The Liverpool FC Forum > RAWK Announcements, Feedback & Questions

RAWK FAQs & Posting Guidelines: Everything You Every Wanted to Know About RAWK, But Were Too Afraid

<< < (4/18) > >>

shelovesyou:

--- Quote from: Veinticinco de Mayo on March  6, 2012, 10:14:43 pm ---Hmmm.  It's Ben's forum.  Or it's our forum.  All of us.  The rules only exist in so much as we feel they are needed for the site to run smoothly.

As usual we don't comment publicly on individual cases so I am not going to comment on recent bans.

The new clause is included for clarification.  To the best of my knowledge you can probaably count the number of cases like that on one hand in all my time as a mod.  The last case I can remember where someone was banned for things outside of RAWK was someone who had a Facebook page on which he was both openly racist and advertised his membership of this site.

As I said we are not planning on attempting to police anywhere other than here.  However there may be rare occasions where things are brought to our attention which makes a posters position on RAWK untenable.

--- End quote ---

I fully respect that VdM.
I just think that the place is slightly worse off for the ban of Dr.M. and the circumstances behind it. But like you say, these incidents are very rare.
And to be fair, there were public comments made in regard to that Ban but that was as a response to questions from us over it.
Appreciate the responses.

farawayred:

--- Quote from: Rococo on March  6, 2012, 10:47:27 pm ---Seems fair enough and there's nothing in there that people shouldn't be thinking when posting anyway.  Self moderation and all that

--- End quote ---
That's the best way, of course. But does it work on the internet when people behind the monitor feel the power to do anything to anyone when they show no face (shivering at the thought of what would happen if their wives walked in on them at that exact moment)? The mods have an incredibly difficult task to moderate an unruly bunch; most people on RAWK respect each other and behave just as you say, but there is always an exception. It's difficult to know where to draw the line. I too miss Dr. Manhattan and Macedonian_Red although I almost never agreed with either...

Alan_X:

--- Quote from: shelovesyou on March  6, 2012, 09:38:51 pm ---This. I previously mentioned soon after the good Dr. was banned that for me, this was a tad over the top.
I of course understand the slagging off of Mods on this very forum wont be tolerated but to try and police member's Twitter's makes me feel very uneasy.


--- End quote ---

No one is trying to police what you do on Twitter. You're all free to do what you want. But actions can have consequences and hopefully we're all grown ups.

Ths is about abuse, not criticism. If you think RAWK could be a better place and it's moderation could be better then that's fine but we would hope it could be discussed on here rather than Twitter.

But using the analogy I used in the other thread - if you call someone a c*nt in public, you can't expect to walk into their house the next day as if nothing as happened.

Look at it the other way. If I called you a prick and an arsehole on here, would you buy me a pint in the Sandon before the next match?

kcbworth:
Changes seem sound enough.

For me the most annoying phenomenon that has developed over the past few years, that perhaps needs to be addressed, is the hammer approach to locking threads. As soon as 2 or 3 people get into a bit of a tiff, the thread gets locked, ruining it for everyone, and messing up the forum in the process imho.

Any chance you could block people from specific threads, perhaps even temporarily? At least that way the rest of us can continue a sensible conversation, and we can avoid banning everyone or locking too many threads? Food for thought...

lachesis:
I think the rules are fair enough. I think the issue sites now have (not just RAWK) is that other social media sites are becoming an extension of the site itself. If I was to be banned from here and then started to drag it over to facebook/twitter then the only people it would be relevant to are those from the site I have linked to me. Everyday people would be like 'what the fuck are you on about' - 'what is RAWK?', 'Who is 24/7 (example)?'

Then it just turns into those people from the site anyway replying to you and it becomes a public bitching session or an extension of the site you're moaning about. I'm not just referring to just RAWK here or a specific individual case but a lot of sites are facing similar issues.

Also, I think it's a respect thing. You have a right to reply on here when you're banned either through the address, feedback forums or PM (when unbanned if temp), using a different site or medium doesn't offer the site moderators/admins (whatever) to reply in the same proper manner.

Basically if you tread the line then expect a ban at some point and take it on the chin because there's probably a lot more you could have been banned for prior.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page