Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
thread removed
- Thread starter littlehampton seagull
- Start date
- Aug 8, 2005
- 27,230
Apologies everyone. I moved both threads because at a quick glance I thought they were speculating and in danger of getting Bozza into trouble. He has moved then back having had time to review them fully which I didn't.
As he says we can't be reviewing every single post and sometimes it's easier to move the thread and review it fully.
Better to be safe than sorry at the moment.
As he says we can't be reviewing every single post and sometimes it's easier to move the thread and review it fully.
Better to be safe than sorry at the moment.
Last edited:
Big Brother is watching NSC folks. We try to minimise the modding, honest!
GingerBeerMan
3-0
- Dec 29, 2011
- 8,205
In my opinion you shouldn't have to apologise for modding. Must take a little bit of time.
ees complicated no?
New member
Made the right choice IMO, that threat was going down a dangerous route.
Goldstone Rapper
Rediffusion PlayerofYear
Thank you for explaining, Giraffe.
I think a lot of misunderstanding can happen when mods remove a thread because of what might be said in a thread. When it is removed, it is understandable that many users think a thread has been removed because of what has actually been said. When participants of a thread assess that nothing at all libellous has been said, then it is very easy to conclude that mods are somehow being heavy-handed and suppressing healthy debate.
Perhaps, if you remove a thread, even temporarily, it may be worth clarifying why in Moderating Decisions, to prevent this kind of misunderstanding. What do you think?
littlehampton seagull
Banned
- Thread starter
- #88
What planet are you on?
ees complicated no?
New member
Was meant to say thread -_- my bad.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Leave me out of this.
A few years ago, I did have a misunderstanding with Richard Hebberd, which was based on what turned out to be his belief that I might have intervened when an NSC user posted an abusive message about an identifiable employee at the Club. Once he realised that I was on holiday at the time and had never even seen the post, let alone failed to intervene, all issues were resolved. This was in the Withdean days.
Since we've been at Falmer, Richard Hebberd and I have worked together amicably and productively (on disabled transport issues in particular) and there are no issues whatsoever between us.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
I removed the Littlehampton Gazette thread, following a phone call from Lenny Rider, drawing my attention to the fact that the thread contained several posts which were clearly libellous. And I mean "clearly" libellous. My caller, of course, had had experience of being sent solicitors' letters by the Club (in the Archer days) and didn't wish a similar experience to hit Bozza.
hitony
Administrator
It actually takes up quite a bit of time, but we all do it for the good of NSC which in a few isolated cases is not appreciated, yes of course there is the odd occasion that we might make a mistake but anything we do, its always possible to rectify it.
I for one am pleased at Bozzas response a little bit back in this thread, the large amount of crap thrown at us is totally uncalled for, but of course when you look at the abuse from the individuals and then do a bit of research you always find that particular Moderator has given that member a ban / infraction, which of course in many cases will cause bad feeling from the person receiving it.
Also I / we do receive quite a few PMs asking us to deal with certain threads, ideally please use the report button, but if you do want to do it by way of a PM, PLEASE do give us a link to it, we do not patrol every post on every thread, and sadly it is not our full time jobs that pay our wages!
Fair enough. Thanks for that, had been enjoying the thread and disappeared to the cricket for the day and then couldn't find it....... No problem, thanks for clarifying.
hitony
Administrator
Thank you for explaining, Giraffe.
I think a lot of misunderstanding can happen when mods remove a thread because of what might be said in a thread. When it is removed, it is understandable that many users think a thread has been removed because of what has actually been said. When participants of a thread assess that nothing at all libellous has been said, then it is very easy to conclude that mods are somehow being heavy-handed and suppressing healthy debate.
Perhaps, if you remove a thread, even temporarily, it may be worth clarifying why in Moderating Decisions, to prevent this kind of misunderstanding. What do you think?[/QUOTE]
From a personal point of view, I think not, basically it will invariably cause a binfest, some will always find a reason / argument as to why it should not have been removed, I for one am not sitting there for ages trying to explain in a secondary thread why I have removed a thread.
That said maybe it would be possible if it were done like the "Moderators Decisions" section is based, where we give a brief explanation as to why a member has been banned but the thread does not offer a right of reply (apart from Mods of course)
Return of the Rev
Well-known member
Where's my thread about how much fruit you can put in your mouth at once
?
?
Last edited:
Which in itself is worrying. I'm obviously not going to speculate at who these great overseers are BUT is a fans forum for a mostly middle of the road football club and which contains the views of a very small percentage of said clubs fans REALLY that much to get your knickers in a twist about ? These overseers must have a lot of spare time on their hands.
Last edited:
Goldstone Rapper
Rediffusion PlayerofYear
From a personal point of view, I think not, basically it will invariably cause a binfest, some will always find a reason / argument as to why it should not have been removed, I for one am not sitting there for ages trying to explain in a secondary thread why I have removed a thread.
That said maybe it would be possible if it were done like the "Moderators Decisions" section is based, where we give a brief explanation as to why a member has been banned but the thread does not offer a right of reply (apart from Mods of course)
Yes, I wouldn't expect a right of reply, because of the reasons you give. But some kind of notice would be welcome. I think it would also be helpful for users to hear of examples of what kind of thread is liable to being removed, as it might inform their posting actions, which may make moderating less time-consuming.
And as Westdene Seagull says that is very worrying. The managerial merry go round has been in full rotation this season, I wonder how many of our rivals have seen fit to monitor their Internet forums? Say what you like about Knight and Perry, in those days the fans knew what was going at the club.
We may have finished fourth this season yet it has turned out to be the ultimate season to forget. The summer csn't last long enough for me.
The overseers tend to be:
1: Google Adwords
2: People connected with the club (or used to be connected with the club) with an axe to grind.
3: People on NSC (or used to be on NSC) with an axe to grind
4: Other Albion fan related websites
5: People whose personal details have been mentioned on NSC.
Thanks for clarifying - my post really wasn't a fishing trip to get this info !
But as you've posted :
1. Fair enough - NSC needs the cash
2. They should be told to Foxtrot Oscar - NSC should be entirely independent - the club might not like it but tough ( Archer didn't like fans views much either ! ).
3. See point 2.
4. See point 3.
5. Entirely understandable that personal details shouldn't be published without the consent of the person in question.