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

[Armin]

If you'd like to find out how you can keep Redandwhitekop independent and available then please click  the link below:[/size]http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=74199.msg1172727#msg1172727
About this board

This Feedback board is intended for legitimate feedback and suggestions, the mods spend enough time having to deal with stuff on the site and it would be helpful if people don't post silly comments as time is spent reading all of them.  That said, we are always interested in your feedback and suggestions about the site and how it might be improved. 

Before posting any questions or comments on this board all users are strongly advised to make themselves aware of the RAWK FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) below this post and the RAWK Posting guidelines. If you can't find an answer in either of these threads then we would also ask you to use the search function to see if a similar question has been asked and answered before.  The moderating team will not look kindly upon users who cannot be bothered to take these simple steps.

Finally, when a topic is locked, it means the issue has been dealt with.  If you disagree with something on a locked topic, please take it up with the mod who locked the topic rather than start a new topic.
Frequently Asked Questions

How do you get a custom title?
How do I stop being a 'Park Drinker' and become Anny Roader/Kopite Legend?
How can I get an image in my signature?
How can I get an article on the front page?
How do I upload a picture?
Why have you deleted my post?
Why was thread x locked?
Why are you so strict, I wasn't doing any harm etc.
What does 'No new LFC topics' (NNT) mean'?
How can I regain the ability to post new topics in the LFC forum?
Why shouldn't I refer to the Mancs as Scum?
What's wrong with accessing the forum on someone elses account?
When should I use the 'report to moderator' button?
I want to get onto the ticket exchange forum but it says i cant due to age restrictions?
Why can't I start new topics in the LFC forum?
Why can't I send Personal Messages?
What is the size limit for Avatars?

How do you get a custom title?

The custom title appears just below your username, and above your avatar, if you have one.  Normally only Rawk staff can give you a custom title and the process is entirely random.  Some people get one within minutes of joining the forum, others have posted happily for years without attracting the mischeivous attentions of a moderator.  Recently we've allowed those who have helped sponsor the site to give themselves a custom title, although traditionalists believe that giving oneself a custom title spoils the fun.


How do I stop being a 'Park Drinker' and become Anny Roader/Kopite Legend?

This changes according to the number of posts you've made.  We'll let you discover ust how many for yourself.  There is a Rawk legend concerning a mysterious fifth category which Jonathan Hall has pledged to discover in a quest of Arthurian proportions.

Each level advanced gets an extra star.

How can I get an image in my signature?

You can't.  They've been disabled.  They were getting too large and slowing peoples use of the forum. 

How can I get an article on the front page?

You can email articles to editor@redandwhitekop.net but the preferred route is to post it in the LFC forum and then send an IM to the editor, Rushian, with a link to the post.  Be warned though he doesn't move everything and will often get the sharp editing scissors out if he decides to move it.

How do I upload a picture?

If the picture is on your hard drive you can click Additional options (under the post window) and browse to find the image and then click save.   Allowed file types include: txt, jpg, gif, pdf, jpeg and png.  The Maximum attachment size allowed is: 200 KB, maximum 6 attachments per post.  If the picture is very large please consider reducing it in size prior to posting.

If the image is on the web you may be able to link to it.  The second button from the right above the smileys inserts the img tags.  They look like this: [img]  [/img].  You can insert the link to the web image between these tags, be aware that some sites will not allow such 'hotlinking'.

Why have you deleted my post?

First step, has it really been deleted?  It may have been merged into another thread.  You can check by accessing your profile and viewing your most recent posts.  If it's gone then it's been deleted.  There are a number of reasons why it might have been deleted, be sure to read the RAWK Posting guidelines to check whether it may have contravened one or more of the rules before posting a question in the feedback forum.  Using 'Txtspk', abusing other members or writing potentially libellous comments are all easy ways to get your posts deleted.

Why was thread x locked?

Users who have posts removed or deleted often have the reason explained via IM, or in the case of locked threads a reason may be given by the Mod in question.  Occasionally, (with us all being humans with full time jobs and other activities to take up our time) a Mod may neglect to explain their action. Furthermore, because we are a collection of volunteers rather than paid employees, what one Mod finds unacceptable may be acceptable to another, so inconsistencies may occur. Like I said, we're all human. On these occasions, if you post a polite question in the feedback forum we'll answer it as soon as possible.

Why are you so strict?  I wasn't doing any harm etc...

Are we?  For every person who feels the forum rules are too restrictive, there are others that wish they went further.  Ultimately like any other community we need some rules to ensure that everyone gets along.  If you're not happy remember that no other supporters are as well served with alternatives as a Liverpool supporter.

What does 'No new LFC topics' (NNT) mean'?

As Rawk has become more popular the number of new topics posted continues to grow.  Unfortunately not everyone realises that every time a new topic is started it pushes an existing thread off the front page.  Multiple threads on the same subject lead to a forum that's almost unuseable and extremely irritating for most users.

At a rough estimate 8 out of 10 new threads could have been easily handled in an existing topic.  'New Topic' should be one of the least used buttons on your browser, certainly less than 'Search'.  Reusing old topics gives us the chance to see how a situation has changed, to laugh at the views expressed a few months before and stops users rehashing the same old arguments.

In response to concerns regarding the standards of posts in the Liverpool Forum the moderating team introduced the 'No new topics' user group.  Once this is applied the forum user loses the ability to start new threads in the LFC board.  They can still post new topics in other boards and they can also reply to existing threads in the LFC forum.  The only ability they lose is the right to start new topics in the LFC forum.

How can I regain the ability to post new topics in the LFC forum?

Firstly, the NNT has been applied for a reason.  Check your existing posts and see what topics you've started, were there already existing threads?  In order to regain the ability to post new topics you will have to demonstrate that you have understood the reasons why new topics should be started with caution.  Read (or reread) the forum guidelines and obey them for a period of at least 6 weeks and then ask on the feedback forum for the NNT to be reviewed.  If you want to start a new topic you can send it via IM to a moderator who can post it for you.  If it's a good effort they may restore your ability to post new topics there and then. 
Apply to have No New LFC topics status reviewed here

As the site grows members can expect more and more of these NNT to be applied, it stops the moderating team having to ban people and we hope it will lead to an improvement in the standards on RAWK as a whole.

Why shouldn't I refer to the Mancs as Scum?

You might elsewhere but on RAWK we prefer that you don't.  If you ask people anywhere in the world to name two English clubs the likelihood is that they will name Liverpool and Manchester United : both clubs are world famous. To the outside observer we are similar ! Rivalry is celebrating the differences - including Five real European Champions Cups to Three ! Decent rivalry respects successes and traditions. To the Mancs who paid their respects after Hillsborough should go nothing but respect in return : to call them Scum is a disgrace. And when a club has the song tradition of Liverpool FC it is a sad sound to hear the obsession of the ignorant with insulting, disrespectful songs. It's a sign of ignorance of the traditions of your own club, and let's hope that the presence of so many less-than-regular matchgoers tomorrow does not bring it to the fore. And when rivalry is exaggerated to the point of moronic violence it ceases to be a difference : it's just more unwanted Scum.

This is an abridged version of an article by Bob Kurac, you can read the full version here

What's wrong with accessing the forum on someone elses account?

We've noticed in recent months there's been a couple of incidents of certain people logging into RAWK under other peoples usernames, with the intention of posting thread/topics as if they were the active user themselves.

Whilst this may seem wildly humorous to those indulging in this activity, it seems to have escaped their notice that they are infact potentially breaching the privacy of EVERY user on this forum.

Whilst you've been logging into other peoples accounts, you've had access to their entire Instant Message system. In this part of the forum are PRIVATE MESSAGES, sent from or to other users who are, more than likely, unaware that a 3rd party has access to these communications.

As stated elswhere on this forum today, we take the privacy of RAWK users very seriously and we take a dim view of those who feel they are above such principles.

Think long and hard about what you are doing with regards to other peoples logins and please respect the privacy of others. Those found to be using other peoples accounts, or those knowingly permitting the use of their own accounts to others will be permanently banned, without question.

*Note: This thread is not directly related to this, though hopefully both amply express our commitment to the privacy of personal information held on RAWK.

When should I use the 'report to moderator' button?

The moderating team do their best to maintain order on the site and ensure that the posting guidelines are respected.  However with dozens of active discussions at any one time we can't be everywhere at once. This site can only exist therefore if the members take responsibility for reporting posts which break the guidelines.

As a rough guide, posts which are very abusive, racist, or potentially libellous should be reported immediately, as should abuses of the ticket forum, touting and people trying to fill the boards with spam.  We rely on members taking responsibility on themselves to report these posts and if that doesn't happen the site will become unmanageable.

We take the protection of minors very seriously. For this reason you are not permitted to use the ticket exchange unless you're over 18. If you're over 18 and still not being allowed on the exchange you need to put your date of birth in your profile. If there's no date in there the software will assume you're not old enough to access and block you accordingly.


How can I surf Rawk without my bosses realising I'm a workshy parasite that should be sacked immediately?

If you're using Firefox then blocking images from redandwhitekop should remove the graphics and avatars. 

For those using Explorer Cocteau has come up with a style sheet solution:

Assuming you're using Internet Explorer:

Download (ie right-click and 'Save as...') the attached file http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=85576.0;attach=44476 and go to Tools/Internet Options/Accessibility/User Style Sheet, check 'Format documents using my style sheet', and point it to the file you just downloaded, then click 'OK'. Now go to RAWK, et voila. (You might have to restart Internet Explorer for it to work though).

You'll have to uncheck that option whenever you want to visit a site other than RAWK, otherwise the stylesheet will affect that site too.

PS - this was just a quick attempt, I'm sure a more tidy/elegant one could be put together by someone with sufficient time/inclination...

Why can't I start new topics in the LFC forum?

New members can't start topics in the LFC forum until they've made 50 posts. The restriction was introduced to allow new members to get an idea of the site before they start their own topics. We don't want the site to go the way of .tv's old forums where there'd be 4 or 5 pages of new topics each day with many of dubious quality. Hopefully once a user has made it to 50 posts they've a grasp of the guidelines, what works and what doesn't.

It's unfortunate that the restriction can only be applied universally. However should you wish to start a topic then you can mail it to one of us and we'll do it for you.

Why can't I send Personal Messages?

You need to have made 15 posts before you can send Personal Messages to others.

What is the size limit for Avatars?

Image size limit is 75x75 and File size limit is 50Kb. Avatars >50Kb will be removed.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Good Evening good citizens of RAWK.

Just wanted to bring to your attention the fact that we have slightly tweaked the RAWK posting guidelines to try and keep up with the modern world of social media etc etc etc.

The sections that have changed are shown below.

The main changes are the inclusion of stuff about privacy, copyright and libel that were previously contained in a separate sticky on RAWK Privacy Policy.  The plan is to remove that sticky shortly.

The other changes update what you can expect by way of moderation to reflect a little how big the site has become and to reflect that we are using warnings more and more instead of either a quiet PM or a ban.

Finally there is a new section on what we expect from you in the rest of cyberwherever which hopefully will clarify a few issues raised by Incognito in his feedback thread.

Have a read and feel free to ask questions, comment, have a moan or just go and do something more interesting instead.


Privacy Policy, Copyright and Libel
These are all pretty hazy areas in terms of the internet and as such the policies on these are liable to change with the circumstances. The over-riding principle here is that users remember that RAWK is an open and public site which typically lists pretty high on internet searches.  We want the site to remain an open community and would ask users not to jeopardise that by placing the site in danger of legal action.  More specifically:

• We will not tolerate the unauthorised publication of the addresses of private individuals.  Users who do so risk a permanent ban.
• Please refrain from posting information which is covered by reporting restrictions imposed by a court. If you feel compelled to share this information use Twitter.
• Remember that this is an open and highly visible forum. Remember also that what you write may be archived permanently.  Do not publish anything here that was not intended for public viewing.  Do not make any allegations which are clearly libellous.  If the shit hits the fan and it is the site or you then we will offer you up faster than you can say super-injunction.
• Articles that are freely available on the web may be reproduced here but should always be attributed, preferably with a link to the original source.

Would all users please note that RAWK does not condone or tolerate the publication of addresses of private individuals anywhere on the site.[/size]Any individual who carries out these activities will be banned permanently from the site. In the event of any legal proceedings, RAWK will co-operate fully with any police requests for information. We work hard to ensure that RAWK is an open and public site, with regular opportunities for people to join our community. Please don't risk that freedom by placing the site in danger of legal action. We would ask all users to report any instances of addresses being published as a matter of urgency. 

Privacy Policy and Personal Messages

1. RAWK will never pass on, forward or reveal the contents of other members' PM's to other people be it on here or outside 3rd parties.2. Nor do we read and look into anyone else PM's unless it becomes a legal matter. I'm not sure anyone but a red star mod even can, but its a policy we stick by3. We rarely ever reveal PM's sent to us unless the receipient wishes to. And there's the point. As with emails, remember once you've sent it, its the receiver's choice what they do to it and so its a timely reminder that you should probably never send an email or PM that you wouldn't be happy to be broadcast anywhere else.


What to expect in terms of moderation:

If you ignore any of the BIG RULES, you'll will find youself being moderated in one of the following ways (depending on each instance):

• Temporary or Full access ban.
• A warning which shows against your username and may result in you being unable to post for a period
• 'No New LFC Topics' assigned to your profile.

If you ignore any of the Guidelines, in the first instance you'll be notified by a moderator, who will let you know what it is they deemed to be inappropriate. Your post(s) are also likely to be edited/deleted or merged with others.

If you continue to ignore the Guidelines, you'll will find youself being moderated in one of the following ways (depending on each instance):

• Temporary or Full access ban.
• A warning which shows against your username and may result in you being unable to post for a period.
• 'No New LFC Topics' assigned to your profile.

The above may also apply to posts reported to us via the 'Report To Moderator' feature.

What Users can expect from the Mods:
Clearly on a forum this large and with so many registered users it will not always be possible to provide explanations or to moderate with the personal touch that we would like, however, the aim is to:

• Where possible/applicable, new users will be given a polite pointer to these guidelines if we deem it necessary.
• An explanation as to why you have been temporally/permanently banned/had posting rights removed.
• An explanation should always be given for why a thread is locked or moved to another forum.

Where an explanation is not fortcoming we're hoping that people will be able to find an answer in these guidelines. If however you can't, please feel free to ask why you have been moderated. Our preference would be for this to be done privately, but there is also the Feedback forum if you wish it to be a public discussion. Please note though, we're all volunteers, so if you do not receive an immediate response bear with us and wait for us to get back to you.

Whilst we feel its only fair for us to communicate why we have moderated something, we also reserve the right to call you an arse, apply relevant custom titles, call into question the legitimacy of your parentage or generally just rip the piss out of you (well, there has to be SOME benefits to this mod lark).

Users' Responsibilities to RAWK In The Wider World
Users are trusted not to bring the site into disrepute either by their posts here or elsewhere on the Internet. To that end gross breaches of the site guidelines on issues such as racism, homophobia, ticket touting, wherever they are committed may result in your RAWK account being deleted.

Just as we aim to be fair to you, then in response we ask that you be fair to the site, the staff and other users.  Persistent or gratuitous abuse of the site, staff or particular users on Twitter, Facebook, personal blog or hilarious youtube video may also result in your posting rights being permanently withdrawn. 

RAWK Posting Guidelines[/size]We feel these guidelines will be useful for the Mods in terms of managing the forums, but just as importantly, we hope they provide users a point of reference with which to understand the basic nature of RAWK and also to gauge why a post may have been moderated. The ultimate aim of it all though is to enable you to ENJOY contributing to RAWK and for others to ENJOY your contributions.Its also worth pointing out that:1. Mods may at times disagree on certain things. In these instance (which are rare anyway), its best to to let them work it out between themselves.2. What is set out below is a framework, not an absolute set of rules and regulations. It will be necessary at times to moderate posts for reasons that are not outlined below.  BIG RULES: Things deemed to be totally unacceptable:

• Pornographic material
• Racism, homophobia, sexism
• Spam/Commercial advertising
• Overt personal abuse of other posters (unless its in jest of course!)
• Use or attempted use of the Ticket Exchange forum if you are not 18 years of age or older.
• Posting addresses or phone numbers of private individuals anywhere on the site.
• Ticket Touting
• Registering and using duplicate accounts whilst banned.
• All other breaches of the basic Forum T&C's in place at your time of registration or at any time during your membership of RAWK.
• [/size]Guidelines: Things we'd rather you did not do:
• Creating duplicate threads. Before starting a new thread use the search feature to check that the subject of your intended post is not already covered by an existing thread. Post to existing threads wherever possible. This particularly applies to post match comments.
• Starting threads in the wrong forum. We believe the board descriptions on the index page are fairly self explanatory, but feel to ask a mod if you are not sure.
• Starting 'one liner' theads in the LFC forum. Again, if starting a new thread in the main LFC forum, refrain from short one liners. If you link to an article on another forum/website give a few short sentences of explanation about what the link is, why we should click it and what your impressions of the article are. This goes a long way to provoking discussion.
• Using 'Text Speak' in your posts. Please take the time to write replies in English and feel free to use the spell checker thats provided (NB: Don't worry if English is not your first language!).
• Slagging off other LFC sites. Its seems to have become a bit of a hobby for some. We'd prefer it if you didn't do this.
• [/size]
• Thread domination (ooer). Do not try to bully someone into submission or disparage every comment they make, simply because their views may differ from your own. Write a coherent reply setting out your views and then let others have their say.
• "Spinning" news reports/interviews. Use thread titles that are appropriate to the article, rather than putting your own spin on it. This is not a tabloid newspaper, people are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions on articles.
• Excessive/unnecessary swearing. We take a liberal attitude to this (after all, its something pretty much all of us do at the match!), but please do not go over the top. Keep it in context and do not use swear words on new thread titles on the main LFC forum.
• Anonymous Sourcing. If you copy and paste an article, piece of news or rumour about LFC to the forum please include a link to the original website source or explain where and the context of how you heard the story. We discourage unsourced rumour and gossip. Also, do not copy and paste news items from subscription sites such as the Koptalk Insider.
• URL links, special SMF formatting tags or smileys in the first 1 or 2 lines of the first post in an LFC Forum thread. We've found this causes formatting issues on the RAWK front page for those using Internet Explorer browsers. There's two solutions to this:
          1. Don't use URL links, special SMF formatting tags or smileys.
          2. Everyone uses Firefox (www.getfirefox.com).
• [/size]Privacy Policy, Copyright and LibelThese are all pretty hazy areas in terms of the internet and as such the policies on these are liable to change with the circumstances. The over-riding principle here is that users remember that RAWK is an open and public site which typically lists pretty high on internet searches.  We want the site to remain an open community and would ask users not to jeopardise that by placing the site in danger of legal action.  More specifically:
• We will not tolerate the unauthorised publication of the addresses of private individuals.  Users who do so risk a permanent ban.
• Please refrain from posting information which is covered by reporting restrictions imposed by a court. If you feel compelled to share this information use Twitter.
• Remember that this is an open and highly visible forum. Remember also that what you write may be archived permanently.  Do not publish anything here that was not intended for public viewing.  Do not make any allegations which are clearly libellous.  If the shit hits the fan and it is the site or you then we will offer you up faster than you can say super-injunction.
• Articles that are freely available on the web may be reproduced here but should always be attributed, preferably with a link to the original source.
• [/size]Privacy Policy and Personal Messages 1. RAWK will never pass on, forward or reveal the contents of other members' PM's to other people be it on here or outside 3rd parties.2. Nor do we read and look into anyone else PM's unless it becomes a legal matter. I'm not sure anyone but a red star mod even can, but its a policy we stick by3. We rarely ever reveal PM's sent to us unless the receipient wishes to. And there's the point. As with emails, remember once you've sent it, its the receiver's choice what they do to it and so its a timely reminder that you should probably never send an email or PM that you wouldn't be happy to be broadcast anywhere else.
  
  
  What to expect in terms of moderation:If you ignore any of the BIG RULES, you'll will find youself being moderated in one of the following ways (depending on each instance):
• Temporary or Full access ban.
• A warning which shows against your username and may result in you being unable to post for a period
• 'No New LFC Topics' assigned to your profile.
• [/size]If you ignore any of the Guidelines, in the first instance you'll be notified by a moderator, who will let you know what it is they deemed to be inappropriate. Your post(s) are also likely to be edited/deleted or merged with others.If you continue to ignore the Guidelines, you'll will find youself being moderated in one of the following ways (depending on each instance):
• Temporary or Full access ban.
• A warning which shows against your username and may result in you being unable to post for a period.
• 'No New LFC Topics' assigned to your profile.
• [/size]The above may also apply to posts reported to us via the 'Report To Moderator' feature.What Users can expect from the Mods:Clearly on a forum this large and with so many registered users it will not always be possible to provide explanations or to moderate with the personal touch that we would like, however, the aim is to:
• Where possible/applicable, new users will be given a polite pointer to these guidelines if we deem it necessary.
• An explanation as to why you have been temporally/permanently banned/had posting rights removed.
• An explanation should always be given for why a thread is locked or moved to another forum.
• [/size]Where an explanation is not fortcoming we're hoping that people will be able to find an answer in these guidelines. If however you can't, please feel free to ask why you have been moderated. Our preference would be for this to be done privately, but there is also the Feedback forum if you wish it to be a public discussion. Please note though, we're all volunteers, so if you do not receive an immediate response bear with us and wait for us to get back to you.Whilst we feel its only fair for us to communicate why we have moderated something, we also reserve the right to call you an arse, apply relevant custom titles, call into question the legitimacy of your parentage or generally just rip the piss out of you (well, there has to be SOME benefits to this mod lark).Users' Responsibilities to RAWK In The Wider WorldUsers are trusted not to bring the site into disrepute either by their posts here or elsewhere on the Internet. To that end gross breaches of the site guidelines on issues such as racism, homophobia, ticket touting, wherever they are committed may result in your RAWK account being deleted.Just as we aim to be fair to you, then in response we ask that you be fair to the site, the staff and other users.  Persistent or gratuitous abuse of the site, staff or particular users on Twitter, Facebook, personal blog or hilarious youtube video may also result in your posting rights being permanently withdrawn.
  Other Terms and Conditions
  By submitting content, which shall include your member name, to the Red and White Kop Message website and forums, you grant the Red and White Kop website and forums a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right (including any moral rights) and license to use, license, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, communicate to the public, perform and display the content (in whole or in part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, for the full term of any Rights that may exist in such content. You also warrant that the holder of any Rights, including moral rights in such content, has completely and effectively waived all such rights and validly and irrevocably granted to you the right to grant the license stated above.
  
  Right, well that's it we think, all thats left to say right now is:
  
  Please note: This is a vibrant and active online community. As such, it may be necessary for us to amend the posting guidelines from time to time to reflect the changes to the overall heartbeat of the site. If this is the case, then we'll ensure any changes are communicated to you all, but please also try to check back here once in a while to see if anything has been updated.
  
  Regards,
  RAWK Admin.
  
  Dogme 04 has futher thoughts on how to debate.  Find it here:
  
  http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php/topic,27031.0.html
  
  Please note. Anyone using the word Retard, Spastic or Spaz in any context beyond the correct medical term will result in a swift kick to the warnings or a short ban and repeated use will result in a ban. Thanking you.

[J-Mc-]

I would like to discuss this bit particularly.

"Just as we aim to be fair to you, then in response we ask that you be fair to the site, the staff and other users.  Persistent or gratuitous abuse of the site, staff or particular users on Twitter, Facebook, personal blog or hilarious youtube video may also result in your posting rights being permanently withdrawn. "

I understand that no one wants to be seen to be getting slagged off in any form or anyway possible (unless it's playful banter which is accepted and thus not taken to far,) however it doesn't sit right that what you post on another medium will have repercussions onto your RAWK profile for me.

Would another way of sorting out differences between mods and certain users be for the mod to add a 'conversing' tag to the users profile which prevents them from posting in the forums, also giving them 5 minutes from their last post, then for the mod to invite the user to a private RAWK chatroom (using the existing one of course,) sending a link to the poster through PM and then they can sort out their differences. If the user simply does not act civilized and continues their abuse, then they get a full time ban?

I know it may seem like a lot of work but technically, all it would need is a new tag and a new message when trying to post that simply states "You are now conversing with a moderator, please check your PM's." This will point the user in the right direction, give them a real time chance to put across their views and possibly amend whatever they have done.

I understand that mods do this in their spare time and it is appreciated, however this forum would be nothing if not for the long time users such as the recent Dr Manhattan who of course has been permanently banned. Sometimes when you're banned or warned, it feels as though you are unable to air your views due to a number of reasons, with the main ones being that you don't know who issued it to you an you also aren't given a chance to explain the meaning behind your views, even when you are un-banned (if at all) or have the warning tag removed.

Sometimes when a poster offers an opinion on something done by the mods, they are met with the usual "Don't like it, there are other forums" which is not only counter-productive, but also gives users the impression that they must tow a party line or they won't last long.

May be worth a discussion?

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I would like to discuss this bit particularly.

"Just as we aim to be fair to you, then in response we ask that you be fair to the site, the staff and other users.  Persistent or gratuitous abuse of the site, staff or particular users on Twitter, Facebook, personal blog or hilarious youtube video may also result in your posting rights being permanently withdrawn. "

I understand that no one wants to be seen to be getting slagged off in any form or anyway possible (unless it's playful banter which is accepted and thus not taken to far,) however it doesn't sit right that what you post on another medium will have repercussions onto your RAWK profile for me.

Would another way of sorting out differences between mods and certain users be for the mod to add a 'conversing' tag to the users profile which prevents them from posting in the forums, also giving them 5 minutes from their last post, then for the mod to invite the user to a private RAWK chatroom (using the existing one of course,) sending a link to the poster through PM and then they can sort out their differences. If the user simply does not act civilized and continues their abuse, then they get a full time ban?

I know it may seem like a lot of work but technically, all it would need is a new tag and a new message when trying to post that simply states "You are now conversing with a moderator, please check your PM's." This will point the user in the right direction, give them a real time chance to put across their views and possibly amend whatever they have done.

I understand that mods do this in their spare time and it is appreciated, however this forum would be nothing if not for the long time users such as the recent Dr Manhattan who of course has been permanently banned. Sometimes when you're banned or warned, it feels as though you are unable to air your views due to a number of reasons, with the main ones being that you don't know who issued it to you an you also aren't given a chance to explain the meaning behind your views, even when you are un-banned (if at all) or have the warning tag removed.

Sometimes when a poster offers an opinion on something done by the mods, they are met with the usual "Don't like it, there are other forums" which is not only counter-productive, but also gives users the impression that they must tow a party line or they won't last long.

May be worth a discussion?

John,

We included "persistent and gratuitous" for a reason.  We're not planning on scouring the net looking for the tiniest bit of abuse.  However we have had instances in the past where a blog was being used to attack the site on a daily basis.  Or when users from other sites were only really coming on here to cause trouble and then reporting back to their mates on the first site.  It's all a bit sad really and best for both sides if it is brought to an end.

I don't think that there is time for the chat thing but if anyone wants to discuss a moderation issue then a polite PM or email will definitely have more chance of success than an online rant. 

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

This is outside of your goddamn jurisdiction Mayo

Indeed it is.  We are not going to make any attempt to stop people saying whatever they want about the site elsewhere.  The permanently banned frequently do.  What we do reserve the right to do is say "You've spent the last two weeks saying how shit the site is, why on earth do you want to come back on?"

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

EDIT: On a serious note, is there any thought of allowing to quote posts from locked threads?

That would be a techie thing for Ben to enable that.  I am not sure why you would want to though?

[J-Mc-]

John,

We included "persistent and gratuitous" for a reason.  We're not planning on scouring the net looking for the tiniest bit of abuse.  However we have had instances in the past where a blog was being used to attack the site on a daily basis.  Or when users from other sites were only really coming on here to cause trouble and then reporting back to their mates on the first site.  It's all a bit sad really and best for both sides if it is brought to an end.

I don't think that there is time for the chat thing but if anyone wants to discuss a moderation issue then a polite PM or email will definitely have more chance of success than an online rant. 

Didn't know about that.

Fair enough then.

Can I recommend that the mod who issued the ban attach their username to the ban message then? So as posters know who to get in touch with to sort everything out through the RAWK Editor e-mail?

[shelovesyou]

I would like to discuss this bit particularly.

"Just as we aim to be fair to you, then in response we ask that you be fair to the site, the staff and other users.  Persistent or gratuitous abuse of the site, staff or particular users on Twitter, Facebook, personal blog or hilarious youtube video may also result in your posting rights being permanently withdrawn. "

I understand that no one wants to be seen to be getting slagged off in any form or anyway possible (unless it's playful banter which is accepted and thus not taken to far,) however it doesn't sit right that what you post on another medium will have repercussions onto your RAWK profile for me.

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.

[farawayred]

That would be a techie thing for Ben to enable that.  I am not sure why you would want to though?

Sometimes it's the best place to find evidence, old quotes from a poster, etc. Most recent case that springs to mind was a long post by Aristotle; poor guy had to use a lot of "cut and paste"... But on the other hand, I understand that most threads are locked for a reason which you don't want to see resurface again. Perhaps a consideration can be given to allow posting from locked threads but with more severe consequences if anyone quotes anything provocative that lead to the thread being locked. Something along the lines of the rules for "strictly moderated topics" (the ones denoted with the asterisk).

[leivapool]

Rules seem fair to me.  As for outside of RAWK, I was subject to what I consider pretty personal abuse on twitter after posting in a  recent Adam thread and the abuse was from one very respected poster on here to another RAWK poster.  I was disappointed that my opinion on a player on here turned in to a personal attack from other RAWK posters in the un-moderated world of Twitter.  Never seen the need meself like

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

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.

Without looking at specific cases we have no desire to attempt to police Twitter.  Bloody hell, we've got quite enough on moderating this place, and this is like a library as compared to the shit on Twitter.

[Ada069]

would love it if you took a harder line, especially with people being overly dickish to fellow fans with 24 hour ban, again with a week then just perma them out. I miss the matchday threads but I can understand why they are now locked.

I agree with the changes. (No, I'm not sucking up)

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Can I recommend that the mod who issued the ban attach their username to the ban message then? So as posters know who to get in touch with to sort everything out through the RAWK Editor e-mail?

Cheers mate - we'll discuss that in the staff room.  However I would say that we make decisions as a team and if you email about your ban then the email will be discussed and then person who issued the ban will get to see it.

[shelovesyou]

Without looking at specific cases we have no desire to attempt to police Twitter.  Bloody hell, we've got quite enough on moderating this place, and this is like a library as compared to the shit on Twitter.

Im sure you have, but for me that Dr. Manhatten episode crossed a line in terms of Moderation.
Its your forum and we all have to abide by the rules, still makes some feel uneasy.
Cheers.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Im sure you have, but for me that Dr. Manhatten episode crossed a line in terms of Moderation.
Its your forum and we all have to abide by the rules, still makes some feel uneasy.
Cheers.

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.

[shelovesyou]

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.

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]

Seems fair enough and there's nothing in there that people shouldn't be thinking when posting anyway.  Self moderation and all that

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]

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.

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.

[Mutton Geoff]

seems fair to me , if decisions taken in here then lead to abusive messages aimed at the mod for doing his job well then they have every right to deal with that as they wish.
been banned a few times however i have never felt the need to blame anyone but myself.

as for other areas affecting a forum i remember some years ago a theory that a group of posters in.tv used to chat on Msn about which poster they would wind up, so surprisingly this can perhaps happen.

All in all this is the best forum connected with our club and the mods do a grand job even if they ban me again in the future.

[Red_Isle_Chap]

Sounds good to me. Have a question tho.

Read this and thought of our internet terrorist actions re. emails.

By all means, that was an unprecedented time in our history - and something that we, hopefully, never will experience again.

However, (not sure how to phrase it - bare with me), IF 'special circumstances' should come around again what would RAWKs stance be then?

Is that not talking about people putting up the home addresses of people that we don't like, not email addresses?

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Sounds good to me. Have a question tho.

Read this and thought of our internet terrorist actions re. emails.

By all means, that was an unprecedented time in our history - and something that we, hopefully, never will experience again.

However, (not sure how to phrase it - bare with me), IF 'special circumstances' should come around again what would RAWKs stance be then?

In special circumstances special rules may apply.  However the email addresses that were getting published on here at the height of "the campaign" were all I believe corporate email addresses.  If someone had published the home addresses of RBS or Standard Chartered execs then I think they would have been removed in much the same way as Purslow's address was.

The problem with allowing publication of such addresses (apart from the legal remedies that may be sought be the likes of Purslow) is that you relinquish control of your campaign.  Much as I would have loved to see that slimy shortarse doorstepped by Fat Scouser and Roy Hendo, when you let the address out into the open then you open yourself up to a degree of culpability should a masked mob of knuckle dragging idiots show up instead.

[macca888]

It all sounds fair to me. The mods on here are all decent people and will either tell you in a nice or a straight-talking way if you do anything that's unacceptable. If I've had a warning or a ban, I've never had anything but decent feedback explaining why. And to be honest, if you're the type of person who goes on twitter to slag the mods off, or anyone other than celebrity gobshites, you deserve banning for being a snide c*nt anyway in my opinion.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I think you'll find I'm just as important as I think I am.

On the FB / Twitter thing... I think there is an argument for a bit more leniency on there. It's good for us to have somewhere to vent, and if we're not venting on the site, surely that saves you the job of cleaning up that mess . Obviously there's a limit, and obviously there's the whole "if you hate it so much, why don't you leave?" thing. But at the same time if you allow people to let off steam elsewhere, then it just means that they come back to posting on RAWK having got rid of their anger and frustration. And like it or not, people do get annoyed. Even though it's JUST THE INTERNET. And especially after losing a last minute goal having dominated a match! Sometimes though it gets to the stage where people are going off on one at RAWK every week on there. Mods are c*nts. Members are c*nts. Blah blah. In that case I can see why you just tell them to fucking do one.

However from a member's point of view, it's frustrating to see some of the better posters banned when so much inane fucking bullshit is posted elsewhere. That's not your faults, I know. But it's annoying for those of us who remember a different RAWK. I suppose I should hang out more in Opinion instead.

Rhi - I agree with every word of that to be honest.

The new rules are about being transparent and letting people know that it is _possible_ to lose your posting rights through posting streams of shit elsewhere.  We're not going to cyber stalk people looking for every bit of harmless venting.  It's a sanction that is available, hopefully it will remain pretty much unused but if you are the owner of MoreHilariousShitefromRAWK.wordpress.com then don't come running back here asking what it was in your RAWK posting history that got you banned.

Read it as a clarification of general questions raised about jurisdiction in the feedback forum rather than a statement of intent. 

[Hinesy]

Rhi: I hear what you're saying and we think the amended guidelines will take cogniscence of that however you spell it.. Also whilst I agree everyone needs a space to vent, we hope mods and members will both be able to differentiate between the petty and the inexcusable twattery that people really ought to be able to control. Hope that reassures you in some way.

[electricghost]

A slightly different point than what has been discussed so far, but maybe it is time that the posting guidelines ,   http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=55183.0 ,  were updated to include other forms of discrimination, rather than just list racism as a "big rule".

BIG RULES: Things deemed to be totally unacceptable:

    * Pornographic material
    * Racism
    * Spam/Commercial advertising
    * Overt personal abuse of other posters (unless its in jest of course!)
    * Use or attempted use of the Ticket Exchange forum if you are not 18 years of age or older.
    * Posting addresses or phone numbers of private individuals anywhere on the site.
    * Ticket Touting
    * Registering and using duplicate accounts whilst banned.
    * All other breaches of the basic Forum T&C's in place at your time of registration or at any time during your membership of RAWK.


I think it would help everyone if it was clearly stated as to what isn't considered acceptable posting behaviour with regard to discriminatory and derogatory language.

[theboyspen]

Is there an appeals procedure against a ban?

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Is there an appeals procedure against a ban?

There is nothing that formal - but if you email the site then we will look at it again behind the scenes.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Persistent or gratuitous abuse...

Gratuitous can be seen as quite a grey area though, doesn't it ?  For example some of the things happening this weekend seemed on the surface not that bad but could easily be seen as abuse to some extent yet to others just a personal argument between people where abusive language was used.

Absolutely it is a grey area.  Most things are.  We are all individuals, we all view different things slightly differently.  That's why we offer you guidelines and aim for consistency rather than having hard and fast rules.

[Red_Mist]

my feeling is that said forum has fair moderation and not some bar buddies making decisions and delivering sanctions on a whim i.e. "...do what they like and ban who they like when they like".  That would mean banning on a whim or locking topics on same attribute and from my vantage point this is not the way moderation is being done in here

Not saying they do (they don't)...just pointing out they COULD if they wanted to. A small minority don't seem to get that.

You're happy with how fair the moderation is, which is great....but some of us might wish they were a bit tougher. Two sides to every coin & all that.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Absolutely it is a grey area.  Most things are.  We are all individuals, we all view different things slightly differently.  That's why we offer you guidelines and aim for consistency rather than having hard and fast rules.

The guidelines are really helpful, but I find the best way to avoid grey areas on forums is to look at my post before pressing the 'submit' button and imagine if I said it out loud, in person, to the other fella. If I suspect my teeth would be rattling down my throat two seconds after opening my mouth, I delete and go and make a cup of tea instead.

As hard and fast rules go, that's kept me safe both in the pub and the inter tubes. 

[Corkboy]

The guidelines are really helpful, but I find the best way to avoid grey areas on forums is to look at my post before pressing the 'submit' button and imagine if I said it out loud, in person, to the other fella. If I suspect my teeth would be rattling down my throat two seconds after opening my mouth, I delete and go and make a cup of tea instead.

As hard and fast rules go, that's kept me safe both in the pub and the inter tubes. 

My one is, picture yourself in the witness box of a packed Court and the Judge is reading out your post to you.

[firing squad]

Just ban all the whoppers who after joined after the 25/05/2005 and this place will be fine..

right.   

[Mumm-Ra]

As mods you have to be very careful with the bans of long-time posters, obviously you know this. You run the risk of “losing the dressing room” if you start issuing bans over personal dislikes rather than actual posting content. I was sad enough to go on twitter and see what he’d said and yes at that point you could argue the permaban was warranted. But, was the original 5-day ban that prompted the outburst warranted? I don’t see how you could say it was. You can’t expect people to just swallow a  pointless ban with good grace. Even if he doesn’t go to Twitter and vent, if he just stays off the net and stews, do you think he’s going to come back with a positive, glowing attitude to the site? Of course not, he’s going to come back with a chip on his shoulder and get in more conflicts. It’s just counter-productive.  If anyone can give a coherent explanation as to why he was given the original 5-day ban then I’ll have no complaints

The best way to stop people slagging the site, and abusing mods, is to be fair and open - give a reason as to why you are locking or deleting a thread. Give an explanation as to why you're banning someone. I'm talking a sentence or two, not a novel. Let feedback threads actually stay open longer than about 5 posts, or else what's the point of having that sub-forum? It doesn't seem that difficult to me. Some mods are clearly better at it than others.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

As mods you have to be very careful with the bans of long-time posters, obviously you know this. You run the risk of “losing the dressing room” if you start issuing bans over personal dislikes rather than actual posting content. I was sad enough to go on twitter and see what he’d said and yes at that point you could argue the permaban was warranted. But, was the original 5-day ban that prompted the outburst warranted? I don’t see how you could say it was. You can’t expect people to just swallow a  pointless ban with good grace. Even if he doesn’t go to Twitter and vent, if he just stays off the net and stews, do you think he’s going to come back with a positive, glowing attitude to the site? Of course not, he’s going to come back with a chip on his shoulder and get in more conflicts. It’s just counter-productive.  If anyone can give a coherent explanation as to why he was given the original 5-day ban then I’ll have no complaints

The best way to stop people slagging the site, and abusing mods, is to be fair and open - give a reason as to why you are locking or deleting a thread. Give an explanation as to why you're banning someone. I'm talking a sentence or two, not a novel. Let feedback threads actually stay open longer than about 5 posts, or else what's the point of having that sub-forum? It doesn't seem that difficult to me. Some mods are clearly better at it than others.

Without, as usual, commenting on any particular case.  I think we would all agree with that and those remain the aims.  That does not mean that I can guarantee that there will not be times in the future when we fail to do that.  Either because we too are wound up by a shit result, or all hell is breaking loose and their is just not time, or because you are attempting to mod from a phone on your way home from work.

Agree totally with the theory though.

[Red Genius]

As mods you have to be very careful with the bans of long-time posters, obviously you know this. You run the risk of “losing the dressing room” if you start issuing bans over personal dislikes rather than actual posting content. I was sad enough to go on twitter and see what he’d said and yes at that point you could argue the permaban was warranted. But, was the original 5-day ban that prompted the outburst warranted? I don’t see how you could say it was. You can’t expect people to just swallow a  pointless ban with good grace. Even if he doesn’t go to Twitter and vent, if he just stays off the net and stews, do you think he’s going to come back with a positive, glowing attitude to the site? Of course not, he’s going to come back with a chip on his shoulder and get in more conflicts. It’s just counter-productive.  If anyone can give a coherent explanation as to why he was given the original 5-day ban then I’ll have no complaints

The best way to stop people slagging the site, and abusing mods, is to be fair and open - give a reason as to why you are locking or deleting a thread. Give an explanation as to why you're banning someone. I'm talking a sentence or two, not a novel. Let feedback threads actually stay open longer than about 5 posts, or else what's the point of having that sub-forum? It doesn't seem that difficult to me. Some mods are clearly better at it than others.

That is a very good post.

Standards apply to everybody who uses RAWK.

[Hinesy]

That is a very good post.

Standards apply to everybody who uses RAWK.

Which is something that we've pointed out, we all have responsibilities, mods and members.

[Grobbelrevell]

I've never been banned, warned or even PM'd on the sly. That is all 

Oh, and to my mind the rules that are in place are fair enough. I will admit that I thought it harsh initially when I heard about the Doc and Eileen's respective bans, but after seeing what was written then it's understandable I think, although I don't know the details of the initial 5 day ban.

The one slight criticism that has been outlined above which I do agree with, is that it would be helpful if a mod who had issued a ban/warning left their name so that the user in question knew straight away who they needed to contact to resolve the matter.

[Hinesy]

There's no need to leave the individual's name who banned whom. RAWK moderation is done on guidelines that we all agree with and we will back each other on all matters even if there's a fist fight internally.
Adding that name is neither helpful nor useful. At worst it starts a witchhunt, at best any discussion on the ban is done by a subjective nature rather than contacting RAWK as an entity.