not much of a posting person but I absolutely love reading some of the opinions on the rugby forum. Over the years I have seen some brilliant posters simply stop posting because of the over zealous moderators. Another problem is that for whatever reason (maybe because so many of the actual regular posters are Munster fans) you can't even criticise a Munster player (or former coach for that matter) without being accused of trolling and being biased. Indeed a regular poster who I have watched for years, Phog, regularly calls for other users to report posters who criticise Munster players and not once have I ever seen the mods infract Phog. The forum has really taken a dive since justsomebloke has come in however. He is too eager to lock threads, he bans and infracts even quicker than Ruggiebear (who from what I can see is bad enough) and he bans discussion around contentious issues. A good mod should be able to handle these sorts of things, from what I can see both Ruggiebear and Justsomebloke cave to peer pressure from Munster posters to ban users who criticise their provinces players (much higher proportion of banned users over the years have been Leinster) and have the rugby forum running like a Nazi dictatorship. The Rugby Forum isn't even close to being in the top 30 busiest forums on this website yet it regularly features in feedback. Something has been needed to be done for years and I think the solution is a new mod team. I think GerM and Emmet02 should be installed as the new mods, both are the only 2 consistently reasonable and level headed people on the forum and they are actual regulars and contribute regularly. But then what do I know, I am just a reader. Slinking off into the shadows now, bye.

Chucky the tree

Any of the mods planning on explaing their decision?

tricky D

One of the biggest events is being debated everywhere else except here, on a discussion board of all places. That is just not right. Sure posters will cause problems but as CIARAN BOYLE noted, you deal with at the poster level, not the whole discussion level. The mods should rethink their level of banning discussions outright, it seems to be much more common than usual compared to the rest of boards, to the detriment of the Rugby forum. I'm a fan but don't bother with the forum.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Any of the mods planning on explaing their decision?

justsomebloke has said that the other rugby mods are away and he doesn't have the time and he isn't wiling to allow such a controversial topic with a huge volume of controversial posts that get reported when there isn't mods around.

IMO thats a big sign for me that more mods are needed.

Aidric

hellofromanon wrote: »

from what I can see both Ruggiebear and Justsomebloke cave to peer pressure from Munster posters to ban users who criticise their provinces players (much higher proportion of banned users over the years have been Leinster) and have the rugby forum running like a Nazi dictatorship.

Are you having a laugh? RuggieBear has made no effort to hide his Leinster bias in his decision making on the Rugby forum. I remember a case earlier this year where he banned a guy simply because he supported the team playing against Leinster.

When you have moderating like that going unchecked it's time to back the hell out of that forum.

Zaph

Aidric wrote: »

Are you having a laugh? RuggieBear has made no effort to hide his Leinster bias in his decision making on the Rugby forum. I remember a case earlier this year where he banned a guy simply because he supported the team playing against Leinster.

Kindly support that allegation with some evidence or withdraw it.

bamboozling

Zaph wrote: »

Kindly support that allegation with some evidence or withdraw it.

Yeah, I'll take this one Aidric if you don't mind.

Here RuggieBear elects to ban Leroy Lita for percieved trolling.

Yet here we have Leroy wanting Northampton to win tomorrow, showing that he was following Northampton.

Zaph

bamboozling wrote: »

Yeah, I'll take this one Aidric if you don't mind.

Here RuggieBear elects to ban Leroy Lita for percieved trolling.

Yet here we have Leroy wanting Northampton to win tomorrow, showing that he was following Northampton.

Fair enough, I agree that the evidence suggests that the ban was unwarranted. I've just checked and Leroy Lita didn't challenge the ban in the DRF, had he done so unless there were other circumstances we're not aware of he could well have had the ban overturned. It is conceivable that Ruggie didn't see that post in what appears to be a fast moving thread, but you'd have to confirm that with him. However I just wanted to ensure that this thread didn't descend to the level where unsubstantiated allegations were being thrown around just because people were annoyed about the current situation.

thomond2006

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

justsomebloke has said that the other rugby mods are away and he doesn't have the time and he isn't wiling to allow such a controversial topic with a huge volume of controversial posts that get reported when there isn't mods around.

IMO thats a big sign for me that more mods are needed.

I think 1 or 2 more mods wouldn't go amiss, since the forum gets very busy around match time. Outside of match days, the forum is pretty quiet.

Micky Dolenz

I enjoy the Rugby forum mostly.

Every forum appreciates constructive feed back but picking on single actions of mods is hardly fair . Remember that there are hundreds of actions taking every week.

_blank_

bamboozling wrote: »

Let's not forget the reprimand he got 2 weeks ago; he went from



to



Very revealing I think. With such inconsistent moderation surely it is time to question the moderating abilities of this user.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

That's a really scummy tactic to take in a feedback thread. Pathetic.

What do you expect from a self-confessed re-reg of a Perma-banned user?

Aidric wrote: »

No surprise. Typical of the overbearing moderating that exists in the Rugby forum.

Keep up the good fight Aidric.

wixfjord wrote: »

Bull****. It's a fact and relevant to the discussion. I'd like to get the mods take on it himself.
Seems to lack judgement sense that is obviously needed for a forum as big as the rugby one.

bamboozling wrote: »

I don't see how not, his moderating was deemed to be wrong only two weeks ago and here we have another scenario where the majority of the posters think that he was way out of line in this scenario.

It's relevant to this case and I think your objection should be overruled.

"Deemed to be wrong" - he held his hands up on that one.

Bringing it up again, after he's held his hands up, is a pretty lowlife thing to do.

Zaph wrote: »

Fair enough, I agree that the evidence suggests that the ban was unwarranted. I've just checked and Leroy Lita didn't challenge the ban in the DRF, had he done so unless there were other circumstances we're not aware of he could well have had the ban overturned. It is conceivable that Ruggie didn't see that post in what appears to be a fast moving thread, but you'd have to confirm that with him. However I just wanted to ensure that this thread didn't descend to the level where unsubstantiated allegations were being thrown around just because people were annoyed about the current situation.

Thanks Admin, thanks for consulting the Rugby mods for their side of it before making the proclamation here.

The evidence in one post, taken completely out of context.

If you weren't already aware, there is a Rugby Mods Forum where you could have asked about this.

Please de-mod me from Rugby, the "back-up" from the Admins for volunteer mods, especially Rugby mods, especially in the last while, has left a lot to be desired.

And I'm not talking about the justsomebloke incident either. :rolleyes::rolleyes:


The shít is being flung here by a fúcking re-reg permaban for fúck sake. A re-reg permaban who does nothing but troll, but the fúcking kid gloves this site has grown in the last two years means he can't just be told to fúck off a second time, oh no, we all have to put up with him.

Disgraceful and shameful that it has come to this, it really is.

bamboozling

Des wrote: »

What do you expect from a self-confessed re-reg of a Perma-banned user?




Keep up the good fight Aidric.



"Deemed to be wrong" - he held his hands up on that one.

Bringing it up again, after he's held his hands up, is a pretty lowlife thing to do.



Thanks Admin, thanks for consulting the Rugby mods for their side of it before making the proclamation here.

The evidence in one post, taken completely out of context.

If you weren't already aware, there is a Rugby Mods Forum where you could have asked about this.

Please de-mod me from Rugby, the "back-up" from the Admins for volunteer mods, especially Rugby mods, especially in the last while, has left a lot to be desired.

And I'm not talking about the justsomebloke incident either. :rolleyes::rolleyes:


The shít is being flung here by a fúcking re-reg permaban for fúck sake. A re-reg permaban who does nothing but troll, but the fúcking kid gloves this site has grown in the last two years means he can't just be told to fúck off a second time, oh no, we all have to put up with him.

Disgraceful and shameful that it has come to this, it really is.

Des, I'm not a re reg of Michelangelo. That was a píss take and to be honest I'm rather surprised that you actually believe it. here you go

Also I resent the fact that you label me a troll. To even have the temerity to accuse me of such a thing is frankly mid blowing.

I've been a very active and decent contributor across many forums on this site and has actively encouraged interaction, witness the football draft.

I know me and you have never seen eye to eye, and I'm not sure why, but let's put it in the past and move on?

Also I'll be sad to see you go from the Rugby Mods, good mods like yourself are hard to find and I always found you fair and polite to a fault.

Otis Driftwood

bamboozling wrote: »

I don't see how not, his moderating was deemed to be wrong only two weeks ago and here we have another scenario where the majority of the posters think that he was way out of line in this scenario.

It's relevant to this case and I think your objection should be overruled.

You are the worst kind of troll,a bland,insipid little person.

The Muppet was hounded out of the soccer forum and the day you get your marching orders will be one of the high points of my boards life.

_blank_

Stop calling people trolls, it offends the sensibilities of the Admins :rolleyes:

Much better to make the volunteer mods jump through hoops to prove it, just in case an easily rectifiable mistake is made.

If a person is banned by mistake, we can lift the ban, easy.

If we mollycoddle trolls, good mods leave. That is not a good situation.

bamboozling

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

You are the worst kind of troll,a bland,insipid little person.

The Muppet was hounded out of the soccer forum and the day you get your marching orders will be one of the high points of my boards life.

I don't quite know who you are to go making comments about my character. How dare you call me a bland, insipid little person. You know nothing about me and my life. How very dare you.

You may be mod of the gentleman's club, but you sir, are no gentleman.

Otis Driftwood

bamboozling wrote: »

I don't quite know who you are to go making comments about my character. How dare you call me a bland, insipid little person. You know nothing about me and my life. How very dare you.

You may be mod of the gentleman's club, but you sir, are no gentleman.

You see,its responses like this that cement exactly what you are in peoples minds.

The righteous indignation is nothing short of delicious.

bamboozling

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

You see,its responses like this that cement exactly what you are in peoples minds.

The righteous indignation is nothing short of delicious.

Righteous indignation? What are you on about man?

_blank_

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Any of the mods planning on explaing their decision?

If the Admin bothered to ask for an explanation, one would probably be issued.

As it is though, the modding was spot on in this instance.

The discussion about the card wasn't really a discussion at all, it was a bunch of usual suspects taking pops off eahc other, in the absence of a moderator.

When the mod did get a minute to have a look he decided, correctly, to lock the discussion down because he was not available to give it full attention, and there were no other mods around either.

This morning, with mods around, the discussion is again open.

Will we see the thresad descend into a farce like the last one? Nope, we won't, because the sly bastards who ruined the last one when there was no mod around won't post in that fashion in the new one.

bamboozling

Des wrote: »

If the Admin bothered to ask for an explanation, one would probably be issued.

As it is though, the modding was spot on in this instance.

The discussion about the card wasn't really a discussion at all, it was a bunch of usual suspects taking pops off eahc other, in the absence of a moderator.

When the mod did get a minute to have a look he decided, correctly, to lock the discussion down because he was not available to give it full attention, and there were no other mods around either.

This morning, with mods around, the discussion is again open.

Will we see the thresad descend into a farce like the last one? Nope, we won't, because the sly bastards who ruined the last one when there was no mod around won't post in that fashion in the new one.

In fairness though Des, to say that there were no moderators online during a world cup semi final is absolutely outrageous. One of the biggest matches of the year and not a moderator is sight? That takes the biscuit to be frank. Is it a case that the mods have no interest in the game and they wouldn't watch it or is it that ye are under resourced and need more mods? If its the latter then why not have it sorted before the world cup, I'm sure ye didn't just realise this week ye were short numbers.

If there were no moderators in the soccer forum for the world cup semi final there wouldn rightly be an investigation. The fact of the matter is that one of the biggest talking points in Rugby in years and there is a blanket ban on disucussion of the incident for 36 hours, on a rugby discussion forum. Outrageous in fairness!

What's the point in having a rugby mod forum if ye can't coordinate important times to be online?

_blank_

bamboozling wrote: »

In fairness though Des, to say that there were no moderators online during a world cup semi final is absolutely outrageous. One of the biggest matches of the year and not a moderator is sight? That takes the biscuit to be frank.

You want unpaid, volunteer moderators to be at the beck and call of people like you?

Get a fúcking grip.

bamboozling wrote: »

Is it a case that the mods have no interest in the game and they wouldn't watch it or is it that ye are under resourced and need more mods? If its the latter then why not have it sorted before the world cup, I'm sure ye didn't just realise this week ye were short numbers.

There could be a hundred mods, but if circumstances happen, then there could be no mod online. It happens.

If people can't behave respectfully and post properly, just because there is no mod around, that says more about the quality of the posters than the quality of the moderating.

And you want MORE mods picked from that pool of people.

Are you actually serious s here, or trolling again?

bamboozling wrote: »

If there were no moderators in the soccer forum for the world cup semi final there wouldn rightly be an investigation.

Investigation, funny.

Carried out by who?

Chief Inspector Troll McBmaboozling?

bamboozling wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that one of the biggest talking points in Rugby in years and there is a blanket ban on disucussion of the incident for 36 hours, on a rugby discussion forum. Outrageous in fairness!

The only outrageous thing here is the behaviour of posters in the original thread, and your continued trolling and seeming leniency for that trolling from the Admins.

bamboozling wrote: »

What's the point in having a rugby mod forum if ye can't coordinate important times to be online?

It's there so we can talk about trolls, like you, and decide what to do.

bamboozling

Des wrote: »

You want unpaid, volunteer moderators to be at the beck and call of people like you?

Get a fúcking grip.

Des where did I say that? It's the world semi fúcking final Des. Surely you know that many posters will comment on this? Would you leave a Leinster vs Munster game pass by without ensuring at least one mod was online?

There could be a hundred mods, but if circumstances happen, then there could be no mod online. It happens.

If people can't behave respectfully and post properly, just because there is no mod around, that says more about the quality of the posters than the quality of the moderating.

And you want MORE mods picked from that pool of people.

Are you actually serious s here, or trolling again?

Deadly serious.

Some posters are bad posters, that's grand. But like I said WORLD CUP SEMI FINAL. A massive game. How could at least one mod not be online for a game of this nature? Or even the aftermath?

Investigation, funny.

Carried out by who?

Chief Inspector Troll McBmaboozling?

There would be an investigation carried out by the admin team I would assume.

The only outrageous thing here is the behaviour of posters in the original thread, and your continued trolling and seeming leniency for that trolling from the Admins.

Des you would be well advised to stop calling me a troll. Do the rules of back seat modding go out the window entirely for back seat modding for the feedback forum. You have done nothing but antaganise me Des, and frankly I feel that it is I that is being trolled thanks to your pointed barbs and all round rude demeanour. I used to respect as a mod and more importantly as a poster but you changed man.

Just because someone has an alterior opinion to you doesn't make them a troll but I'm sure that doesn't matter to 'The Ban Hammer Des.'

Penn

bamboozling wrote: »

In fairness though Des, to say that there were no moderators online during a world cup semi final is absolutely outrageous. One of the biggest matches of the year and not a moderator is sight? That takes the biscuit to be frank. Is it a case that the mods have no interest in the game and they wouldn't watch it or is it that ye are under resourced and need more mods? If its the latter then why not have it sorted before the world cup, I'm sure ye didn't just realise this week ye were short numbers.

If there were no moderators in the soccer forum for the world cup semi final there wouldn rightly be an investigation. The fact of the matter is that one of the biggest talking points in Rugby in years and there is a blanket ban on disucussion of the incident for 36 hours, on a rugby discussion forum. Outrageous in fairness!

What's the point in having a rugby mod forum if ye can't coordinate important times to be online?

Maybe the mods were in the pub watching the game? Or at friends houses? Not to mention that it was the weekend, so even if they were there during the match, they might be away for the rest of day.

Are you seriously suggesting mods should draw straws for who has to stay at home and mod the forum for the day? If that were the case on any forum, there definitely wouldn't be enough mods. Nobody would want to be tied down to a volunteer position on an internet forum like that.

I've locked threads before to stop an argument getting out of hand until I had time to deal with it. It's a much better solution than letting it run wild and having to ban numerous posters the next day. Because if the Rugby mods had let that happen yesterday, this Feedback thread would be people complaining that too many people were banned and why didn't the mods act sooner.

Eoin

bamboozling wrote: »

In fairness though Des, to say that there were no moderators online during a world cup semi final is absolutely outrageous.

It's unfortunate - let's not go overboard.