Wanted: A Fourth Moderator

Keep up Galileo, I'm an ex now!

For the right reasons though.

I'm not sure what been going on today, I've not been around and without my super-mod powers I'm blind.

Regardless, I'd ask everyone to respect the moderators, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with their actions. It can be a thankless task at times*.

I remember saying a long time ago on here, you can help the moderators do the right thing by making it easy to moderate.


*occasionally thankless, but nevertheless vital if this place is to remain. Therefore I would encourage anyone to put their name forward for a stint.
 
Last edited:
Unbelievably, I've been dragged (kicking and screaming!) into the moderator gig... :D

Seriously though, I do take Grey's point on board. I'm not going to cut my tongue out or anything, and I certainly don't expect others to bite their tongue other, though a sense of civility should always persevere.

As Gal said, much of the last few days arguments have been storm in a tea-cup nonsense; indeed, without the personal sniping, they represent the debate (sometimes heated, no problem there!) and exchange of opinion that this forum desperately, desperately needs more of IMO.

Given that I would guess this is the view of the majority of members,(especially those that have been here considerably longer than myself) I would just ask members to keep the personal non-sense out of it.
 
Aldaniti also offered earlier, and she is level headed and totally non partisan, and I don't know why her offer wasn't accepted with alacrity. No offence to Geroid.

Very occasionally mods behave in a petty manner themselves - I've been on the end of a few unprovoked snide remarks, and it doesn't engender respect. I can well believe it's a thankless task though!
 
Gearoid,

If you want to make a point, at least be man enough (apologies to the females on here) to make it directly, either in your post, or preferably to me, or Warbler/Trackside via PM.

I was wrong in 1/2 comments over the Munster thread, apologised to Garney (via PM, where these things should be done - didn't receive an apology for being called a fool and an idiot) but I feel if the KK thread was viewed as a stand alone thread, there's not much wrong. I genuinely felt Garney was stating 'never raced again', and injected some light humour when I realised what he had in fact meant - there was no sniping or put down there, and I've explained this to Garney via PM (happy to show you these if you so wish).

Grey, you need to realise when moderators (I, or others) attempt to put a thread back on track, you need to respect that. That is what the PM facility is for, and it helps absolutely no-one to continue things that are off topic.

What worries me, in additon or in an aside to the above, is there seems to be some sort of agenda whereby people who are here longest feel they are in control/superior, and secondly, that those without the assumed knowledge (fate of Gold Cup winners, for example) are without place on the forum. Whilst the relatively small active membership on here is a good thing in terms of understanding personalities so to speak, and the quality of debate compared with other forums, these two represent the downside, and for me, it is worrying no-one has raised these as issues from the past two days. Why is that?

Now, I'm happy to continue as a moderator, or not, when that situation should arise. I've stated where I was wrong, (and apologised for that) but I am far, far from the only guilty party here.
 
Frankly, none of this argy-bargy would have commenced, if it wasn't for the ludicrous 182 rating awarded to Kicking King. It's all Timeform's fault (they, and their apologists).

:D

Is this on or off-topic? :confused: :cool:
 
Grasshopper said:
Frankly, none of this argy-bargy would have commenced, if it wasn't for the ludicrous 182 rating awarded to Kicking King. It's all Timeform's fault (they, and their apologists).

:D

Is this on or off-topic? :confused: :cool:
Click to expand...

If everyone just stuck to talking about the flat...
 
Grasshopper said:
Frankly, none of this argy-bargy would have commenced, if it wasn't for the ludicrous 182 rating awarded to Kicking King. It's all Timeform's fault (they, and their apologists).

:D

Is this on or off-topic? :confused: :cool:
Click to expand...

It's clearly all DavidJohnson's fault.. :p
 
Grey, you need to realise when moderators (I, or others) attempt to put a thread back on track, you need to respect that.
Click to expand...

This sort of approach is not on. Treating the members like children in a school yard will lead to trouble, especially when it is the moderator himself who has put the thread off course in the first place. Respect has to be earned, and is usually mutual.

That is what the PM facility is for, and it helps absolutely no-one to continue things that are off topic.
Click to expand...

The PM facility serves many useful purposes but I don't feel obliged to use it if things have already gone so far that something needs to be said out loud. And removing posts when other people try to discuss things openly is not an approach I would recommend.

I was wrong in 1/2 comments over the Munster thread, apologised to Garney (via PM, where these things should be done
Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear you apologised. My way of doing things would have been to do it on the thread rather than by PM because we are all better off for knowing it, yourself included.

What worries me, in additon or in an aside to the above, is there seems to be some sort of agenda whereby people who are here longest feel they are in control/superior
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the case. You should be aware, however, that the reason a lot of people prefer this forum to any other is because it has been more easy going than the others. Until recently there has been little or no trouble here until the moderating style became more interventionist.

I've stated where I was wrong, (and apologised for that) but I am far, far from the only guilty party here.
Click to expand...

It is certainly the case that you are not the only guilty party and I can understand that it feels unfair to be singled out for criticism. Nevertheless moderators have a responsibility to avoid needling other people, especially if they then try to pull rank on them by telling them how to behave and censoring their responses.

I'm not in the habit of making trouble for people on this forum or anywhere else but I do care about the place and I have only intervened on this issue to try and prevent more damage being done.
 
This sort of approach is not on. Treating the members like children in a school yard will lead to trouble, especially when it is the moderator himself who has put the thread off course in the first place. Respect has to be earned, and is usually mutual.
Click to expand...

This is, and has been, and will be the approach, and is a common consensus. Topics need to be gotten back on track after a dispute, especially where the needed dialogue was done off-topic on PM. If you want to discuss a topic, post away. If a moderator asks you specifically to stick to the topic on hand, please do that.

As much as moderators have duties to the forum, so do members. It has been mentioned by others that you don't seem to realise this. This doesn't help.

I'm glad to hear you apologised. My way of doing things would have been to do it on the thread rather than by PM because we are all better off for knowing it, yourself included.
Click to expand...

You have your way, i have mine. Frankly, it's none of your business - I apologised to Garney, and I'm quite unsure what this has to do with you?

I don't think that's the case. You should be aware, however, that the reason a lot of people prefer this forum to any other is because it has been more easy going than the others. Until recently there has been little or no trouble here until the moderating style became more interventionist.
Click to expand...

More people prefer other forums judging by membership numbers so I'm unsure as to your point. Didn't you also tell me yourself just 2 days ago about how certain things have nearly destroyed the forum several times? That's not my definition of 'easy going'.
 
As much as moderators have duties to the forum, so do members. It has been mentioned by others that you don't seem to realise this. This doesn't help.
Click to expand...

Evidence, please.
 
Grey,

You refuse continually to get things back on topic when asked, thereby prolonging things, and not letting things go. Most others do this without continuing off topic.
 
Last edited:
Before you use a word like 'continually' I suggest you check my track record on here more carefully.

You have your way, i have mine.
Click to expand...

Not good enough. This is about how the forum runs, not individual style.

Didn't you also tell me yourself just 2 days ago about how certain things have nearly destroyed the forum several times? That's not my definition of 'easy going'.
Click to expand...

Heavy handed moderating nearly wrecked this place. I don't want it to happen again.

Now, out of respect for Colin, I will give it a rest.
 
to address your points;

1. Continually = last 2 days you were continually asked to stop taking things off topic
2. My PM's or direct interaction with any other members are not your concern. If i apologise, chastise or converse with any person, be it as a mod or member, it's nothing for you to worry over.
3. Isn't that a contradiction of your previous point? Either this place has been an easy going forum, or it hasn't. It can't be both.
 
I think the problem stems from the way a new moderator views the moderating role. Other forums have moderators who believe that their role is to intervene when things go off topic and take it on themseleves to be judge, jury, and executioner of the content and contribitors. In other forums, the moderator is a status symbol. Here, the moderators are seen as a neccessary evil and are the less seen of them the better. If squabbles develop here, they are not taken to PMs, if the contributor doesnt want them to. Be big enough to deal with it. Trigger happy moderators in fact have caused more problems on here than any contributor bar one I would say.

And those who are here the longest understand the way this forum works. Its not like other forums. Andrew mentions that TRF is booming. No-one here cares. Time moves on and the new members that know their onions make their mark here. If you dont want to stick around, that is up to you. Newer contrinutors think that its the same as others. Its not.

But two days ago, Andrew tried to ban me here. This was after some petty squabble that he now admits he was initiator of. I have no problems posting my PMs to Andrew over the last two days. Absolutely none. I expect this to be edited within a few minutes, but that is the new way.

Who allowed Galileo and Gareth to resign?
 
Post them, please. I can do it for you if you so wish.

I'm sure you will eventually get to your preferred situation where all members have joined on or before 1/1/2005

If squabbles develop here, they are not taken to PMs, if the contributor doesnt want them to. Be big enough to deal with it. Trigger happy moderators in fact have caused more problems on here than any contributor bar one I would say.
Click to expand...

I was and am under the very strong impression that squabbles should be taken to PM, and let the topic get back on course. Is that wrong? (general q - not just for Garney)

If you dont want to stick around, that is up to you.
Click to expand...

When did I say this?
This was after some petty squabble that he now admits he was initiator of.
Click to expand...

I was big enough to admit when I was wrong. You, on the other hand, have not when you were, so highlighting this does you no favours.

new members that know their onions make their mark here.
Click to expand...
I forgot the purposeof TH was 'making a mark' ??????

Finally, and for someone who clearly deems himself to have 'made his mark here', why did you not take on the moderator position when it was vacant?
 
Last edited:
My ideal situation would be that people of a certain intelligence, specifically horse racing intelligence, but I'm not all that fussy, would post here.
 
How about everyone takes on board what has been said here, and just keep it in mind next time something like this pops up. In the mean time not bringing this back up in different discussions. Like I said beforehand, the forum has been very well managed over the last couple of months bar this episode.

Racking over this over and over again is not going to help.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Hurley
I asked you to be civil.

Fair enough, people can disagree and things can get out of hand. However, when a person asks you repeatedly to be civil and you choose to completely revert to name-calling, or asking how long a person has been on the forum, you are going the wrong way about it.

Numbersix received a week's band for similar behaviour and I expect something similar here.

You can't repeatedly call someone a fool or an idiot.

Moderator aside,
You come across as uninformed, unable to put an argument together and very bitter.

Andrew
Click to expand...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garney

Do what you need to do. You come across as someone who believes they are intelligent and are surprised that others dont. Repeating what you said slowly for a idiot like me to understand was nice and condescending. Obviously since then, things have changed a bit and no-one likes it to be shown to be a fool in public. A smarmy self-satisfied fool, who isnt nearly as intelligent as they think. We'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Hurley
Garney,


Garney,
Since this is a PM, let me be clear. ..

You compared the Haka to 3 major sporting events. If you can't see where you're going wrong, then I don't need to be anywhere near intelligent to see the odd one out.

I agree, the slowly part was wrong and out of order.

However, you can't call someone names repeatedly.

You come across as extremely bitter about these events, yet can't back up your bitterness with any facts.

You couldn't be more wrong about me but you do amuse me no end.

Have a good day..
Click to expand...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Garney
Very good. As I said on the thread I dont want to discuss the lions with you, for reasons I posted on thread.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: KK Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Hurley
Lets get the thread back on topic please.

I genuinely thought you had made an error, as did Clive. As did Gareth. I presumed humour would be the way to go upon realising what you meant, clearly I was wrong.

Best to let yesterday go?

Andrew
Click to expand...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garney

No.
Click to expand...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Hurley
Look, I was out of order yesterday with my initial comment, and am sorry for that.

That is from me, and not prompted by anything else or anyone else.

You can take it or leave it, it's upto you.

This thread has no need to go the way it's going.

Agree on that?
Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Hurley
Threads go the way they go. If they turn into squabbles they do, if tehy get back on topic well and good. Interesting now that you admit you were out of order yesterday, yet you still threatened to ban me. And again today.
Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Hurley

Garney,

You can't call someone an idiot and fool repeatedly. Numbersix received a week's ban for the same thing.

What exactly have I done today, except gentle humour, and ask you to get the thread back on track?

Don't confuse the two days.

Look, i'm trying to be reasonable (i wasn't initially yesterday) so you can either choose to do the same, see I haven't done or said anything inflammatory or aggressively or provocatively today, or not. I can't decide that.

Anyway. Forget about it?
Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garney

See the thing is that I have been around here for longer that you. A lot longer. I'm guessing that there are maybe 10 people that post that have been here since I started. Over the years, those who have been on this forum know that I dont start problems, that I act reasonably but passionately about horse racing but I always give due respect. Over the approx ten years I have never been banned, despite some debates with moderators, because the people on the forum know me.

I have met with plenty of them socially, so when you accuse me of acting unreasonably or childish, there are plenty on the forum here who know me far better than they know you. And as a result know that being unreasonable or childish is out of character for me, and definitely wouldnt be done without prompting. And will carefaully consider whether I merit a ban.

This of course does not mean that something I say or do in the future would not lead to a ban. As I said, do waht you have to do. Leave the threads go the way they go. And see what happens. I'm hoping that whenever you move onto whatever the next power trip is, I'll still be allowed to post here.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Who allowed Galileo and Gareth to resign?
Click to expand...

I'd been modding for over a year (Galileo for way longer). Figured it was time to give someone else a chance before the power went to our heads and we invaded Poland or something.
 
My tuppence worth.

I reckon that the reason that the moderating on here has been so successful recently is down to the style of posting/engaging in debate/employment of powers that the new batch of moderators use, both prior to becoming a moderator and thereafter. My personal feeling is that Andrew's style does not lend itself to successful moderation.

That said, I do not believe that this debate and particularly the manner in which it is being conducted, either on this thread or any of the others, is beneficial to anyone. Although a good forum spat is relatively entertaining. :D

The point above about Aldaniti is a fair one - her style would, IMHO, lend itself to successful moderation.
 
I agree simmo. I'll wait a while until Andrew has put the final edits to the PMs and see where we stand.

One correction, Gareth knew exactly what I meant originally, and was stating it in such a way to point out where the confusion lay.

My first post on this thread was basicially a re-iteration of what I said in PM.
 
Back
Top