Forum Feedback thread

helimachoptor

Nulty wrote: »

If your going to paraphrase, make it clear. "beastys a prick" is a misquote. I just searched the thread for the work "prick" and your post is the only one that was returned. That's not a euphamism.

I was gathering the general sentiment that seems to be on hear about beasty, the other 2 comments aren't exact quotes either yet you pick out the one on beasty

Harry Angstrom

helimachoptor wrote: »

I was gathering the general sentiment that seems to be on hear about beasty, the other 2 comments aren't exact quotes either yet you pick out the one on beasty

Seriously, you really shouldn't quote quotes that don't exist.

helimachoptor

So everyone loves beasty? No one has an issue with how convert mods the forum because you think her sex affects her judgment and despite the posts that have been deleted claiming the place is a joke etc, are you telling me I've picked all of these posts up wrong and infact

Beasty is loved
You'd welcome a team of female mods
You all love the place especially when it's modded to the charter

If so them he's I am 100% wrong

newuser89

This tread is being used by some users to pick arguments with mods this is in no way helpful.
Mistakes have been made and it's time to move on and forget what has gone on in the past few weeks and try get this forum going again.

Nulty

helimachoptor wrote: »

I was gathering the general sentiment that seems to be on hear about beasty, the other 2 comments aren't exact quotes either yet you pick out the one on beasty

General sentiment....

No one called beasty a prick.

People are angry that beasty came in and his actions are responsible for the departure of a member of this community. No one called him a prick. Your capturing of the "general sentiment" is your way of justifying yourself when you misquote a user to discredit his opinion.

I didn't pick out the others cause the one I did pick out is enough to make people see that they probably can't rely on you "quotes" to be in any way accurate. They'll have to investigate it for themselves.

bellybuster12

helimachoptor wrote: »

So everyone loves beasty? No one has an issue with how convert mods the forum because you think her sex affects her judgment and despite the posts that have been deleted claiming the place is a joke etc, are you telling me I've picked all of these posts up wrong and infact

Beasty is loved
You'd welcome a team of female mods
You all love the place especially when it's modded to the charter

If so them he's I am 100% wrong

No, this certainly is not the case.

Nulty

helimachoptor wrote: »

So everyone loves beasty? No one has an issue with how convert mods the forum because you think her sex affects her judgment and despite the posts that have been deleted claiming the place is a joke etc, are you telling me I've picked all of these posts up wrong and infact

Beasty is loved
You'd welcome a team of female mods
You all love the place especially when it's modded to the charter

If so them he's I am 100% wrong

Where are you getting all this. Please stop exaggerating. Your supposed to be a mod, you know, the level headed one that should be setting the example and all....

And this is how you quote by the way:

Tom Dunne wrote: »

To be brutally honest (I'm doing a lot that today ), holding a popularity contest for a mod is just not workable.

A mod needs to be a good contributor, have a level head and not have a load of bans and infractions. Whether we like it or not, mods are held to a higher standard than regular posters and as such, certain attributes are critical.

Choosing a mod based on their funny contributions to how popular they are on a forum is not the way to do it.

helimachoptor

Nulty wrote: »

General sentiment....

No one called beasty a prick.

People are angry that beasty came in and his actions are responsible for the departure of a member of this community. No one called him a prick. Your capturing of the "general sentiment" is your way of justifying yourself when you misquote a user to discredit his opinion.

I didn't pick out the others cause the one I did pick out is enough to make people see that they probably can't rely on you "quotes" to be in any way accurate. They'll have to investigate it for themselves.

I didn't attribute the beasty comment to anyone.

Beasty came into assist convert in effectively modding this forum.
It's not your own personal playground where anything goes, all forums have rules and these need to actually be enforced .

helimachoptor

I'm on the bus so I'll properly quote when I get home

Nulty

Nulty wrote: »

Ok, what are the problems in the forum?

From Mods perspective:

• Adult style posting where 13 yo kids are supposed to be able to look at.
• People posting the wrong thing in the wrong forum/thread at the wrong time
• (I don't know what else, you tell us)

From various users to varying degrees perspective:

• Mods interpreting the requirements of the users incorrectly
• Mods handing out bans and infractions liberally
• Valued users leaving the forum due
• "Tips" thread moderation
• The way that cmods or admins or whatever came in over the top of the forums best mod

Someone fill in the gaps cause the thread is going around in circles of people blaming each other.

Please fill in the above. This is going around in pathetic circles again.

Harry Angstrom

helimachoptor wrote: »

Beasty is loved

Nope. His "bull in a china shop" attitude precipitated the trouble on this forum, and the decision by Urban Sea to close his account.

helimachoptor wrote: »

You'd welcome a team of female mods

Yes, if they actively contributed to, and participated in the forum.

helimachoptor wrote: »

You all love the place especially when it's modded to the charter

Yes. If an off-topic thread does exactly what it says on the tin.

helimachoptor wrote: »

If so them he's I am 100% wrong

I'm sorry but I do not understand this sentence.

helimachoptor

Nulty wrote: »

Where are you getting all this. Please stop exaggerating. Your supposed to be a mod, you know, the level headed one that should be setting the example and all....

And this is how you quote by the way:

So

droidman123 wrote: »

I think you have missed my point Andy. I think there should be some follow on chat allowed,you don't.that's fair enough,our opinions differ there. My point was about convert in general.I don't mean to sound as if I am on a witch hunt here,but these issues have to be ironed out,they are the root cause of the problems in the horse racing forum in general.beasty certainly didn't help matters by steaming in and trying to take over.these are the things that irk people.

Defintely on the lighter end of the scale

mdwexford wrote: »

The off topic thread debacle was a complete joke.
Don't know how Beasty is a cmod they way he went on in that thread, as if he is the almighty power who says what can and can't be talked about in an off topic thread!!!! There should be an apology and cards rescinded to whoever got in trouble in that thread over his heavy handed madness.

I couldn't care less about the tips thread but obviously discussion should be allowed about tips. This is just common sense and makes for a better thread.

After timing happens on every horse/betting forum, again it doesn't majorly bother me and I don't see why some people get so worked up about it. If people want to lie about what bets they won then they are just saddos.

Agree with Droidman re convert. Think she goes in itching to hand out cards at times and needs to look at things more objectively and in context. Also agree about the sexist thing, if she was a male mod things would be different and seems to take it as a personal insult if a mention of anything like that happens. Men comment on woman sometimes, it's the world we live in. What's the harm as long as naked pictures aren't being posted.

Hucklebuck your suggestions are all terrible.
Having to apply for access to the tips thread like soccer would be better than 500 posts.
If a post is stupid or doesn't require more than one word then why should people pussyfoot around. Especially here where at certain times of the year there is a lot of nonsense posted.

not so much on the lighter end of the scale for beast and the comment re convert and the one below is clearly intimating that she cant mod because she's a woman

tomaussie wrote: »

My suggestion for the tips thread - state, as safely as you can, where you received the tip. Allow people to comment, within the thread, on the running of the race that involved the tip. I think most people in racing know that good sources are very very rare. People who post 'tips' daily will be treated with caution by most sensible people. In a short period of time it will be fairly obvious who are reliable sources.

Now my mates call me sledgehammer as I call things as I see them so bearing that in mind forgive me if the following is clumsy.

Convert, I think you are a tad over zealous when it comes to punishing what you perceive to be sexist. I have not seen anything in the off topic thread that I would call sexist. Most guys like girls and like to talk about how attractive they are or indeed aren't. That is banter and not sexism. Let me be clear here, talking about how much you would like to sleep with a bird is not sexist. I think you should give this some thought going forward. The forum is male dominated and that must be considered rather than misinterpreted.

There is nothing more annoying then having a good laugh only for somebody to incorrectly label you as sexist or as making sexist comments. I don't think there is malice in any of the posters I've seen having a chat about women. I think if anything inappropriate was actually said then the regular contributors would be all over it. Me included.

I also think most posts (i accept some do have to be removed) should not be deleted when they are infracted, carded or warned. This would allow us to see what is deemed not acceptable. It would be an easy way to learn from other peoples mistakes and allow others not to make the same mistake.

I also think nothing should be off limits in the 'off topic' thread. Again, if it gets repetitive then the regulars will get bored and not comment thus ending any inane conversations.

The posts about the place being ****e have been deleted and posters banned so im not dragging them up.

Imhof Tank

Here’s two feedback suggestions in before the lock (which I’d say will be soon) –

Open a horse racing sub forum on the gambling forum for all punting talk. As someone else put it recently, regular posters such as Colonel Sanders were really just punters with an interest in racing as a gambling medium. That is not a criticism, Colonel was clearly a disciplined and skilled punter and form student, not a betting shop bore or compulsive case.

Then amalgamate what’s left in relation to breeding, the price of national hunt stores, syndication etc into the equestrian forum. The vast majority of the posters on this forum have no meaningful input on non-punting subjects anyway.

I haven’t been posting at all much on the site recently due mainly to being sickened by the atmosphere in the racing forum – specifically the vitriol directed at jockeys, owners, trainers, bookies, racecourse managers and TV pundits. People claiming Irish jump racing is a total joke because of small fields at Punchestown or conspiracy theories about Ballydoyle’s early season running plans. The abuse Shark Hanlon took from the keyboard warrior trainers in the Hidden Cyclone thread was really low. All this is coming nearly exclusively from posters who openly admit they have no first-hand knowledge of the subject, never ridden a horse, never even thrown on a head collar. Yet they can tell Mick Fitz he is a clueless yokel.

The other thing is the misogyny. The points being made recently about how this is a male dominated forum and how covert is unsuitable to mod the lads smacks of the betting shop scenario with the exclusively male clientele. I would guess punters are at least 90% male while people working in the racing industry would be about 60/40 male female. If this forum is 99% male that just proves this is basically a gambling forum.

In relation to the “humour”, if Rebecca Curtis came on to post on this forum to talk about her yard, would she be told about her “brown doors” or whatever? No, because its cringe worthy.

helimachoptor

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Nope. His "bull in a china shop" attitude precipitated the trouble on this forum, and the decision by Urban Sea to close his account.

Yes, if they actively contributed to, and participated in the forum.

Yes. If an off-topic thread does exactly what it says on the tin.

I'm sorry but I do not understand this sentence.

He came into help convert actively mod the forum.
Convert doesnt need to actively post, with a non mod hat on, if i was female i wouldnt post in a forum where there was a view of acceptable sexist comments like there seems to be in this forum.

Off topic doesnt mean off the reservation, the off topic threads are still subject to the rules of the forum and of boards.ie

On the last one, sorry auto correct seems to have done me over :pac:

should have been " if so i am 100% wrong" i.e you all love beasty

helimachoptor

@ imhof, good post very well thought out

kksaints

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Here’s two feedback suggestions in before the lock (which I’d say will be soon) –

Open a horse racing sub forum on the gambling forum for all punting talk. As someone else put it recently, regular posters such as Colonel Sanders were really just punters with an interest in racing as a gambling medium. That is not a criticism, Colonel was clearly a disciplined and skilled punter and form student, not a betting shop bore or compulsive case.

Then amalgamate what’s left in relation to breeding, the price of national hunt stores, syndication etc into the equestrian forum. The vast majority of the posters on this forum have no meaningful input on non-punting subjects anyway.

I haven’t been posting at all much on the site recently due mainly to being sickened by the atmosphere in the racing forum – specifically the vitriol directed at jockeys, owners, trainers, bookies, racecourse managers and TV pundits. People claiming Irish jump racing is a total joke because of small fields at Punchestown or conspiracy theories about Ballydoyle’s early season running plans. The abuse Shark Hanlon took from the keyboard warrior trainers in the Hidden Cyclone thread was really low. All this is coming nearly exclusively from posters who openly admit they have no first-hand knowledge of the subject, never ridden a horse, never even thrown on a head collar. Yet they can tell Mick Fitz he is a clueless yokel.

The other thing is the misogyny. The points being made recently about how this is a male dominated forum and how covert is unsuitable to mod the lads smacks of the betting shop scenario with the exclusively male clientele. I would guess punters are at least 90% male while people working in the racing industry would be about 60/40 male female. If this forum is 99% male that just proves this is basically a gambling forum.

In relation to the “humour”, if Rebecca Curtis came on to post on this forum to talk about her yard, would she be told about her “brown doors” or whatever? No, because its cringe worthy.

There already is one maybe more posts need to be moved there.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1384

Have to disagree with some of the next bolded bit. While the language might have been a bit strong in some of the cases, all the points mentioned are worth discussing, a lot of them are discussed in the Racing Post and other publications so why wouldnt we discusse them as well. Some of this post smacks of "well if you never did it you shouldnt have an opinion on it".

Wont disagree re the misogyny point too much. It went out of control a good bit before Convert started clamping down on it.

Slattsy

helimachoptor wrote: »

@ imhof, good post very well thought out

I thought it was rubbish

Basically he disagrees with peoples opinions and wont post.
Open discussion on the internet isnt for him then if he feels "sickened" by some of it.
Hyperbole comes to mind.

Imhof Tank

Would this kind of cr*p not sicken anyone?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89268917&postcount=1682



This post was actually thanked by Urban Sea

Imhof Tank

Slattsy wrote: »

I thought it was rubbish

Basically he disagrees with peoples opinions and wont post.
Open discussion on the internet isnt for him then if he feels "sickened" by some of it.
Hyperbole comes to mind.

You mustn't have read the post. I made 2 feedback suggestions and then followed some general observations.

Have you any feedback suggestions of your own or what? Or do you think move along please, nothing to see here, the forum is fine.

Slattsy

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Would this kind of cr*p not sicken anyone?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89268917&postcount=1682



This post was actually thanked by Urban Sea

Fair enough, you like him as a pundit, others dont. I dont think he should have any input on the flat, but he's a bit hit and miss but dont mind him generally.

Genuine question - Would you mind as much if someone slated say Nick Luck like that?

Slattsy

Imhof Tank wrote: »

You mustn't have read the post. I made 2 feedback suggestions and then followed some general observations.

Have you any feedback suggestions of your own or what? Or do you think move along please, nothing to see here, the forum is fine.

Read the thread.

Imhof Tank

Slattsy wrote: »

Fair enough, you like him as a pundit, others dont. I dont think he should have any input on the flat, but he's a bit hit and miss but dont mind him generally.

Genuine question - Would you mind as much if someone slated say Nick Luck like that?

Its irrelevant whether I like him as a pundit. All I know is that he has won nearly everything in a long career and deserves a lot more respect than that sort of contribution and the thanks for it.

Harry Angstrom

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Its irrelevant whether I like him as a pundit. All I know is that he has won nearly everything in a long career and deserves a lot more respect than that sort of contribution and the thanks for it.

He was a very good jockey but he's a very poor commentator. He contributes nothing, apart from platitudinous cliches.

Beasty

OK, let me have my say on this as so many posters seem to place a lot of blame at my feet.

I have deliberately stayed out of this thread as I suspected any contribution I made would cause a reaction. This may still happen, but I would certainly prefer it if posters can remain calm and try and see this as my attempt to explain a bit of background to how we got to where we are.

I first became aware of certain problems with this forum perhaps just under a year ago. There was a sexist undertone with some posters and one certainly received a permanent siteban for posting porn that was particularly degrading to women

I had discussions with the mod team. One of our roles as CMods is to help out when required, and I then became aware of issues with certain posters re-regging to circumvent forum bans. Where the Admins could prove a link sitebans were applied. Where they could not all we could do was keep an eye on potential trouble posters. Unfortunately a number of posters took it upon themselves to try and "out" potential re-regs in the open forum. There was a tendency for posters to comment on modding matters and just over 6 months ago I posted a sticky asking posters to report their suspicions and leave the modding to the mods. Given the scale of issues I had witnessed and following discussion with the mod team I stated that I would be sticking around the forum, and since then I have basically done so.

Unfortunately despite the best efforts of the mod team the forum continued to suffer from a tendency of posters to take things into their own hands and I stepped in again

Now turning to the World Cup. I initially noticed a thread dedicated to the World Cup. I closed that thread stating that this was essentially off-topic for the Horse Racing forum. Imagine the outrage if someone started a Horse Racing thread in the Soccer forum. Again though someone thought rather than PM'ing me to discuss the matter they would make comments about the modding in the off topic thread, and I dealt with that post

The soccer talk then migrated to the Off topic thread. I had no fundamental issue with a few comments being made but did have a concern that soccer talk would take over the thread. So basically I asked posters not to allow this to happen. To be absolutely clear though I never banned any World Cup or other soccer talk from that thread (although I acknowledge I did threaten it if the excessive World Cup talk continued). UrbanSea made a post which included a comment about Brazil. In other circumstances it was a completely innocuous post, but I felt it was contradicting the message I was trying to convey so I deleted it. Before I even had chance to discuss this with UrbanSea I received a PM from another user which mentioned he had closed his account, which was a complete surprise to me. That though meant I was going to be even more active in the forum to support the one other mod still in place

The off-topic thread did become dominated by World Cup talk for a while. However I did not take action against anyone as it was typically posters commenting on who they were betting on. However I did comment when the thread became almost a running commentry of the first match and given my prior warnings issued 2 yellow cards (since revoked). Unfortunately though there were further in-thread comments about the modding which resulted in bans being issued.

Now to be absolutely clear despite my (and convert's) repeated warnings over the past 6 months, only one poster had at that stage approached me to discuss the whole matter.

By the time I got up the following morning I had another PM, and a Feedback thread in the Feedback forum had commenced. Tom PM'd me and we agreed between us and convert to allow a dedicated thread as well as this feedback thread for the forum

Now in an ideal world things would not have blown up like this. Unfortunately the world is not ideal, and sometimes we don't have the time to respond to comments, or something else crops up. I will hold up my hands and acknowledge things could have been done differently and for the better certainly in the short term. Would this then have blown up? Possibly not now, but I suspect based on what I have seen in the forum over the past year there was every chance there would be another trigger point at some time, as there certainly were, and in some cases still are, a small number of posters that simply want the forum run "their way" which is not in line with what happens elsewhere on the site

Imhof Tank

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

He was a very good jockey but he's a very poor commentator. He contributes nothing, apart from platitudinous cliches.

OK, his ability as a pundit is matter of opinion.

But do you not agree that aggressive abuse like that is bad for the forum?

Harry Angstrom

Imhof Tank wrote: »

OK, his ability as a pundit is matter of opinion.

But do you not agree that aggressive abuse like that is bad for the forum?

Not unless Mick Fitz reads it himself, which I doubt he ever will.

Gavin "shels"

kksaints wrote: »

Actually whats the policy for reporting suspected banned users reregs? I reported a user a few months ago whos post matched a notorious trouble maker on this forum. I was then told by a mod in a PM that they had no proof so couldn't actually deal with it.

This needs to be addressed badly, it was clear your man had about 4 re-regs going by his writing alone here!

Harry Angstrom

Gavin shels wrote: »

This needs to be addressed badly, it was clear your man had about 4 re-regs going by his writing alone here!

60% of the time, he was right 100% of the time

Imhof Tank

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Not unless Mick Fitz reads it himself, which I doubt he ever will.

Thin end of the wedge.

It creates an aggressive atmosphere with posters feeling able to go absolutely nuclear with the abuse the next time a ride or a piece of analysis doesn't measure up to their own high standards

Harry Angstrom

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Thin end of the wedge.

It creates an aggressive atmosphere with posters feeling able to go absolutely nuclear with the abuse the next time a ride or a piece of analysis doesn't measure up to their own high standards

I have yet to come across a racing forum/website which doesn't contain harsh words towards jockeys, trainers, pundits, tipsters and commentators. Tis the nature of the beast.