Elect a New Moderator

[Miguel Sanchez]

1 minute ago, Zetterlund said:

'P&B out of the loop' thread for this pish I know, but what did they do to get banned?

Said beast after Nizzy told everyone to stop saying beast.

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 minutes ago, Tynieness said:

It was always a permanent ban.  There was no temp ban.  He should stop trying to return using shit aliases and contact Div if he is convinced he was erroneously banned.

Maybe you and your fellow knicker wetters should contact the Parliament about this miscarriage of justice.

Free the beige, boring, decidely average poster can be your motto.

 

 

Intriguing...

[Zetterlund]

I clearly need to start recording the P&B omnibus every Sunday.

[Mark Connolly]

7 minutes ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

Said beast after Nizzy told everyone to stop saying beast.

Keep pushing...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is a phrase that would have been relevant if Nizzy hadn't gone on gardening leave.

[Mark Connolly]

2 minutes ago, Zetterlund said:

I clearly need to start recording the P&B omnibus every Sunday.

That is a brilliant idea for a thread.

[The_Kincardine]

2 minutes ago, Zetterlund said:

I clearly need to start recording the P&B omnibus every Sunday.

Do so and I'd be your arch enemy.

[Zetterlund]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

Do so and I'd be your arch enemy.

Any particular grievance against omnibuses?

[Sergeant Wilson]

Just now, Zetterlund said:

Any particular grievance against omnibuses?

Aye, he walks out in front of them when he's pished.

[Cardinal Richelieu]

25 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

I don't have favourites of anything; Morton aren't even a 'favourite' football team for me. In terms of this site though then I believe that the box-office tag speaks for itself.
 

Chortle. What a treasure. 

[Miguel Sanchez]

You want to know what I think about P&B moderation? I know you don't, but I have things to say that have annoyed me ever since beastgate and I probably need the practice at putting words from my brain into a semi-coherent order.

I've posted on message boards with rules. Clearly defined rules that you have to read before your account registration is confirmed. I've seen the subsequent communities which arise, those that flourish and those that fail. Lots of rules and lots of moderators creates a vastly inflated sense of self-importance among those enforcing the rules. The belief that their position, some sort of symbolisation on their account makes them better than the people they're there to moderate. It happens. I've been a mod on boards like this which is why I know how it happens. It's also why I had absolutely no interest in taking part in that sort of action myself - partly because I would find it very hard to continue posting with people if I was restricting what they were saying all the time, partly because I didn't want to be like the people I was despising, partly because I'm a shitebag. I don't know all the specifics of how the moderation on here works but I know it's 'loose' at best.

Which in turn brings me on to the rules. Comparatively, there are none. The usual big ones like racism are usually dealt with with appropriate gusto, if spambots appear they're dealt with, if something egregious which goes beyond the largely self-policed boundaries of what's deemed acceptable by the collective it's gone. The fact that there's a relatively low turnover of posters (but with a high turnover of accounts) aids this. It maintains expectations, standards. Read P&B for a week or so and you'll see how it can be acceptable to wind up opposing fans if something happens in a game, how it can be acceptable to throw every insult imaginable around in the same measure, how threads aimed at directly provoking hostility are even celebrated when they appear in General Nonsense. It works. It does. If it didn't nobody would be here.

With the lack of rules however the problem comes when someone tries to enforce some. Beastgate is the most obvious recent example given the widespread proliferation of the term previously and the high profile bannings which resulted. You try and tell people not to do something, they revolt. If you refuse any attempt at transparency when telling them, you insult the community you're attempting to moderate. When there's a known enforcement of a range of rules the pushback can be bad enough, when stuff happens with no notice and with seemingly no viable reason or explanation it actively makes the forum a worse place to be. I don't think P&B should have a set of rigidly defined rules that posters should have to follow, but I think there needs to be more clarity in what restrictions do exist.

The posters who enforce what rules there are are important too. I think I said it at the time, how active are moderators as posters on here? Off the top of my head: Nizzy, Reina, keithgy, Mr. X, Tynieness and Thundermonkey. The last of which I only know because someone mentioned him on the page before. How often do you see these people post? How then do you think it will be perceived when they start restricting peoples' posting for reasons which were previously acceptable? Someone as beige and new as me can't know about the legacy of any of these mods (something made even more difficult now by the fact that only the last two years' posts - mostly - contribute to post counts, the most immediately recognisable indication of how active a poster is) but I can see and evaluate the effect of their presence right now.

I don't know the details about any bannings, recent, high profile or historic. I know posters have spoken about warning points and the reasons for them before. I know not every punishable offence warrants warnings before leading to a ban. I certainly do think that more clarity is required from all sides. All this would serve is making this a better place to be. Nobody who posts here and actually cares - contrary to what they'd be likely to tell you - would want any different. I think a better system should be put in place to achieve this. I also don't think there's anyone remotely suitable available for the role though, so who knows what will happen.

[RandomGuy.]

Nobody cares

[Miguel Sanchez]

luv 2 make a long post that's the last one on a page

[Bert Raccoon]

2 minutes ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

You want to know what I think about P&B moderation? I know you don't, but I have things to say that have annoyed me ever since beastgate and I probably need the practice at putting words from my brain into a semi-coherent order.

I've posted on message boards with rules. Clearly defined rules that you have to read before your account registration is confirmed. I've seen the subsequent communities which arise, those that flourish and those that fail. Lots of rules and lots of moderators creates a vastly inflated sense of self-importance among those enforcing the rules. The belief that their position, some sort of symbolisation on their account makes them better than the people they're there to moderate. It happens. I've been a mod on boards like this which is why I know how it happens. It's also why I had absolutely no interest in taking part in that sort of action myself - partly because I would find it very hard to continue posting with people if I was restricting what they were saying all the time, partly because I didn't want to be like the people I was despising, partly because I'm a shitebag. I don't know all the specifics of how the moderation on here works but I know it's 'loose' at best.

Which in turn brings me on to the rules. Comparatively, there are none. The usual big ones like racism are usually dealt with with appropriate gusto, if spambots appear they're dealt with, if something egregious which goes beyond the largely self-policed boundaries of what's deemed acceptable by the collective it's gone. The fact that there's a relatively low turnover of posters (but with a high turnover of accounts) aids this. It maintains expectations, standards. Read P&B for a week or so and you'll see how it can be acceptable to wind up opposing fans if something happens in a game, how it can be acceptable to throw every insult imaginable around in the same measure, how threads aimed at directly provoking hostility are even celebrated when they appear in General Nonsense. It works. It does. If it didn't nobody would be here.

With the lack of rules however the problem comes when someone tries to enforce some. Beastgate is the most obvious recent example given the widespread proliferation of the term previously and the high profile bannings which resulted. You try and tell people not to do something, they revolt. If you refuse any attempt at transparency when telling them, you insult the community you're attempting to moderate. When there's a known enforcement of a range of rules the pushback can be bad enough, when stuff happens with no notice and with seemingly no viable reason or explanation it actively makes the forum a worse place to be. I don't think P&B should have a set of rigidly defined rules that posters should have to follow, but I think there needs to be more clarity in what restrictions do exist.

The posters who enforce what rules there are are important too. I think I said it at the time, how active are moderators as posters on here? Off the top of my head: Nizzy, Reina, keithgy, Mr. X, Tynieness and Thundermonkey. The last of which I only know because someone mentioned him on the page before. How often do you see these people post? How then do you think it will be perceived when they start restricting peoples' posting for reasons which were previously acceptable? Someone as beige and new as me can't know about the legacy of any of these mods (something made even more difficult now by the fact that only the last two years' posts - mostly - contribute to post counts, the most immediately recognisable indication of how active a poster is) but I can see and evaluate the effect of their presence right now.

I don't know the details about any bannings, recent, high profile or historic. I know posters have spoken about warning points and the reasons for them before. I know not every punishable offence warrants warnings before leading to a ban. I certainly do think that more clarity is required from all sides. All this would serve is making this a better place to be. Nobody who posts here and actually cares - contrary to what they'd be likely to tell you - would want any different. I think a better system should be put in place to achieve this. I also don't think there's anyone remotely suitable available for the role though, so who knows what will happen.

 

May I be the first to say

 

 

But seriously 

 

[lionel hutz]

@Mozzamozza for Mod

[jimmy boo]

3 hours ago, 8MileBU said:

 

Barrajag or PC Cabe should be resurrected for this role IMO. Can't see what could possibly go wrong.

 

Where did the PC go he was quite entertaining?

[Miguel Sanchez]

As I recall pccabe's banning was self-requested.

[vikingTON]

I very much doubt that was the case.

[lionel hutz]

Chigsy's another shout for the new Mod. Has he been released from HMP Peterhead yet?

[jimmy boo]

3 minutes ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

As I recall pccabe's banning was self-requested.

Would you actually do that?

I withdrew from the official St Mirren site after I was moderated for using the term bombscare with reference to john brown when rangers(mark 1) died.

I chucked Black & White Army as shull took over and sucked life out the place.

I've never requested to be banned though.........

[Nkomo-A-Gogo]

Cheegles Ann Bultan for mod.