Topic: What is RAWK?

[montysmum]

I locked it, and I considered just excising all the Carra references, but it would have taken a long time - probably longer than it is worth.

You may want to start a topic about it being possibly Dirk's and Maxi's game, and it should all be better behaved.

Personally, I find it very sad that adult posters are incapable of posting in a congratulatory topic about a player who has spent his entire career with us without being snide. There is a case that it is time for him to move on, but there is a time and a place, and that was clearly the wrong place.

I wasn't getting at you for locking it SP, and I understand why it is easier to do that rather than trawl through and remove offending posts, but even so the people who criticise Carragher at every opportunity often seem to be the same ones, saying the same things.

I don't want to see anyone banned, but maybe warnings could be issued more?

It maybe does show that a site this size need more Mods or designated monitors - people who spend a lot of time on here and who are willing to use the 'report to Mod' button which maybe some members are unwilling to do?

Maybe too it is time to review the rules for RAWK?  I know it has been mentioned in this thread that while it is ok to discuss perceived errors the manager has made, it is not acceptable to call for a manage to be sacked, moved upstairs or name a preferred candidate for the job (I know we did over Hodgson but I think that comes under 'exceptional circumstances!), and it is not ok to label players as shite etc.

Go to the rules page though and that shows -

"7. Censorious. You can say what you like how you like. The editorial policy will not impinge on what you say unless you're abusive, a racist, a homophobe, or promoting illegal activity. "

Now, it may be that the site has evolved a lot since those rules were drawn up, but maybe a review of them and clear guidelines made about what is and is not acceptable might be an idea?

[BirdBrain]

Hmmm. I have got to preface this by saying that I fucking despise the term "superfan" as a pejorative to describe anyone defending what we once would have loosely described as "the Liverpool way".

Similarly I think you are being grossly unfair to the lads on TAW if you are suggesting that their comments can in any way be compared to some of the negative nonsense on here.

But point taken about positive posters getting away with stuff in the post match threads. I'll come back to that in a later post.

Yes, fair enough, I'm not keen on these labels either but it seemed the easiest way to describe those sorts of posters (and I think we all know the type). It helps no-one. If you disagree with a reasonably articulately made post the best way to answer is with another reasonably articulate post, not rip the poster apart cos they don't have a season ticket or go to as many home games as you do. I'd like to see mods remind those people its a discussion forum and just to address points made in the post.

I wasnt having a go at the Anfield Wrap lads at all and have genuinely seen posts as articulate as those guys having their credibility as LFC fans questioned

[west_london_red]

How do you stop people talking about a man who may have had the biggest effect on the direction of the club since Shankly?
You may not see him in that way. But there are so many who do. You don`t have enough moderators in the world to stop people talking about him. The only thing you can do is try to get people to see they are damaging the current setup by constantly comparing it to Rafa`s tenure.
But the Rafa v Kenny debate is getting out of control. Yesterday there was an experienced pro Kenny poster denigrating Rafa by saying he really only had one good league season in 09-10. I half expected him to finish off with the classic sky comment of he was a "lucky manager"

You will not find a bigger Rafa fan on this site then me I promise you that, and I know what your saying about some of the crap that gets posted about him (I saw the comment your talking about and didnt know whether to laugh or cry), one poster appeared to suggest that winning two La ligas wasnt much of an achievement either but sadly any mentions of someone elses achievements is seen by some on here as some kind of dig at Kenny so people lose all sense of balance and get overly defensive when there is no  need to... but still think people need to stop mentioning Rafa at every single point imangiable.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

Id like to see an option for voting for posts you like which would hopefully cut out a lot of the same two sentence posts jamming up a lot of threads.

Maybe there should be a separate moderated forum which only contains high quality posts - similar to the 'posts you may have  missed' thread although i realise this is a lot of work for the mods.

Perhaps there should be an invite-only section of the board which anyone can read but only those who have good contributions can write in (again determined by the mods).

[Alan_X]

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.

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.

It seems like you want RAWK not to be RAWK. The reason I started reading the forum and joined it was because it had a character that was steered and in many ways epitomized by the moderation team.

In answer to Kev's question - what is RAWK?

1. Intelligent posting about football
2. A wicked sense of humor
3. Recognizable characters whose posts you look forward to reading - you know who you are.
4. Custom titles
5. The Boozer and other off topic forums
6. A football site where you can also discuss global politics, arts and culture and a baked bean in someone's pubes.
7. A community that provides support for fellow members.
8. A source of emergency medical advice
9. A base for campaigns - HFD, Hicks and Gillett, Ben's wedding dress...
10. Strong opinionated moderation that sets the tone of the site.
11. An open forum

and so on...

If your answer to 'what is RAWK' is none of the above then maybe you should set up
your egalitarian anonymous Liverpool forum. The internet's a free country and no-one's stopping you.

[shelovesyou]

What is the point of what you've just said there?

Paranoid indeed. 'Respected Posters' eh? 'who the masses suck up to"

What are you going on about there? What is the purpose of your post?

Twisted? If you've said something clearly then how can it be twisted? If you are clear and forthright and don't beat around the bush and say what you mean then surely you self-qualfiy your thoughts so they cannot be twisted? If you think they can be then you aren't being clear enough yourself and surely can't blame others?

Dont want to derail a quality thread, but i'll just say this - If you honestly think that some posts are not or have not been misconstrued and then agenda set, then yer naive mate, no offence.
Yes, of course it may well be the way the poster put across his views, granted, but not always the case.

[shelovesyou]

I think the place does give a huge sense of community to those who dont know many people who are into football as much as we are.
The amount of times Ive had PM's from posters offering help with a matter Ive discussed is just a testament to that.
You feel like its an extension of your life. I do anyway.
I like it as it is to be honest, a few bug bears, but theyre just personal.

[macca888]

Firstly- post count. Does it actually add anything to the site? There's a general attitude that people with more posts are treated better and people with less posts are noobs who don't know anything and therefore some people just type as many one liners as possible to get to 1000 posts so they are seen as more 'experienced'. If we bin the post count, everyone remains equal and there's less incentive to type as much crap as possible in a short space of time. The quality of posting will increase in my opinion.

I do think this is a brilliant idea. I don't bother with looking at post counts because in all honesty, if you're on here long enough, you get to recognise people and have a little grasp of what they're about. As everyone recognises, high post counts don't equate to anything really other than a certain longevity. But I do think that is more the reason why people think of there being cliques. It's just that they've known each other for longer either in here or real life. Or take the boozer for another example. It's not a clique as such, but you'll often see the same people, me included, having a bit of a laugh at each other's expense. Again, a simple "Eh you gang, shut the fuck up" would suffice to me, whether that's from a mod or anyone else really.

The point about entrenched viewpoints is a good one too, but unfortunately there's a good reason for holding those opinions sacrosanct in certain circumstances. The King Kenny one is the most important example. Personally I can accept valid criticism of him even if I don't agree with it, but I think calling for his head is tantamount to LFC treason. Tell me that you don't like his team selections or his tactics or his substitutions, fine and I'll happily listen to those opinions. But openly declare that he should be sacked and start name calling him, and I just can't tolerate that bile. Other than that one thing, I think it's just a matter of respect for each other. There are plenty of decent posters on here that I don't agree with, but I appreciate the time they take to validate their point of view. Voltaire said it better than me but wasn't it along the lines of "I might not agree with your opinion but I will defend with my life your right to hold it, even if you are a fucking idiot!" As long as we have posters respecting each other and the site rules, we can't go too far wrong.

Just a little idea too is removing the ability to quote a post in the Art Vandelay thread. Jesus fucking Christ, you could run a bath sometimes the time it takes to load a page at certain times of the day. Especially when it's a really brilliant gif by Macphisto or one of the other talented lads. It's great to be able to see it once, but when it gets quoted 39 times on a page, well it's like the good old days of dial up. Maybe if the mods or SP or Ben were going to trial some form of like system, that would be the ideal place to try it.

Something else that posters could do is make use of the PM system a bit more. Obviously, threatening ones are fully deserving of a ban, but in the main I like PM's. As most of you who know me, I'm a pisstaking bastard, but at least I'm an equal opportunities one. Thoughtless or not though it may be, I mean it without any disrespect to anyone. As there are plenty of people on here who will testify, if I've aimed a joke at anyone and someone takes offence to it, whether that be the recipient or anyone else who happens to read it, once I'm made aware of that, I'll happily apologize. I'm not fantastic at self moderation, but there's certainly never any malice or malevolence behind anything I post. Just as a case in point, somebody brought up a comment I'd made to another user and was offended by it enough to bring it up in the Feedback Forum. Not only did I apologize to the person who was offended by it, I also Pm'ed the person it was directed at to apologize. The fact that they'd thought it funny was not the issue and the fact that it was another RAWKite who was upset by it didn't make my apology less sincere. Applying that to other areas of the main forum, maybe if people were more willing to take their disagreements to a more private arena, it would cause a lot less of the table tennis style back and forth that we see now that really adds nothing to the site.

And I want my own thread too. I used to love writing those hack pieces, taking the piss out of journalists who used any opportunity to have a dig at us, but I don't bother any more, partly through laziness, partly because some people don't like anything that's piss taking (serious old business this internet malarkey) and partly because I think what's the point in taking time to write a decently long piece even if it is only a parody if it's going to be drowned out within half an hour, never to be seen again? Maybe that's just apathy on my part.

And SHF why the fuck did you single me out you fucking Evil Knievil cyclops?

[JerseyKloppite]

I don't think the post count is really an issue. If someone spends their entire time posting one liners with nothing to add, they will still have nothing to add with 10,000 posts. People won't suddenly 'respect' them, at least they shouldn't.

I do see the above points re excellent posts by people with very low post counts, but I think it's natural. As someone said earlier, it's like regulars in a pub. I won't dismiss anyone's views due to a post count.

[24/7]

A few random thoughts, not necessarily aimed at any one post or poster...
 
1) The 'report to mod' function is more useful than most of you probably realise. One of its functions is, as has been mentioned, an 'early warning' and facilitates either judicious leniency by letting something go or so-called "just in time" moderation, where one of us instinctively assesses the potential direction the thread could take, allowing us to lock/delete.
 
2) Instinct - it's not always going to be correct - sometimes necessity dictates a quick response but personally I prefer to wait-and-see before acting quickly with, well, any moderating action (lock, delete, warning, ban). Like football itself, there are going to be times when actions are determined by one's interpretation of the 'rules' but be in no doubt that we try to be fair.
 
3) Some have asked for explanations as to why something is locked or deleted. Well, in all honesty, that's not always enough either - there have been occasions when the explanation itself becomes the target of further ire. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. The plastic flags thread I just locked is probably going to be the subject of a complaint about stifiling debate on an 'important' issue like the singing of the national anthem. As an example then, if you click on a thread called "bin them plastic flags", do you expect to enter a thread that had veered so far off track and whose final post was calling the monarchy a bunch of c*nts? Whether or not you agree with the sentiment or either side of the new debate, it's a bit different from the title isn't it......hence the explanation for locking it.
 
Sometimes we don't have time to explain, other times no explanation should be necessary. Fair enough, people want explanations, and those explanations themselves could be criticised, so we try to strike the balance.
 
Oh yes, and sometimes a thread will be left up locked, as an example of what we don't want to see. If we locked and deleted, there'd be little opportunity for learning.
 
Where it gets more difficult is when threads are repeatedly restarted on the same subject when the subject itself has been declared off-limits, at least for the time being. Personal experience suggests that this is most difficult during match times. That's when it's easier to perceive it as heavy-handedness when in fact looking at the wider context would give a better perspective.
 
But like I said, it's not always correct, I've made mistakes meself, as have other mods (cue derisive denials). It's an interesting debate and I think is the first thread I've seen on RAWK that meant I spent my entire lunch break reading just the one thread.....
 
[/mode stream of consciousness]

[Chakan]

The point about entrenched viewpoints is a good one too, but unfortunately there's a good reason for holding those opinions sacrosanct in certain circumstances. The King Kenny one is the most important example. Personally I can accept valid criticism of him even if I don't agree with it, but I think calling for his head is tantamount to LFC treason. Tell me that you don't like his team selections or his tactics or his substitutions, fine and I'll happily listen to those opinions. But openly declare that he should be sacked and start name calling him, and I just can't tolerate that bile. Other than that one thing, I think it's just a matter of respect for each other. There are plenty of decent posters on here that I don't agree with, but I appreciate the time they take to validate their point of view. Voltaire said it better than me but wasn't it along the lines of "I might not agree with your opinion but I will defend with my life your right to hold it, even if you are a fucking idiot!" As long as we have posters respecting each other and the site rules, we can't go too far wrong.

The problem comes in it when you question Kenny some people will automatically jump to the conclusion that you want Kenny out and no matter how you try to tell them that that isn't the case you were just trying to understand a decision or god forbid think he might have got something wrong, they close their brains and its "you want Kenny out and aren't behind the team and manager" and god forbid if you don't go to a match cause your 16000km's away, then you really come in for a bollocking. I can remember when Aristotle for one put over a fantastic post about tactics and what had happened, a lot of people were saying it's a great post, I also remember a fair few people saying it meant nothing cause he hadn't gone to a match and they would take any supporter opinion who had been to the match over his anyway.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

You can't really have a go at football fans for respecting opinions of folks that actually go to the games though.

There can be quality posts and analysis. But unless you've been to the game then you haven't really seen the game.

The best posters are the ones that go then watch it again then post.

[KevLFC]

I would like the match thread back but I think there was too many arguments during the game if I can remember?

[Outlaw]

It seems like you want RAWK not to be RAWK. The reason I started reading the forum and joined it was because it had a character that was steered and in many ways epitomized by the moderation team.

In answer to Kev's question - what is RAWK?

1. Intelligent posting about football
2. A wicked sense of humor
3. Recognizable characters whose posts you look forward to reading - you know who you are.
4. Custom titles
5. The Boozer and other off topic forums
6. A football site where you can also discuss global politics, arts and culture and a baked bean in someone's pubes.
7. A community that provides support for fellow members.
8. A source of emergency medical advice
9. A base for campaigns - HFD, Hicks and Gillett, Ben's wedding dress...
10. Strong opinionated moderation that sets the tone of the site.
11. An open forum

and so on...

If your answer to 'what is RAWK' is none of the above then maybe you should set up
your egalitarian anonymous Liverpool forum. The internet's a free country and no-one's stopping you.

I guess telling somebody to go away is one way of deflecting criticism. I was just giving my opinion, which was asked for.

Just for the record, 10 of the 11 things I've no issue with. I don't really have an issue with over-zealous, authoritarian moderation. I'm not much of a trouble maker, so it doesn't impact on me. I'm just offering an opinion, how you take it - with humility or with venom - it's entirely up to you.

I don't think it's a particularly wild points to me, that moderators should moderate discussion rather than dictate what can and can't be discussed.

[Chakan]

You can't really have a go at football fans for respecting opinions of folks that actually go to the games though.

There can be quality posts and analysis. But unless you've been to the game then you haven't really seen the game.

The best posters are the ones that go then watch it again then post.

I'm not having a go at them, i'm having a go at people who go to the games and then dismiss completely out of hand people who can't get to the games and knowing nothing because of the fact they can't get to the game.

[west_london_red]

You can't really have a go at football fans for respecting opinions of folks that actually go to the games though.

There can be quality posts and analysis. But unless you've been to the game then you haven't really seen the game.

The best posters are the ones that go then watch it again then post.

But going to the game doesnt automatically make you knowledgable, especially when everyone complains that half the stadiums full of day trippers etc these days.

[nocturnalvin]

I've a suggestion, not sure if its been mentioned. Its regarding Spying Kop.

Its tedious i am definitely aware but missed those.

My suggestion is to follow up with the same opposition supporters AFTER the game as well. Could be very good debate.

[hide5seek]

Quality site with quality mods if truth be told (allowed me to get away with loads of Tory abuse over the years, though to be honest I am trying to reign that in before I do get banned).

[♠Dirty Harry♠]

1. Intelligent posting about football
2. A wicked sense of humor
3. Recognizable characters whose posts you look forward to reading - you know who you are.
4. Custom titles
5. The Boozer and other off topic forums
6. A football site where you can also discuss global politics, arts and culture and a baked bean in someone's pubes.
7. A community that provides support for fellow members.
8. A source of emergency medical advice
9. A base for campaigns - HFD, Hicks and Gillett, Ben's wedding dress...
10. Strong opinionated moderation that sets the tone of the site.
11. An open forum

Yeah that's pretty much how I view it.

The most I take personally from this forum (outside of the footballing discussion) is the free advice of professionals on here. There is genuinely some fantastic free information shared on here that would cost a lot of money if you were to visit a consultant in the relevant field, add to that it's something you feel you can trust vs open searches on the web.

Perhaps if that's how everyone on here realised what a fantastic resource it is for all things Liverpool and all things in general they wouldn't be so quick to criticise or act the uber-c*nts they do.

[Finn Solomon]

The problem comes in it when you question Kenny some people will automatically jump to the conclusion that you want Kenny out and no matter how you try to tell them that that isn't the case you were just trying to understand a decision or god forbid think he might have got something wrong, they close their brains and its "you want Kenny out and aren't behind the team and manager" and god forbid if you don't go to a match cause your 16000km's away, then you really come in for a bollocking. I can remember when Aristotle for one put over a fantastic post about tactics and what had happened, a lot of people were saying it's a great post, I also remember a fair few people saying it meant nothing cause he hadn't gone to a match and they would take any supporter opinion who had been to the match over his anyway.

I remember that too, ridiculous response to what was a very good post. I think completely shouting down somebody just because he can't watch a football match in person constitutes mindless abuse.

Anyway I'm glad there's some effort being made at hearing feedback, the mood's been ugly around here for quite some time.

[lucas65]

It seems like you want RAWK not to be RAWK. The reason I started reading the forum and joined it was because it had a character that was steered and in many ways epitomized by the moderation team.

In answer to Kev's question - what is RAWK?

1. Intelligent posting about football
2. A wicked sense of humor
3. Recognizable characters whose posts you look forward to reading - you know who you are.
4. Custom titles
5. The Boozer and other off topic forums
6. A football site where you can also discuss global politics, arts and culture and a baked bean in someone's pubes.
7. A community that provides support for fellow members.
8. A source of emergency medical advice
9. A base for campaigns - HFD, Hicks and Gillett, Ben's wedding dress...
10. Strong opinionated moderation that sets the tone of the site.
11. An open forum

and so on...

If your answer to 'what is RAWK' is none of the above then maybe you should set up
your egalitarian anonymous Liverpool forum. The internet's a free country and no-one's stopping you.

This is similar to why I come on. There is something for everyone. I have been coming on for about 7 years but have only just joined but I feel part of it.

I, like many others have my favourite bits, apart from the football. I enjoy others opinions on beer, pets, music, pubs, shit jokes, trainers, depression etc. You can come on and be lifted or let off steam.

I don't think there is too much wrong with it except when some people try to be elitist about being a Liverpool fan. They try and look down on others opinions and twist history to suit their arguments e.g. "We have always booed the national anthem."  Err no we didn't, we just sang ours.
If you disagree with them they get abusive. Why?

The only thing to change that I can see is to warn about abuse. Keep the place light hearted.

[Chakan]

I remember that too, ridiculous response to what was a very good post. I think completely shouting down somebody just because he can't watch a football match in person constitutes mindless abuse.

Anyway I'm glad there's some effort being made at hearing feedback, the mood's been ugly around here for quite some time.

See that's the thing I think after that a large number of people thought why even bother then? To actively go out and analyze the match from top to bottom, to work out what went wrong what went right and to put it in words takes a long time specially if you rewatching the match to get a keener eye on it rather than a passionate one, all for the masses to go "You know nothing you weren't there" .

[Alan_X]

I guess telling somebody to go away is one way of deflecting criticism. I was just giving my opinion, which was asked for.

Where does it say go away? It's a serious point. We're a site that has 38,000 members and up to 10,000 active at a time. We are always looking to improve but none of the people who run it want to lose the things that make RAWK what it is at its best. Your   suggestions were so far away from what this site is about it's a fair question to ask you why you are here and not setting up your own site.

You're still welcome on here and welcome to make suggestions about how to improve the site. If there is a need for the site you believe in then we wish you well. Maybe take a few thousand members with you. As has been pointed out this is a non profit site with no advertising. It makes no odds to us whether we have 38,000 or 380 members.  We don't run the site to be popular - we really don't give a fuck about numbers, just about quality.

I would have no interest on the site you describe and I don't think any of the currently moderration team would either.

[Outlaw]

we really don't give a fuck about numbers, just about quality.

I neither mentioned numbers, nor quality (although, I suspect our perspective on what constitutes 'quality' would differ), just a few lines about the differences between a moderator, and what I believe a moderator should do (which is be 'moderate', funnily enough), and a poster. Take a few permissions away, and I doubt there's much difference. Maybe I'm wrong about that, I've no idea. Maybe you're all Gods; he didn't like to be questioned. It seems you've taken exception to my suggestion. They're easily ignored and I meant no offence. 

[Hazell]

I think Southern Pansy's post about people being too entrenched in their own position is a good one. Far too may times, people won't move an inch from their own viewpoint and won't even entertain an alternative view. It might just be the way of the internet where people can argue until they're blue in the face but on here, if we really want to improve the quality of the sight, that's one thing that everyone can do.  In that sense, self moderation is important, taking on board other people's viewpoints and looking at things from their points of view, entertaining the idea that other people might have a point despite it contradicting your own and knowing when to stop posting. Unfortunately, it is difficult, it only takes one condescending remark to send a thread spiralling into a tit-for-tat argument and getting locked. I guess Chakan's post about Aristotle falls into that as well - a well thought out and constructed post countered with 'get behind the team and manager' and 'you know nothing, you didn't go to the game' etc. All of that can be cut out immediately if there is an effort to do so.

[Waka]

Maybe stem it at the likely source, which has to be the post match thread and work from there. It's not even one liners it's one or two words, such when we win, a sea of "get in" or when we lose "fuck off", smiley faces or whatever. I know that people who are probably overjoyed when we win want to share the special occasion by writing in block capitals "GET IN", but when you look at the thread at the whole, it is basically just a sea of nonsense and it may seem harsh but when you have a forum as populated as this one its inevitable that a thread is going to jump from 1-30 in the blink of an eye and posts will get lost, especially when we lose at that. And to stem it, a like button would be an option but as someone else said, it would just turn into a popularity contest. Maybe have the editor just delete these one worded posts as they are entered, especially just after games until people begin to realise.

[stevied]

i am not sure there is a lot wrong with RAWK, ok you get the occasional oddball that wants to fight the world but policed correctly as i think it is then its fine, you will always get some dickhead in a crowd, in a bar, in a workplace the forum is no different to that just on a grander scale, i like RAWK for what it is , a big red family who doesnt agree with everything posted, if we were top of the league with all the world stars we would be patting ourselves on the back and loving life, we arent so we end up having arguments about something that a lot of people feel passionate about, i dont even mind the odd Manc making comment Johnnowhite is sound yet he gets slagged off by the odd clown for being on here, he adds a view from outside which in the main is valuable to a debate, dont get changing too much it wouldnt be the same

[macca888]

The problem comes in it when you question Kenny some people will automatically jump to the conclusion that you want Kenny out and no matter how you try to tell them that that isn't the case you were just trying to understand a decision or god forbid think he might have got something wrong, they close their brains and its "you want Kenny out and aren't behind the team and manager" and god forbid if you don't go to a match cause your 16000km's away, then you really come in for a bollocking. I can remember when Aristotle for one put over a fantastic post about tactics and what had happened, a lot of people were saying it's a great post, I also remember a fair few people saying it meant nothing cause he hadn't gone to a match and they would take any supporter opinion who had been to the match over his anyway.

Excellent point, but at the end of the day that's just debate and one set of opinions. If you genuinely think the fucking idiot next to you who to be honest you couldn't trust not to get third degree burns off a cup of tea has a more valid point of view than a perspicacious young man who has happened to watch the match on a different medium, than they're entitled to that opinion. It's funny that you've highlighted Aristotle because he particularly makes some of the most insightful posts in the round table discussions, so to me it's got fuck all to do with whether you go to the match or not in a lot of circumstances. The post rather than the poster is the only difference I see when I read through a discussion. While I don't get to nearly as many games as I would like because of illness, I've been to more matches than loads of posters on here, but some like Aristotle (not meaning to single him out, but he is a great example) understand the game from a tactical perspective much better than me. On the other hand, I've stood next to fellas, seasoned veterans, whose opinions and ability to convey them I wouldn't give you the time of day for. But you're right, when it comes to certain things, turning around and saying "where you there then yer fucking wool?" shouldn't really be allowed. But I think it might be at least a bit more valid when people are just indiscriminately slating the team and manager to say "Well you're not going to be there, so don't tell me how to support the team."

And sorry for coming up with yet another suggestion, but if it all possible there might be a time limit on when a post can be quoted. I'm all for people having a debate with each other over certain aspects of their footballing beliefs or ideologies, but it gets too much for me when people use posts from ages ago to use as a battering ram against people. I've seen it in the Lucas thread where people may have doubted his ability at one stage coming around and accepting that he's a brilliant player, but being told that they're a hypocrite because they said "he's shite" after a match in 2009. that's wrong, and I've seen a lot of it recently unfortunately. Fuck me, Andy can be a massive tit at times with some of the bollocks he comes out with  , but I saw a load of people ganging up on him on one thread, quoting posts he made in July last year, to harangue him because back then he said he wanted to win the league, but because the season has panned out the way it has, he's not really arsed where we finished. It was embarrassing to say the very least and that type of thing shouldn't go unchecked. The great thing about most of our opinions is that we can change them at any time, but it shouldn't be allowed that people can try to embarrass others for changing their views. If people change their views, it doesn't mean that they're a flip-flopper to me; it generally mean that they're more open minded and big enough to admit that they may have been wrong in the past or at the very least can concede to better logic. Fucking hell, I've posted quite a bit on the current affairs topics concerning religion. How do you think I'd feel if my mam posted on here "Well you're a fucking gobshite for claiming to be an agnostic Sean, because you used to be a Catholic altar boy when you were 11, you fucking hypocrite." No real difference in what I've seen the last couple of weeks.

[Graham Smith]

As a long time member but a recently irregular poster RAWK needs to be recognised and respected for what it is. Ok, it may be more moderated than other LFC sites but it gains as much as it loses for that.

It probably has a higher proportion of non-match goers or OOTs and OOCs than some other sites but again it gains as much as it "loses" in it's lack of Liverpool (the area) focus.

It is the largest independent site and has lots of good writers, if some are a little too serious for my taste.

It will attract a certain type in the same way that the smaller sites attract a scertain type. If I want anarchy I'll go to the Rattle, if I want a definite slant on LFC try TLW. If I want a broad church then come to RAWK.

[RedMarko]

The 'entrenched position' is a good call out. And I know, personally, I can be stubborn in my opinions. However, I would take the view that, after a couple of back and forth arguments with a poster, the trick would be to finish up with a post along the lines of

'I've made my point, I'm not going to agree with yours, I'm outta here'

The problem is that majority of people in such discussions will see that as a sign of weakness in argument rather than a desire not to get into an interweb drama and then quote it back with 'run along then' or something similar.

There are an awful lot of WUMs on forums such as this. They seem to get off on prolonging arguments rather than finishing them. That makes for long and unfulfilling pages of posts which anyone but those directly involved in the discussion have no desire to read.

I can never understand why a poster would make their point and then add a facetious line such as (most recent example I have seen):

Maybe you're all Gods; he didn't like to be questioned.

Absolutely adds nothing to the point made, except maybe as a fishing trip to look for the poster it was aimed at to engage in forum fighting.

As mentioned earlier, I do not think this is a RAWK phenomenon. It is just becoming more prolific here with time and numbers.

Self-moderation (not at expense of current moderation) is the key. We need to learn and agree how our favourite forum should operate. Kinda like we should understand how we should act as supporters. (I see the 2 as very closely linked)

However, as long as you have a small percentage of posters going out of their way to ensure that they will be heard loudest (most often), it is unlikely to happen.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I think Southern Pansy's post about people being too entrenched in their own position is a good one. Far too may times, people won't move an inch from their own viewpoint and won't even entertain an alternative view. It might just be the way of the internet where people can argue until they're blue in the face but on here, if we really want to improve the quality of the sight, that's one thing that everyone can do.  In that sense, self moderation is important, taking on board other people's viewpoints and looking at things from their points of view, entertaining the idea that other people might have a point despite it contradicting your own and knowing when to stop posting. Unfortunately, it is difficult, it only takes one condescending remark to send a thread spiralling into a tit-for-tat argument and getting locked. I guess Chakan's post about Aristotle falls into that as well - a well thought out and constructed post countered with 'get behind the team and manager' and 'you know nothing, you didn't go to the game' etc. All of that can be cut out immediately if there is an effort to do so.

But there is the other side of that. I have tried to engage with individual posts and have been greeted with "Fuck off Superfan".

There are some that are entrenched negatively as well as positively.

Not sure there's an answer to that. I think Kenny Dalglish is a great bloke for instance and someone could throw words at me til 2050 and I would refuse to change that view.

Once you 'know' something then it's hard to accept that you don't know anything.

Same goes with posters that when you come up with an unpopular view (Gerrard is a good example here) where anything you say is dismissed because it just doesn't fit with the reality of the reading posters world. They can't see beyond the disagreement to what is actually being said.

I've said the odd thing and immediately had "You have proven you know fuck all about football". Not sure I've ever put myself up there to be a sage on the subject - but everyone knows something about something. But I can understand the reaction - it's about emotion and not just emotion but emotion that's been invested across a number of years (or decades) - when someone challenges your deep seated, long earned and long respected viewpoints, it's no wonder that people get emotional and angry and dismissive and unreasonable. Once you stop trying to see the others point of view and what they are trying to say then there is no real way back from there. And that's going to happen across a range of subjects whatever decisions are made with the site.

Entrenched positions and thoughts aren't intrinsically bad - it's how they are reacted to and dealt with. It's also very difficult to not get involved in subjects that are your bugbear. Thought would have to be given to address 'favourite subjects' and we all know posters that have their positive and negative views on a variety of subjects. I get PMs a fair bit 'thanking' me for saying some stuff that other posters fear they cannot say because they get jumped on when they challenge deeply held views that have been there 'forever'. I'm sure that some other posters get similar when they discuss other subjects that aren't part of the 'common' view.

It's again tricky because discussion is always good and again it's not only how you react - it's how you are allowed to react and how people are allowed to react on how you have reacted. We're all people. We all (mostly) have the good of the club at heart. We all 'care'. With the 'superfan' thing I've been increasingly told that as well as being a 'superfan' I bizarrely 'don't care' about where we finish up and the other day I was told I would be 'happy' with the club being relegated to the conference. I'm not sure how opposing statements can be dealt with and I'm not sure any mod can get involved in any meaningful way apart from closing threads that have just gone way off track.

The mods do a good job and in many cases closing the thread or deleting posts (Even good ones) is entirely acceptable. It's their site. It's their rules. It's their ideas and they have to make decisions quite often quickly and that sometimes comes across unfairly. But you can't please that many people all of the time. It's impossible.

So a lot of it when you do get banned (I've been banned loads of times) or if you get your thread locked or posts deleted then they aren't having a go at you - they are just helping to moderate a site and doing a job that's impossible. They aren't out to upset you or piss you off and even 'superfans' get banned from time to time. So relaxing when it happens to you is the way to go. It happens to most people most of the time. You're just one of many when it's your turn, so shrug and get on with it. If you're giving a warning, heed the warning. Take it on board and try and not do it again. Their rules. Their board.

[redbyrdz]

quick question.

does many people use the main page?

i only use the forum, but back in 2004 when i first found this site, i was always reading it. It looks rather dated now, but perhaps the centre column could be displayed like a blog. The top posts and articles written should be clearly displayed there. Same applies to images from the LFC forum & the great artwork by McPhisto, ArtV, The blasted french, kit etc.

I'm dead proud of the contributions by many people in here, it's such a resourceful and quality place to be a member of.
It would be great to really showcase the talents of these people by highlighting it in a really nice manner on the main. Articles do get promoted there in its current form, but i reckon the format is rather dated.

It would also be an ideal way for us to snoop in on the latest quality while at work.

Agree with that about the front page! Is there a way to update the lead article more frequently? Or at least regularly?

Also can the "recent posts" right-hand column be changed so that it automatically excludes deleted and locked threads? Quite often there's some proper rubbish there that has long been locked and dropped down the board, but because it is a recent new thread it's still on the front page. Maybe changing it from "recent posts" to "most active posts" (similar to how the main board works) would be the simplest solution.



Oh, post counts: I use them as an additional clue who the poster is when they've had their name changed...

[Rafa_La]

Spot on. Also the history bits could be expanded as a source of information for people who wants to learn more about the club, etc.

Below thread got started last September.

Wonderful contributions in the thread.

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=280869.msg10293013#msg10293013

[petecolonia]

What is RAWK? RAWK is when you need two gats to go to sleep
RAWK is when your moms ain't safe up in the streets
........

I'd just like to see some of the more obvious agendas 'dealt with', the stuck records... or a slap button

[Alan_X]

Agree with that about the front page! Is there a way to update the lead article more frequently? Or at least regularly?

Also can the "recent posts" right-hand column be changed so that it automatically excludes deleted and locked threads? Quite often there's some proper rubbish there that has long been locked and dropped down the board, but because it is a recent new thread it's still on the front page. Maybe changing it from "recent posts" to "most active posts" (similar to how the main board works) would be the simplest solution.



Oh, post counts: I use them as an additional clue who the poster is when they've had their name changed...

The front page is one of the things we're looking at in detail and hope to have something to look at fairly soon.

[Rafa_La]

You can't really have a go at football fans for respecting opinions of folks that actually go to the games though.

There can be quality posts and analysis. But unless you've been to the game then you haven't really seen the game.

The best posters are the ones that go then watch it again then post.

That's all fine and good. Alludes a bit to superfanism

 There was a time where Aristole & Chakkan were doing excellent in-match commentaries. (Plus the others).
They managed to allow users almost be at the match because of this.
I defy you to say their reports failed in comparison with some match-goers' accounts

[Hazell]

That's where self moderation comes in. Knowing when to stop, or even in some cases which posters to engage with and which not to because there's little point and threads descend into a sea of swearing/put downs/arguments. Admittedly, it's difficult, if someone says you know nothing about football or calls you a dickhead, then it's natural to want to respond and it's always going to happen. If people cut it out even a little though, it'll help the mods. I'm no angel by the way, I've done the same and it's not helpful to anyone.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

That's all fine and good. Alludes a bit to superfanism

 There was a time where Aristole & Chakkan were doing excellent in-match commentaries. (Plus the others).
They managed to allow users almost be at the match because of this.
I defy you to say their reports failed in comparison with some match-goers' accounts

Is a very good point. It's more of your life. Before you had a chance to go, you were always interested in the stories and what happened at the match from people that went. You'd read shite in the media and then ask a fan that was there and it was always different - so you got it in your head that those that went saw the real game. I admit when I leave I've never got 100% of what went on. I ask my mates that went and between us we get a pretty good feeling for the decisions and goals and movement and who played well where and when.

Saying that - there are plenty of posters on here that are excellent and as you say could tell everyone far more about the match than pretty much anyone given their brilliant analysis and insights into the game.

So fair enough.

[Alan_X]

I neither mentioned numbers, nor quality (although, I suspect our perspective on what constitutes 'quality' would differ), just a few lines about the differences between a moderator, and what I believe a moderator should do (which is be 'moderate', funnily enough), and a poster. Take a few permissions away, and I doubt there's much difference. Maybe I'm wrong about that, I've no idea. Maybe you're all Gods; he didn't like to be questioned. It seems you've taken exception to my suggestion. They're easily ignored and I meant no offence. 

I seriously doubt that. As I said - you don't like the way the site is run, the way it's moderated, what constitutes 'quality', the role of moderator as interpreted by the staff on here, the use of custom titles...

What are the ten things you like about RAWK? Just askin...

[Alan_X]

That's all fine and good. Alludes a bit to superfanism

 There was a time where Aristole & Chakkan were doing excellent in-match commentaries. (Plus the others).
They managed to allow users almost be at the match because of this.
I defy you to say their reports failed in comparison with some match-goers' accounts

As Andy says, fair comment. However I think that both would provide even more eloquent commentary if they were at the match. It's a simple fact that at the match you see the whole game, not what's selected for you by the TV company.