JumpingAnaconda
Winger
After the last match I posted a thread here: http://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/it-doesnt-matter-how-good-the-performance-was.1223284/
The content of the post did not depict the common point of view, but it certainly was not offensive or radical. The response was mainly a row of 'fuck offs' with a few genuine attempts to contribute to the thread dropped in. Somewhere along the line the thread, which was an actually football thread, got moderated into Parsnip forum.
Years ago I used to have a very popular forum. I know moderating is a horrible job and I respect for the difficulties and challenges it poses. But what bothers me is that by taking what was an unmistakable attempt at a football thread and moving it wholesale, including the pages and pages of abuse to Parsnip, it seems like the moderation team are endorsing that kind of behaviour.
Me personally, if I saw anyone posting 'Fuck off' as their sole reply to a thread, I would ban them. I think it is the exact opposite of what you should want in a forum. To me a forum should be trying to encourage the widest possible range of views. Yet time and again you will find threads where people just type 'Fuck off' or a near equivalent to anything that they disagree with. Time and again this derails threads and turns them into personal slanging matches. It offers nothing and narrows the scope of discussion to that of the smallest minded and most abusive.
I know you could spend half your life trying to keep on top of it, but why do you allow it? A straight forward search of posts for 'Fuck off' shows post after post of replies from people on many different threads who are effectively trying to shut down and dictate the debate on this open forum.
So would you please consider operating a policy that affords a tiny bit more protection of threads from being hijacked by pointless abuse?
I fully expect an incredibly witty 'Fuck off' to follow this post ->
The content of the post did not depict the common point of view, but it certainly was not offensive or radical. The response was mainly a row of 'fuck offs' with a few genuine attempts to contribute to the thread dropped in. Somewhere along the line the thread, which was an actually football thread, got moderated into Parsnip forum.
Years ago I used to have a very popular forum. I know moderating is a horrible job and I respect for the difficulties and challenges it poses. But what bothers me is that by taking what was an unmistakable attempt at a football thread and moving it wholesale, including the pages and pages of abuse to Parsnip, it seems like the moderation team are endorsing that kind of behaviour.
Me personally, if I saw anyone posting 'Fuck off' as their sole reply to a thread, I would ban them. I think it is the exact opposite of what you should want in a forum. To me a forum should be trying to encourage the widest possible range of views. Yet time and again you will find threads where people just type 'Fuck off' or a near equivalent to anything that they disagree with. Time and again this derails threads and turns them into personal slanging matches. It offers nothing and narrows the scope of discussion to that of the smallest minded and most abusive.
I know you could spend half your life trying to keep on top of it, but why do you allow it? A straight forward search of posts for 'Fuck off' shows post after post of replies from people on many different threads who are effectively trying to shut down and dictate the debate on this open forum.
So would you please consider operating a policy that affords a tiny bit more protection of threads from being hijacked by pointless abuse?
I fully expect an incredibly witty 'Fuck off' to follow this post ->