-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Abuse.
- Thread starter raboner
- Start date
WookieD
Didier Zokora
:lol:
southstand1882
Mitchell Thomas
What about Mick Cooper?
I know this will never be possible and might be frowned upon - but I wish there was a sub-forum similar to the Mods one where 'normal' posters could discuss aspects of the board and its moderators in particular without the Mods having access to it (in the same way us plebs don't have access to theirs)
I feel many posters have a lot to say about these things but cannot do it open air due to fear of prosecution. For example - if 20-30 posters agreed a certain Mod is a bellend - he can be reviewed or something. He can also then look at some of the aspects which bother posters and look to improve. I feel the new Moderators choice decision is hardly democratic while in turn has a massive impact on the rest of the GG population or in other words - 98% of the board.
Perhaps another idea would be an anonymous suggestion box but the IPs would be a problem.
Apologies if this offends anyone
I feel many posters have a lot to say about these things but cannot do it open air due to fear of prosecution. For example - if 20-30 posters agreed a certain Mod is a bellend - he can be reviewed or something. He can also then look at some of the aspects which bother posters and look to improve. I feel the new Moderators choice decision is hardly democratic while in turn has a massive impact on the rest of the GG population or in other words - 98% of the board.
Perhaps another idea would be an anonymous suggestion box but the IPs would be a problem.
Apologies if this offends anyone
raboner
Banned
you needed to add a :lol: to the end of your post.
but really, i like the idea, will never happen though.
Rob
Peter Taylor
Listen, I run a pub and for me abuse isn't something that's measured in syllables and a personal attack isn't someone telling me something I said about my football team is a load of brick. That doesn't mean that if someone oversteps the mark with a load of verbal that I don't tell them to wind their neck in. If they carry on, they're out and they can come back after a degree of time that I set based on what they've done wrong and any previous. Sound familiar? I also get the occasional person telling me it's a public house so they can come in...wrong - I decide who comes in as we run a tight ship. Last of all what most of us understand is that banter is banter and when something is obviously banter then it may overstep what would ordinarily be the boundaries for decency and could very well be construed as people being offensive to each other by a bystander out of the loop. I get the feeling that some people in here wouldn't last five minutes where they can't seem to understand what passes as banter amongst people with a kindred spirit and with certain others it probably wouldn't be long before they started performing and I had to warn them that it'd probably be best for them to find somewhere else to drink before one of the regulars chins them! 
it's simple - everywhere you go has their own house rules and if you don't like them you can fudge off somewhere else that operates more to your personal taste!
Ps I can't even remember who started this thread or the validity of their statement so this is no way aimed at them or anyone else specifically - just my way of thinking....
it's simple - everywhere you go has their own house rules and if you don't like them you can fudge off somewhere else that operates more to your personal taste!Ps I can't even remember who started this thread or the validity of their statement so this is no way aimed at them or anyone else specifically - just my way of thinking....
JerusalemMan
Johnny Morrison
Listen, I run a pub and for me abuse isn't something that's measured in syllables and a personal attack isn't someone telling me something I said about my football team is a load of brick. That doesn't mean that if someone oversteps the mark with a load of verbal that I don't tell them to wind their neck in. If they carry on, they're out and they can come back after a degree of time that I set based on what they've done wrong and any previous. Sound familiar? I also get the occasional person telling me it's a public house so they can come in...wrong - I decide who comes in as we run a tight ship. Last of all what most of us understand is that banter is banter and when something is obviously banter then it may overstep what would ordinarily be the boundaries for decency and could very well be construed as people being offensive to each other by a bystander out of the loop. I get the feeling that some people in here wouldn't last five minutes where they can't seem to understand what passes as banter amongst people with a kindred spirit and with certain others it probably wouldn't be long before they started performing and I had to warn them that it'd probably be best for them to find somewhere else to drink before one of the regulars chins them!
Ps I can't even remember who started this thread or the validity of their statement so this is no way aimed at them or anyone else specifically - just my way of thinking....
=D> =D>
raboner
Banned
Listen, I run a pub and for me abuse isn't something that's measured in syllables and a personal attack isn't someone telling me something I said about my football team is a load of brick. That doesn't mean that if someone oversteps the mark with a load of verbal that I don't tell them to wind their neck in. If they carry on, they're out and they can come back after a degree of time that I set based on what they've done wrong and any previous. Sound familiar? I also get the occasional person telling me it's a public house so they can come in...wrong - I decide who comes in as we run a tight ship. Last of all what most of us understand is that banter is banter and when something is obviously banter then it may overstep what would ordinarily be the boundaries for decency and could very well be construed as people being offensive to each other by a bystander out of the loop. I get the feeling that some people in here wouldn't last five minutes where they can't seem to understand what passes as banter amongst people with a kindred spirit and with certain others it probably wouldn't be long before they started performing and I had to warn them that it'd probably be best for them to find somewhere else to drink before one of the regulars chins them!
Ps I can't even remember who started this thread or the validity of their statement so this is no way aimed at them or anyone else specifically - just my way of thinking....
no emoticon! i am offended. you can't tell people to fudge off. (you can say you're not aiming your post at anyone, but you clearly are)
but really, i don't care. 8-[
Rob
Peter Taylor
:lol: that's just the exact turn of phrase I use to people who constantly moan in the pub. I certainly wouldn't use that sort of language in here :-"
8-[
:getmecoat: <-------- there used to be an emoticon here
Last edited:
thfcsteff
Terry Dyson
Mate,
I know you're having a good laugh at the emoticon suggestion, but seriously, sit back for a minute and tell me you don't think that in CERTAIN situations it wouldn't make sense?
I mean, by all means feel free to disregard the advice. I just thought it was helpful. No worries if you don't mate. again, I think this thread is great as long as it remains a discussion and doesn't descend into something else.
Cheers,
Steff
milo
Jack L. Jones
I don't think that the admin team have ever tried to claim that appointing new admins is a democratic process. We have a chat amongst ourselves about who we think would be good and whether they might be interested. And then approach those that we agree on.
Rob
Peter Taylor
But they do finally admit that General Zod wasn't the best idea...
I never claimed as much - simply made a 'suggestion'
Would it be a wild idea to suggest that once you have short-listed your candidates - perhaps it could done as a public vote in the form with an option to vote for 2-3 out 6 (for example) and see how the general population responds - after all - it would be 'them' who'd inerract with those individuals on a daily basis. Most such polls (on football matters at least) often yield fairly objective results. Even if you discard the findings afterwards - at least it might give you glimpse into the general opinion on a certain individual.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I don't think that the admin team have ever tried to claim that appointing new admins is a democratic process. We have a chat amongst ourselves about who we think would be good and whether they might be interested. And then approach those that we agree on.
raboner
Banned
Steff, i have taken your advice on board and value your post(s) probably the most out of any within this thread..
I was just trying to be funny, i won't quit my day job any time soon haha.
I'm not trying to have a stab at you man.
Take care.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Personally, I would be against that. I think that it could be divisive, undermine whoever was chosen and tinkle off decent posters who don't get chosen.
thingonaspring
Radek Cerny
you can't read the mods forum? pfffffffft. you really are on lock-down, aren't you? the rest of us can...
8-[