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

[El Campeador]

I miss him on here as he spoke sense at times and was a funny poster but, what can you do. ( date a mod   )

Oooooh controversial.

[Ernie Clicker]

Bottom line is the mods can do what they like and ban who they like, when they like. Just show some respect/restraint...and realise you're not as important as you think you are...and everything'll be cool. It's not difficult.

^ ^ ^
Nothing else to be added to that, RAWK is a brilliant place and the people that facilitate it, free-of-fucking-charge, deserve respect.

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

  what if its or two of the smart arses that registered before then who think they can just tell you to fuck off or know better than you mate 

[Twelfth Man]

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

I think I joined after that. Never heard of RAWK, use to post on BEEB site and official club forum. Been following the Reds since the early Eighties. A bit drastic this

[Sir Harvest Fields]

I think myself lucky to still be here and i know the Mods have given me a lot of leeway and i thank them for that. Id never turn on them if i got banned, fuck that. I would get banned because i deserved it, not because the mod is a ' c*nt ', its because i am. 

[SP]

As mods you have to be very careful with the bans of long-time posters,

There is the converse to this argument. The long time poster should not be treated any differently to a newbie. If a post is worthy of sanction it does not matter who made it. Anything else leads to a clique. I can understand an established poster getting the benefit of the doubt over intent, but who you are really should not make a different. If I posted gratuitous abuse I would deserve a ban, no matter how much brown nose credit I have. If you overstep the mark, you get cooling off time.

Being a mod is a shitty job, and if you treat the mods like shit in whatever forum, you can be invited to leave. I don't have a problem with that.

I got a warning for gratuitous use of the Report to Mod button. So my only warning was for being an over zealous grass.

[Twelfth Man]

One of the things I do miss from the RAWK I first joined is the free for all abuse you could post on the team/manager etc. I know this is the better way, but I personally miss it. Having grown up going to matches in the eighties, the colourful language and irreverent nature of being a 'supporter' was like back then was all part of the fun. It seems as though now you have to be 100 per cent behind the club and any negative comments are frowned on. Of course it is a fine line between abuse (non-humorous) and criticism.

[Hinesy]

One of the things I do miss from the RAWK I first joined is the free for all abuse you could post on the team/manager etc. I know this is the better way, but I personally miss it. Having grown up going to matches in the eighties, the colourful language and irreverent nature of being a 'supporter' was like back then was all part of the fun. It seems as though now you have to be 100 per cent behind the club and any negative comments are frowned on. Of course it is a fine line between abuse (non-humorous) and criticism.

No that's simply not true Mr 12.
There is a massive difference between posting criticism of a player and mindless abuse.
Secondly in the years from RAWK's infancy to now, the nature of the football fan, and the invention of the anonymous internet warrior, and the massive expansion of the site, means we clamp down on more abuse of players/manager/team than perhaps we might have; and that's because the context in which RAWK now finds itself means we don't all know each other and know instinctively that so and so doesn't really mean it.
RAWK was a small pub where everyone knew eachother. It grew to a massive fuck off pub with 12 seperate bars and areas and none of us know hardly anyone anymore. So we clamp down on it perhaps more than the past.

Finally, its not hard to support your team and manager and club and I hate boo boys and kneejerking twats, that's what the post match thread's for. But those comments does not a fan make.

[Fitzy.]

What about death wishes for certain people "we" don't like?

I've posted on this before, but given the sensitive and unique history this club has had with death and all its terrible consequences I find it odd (at best) that people can come on here and throw around death-wishes to those they don't like. What if someone didn't like an individual that died at Hillsborough and declared it on here? There would, rightly, be an outcry. So why is it ok to wish death upon someone who happens to play for a team we don't like? Of course this is a tribal place but if we're talking about standards then I think it is fair enough to suggest that such comments can be avoided. There are lots of hate-based words in the English language that don't involve death and the like...

[Twelfth Man]

No that's simply not true Mr 12.
There is a massive difference between posting criticism of a player and mindless abuse.
Secondly in the years from RAWK's infancy to now, the nature of the football fan, and the invention of the anonymous internet warrior, and the massive expansion of the site, means we clamp down on more abuse of players/manager/team than perhaps we might have; and that's because the context in which RAWK now finds itself means we don't all know each other and know instinctively that so and so doesn't really mean it.
RAWK was a small pub where everyone knew eachother. It grew to a massive fuck off pub with 12 seperate bars and areas and none of us know hardly anyone anymore. So we clamp down on it perhaps more than the past.

Finally, its not hard to support your team and manager and club and I hate boo boys and kneejerking twats, that's what the post match thread's for. But those comments does not a fan make.

I know and your right, just saying I miss the eighties feel of being a fan, when a kind of working class banterish foul mouthed criticism of player's team was all par for the course. I fully understand and appreciate the work the mods do for free (time). My point was partly aesthetics, I just preferred it back then when it was more raw. 

[Phil M]

One of the things I do miss from the RAWK I first joined is the free for all abuse you could post on the team/manager etc.

The what? When was that ever accepted on this forum?

[Alan_X]

What about death wishes for certain people "we" don't like?

I've posted on this before, but given the sensitive and unique history this club has had with death and all its terrible consequences I find it odd (at best) that people can come on here and throw around death-wishes to those they don't like. What if someone didn't like an individual that died at Hillsborough and declared it on here? There would, rightly, be an outcry. So why is it ok to wish death upon someone who happens to play for a team we don't like? Of course this is a tribal place but if we're talking about standards then I think it is fair enough to suggest that such comments can be avoided. There are lots of hate-based words in the English language that don't involve death and the like...

The answer is - it isn't. We stamp it out when we see it and even stopped the more extreme wishes directed at Hicks.

[Twelfth Man]

The what? When was that ever accepted on this forum?

The old live game threads. Of course it was not a free for all but abuse felt like it was tolerated. Perhaps these posters did get bans, I would not have known. I do miss them. Being angry and frustrated has always been a big part of being a working class football supporter. The powers that be have pretty much weaned that out of the game. By abuse I mean flippant colourful criticism.

[Fitzy.]

The answer is - it isn't. We stamp it out when we see it and even stopped the more extreme wishes directed at Hicks.

I'm pleased about that. Cheers

[shelovesyou]

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?

After you apologised, Yes

[J-Mc-]

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.

When I said the mods leaves their username, I meant in the ban message that pops up, not on the actual forum so the only person who'd get to see it would be the person banned.

Another idea could be to allow the banned poster to still have access to PM only mods, with the aim being that they can get a clear and precise explanation when a mod has time to reply and if they don't see the error of their ways, it turns into a full ban with no access to the site?

[Mutton Geoff]

When I said the mods leaves their username, I meant in the ban message that pops up, not on the actual forum so the only person who'd get to see it would be the person banned.

Another idea could be to allow the banned poster to still have access to PM only mods, with the aim being that they can get a clear and precise explanation when a mod has time to reply and if they don't see the error of their ways, it turns into a full ban with no access to the site?

thing with that the poster may then have a grudge against that mod and do something about it, the net is a nasty place sometime!

[J-Mc-]

thing with that the poster may then have a grudge against that mod and do something about it, the net is a nasty place sometime!

Isn't that always the risk though? But instead of aiming abuse at one, they aim it for the collective as they don't know the culprit?

[farawayred]

thing with that the poster may then have a grudge against that mod and do something about it, the net is a nasty place sometime!

But it's not fair at all if you don't know why you are banned, is it? I got a one day ban for absolutely no reason in my view, I have not said anything that could be treated as offensive even remotely. I still have no clue why.

I also have another one-week ban for pissing at a moderator when he closed a match thread (when they existed) in a very intense game with just 3 minutes to go and there was no other source on the Internet where I could see the game. I was really pissed and I admit I went over the top, but I explained my reasons. I still think the ban I got was way too excessive and I was not detailed a reason for the length. I'm sure the Mod was pissed too and it wasn't only me barking like a mad dog, but if he reviews that with a cool head, he'd admit that it was an overkill.

At the very least, there should be an avenue for the two parties to reconcile. Maybe after a 24 hour ban to cool off a bit, which would take the emotions out. But I agree with J-MC- that the banned person should at least have an access to PM the moderator who banned him.

[Alan_X]

When I said the mods leaves their username, I meant in the ban message that pops up, not on the actual forum so the only person who'd get to see it would be the person banned.

Another idea could be to allow the banned poster to still have access to PM only mods, with the aim being that they can get a clear and precise explanation when a mod has time to reply and if they don't see the error of their ways, it turns into a full ban with no access to the site?

I think it's important that we ban anonymously. The ban is a RAWK ban and not a personal ban by an individual moderator. We review email requests and PMs from friends of the banned as a group and make joint decisions about maintaining bans or reducing bans, about letting people back on when they've been banned 'permanently' or converting a ban to a warning.

If we're following the guidelines then any one of the moderation team should understand and agree with any ban. Anyone of the moderation team should be able to discuss and explain the ban. If not, then we aren't moderating properly.

[Maggie May]

Quite frankly I'm appalled with what I've read.  The very idea of a grown man or woman, feeling upset, wounded, abused or fuck knows whatever else they imagine to have been inflicted on them on an internet forum, actually goes on to another internet forum or fora to whinge, wail and rant against the original forum is so utterly fucking stupid, ridiculous and such a self indulgent wankfest as to be beyond my comprehension.  Grow.  Up.  Get.  Lives. 

[farawayred]

I think it's important that we ban anonymously. The ban is a RAWK ban and not a personal ban by an individual moderator. We review email requests and PMs from friends of the banned as a group and make joint decisions about maintaining bans or reducing bans, about letting people back on when they've been banned 'permanently' or converting a ban to a warning.

If we're following the guidelines then any one of the moderation team should understand and agree with any ban. Anyone of the moderation team should be able to discuss and explain the ban. If not, then we aren't moderating properly.

I understand and accept the reasons why the banning Mod should not be identified, fair enough. But here is an idea that you might give some consideration.

Say, a poster is hurling abuse at a Moderator individually or as a group that you deem crosses the line deserving, in your opinion, a permanent ban. But instead, you ban the poster for a length of time you find appropriate, a day or a week, and warn him that this ban is with a view to a permanent ban. Then the said poster is given access to an "interrogation room" for a given length of time, say a week, where he can reconcile with the Moderators as a group - any moderator who wishes can take part in that discussion and the banning Mod is not identified (so anonymity is preserved). In effect, you will have a discussion of cool heads (two weeks is a long time!) and any reasonably offensive person will keep in mind that he can have a permanent ban. Do you really expect him/her to go on as before with the abuse? When the time for discussion is over, you either reinstate the poster or ban him/her permanently. That will solve all problems in my view. You can still give a permanent ban to those nutcases that won't learn, and you can also introduce "repeat offender" permanent ban if the same person goes to the "interrogation room" again (or a third time, whatever you choose).

Maybe worth a thought?

[Maggie May]

At the very least, there should be an avenue for the two parties to reconcile. Maybe after a 24 hour ban to cool off a bit, which would take the emotions out. But I agree with J-MC- that the banned person should at least have an access to PM the moderator who banned him.

I'm utterly amazed that some stupid fucker hasn't suggested counselling. 

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I am liking the sound of the interrogation room.  Is it wrong that I am thinking more Boys from Brazil than The Bill?

[farawayred]

I am liking the sound of the interrogation room.  Is it wrong that I am thinking more Boys from Brazil than The Bill?

I plead ignorance (Googled both but haven't seen either).

[SP]

I understand and accept the reasons why the banning Mod should not be identified, fair enough. But here is an idea that you might give some consideration.

Say, a poster is hurling abuse at a Moderator individually or as a group that you deem crosses the line deserving, in your opinion, a permanent ban. But instead, you ban the poster for a length of time you find appropriate, a day or a week, and warn him that this ban is with a view to a permanent ban. Then the said poster is given access to an "interrogation room" for a given length of time, say a week, where he can reconcile with the Moderators as a group - any moderator who wishes can take part in that discussion and the banning Mod is not identified (so anonymity is preserved). In effect, you will have a discussion of cool heads (two weeks is a long time!) and any reasonably offensive person will keep in mind that he can have a permanent ban. Do you really expect him/her to go on as before with the abuse? When the time for discussion is over, you either reinstate the poster or ban him/her permanently. That will solve all problems in my view. You can still give a permanent ban to those nutcases that won't learn, and you can also introduce "repeat offender" permanent ban if the same person goes to the "interrogation room" again (or a third time, whatever you choose).

Maybe worth a thought?

Or they could just correspond via e-mail. There is a site email address published on the front page of the site. A banned user can still use email. There is no need for a public airing. It is a private matter between the moderating team and the user.

[SP]

I am liking the sound of the interrogation room.  Is it wrong that I am thinking more Boys from Brazil than The Bill?

Marathon Man. I could see VdM as a Larry.

[farawayred]

Or they could just correspond via e-mail. There is a site email address published on the front page of the site. A banned user can still use email. There is no need for a public airing. It is a private matter between the moderating team and the user.

Fair enough, I wasn't suggesting anything public (and wouldn't agree to that either). But is it possible to reinstate a user? I don't have Twitter and have no clue what Dr. M said and what transpired between him and the Mods, but I feel that he contributed to RAWK in a way that it feels just a ted emptier now.

(I miss Macedonian_Red too although for a different reason - to have a laugh once in a while looking at players pictures...)

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Marathon Man. I could see VdM as a Larry.

Ha!  Very perceptive it was actually Marathon Man I was thinking of...

Anyway, seriously though Farawayred the logistics of getting a group of mods together at the same time to make an appointment to "debrief" an errant user are just not really possible.  It's a spare time thing and we do it when we get free moments, there is no way I could commit to be available at a certain time.

[Maggie May]

And I am utterly amazed that Maggie May has been overlooked as part of the moderators team...or at least been asked to help write the guidelines.

I assume you're taking the piss.  If not, I'm most certainly not amazed - on either count.  I wouldn't put up with one fraction of the nonsense the mods endure as it is without the additional bollix that's suggested in this thread.   And as for posters "venting" on facefuck or twatter - no way back for the backstabbing c*nts. 

[Alan_X]

Fair enough, I wasn't suggesting anything public (and wouldn't agree to that either). But is it possible to reinstate a user? I don't have Twitter and have no clue what Dr. M said and what transpired between him and the Mods, but I feel that he contributed to RAWK in a way that it feels just a ted emptier now.

(I miss Macedonian_Red too although for a different reason - to have a laugh once in a while looking at players pictures...)

We have reinstated banned users in the past and will always consider requests for reinstatement fairly.

[farawayred]

Ha!  Very perceptive it was actually Marathon Man I was thinking of...

Anyway, seriously though Farawayred the logistics of getting a group of mods together at the same time to make an appointment to "debrief" an errant user are just not really possible.  It's a spare time thing and we do it when we get free moments, there is no way I could commit to be available at a certain time.

I was imagining this more or less as a thread to which only Mods and the perpetrator have access and that stays open for a week. Any Mod could swing by at any time during that week and say whatever he/she wants to say; no need for anyone to be ever present. But the purpose would be that the abusive poster "gets it" and it offers a chance for apology to the Mods. All this after two weeks in a cold bath... The onus will be on the poster to prove himself a changed person to the Mods. If he/she fails... we don't want him/her here anyway.

EDIT: Posted the above before this popped up:

We have reinstated banned users in the past and will always consider requests for reinstatement fairly.

Fair play then, thanks for listening!

[alonsoisared]

Funny thing is that the people this affected all apparently don't care...though they cared enough to call people "c*nts" and "spastics" and then bitch and moan when they got banned for it. For what it's worth the original ban for Dr M seemed a bit harsh but his reaction fully justified the permanent ban, for the people saying the forum will be worse for it they should blame him for his out of order comments.

The whole thing was pathetic really, i've had a couple of bans on here, one was very fair and the other I thought was a bit harsh but I didn't whinge about it as firstly it's not of that great importance and secondly the mods are within their rights to ban who they want. I do think more feedback should be allowed though. I like the idea of allowing the banned poster to send PM's to moderators to discuss the ban and the reasons for it, because IMO more often than not the poster would just apologise and then know not to do that again.

[Alan_X]

Say, a poster is hurling abuse at a Moderator individually or as a group that you deem crosses the line deserving, in your opinion, a permanent ban.

No offence mate, but I stopped reading right there. If you're hurling abuse at me as a moderator you're abusing the site. In most cases I don't take it personally, in fact for the most part it's equal parts funny and pathetic*. But if you don't respect the site, the site rules and the principle of moderation and are incapable of controlling your behaviour then you are going to get treated accordingly. I don't see where the truth and reconciliation committee comes in.

* the 'plank in my arse' in my custom title was one inventive bit of abuse from a now long banned poster.

[Pistolero]

Is there a RAWK gatekeeping policy...or is it just an open door, so to speak?....just that there seems to have been a large number of new posters joining the board recently - particularly since the Man United game - whose motives for being here seem a wee bit suspect.........just wondering like

[Alan_X]

Is there a RAWK gatekeeping policy...or is it just an open door, so to speak?....just that there seems to have been a large number of new posters joining the board recently - particularly since the Man United game - whose motives for being here seem a wee bit suspect.........just wondering like

Open door. We check for dupe accounts and the obvious mancs but rely on the twats demonstrating their twattishness (which they usually do fairly quickly).

[Alan_X]

Again, Alan, I don't know what happened with Dr. Manhattan and I don't want to know. I'm not keeping that incident as a model to resolve, but rather a broader approach to general issues. If you take the abuse of a moderator as abuse to the site, that's different, but it doesn't have to be so. I think of this RAWK-poster connection as a marriage. My wife and I hurl abuse at each other every now and then, later we apologize and we're still together. Almost 25 years. If we did the 'permanent ban' thing, we'd be divorced after a few years*. I was only suggesting a similar approach in order to unite people not divide.

But since you have the avenue to resolve issues after a ban and you had reinstated posters that convinced you otherwise, I think it's fair either way.

(* It's arguable which outcome is better... )

It's not a marriage though. As moderators we shouldn't get involved in slanging matches.

[Mackeroo]

I appreciate that you can't/won't comment on individual cases, but a lot of us have an issue with the original 5 day ban handed out to Dr. Manhattan and I for one would like to know why it was dished out so as to potentially avoid the same fate.

Are we not allowed criticise the way we are playing or our results? There's only so long we can put our position down to bad luck. I know Kenny has accumulated a lot of goodwill, but surely this doesn't make him immune from criticism? Dr. Manhattan merely made a statement of fact about our points total compared to a former manager, which was in no way abusive or inflamatory, and was banned for it. Absolute horseshit in my opinion.

Obviously he then compounded matters by taking to twitter to voice his displeasure, and this resulted in his ban being made permanent. When he looks back at it in the cold light of day I'm sure he'll regret it.

FWIW I think the new policy is fair enough, I don't have any issue with it. I'm not trying to be a prick here, I genuinely would like to know, as I love this forum and wouldn't like to find myself banned if I can avoid it.

[Hinesy]

first of all we don't publicly discuss reasons for bans in depth.

Anyway if any poster follows the guidelines, they won't get banned so its irrelevant anyway to 'let you know why so you don't get banned'. Secondly mutual respect on all sides ensures no one needs to get banned and whilst we will in certain cases discuss the ban with relevant parties we simply don't have the time, the urge nor need the hassle to talk about it in every case.
I really hope members can understand that the mods are not draconian guards but members themselves and whilst we may not always achieve consistency, we do still moderate fairly and allow much more dissent and disagreement with some imaginary party line than some think.
Finally, with due respect, its very simple. Follow the guidelines that this site has and you're welcome here. Persistently go against them or be unable to control your temper over a keyboard and we don't want you here. Its really not hard.

[Cruiser]

So if a banned member has no access to PM how is he/she supposed to know the reason and argue their case during the ban? I agree with farawayred in the previous page, sometimes its just a pissed off mod and there needs to be an avenue of communication rather than shutting the member out altogether during that period.

[SP]

So if a banned member has no access to PM how is he/she supposed to know the reason and argue their case during the ban? I agree with farawayred in the previous page, sometimes its just a pissed off mod and there needs to be an avenue of communication rather than shutting the member out altogether during that period.

Email.