Golf Monthly forum - please read this

[Doon frae Troon]

Seems to me that a small "regulars" minority think they speak for the majority. I'm pretty sure they don't. The rules are fine and I'm very happy to abide by them. It's what keeps me here.

Very true Piece.
When I first started posting I was pretty surprised at the level of abrupt, bordering on rude, comments returned.
These comments seemed mainly from the 'old gaurd' who seemed to think that the had earned the right to be 'abrupt'.
I am glad I continued and I think the mods have the balance just about right.
I started the 'Rangers' thread and on a few occasions asked for folk to moderate thier words.
I thought the mods were very liberal to let it run to over 5,000 posts. Even then some folk complained when it was closed [not me]

There does seem to be a bit of a bolshy attitude towards new posters which is a shame.
It must also stop lurkers from posting their first comments.

 

[chris661]

I have no issues with the rules at all but can I please make a suggestion to the mods.

Where a post has words/phrase or whatever can it be edited out rather than deleted with a comment as to why it has and maybe referring back to the specific rule. ie - where Dodger received his infraction (which was harsh IMO but technically correct judging on the rules - No 3).

The main issue is the perceived over moderating, where it is more visable the perceived over moderating may be more acceptable because people can then see the reasons why which hopefully in turn should lead to less posts needing moderated.

From my days of moderating football forums im sure it was as easy to edit as it was to move posts.

Maybe that's something that will be taken up moving on. Can I just say though that the main people that complain about over modding are the ones that have stuff modded. Now fair enough about criticism if it's warranted but to just blindly say the forum is a totalitarian state because you got something edited or deleted as it was against the rules which have been there as long as I can remember is kinda silly. Consistency is a different issue andnis being discussed amongst the mods at the minute but going by Mike's post I think it's fairly clear how he wants it done.

 

[chris661]

I am wondering though does the asterisks even cover the Shermans as some people type it that way? I guess it is a kind of swear word

Nope but it's just something we as golfers don't want to mention a bit like voldemorts name

 

[One Planer]

Nope but it's just something we as golfers don't want to mention a bit like voldemorts name

Who?

Which track (Epsom, Derby etc) and race time?

 

[Hacker Khan]

So? This isn't a forum for nuts magazine. There are plenty of place on the internet you can go and have free reign. If however you choose to use this site all that's being askednis you follow a few fairly simple rules.

No, but it is a forum for a IPC magazine. And I thought there was a slight bit of hypocrisy with mention of compromising the standards and values of IPC magazines, an organisation that also publishes a soft porn magazine. I do mostly agree with all of the rules as they are common sense and basic human decency. I imagine it is very difficult to moderate forums in a world where everyone seems to want to express their opinion which they are convinced is correct (guilty as charged), and also a lot of people are looking for a reason to be upset. Previously this was confined to your family and group of friends, now thanks to the internet it is there for everyone to agree or disagree with.

I do have a slight problem with the ban on asterisks to cover up swear words if used occasionally as, to quote the great Young Ones,

MR. LIBERAL: Hang on, you pair of young scruffy tearaways. Don't you realize the way you act is influencing millions of children to talk Cockney and be insubordinate?!

SCHOOLBOY #1: Come on, sir. Don't be silly! We're the only kids in Britain who never say fu....

Also, I have seen several swear words in that great bastion of offence and filth, The Times recently. I would have worded it as offensive language, and leave that to the mods to decide. I think everyone agrees that some swear words are very offensive, where as s**t probably is not. I'm not advocating a Roger's Profanisaurus free for all, but I think the banning of asterisks in 2012 is a bit OTT. Plus there's no mention of Obelix.

But rules are rules, so I will obey them and leave my swearing to the Nuts forum. But I do apologise in advance if one slips through.

 

[FairwayDodger]

As the bloke who started the thread on Locking Lurkers, I can tell you know that I only speak for myself. And furthermore, if I thought that starting it would lead to the spewing of posts that it has, I would not have bothered.

It was indeed a thoroughly depressing thread, albeit with a few good points (from both points of view) expressed in amongst the dross. However, I had to retire for the evening before it finished and today it's been consigned into a black hole. So without bringing the whole thing up again.... were any rational conclusions or consensus reached or did it just continue round in circles?

 

[richart]

Can I ask how the moderators work ?

Can one moderator amend or close a thread by themelves or does it have to be a joint/majority decision ? If one can, then it seems that nine moderators can approve a comment, but if one doesn't like it, it can be amended/deleted. If that one moderator has different views on what is acceptable to all the others, the forum is being moderated effectively by that one person, and the other moderatots are all superfluous.On that basis I can't see any point in offering to be a new moderator. If this is not the case, it would be interesting to know the decision making.

I am asking out of interest and not looking to start a mod fight.

 

[Fish]

I am asking out of interest and not looking to start a mod fight.

I think there's only one way to find out, FIGHT

 

[deanobillquay]

Can I ask how the moderators work ?

Can one moderator amend or close a thread by themselves or does it have to be a joint/majority decision ? If one can, then it seems that nine moderators can approve a comment, but if one doesn't like it, it can be amended/deleted. If that one moderator has different views on what is acceptable to all the others, the forum is being moderated effectively by that one person, and the other moderators are all superfluous.

This is exactly the question I'd like to ask. It would solve the issue of feeling like only one mod amends/deletes my posts.

 

[pbrown7582]

It was indeed a thoroughly depressing thread, albeit with a few good points (from both points of view) expressed in amongst the dross. However, I had to retire for the evening before it finished and today it's been consigned into a black hole. So without bringing the whole thing up again.... were any rational conclusions or consensus reached or did it just continue round in circles?

Around and around for 27 pages!

 

[GB72]

Can I ask how the moderators work ?

Can one moderator amend or close a thread by themelves or does it have to be a joint/majority decision ? If one can, then it seems that nine moderators can approve a comment, but if one doesn't like it, it can be amended/deleted. If that one moderator has different views on what is acceptable to all the others, the forum is being moderated effectively by that one person, and the other moderatots are all superfluous.On that basis I can't see any point in offering to be a new moderator. If this is not the case, it would be interesting to know the decision making.

I am asking out of interest and not looking to start a mod fight.

It works both ways. Each Mod can amend/delete/ move any thread without the need to refer to others and in most cases that is fine. if there is a particularly sensitive issue or something we are not sure about then there is a section of the forum that only we can see that we use to discuss what action to take. We then tend to reach a concensus and act accordingly. It would simply not be practical to have a discussion on everything due to the time involved and the fact that there are not necessarily more than one mod online at any given time.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Around and around for 27 pages!

Glad I went to bed....

 

[richart]

It works both ways. Each Mod can amend/delete/ move any thread without the need to refer to others and in most cases that is fine. if there is a particularly sensitive issue or something we are not sure about then there is a section of the forum that only we can see that we use to discuss what action to take. We then tend to reach a concensus and act accordingly. It would simply not be practical to have a discussion on everything due to the time involved and the fact that there are not necessarily more than one mod online at any given time.

Thanks Greg for the prompt reply.

It does worry me that if one moderator can basically run the forum, I can't see much point in offering my services. There is a power to disapprove, but not one to approve. I think there is a feeling on here that one or two moderators are making all the decisions, in some part due to the fact they are on here the most.

I know it will never be a perfect system, but I think it is good that forumers know how it works. Would hate the forum to become too sanitized, and for some of the major contributors, not only in posts, but also in the time and effort they give to the forum in arranging meets and giving advice, leaving.

 

[deanobillquay]

It works both ways. Each Mod can amend/delete/ move any thread without the need to refer to others and in most cases that is fine. if there is a particularly sensitive issue or something we are not sure about then there is a section of the forum that only we can see that we use to discuss what action to take. We then tend to reach a concensus and act accordingly. It would simply not be practical to have a discussion on everything due to the time involved and the fact that there are not necessarily more than one mod online at any given time.

So therefore if a mod has issues with a certain poster/posters, this means they can delete which posts THEY find inappropriate and leave in the ones that they don't?

 

[brendy]

So therefore if a mod has issues with a certain poster/posters, this means they can delete which posts THEY find inappropriate and leave in the ones that they don't?

In theory yes but we dont tend to delete whole inappropriate posts if we can get away with removing offensive wording.
There is a team of moderators, some online more than others. Should we pass over offensive threads and wait for another moderator to read it to agree, meanwhile a lot of people have had to read the post.
Again, I think some are missing the point or perhaps not in the odd case. If you keep within the rules using good judgement and no poor use of the queens english it wont be a problem. Is this really so hard to understand? Keep it clean and there wil be no need for any intervention. We all prefer reading threads on the forum, not moderating them. I certainly get no kick out of having to repeat myself and the abuse that gets hurled, I have a wife that does that already

Offensive and abusive posts are different to just plain old foul language. 9/10 times a post gets moderated for foul language. When it becomes abusive or borderline offensive (we are all civilised human beings, we have a rough idea of what will get someones back up) moderators are no different than normal members, we can guage what might need passed over for discussion by a few of us. Every action we make is pretty much accountable though as very rarely does anything get deleted (barring individual swear words which just get removed). Any thread or series of posts get moved to a non visible section which only moderators and staff can see, these can be reviewed by other mods at any time.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

I think that it is important to understand that the Mods are not proactive, they are reactive

If a post is made which breaches forum rules they have to react to it
Sometimes the mods will come across posts themselves that need modding, at other times they get alerted when someone else reports a post, These are both Reactive situations.

I really dont see what the problem is, If everyone kept to the rules we would have lively debate, healthy exchanges of views and also good humoured banter, BUT it gets out of hand, people swear, they launch personal attacks on others and then cry foul because their actions have caused a mod to intervene. For Goodness sake GROW UP.
Do not post anything that contains words that you would not expect to see in the magazine, yes it is that simple

The Mods cannot be on here 24/7 stuff will im sure, slip through the net, But generally I think that this forum is modded very well, certainly compared to other forums

The Mods are Mikes eyes and ears, the mods operate according to Mike's guidelines which are there to promote and protect the public face of GM,

They are not your enemies, just people doing an unpaid thankless job, which is made harder by people who do not follow the rules.

Im going to have a lie down

Fragger

 

[Captainron]

Read and understood.

 

[full_throttle]

GM have given us forummers lots of opportunities which we would be foolish to loose. Play Your Best, AG custom fitting to name a couple. Lets all take a moment before clicking 'submit post' and ensure the post doesn't contain anything we ourselves dislike reeading or seeing.

 

[6inchcup]

it seems sometimes the mediator looses the sense of humour,we all dont like the meanderings of jimmy tarbuck and the like and if it is ok to be on tv before the watershed why cant we post them on here,this forum is the best around and MOST contributors are affable people who most would enjoy a quick 9 holes and a beer in the clubhouse with, like all clubs/workplaces there are a few we don't like but that's life and they will soon stop posting,friendly banter comes in all forms some with a bit of stereotypical name calling and tongue in cheek ireverence i hope the mediators know the difference before hitting the remove button.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Can someone confirm how long infractions last on the record and how do you get them removed