S T / B C F C P R

[redrocks]

A quick question:

Has the same company that has been advising BCFC on their Public Relations initiatives now been contracted by the ST?

I have to say that the events of the last few weeks have left me feeling like we need to have this forum moderated by people who are further distanced from the club and who do not feel so emotionally bought-in to the point that their hearts rule their heads.

How it was moderated before was far from perfect, but I definitely feel that it was handled much more professionally than it is now.

Right now it seems some people are running this site like whistle-happy referees with any minor infraction being blown up and the cards being taken out.

In the interests of a more free-flowing game, it would be nice to see a bit of advantage being played from time to time.

[Nibor]

I only know of two recent bannings and both seemed to have decent reasons for them even if the recipients do complain. There may be other incidents I don't know about.

Moderation seems to me to have relaxed since the ST took over, there's less fussing about bad language or adult humour (within limits) which is fine by me.

Perhaps if more than a few users have concerns about moderation it would be worthwhile posting moderation decisions in a forum publically for all to see. I can't imagine that anyone would have a problem with this even if they are on the receiving end.

I do think there are posters on here who suffer from the misconception that they have some sort of freedom of speech right which causes them to be a little too irate about moderation.

[redrocks]

I only know of two recent bannings and both seemed to have decent reasons for them even if the recipients do complain. There may be other incidents I don't know about.

Moderation seems to me to have relaxed since the ST took over, there's less fussing about bad language or adult humour (within limits) which is fine by me.

Perhaps if more than a few users have concerns about moderation it would be worthwhile posting moderation decisions in a forum publically for all to see. I can't imagine that anyone would have a problem with this even if they are on the receiving end.

I do think there are posters on here who suffer from the misconception that they have some sort of freedom of speech right which causes them to be a little too irate about moderation.

To clarify: I am not familiar with the details of the second ban. I do think though that locking all topics where it is discussed is not the right approach to take. Ditto the other banning you mention. Seemingly attempting to sweep things under the carpet is not exactly conducive to creating a sense of openness with the fanbase the ST claims to represent.

[M_Porter]

I shall respond this

Redrocks-

The moderation of this forum is far more relaxed than it has ever been,this in turn has brought the idiots out thus more bans and posts being removed!

People seem more inclined to (how shall i put it) take the mick now, and see how far they can push us (BCST) this of course then ends up with more locked topics and more bans.

keeping topics open about peoples bans just causes more problems so why not lock them?

There are to my knowledge no advisors telling the mods etc what can and cant go on in here..

And one last point,yes I'm an active BCST member but that dosnt mean i agree with a lot of the moding decisions because i don't and they know it,but if you have a resonable greivence they will listen that i can assure you of

Thanks

Mark

[Maesknoll Red]

I feel the need to point out that the facts disprove ljpworld's point that more posts are removed and bans handed out. For those that don't know, I have been involved in Admin and Moderation of this forum for several years now, so have experience of both regimes.

Many less posts are removed now than when the club controlled the forum, also less posters banned.

I have cleaned up the word filters, removing many words and all of the condescending "I tried to type a naughty word" type overwrites. Text talk and the most offensive swear words remain in the filters. I am well aware that this is a football forum and there should be room for serious discussion of matters relevent to the club / team, but also there should be space for banter and fun and I will endeavour to make sure it's not overly moderated.

It's worth remembering that Tom, Madger and myself are not involved in the ST, so there are contacts other than those involved in the ST.

The process which involves banning anyone for more than a month or so, involves a discussion and a vote on the length of ban - quite often with widely varying views - this didn't happen when the club controlled the forum. That's not a criticisim of Adam or anyone else from the club, it was their official forum and needed to present the right image fior the club.

Hopefully, the need for such discussions will not crop up too often.

I am also cleaning up the warn logs, removing all warnings over 12 months old (if I haven't done yours yet, I will get there, so please be patient).

I am at a loss as to how anyone can honestly claim the forum is over moderated, given the forums aim of being representative of the whole fanbase, kids included.

If anyone feels they have been unfairly treated, I am more than happy to listen and if necessary, act, and I speak for all the Admin & Mod team on this point.

Chris

[worthyred]

From a personal point of view, my experience of the way this forum is now being moderated has absolutely ensured that my plans to join and support the ST are now shelved.

[tompo]

Apart from some minor changes very little has changed in the way this forum is run since the ST took over running it.

The main changes are in moderation itself which appears to be more relaxed and in those who actually do the modding.

Some of the mods are ST members and are fairly new at the job but the admin team who were all involved long before the ST took over comprises two people from Clik and two other long standing forum users who were mods when OTIB was "official". I don't know if any of the admin team has joined the ST. I do know that at least one has not joined and respect his reasons for not doing so.

Personally I think it is a good thing that the more experienced people on the moderating team have a degree of separation from the ST as that they may see things from a different perspective and will be able to present an independent view of things.

The day to day running of the forum including disciplinary matters is carried out by the team comprising the admin guys and the mods. They all give their time and efforts freely. Prior to that the club's media department were involved in the day to day business of the forum. That meant it was costing the club in terms of money and staff resources to keep this forum going.

The ST is not only saving the club money which can now be spent elsewhere but it is also freeing up the staff resources of BCFC employees who can now be concentrating on other things.

Given the choice of letting the club run it at a cost to BCFC or the ST run it for no cost to BCFC then I know which choice I would go for.

[CGS RED]

Much to do about nothing, seven posts not mentioning richieb's ban by name. That in itself is a travisty of justice, or absence of justice.

I have received copies of emails etc covering the points of view from Clik, ST Mods, and richieb. In effect the original legal threat from Brian Tinnion via a friend on the forum is now null and void. Brians future employment via richieb's adverse comments is a non issue, Brian is moving to Spain and leaving Gt Britain.

The situation as such is open for review, both legally and morally. I would suggest the situation be put to rest, and richieb have his ban be removed on say July 1st 2006.

This would put the ST Forum in a good light of pragmatic moderation, and indeed richieb's supporters the knowledge that the forum is open to the effects of changing circumstance.

I would strongly suggest that richieb and others be given the opportunity to sign a properly constructed affadavit at their expense. The affadavit qualifying their acceptance of forum rules, and abiding by them for all future referance.

[Thornbury Red]

Theres a post on the front page - steve lansdown - which has been locked presumably because their was criticism of the ST in it.

To me thats over-moderation.

[Nibor]

Sounds like rather than a genuine concern about moderation in general there is a small group of people who want to try and force the moderation team to change their minds on one particular issue by trying to make it a PR faux pas for the trust.

There is a very clear post from the guy who runs the company that owns this board explaining why he was banned here. There is absolutely no injustice whatsoever, clear warnings were given, and ignored more than once. It's clear that the decision isn't going to change so perhaps just move on?

[RedZepperin]

Sounds like rather than a genuine concern about moderation in general there is a small group of people who want to try and force the moderation team to change their minds on one particular issue by trying to make it a PR faux pas for the trust.

There is a very clear post from the guy who runs the company that owns this board explaining why he was banned here. There is absolutely no injustice whatsoever, clear warnings were given, and ignored more than once. It's clear that the decision isn't going to change so perhaps just move on?

In order to get a clearer idea of how representatives of the Supporters' Trust view this situation, it would be helpful if one of them stated that he or she was happy with the outcome of this affair, namely:

1. A top poster has been banned for a year despite not having broken any forum rule.

2. This poster has no right to appeal.

3. He will be banned for life on return as soon as he makes an "inappropriate comment". Again, with no right to appeal.

Regurgitating the different steps that took place on the road to this appalling balls-up and posting links to websites which discuss forum libel cases is not enough.

Once a reasonable statement of this nature is received from the people who run this Forum (i.e. the Supporters Trust) then I'm sure we can all "move on".

[Nibor]

1. A top poster has been banned for a year despite not having broken any forum rule.

2. This poster has no right to appeal.

3. He will be banned for life on return as soon as he makes an "inappropriate comment". Again, with no right to appeal.

I'm nothing to do with the ST at the moment but I'd say the answers are pretty bloody obvious.

1. You don't need a rule to cope with something covered as a matter of law. He was told twice before his ban not to do exactly what he did.

2. He has already used his right of appeal, which clik aren't obliged to give anyone. Like I said, no freedom of speech, it is a myth.

3. I imagine that inappropriate means if he repeats the allegations that were the cause of the company that owns this site being threatened with legal action.

I must say I'm amused that you're aiming this at the ST. They're on the moderation team sure but it was clik who had the final say and who are the ones liable. SC member by any chance?

[RedZepperin]

[shepton red]

I do not wish to get drawn into this. However, as far as I am aware the ST members manage this site as volunteers, in thier own time for the benefit of other supporters, they seem to be fairly pragmatic in their approach to policing. Basically if you believe that you can do a better job perhaps in stead of whinging about their policies you offer to assist. Here endeth the lesson.

[Nibor]

[RedZepperin]

I think there's more to this than crying injustice because one poster is banned, I think there's a very obvious anti-ST agenda and I note you didn't say whether you are a member of the SC?

This debate is all about whether the recent libel scare was managed correctly. If it wasn't, lessons should be learned for the future and the real conditions of the ban should be clarified. The Supporters Trust run this forum, Nibor. You know that. Saying that they run it in tandem with a hosting company is a poor attempt at a cop-out.

I note that you are trying to personalise and side-track the debate. Frankly, I'm not interested.

[Nibor]

This debate is all about whether the recent libel scare was managed correctly. If it wasn't, lessons should be learned for the future and the real conditions of the ban should be clarified. The Supporters Trust run this forum, Nibor. You know that. Saying that they run it in tandem with a hosting company is a poor attempt at a cop-out.

I note that you are trying to personalise and side-track the debate. Frankly, I'm not interested.

I've said before that they should amend the rules to add that posting libellous comments is cause for a ban for clarity but to suggest that Richie didn't understand the consequences as you have above is laughable.

Clik had the final say, they have the expertise in liability on forums, they run many of them. That's hardly a cop out and it should be obvious from the title and first post EXACTLY what this debate is about - it certainly isn't what you suggest. I'm not personalising the debate at all, I'm questioning your target and your motives for picking it. To aim this entirely at the ST makes your real motives obvious to everyone.

[Dan C]

and I note you didn't say whether you are a member of the SC?

I'm not a member of the Sc and never will be. I'm on RichieB side here as I believe the punishment is too harsh.

However I understand the St/Clik are in a awkward position here but I feel a 3-6 month ban would have been appropiate and we wouldn't always have posts like this popping up here or on other forums.

[RedZepperin]

I'm not personalising the debate at all, I'm questioning your target and your motives for picking it.

Whether or not I am a member of the Supporters Club has no bearing on the validity of my argument. My motive is, believe it or not, a desire for things to be done properly. The fact that the "justifications" for the libel scare debacle have been so contradictory and bad-tempered leads me to the conclusion that the situation was not managed well. Thus my desire for corrective action to be taken and for lessons to be learned.

To aim this entirely at the ST makes your real motives obvious to everyone.

I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at. If you would like to move from innuendo to open accusation I might be able to help.

[Nibor]

I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at. If you would like to move from innuendo to open accusation I might be able to help.

That's ok, I'm sure the first post in this thread makes it obvious to everyone else.

[RedZepperin]

That's ok, I'm sure the first post in this thread makes it obvious to everyone else.

How can you hold me responsible for what was written in that post?

[redrocks]

That's ok, I'm sure the first post in this thread makes it obvious to everyone else.

Actually, the main catalyst to me writing this particular post was the closing of the "SL/BRFC flag" thread after a couple of slightly off-topic quips were found unamusing by someone or other. That and the other one on the Non-Footy Forum where Ron's ban was being discussed. The actual bans themselves were brought up by you Nibor. I then clarified what I was referring to specifically.

Please let me know if I need to spell this out a bit more.

[worthyred]

Sounds like rather than a genuine concern about moderation in general there is a small group of people who want to try and force the moderation team to change their minds on one particular issue by trying to make it a PR faux pas for the trust.

There is a very clear post from the guy who runs the company that owns this board explaining why he was banned here. There is absolutely no injustice whatsoever, clear warnings were given, and ignored more than once. It's clear that the decision isn't going to change so perhaps just move on?

Nice generalisation but you have (as usual) got it completely wrong, I have no knowledge of or connection with Richieb or the ST. My problem lies with the overbearing moderation when people are trying to debate certain subjects that are 'Not Tolerated' by the moderators on here. Things (despite what certain ST posters say on here) have got markedly worse since they have taken over the running of this forum. Yes they are 'volunteers' but that doesn't take away their responsibilty to ensure freedom of speech, sadly this is a thing of the past on here.

[Maesknoll Red]

My problem lies with the overbearing moderation when people are trying to debate certain subjects that are 'Not Tolerated' by the moderators on here.

Care to list the subjects.

[zookeeper]

but that doesn't take away their responsibilty to ensure freedom of speech, sadly this is a thing of the past on here.

I don't think they have a responsibility to ensure freedom of speech but I'm more than certain that they have a responsibility to ensure that no libalous comments are posted.

Also I got the impression that Nibor wasn't responding to your comment so can't really see how he got it wrong.

[worthyred]

Care to list the subjects.

Talk to your fellow mods about a pm i was sent last week.

I don't think they have a responsibility to ensure freedom of speech but I'm more than certain that they have a responsibility to ensure that no libalous comments are posted.

Also I got the impression that Nibor wasn't responding to your comment so can't really see how he got it wrong.

Sounds like rather than a genuine concern about moderation in general there is a small group of people who want to try and force the moderation team to change their minds on one particular issue by trying to make it a PR faux pas for the trust.

Does that answer it for you?

[Nibor]

Nice generalisation but you have (as usual) got it completely wrong, I have no knowledge of or connection with Richieb or the ST. My problem lies with the overbearing moderation when people are trying to debate certain subjects that are 'Not Tolerated' by the moderators on here. Things (despite what certain ST posters say on here) have got markedly worse since they have taken over the running of this forum. Yes they are 'volunteers' but that doesn't take away their responsibilty to ensure freedom of speech, sadly this is a thing of the past on here.

Since you're so keen to avoid generalisations, how about listing the topics that have been locked or deleted and we can actually debate why rather than posting a stupid throwaway line tarnishing the whole ST?

I think you'll find the reason the one on this page was locked was because the same people having numerous digs at the ST in this thread (which hasn't been locked) started turning it to the topic of a recent banning. And the mods policy is they won't discuss individual people's accounts in public.

I'd love to hear all your other surely numerous examples of this hugely overbearing moderation, I'm sure you've got a massive comprehensive list to backup your obviously valid complaint. Really.

[Maesknoll Red]

Talk to your fellow mods about a pm i was sent last week.

No, I'm asking you, in full view of all forum members to list me your grievances. As I have no knowledge of the PM you mention.

[worthyred]

Since you're so keen to avoid generalisations, how about listing the topics that have been locked or deleted and we can actually debate why rather than posting a stupid throwaway line tarnishing the whole ST?

I think you'll find the reason the one on this page was locked was because the same people having numerous digs at the ST in this thread (which hasn't been locked) started turning it to the topic of a recent banning. And the mods policy is they won't discuss individual people's accounts in public.

I'd love to hear all your other surely numerous examples of this hugely overbearing moderation, I'm sure you've got a massive comprehensive list to backup your obviously valid complaint. Really.

Complete idiot.

No, I'm asking you, in full view of all forum members to list me your grievances. As I have no knowledge of the PM you mention.

Well maybe I should take the line of the mod who sent me a pm, my version would be 'My opinions are not for debate and I will not tolerate you questioning them' This thread would then be deleted, get my drift?

[Nibor]

Complete idiot.

I'll take it you're incapable of actually arguing your case then. Unsurprising.