Forum Rules and alter egos

[TycroesOsprey]

Since a legitamate thread questioning the application of the sites own rules has been deleted I am posting a genuine question that I feel should be addressed by the mods and founders.

606v2 aspires to be an online interactive sports magazine with online competitions, articles, exclusive features and interviews an aspiration stated in their own information on the site. That is an excellent aspiration that many of us hope is reached.

However I have to question the sites ability to reach that goal when the forums are inundated with alter egos whose sole intention is to troll. Given the adverse publicity that internet trolling is currently recieving I have to ask why any legitamate business or organisation would want to be involed in a site that allows its own rules to be circumnavigated so often.

The problem has been increasing daily with even alledgedly banned former posters returning with a new monikers and continuing with the behaviour that saw them banned in the first place. when questions are raised mods delete posts and threads rather than addressing the serious implications that this has for the site.

Without clear and transparent action on this matter, the site risks becoming a joke rather than a legitamate online magazine. That will mean the failure of all the dreams of the founders and the admin and mods who work to achieve the sites stated goal. If there is neither the will nor the wit to address these issues by the admin then to put it bluntly the site will ultimately fail to attract the sponsers and partners that it needs to grow.

Is that what we want for this site? I personally would love to see it achieve its potential. However daily I see that hope diminish under a weight of poorly disguised trolls that could and should be addressed by moderators and admin.

[TycroesOsprey]

No mods willing to answer why this problem isnt being dealt with?

[Guest]

This is the reason I stopped posting on the old 606 on BBC. It went ridiculous. This site is going that way. We'll just have to wait for a new site to be set up! 606v3!

I liken it to the new swanky bar in town. It starts off all nice, all the nice people go there, it becomes popular and 'the place to be' so attracts all of the scumbags, the nice people then leave and the place goes downhill rapidly until it inevitably shuts. I foresee the same for this site.

[maestegmafia]

Sooner they do the better.

If your rules dont catch those that flout them then change the rules, make them tighter.

I hope this thread stays open as it is becoming a concern for far too many regular posters who do adhere to the rules and wish to have an enjoyable and constructive rugby forum to engage in.

[Notch]

Mussolini was right! We need moderators who are "ruthless and energetic enough to make a clean sweep" Just hope they go after the WUMs... not the rest of us

[TycroesOsprey]

This is the reason I stopped posting on the old 606 on BBC. It went ridiculous. This site is going that way. We'll just have to wait for a new site to be set up! 606v3!

I liken it to the new swanky bar in town. It starts off all nice, all the nice people go there, it becomes popular and 'the place to be' so attracts all of the scumbags, the nice people then leave and the place goes downhill rapidly until it inevitably shuts. I foresee the same for this site.

well there have been accusations of some mods being complicit in this behaviour, certainly the dissapearing posts and threads today begs that question espescially as not one has deigned to address the concerns in this and the previously deleted thread.

IT would be very sad if all the work that has been put in building the site up was lost because of nepotism by the mods.

[fa0019]

The old site was a little too far fetched... I recall a post of mine being deleted because I asked a question of drugs in sport and named players whom it had been rumoured (with reasonable evidence although no test failures) of being "on juice".

I think we should all lighten up a little though... half the trolls on this site don't actually verbally insult other members (unlike real net trolls) rather they just look to rub a little salt in wounds of fans.

We all become a little too precious about our teams from time to time... these days you have to admit, if you say so and so from another country is over-rated, rubbish etc or critically analyse their side in a negative fashion half the fans from the country will jump on your back even if its valid and will shout "WUM WUM, mods where are you".

not saying you don't have a point.. just that I think we're sometimes a little over zealous, a little too precious etc.

[Biltong]

I will answer your questions to the best of my ability Tycroes, then I am locking this thread and I will leave it here for everyone to read, hopefully they will get the answers they are seeking, I have had enough debates about this that goes in circles and will not entertain that again.

iP adresses can be blocked, thus a poster cannot register under that IP address again. However if he has another IP address the system doesn't pick it up, which is logical. There is no direct solution for that.

If a banned member returns under a different IP address we have no proof that it is a previous banned member, we also have a situation where some members share a PC and will use the same IP address, I assume this goes for communes and universities.

When a member comes back and doesn't break site rules, even if you or me or whomever suspect it is a returned banned member, we can do nothing.

Why?

Because if we have to block an unconfirmed IP address we might just block an actual ligitimate new member.

Every member is treated in the exact same manner and as much as posters band together insinuating a member is a returnee, without proof we cannot act.

Think about this in a manner where new members join, they are encouraged to contribute posively to 606v2, unless such a member or any long standing member breaks houserules, why should we act. Because you say it is a former banned member.

The problem currently is, if you consider a member to be a troll, why do you keep feeding him?

You can decide not to respond, often those who seek attention in an unwanted manner will either reform or go away if they don't get the attention they seek.

[Adam D]

Okay, only jut logged on and seen this.

A couple of points that I want everyone to take on board.

Firstly and most importantly - every single one of our mods is doing a fantastic job across the sections of this forum. Its a thankless task that requires an inordinate amount of time for no reward - whether that be financial or more specifically of a notional kind word from the members. Every moderators position is reviewed and considered by the admin team on an ongoing basis. If they are not following the moderation protocol, then they are made back to normal members.

currently, we have absolutely no concerns over any of the moderation team who are now well established in their sections.

With regards to "deletion" of posts - no moderator deletes any post. They archive them for review in a special moderator section where the whole team reviews them. Should they have been unfairly removed, we would put them back to their respective section.

Once again, this happens very rarely as the moderators generally want free discussion to flow. Articles/ posts pulled usually have a very good reason for being pulled.

Returning members - if we have proof that a banned member has returned, we will close the account. We have done that numerous times in the past and will continue to do so. However, it is not an exact science at times and we have to be sure before we can act. This is done through a series of processes. Suspicion alone is not a reason to pull the trigger.

I would also remind you that all of the moderation team talks to each other and supports each other. Whether that be for investigating duplicate accounts or talking about problem members. Members who have left on their own volition and return with a pseudonym are considered and bound by rules like any other member. If they don't break rules, then there shouldnt be an issue.

You highlight trolling as an issue and you are quite correct. However, consider this:

Posting remarks about people you suspect are a duplicate account could be considered trolling. Its the equivalent of cyber bullying. If you have any suspicions (and this is not aimed at you but every member) do not post it on thread but droop the moderators a PM. If you highlight it on thread, it makes things a lot more difficult (for one the accusee will try and cover their tracks and change posting style).

I would also like to point out that this is a forum not a magazine. If you want to read a magazine, click on the v2 journal link HERE - we could do with some more readers!

We all run this as best we can. Sometimes we make mistakes but generally we get it right. That is why this forum continues to grow whilst other forums who set up at the same time as us, have began to lose members.

And talking of which, we don't want to lost members and value every single one of our members posts. However, trying to threaten the forum with a departure is juvenile and pointless. We have processes that all mods follow. Like dragnet, we always get our man (or woman) at the end. So, although I hope no one does, if you are unhappy with the way things are ran, this is an internet forum and you don't have to log on.

However, a word of warning, I highly doubt that you will find a better run forum on the net - our site is progressive towards membership and features, always fair and most importantly, a great arena for debate.

Adam

[Sponsored content]