Is it time we changed the rules here?

Conbro wrote: »

Well obviously I cant quote any posts that led to interference of moderators as they have been deleted so thats a silly question.

The mods rarely delete posts tbh. What I meant by examples is topics that were locked that you felt shouldn't have been, people who were banned that you think shouldn't have been i.e incidences in which the moderators have acted "too heavy handed". As I said, it's rare for a mod to delete a post, they will in the case of spam but that's about it and surely spam isn't something you want?

Conbro wrote:

However the daily threats, locking of threads and editing carried out by the moderators of this forum is totally at odds with the policy of open and free speech exercised by other forums I visit.

Threats? Examples?
As for locking of threads, examples of threads that you think shouldn't have been locked?
I don't know of one forum that allows "freedom of speech", by doing so one is only asking for trouble. 2+2 certainly does not encourage free speech either.

Conbro wrote:

In my opinion, of course. To say that the forum needs to be policed more heavily is, at best repulsive. If I was going to be honest Im sure I could find a much stronger term.

So people such as DBC should just be allowed carry on with their trollish ways? He remained unbanned for quite a while, due to the lightness of the moderation here (imo), he would have found himself banned from any other forum on the site a lot quicker, so do you think that those types should just be allowed to run amuck until they overstep the line which you determine to be appropriate i.e at racism, perverse?

Conbro wrote:

Light hearted banter and mild personal criticism is too often seized upon by moderators as an opportunity to exercise their personal control over the forum.

They're not exerting "personal control" over the forum. Moderators are comparable to forum janitors, they're here to keep things running smoothly and clean up the crap. Personal abuse is not tolerated anywhere on the site, with the exception (currently though it's under inspection) of the Thunderdome. They're merely enforcing the rules that have been set by the site owners.

Light hearted banter is certainly accomodated on the Poker forum, elsewhere there are more rigid rules about staying on the thread topic but here it's quite lenient. What DBC & co are/were doing was much more than "light hearted banter" though, it was pure thread de-railment, attention whoring and trolling. Of course that's not going to be tolerated, sure look how many people it píssed off!

As I said though, personal abuse isn't tolerated anywhere on the site, although it is to a small extent here given that a lot of people know eachother offline. These aren't forum rules, they're site rules set by the owners of the site and I suppose if you're not happy with their rules, go elsewhere. The majority of people are pretty happy with them though.

Conbro wrote:

In my opinion the members, who make this forum what it is, do not need these discretionary powers further enhanced even if it is at the cost of putting up with some of the more irritating newcomers.

The powers are there already and are at the discretion of the mods to use them, so apart from some kind of entrance system they can do pretty much whatever they feel necessary already, so there's not really any "enhancement" in asking that they clamp down on muppets and trolls.

This is the forum charter and as you can see in the title, ignore it and face a banning.

I don't think there's anything OTT in the charter, and along with the site wide rules the mods are merely here to enforce them and as I said, if someone isn't happy with that they may go elsewhere, there's nothing binding them to the site.

not sure if its my place to say as im only a newbie but you could just introduce the simple yellow/red card system. where if there is an insult made then a yellow sign gets placed beside his name? this way is pretty simple and wouldnt be much hassle to introduce.

just my 2.14cents:)

Conbro wrote: »

Despite the time and effort you spent replying to my post you failed to disrpove or even convincingly reply to any of the points I made.

To be honest, all you've done so far is make claims about the moderators and how the site is ran without any examples to back it up.

Conbro wrote:

Yes they do, take any sample 10 threads and I can assure you that you will find edited materaial. Im not just referring to spam either it seems that moderators intervene totally at their discretion and without any consistency.

Links/examples? I haven't seen anyones posts edited without good reason for it, and even at that it's rare. The most recent example was the mods editing Strewelpeters post to include the name of the source he was quoting, which is protection for the site.

Conbro wrote:

If its a question of allowing a perceived troll to continue participating in this forum, or handing the powers to the moderators to selectively choose who can or cant post on this forum, I know which side of the fence Im on

But they already have that power. They could even overload someones profile with infractions to the point that it automatically site bans them, most won't though because it'd be shady.

So you'd rather a troll went around posting shíte and trying to wind people up, than a moderator stepping in and performing his role here? Might you have a little problem with authority in general perhaps?

Conbro wrote:

. As I said, its an entirely subjective matter whether somebody is trolling or not. Personally Im of the opinion that some of you moderators arent qualified or competent enough in this area to make them decisions.

It's fairly easy to spot a troll tbh, particularly if you've been around a while (as most of the mods have). They can also post in the mod forum asking for advice on how to deal with a user and will have a load of other (and non-poker forum users) opinions on the behaviour of a user and will be able to pass judgement and act accordingly easier.

Conbro wrote:

In case you havnt noticed, the purpose of this thread was to propose stricter requirements on a persons qualifacation to membership of boards.ie. It also suggests giving moderators furthers powers to ban people at their discretion.

They already have the power to ban people at their discretion. If you have a read through feedback, the mods have the power to ban people without having to refer to the forum charter, or for a reason stated in the forum charter.

Conbro wrote:

I maintain that any measure taken, that hands further discretionary power to the authorities of a public frorum where people log on to expresss and debate their views is totally at odds with the spirit and raison d'etre of such a project .

People are free to discuss whatever they want so long as it abides to the site and forum rules, I don't see what the problem here is? It's a privately owned website and as such, the users are expected to conform to the rules and adhere to decisions made by those authorised to make them (i.e the moderators).

Conbro wrote:

And yes they are an enhancement of moderators powers. The current charter sets out guidelines that you the moderators should refer to during decison making process. Discretionary powers would allow you make decisions based on subjective matters and personal feelings.

Indeed, the charter sets out guidelines for users behaviour but everyones also expected to use common sense whilst posting. Again, the charters aren't a strict set of rules of what warrants a ban and it's completely at the moderators discretion how they deal with incidents. There's things that will get you automatically banned, such as posting porn, but things such as personal abuse are at the moderators discretion.

However, you're right in saying that personal feelings shouldn't be brought into it whatsoever. A moderator would be well out of line in banning someone who merely disagreed with their opinion, or taking a side in an argument and acting tougher on those who were on the opposite side.

A lot of forums have a few mods though and this allows one or two to enter a discussion that could be controversial or heated and leave the moderation of said thread/users up to the moderator who isn't taking part in said discussion. Moderators as a whole are expected to remain impartial when making a decision though, and I think you'll find that most, if not all, do.

Also, keep in mind that if you've a problem with a moderator decision, you can always appeal it in either feedback or the helpdesk or if a problem arises between a user and moderator, the cmod or smod can always step in and make a ruling.