Author Topic: What is RAWK?  (Read 378140 times)

Offline AsianRed

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #120 on: May 7, 2012, 11:17:54 pm »
There have been many occasions where I have read through pages and pages of posts and learned nothing new from the first page. Case in point is the new kit. I like the idea of seeing the latest posts within a topic brought out as that will encourage people to post there.

Also, I agree with the stopping of people requoting a post and then adding a smiley or This with a thumbs up.

Other than that, Im happy with the site, I only post when I have something to add not say, perhaps that should be the rule for us all.
A lot of football success is in the mind.
You must believe you are the best and then make sure
that you are. In my time at Anfield we always said we had
the best two teams on Merseyside,
Liverpool and Liverpool reserves. - Shankly 1913 - 1981

Mr Suarez Is Not A Racist!

Offline exiledintheUSA

  • Not to be confused with Darren from Thetford. Or Phil Dowd.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 27,259
  • Justice HAS come. YNWA 97
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #121 on: May 7, 2012, 11:18:13 pm »
For me, RAWK is just too populated to allow for good discussion. The post-match round table threads have been excellent because they move along at a steady but not lightning pace and posts are generally well thought-out. It seems that many people get scared away by the need to post more than a few lines of instant reaction, and this is a good thing. But many threads in the main LFC section of the forum just don't lend themselves to good discussion because they move too fast and good posts have a habit of getting lost amidst the unremarkable. On a similar note, you can arrive a few days late at the round table threads, read through, get a sense of where the discussion is going, and chime in accordingly, but when you're confronted with 20 pages spanning a matter of hours, you either think "why bother?" or you just read the end of the thread and end up repeating something that's already been mentioned.

I spend most of my time in other areas of RAWK because threads are, generally, easier paced, often funnier, and posters either seem to chill out a bit or simply have a bit more respect for each other.

I agree with this, I too find myslef in other areas of RAWK more oft, I currently spend alot of time in the News / Current Affairs thread, purely on the premis that most of the posts in there are well formed, thought out or thought provoking. 

I think the idea of greater editorial control is well founded, if maybe somewhat tough to implement, I do feel sorry for those who post well thought out posts and then get attacked for it because it may or may not conform to the RAWK status quo.  In fact on occasion I have posted thier posts into the 'Great Posts you may have missed' thread, to give them a chance to be read through on merit and not pole-axed by some of the knee jerkers that lurk within our number.
Been all over the world but Anfield is still my home.

Offline Trada

  • Fully paid up member of the JC cult. Ex-Tory boy. Corbyn's Chief Hagiographer. Sometimes hasn't got a kloop.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 22,800
  • Trada
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #122 on: May 7, 2012, 11:18:28 pm »
I would like a countdown on a thread before it is locked say 10 minutes.

Nothing worse than spending ages on a post only to find when you press post the thread is locked.
« Last Edit: May 7, 2012, 11:25:14 pm by Trada »
Don't blame me I voted for Jeremy Corbyn!!

Miss you Tracy more and more every day xxx

“I carry them with me: what they would have thought and said and done. Make them a part of who I am. So even though they’re gone from the world they’re never gone from me.

Offline CarlitoB

  • [color=white]CT fucked about with in unoriginal manner.[/color] Likes to brew up a storm in a teacup... (no one died in the making of this CT)
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,857
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #123 on: May 7, 2012, 11:19:07 pm »
I know that was in jest, but yes of course there is, no mindless abuse obviously, but if you think we are getting it wrong then let us know.

Well here's an example of clear favoritism shown towards a very abusive poster who appears to have complete immunity due to the fact that he's a Modmate.

John mate the day you are banned is the day I resign. Perm ban that is as I've almost given you a 24hr ban on a few occasion :P
"God will forgive them. He'll forgive them and allow them into Heaven. I can't live with that."

Offline rafathegaffa83

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 41,943
  • Dutch Class
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #124 on: May 7, 2012, 11:19:13 pm »
That's a fair point and perhaps we need to apply that rule more flexibly, however, the ban on transfer topics outside of the transfer forum (in fact the introduction of the transfer forum in the first place) were in response to all over discussion being swamped out by thread after thread on possible or even inordinately hopwful, transfer targets.

I like how the transfer forum is moderated to be honest. Yeah, it's exciting and all, but the way it's moderated keeps down the amount of crap from highly dubious sources and forces people to have some sort of legitimate source. Perhaps it also adds a dose of realism, rather than being inundated with people posting I want player X so I'll create a thread that you see on other forums. I remember doing the confirmed transfers table one year and it amazed me how people don't understand concepts like "confirmed" and "reputable sources," despite several sticky threads mentioning that a transfer isn't confirmed until it's on an official site or that the likes of caughtoffside is not a quality source for genuine news. Nor, the fact that people aren't on here 24/7 and work regular jobs that can't let them update on a regular basis.  The mods who work the transfer forum in the summer deserves a medal and a case of beer by September 1st.
« Last Edit: May 7, 2012, 11:21:46 pm by rafathegaffa83 »

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: 53,269
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #125 on: May 7, 2012, 11:19:41 pm »
A couple of other points - a lot of the issues on here can be dealt with by using 'Report to Moderator'. If a thread's running out of hand drop us a note, same with bullying etc.

And on the 'venting' thing. What exactly is the point? By definition venting means means you're just making a noise and you don't give a fuck about whether anyone responds or not. Anyone posting in a 'venting' thread might just as well type out their rant in Word then bin it. It adds nothing to the site and is just selfish. Certainly it's as far from discussion as you can get.

Anyway, thanks for the responses so far. Some interesting comments and ideas.
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 Camarero25

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,637
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #126 on: May 7, 2012, 11:19:53 pm »
I cant speak for anyone else but it always challenges me to actually have a think about what I'm about to post before I put anything in there. There's a standard to uphold in those threads, there,s a respect for opinion.

It,s the best of rawk in my eyes.

I certainly enjoy reading it, but I rarely post in those threads as I don't think I can express my thoughts that coherently, and I'm too lazy.

I suppose what I'm saying is I love those threads, but there still needs to be places where I can post my shite.  ;D

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 #127 on: May 7, 2012, 11:23:04 pm »
Would it not be an idea to temporarily lock  thread, but then allow users to vote whether it should be re-opened again?

I'm not talking about the transfer rumour threads, the shite that post goal.com as an OP ect, but ones like the bargain hunters thread which had some decent discussion, or the 'is it a bad season' thread.

We quite often temporarily lock, clean up, allow everyone to cool off, and then reopen.  I don't really think that a vote would be workable or, necessarily, desirable.
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 Lawnmowerman

  • Got married to Pique in April. Shakira isn't happy.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,808
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #128 on: May 7, 2012, 11:23:58 pm »
I would like a countdown on a thread before it is locked say 10 minutes.

Nothing worse than spending ages on a post only to find when you press reply the thread is locked.
Maybe a color coded warning system to when a thread is teethering on the edge of getting locked? Like instead of the normal red wording in the thread, of names and quote boxes and such, all that turns amber? might snap a few out of it

Offline bleedsred1978

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,428
  • Get Behind Brendan Rodgers
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #129 on: May 7, 2012, 11:24:59 pm »
I certainly enjoy reading it, but I rarely post in those threads as I don't think I can express my thoughts that coherently, and I'm too lazy.

I suppose what I'm saying is I love those threads, but there still needs to be places where I can post my shite.  ;D


Haha....

When I said challenges me I should have said stops in my tracks and shows me how much of a tit I'd look for waffling. :)
From here on in its all FSG's doing. Good or bad they will stand or fall by the decisions they have made in the summer of 2012. Lets hope they have gotten it right.

Offline redoneusa

  • No new LFC topics
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,483
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #130 on: May 7, 2012, 11:32:33 pm »
There is a time and place for discussion / total bollocks. Not all of us are esteemed writers, so maybe a forum that has just articles in there?

Honestly I'd like to see decent articles with some pics in the traditional article format. RAWK is not alone in having to deal with allowing people to discuss the subject of LFC knowing full well many will chip with in non-sense.

I don't see any problems with the moderating to be honest. Seems fair given the fact its a footie forum and things will often go over the top.

You will find me on Twatter: Follow my Twatter

Offline Crosby Nick

  • He was super funny. Used to do these super hilarious puns
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 111,216
  • Poultry in Motion
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #131 on: May 7, 2012, 11:36:00 pm »
I agree with the comments above about how other threads (Media and Arts, other Sports ones etc) have a greater degree of courtesy amongst the posters in them. But then in a way it's understandable that Liverpool threads stir the passions a lot more as ultimately that's what brought us all to the site in the first place.

Personally I try to sterr clear of certain threads after a bad result, mainly because I don't want to get into a slanging match, or because the volume of posts is so high that trying to make a vlaid point is difficult anyway because people don't necessarily read them. I agree that the round table threads have been good this year, even after dreadful performamces because there is a willingness from nearly all involved to read and reply rather than just argue.

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 #132 on: May 7, 2012, 11:36:07 pm »
I would like a countdown on a thread before it is locked say 10 minutes.

Nothing worse than spending ages on a post only to find when you press post the thread is locked.

We'd need a time machine mate.  Speaking personally if I am posting in or watching a thread that is in danger of getting locked then I will warn people (I've done that loads in Rafa threads this year).  However a lot of the time a thread gets locked as a result of a Report to Mod.  Chances are this is the first time we've seen the car crash that has occurred and it generally needs locking right away.  Sometimes permanently sometimes temporarily.
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 Jellies

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,683
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #133 on: May 7, 2012, 11:36:58 pm »
If I was to build a forum from scratch, I'd make the system that makes the long, creative and interesting posts the most important and short, irrelevant posts the less important. That must be the main objective. It is important though to make a set of rules that decide what we aim for, what is interesting and what is creative. I think this forum's older posters and mods are generally in favour of posters who support the manager and at least try to support by the abstract set of rules that is the Liverpool way. I'll not go into greater details about this as I think you all know what I talk about; support of players and managers rather than talking of somebody else whether that's Man U, transfer targets or Rafa. It's all about staying classy, focusing on how to improve the club and about supporting and discussing in a constructive way.

If I was to build a forum that would suit how RAWK's users fare and how we would want RAWK to be, I would make an advanced forum that would be more of a discussion board than a classic thread-based forum. I imagine something like this:

Thread title: Can we get fourth?
Original post

I - Best voted post of first discussion theme                   II - Best voted post of second discussion theme                        III - Best voted post of third discussion theme

I - Best voted reply to OP of first discussion theme               ... and so on                                                                           ... and on                                                       
I - Best voted reply to this reply                                                                                                                                                                                                 
I - Second best voted reply to this reply   
            I - Second best voted reply to OP of first discussion theme                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

It's a bit revolutionizing, but would work fantastically in a forum like this where every thread has a lot of themes that are being discussed simultaneously. It could improve the debate as:

1. You'll have to read through the best points (voted best and therefore in the top) before posting yourself
2. There'll be more depth to the discussion. Rather than discussing Kenny's four flops as a whole, one theme can be Hendo, one can be Adam, one can be Downing etc.
3. You can reply directly to a point by putting a sub-group of answers to that specific point rather than de-rail a whole thread because one troll came in and wrote something that you'd have to reply to.

As it is today, the mods have bigger influence on what's important on the forums. Mods, and possibly specific good posters with a good taste like Fat Scouser, could be compensated for their loss of power by having their votes duplicated by 5 or 10.

With a bit of tweaking and a nice design it could be a fantastic place to have a qualified debate.

Offline Franck Le Poof

  • Blonde transvestite who is utterly haunted by the idea of sitting in other mens piss. Has ticked the box for no publicity ;)
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,321
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #134 on: May 7, 2012, 11:39:37 pm »
I just wanted to chime in again on this: There's a really big difference between the two and shouldn't be conflated (and I'm not suggesting you are). Reputation systems, where people 'rep and neg' others are childish and can lead to some posters targeting others with 'you twat' type messages via the reputation system; it's hardly conducive to decent debate.

'Liking' individual posts is an entirely different proposition. Even if you think a certain poster is a tit, you can still like a great post. There leaves no room for negativity towards anything, only the positive reinforcement via a community based system of readers. If you've enjoyed something, or particularly agree, then 'like' it. If not, ignore it. It seems to work well over on another forum I use (cycling related); you get the amount of 'likes' in your profile, too.
I just wanted to chime in and say I think the 'like' thing is a great idea and it works well in unison with the mods wishes to be a little more editorial. Too often excellent posts are lost amidst a sea of one liners, smilies, or plain rubbish. I'd like to click on a post match thread if I've missed a match and be able to read the posts with the most likes, rather than read a bunch of "sack etc", "so and so is shit", ad nauseam. There's a lot of great writing and material throughout this site outside the round tables but it gets overlooked a little too often.
Whenever I meet a French girl I kiss her on both cheeks. Then I stand up and say hello

Offline Slinky

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 493
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #135 on: May 7, 2012, 11:42:43 pm »
It sometimes comes across that there are double standards when it comes to moderation. If a poster's view is 'orthodox', then they seem sort of immune to any criticism, whereas a well-thought out post arguing against the grain will get shouted down and abused, and can earn a poster a ban (think that was the case with Dr Manhattan- who was one of my favourite posters on here.)
I think this is to the detriment of the site as a whole and is what has given rawk its caricature among some other football fans. The whole Suarez debacle typified that for me- for a good few weeks on here, it was almost impossible to say anything criticising Suarez or the club's handling of the affair without it being immediately jumped upon and shouted down. This then stifles proper debate as people can't be bothered going against the bandwagon knowing they'll just come in for a load of abuse.
Overall though, brilliant site and by far the best of any football forums I've come across. Like others have said there is some top quality football writing on here in places like the round table threads.

Offline sideshowme

  • aka Bob
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,162
  • the king: making grown men feel like 10-year olds
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #136 on: May 7, 2012, 11:47:19 pm »
i think the moderation in general is good, but arbitrary bans are not really helpful.  there are rules, and if they get broken, fine.  but bans for having an opinion that differs to the majority are not exactly going to help foster interesting and diverse opinions.
Dudek saaaaves for Liverpoool!  Liverpool have won the Champions' League!  Walk on, walk on, with hope in your heart!

Offline redbyrdz

  • No to sub-optimal passing! Not content with one century, this girl does two together. Oh, and FUCK THE TORIES deh-deh-deh-deh!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 24,197
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #137 on: May 7, 2012, 11:49:46 pm »
Think one of the problems with a 'like' button is to teach people how to use it - to 'like' good posts, and not just those you find funny or are of your mates. For example on facebook a lot of people just 'like' every fucking status update their mates put up, regardless of what they say. I'd fear the same would happen here, just because people are so used to it.
"I want to build a team that's invincible, so that they have to send a team from bloody Mars to beat us." - Bill Shankly

Offline rafathegaffa83

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 41,943
  • Dutch Class
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #138 on: May 7, 2012, 11:51:05 pm »
i think the moderation in general is good, but arbitrary bans are not really helpful.  there are rules, and if they get broken, fine.  but bans for having an opinion that differs to the majority are not exactly going to help foster interesting and diverse opinions.

I don't recall seeing anyone being banned for having a contrary opinion. I think it's more likely they've been banned for going about in an aggressive manner and not being courteous to the opposing views of others.

Offline Snail

  • Disgusted by you. Snail murdering S h e e p. Ms Soppy Twat Potty Mouth. The Annabel Chong of RAWK's X-Factor. Likes giving Sir Cliff of Richard one.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 24,876
  • How are we
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #139 on: May 7, 2012, 11:53:12 pm »
Think one of the problems with a 'like' button is to teach people how to use it - to 'like' good posts, and not just those you find funny or are of your mates. For example on facebook a lot of people just 'like' every fucking status update their mates put up, regardless of what they say. I'd fear the same would happen here, just because people are so used to it.

That would be my reservation as well.

Offline SP

  • Thor ain't got shit on this dude! Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,042
  • .
  • Super Title: Southern Pansy
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #140 on: May 7, 2012, 11:53:47 pm »
i think the moderation in general is good, but arbitrary bans are not really helpful.  there are rules, and if they get broken, fine.  but bans for having an opinion that differs to the majority are not exactly going to help foster interesting and diverse opinions.

People don't get banned for having a different view. They usually get banned for belligerently arguing that viewpoint abusively.

Also bear in mind that some people don't tell the truth about why they are banned.

Offline the 92A

  • Alberto Incontidor. Peneus. Phantom Thread Locker. Mr Bus. But there'll be another one along soon enough. Almost as bad as Jim...
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,029
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #141 on: May 7, 2012, 11:56:31 pm »
Think one of the problems with a 'like' button is to teach people how to use it - to 'like' good posts, and not just those you find funny or are of your mates. For example on facebook a lot of people just 'like' every fucking status update their mates put up, regardless of what they say. I'd fear the same would happen here, just because people are so used to it.
Like ;)
Still Dreaming of a Harry Quinn

Offline sideshowme

  • aka Bob
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,162
  • the king: making grown men feel like 10-year olds
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #142 on: May 7, 2012, 11:57:01 pm »
I don't recall seeing anyone being banned for having a contrary opinion. I think it's more likely they've been banned for going about in an aggressive manner and not being courteous to the opposing views of others.

i know i was; i expressed a contrary opinion, lots of people disagreed and i engaged them all politely and calmly. the next morning i was banned for a fortnight.

i don't have a problem with mods being the wielders of ultimate power over the forum.  it's a private forum, after all, and they have better things to do with their time i'm sure than make this place tolerable to be around.  but i don't think i broke any rules.  and the next day a mod announced that he'd banned a load of people for "not having a fucking clue" or something. if an opinion can get you a 2 week ban, then it should be in the rules so everyone knows where they stand.
« Last Edit: May 8, 2012, 12:05:42 am by sideshowme »
Dudek saaaaves for Liverpoool!  Liverpool have won the Champions' League!  Walk on, walk on, with hope in your heart!

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 #143 on: May 7, 2012, 11:57:10 pm »
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've been on here throughout the arguments over Houllier, Benitez, and G&H, and there were many good discussions in those days. Maybe the forum users are becoming younger, maybe a difficult season makes us tetchier, but I feel the good discussions are thinning out. Increasingly, the site is governed by something akin to Godwin's Law. I've felt it was coming, but for me the hysterical elastic limit was reached when we drew Everton in the semis this year and a poster remarked that it was like the good old days again, 'Merseyside!' he exclaimed. He was pulled to bits immediately. Why? It made absolutely no sense whatsoever. I loved the eighties, when football was ruled by the city of Liverpool. I joined my friends when Everton did the cup homecoming and they joined me when the Liverpool bus went past Stanley Park with Brucie hodling the European Cup. That was something we used to do. We were a united city. But the discussion turned into an online version of Lord of the Flies and went completely unchecked. Why? What is the editorial decision process that allows a mob to silence a perfectly reasonable comment?

David Foster Wallace argued that the internet needs more gatekeepers, and I feel that's lacking at RAWK. We can get page after page of 'is right' or smiley faces or posts that actually carry no comment at all but simply repeat somebody else's, or any of that empty bullshit that helps push up a forum users comment count, but a comment that expresses a divergent value is wiped out. There is nothing gentlemanly about it, it feels like walking past a gang of hoodies outside Threshers. It's neanderthal, aggressive, and endlessly predictable.

Conversely, I feel that topics that people obviously have big opinions about are too frequently dismissed out of hand. It's good that transfer topics are closed outside of the transfer window, but there are bigger things that should be open to discussion this year rather than endless pages of team formations. It should be possible to discuss whether Kenny is up to the job. It should be possible to say 'actually, I think what Suarez said was racist and he should never have said it' - which, for the record, I do believe. It should be possible to accommodate a little bit of hand-wringing, because that's the nature of being a football fan and certainly the nature of supporting Liverpool and it should be possible to discern which comments are worthy of reflection. But too often the RAWK editorial process is a blythe one, where maybe it could be more, well, editorial. Cutting out rather than closing off. There should be more room for comment and opinion and less room for the empty-vesseling that too often happens here.

Cracking post Dave, you should do it more often ;)

Lots of good points there.  We do attempt to be gatekeepers and we do attempt to allow opinions to be expressed without the poster being bullied by the mob.  Often what you're seeing as laissez faire moderating is not an editorial decision at all but simply ignorance.  We may not know it is happening.  Which is where the Report to Mod button comes in.  We always look at them and on a site this size we are increasingly reliant on users helping us to spot problems.

And point taken on pruning rather than locking.  Perhaps we need to be cleverer in how we focus our efforts.  I am with Alan on the "venting" thing.  I just don't get it.  You know hardly anyone will read it, you know hardly anyone will respond to it and even if they do chances are you will miss it.   However perhaps there is an argument that we just leave the post-match threads unmoderated, let people vent, let people yell shit at each other and concentrate our efforts on moderating more effectively elsewhere?  Then we just bin the whole thing in the morning and have a more reasoned, slower moving, moderated discussion.

Nice avatar too
« Last Edit: May 8, 2012, 12:00:02 am by Veinticinco de Mayo »
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 007.lankyguy

  • Subject of a restraining order by a regular member of the HIGNFY crew. Hasn't got a clue when Liverpool play next. Fully stopped.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,655
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #144 on: May 7, 2012, 11:58:39 pm »
I agree with an earlier post that maybe there should be a time limit on when the post match thread opens so that it gives people time to have a more calm and sensible discussion. The problem is that it affects when other threads are open of course e.g. someone may complain about a player in that player's specific thread straight after the match instead of a later post-match thread. However I think the post-match threads often bring the worst out of RAWK and often end up serving no purpose at all so waiting for it to open might bring about better discussion
"Mind you, I've been here during the bad times too - one year we came second." Sir Bob

Offline 24/7

  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 38,270
  • Super Title: Guru Jim
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #145 on: May 7, 2012, 11:58:58 pm »
People don't get banned for having a different view. They usually get banned for belligerently arguing that viewpoint abusively.

Also bear in mind that some people don't tell the truth about why they are banned.
I was about to say that.

Personally, if we banned people "just because" they took up a contrary viewpoint or had an opposing opinion, the membership would be miniscule and not even the mods would be immune to that (simple fact, eh?).

It's more about how the viewpoint/opinion is expressed.

Offline BUSHMILLS

  • PEBBLEHOUSE. Your auntie's agent provocateur.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,760
  • Never ask what's under his patio
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #146 on: May 8, 2012, 12:01:14 am »
Very difficult to moderate a forum of this size, and I sympathise with your task.

However, there seems to be a huge pre-occupation with closing down threads that may duplicate those that already exist. OK, some people may find more than one discussion on a particular subject annoying, but it's not a hanging offence (actually it's the non-mods who piss me off in this regard: sometimes I've opened a new thread, read a really good OP, only for it to be followed by some no-mark responding "there's already a thread on this".....I somehow imagine them then sending the mods a direct-message, like some kind of classroom snitch).

Secondly, when you DO lock a thread, can you do it without some sort of sarky, smart-arse comment? I often feel like I'm being told that, as I can't behave myself, you're switching the lights out and I have to go to bed. It's incredibly patronising.

Offline Hinesy

  • RAWK Editor. Giving it BAFTA’s. 57'sy. Caramel log dealer and comma chameleon. Tory Totty Tonguer
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 20,311
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #147 on: May 8, 2012, 12:03:22 am »
I'm not going to defend the current way RAWK is entirely here, however some things need clarifying.

Take this for eg:

It sometimes comes across that there are double standards when it comes to moderation. If a poster's view is 'orthodox', then they seem sort of immune to any criticism, whereas a well-thought out post arguing against the grain will get shouted down and abused, and can earn a poster a ban (think that was the case with Dr Manhattan- who was one of my favourite posters on here.)


That simply isn't the case. We've long said that a variety of opinions and debates are welcome but as someone else put it here, reasoned debate not childish abuse. For example,RAWK has always held the belief that until we think otherwise, the manager is the manager and we as Liverpool fans support our club and manager. Now they may do things that we believe are wrong, and we have the right to question them but not the right to attack his position. There's a big difference.
Quote
I think this is to the detriment of the site as a whole and is what has given rawk its caricature among some other football fans. The whole Suarez debacle typified that for me- for a good few weeks on here, it was almost impossible to say anything criticising Suarez or the club's handling of the affair without it being immediately jumped upon and shouted down. This then stifles proper debate as people can't be bothered going against the bandwagon knowing they'll just come in for a load of abuse.

Not from us there wasn't. I happen to think the affair was handled badly by the club once the verdict came in. However I'm not going to insult Kenny nor Suarez and take the piss. What I will do is question and argue. I really do think that many people (not you Slinky, just using your points as they're interesting here) have lost the art of reasoned argument instead preferring to abuse, insult and contradict, believing somehow that the louder one shouts, the more validity they have.
Quote
Overall though, brilliant site and by far the best of any football forums I've come across. Like others have said there is some top quality football writing on here in places like the round table threads.
Thanks but that's down to the membership not the mods.



Some suggestions.

1. Mark some posts with an expiry date. For example the post game rants. Give them say two days then lock them (maybe you do this already).
We do. We started locking the post match thread after 24 hours. I believe that a thread is needed to vent the frustration of a poor game, and get it out our system. In the old days, we'd have kicked the cat on the way home from the match and vented in the pub. So we do shut threads down when they're done.

Quote
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.
See 1.


Quote
3. Quality topics that are quite technical and enlightening - put them into a special area where the posts must be well thought out (even if misguided) and delete any one liners or rubbish. I'm interested in why people think the club is going backwards or forwards. I wouldn't worry about "offending" players or manager as I doubt they read RAWK. If the criticism is backed up with a good argument then it's valid even if many people don't agree. Keep any personal comments out of these threads and deliver short bans for anyone who attacks the poster.

We do. Its the Opinion Board. Also we tried 'heavy' moderating on some threads, but you know what? Its also a responsibility of the membership here. You and we get the site we deserve. Many posts in this thread are berating poor quality threads, posts, abuse etc etc. You can help police and shape all that by either using the report to mod button, ignoring them, posting better stuff yourself.

Quote
4. We had a great thread about old players that people may not have seen.....they were quality and I haven't seen them for a while. I think some people were invited to start a thread (I did a couple and they were fun).

Its something we're hoping to make more of and its a good point.

Quote
5. Be careful about over moderating - just because you don't agree with somebody (maybe even very strongly) then don't jump in. If you see that the poster has a well thought out position then let it go.
I think the first point is a good one and by and large we live and let live. But again we need to understand the difference between debate and abuse. Constructive criticism yes. Insulting no.

Quote
6. For "serious" threads then add a "like" button which allows people to give a thumbs up but doesn't add noise to the thread.
Personally I don't the site needs that much fixing with things like this. One can scroll through a thread easily to find the points needed and personally I'm not that bothered if someone just adds, "great" or thumbsup. Doesn't matter to me.

Quote
7. Maybe have a closed thread where several people discuss a topic. Allow the rest of us to "like" any posts.
We are discussing that right now but again we don't want the site to be elitist and exclusive. We're one of the very few sites that let anyone on. I should know, I was let in.
Yep.

Offline Hinesy

  • RAWK Editor. Giving it BAFTA’s. 57'sy. Caramel log dealer and comma chameleon. Tory Totty Tonguer
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 20,311
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #148 on: May 8, 2012, 12:05:09 am »


Secondly, when you DO lock a thread, can you do it without some sort of sarky, smart-arse comment? I often feel like I'm being told that, as I can't behave myself, you're switching the lights out and I have to go to bed. It's incredibly patronising.


Apologies, I may well be guilty of that. I try to leave a note why its been locked, often it should be obvious but I'll try and be less sarcastic, (I was going to put especially if you've posted in it, but that might come across as sarcastic ;) :wave )
Yep.

Offline J-Mc-

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,637
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #149 on: May 8, 2012, 12:06:05 am »
And on the 'venting' thing. What exactly is the point? By definition venting means means you're just making a noise and you don't give a fuck about whether anyone responds or not. Anyone posting in a 'venting' thread might just as well type out their rant in Word then bin it. It adds nothing to the site and is just selfish. Certainly it's as far from discussion as you can get

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.

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 #150 on: May 8, 2012, 12:09:27 am »
If it's actually cream, it'll rise to the top by itself. If it's crap, people will ignore it. It has to be a natural process, otherwise it's really just somebody enforcing their views onto other people by way of deleting posts they don't agree with or those not aligned with their own view point.

I'm not saying personal abuse should be allowed, but anything with effort and thought should be allowed through. That's my thoughts.

Unfortunately mate that is not the case.  If someone writes a long and thoughtful post then it takes a long time to read and then a long time to compose a suitably thoughtful response.  By that time the thread may have dropped off the first page and been replaced by a dozen threads in which posters are having blazing one line rows.  A weakness of how the system works is that a shit post that immediately provokes 50 users to reply "What a pile of shite" or "What the fuck have you been smoking" or "Fuck of Manc WUM" goes straight to the top of the board while a long post which is excellent but does not draw strong reactions from a reader may be read and appreciated by those who spot it but it will fall off the front page and into obscurity.

We're looking at ways around there are no obvious solutions.
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 Z e u s

  • Greek God of Whinging. But for the good of the forum! Son of Moanus and Rhea.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,408
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #151 on: May 8, 2012, 12:09:36 am »
The smart-arsed custom titles.  ;D

Tell me about it.

I got a moaning god of rhea etc... because I wanted Benitez sacked and having a different opinion to others.

Not really fair or right.

Offline SalisburyRed

  • No fun "budding young Tory"!
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,976
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #152 on: May 8, 2012, 12:11:43 am »
Tell me about it.

I got a moaning god of rhea etc... because I wanted Benitez sacked and having a different opinion to others.

Not really fair or right.

Frankly, if you're that arsed about a custom title you either need to donate to RAWK and change it or develop a thicker skin. Or both. In the grand scheme of things, surely it's not that big an issue?

Offline Rafette

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 940
  • Every other Saturday's me half day off.....
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #153 on: May 8, 2012, 12:12:02 am »
Biggest bug bear has to be when someone has written a really good post, only for however many other people to join the thread, quote the OP, then just add the word "this" underneath it. Waste of space! Bring something to the discussion rather than just "this". Why "this?" Tell us your opinion, it's a forum to do that on!

Maybe a like/dislike option would stop what are really utterly pointless reposts clogging up the threads. Seems to happen most in the photoshop/season in pictures threads- though I could see the like/dislike thing turning into a petty popularity contest kind of thing.
"If you can't make decisions in life, you're a bloody menace. You'd be better becoming an MP!" Bill Shankly

Offline Z e u s

  • Greek God of Whinging. But for the good of the forum! Son of Moanus and Rhea.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,408
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #154 on: May 8, 2012, 12:14:44 am »
Frankly, if you're that arsed about a custom title you either need to donate to RAWK and change it or develop a thicker skin. Or both. In the grand scheme of things, surely it's not that big an issue?

No it isn't, but still shouldn't happen.

Offline J-Mc-

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,637
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #155 on: May 8, 2012, 12:15:10 am »
No it isn't, but still shouldn't happen.

Why not?

Offline Red Genius

  • Part of the Neville clan. Voted "Most misnamed RAWKite" 2009-10. Reformed Coprophagiac
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,506
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #156 on: May 8, 2012, 12:15:32 am »
No it isn't, but still shouldn't happen.

That isn't another moan is it? ;)
"I have been privileged and lucky to wear the legendary red shirt. No one can take it away from me. YNWA, I don't have to walk alone because Liverpool FC will always be in my heart."

The Legend - Sami Hyypia

Offline Hinesy

  • RAWK Editor. Giving it BAFTA’s. 57'sy. Caramel log dealer and comma chameleon. Tory Totty Tonguer
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 20,311
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #157 on: May 8, 2012, 12:15:39 am »
Its interesting that I think there are certain perceptions of RAWK.
1. We don't allow dissent from some sort of official rosy view.
2. We ban those who do go against the grain.
3. We get over protective and lock and ban wantonly.
4. We react badly to abuse elsewhere on other social networking sites.

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. Also we're Liverpool fans for fuck sake, we should have little understanding and dignity about our club. Many posters seem to think they know better than highly paid professionals when clearly its bollocks. Take the FA Cup starting team. No Carroll, Henderson in the middle and Suarez up front with Gerrard. What every pundit said we should do. Then Kenny gets taken to task for not playing Andy earlier etc etc. He can't win. Sorry, went on a bit there..

2. Again not true. Many people talk about Dr M being banned as if he was banned for holding opposing views to some official line. Well that's not the case at all. Why do you think we have so many hassles in threads? Cos of people arguing against each other. If the site was merely a one track site it wouldn't be like that at all.

3. Each mod has their way of moderating and we may be guilty of locking first, thinking after and we're in constant talk about the best way to moderate but its not the end of the world and secondly we do discuss bans and rescind them if we think its too much. But I can't recall anyone being banned totally unfairly in all my years here.

4. Persistent and consistent pisstaking of the site is hardly likely to make you welcome on here is it? We're a robust site that endures mockery in many corners and frankly 99% of the time don't even know its there never mind be bothered about it. But you can hardly expect to be welcomed with open arms on here if you spend the rest of your time rubbishing it and everything on it.
Yep.

Offline Hinesy

  • RAWK Editor. Giving it BAFTA’s. 57'sy. Caramel log dealer and comma chameleon. Tory Totty Tonguer
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 20,311
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #158 on: May 8, 2012, 12:16:55 am »
No it isn't, but still shouldn't happen.

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?
Yep.

Offline the 92A

  • Alberto Incontidor. Peneus. Phantom Thread Locker. Mr Bus. But there'll be another one along soon enough. Almost as bad as Jim...
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,029
Re: What is RAWK?
« Reply #159 on: May 8, 2012, 12:17:19 am »
Very difficult to moderate a forum of this size, and I sympathise with your task.

However, there seems to be a huge pre-occupation with closing down threads that may duplicate those that already exist. OK, some people may find more than one discussion on a particular subject annoying, but it's not a hanging offence (actually it's the non-mods who piss me off in this regard: sometimes I've opened a new thread, read a really good OP, only for it to be followed by some no-mark responding "there's already a thread on this".....I somehow imagine them then sending the mods a direct-message, like some kind of classroom snitch).
It's not a huge preoccupation but trying to keep the site manageable and not having the same conversation taking place across two threads, lets face it starting a thread is different to posting in one and if you are going to start a thread a quick look around or search through thread titles would help the smooth running of the site; the other problem is people opening up threads knowingly circumventing the locking of a thread.

Secondly, when you DO lock a thread, can you do it without some sort of sarky, smart-arse comment? I often feel like I'm being told that, as I can't behave myself, you're switching the lights out and I have to go to bed. It's incredibly patronising.
take your point and as a new mod will try not to do this.
Still Dreaming of a Harry Quinn