Author Topic: What is RAWK?  (Read 378100 times)

Offline ziggyy

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,438
  • Wums should remain underground...
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #200 on: May 8, 2012, 04:59:36 am »
One of the sites I visit daily. Love the match commentary initiative for those nights I have to make the baby sleep....

I personally feel that the "you can go elsewhere if don't like it here" attitude is a little too much. It is just like supporting the club, while we love the club, we all need to whine a little once in awhile...

There will always be people silly enough to go overboard, why not then delete their posts (like mine sometimes...) and send them a warning.  It may be a little more time consuming but in general, there are enough sane posters to ignore or whack them into place.

A last resort, maybe leave an Aquilani thread open and let us run amok inside there... will keep the rest of the board safe for awhile:)


Offline Finn Solomon

  • Life sentence
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,144
  • I love Coutinho's balls
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #201 on: May 8, 2012, 05:00:50 am »
To build upon Kashinoda's post:

"Downing is fucking shit, get rid."

Rightly deserves mod action.

But when someone posts something sensible like 'Downing isn't performing near the level we'd expect, if he isn't to improve then perhaps we should look at bringing someone else in,'

And someone else says something like,

'Fucking Xbox/FIFA/FM playing fans these days don't know the first thing about support, it's because of moaners like you that Rafa got sacked. Get behind the team.'

Nothing happens.

Both equally shut down any hope of sensible discussion, and both are equally idiotic responses to a reasoned post. But one is tolerated and one isn't.

This explains it better.

What I will say is that whilst people coming on here after a defeat and saying they want rid of Kenny, all our players are shite, etc etc is irritating, inflammatory and contributes absolutely nothing to the site, some of the posts written by people occupying the opposite end of the scale are almost equally as irritating and inflammatory, and don't contribute all that much either. I think that it's difficult to find that middle-ground on here - a sentence that could have been worded better ends up being jumped on, and the rest of what is otherwise a well thought out, balanced and reasonable post gets ignored. Then you'll get the thread being derailed by squabbling and pettiness, and of course I've been guilty of doing the same thing myself in the past, but I digress - what I'm saying is that it's not just WUMs and kneejerkers and whingers that detract from debate on here.

Look, I'm going to have a different opinion most of the time. It's just the way I was brought up. I've tried to express it without resorting to personal abuse, and I've been here a long time now. I know how RAWK works, it isn't a democracy, not everyone is equal, you don't have the right to an appeal and so on. I get that and accept it. But the moderators clearly favour one side of the debate and a certain group of posters. You can be as reasoned and eloquent as you want, you'll still get mindlessly attacked and be accused of all sorts of things that simply aren't true, and nothing will happen. Going into the Liverpool forum is like an uphill battle nowadays.

All I like to see is that if you moderate harshly, do it with an even hand. If you ban people for making one-line posts that mindlessly abuse the manager or the team, by all means. It shuts down discussion. But you should also ban people for making one-line posts that mindlessly abuse other members who have posted something reasonable questioning the state of the team. That also shuts down discussion and it isn't addressed.

Another thing is something I've seen on other forums that I'd like to see here. Moderators, when they want to enter a discussion, make a clear distinction between being a moderator and being a user, etc. If you see red-coloured text means I'm being a mod, if not I'm just a user. Who's going to disagree with a mod when they can take action against them whenever they like? Then you get the usual gangs egging them on, urging them to ban some poor bastard who just needed a bit more education. I don't mind admitting that I'm uneasy about replying to anything written by a mod, even if it's specifically directed at me, because in the back of my mind I feel like I'm walking right into a ban. It's easier just to say the mod's right and move on. But it does mean that a lot of views are not aired.
« Last Edit: May 8, 2012, 05:19:28 am by Finn Solomon »
Twitter - FinnSolomon
Rafa made it so that you didn't give a shit which fucking ball emerged from Platini's jar.

Offline subroc

  • cut at you with a clipper? Gas Face given, I beg to differ.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,292
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #202 on: May 8, 2012, 05:02:56 am »
IMHO for all this talk about bringing RAWK back to what it was supposed to be etc etc - there is a fine line between editing and censorship.

I got some remarks deleted by a moderator in another thread because to the moderator, my arguments did not make sense (I had argued that people were excusing Dalglish for things that they would have buried Hodgson for and that it was double standards to do so) and because my writing style was boring and tedious and it was supposedly all about me. When I pointed out that how can it be about me when I was only responding to the personal attacks made against me by various other posters, the moderstor resurrected a portion of a deleted post that I had made to supposedly refute me. That portion was of course lifted out of its context (being actually a reply to another poster's personal attack), but since the post had been deleted, I could not show its context. In any event how do you debate with someone who can delete your posts and even ban you summarily?

It seems to me that essentially because the moderator strongly disagreed with my opinion, my comments got deleted. My writing style may be tedious and overly-wordy and not conforming to George Orwell's writing standards (as if most people on this forum can write like he did!), but I strongly doubt my comment would have been edited had I conformed to the popular opinion. The moderator failed to rebuke or discipline all the people who were making personal attacks agaisnt me and who had accused me of being disloyal and a quick success hungry fan.

So much for a discussion forum where people can speak forth their opinions without fear or favour...

IMHO the moderators should only intervene to calm people down if there is a flaming war, or if people are being nasty and abusive. Otherwise, they should not let their personal opinions influence their editing and moderation. Heavy-handedness by the moderators will only end up killing the liveliness that is the lifeblood of all successful internet forums.
« Last Edit: May 8, 2012, 05:08:15 am by subroc »

Offline surfer. Fuck you generator.

  • surgood. As good as Suarez but CBA to play for us. Takes it on the chin and never holds a pointless grudge for several months.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,206
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #203 on: May 8, 2012, 05:04:26 am »
Looking at the feedback threads after the cup final there are perhaps some newer users who don't really understand how RAWK works. So I thought I would try to first offer an explanation and then ask for your feedback on where you think we are getting it right and, more importantly, where you think we are getting it wrong.

I guess the post the triggered this explanation was a sarcastic "What do you think this is, a discussion forum?"
Well it clearly is a discussion forum but that is only part of the story. It should be a place to read good writing about Liverpool FC, it should encourage good writers to submit articles knowing that they will be read and they'll get intelligent feedback and encouragement. I am hugely proud of the lads who have cut their teeth on here and gone on to make a living writing about LFC.

In order to try and facilitate that then part of our role as moderators is editorial, sorting the wheat from the chaff. It is the reason that threads get locked or merged.

I think for a while, and for a number of reasons, we have neglected that editorial role.  For which we should apologise, particularly to all those writers who have written great stuff that has been swamped in the sea of shite. We are trying to sort it out though, we've brought in Royhendo as a new editor and we're actively trying to revitalise the new footy writing on the site.

So. How would you do that? What are your bugbears with our moderation? How can we ensure that the cream floats to the top? What are we doing now that is stopping that happening. Fire away. 

Firstly, the mod team on here do a good job all things considered.

Secondly, maybe it's better if you continue 'neglecting' the editorial role when it comes to current Liverpool football club-centric articles. Other areas are fine.

No disrespect to the lads who do like writing reams and reams about football, but it's a skill, not an essay question. The posters who usually get things right before they happen (which is the main thing that matters, not just with football but any job, which some here would know well enough), the likes of shanklyboy (RIP), Johnyboy1973, sangria, garstonette, donkeywan - off the top of my head, missed out some naturally: get to the point, specific football issues, no more than a few passages, don't fuck about with words.

The areas that are worth promoting on the front page of the site, that I personally prefer are reminiscences about attending the games / Liverpool life in years past, football back then, essentially a lot of what already transpires on the auld arse thread. Also, football at the grassroots level say in Sweden, or Egypt, or Australia, seeing as we have posters from all over the world here. Truly informative writing, of the sort that comes from first hand knowledge, not 'theorising' about football. Knowing it. Or the kind of analysis Johnny C did during the ownership battles. Or architects assessing our stadium situation / accounts write off that took place in one of the threads.

Information that comes from a verified professional in his own field / a participant. These things are worthy pieces of writing to promote, and it's already there in certain threads.

Whatever Liverpool centric issues you want to discuss, do it the open forum, one among a thousand others. Unless you have original information to contribute, say Jay Spearing wanting to answer his own critics ;) or a lower level pro / semi-pro in the Swedish leagues sharing his experiences of our new young recruit say, it shouldn't be 'promoted'. Put it among the threads by all means.

In terms of improving the forum, the biggest issue I can recall, and something Imperator mentioned also I think, is gang bullying. The reason we're maybe attentive to these things are because as a teacher, he's seen it with his kids, and as someone who's handled groups of young lads before, mainly in football, I've seen it too. And I don't like it. Naming names, I can recall the likes of Ambrosia getting driven off by it, leivapool cutting down on her posting for a bit after an incident with Fordy and a few others, think klfcreds here who has two / three fellas who tend to track her after she got banned once for not knowing our history and Kenny's part in it. I'm sure those who think it's inaccurate will correct me on it.

This ganging up requires a far harsher response than usual, a permaban easily. There isn't anyone here who deserves to be here more than the next guy / girl, regardless of post count.     

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,265
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #204 on: May 8, 2012, 05:20:29 am »
Disagree with this Alan.

When the vent your anger thread was open, it gave people a place to vent their frustrations and allow others to help (much like the ex-girlfriends, alcohol issues ect threads at the moment.)

If people have a place to rant, they tend to do it there, if they are stuck without a designsted thread then they'll rant in other threads which will completely clutter them up.

There are a few posters I know (and I include myself in this) that, when angered by something, we tend to write it down instead of penting it all up and going for a walk ect because it's the best possible way for us to cope with the anger/stress. Writing out your anger in a way that not only informs those why you're angry but gives some scope for help/advice/discussion helps relax and then helps you think more clearly when going into other threads because you're not posting out of frustration.

I know it's frowned upon but the vent your anger thread really did help quite a few people out amidst all the other daily rants from the likes of myself, Gobias, SHF ects.

Fair point, but I think we're talking about two different things. The Grifter thread was a Boozer topic and I would have no problem with it being reinstated - there were some brilliant and inventive posts in there.

I think people are asking for a thread where they can just call (insert players name) a 'useless prick...' and the like.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Something Awful

  • is stinking out the feedback forum. Wants a blow job from a velociraptor
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,127
  • Justice
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #205 on: May 8, 2012, 05:48:56 am »
(baby don't hurt me)

Sorry. For me the biggest thing that sorta bugs me, is the polarisation of every discussion. It's an internet thing as much as a RAWK thing, but everything is extreme. You either want Kenny to stay forever and he's never put a foot wrong, or you want him gone. You can't discuss his mistakes without being jumped on. It's the same with the current "fourth place" meme. You either want the club to finish in the top four, or you want them to win the league. There appears to be no middle ground, where you want them to finish in the top four because it will help eventually get us to the title.
'Despite their  cup pedigree - since they've returned to the top flight in 1962 - Everton have, after today's results, once again gone further in the FA Cup than their much vaunted neighbours. For the record it's Everton 23 Liverpool 22  and 7 ties in 52 seasons'

Offline It's Jimmy Corkhill

  • No more scrapping in Page Moss. Marxist.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,712
  • Hasta La Victoria Siempre....
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #206 on: May 8, 2012, 06:07:41 am »
I think certain things should be an instant permanent ban. Mindless abuse of the manager or players should see you gone.

Would it be possible for a majority of the threads to need to have replies approved? It would give people a chance to cool off if they - bizarrely - cant help but type a load of abusive shite. Some thoughtful threads, as well as the threads surrounding the games, would benefit heavily from this.
"I'm a people man. Only the people matter".
-Bill Shankly.

Offline flashman

  • Lacking Cum Stilettos
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Kopite
  • ******
  • Posts: 999
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #207 on: May 8, 2012, 06:08:29 am »
I think the site overall is good, its where I come to get different opinions, what exactly is happening at the club on and off the field. But its a bit like searching for nuggets of gold amongst a rubbish tip sometimes, i.e. RAWK hides its light under a bushel.


Why? The quality of some posters is amazing. Mostly I spend my time reading through the threads that interest me, some posters I agree with, some I don’t but the quality of writing is there for all to see…but where RAWK frustrates is that the decent informative posts are hidden amongst too many pages containing too much noise/rubbish.


Round Table works – so use as the benchmark
The round tables are brilliant, if you have missed the match or just want analysis, there are 3 or 4 pages to sit back, read through and enjoy. This has to be the benchmark. Most other topics have too many pages and it becomes impossible to keep up, track the quality, and discover what is actually going.


Reduce number of pages
So the first incentive is to reduce the posts that add absolutely zilch. The like button could do this, it can either highlight a post yellow like on Tomkins Times when it reaches a certain number of hits, or it could be left to the mods, or an extended group (like the match commentary team of respected users) to turn yellow. This identifies the excellent posts and reduces the “this” comments which create more pages.

This in turn should help make people think before posting, like on the round table. Reduce threads going round and round in circles where people jump from the OP  straight to the last page as there are just too many pages to wade through.


Playground mentality
See it a lot from new posters and long term posters alike, not sure how to stop the mild bullying posts/ganging up that go on, sometimes under the guise of humour. I guess if there were less pages for each topic this sort of thing would be more noticeable. Classic example is a poster I don’t agree with particularly, but the posts are polite and structured, but gets jumped upon and mauled for having a opposite opinion.

However to be fair, there are some genuinely very funny posters and it would be a shame to lose these, so clever solution needed.


Topical topics
At the moment the biggest issues are ownership, DoF, improving the squad, potential transfers, managers position. Could we have some heavily moderated threads opened with the principals above implemented?


Post count
This surely just provides the incentive to post more, not better stuff.


Feedback section
This has massive potential to keep things on track as VdM is doing with this thread but ends up just full of cliquey banter, put downs and mild bullying. I wanted to know why a DoF thread I started aweek or so ago was locked but you know its going to end up messy in there!

Good luck Mods and congrats to the new ones

Offline El Campeador

  • Capital of Culture's Campaign Manager...Transfer Board Veteran 5 Stars.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 20,721
  • The shupporters create chances, for sure, djes
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #208 on: May 8, 2012, 06:24:45 am »
Don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.

Offline jooneyisdagod

  • Doesn't like having pussy round the house
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,733
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #209 on: May 8, 2012, 06:29:03 am »
Subroc, Surfer and Finn all raise valid points.  The one I wanted to address in particular was the issue of bullying.  With the creation of the Auld Arses thread which I really enjoy I must add, it has seemingly created this badge of honour which I have no problems with but it has also created IMO, wait for the dreaded word, clique.  And its not just regular posters on the auld arses thread that seem to be a part of it but there are several others who happily tag along and constantly call people that offer a different opinion all sorts of shite.  Sky generation, me now generation so on and so forth.  While that might not be abuse it certainly does insult and while I have a thick skin, posts like that could well lead to retaliation in the form of abuse.  In any case it adds precious little to the debate. 

Having a different opinion has never been a problem on RAWK but the steady trend of posters that had a differing opinion slowly getting banned or leaving one after another doesn't speak too well for the site.  There are numerous that I could name that were banned for various offences when they were only just as guilty as the mob on the other side of the debate that happened to be arguing the more accepted stance.  And constant insults from one side to another have often precipitated a reaction that has led to a ban.  I know its an issue that has cropped up time and again and in many cases it has been dismissed but given these points have been raised so often, I think a little bit of consideration should be given. 
Quote from: Dion Fanning

The chants for Kenny Dalglish that were heard again on Wednesday do not necessarily mean that the fans see him as the saviour. This is not Newcastle, longing for the return of Kevin Keegan. Simply, Dalglish represents everything Hodgson is not and, in fairness, everything Hodgson could or would not hope to be.

Offline It's Jimmy Corkhill

  • No more scrapping in Page Moss. Marxist.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,712
  • Hasta La Victoria Siempre....
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #210 on: May 8, 2012, 06:38:00 am »
I don't know about you, but where I come from, the older heads naturally get a bit more leeway and respect.

I wouldn't dream of arguing the toss with some of the older people I've been the game with the way some do on here. Nothing wrong with that thread at all.
"I'm a people man. Only the people matter".
-Bill Shankly.

Offline jooneyisdagod

  • Doesn't like having pussy round the house
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,733
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #211 on: May 8, 2012, 06:52:33 am »
I don't know about you, but where I come from, the older heads naturally get a bit more leeway and respect.

I wouldn't dream of arguing the toss with some of the older people I've been the game with the way some do on here. Nothing wrong with that thread at all.

Not got a problem with the thread.  I enjoy most of the posts from the ''auld arses'' but it has led to a number of people rallying around them rightly or wrongly and condemning opinions they don't agree with and condemning people they don't agree with as belonging to the sky generation and other such things. 


Edit:  The issue is more to do with the ganging up on individual posters more than anything. 
Quote from: Dion Fanning

The chants for Kenny Dalglish that were heard again on Wednesday do not necessarily mean that the fans see him as the saviour. This is not Newcastle, longing for the return of Kevin Keegan. Simply, Dalglish represents everything Hodgson is not and, in fairness, everything Hodgson could or would not hope to be.

Offline Georgia

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Main Stander
  • ******
  • Posts: 86
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #212 on: May 8, 2012, 06:57:01 am »
2. It's ok to allow rants. People do get fed up and want to bitch. In a way that is what people think.......don't try to suppress people who want to air their views. Once again put a time limit and then lock them.

I agree with this. When you surpress people in one thread, they just go to another, and those rants pop up everywhere. A good example were all those threads on Torres' departure. They kept being locked all the time, but then one day a thread appeared where people just could express how they felt, it reached many pages in just a couple of hours and that madness somehow evaporated after a while. I understand that discussions must be kept under control, but ignoring certain topics, pretending they don't exist, not letting people vent, as someone said, doesn't remove the problem. Having said that, there are rules and etiquette of posting on the forum. People should hold more responsibility if they don't want to receive warnings or bans. This site is well moderated already, in my opinion, and you should simply understand that internet and posters is not something you can control completely. On the contrary, maybe letting a bit more of so called free threads to appear would regulate the process by itself.


Offline Outlaw

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #213 on: May 8, 2012, 07:04:26 am »
Good post.  Censorship is horrific; crowd control is necessary. 

The thing is that it is born out of good intentions and the desire to make the place as good as possible. However,  allowing a more natural flow doesn't necessarily mean a poorer place. In fact the opposite is probably true.

Offline It's Jimmy Corkhill

  • No more scrapping in Page Moss. Marxist.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,712
  • Hasta La Victoria Siempre....
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #214 on: May 8, 2012, 07:06:47 am »
Having a thread for people to moan and bitch wouldn't be the worst thing. At least it'd be marked so it could be avoided.

However, if a thread is opened, I hope that it would come with the caveat that if you overstep the mark and start dishing out mindless abuse of those connected with LFC, you will be instantly banned.
« Last Edit: May 8, 2012, 07:15:35 am by It's Jimmy Corkhill »
"I'm a people man. Only the people matter".
-Bill Shankly.

Offline Malaysian Kopite

  • Feels shivers when he looks a Trquarista's...
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,024
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #215 on: May 8, 2012, 07:12:30 am »
I hope that if a thread gets derailed, mods take a longer time to warn posters on the true purpose of said thread rather than just locking it immediately.
Football without fans is nothing.

We've won 18 titles, 5 European Cups, 7 FA Cups, but today must be the greatest victory of all.

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #216 on: May 8, 2012, 07:38:25 am »
I got banned a few days ago for posting in a thread, my comment was a tad crude but I had not read the entire thread, where in it was a post from a mod who warned about being crude or silly.

So my point is, if you havent read the warning, how are you meant to know about it ?


BTW, I love this place, its the first place I come most days, Infact i spend too much time here. But fair play to those who make it happen.

The moral there is to adhere more closely to RAWK Rule #1.  Read more post less. 
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Arcadian

  • Makes pissed even when sense!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,598
  • Be the change you want to see in the world...
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #217 on: May 8, 2012, 07:41:03 am »

At the risk of being trite, what happened to personal responsibility?

I edit my own RAWK

There are posters I read because I know it's going to be educational, posters I know I'm almost certainly going to agree with, posters I know I'm almost certainly going to disagree with (they're sometimes the best reads) and posters I rely on for comedy gold... That's you Chopper. In short I know what's worth and not worth reading, or should I say I know what is and isn't to me.

There are ignore lists, report to mod buttons, myriad topics and tools to help you find exactly what you're looking for ... And yes that means I'm reading one individual's posts for a spell at times... Don't judge...

You know there are going to be more one liners in the Downing thread than in the one about the club's finances. You know it going in! So you should be prepared to read more intently at certain times. Yes, you may have to wade through the mud to get to the gold but one man's treasure is another man's trash (except for Sabu's shit which is savage no matter who you are) and its preferable to decide that for yourself than have someone else do it for you.

Is RAWK perfect? Of course not but it IS good. I'm sure that there will be some tweaks that come of this topic, but my advice would be to post a sticky that is a little guide of how to "Edit you own RAWK"... Some tips about making your stay here as enjoyable as possible, and helping users to understand that ultimately its up to them.




*                         *                           *                            *                         *

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,265
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #218 on: May 8, 2012, 07:43:53 am »
subroc, I would normally do this by PM but as you've raised it I'll respond. Your post raises a general point about why people post. Do you post to engage in debate or to shout your own position. I deleted your posts for editorial reasons - they were over-long repetitive, hectoring and almost impossible to read. They also descended into discussions about your exchanges with other members rather than the topic being discussed. I had no problem with you expressing your opinion on Hodgson but a big problem with your style and attitude. I was responding to complaints from other users about you like this one:

Quote
Write an over long reply to this too if you fancy, but I'll not be engaging further myself until the hubris dies away a bit and you stop lecturing, hectoring and attempting to intellectually bully fellow reds, many of whom on here have shown themselves to be writers of insight and consideration.

When a thread becomes about one poster rather than the subject in hand we try to deal with it and allow all voices to be heard. If you took a step back and considered what I said and what others were complaining about you might see that the reference to Orwell wasn't a dig, but a helpful suggestion to look at how the best writers get their points across economically and without hyperbole and cliche. I was told to read Orwell when I was doing my degree and it's one of the best bits of advice I ever got. Of course we can't all be as good as Orwell but most of us can improve.

It goes back to the point about 'venting' - what's the point in writing paragraph after paragraph if no-one reads it? Posting something isn't the same as people reading it, let alone being persuaded by it.

In general, if you argue a point of view that 'goes against the stream' of the thread then ask yourself why you're doing it. To cause a row?... to explain or persuade others of your point of view?... or just to piss on your tree?... If it's the first then you can fuck off, if it's the last? again what's the point. If you want to explain/engage/persuade then take time to state your case in a way that others will respond to. Make your points clearly and as succinctly as possible.

As I said at the time - you're evidently bright and have some interesting points to make but a little self-editing and humility wouldn't go amiss.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Rafa_La

  • Would give Chopper one by mouth
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,675
  • Liverpool, Did you think we would leave you dying?
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #219 on: May 8, 2012, 07:51:49 am »
How about a bans forum, that only mods can post in but we can all read, which says who gets banned and what for, this would make things clear about what is right/what is wrong (or what is funny if its a comedy ban)

They aren't up for discussion, as only mods post in the banned forum. Just informative.

Consider that a can of worms.

I do admin on another site.  Even read only discussions create problems.
Seen threads opened to discuss the read only topic or exchange of pm's that could make a navvy blush.
Better sites like RAWK have the rules defined to allow them to be followed. (imho) Users should know the procedures
Nunca me bajoneé, mi conciencia estaba tranquila porque sabía cómo habían sido las cosas.
"The reason i never felt depressed is because my conscience was clear, I Knew what had really happened."
Luis Suarez
YNWA

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #220 on: May 8, 2012, 07:54:07 am »
Is there something you can do about pictures or videos or gifs being quoted?
perhaps quotes can be auto minimized? so they work like the spoilers

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #221 on: May 8, 2012, 07:57:09 am »

Addressing the first bit of your post, that seems to me rather like your personal taste rather than a way to decide which articles to keep.  So you like short articles on football tactics, and often skip the long hagiographies of Arrigo Sacchi in favour of articles on Liverpool history, social history and going to the match.  That's fine, I am probably the same to be honest, but that does not mean that there are not people on here writing excellent and well thought out articles about the way we are playing, or that there is not a huge audience that wants to read an analysis that is a bit more intelligent than what you get in our dreadful football media.

Anyway, you'll be delighted to know that we also have plans to try and encourage more writing the history of LFC, and the whole experience of going to the match through the years.  Yeah, auld arses, stand by your zimmers, we're coming for ya!


In terms of improving the forum, the biggest issue I can recall, and something Imperator mentioned also I think, is gang bullying. The reason we're maybe attentive to these things are because as a teacher, he's seen it with his kids, and as someone who's handled groups of young lads before, mainly in football, I've seen it too. And I don't like it. Naming names, I can recall the likes of Ambrosia getting driven off by it, leivapool cutting down on her posting for a bit after an incident with Fordy and a few others, think klfcreds here who has two / three fellas who tend to track her after she got banned once for not knowing our history and Kenny's part in it. I'm sure those who think it's inaccurate will correct me on it.

This ganging up requires a far harsher response than usual, a permaban easily. There isn't anyone here who deserves to be here more than the next guy / girl, regardless of post count.     

Again.  I am totally ignorant of these incidents and don't recall seeing a report to mod at the time.  My apologies if you did and someone else dealt with it, but just to reinforce what we keep saying, we are reliant on you users letting us know when things are going wrong.  When you do, as Imperator did, then we will act on it.  There is not a great deal we can do six months later.
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #222 on: May 8, 2012, 07:59:15 am »
Consider that a can of worms.

I do admin on another site.  Even read only discussions create problems.
Seen threads opened to discuss the read only topic or exchange of pm's that could make a navvy blush.
Better sites like RAWK have the rules defined to allow them to be followed. (imho) Users should know the procedures

Agree with that.  Also, for the warning that Le Jake wants, we do often put that in the thread when a poster is banned.   Both as an explanation of the ban and to show we have done something and the lynchmob that has formed can extinguish their torches and go home for the night.
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline MassDriver

  • Custom Tit... Shithouse lover... Politically correct and metrosexual cave dweller.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,518
  • Hasta la victoria siempre
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #223 on: May 8, 2012, 08:04:19 am »
Apologies for not going through the whole thread but I would like to make a few points here.

1. The biggest problem with RAWK is the cliques and mass flaming by those cliques against posters who don't go with their worldview , leading to bans for many of the posters who are not smart enough to deal with the flaming. 'Groupthink' has become the norm here and if you are a dissident , chances are you will be hounded and insulted till you either toe the line or get banned for your pains. All of which takes away from the point of having a discussion forum , i.e different people with different opinions discussing their view points and educating each other in the process.

2. Many members are given a free ride in terms of getting away with blatant flaming and abuse. Using the 'report tom moderator' function usually results in a light rap or sometimes nothing and they carry on with their merry ways.

3. Abuse of certain 'unfashionable' LFC players is tolerated and even encouraged by members. I have absolutely no issues with criticism that is backed by reasonable arguments and valid points but crass statements like 'X is not good enough and never will be' detracts from the purpose of the forum in my opinion. Many of these very same members then hypocritically gang up against posters trying to make any kind of critique against players that they happen to rate , leading to the circle of flaming/abuse again , degrading the quality of threads in the process.

And lastly , thank you for appointing RoyHendo as a moderator of this forum. He is exactly what is needed here in my opinion. One of the best and most reasonable posters around , not heavy handed and willing to listen and have a constructive discussion.  And not to mention Southern Pansy too , fantastic blokes both of them.

That's my contribution to this thread.  :)
You will never walk alone , Shanklyboy. RIP.

I am the Eye in the Sky, looking at you, I can read your mind. I am the maker of rules, dealing with fools, I can cheat you blind. Looking at you, I can read your mind

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #224 on: May 8, 2012, 08:05:32 am »
perhaps quotes can be auto minimized? so they work like the spoilers

Really we just need posters to be sensible when quoting.
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline hollger

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,188
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #225 on: May 8, 2012, 08:10:15 am »
I appreciate the question. I've been on the site for many years - it's one of my daily four, that is, the four sites I check regularly throughout the day. Two of the four are my email accounts, which means that RAWK is one of two non-email sites I deem essential. But I feel that's becoming an increasingly symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful one.

....

I agree with a lot of this (apart from the Suarez stuff).

It must be a nightmare for you mods. This is a hugely popular site and from just my own experience, I've seen the way a thread goes absolutely mental in literally seconds - I've been writing a post/response and by the time I've hit "post" it's appearing on page 6 or something. So the moderation must be tough, and I can understand why sometimes certain things just get locked - you guys must run out of patience (e.g. like this) as a lot of the time topics do degenerate into absolute dross.

The speed of things is one of the major reasons I think reasoned discussion is also tricky on some topics. In one way, RAWK is a victim of it's own success as a topic can explode with comment in minutes, and a lot of decent posts/discussion gets lost amongst a sea of posts (although not always crap ones!). You only have to look at the post-game topics vs the round tables for an example, but both undoubtedly have their merits which is probably why the system of letting people have their moment of joy/anger in the post-game for a while before opening the round table exists - and for the most part, works well (unless we've just lost to Blackburn or something!).

There are certain things that do need to be allowed, as many have said. Example - it's OK to question whether Kenny is up to the job, whether his tactics are working, or this/that/the other. As long as you aren't just slating him with baseless nonsense, or trying to wind up others with the intent of causing trouble then voicing an opinion is fine. And I feel that in a lot of situations this is already the approach taken - I've seen a lot of talk about Kenny that has been allowed and it's been going along just fine until someone comes in and in a one-line post causes an argument, and it isn't long before that's it - thread over, which is a shame. I've also seen it where said inflammatory post is just deleted, which is also fine - but like I said above with the speed the site moves sometimes it's tough to just get away with doing that sometimes, which is why we see temporary locks (e.g. in the post-game threads at times) whilst the thread is weeded.

A lot of the problems fall down to the users though. We should be able to disagree but instead of resorting to abuse (or the default "you must be a manc"), reasoned argument should be the way forward. For example, I've quoted Pope Dave above and I certainly don't agree with him saying that Suarez was being racist - but I would counter his statements with my own arguments and use facts where available to back up my own views. A lot of people don't do that and that's fine - if we were all the same life would be boring! But lately it seems a lot of people also just argue for the sake of it, with no rhyme or reason other than to argue or get one up on the other poster. People aren't just 'mancs' or 'worse fans' because they are wondering about the decisions made at times with the Club. The majority of people on here understand that I think and that's when you get the best threads, but at times it does get a bit ridiculous.

The majority of the stuff I don't like is also down to the users - or at least the way people do things on forums. But it's by no means exclusive to RAWK. For example, just quoting a post without commenting - this is meant to signal your agreement with it? Why?! Even when you are quoting a 12,000 word post!?!? Similarly, just quoting a post and saying "this" or "is right" - it's just bollocks. Why not agree and expand on something? If you can't, just don't bother doing anything! I hate the idea of 'like' or 'dislike' options for threads, but I can see why they might be useful and why other forums use them. It might be my age (and I'm only 32!) but I absolutely hate those things with a passion.

I don't think there's a lot wrong with the way the site is moderated. Not to sound kiss-arsey, but it really isn't bad in my opinion. Perhaps the best compliment I can give the moderation team is that I don't think I've found my enjoyment of RAWK 'interrupted' by moderation, at least in recent memory. It's the users that more often than not ruin a discussion - when I'm reading a thread and can see the way it's heading I already know what's coming and I'll leave the thread for a while before going back to see if things have calmed down. Some have alluded to certain posters being allowed to get away with more than others, which to a degree I have to say I agree with, but the established posters are by no means above rebuke - e.g. rossi was given some time off I think due to comments in the Aquilani thread.

So in summary, it's all the users fault  ;D. Hopefully we'll see more 'round table' type threads appearing out of this discussion, and maybe better posting standards in the general LFC forum. One can hope!

Offline TheTeflonJohn

  • The proud owner of a moist undercarriage. Full LFC bed time attire wanker. Self-confessed CUNT.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,345
  • Atkinsons Long Leather - Atkinsons Hair Do
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #226 on: May 8, 2012, 08:11:56 am »
Not really chipping in with any insight here, but people who insult players, members of the club or other posters should receive an instant suspension. It happens far too fucking often, especially recently.

'Downing is fucking shit, get rid'

Should be 'Downing isn't performing near the level we'd expect, if he isn't to improve then perhaps we should look at brining someone else in.'

Really?

So your saying people should be suspended for saying something like 'Downing is fucking shit, get rid'

Good luck with getting that through Parliment  ;D

My main gripe is the thread locking which may sometimes come across as a bit harsh and the "one rule for posters with a top post count and the rule for others". I was quite amused to find myself banned for calling a person a tit when a couple of days previous a top poster had called me the exact same word and nothing done/said.

I`ve seen quite a few other situations like this over the years.

Offline MassDriver

  • Custom Tit... Shithouse lover... Politically correct and metrosexual cave dweller.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,518
  • Hasta la victoria siempre
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #227 on: May 8, 2012, 08:14:57 am »
^^^ A week or so ago , I was branded a 'Manc' for taking the piss out of a 50 page Hodgson thread and illustrating the fact that our Carling Cup win thread got barely half to half the number of pages as the Hodgson thread did.  I was flamed by another poster who seemed to have taken a 'liking' to me and when I retorted , I got a 40 % warning for my troubles.

Not complaining of whinging , just trying to illustrate why sometimes you get to get the feeling of being 'hard done by'.
You will never walk alone , Shanklyboy. RIP.

I am the Eye in the Sky, looking at you, I can read your mind. I am the maker of rules, dealing with fools, I can cheat you blind. Looking at you, I can read your mind

Offline subroc

  • cut at you with a clipper? Gas Face given, I beg to differ.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,292
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #228 on: May 8, 2012, 08:21:05 am »
subroc, I would normally do this by PM but as you've raised it I'll respond. Your post raises a general point about why people post. Do you post to engage in debate or to shout your own position. I deleted your posts for editorial reasons - they were over-long repetitive, hectoring and almost impossible to read. They also descended into discussions about your exchanges with other members rather than the topic being discussed. I had no problem with you expressing your opinion on Hodgson but a big problem with your style and attitude. I was responding to complaints from other users about you like this one:

When a thread becomes about one poster rather than the subject in hand we try to deal with it and allow all voices to be heard. If you took a step back and considered what I said and what others were complaining about you might see that the reference to Orwell wasn't a dig, but a helpful suggestion to look at how the best writers get their points across economically and without hyperbole and cliche. I was told to read Orwell when I was doing my degree and it's one of the best bits of advice I ever got. Of course we can't all be as good as Orwell but most of us can improve.

It goes back to the point about 'venting' - what's the point in writing paragraph after paragraph if no-one reads it? Posting something isn't the same as people reading it, let alone being persuaded by it.

In general, if you argue a point of view that 'goes against the stream' of the thread then ask yourself why you're doing it. To cause a row?... to explain or persuade others of your point of view?... or just to piss on your tree?... If it's the first then you can fuck off, if it's the last? again what's the point. If you want to explain/engage/persuade then take time to state your case in a way that others will respond to. Make your points clearly and as succinctly as possible.

As I said at the time - you're evidently bright and have some interesting points to make but a little self-editing and humility wouldn't go amiss.

Alan_X, I know the job of a mod is not easy because after all like the rest of us, you are a fan too and doing it for the love of the club and of the game. BTW I did read Orwell's acerbic but insightful essay and it was a help to me to try to make my own writing more accessible since then, so I thank you for that reference. I will point out that most of the posters on this forum will fail at least one point raised by Orwell in his criticisms in his essays.

However I did not feel fairly treated though by you at all in that thread.

Firstly, you took the liberty of judging my attitude and mentality as being proud and arrogant, without catching the cotnext of many of my mroe combative posts. I was being assailed by several posters at one time who were determined to paint me as a Rafa-promoter and as a SKY generation fan as a "shoot the messenger" type of tactic in order to shut me up or disqualify me. I was only defending myself. Yet you insisted on seeing my defence of my own integrity as a lack of humility and hectoring of others! Even the portion of my deleted post that you lifted out of its context actually is my response to another poster. It is not I who made the discussion focused on me - it was my opponents who insisted on doing so. But you failed to recognise that at all - because you yourself disagreed with my substantive point.

As well, did it occur to you that the reason why I post like that is not necessarily because I was arrogant but because I also talk like this - because this is how I express myself?

Secondly, you did not call up the other posters for their unnecessary and personal nature of their attacks. You ignored how they provioked the whole thing, how they turrned the discussion over to me instead of on the points I wanted to talk about, and at the end of it, after all my posts got deleted, a host of my opponents posted self-congratulatory posts gloating over the deletion of my posts. And they obviously believed that you were on their side. You did not disabuse them o fthat notion either. If you deleted my posts, why didn;t you delete theirs as well since thye had proviked it? Wh was i singled out?

When I read that, I was sickened by it and I just gave up posting on that thread and topic.

Thirdly, you took a part in the discussion by planting yourself firmly on the side of those who were against my point. You declared outright that you thought my argumetns were nonsense or words to that effect, and that was one of the reasons why you deleted my posts. Do you think that it right for a moderator to do that? You can say now that you deleted my posts because of other reasons, but with what was said at the time, I could only conclude at that time you had censored my post because you disagreed with me. To me, you crossed the line of neutrality that a mod should follow.
'
Fourthly, if no one will read my posts etc, then let it be. Cream will rise to the surface. If my posts are not making worthwhile points, no one will take any notice o fthem and they will cause no bile. Why does it need you as a mod to edit unnecesary posts?

Fifthly, the reason why I post these issues has been explained repeatedly by me - because I care about the club. I see things not done correctly and I voice them because I am worried abiout them. I want to talk about those things because I am conerned they could sink us. If I didn;t care about the club, I souldnt bother - I do not get any money for this! I dont wantt o cause a row - what I want, as I have repeated many times, is an intelligent discussion and I will interact as intelligently anbd rationally as I a,m able to with anyone who replies to my posts.

Who then are you or anyone else to question my integrity as to why I post these things?  Are you calling me a liar - that I have a secret ill motive to post these posts? If that is the real reason why you deleted my posts, then that is entirely out of order. I have not abused anyone and I make no mindless criticism of any player or manager but everything has been carefully explained. AFAIK I have not violated any guideline that should cause my posts to be deleted.

So in the end I hope that you can see that I had cause to conclude that you deleted my posts to censor my opinion because you disagreed with it.
« Last Edit: May 8, 2012, 08:33:14 am by subroc »

Offline Outlaw

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #229 on: May 8, 2012, 08:22:43 am »
Hinesy, I found some of the things you said in this thread a but curious. I'm responding to them with the intention of giving another perspective, not to single you out. I hope my comments are taken in the spirit they are intended.


1. We don't allow dissent from some sort of official rosy view.

[...]

My thoughts are:
1. That has always been wrong. What we've never allowed is mindless abuse, calling for manager's and player's P45's and insults.

To me, that's a total contradiction: You've conflated 'mindless abuse and insults', which should rightly be moderated, with criticism of players, managers and calls for their positions. That is clamping down on dissent. It's exactly the sort of alternative view that gets quashed based on another person's dislike of the content.

Questioning the position of Dalglish or Benitez or Hodgson (two men for whom I have the utmost respect, and one called Roy), is entirely legitimate support. It's just a different type of support. I could make a sound argument why Kenny shouldn't be the manager next season. I support the football club, not just the manager; sometimes the two things conflict. The club will always win.

People just have different views on what it means to support this football club: Some say 'back the manager, give him your full throated support; back the players and sing their name. It'll all come right in the end'. Some say 'if the manager isn't doing a good enough job, and if the players aren't good enough to wear the shit, they need to go. We need to be ruthless in the support for the future success of this club'.

You might view one perspective better than the other, but neither should have a default 'correct' position based on nothing more than the perspective of a moderator. Now, I'm not advocating the 'Rafa/Dalglish/Watson should just fuck off' type post, but not allowing people to share their opinions on the direction their football club is being taken by the manager backwards thinking. It's akin to those calling Noam Chomsky 'un-American' for his criticism of American military forces. He's probably more patriotic than those shouting him down, he just has a different view on what his country should be doing.

Well, some have a different view on what this club should be doing. As long as they're honest and good intentioned posts, without one line 'he's fucking sheeoite' posts, those views should not only be deemed acceptable, but are required for any sort of debate. A good editorial process shouldn't just be about what to take out, but what to leave in to avoid groupthink. Once groupthink sets in, the entire forum goes stale very quickly.

Quote
3. Each mod has their way of moderating and we may be guilty of locking first, thinking after


Again, it's probably done out of an honest desire to see the forum operate in a way that represents their own perspective on what the forum should be discussing, but moderators shouldn't, in my opinion, censor what the entire user-base can talk about. That's what closing threads does.

A moderator's role should be to decide on the manner in which something should be discussed, not what should be discussed. That's for those wanting the discussion; the users of the forum. That's a general principle, from lowly forum moderators right up to high-court judges.

The moderation team's time would be far more wisely used creating a respectful environment where all views can be heard. One view isn't more valid than another just because a moderator doesn't agree with it. Only fair, varied, and open debate will result in the best viewpoint.

Bollocks, why not? You really telling me you can't smile at your custom title? Most people think its an honour to have been recognised by the staff. And after all, you're the king of the Gods, where's your humour?

Maybe this just struck a cord with me because I'm an egalitarian, but what!? Why would it being an honour to be recognised by staff? It's my assumption that 'staff' are just posters with a slightly different set of permissions on a web forum. Aside from respecting the time a moderator takes out of their own life to help with the website, why would they be worthy of any more honour than any other poster?

As my Mum once asked me, 'do you think your shit doesn't stink'? She had a way with words, my Mum, but as far as I'm aware, you're no different to any other poster on the forum. Aside from, presumably, being more accountable and having a different set of permissions, being a moderator doesn't mean you're more or less knowledgeable, or worthy or reverence, than anybody else. Only your level of debate and the way the userbase sees you can dictate that.

If it was up to me, and it clearly isn't, I'd make all moderators anonymous, all post counts disappear, and all moderation actions accountable to the userbase. Then again, that's probably the rampant, chippy egalitarian in me again.
« Last Edit: May 8, 2012, 08:30:32 am by Outlaw »

Offline Red Cez

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,200
  • Stop Fucking Moaning!!!!
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #230 on: May 8, 2012, 08:26:59 am »
The whole favouritism/clique thing isn't news to anyone on here including the mods. Complaints of this sort have been made repeatedly ever since I've been a member of this forum. Nothing will change.

RAWK is what it is, take it or leave it.
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.

Oscar Wilde

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,265
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #231 on: May 8, 2012, 08:27:08 am »
...for taking the piss out of a 50 page Hodgson thread and illustrating the fact that our Carling Cup win thread got barely half to half the number of pages as the Hodgson thread did...

So you were on a wind-up and making a point about Hodgson after we won the Carling Cup?

One of the least interesting observations on here is that wins tend to result in shorter threads than defeats and that contentious subjects (Hodgson being one) tend to create lengthy debate.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline general change if that's easier

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
  • "And there will be four added minutes..."
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #232 on: May 8, 2012, 08:28:17 am »
I don't post much but I really agree with what RedGenius has posted. The amount of work mods put in mean they can't really post too much on general Liverpool discussion which unfortunately creates a division of mods vs. posters, especially for those new to the site. I've noticed 24/7 (Jim) posting in the main board more often than I'm used to seeing most other mods in general Liverpool chat, and I reckon it would be definitely beneficial as I'm sure it would makes posters realise that the mods are supporters too, and it might cut out some abuse.

I think a lot of the disconnect between perceptions of the moderation within this site is partially to do with the disconnect between members and the moderation team, i feel that is partially due to the lack of interaction in a discussion based nature between everybody, i appreciate a lot of your time are consumed 'policing' the site, but i feel better interaction and contributions to topics would put a lot of those perceptions to bed, after all it's a shame as i'm certain you guys also have interesting points to share!


I've seen a massive decline of quality of discussion on Rawk during the few years I've been reading/registered and I think its a tough issue to deal with, I'd put it down to newbies though who don't read before posting. I feel that I should say that maybe mods could be a little more ban-hammer happy, especially to post of the "Downing's fucking shite, get rid" ilk. I registered the day after the NESV takeover after reading for about a year earlier and that was because it was the first time I'd noticed registration had been opened. It almost felt special being able to register after reading for so long because I understood how the site ran and how to post etc. Not sure if this is possible but could there possibly be a time limit a poster must have logged in before being allowed to post? Similar to what is done with posting pictures before 50 posts. Would just mean that newbies would have already began the whole "read more, post less" advice.

Also think the idea of mod assistants kind of thing could be a good idea. Some selected posters in opposite time zones to England could have some sort of power to cut-off threads spiralling out of control instead of being cleaned up in the morning by the regular mod team. Might make their work a little easier as I'm sure some people don't like using the 'report to moderator', myself included, even though as much as I'd want to, it just doesn't feel right.

Cheers.

Offline Mutton Geoff

  • 'The Invigilator'
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,663
  • Life is a journey, not a destination.
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #233 on: May 8, 2012, 08:31:53 am »
Not got a problem with the thread.  I enjoy most of the posts from the ''auld arses'' but it has led to a number of people rallying around them rightly or wrongly and condemning opinions they don't agree with and condemning people they don't agree with as belonging to the sky generation and other such things. 


Edit:  The issue is more to do with the ganging up on individual posters more than anything. 

Johnny as one of the auld arses, we generally like to talk bollocks about watch with mother than bring in the main site stuff, the problem lately is two fold we see people making comments about Kenny and yes we are rightly very protective of him, however we also know that he will be aware of his mistakes, but there is an element of this club still owes him more time and more respect than some are willing to give him on a daily basis, we also know that sticking with a manager works in the long run, if he is the right manager. So it is not a clique talking down to anyone it is a few people with experience of shit seasons calling for a little more patience.

That said recently yes we all got a little angry with a poster making comments on twitter in which the poster targetted was going to leave Rawk over this however was sorted over a PM as it should be in here and is now water under the bridge,

but cliques are not confined to the older posters, for example we also now have a clique in twitter involved with a banned poster openly targetting a few posters in here like some tag team, this leads for me to distrust some genuine views as maybe being part of this group for example. If we are serious about getting rid of these cliques as you call it then people need to be a little more honest and upfront rather than show one face in here and then call posters and the mods c**ts on twitter.

Basically if for example you have a problem with me or my post deal with it the honest way and PM me and then off the heat of the boards we can explain our positions far better, dont post stuff on twitter that people cannot respond to.
A world were Liars and Hypocrites are accepted and rewarded and honest people are derided!
Who voted in this lying corrupt bastard anyway

Offline MassDriver

  • Custom Tit... Shithouse lover... Politically correct and metrosexual cave dweller.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,518
  • Hasta la victoria siempre
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #234 on: May 8, 2012, 08:34:04 am »
So you were on a wind-up and making a point about Hodgson after we won the Carling Cup?

One of the least interesting observations on here is that wins tend to result in shorter threads than defeats and that contentious subjects (Hodgson being one) tend to create lengthy debate.

I wasn't.

I was attempting to point out the hypocrisy exhibited by many posters in giving all kinds of abuse under the sun and calling him a 'classless c*nt' while posting in a rapidly inflating Hodgson threaad whose sole purpose was to mock and deride him.  And I got called a 'Manc' for that. That is acceptable I suppose?

I have made my point Alan , I don't think I'll be able to convince you so lets leave it at that eh?

(Edit: And you cannot seriously call the trash that was posted in the thread as 'debate' Alan , even by the loosest definition of the word)
« Last Edit: May 8, 2012, 08:35:52 am by MassDriver »
You will never walk alone , Shanklyboy. RIP.

I am the Eye in the Sky, looking at you, I can read your mind. I am the maker of rules, dealing with fools, I can cheat you blind. Looking at you, I can read your mind

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #235 on: May 8, 2012, 08:36:13 am »
Hmmm, up to Page 2 now and will continue going through them and posting replies and observations intermittently today.  So keep em coming.

Interesting to see that we are getting a fairly even split between
a) You need to moderate with a lighter touch
b) You need to do more to clamp down on cliques, bullying, abuse of players etc etc

And don't worry, I'm not necessarily interpreting that as meaning we are getting it right, it may be that we are clamping down hard in the wrong places and not clamping enough in others.
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline liversaint

  • Beach boy giver of yuletide joy to ha-run-run-reindeer
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,231
  • Settle down Beavis
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #236 on: May 8, 2012, 08:43:43 am »
I have been on here a while, and read a lot more than I post on football matters, as usually what I would say has been articulated better than I could manage.

I think it's the best football, particularly LFC site by miles, with the sub forums very high quality. The sheer number of posters ensure a difficult balance for the mods at the best of times.

To sum up for me, the RAWK way is like the Liverpool way. Either you get it, or you don't....
You say Honey? I say Fuck off.

You dont win friends with Salad

There is another option. Mr Ferguson organises the fixtures in his office and sends it to us and everyone will know and cannot complain. That is simple.

Offline Kochevnik

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,980
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #237 on: May 8, 2012, 08:45:43 am »
For the most part RAWK is a great site.  I despise the "karma" up-voting/down-voting that happens on most forums, because it turns everything into an echo-chamber where people who have contrary opinions are afraid to voice them because they'll be down-voted, and people eventually just congratulate each other for all thinking the same.  I'm glad that's never happened here, and I hope it never does.

That said, to the point made in the OP about whether or not it's a "discussion forum," if you want my opinion it should be.  I understand the need to curb certain discussion, and by all means please endeavour to make the discussions based on well-written articles as a jumping-off point.  That's a brilliant idea, and I love it when threads start with a thought-provoking article to discuss.

However, sometimes the modding on here can be hard to understand.  I don't want to cite specific examples, but things get closed because the mod in question doesn't personally like them, or for some reason that is never explained.  I understand the need to curb transfer talk to avoid FM-style discussion taking over the board, but I think the moderators overuse "transfer talk" as a reason to shut down discussion of the future of the squad sometimes.  Balancing the two is a difficult proposition, though, so I'm not upset about it, I just wish the lock hammer were used more judiciously.  Even when a thread is not transfer related it can be shut down for apparently no reason, even when it seems to be a topic that would provoke an interesting discussion.  I'd like to see less of that.

Overall, I enjoy RAWK.  It's well-designed, the users are ... well, diverse and interesting, and it's generally easy to use.  It's not perfect, though, and that's why I offer my thoughts.
Managers who have won fewer than three European Cups: Ferguson, Mourinho, Guardiola, Saachi, Hiddink, Hitzfeld, Clough, Happel, Trapattoni, Cruyff, Michels, Lobanovsky, Capello, and many more.
Managers who have won three or more European Cups: Bob Paisley

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #238 on: May 8, 2012, 08:47:13 am »


Just want to follow-up on this one. I would agree that a moderators personal viewpoint should not influence unduly what they chooses to delete and what they choose to ignore.  There are some rules however which are part of the DNA of RAWK and respecting the players and manager of the club is one of those rules.  That does not mean they are beyond criticism, far from it, but it does mean that criticism has got to be thoughtfully delivered.  The line between what is acceptable and what is not will always be grey and hazy.
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline conman

  • Ohh aaaah just a little bit, Ooh aahh, a little bit more. Aerial stalker perv. Not cool enough to get the lolz.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,498
    • Cocopoppyhead
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #239 on: May 8, 2012, 08:48:32 am »
Maybe there can be a minimum character count applied which would enable that post to receive a like button