The Greatest Ever Or Second Best?

First topic message reminder :

This article in today's Guardian was an interesting read. The title is "Is Roger Federer the greatest ever or the second best in his generation?" and it's written by Paul Gibson.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/the-balls-of-wrath/2014/sep/11/roger-federer-greatest-tennis-player-rafael-nadal?commentpage=1

Warning don't click the link if you don't like GOAT talk. That means you laverfan

Correct Kingraf, she was my friend and she got viciously bullied out, and the Mods did nothing, which gave me no option but to ask a head admin. Bullying me has no effect im afraid, clearly HE articles seem to be free game for insulting nowadays.

What a load of bull.

On that thread Haddie started everything she received. Then you came on whining for her and off it went. The different treatment accorded to that and similar posters is because they cry foul very quickly instead of either retorting or signing off, thus creating the victim image.

By the way. Given you're quite within forum rules it'd be uncontroversial to let on what your previous id was. Don't know why you've been so shy, Wooffie.

Classy response, again starting on someone because you think they deserve it is not any excuse for that. I, in fact got that thread taken off to stop it from getting worse, then socal enquired about it and I answered. You have an issue with that, take it up with head admins, but they wont take kindly to it I assure you.

Here we go with the victim game again.

What you did was beside the point, what you ignore was that Haddie - as so often - lit the fuse with ridiculous personal comments.

I think thats enough, ganging up on someone and running them off the forum because you didnt agree with what they said or because "she started it" is what children do. The admin clearly agreed as they had to step in and do the mods job and stop it. In short, you claim youre an adult soo act like it.

Thats my final point, soo thats enough arguing, dont bully, and dont stoop to other peoples levels.

None of which happened Wooffie, but you carry on misrepresenting, nobody will stop you.

I see people are questioning the quality of this article Admittedly it is just a link to an extremely popular piece of writing by Paul Gibson in the Guardian. But it's common practice on 606v2 for posters to link to an interesting find. Feeling a little defensive I thought I'd check the standard of writing expected by the heaviest critics so I looked at their recent articles from the front page here.

invisiblecoolers.  Reality Check - Roger Federer - One of the greatest human beings of our time https://www.606v2.com/t55452-reality-check-roger-federer-one-of-the-greatest-human-being-of-our-time

The subject is obvious!

JuliusHMarx. Lendl & Becker - Just the tip of the Edberg. https://www.606v2.com/t50571-lendl-becker-just-the-tip-of-the-edberg

This article was written in 2013 and is just a link to an article announcing Federer's new coach with this comment by Julius "If we can just get Rafa to bring in Wilander...."

HM Murdoch. The Blot On The Copybook. https://www.606v2.com/t55193-the-blot-on-the-copybook

A comparison of what he considers Federer, Nadal and Djokovic's weak points are.

I couldn't find anything by Josiah Maistas or Jeremy_Kyle so maybe they are purely critics?

Nothing there to indicate what is wrong with my article. Certainly nothing that should warrant such and  

It can't be just because they disagree with the premise of the Gibson article can it?

hawkeye wrote:It can't be just because they disagree with the premise of the Gibson article can it?

No, reading through the thread, it's clear that's not the reason.

kingraf wrote:Well this is getting embarrassing. Temporary21 has made it clear  that they are a temporary account from an old member who took exception at the treatment meted out to HaddieNuff.  

How is this getting embarrassing ? she knows everything about the forum happenings of 2 years back including everything of Tenez episode, I certainly doubt this is a psuedo id of some ex poster, and I stick to it.

If saying the truth is embarrassing then so be it.

@HE... you are the bestest (to quote Tigger/Winnie the Pooh series) Nadal fan. IMBL recently made a trip to Mallorca. His report was very good to read.

Is IMBL the Greatest or the Second Best, because he made a recent trip to Mallorca?

Do not want to flout my exile/ban  on this thread.

BTW, is this the greatest ever thread or the second best. If latter, I will wait for the former (but I do not have many years left in my life-line). Ciao, 

I am certain you watched SUI v ITA.

In the other thread it was more than clear who did what, your friend bullied everybody and you report us instead of her

hawkeye wrote:I see people are questioning the quality of this article Admittedly it is just a link to an extremely popular piece of writing by Paul Gibson in the Guardian. But it's common practice on 606v2 for posters to link to an interesting find. Feeling a little defensive I thought I'd check the standard of writing expected by the heaviest critics so I looked at their recent articles from the front page here.

invisiblecoolers.  Reality Check - Roger Federer - One of the greatest human beings of our time https://www.606v2.com/t55452-reality-check-roger-federer-one-of-the-greatest-human-being-of-our-time  

Oh come on, HE now your jokes are getting even more boring, you are trying to hype Rafa at the expense of Roger, in comparison I wrote an article he is a great human being, I never compared him with anybody and proclaimed he is better than somebody.

Your article is a wind up of Fed fans, my article wasn't winding any Rafa fans.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:It can't be just because they disagree with the premise of the Gibson article can it?

No, reading through the thread, it's clear that's not the reason.

Maybe you just enjoy hanging around a thread you have no interest in writing stuff like this rather than debating about tennis?

JuliusHMarx wrote:I enjoyed his emphasis at the very start of the article, setting his tone
"The Sir prefix is pure facetiousness on my part but it would not surprise me if a SW19 pressure group are currently lobbying furiously behind the scenes for Britain to invade and conquer Switzerland, incorporate it within the realm of the Commonwealth and open the door for Roger to be knighted."

That shows him to be an objective, unbiased journalist determined to stick to the facts and make logical conclusions from them

I'll pay £5 to anyone who can offer anything original or interesting to the debate. No winners yet I'm afraid.

Some people will no doubt feel better about themselves if their favourite player (Fed/Rafa) is anointed GOAT. Others need no such vicarious boost to their self-esteem.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I bought the Guardian yesterday specifically because hawkeye said it was 'in today's Guardian' and I prefer to read a printed copy. Had to read it online in the end because it wasn't in there at all - it was 'on the Guardian web-site' which is a different thing entirely.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

I considered that, but I get 'Asian Babes' delivered anyway.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

As soon as you said it was in the Guardian, I headed straight for the newsagent. Little did I know that it wasn't in the Guardian.

JuliusHMarx wrote:In the end a mate printed it out and sent it to me in the post (first class). I haven't used the internet in months.

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL surely you didn't come back on here to get involved in GOAT debates? I thought you'd moved on past that?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Ah, so you're not actually involved in this thread. Good to hear.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I was rather hoping you'd moved on past the whole Rafa/Fed GOAT debate, that's all. By that I mean, I know you believe Rafa is better, but I hoped you'd moved on past getting involved in the endless, and rather pointless, debate.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Yeah, well, we've all pretty much given up hope with the OP.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Hawkeye has no wish to debate. She merely posts, often not even her own thoughts - but maybe that's her point. There's no rule against that.

Instead of getting bored by it why not write a few more scintillating articles like this?

https://www.606v2.com/t13282-if-tennis-players-were-insects

https://www.606v2.com/t29102-i-m-not-as-smart-as-people-say-i-am-says-marx

https://www.606v2.com/t41809-i-didn-t-see-the-fedal-match-but

https://www.606v2.com/t50955-brunel-vs-tilke

https://www.606v2.com/t45496-it-would-be-nice

https://www.606v2.com/t45027-sharapova-s-legs

Sigh... I suppose not everyone can be as profound, interesting and though provoking as you but you would imagine with the size of the internet there would be enough space for those who are interested to discuss a current popular article whilst other posters congregated in your far superior and stimulating threads. I can certainly promise that I won't bother you there

It's very easy to cherry-pick the topics of others. For the record, JHM's five most recently commented topics:

Thread about celebrity coaches becoming more mainstream
Murray finally training at 100%
Wimbledon Day 3
Delpo out for the season - official
The State of the forum - better or worse? (the irony )

Nothing too objectionable there. I could go through hawkeye's and pick out the many, many GOAT and Nadal-centric articles, but what would be the point? We all know how it is. I don't think you're one to be casting stones regarding article quality, hawkeye. You just parrot on about the same tired topic and quote the odd newspaper, without sticking around to debate anything that isn't about Nadal or Federer. It's abysmal, to be quite frank.

Anyway, without meaning to bandwagon, if this carries on much longer then I'll be going too. Can't be arsed to deal with you anymore, hawkeye.

@Hawk eye

In the past atleast your thread had some humor involved in it but now its only a tumor of boring repetative tiring articles.

Nothing wrong in u fantasicing Rafael Nadal but please keep it to one thread than opening a channel of boring sets.

While I personally find nothing offensive about hawkeye I am concerned that she is driving posters away from this forum with the repetitive nature of her posts.
I try to make light of it in the hope that others follow suit and don't get upset, thereby maintaining the equilibrium of the forum, but clearly the nature of her posts (and not her views on any player) is bad for the forum in general.
It's possible that that is her intent - to disrupt the forum and upset people and drive them away. I can't know for sure. Certainly her intent is not to discuss tennis with other posters, because points and issues raised do not get responded to by hawkeye even when she is asked direct questions. Again this leads to frustration among posters and a sense that this is a poor forum to be part of.
It is for these reasons that I often refer to hawkeye as wum-like, an opinion I certainly have. As a poster on the old 606 and here I'm not bothered by wums. As a moderator I have no option but to be bothered by it, as I have to weight up what is best for the forum overall.

JuliusHMarx wrote:As a poster on the old 606 and here I'm not bothered by wums. As a moderator I have no option but to be bothered by it, as I have to weight up what is best for the forum overall.

Moderating is pretty thankless task (and not even paid that well) from what I can tell.  You are doing an excellent job, and I am surprised you have been willing to put up with it all with such good humor all along.  Same goes for LF.

Thank you to both of you.

summerblues wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:As a poster on the old 606 and here I'm not bothered by wums. As a moderator I have no option but to be bothered by it, as I have to weight up what is best for the forum overall.

Moderating is pretty thankless task (and not even paid that well) from what I can tell.  You are doing an excellent job, and I am surprised you have been willing to put up with it all with such good humor all along.  Same goes for LF.

Thank you to both of you.

+1

To be frank if not for the efforts of LF and JHM this forum would have been long dead.

Looking at her threads, the last time HE appears to have posted a GOAT article was last December. I also agree with her that posting a link to one of the most popular current tennis articles on the internet is a service to the forum not anything else. Whilst I can't say I am a particular fan of HE, to be blunt about it, someone who is prepared to post articles as she does is worth a lot to this forum. Experience shows that losing someone like her because of threats by other posters never works well for a forum.

I find it slightly astonishing that HE's position on the forum is being questioned, whilst what I thought was fairly clear bullying of Haddie and Lydian appears to have caused little concern, despite causing two valuable posters to leave. Fans of a particular player shouldn't be able to disrupt topics they don't like in the way that happened on that thread and again on this.

Personally, I would have thought deleting the repetitive posts on here saying how boring they find the article would have been the way forwards. However, if it is of such concern that there are 1 or 2 articles per year on the GOAT question, then do what MTF does and have one sticky GOAT thread which everyone knows is for that purpose. Delete any posts on that thread from people saying how boring they personally find it and let anyone who wants to discuss it do so.

I quite liked the Brunel vs Tilke debate. If I remember correctly, Julius put it up after HM and I had sidetracked the Aus Open thread discussing Brunei vs Tilke. A more one sided comparison than any GOAT debate we've had before or since.

Born Slippy wrote:Looking at her threads, the last time HE appears to have posted a GOAT article was last December.

There would appear to be something off with your calendar.  I only needed to go back to 31Aug14 to find such an article.

That said, I do agree with you that I do not see what the big deal is about HE and her posting.  I find it mostly boring so I rarely contribute much on her threads but she does not exactly start 10 articles per day, nor does she stalk posters on their threads.  Many many posters like to visit HE's threads, start their posts with something along the lines of "this is more boring HE stuff that nobody is interested in", and yet continue their posts by building a counterargument - and keep doing it again and again.  If posters find it as boring as they claim, they can just ignore her articles, there is no need to prove to HE that she is wrong.

Born Slippy wrote:slightly astonishing

What does "slightly astonishing" mean?  Is it a rough equivalent of "moderately surprising"?

invisiblecoolers wrote:

summerblues wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:As a poster on the old 606 and here I'm not bothered by wums. As a moderator I have no option but to be bothered by it, as I have to weight up what is best for the forum overall.

Moderating is pretty thankless task (and not even paid that well) from what I can tell.  You are doing an excellent job, and I am surprised you have been willing to put up with it all with such good humor all along.  Same goes for LF.

Thank you to both of you.

+1

To be frank if not for the efforts of LF and JHM this forum would have been long dead.

Let's not make too fine a point shall we. Julius is disposable.

Born Slippy wrote:

I find it slightly astonishing that HE's position on the forum is being questioned, whilst what I thought was fairly clear bullying of Haddie and Lydian appears to have caused little concern, despite causing two valuable posters to leave.

Can you show us some proof who bullied Haddie and Lydian? and also explain what bully means

If you can't then please take back your comment.

Born Slippy wrote:
Looking at her threads, the last time HE appears to have posted a GOAT article was last December.

Its very clear you either have amnesia or selective reading.

While I am a fan of HE posting here, she did repeatedly open topics that she herself already opened.

Unlike who left the forum I have ample respect for HE as a poster, yes over Rafa fanaticism but she is a very civilized and mannered poster.

summerblues wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Looking at her threads, the last time HE appears to have posted a GOAT article was last December.

There would appear to be something off with your calendar.  I only needed to go back to 31Aug14 to find such an article.

That said, I do agree with you that I do not see what the big deal is about HE and her posting.  I find it mostly boring so I rarely contribute much on her threads but she does not exactly start 10 articles per day, nor does she stalk posters on their threads.  Many many posters like to visit HE's threads, start their posts with something along the lines of "this is more boring HE stuff that nobody is interested in", and yet continue their posts by building a counterargument - and keep doing it again and again.  If posters find it as boring as they claim, they can just ignore her articles, there is no need to prove to HE that she is wrong.

Born Slippy wrote:slightly astonishing

What does "slightly astonishing" mean?  Is it a rough equivalent of "moderately surprising"?

The thread on 31 Aug is not a GOAT thread. It is an article about painting. Whilst there is a passing reference to the fact it was a similar argument to the current one, there really is nothing more to it than that.

Born Slippy wrote:

summerblues wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Looking at her threads, the last time HE appears to have posted a GOAT article was last December.

There would appear to be something off with your calendar.  I only needed to go back to 31Aug14 to find such an article.

That said, I do agree with you that I do not see what the big deal is about HE and her posting.  I find it mostly boring so I rarely contribute much on her threads but she does not exactly start 10 articles per day, nor does she stalk posters on their threads.  Many many posters like to visit HE's threads, start their posts with something along the lines of "this is more boring HE stuff that nobody is interested in", and yet continue their posts by building a counterargument - and keep doing it again and again.  If posters find it as boring as they claim, they can just ignore her articles, there is no need to prove to HE that she is wrong.

Born Slippy wrote:slightly astonishing

What does "slightly astonishing" mean?  Is it a rough equivalent of "moderately surprising"?

The thread on 31 Aug is not a GOAT thread. It is an article about painting. Whilst there is a passing reference to the fact it was a similar argument to the current one, there really is nothing more to it than that.

Pfffftt

It Must Be Love wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Interesting point about the w-l record. It is a way of judging which isn't affected by Rafa's injury problems. I suppose one argument is that Rafa has been fortunate that he has largely been injury-free on clay and has often missed chunks of a weaker part of his season, so the w-l record is inflated?

Thanks, I think the W/L record is an interesting stat.

Also your counter point you raise is very fair, and I will look into it; Nadal has had injury problems mainly on hard court part of season (not the world's most surprising thing if you consider the surface is much worse for his body... especially considering his game). I will look into what you said to evaluate whether the periods he missed could have inflated or deflated the ratio.

I do think it's very important though to raise this point first, as it is quite easy to get misled in this particular analysis:
What I would be judging, let's say for example the injury of the US hard court season of 2014 is not whether it is a better win ratio than his average clay season but whether it is better than his current Win ratio overall.
To go into more detail, his W/L ratio now is higher in the past few years than when he was younger; as on average now the Win ratio is better- hence sending his overall average up. Now considering he's had a lot of injuries when he's older, it may be that even his Win ratio on his weaker surface is better than his overall Win ratio (so it doesn't have to be as good as his 2012 clay season or something for example); and thus would send his overall Win ratio up.
So therefore, it is actually very possible that more tennis for him now on hard courts would send his Win ratio up, even though it would appear unlikely at first.

OK Born Slippy, I think you may have missed this post as there were 10000 posts immediately after it about something else.
Anyway these are the significant periods he's missed due to injury (as far as I can recall... please point out if I've missed any out), now of course you can be the judge to whether his Win ratio would be above 84%:
-2004 clay season, 2009 grass court season, 2012 hard court season (+AO 2013), 2014 US hard court season; keep in mind also that if you really want to make an accurate analysis of how injuries affect W/L- take into consideration matches where he has played despite being injured, that of course has a negative impact on W/L.

Well.......

First things first. I don't actually fully blame HE for yet another article based on Federer and Nadal and yes I am in no doubt that the nature of this article and intention was to stir yet another conversation around the 2 players achievements. Full well in the knowledge that current posters have commented on the subject and given the 2 cents on it. You knew what the reaction would be when posting it and quite frankly it is getting tedious and childish. It annoys me that posters actually justify such articles generate debate, because quite frankly 2 sides disagree and it gets all petty as usual. Nothing new or constructive has been added to this debate, so why is it such a surprise when posters get annoyed with yet another article focused around 2 players who don't need any further gratification?

He likes both Nadal and Federer and has made no secret of it. Quite simply just ignore the article. Comments give articles such traction and causes the posters to get rather annoyed and frustrated.

As for the other thread and the whole bullying-gate. Come on. We are adults for crying out loud. It's actually quite pathetic if you can't take criticism or banter. So fed up with this he said/she said crap. I mean really?

As for the stick the mods got. Let me tell you from experience that it is not all good and yes when I done it there were times I could've shot the lot of you! It's a thankless task that requires the input and time of people to monitor threads and scrutinise them too. Simply put those who are not a fan of the mods, put up or shut up. They do a good job on this forum to keep debates going steadily and in a positive manner.

Posts quoting from the 'Fed is arrogant' thread have been removed. That thread was removed and so any quotes from it (presumably from a personal archive) should not be brought back into the public domain.

IMBL/IC - you can PM each other for your discussion if you wish.

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL/IC - you can PM each other for your discussion if you wish.

My post was directed more towards you than IC.

IMBL/IC once again I have deleted your posts.
I have already politely requested that this is not a public discussion. Please respect that.

That fine, though can it be understood if other posters use abusive language that you will do the same, rather than let them stand and wait for another admin to step in? There is no need to put up after all as there are other mods people can discuss this with.

I am reasonably certain (coined in the same vein as - BS's "slightly astonishing" and SB's "moderately surprising". Why are your initials a palindrome? Yin-Yang...), that if JK (or JM) met HE on the Chunnel and sat next to each other without knowing the 606v2 personas they would be perfectly civil and of manor born.

If they both open a device that lets them post and they realize each others' alter-egos, there may be gauntlets thrown down and duels scheduled.

As SB, CC and LKv2 say, walk away from something you do not want to participate in, even if you succumb to reading it. I heeded HE's warning.

temporary21 wrote:That fine, though can it be understood if other posters use abusive language that you will do the same, rather than let them stand and wait for another admin to step in? There is no need to put up after all as there are other mods people can discuss this with.

What would you like to discuss in a public forum regarding moderation? Each posters threshold of sensitivity for a specific subject, tolerance of an opposite view point, etc.? Repetitive posting?

BTW, no one is a saint on this forum, despite misgivings to the contrary. Would you consider an opportunity to be a Moderator on 606v2?

Yes, if we see abusive language we will take action, as we have done in the past. I speak for both laverfan and myself, as we are equal mods on the site.
It does rather depend on whether we are online and see it of course, as their are times when neither of us are around. If posts are reported via the report button, we get e-mail alerts - that function is sadly under-used.
The idea that we wait for other admins to step in is simply incorrect.

Again fair, but can it be understood that if words like "special" and "embarrassment" are being thrown about as a clear insult (note that terms like this are not "banterous" they are actively vicious terms), that the mods will not participate in such a conversation, but will step in and stop it? I dont think what is being asked is unreasonable, but the mods are welcome to PM the answer if they soo wish

Ok fair, but could it be understood that if this is seen by a user, and it has caused the distress that the recent one has caused, that we may hold the right to contact another admin about this to oversee whats going on? Things get heated a lot in this part of 606v2, but it should never be getting that bad in any forum, banterous, sensitive or what not

temporary21 wrote:Again fair, but can it be understood that if words like "special" and "embarrassment"  are being thrown about as a clear insult (note that terms like this are not "banterous" they are actively vicious terms), that the mods will not participate in such a conversation, but will step in and stop it? I dont think what is being asked is unreasonable, but the mods are welcome to PM the answer if they soo wish

Nadal's "special" achievement of a-slam-a-year for 10 years may never be equalled.

Are you "special", your highness?

Do you see how the same piece of vocabulary has contextual overtones, and there are a million shades of them, as rich as human language itself.

laverfan wrote:

temporary21 wrote:That fine, though can it be understood if other posters use abusive language that you will do the same, rather than let them stand and wait for another admin to step in? There is no need to put up after all as there are other mods people can discuss this with.

What would you like to discuss in a public forum regarding moderation? Each posters threshold of sensitivity for a specific subject, tolerance of an opposite view point, etc.? Repetitive posting?

BTW, no one is a saint on this forum, despite misgivings to the contrary. Would you consider an opportunity to be a Moderator on 606v2?

I was on this forum not log ago, unfortunately I became very unwell as a result of what went on and left, I would not wish to return in any sense. In truth I am here to wait for Haddie to reply to a PM I sent a while ago, unsurprisingly perhaps she hasnt returned to the forum. I am here to see if shes OK, and then to make sure that I can leave again without being worried that it will happen again. My concern wasnt that things got heated, but that the Mods seemed active in the said conversation, and even offered excuses when I asked whats was going on. That would not have happened when I was active here, and as such I am concerned as to what has changed since.

laverfan wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Again fair, but can it be understood that if words like "special" and "embarrassment"  are being thrown about as a clear insult (note that terms like this are not "banterous" they are actively vicious terms), that the mods will not participate in such a conversation, but will step in and stop it? I dont think what is being asked is unreasonable, but the mods are welcome to PM the answer if they soo wish

Nadal's "special" achievement of a-slam-a-year for 10 years may never be equalled.

Are you "special", your highness?

Do you see how the same piece of vocabulary has contextual overtones, and there are a million shades of them, as rich as human language itself.

This is unfortunately a misunderstanding, I wrote the word "r*tard" in my original post, a word far more vicious  but was changed by the sites filter.
I also fully understand the context of words, hence why I was shocked into action by the context of what was being written on said thread. It has gone further than just banter to toxic personal abuse, that is not tolerable in any civil conversation

temporary21 wrote:

laverfan wrote:

temporary21 wrote:That fine, though can it be understood if other posters use abusive language that you will do the same, rather than let them stand and wait for another admin to step in? There is no need to put up after all as there are other mods people can discuss this with.

What would you like to discuss in a public forum regarding moderation? Each posters threshold of sensitivity for a specific subject, tolerance of an opposite view point, etc.? Repetitive posting?

BTW, no one is a saint on this forum, despite misgivings to the contrary. Would you consider an opportunity to be a Moderator on 606v2?

I was on this forum not log ago, unfortunately I became very unwell as a result of what went on and left, I would not wish to return in any sense. In truth I am here to wait for Haddie to reply to a PM I sent a while ago, unsurprisingly perhaps she hasnt returned to the forum. I am here to see if shes OK, and then to make sure that I can leave again without being worried that it will happen again. My concern wasnt that things got heated, but that the Mods seemed active in the said conversation, and even offered excuses when I asked whats was going on. That would not have happened when I was active here, and as such I am concerned as to what has changed since.

Yet you chose a moniker which has no bearing to your previous persona and are here.

Haddie should be fine, she takes a hiatus during lulls in Tennis. I would also suggest asking her for a personal email address (via PM of course) which is more likely to get a quicker response. It would avoid you having to wade through the cesspool that 606v2 can be for sensitive souls.

laverfan wrote:

temporary21 wrote:

laverfan wrote:

temporary21 wrote:That fine, though can it be understood if other posters use abusive language that you will do the same, rather than let them stand and wait for another admin to step in? There is no need to put up after all as there are other mods people can discuss this with.

What would you like to discuss in a public forum regarding moderation? Each posters threshold of sensitivity for a specific subject, tolerance of an opposite view point, etc.? Repetitive posting?

BTW, no one is a saint on this forum, despite misgivings to the contrary. Would you consider an opportunity to be a Moderator on 606v2?

I was on this forum not log ago, unfortunately I became very unwell as a result of what went on and left, I would not wish to return in any sense. In truth I am here to wait for Haddie to reply to a PM I sent a while ago, unsurprisingly perhaps she hasnt returned to the forum. I am here to see if shes OK, and then to make sure that I can leave again without being worried that it will happen again. My concern wasnt that things got heated, but that the Mods seemed active in the said conversation, and even offered excuses when I asked whats was going on. That would not have happened when I was active here, and as such I am concerned as to what has changed since.

Yet you chose a moniker which has no bearing to your previous persona and are here.

Haddie should be fine, she takes a hiatus during lulls in Tennis. I would also suggest asking her for a personal email address (via PM of course) which is more likely to get a quicker response. It would avoid you having to wade through the cesspool that 606v2 can be for sensitive souls.

Again? Not answering my question but instead calling me "sensitive"! Whats the excuse for that?

temporary21 wrote:It has gone further than just banter to toxic personal abuse, that is not tolerable in any civil conversation

Are you stating your own personal tolerance level for discussions on 606v2 or are you suggesting that what you consider an acceptable level, be imposed on the entire forum?

Its a simple one LF. Dont call someone a "r*tard", dont gang up on people, dont run them out of a conversation with personal hits. Any reasonable adult or forum imposes these things as rules, the things you volunteer to uphold. I understand its not easy, bu you seem to have forgotten these things, instead to resorting to calling me sensitive for reasonably asking you to stop things that arent tolerated anywhere.

temporary21 wrote:

laverfan wrote:

temporary21 wrote:I was on this forum not log ago, unfortunately I became very unwell as a result of what went on and left, I would not wish to return in any sense. In truth I am here to wait for Haddie to reply to a PM I sent a while ago, unsurprisingly perhaps she hasnt returned to the forum. I am here to see if shes OK, and then to make sure that I can leave again without being worried that it will happen again. My concern wasnt that things got heated, but that the Mods seemed active in the said conversation, and even offered excuses when I asked whats was going on. That would not have happened when I was active here, and as such I am concerned as to what has changed since.

Yet you chose a moniker which has no bearing to your previous persona and are here.

Haddie should be fine, she takes a hiatus during lulls in Tennis. I would also suggest asking her for a personal email address (via PM of course) which is more likely to get a quicker response. It would avoid you having to wade through the cesspool that 606v2 can be for sensitive souls.

Again? Not answering my question but instead calling me "sensitive"! Whats the excuse for that?

Your concern, as stated, regarding Haddie, seems to indicate a sensitive person, and now you understand the context in which words are used. You consider this word to be a negative connotation, while I chose it to show a concerned person.

laverfan wrote:

temporary21 wrote:

laverfan wrote:

temporary21 wrote:I was on this forum not log ago, unfortunately I became very unwell as a result of what went on and left, I would not wish to return in any sense. In truth I am here to wait for Haddie to reply to a PM I sent a while ago, unsurprisingly perhaps she hasnt returned to the forum. I am here to see if shes OK, and then to make sure that I can leave again without being worried that it will happen again. My concern wasnt that things got heated, but that the Mods seemed active in the said conversation, and even offered excuses when I asked whats was going on. That would not have happened when I was active here, and as such I am concerned as to what has changed since.

Yet you chose a moniker which has no bearing to your previous persona and are here.

Haddie should be fine, she takes a hiatus during lulls in Tennis. I would also suggest asking her for a personal email address (via PM of course) which is more likely to get a quicker response. It would avoid you having to wade through the cesspool that 606v2 can be for sensitive souls.

Again? Not answering my question but instead calling me "sensitive"! Whats the excuse for that?

Your concern, as stated, regarding Haddie, seems to indicate a sensitive person, and now you understand the context in which words are used. You consider this word to be a negative connotation, while I chose it to show a concerned person.

Ok soo why didnt you use the far less vague term "concerned"? Im not an idiot I get you cant convey irony or sarcasm in words, but at the same time you dont need a degree to tell when things are overstepping the line. I know you know this, because you and JHM were the best I knew at this, but somethings gone wrong it seems. In terms of "persona", I dont have one, I always tried to post as I would think in real life. This is a silly endeavour, I have only asked for your assurances as a mod, that what happened in that thread, something of which more than just myself has complained about wouldnt happen again.

temporary21 wrote:...I get you cant convey irony or sarcasm in words, but at the same time you dont need a degree to tell when things are overstepping the line. I know you know this, because you and JHM were the best I knew at this, but somethings gone wrong it seems. In terms of "persona", I dont have one, I always tried to post as I would think in real life. This is a silly endeavour, I have only asked for your assurances as a mod, that what happened in that thread, something of which more than just myself has complained about wouldnt happen again.

Based on the Moderators Code of Conduct, we can assure you (JHM and I) that we will do our best. If you need to bring something to our attention, which may have been overlooked, as a good citizen, we expect to be notified.

See Something, Say Something.

There is no guarantee that 'insulting' if that's what you want to call it won't happen again. That's what happens in debates, opinions get heated.

The mods will deal with any posts or threads that descend in to that nature.

I don't see how you feel 'assurances' need to be made if you are not intending to stay around.

legendkillarV2 wrote:There is no guarantee that 'insulting' if that's what you want to call it won't happen again. That's what happens in debates, opinions get heated.

The mods will deal with any posts or threads that descend in to that nature.

I don't see how you feel 'assurances' need to be made if you are not intending to stay around.

Same way as if you get worried with leaving a friend with someone you dont trust will treat them properly. Opinions do get heated yes, but they dont spill like that. Imagine you were all at a table in a restaurant and that happened? Its not OK just cause it happens. In any case this is being done in PM's now, soo this need not derail the thread longer.

Am I alone in thinking that the definition of "friend" is being rather stretched if it includes people for whom the only way you can contact them is via a PM on an internet forum that they may or may not even see?

Might I also tactfully suggest that if someone can become very unwell as a result of what they read on a tennis forum, it might be wise to avoid reading tennis forums?

Not that I don't love your contributions so far.