Talking Footy

King-Eliagh wrote:

I want proof swines was in the army. Otherwise he's just bullshittin

I was in the Army reserve at 28th field Battery 7th field Regiment Dee Why 1983 gunner,
I was at 2/10 field regiment, 22nd field Battery Dandenong - 1991 gunner. I never claimed to have been a Soldier - that was what you labelled me after our argument on your thread declaring that NZ should have been represented at the Collingwood v Essendon match! I just didn't disagree with you, I have played in the La Trobe Valley for Maffra RL Club (league now defunct), I played AFL on the Noth Shore played Nth Shore U19's, Newtown. Have played I
AF in Victoria as well but I don't use ANY of these facts to qualify myself as some sort of expert like you do on AF in Sydney - now tell us where you played and in what position!

Xman wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

Oh ok but you get my drift. It was just an example Xman.

But on that matter. Why cant members discuss moderation publicly? We each have a stake in the site and deserve to discuss issues at hand. The lack of transparency you're suggesting paves the way for corruption and lies to dominate, as apparently they have been prior to the members revolt.

Members should be able to discuss their concerns. If mods and admin have nothing to hide they would be happy with this.

You have a right to complain, but not to openly undermine people who are trying their best to ensure the site functions appropriately. It isnt tolerated on any forum I know, and rightly so. Keep your issues private between yourself and the mods

This point sadly needs to be reinforced. I'm sorry if this is not to some peoples liking, but I do not agree with moderators actions being discussed publicly. As can be seen in here, it appears to be a tactic utlised by some to undermine a moderator. A moderators position and decision making process should never be called into question publicly. They have the mod role in the first place to make the difficult decisions and as far as I'm concerned should not be second guessed. I cannot think of any site/forum where such a practice is tolerated. As Xman rightly points out though, one can always complain to a mod or admin privately by reporting an issue. Undermining people who are doing what is a tough and often thankless gig is simply not on. Back seat moderating must cease now (KE in particular, you're skating on very thin ice... take this as a warning).

Xman, who I feel for in all this, has my total support in deleting anything that strays off topic or starts getting too personal. If he thinks a suspension or ban is warranted then so be it too. I don't understand why this point has to be said repeatedly, this is a forum to fight/argue about the footy codes and have some fun. Stop taking things so personally and stick to the theme of the forum please. It's ridiculous that this point needs to be pointed out repeatedly. Enough is enough.

Getting back on to the topic at hand, I don't agree with claims having to be backed up. It's just my opinion, but in my mind such a policy would be virtually impossible to police. Simply pointing out with one's own links (reputable sources) should be enough in my mind and the minds of other members reading - who is right and who if full of shit. From that point we can all sit back and laugh at the ridiculous claims some make in here and use them against that member to point out their stupidity. That's part of the fun of TFC isn't it?

Xman wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

Aw don't have a sook now. Seriously, you've not responded to private reports so why should I not openly criticise?

Guys its clear Xman needs some help as moderator of TFC. I currently have some time so, only if no one else wants the gig, I'm happy to co-moderate the Fc with Xman. But personally I don't really want the gig nor see myself doing it full time. So I'd like to recommend aflcrap1 to the role. He's a very fair chap and has shown his worth. But if he or no others are happy to do it im happy to jump in, consolidate some rules with membership, show how they should be enforced and then pass on the baton.

:D

I'm fine if AFLc wants to mod, but its up to Beaussie

Hmm, what do others think? I've always been open to the idea of an AFL and NRL fan as mods in TFC. Personally think it would strike a nice balance. Sadly no reasonable NRL supporters have expressed an interest or have the time, despite the offer being put out there. Just my opinion but if you were keen AFLc, would you consider a username change to address any perceived bias your current username may suggest to our AFL friends in here?

Absolutely oppose AFLC being a moderator, and I think I won't be the only one. Even though he hasn't been here long I suggest Cracker due to his neutrality.

That said - I'm done on TFC. Too much BS which hopefully will now settle down.

Beaussie wrote:

Xman wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

Oh ok but you get my drift. It was just an example Xman.

But on that matter. Why cant members discuss moderation publicly? We each have a stake in the site and deserve to discuss issues at hand. The lack of transparency you're suggesting paves the way for corruption and lies to dominate, as apparently they have been prior to the members revolt.

Members should be able to discuss their concerns. If mods and admin have nothing to hide they would be happy with this.

You have a right to complain, but not to openly undermine people who are trying their best to ensure the site functions appropriately. It isnt tolerated on any forum I know, and rightly so. Keep your issues private between yourself and the mods

This point sadly needs to be reinforced. I'm sorry if this is not to some peoples liking, but I do not agree with moderators actions being discussed publicly. As can be seen in here, it appears to be a tactic utlised by some to undermine a moderator. A moderators position and decision making process should never be called into question publicly. They have the mod role in the first place to make the difficult decisions and as far as I'm concerned should not be second guessed. I cannot think of any site/forum where such a practice is tolerated. As Xman rightly points out though, one can always complain to a mod or admin privately by reporting an issue. Undermining people who are doing what is a tough and often thankless gig is simply not on. Back seat moderating must cease now (KE in particular, you're skating on very thin ice... take this as a warning).

Xman, who I feel for in all this, has my total support in deleting anything that strays off topic or starts getting too personal. If he thinks a suspension or ban is warranted then so be it too. I don't understand why this point has to be said repeatedly, this is a forum to fight/argue about the footy codes and have some fun. Stop taking things so personally and stick to the theme of the forum please. It's ridiculous that this point needs to be pointed out repeatedly. Enough is enough.

Getting back on to the topic at hand, I don't agree with claims having to be backed up. It's just my opinion, but in my mind such a policy would be virtually impossible to police. Simply pointing out with one's own links (reputable sources) should be enough in my mind and the minds of other members reading - who is right and who if full of shit. From that point we can all sit back and laugh at the ridiculous claims some make in here and use them against that member to point out their stupidity. That's part of the fun of TFC isn't it?

Thank you for this response to my contact message, Beaussie. This is highly instructive and covers most of what I addressed with you most admirable. I note that by insinuation that King Eliagh is on a final warning on his behaviour, and I appreciate the action.

I also appreciate the notes regarding personal abuse. There are ways to "lay the smack down" as another member put it without being personal.

And I certainly accept your opposition argument to enforcing claims to be backed up. It would be hard to police, although banning the use of Wikipedia and the term "Google it" I think should still be enforced in my opinion.

TLPG, I appreciate your nomination but really I haven't been here long enough to earn such a position. However if Beaussie thinks differently I shall at least consider the offer.

TLPG wrote:

Absolutely oppose AFLC being a moderator, and I think I won't be the only one. Even though he hasn't been here long I suggest Cracker due to his neutrality.

That said - I'm done on TFC. Too much BS which hopefully will now settle down.

I would also nominate Cracker he is able to put his view point across without the need to abuse, considers the others viewpoint and concedes where necessary stands his ground at other times. I have north faith in him being a balanced moderator.

Cracker? He'd be the opposite of the others! Demands too much instead of not enough!!

Giving the mod possie to the MP is the same as giving it to Dave!

Nice to read that Eliagh has FINALLY been jumped on by Beaussie!!

NRLCrap1 wrote:

Cracker? He'd be the opposite of the others! Demands too much instead of not enough!!

Giving the mod possie to the MP is the same as giving it to Dave!

Nice to read that Eliagh has FINALLY been jumped on by Beaussie!!

Well seeing as you are playing Kiddy games .
How ya going LD .Y Y .

I prob don't have time to Mod.
& I wouldn't have the patience to deal with some of the compulsive liars on here .
& I can see why a few of the AFL crowd would not like it .
I have shown them up ,too many times.
Mark or KE would do me for NRL.

AFLcrap1 wrote:

NRLCrap1 wrote:

Cracker? He'd be the opposite of the others! Demands too much instead of not enough!!

Giving the mod possie to the MP is the same as giving it to Dave!

Nice to read that Eliagh has FINALLY been jumped on by Beaussie!!

Well seeing as you are playing Kiddy games .
How ya going LD .Y Y .

I prob don't have time to Mod.
& I wouldn't have the patience to deal with some of the compulsive liars on here .
& I can see why a few of the AFL crowd would not like it .
I have shown them up ,too many times.
Mark or KE would do me for NRL.

Thats a shame. I think you'd be good at it despite our different views.

KE has not shown the maturity to be mod. Mark seems to have very little interest in TFC.

Cracker may be a good suggestion. However, given his recent arrival maybe on a probational term.

Thanks again for your support Beaussie. Note KE, you have already had a warning. The next time you undermine a mod on this site action will result. Its a shame it has come to this but thats the only way this site can run given the combative nature.

I understand Beaussies apprehension to go down this path of deleting claims without proof. There is still a level of subjectivity to this practice which I foresee causing disputes and claims of bias. El Diablo was a classic for doing this on LU. If he didnt like your source he'd simply delete your post without warning or explanation. I tend to agree with Beaussie. People who make baseless claims only embarrass themselves. I don't think we need to police this so strictly. In fact its nice for these claims to be archived for all to see their stupidity.

However, given the overwhelming support for AFLcs proposal can I suggest we give the suggestion a trial. If it appears to be working we will consider keeping it permanently. If it causes too many problems we'll can it.

Now, I'm off on a holiday through France and Switzerland on Tuesday, so I will have limited to no opportunity to police this policy change until the start of April. I may get he odd chance to log in, but certainly nothing significant or frequent. I therefore propose this trial period start in April.

If anyone has serious objections to this proposal you have the rest of March to make your point. Otherwise April 1st will be the official beginning of this new "claims to be supported by a source" trial.

We need another mod quick then! I say Swans!

Swans4ever wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

I want proof swines was in the army. Otherwise he's just bullshittin

I was in the Army reserve at 28th field Battery 7th field Regiment Dee Why 1983 gunner,
I was at 2/10 field regiment, 22nd field Battery Dandenong - 1991 gunner. I never claimed to have been a Soldier - that was what you labelled me after our argument on your thread declaring that NZ should have been represented at the Collingwood v Essendon match! I just didn't disagree with you, I have played in the La Trobe Valley for Maffra RL Club (league now defunct), I played AFL on the Noth Shore played Nth Shore U19's, Newtown. Have played I
AF in Victoria as well but I don't use ANY of these facts to qualify myself as some sort of expert like you do on AF in Sydney - now tell us where you played and in what position!

Jesus Christ, does this bloke have tickets on himself or what?

Swines, I shall respond like yourself and the majority of other AFL supporters. I'm afraid none of that proves jack diddly squat and its clearly just a means to show off and pretend you have some form of knowledge.

I don't buy it for a second. But if I did I would ask...so why weren't you ever sent o/s on service? Were you.... chicken?

Xman wrote:

KE has not shown the maturity to be mod... Note KE, you have already had a warning. The next time you undermine a mod on this site action will result. Its a shame it has come to this but thats the only way this site can run given the combative nature.

And in rebuttle. Xman has not shown the intelligence to be a mod

Note Xman, I only speak the truth.

:_<>

It has already been noted that you have lied more than once, King Eliagh. Or made statements that have not been proven.

How's about you stick your 'note' up your A hole

And please point to where I've lied.

And the same back at ya regarding statements which have not been proven.