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.
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
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 infactBeasty 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
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
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.
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.
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.
helimachoptor wrote: » Beasty is loved
helimachoptor wrote: » You'd welcome a team of female mods
helimachoptor wrote: » You all love the place especially when it's modded to the charter
helimachoptor wrote: » If so them he's I am 100% wrong
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
helimachoptor wrote: » @ imhof, good post very well thought out
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
Harry Angstrom wrote: » He was a very good jockey but he's a very poor commentator. He contributes nothing, apart from platitudinous cliches.
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?
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.
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!
Harry Angstrom wrote: » Not unless Mick Fitz reads it himself, which I doubt he ever will.
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
