Announcement - Please all read

[Guest Gemmill]

The mongs are easy to keep in check tbf.  It's like that game at the fair where the mole keeps popping his head up and you whallop it with a mallet.

 

I just find it interesting that a thread where people voiced their concerns about a new rule change, has been deleted.  Don't you?

[Dave]

You should ask Andy, it was his thread to delete.

I'll never convince you that it takes time and effort to moderate this site, so i won't bother trying.

[NE5]

You should ask Andy, it was his thread to delete.

I'll never convince you that it takes time and effort to moderate this site, so i won't bother trying.

 

I can understand that.

 

However, me and Gemma agreeing on something, now there's a first 

[Guest Gemmill]

You should ask Andy, it was his thread to delete.

I'll never convince you that it takes time and effort to moderate this site, so i won't bother trying.

 

I don't need convincing, I'm sure it does.

[Mick]

Because you introduced a new rule that I think is daft, and it was introduced like only the admin on here could introduce it, i.e. "Don't ask questions, we don't plan to provide any further explanation.  If you live in my house, you'll abide by my rules.  Go to your bedroom.  No supper for you.  You're not too big to go over my knee."

 

I don't have a problem with that, they moderate so they should decide how to do it, I don't like all of the rules but that's just tough.

[danswan]

I got an email asking me to post more, so here I am!

[Guest clarkyshan]

worst rule ever. fact.

[Andy]

Sorry, I removed the other thread to keep it off the football forum (considering it was a non-football topic). I didn't realise I needed to explain myself on that one, since I wasn't aware that there was any kind of debate over the rule change (apart from a few comments from Gemmill, which are to be expected anyway) - most people seemed to be fine with it from what I could see, so there was no reason to keep the thread going.

 

If you have any concerns regarding the rule, either start a thread in General Chat or PM me. Simple.

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

it's like amateur hour since Andy came back tbh

[Andy]

Where's the other thread about the latest rule change gone?  Pulled because people dared to question it?

 

Has anyone been banned because the moderators didn't like their face yet?

 

that thought occurred to me too.

 

........ and how does this thread not contravene the following :

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=40760.0

 

If the moderating team feel that a forum user is consistently making non-contributive posts, or if they feel that his or her level of contribution to the discussion is overly destructive or conflict-driven - in particular when posting in the Football discussion section - they may choose to delete that user's account at their own discretion. The member is free to sign up with another account on the condition that they change their ways, but failure to do so will result in continued deletion and eventually a permanent ban.

 

Note that - depending on severity and frequency, and at the discretion of the moderating team - instead of deletion, the user may actually receive a ban (permanent or otherwise) the first time around. Also note that, whilst it is almost certain that a user making non-contributive posts will be forewarned before any actual deletion or banning will take place, it is not set-in-stone that this will occur, and again, this will be left to the discretion of the moderating team.

 

Just for clarity, be aware that by "non-contributive" we do not mean "inactive". You will not, under any circumstances, be banned or deleted purely for "lurking" on the forum but not posting.

 

so blatant, and childish, it is easy to ignore, and as conflict driven as anything you will find. Not that I'm advocating a ban, because I'm not, just pointing out how impossible to mod that this will be IMO

 

 

 

Again, that's why it's moderated with discretion. If we feel a post or thread contravenes our personal definition of this rule, we'll act upon it.

[Guest Gemmill]

Sorry, I removed the other thread to keep it off the football forum (considering it was a non-football topic). I didn't realise I needed to explain myself on that one, since I wasn't aware that there was any kind of debate over the rule change (apart from a few comments from Gemmill, which are to be expected anyway) - most people seemed to be fine with it from what I could see, so there was no reason to keep the thread going.

 

If you have any concerns regarding the rule, either start a thread in General Chat or PM me. Simple.

 

You can always rely on Andy to treat the users of this forum with utter contempt.

[Andy]

Sorry, I removed the other thread to keep it off the football forum (considering it was a non-football topic). I didn't realise I needed to explain myself on that one, since I wasn't aware that there was any kind of debate over the rule change (apart from a few comments from Gemmill, which are to be expected anyway) - most people seemed to be fine with it from what I could see, so there was no reason to keep the thread going.

 

If you have any concerns regarding the rule, either start a thread in General Chat or PM me. Simple.

 

... And to add to that, THIS thread is still open because there is a fair bit of discussion/controversy over it, and there a valid points and questions being raised.

[Andy]

Sorry, I removed the other thread to keep it off the football forum (considering it was a non-football topic). I didn't realise I needed to explain myself on that one, since I wasn't aware that there was any kind of debate over the rule change (apart from a few comments from Gemmill, which are to be expected anyway) - most people seemed to be fine with it from what I could see, so there was no reason to keep the thread going.

 

If you have any concerns regarding the rule, either start a thread in General Chat or PM me. Simple.

 

You can always rely on Andy to treat the users of this forum with utter contempt.

 

That's because you draw contempt out of me like a big fucking magnet of contemptment (Is that a word? It is now), Gemmill.

[James]

I'll agree with Andy, otherwise he might give me a FINAL WARNING like he did to Apisith.

[Guest graemeh72]

imo since this new rule came into force, the board is less vibrant

 

less posts threads (obviously) and its all pretty sluggish - maybe its the end of the season..... no new thoughts

 

personally I've held back on a few thread starters (I'm sure that they were turd anyway)

 

was is the desired effect?

[BlufPurdi]

Less posts? Only a breif look at the stats tell you that is absolutely wrong, so please don't peddle that as fact.  I'm not claiming it's becase of this rule coming into effect, probably a lot to do with the takeover, but to claim that is wrong, so don't.

 

Yes. You just admitted they'd be turd, so..

[Guest Gav H]

A stupid rule.

[Guest graemeh72]

Less posts?  Only a breif look at the stats tell you that is absolutely wrong, so please don't peddle that as fact.  I'm not claiming it's becase of this rule coming into effect, probably a lot to do with the takeover, but to claim that is wrong, so don't.

 

Yes.  You just admitted they'd be turd, so..

 

eekk - Hands up I meant threads not posts... my fault

 

and keep yer hair on pal .....I wasn't having a personal pop at you or anything

[Cajun]

Less posts?  Only a breif look at the stats tell you that is absolutely wrong, so please don't peddle that as fact.  I'm not claiming it's becase of this rule coming into effect, probably a lot to do with the takeover, but to claim that is wrong, so don't.

 

Yes.  You just admitted they'd be turd, so..

 

eekk - Hands up I meant threads not posts... my fault

 

and keep yer hair on pal .....I wasn't having a personal pop at you or anything

 

No need to get personal!

[James]

Threads might be down because there is nothing new to talk about, so when someone inevitably posts something that is already being discussed, it is quickly merged.

[Cajun]

Oh no threads are down, lets create a load of shit ones for the sake of it!

[Guest TinoInHiding]

I would like to propose that certain posters who can prove a suitable contribution to the community should be able to circumvent the post requirements, within a quality not quantity ethos.

I would like to nominate myself as the first recipient of such circumvention, on the basis of my "keane makes ultimatum" post, which has given considerable enjoyment to Mackem-baiters throughout the world. :hiding:

[Wullie]

I would like to propose that certain posters who can prove a suitable contribution to the community should be able to circumvent the post requirements, within a quality not quantity ethos.

I would like to nominate myself as the first recipient of such circumvention, on the basis of my "keane makes ultimatum" post, which has given considerable enjoyment to Mackem-baiters throughout the world.

 

Already been done.

[Guest graemeh72]

I would like to propose that certain posters who can prove a suitable contribution to the community should be able to circumvent the post requirements, within a quality not quantity ethos.

I would like to nominate myself as the first recipient of such circumvention, on the basis of my "keane makes ultimatum" post, which has given considerable enjoyment to Mackem-baiters throughout the world.

 

Already been done.

 

What about people like Vic who make millions (approx) of posts, 99.9% of which are shite?

 

Honestly, his Transformer avatar has a higher IQ than the halfwit operating the keyboard

[Guest TinoInHiding]

I would like to propose that certain posters who can prove a suitable contribution to the community should be able to circumvent the post requirements, within a quality not quantity ethos.

I would like to nominate myself as the first recipient of such circumvention, on the basis of my "keane makes ultimatum" post, which has given considerable enjoyment to Mackem-baiters throughout the world.

 

Already been done.

 

Seriously? That's mint.

 

I hereby withdraw all my ill-advised moderators / mongs comparisons