PDA

View Full Version : Closed threads



crossref
22-11-18, 12:11
I don't think Mods should continure to post on threads that are closed

That's it really.

Marc Wakeham
22-11-18, 13:11
I'm not sure why we have closed threads. If individuals want to carry them on thatshould be their call. Members of the forums can ignore any thread they wish to - closed or not.

Pinky
22-11-18, 15:11
I think that it is correct for mods to close threads from time to time, eg where the tone or the content of the thread becomes immoderate or where someone external looking at the site may reasonably conclude that the topic or the manner of discussion is unbecoming of a group of officials (and others)

Sometimes a mod have drafted a response and they will be able to post it even after another mod has closed the thread. This is a benefit (or curse) of being a mod

crossref
22-11-18, 15:11
Closing threads is a legitimate Mod tool , and could be done for many reasons

The thread closed today should (IMO) be removed from the site. It does RR no favours at all. Comments like that would be deleted from many newspapers, certainly that content should not be on a site by refs, for refs . But whatever , the mods make that decision not me

But mods can't have cake and eat it, closing a thread and then five hours later posting on it

We have had this discussion before but it keeps happening
,

Phil E
22-11-18, 15:11
Mods don't see the thread as closed unless they look really closely at the left hand side, where the padlock isn't always obvious.
This has happened before where a mod has replied to a comment without noticing that the thread is closed.

I can guarantee the last message was posted without realising the thread was closed.

Marc Wakeham
22-11-18, 15:11
If contenst is not appropriate then yes the thread should be deleted. But that is different for closing.

crossref
22-11-18, 15:11
Threads might be legitimately closed for many good reasons . Eg because they have become boring or repetitive, with no need to delete

On many forums thread are automatically closed after a period of inactivity .. say six months or a year .. this would be a good idea on Rugby Refs as a discussion from some time ago may well be referencing laws and guidelines that are out of date , and it can be confusing if it seem to be current (better to start a new thread)


Phil yes I am sure it was accident but you guys need to change your setting , so that mods can't post (it will be a setting somewhere) or just find a way to tell eachother when you close a thread

OB..
22-11-18, 16:11
Mods don't see the thread as closed unless they look really closely at the left hand side, where the padlock isn't always obvious.
This has happened before where a mod has replied to a comment without noticing that the thread is closed.

I can guarantee the last message was posted without realising the thread was closed.



Phil yes I am sure it was accident but you guys need to change your setting , so that mods can't post (it will be a setting somewhere) or just find a way to tell eachother when you close a thread

What padlock?!

I presume it is my post that has given rise to this. I have no problem with improving the notification system.

Balones
22-11-18, 16:11
We’ve frquently had a load of ‘padlocks’ written on here but I’ve never spotted one!
Are you having trouble with your auti correction OB...?��

OB..
22-11-18, 17:11
What padlock?!


Mods don't see the thread as closed unless they look really closely at the left hand side, where the padlock isn't always obvious.
This has happened before where a mod has replied to a comment without noticing that the thread is closed.

I can guarantee the last message was posted without realising the thread was closed.
That (invisible) padlock.

Phil E
22-11-18, 17:11
That (invisible) padlock.

3825
msf

SimonSmith
22-11-18, 18:11
I didn't see that at all.

Normally there's a chat before it gets closed.

Sincere apologies for posting - I wasn't abusing my position, such as it is. I do agree with the closing.

crossref
22-11-18, 19:11
So ten hours after it is closed for inappropriate content (I assume) mods are STILL posting on it , keeping the post at the top of the forum ...

(And If it crossed the line .. and it did .. why is it still on the forum?)

OB..
22-11-18, 20:11
Thanks, Phil E. I didn't even know I needed to look at those pictures. :frown:

Phil E
23-11-18, 09:11
Thanks, Phil E. I didn't even know I needed to look at those pictures. :frown:

The padlock is the only indication a Mod has that a thread is closed...but it is almost impossible to see!

didds
23-11-18, 11:11
I've no idea if this is even possible but what about a backgroujd colour change for locked threads from the basic white we see, to 9say) red or pink or whatever...

its what we do for our DR systems to highlight that people are on a DR system not the live one

??

didds

Phil E
23-11-18, 12:11
Mods only have moderation over users and threads.
We aren't able to change anything within the system itself, how it displays or acts.

That would all be down to Robbie.

didds
23-11-18, 12:11
Clearly.

crossref
23-11-18, 13:11
Mods only have moderation over users and threads

Are mods able to delete posts that disgust them?

and/or posts which perhaps are defamatory or against the core values of the game which we referees all agree are important to preserve ? Which perhaps shouldn't be permanently published at RugbyRefs.com

SimonSmith
23-11-18, 18:11
In theory yes.

And yes, I know what you're driving at.

But we only do that after consultation - no-one acts individually.

crossref
23-11-18, 21:11
fair enough , so why not take a minute to talk amongst yourselves then?

Taff
23-11-18, 22:11
fair enough , so why not take a minute to talk amongst yourselves then?
I assume Mods have to work as well. :biggrin:

Plus, Mods may be on different continents, so my guess is that "taking a minute" to discuss anything isn't as easy as it sounds given the time differences.

crossref
23-11-18, 22:11
Taff
1 it's an expression
2 it's been over a day since the offending post .a post which one mod called disgusting, and another disliked, and as a result a third mod closed the thread. They have had plenty of opportunities to act
3 it was a post that would clearly earn a RC and a suspension if uttered on pitch
4 it's clearly in contravention to the values of rugby


And yet the post is still there . I don't understand why rugbyrefs.com is perfectly happy to publish comments like that.
It's absolutely not what this site should be standing for. I feel ashamed by it

If that comment was on a club website the CB would absolutely take action and the club would be sanctioned. I dont understand what this site stands for that the mods leave it there e

Time difference my foot. They have decided it's ok. But it's not

menace
24-11-18, 04:11
I think you make a very good point crossref.

But equally I'm ok with free speach. I found it unpalatable but didnt think it needed to be a cause to close the thread. I try not get offended but if I do I simply think that it reflects more on the person saying it...not those reading it.

But it is curious that it was too bad to leave open but not bad enough to just deleted the posts that crossed the line?

crossref
24-11-18, 11:11
when refereeing, if something happens that you know many players will perceive as foul play, but you are going to play on, then we all know that good game management is to acknowledge the incident and say something

- at the time 'Play on! Seen it, nothing in that!'
- and then afterward to the captain a brief word to explain 'I saw it - completely understand the appeals, but to me they both had a realistic chance to catch it, and they collided, rugby incident, not foul play
.. or whatever.

This settles the players and builds confidence in you (even if they don't agree)


On the other hand, when a poor referee says nothing at all and, through gritted teeth, eyes ahead, simply refuses to acknowledge any thing took place, and says nothing to the captains, then this is not good management. The players are left guesssing and lose confidence.

Marc Wakeham
24-11-18, 23:11
Surely, from reading this thread, there is a reason why a thread needs "dealing with" If there is something "unacceptable" in it. ust because people are bored with it is a reason to avoid not close.

If a thread bacome offensive / libelous or whatever then it either needs DELETING or editing. This surely needs to be done promptly to remove the offence.

Now, as has been said there is an issue with time differences and or availability of mods able to "discuss" issues.

So what is the solution?

I suggest a "quarantine" area. This would be a thead / sub forum where only mods can read threads. Any Mods could "quarantine a thread they are not happy with and the other mods would be alerted. They could then look at the "offensive" thread and agree tho either Delete the thread completely or edit it and returning to the original forum or "overrule" the originals mods "censorship" action.

This way we don't leave offensive material on public display.

Is this possible?

crossref
24-11-18, 23:11
FFS , when someone makes a comment like that .. just delete it

Marc Wakeham
24-11-18, 23:11
Some times it get quoted and the deleting can become complex.

SimonSmith
25-11-18, 00:11
It is under active discussion.

menace
25-11-18, 01:11
The added complexity is everyone has a different "offensive meter" - so youll be relying on mods meter as the moral compass to censor the site. Which is fine by me..but presumably guidance about what will be censored will need to be provided?

Marc Wakeham
25-11-18, 09:11
]The added complexity is everyone has a different "offensive meter" - so youll be relying on mods meter as the moral compass to censor the site. [/B]Which is fine by me..but presumably guidance about what will be censored will need to be provided?

That why I suggest a "quarantine" forum. One mod might feel something to be OTT but the rest feel it not to be. This way it would be moved whist a consensus view was arrived at.

Ian_Cook
25-11-18, 10:11
Frankly, I don't see this as an issue. If RRF were to adopt a position that moderators cannot post in closed threads, then we would be a rarity among internet forums. Besides, all it would do is make the moderator have to go through the process of unlocking, posting and locking it again - what a waste of time that would be.

However, lets recognise what this is really about, the closing of the thread in the first place (and I think we all know which thread it was and why it was closed).

I chose to take no part in the staff discussion as regards to the thread that was closed, nonetheless, I agree with the reasons why it was done. Accusing referees at any level of personal bias is tantamount to an accusation of cheating, and it has no place on this forum.

If it is a low level referee you suspect, make a formal complaint to his Society/Association. If it is an elite level referee you want to accuse of cheating, there's a place of that.... its called Planet Rugby.

L'irlandais
25-11-18, 10:11
The original thread behind this discussion has been deleted.
Since this post repeated items from the original thread it has also been deleted.

MOD

Ian_Cook
25-11-18, 10:11
Personal bias?
Did you take the time to read the linked articles? All human beings are subject to subconscious bias.
SS position that Wayne Barnes is above this is ridiculous. It is equivalent to saying WB is not subject to the same faults and failings we all have. Putting referees on a pedestal and saying they can do no wrong is not what Robbie Burns’ “Better officials, better game” is about.

This is not what I'm saying, and you know it. You're building a strawman.

This forum is not the place to accuse officials of cheating... end of story! (yes, you can consider this an informal warning!)

L'irlandais
25-11-18, 10:11
Double standards.

crossref
25-11-18, 11:11
The added complexity is everyone has a different "offensive meter" - so youll be relying on mods meter as the moral compass to censor the site. Which is fine by me..but presumably guidance about what will be censored will need to be provided?

Yes, that's what mods are for (like referees).

crossref
25-11-18, 11:11
Frankly, I don't see this as an issue. If RRF were to adopt a position that moderators cannot post in closed threads, then we would be a rarity among internet forums. Besides, all it would do is make the moderator have to go through the process of unlocking, posting and locking it again - what a waste of time that would be.

However, lets recognise what this is really about, the closing of the thread in the first place (and I think we all know which thread it was and why it was closed).

I chose to take no part in the staff discussion as regards to the thread that was closed, nonetheless, I agree with the reasons why it was done. Accusing referees at any level of personal bias is tantamount to an accusation of cheating, and it has no place on this forum.

If it is a low level referee you suspect, make a formal complaint to his Society/Association. If it is an elite level referee you want to accuse of cheating, there's a place of that.... its called Planet Rugby.


Ian you are quite right there is more than one issue here

1 - Was it right to close the thread ?

I don't think so, I think plenty of people still has something to say (including two mods). But hey, y'all closed it, so fine we can live with that

2 - Having closed the thread is it OK for mods to carry on the discussion

Clearly not. If the thread needs closing then others mods shouldn't be still posting on it hours later

3 - Should the offensive post on the thread be deleted?

Yes, it should be.

4 - Should the mods say something about the post, the standards they apply, and the reasons for deleting/not deleting that post ?

That would be good

SimonSmith
25-11-18, 17:11
Thread has been killed after Mod conversation.

It's one thing to pick a referee up on a technical issue or application of management standard (conversation re JP and Farrell's shoulder, for example) and another to accuse them of cheating. And for the sake of clarity: suggesting an Elite referee needs time on the psychiatrist's couch for how he deals with Irish and Welsh teams isn't a discussion about subconscious bias but an allegation of cheating.

As a rule of thumb: if it were to be offensive said to a referee in the clubhouse, or during a match, it has no place here.

crossref
25-11-18, 18:11
Well, it took a long time, but right decision in the end