Closing of Match Threads

[TightHEAD]

Shocked to see the match thread between Eng v Arg has already been closed down!

Is it really necessary to close it a day after the game?

Talk about killing the mood, this is a rugby forum yet talk about games is being censored and shut down. 606 is being over modded, what do the site founders/sponsors think about this???

[TightHEAD]

During a RWC too?

[lostinwales]

It wasn't about England vs Argentina and had not been for some time. It had pretty much just turned into a bitch fest about how head tackles are all part of the game as far as Kiwis are concerned.

[Cyril]

It was just about Miaow and the NZ posters calling each other racist. Enough. Hopefully they’ll post better or get banned from the site.

[TightHEAD]

So still about rugby then?

On a rugby forum!!!!

[majesticimperialman]

Surely it is all debatable stuff though. 

It did not come down to personal insults did it?

[SecretFly]

A head tackle was a pretty significant event in the game England v Argentina.  A red card came from it and perhaps - perhaps - it changed the texture of the specific game.

Therefore I think it's probably natural and normal for human beings to let the specific tackle in the specific game bleed into a general discussion on the topic.  It's what we do in normal environments.  We're conversationalists, not algorithms or robots.

It's really for contributors to decide what aspects of specific games are discussed.  A good few seemed to enjoy the chat about tackle rules and technicalities.

[Cyril]

Fly, if posters want to shout at each other and call each other raciists and bigots, they can do so so in another thread. Or better, just PM each other and save us all the vitriol.

[SecretFly]

Or else just tell people not to be calling each other racists and bigots and continue with the thread?

Anyway, Cyril.. it don't matter really.  Yes other threads will undoubtedly be used to further prove the concept that in a rugby World Cup year, fans of different Nations get animated in their partisan passions.

Something else that's pretty human and natural really.  Sport being sport

[RiscaGame]

TightHERD complaining about the modding again, is brilliant. This really is your funniest work.

[SecretFly]

Closing of Closing of Match Threads thread?

[LondonTiger]

Shocked to see the match thread between Eng v Arg has already been closed down!

Is it really necessary to close it a day after the game?

Talk about killing the mood, this is a rugby forum yet talk about games is being censored and shut down. 606 is being over modded, what do the site founders/sponsors think about this???

Not exclusive to me, but usually I am the one who closes threads when they have descended into nothing but name calling.  As in this case this is usually pre-empted by a flurry of complaints. I think there were about 7 in an hour on that thread which meant I had to go back and read 3 pages of accusatory posts comprising about 15,000 words of which 1% related to the game that had just been played. Probably more words were used on discussing whether BOD was a little girl. Frankly I had better things to do with me evening. 

I never look to close a thread, sometimes do it short term to allow people to calm down, but I would rather close a thread when warnings have been ignored than ban multiple people. 

Sometimes I get it wrong, and a PM can persuade me to re-open a thread.

[tigertattie]

Shocked to see the match thread between Eng v Arg has already been closed down!

Is it really necessary to close it a day after the game?

Talk about killing the mood, this is a rugby forum yet talk about games is being censored and shut down. 606 is being over modded, what do the site founders/sponsors think about this???

You are asking the wrong question TightHead. It's not over-modding that closed the thread it was the non-match related posting and the content of these posts that had the thread closed.

It's like saying "refs giving out red cards is killing the game" - no, it's not the refs fault, it's the players that are not playing to the rules!

[TightHEAD]

Interesting, yet I was banned from the Welsh board whilst talking about rugby matters involving Wales, yet others are name calling and derailing treads are allowed to continue?

I appreciate Moderating threads can be annoying for you guys, therefore I wish to put myself forward to help take the load off of you guys if you are finding it a tiring/pressured environment.

[Guest]

Interesting, yet I was banned from the Welsh board whilst talking about rugby matters involving Wales, yet others are name calling and derailing treads are allowed to continue?

I appreciate Moderating threads can be annoying for you guys, therefore I wish to put myself forward to help take the load off of you guys if you are finding it a tiring/pressured environment.

You haven't got the right credentials.

[SecretFly]

I appreciate Moderating threads can be annoying for you guys, therefore I wish to put myself forward to help take the load off of you guys if you are finding it a tiring/pressured environment.

Run for the hills folks! A breakdown of social norms is about to occur.

[TightHEAD]

Which are?

I'm never rude or lower myself to name calling unlike others. I can spot a wum/banter from a mile off and can diffuse an argument with a simple emoji

[BamBam]

As the thread starter, if I was at a laptop over the weekend I would have changed the name of the match thread to something more fitting Miaow and Taylorman's conversation that got past the swear filter

It stopped being about the game an hour after the final whistle, so don't blame LT for closing it at all

[RiscaGame]

Interesting, yet I was banned from the Welsh board whilst talking about rugby matters involving Wales, yet others are name calling and derailing treads are allowed to continue?

I appreciate Moderating threads can be annoying for you guys, therefore I wish to put myself forward to help take the load off of you guys if you are finding it a tiring/pressured environment.

I take it back. This is your best work yet. I can just see you as a poacher turned game keeper

[BamBam]

We've already got one supposedly reformed WUM as a moderator, why not add another!

[SecretFly]

I'll try it.

You're a basterde, Tight!


It Works!  Everybody now knows I don't mean it.

Tight for Mod!  The campaign starts here............

[SecretFly]

We've already got one supposedly reformed WUM as a moderator, why not add another!

Nothing more dangerous than an overzealous crim gone straight.

[TightHEAD]

[thebandwagonsociety]

Is the modding killing this place? Could it be argued that slow action by mods has done the most harm, the vitriol stays while the open and lively debate leaves.

Or has toxic personal attacks driven people away?

This is rwc window right now, and the level of activity on 606v2 is relatively low.

How do the mods and 606v2 increase the activity on 606v2, how does it evolve, how does it survive, how does it succeed?

[tigertattie]

I'll try it.

You're a basterde, Tight!


It Works!  Everybody now knows I don't mean it.

Tight for Mod!  The campaign starts here............

Our campaign, "jimbo for Mod", has been going on for ages now but there's no sign of him being promoted yet!

Online campaigns often just dont work!

#TrumpForPresident

[LondonTiger]

Could it be argued that slow action by mods has done the most harm, the vitriol stays while the open and lively debate leaves.

Quite possibly. 

While it is out and out WUMs that lead to the most complaints, it is actually debate with heavily entrenched views (which then leads to vitriol) that actually seems to drive people away. We have all seen posters we respected leave after angry debates on European Structures/Lions Selection/Salary Cap Abuse/"PrO'14"/WRU competence. It is hard to police that though as when it does kick off it is very quick.

It should also be noted that what constitutes a WUM is highly subjective. There is a fine line between banter and WUMery with those accused of being WUMs the most likely to also accuse others. First people will write things they would never say in person, and secondly attempts at humopur can struggle to translate just in the written word.

Or has toxic personal attacks driven people away?

This has been our main focus over the last 6 months. There are still disagreements over what constitutes a personal attack and what is just debating.

This is rwc window right now, and the level of activity on 606v2 is relatively low.

Yes it is. Should be noted though that the rugby board is far and away the most active.

How do the mods and 606v2 increase the activity on 606v2, how does it evolve, how does it survive, how does it succeed?

Things evolve based on the posters. This board grew out of the old BBC 606 bulletin board which to a large degree predated the massive rise in the general use of social media. While this is a form of social media, it is perhaps an old fashioned type. I am honestly not sure how long it will survive but will do everything in my power to keep as many posters here as possible.

[LordDowlais]

Or has toxic personal attacks driven people away?

I spend less and less time on here. Why ? Because certain members are allowed to make personal attacks on here without retribution.

Just on another thread, BamBam has brought my profession into disrepute, yet again. It is members like him, and a few others, who I am more than happy to name, that have killed this place.

[RiscaGame]

Did you report it LD?

[LordDowlais]

Did you report it LD?

No point. Nothing gets done.

Wales are playing Fiji on Wednesday, if we win, I expect tighthead, majesticimpealman, BamBam, tigertattie and the likes to be all over the thread complaining about Wales being offside, and having the ref in their pocket, yet I made a tongue in cheek comment after Scotland beat Samoa, and Londontiger was all over it.

Never mind.

[tigertattie]

Did you report it LD?

No point. Nothing gets done.

Wales are playing Fiji on Wednesday, if we win, I expect tighthead, majesticimpealman, BamBam, tigertattie and the likes to be all over the thread complaining about Wales being offside, and having the ref in their pocket, yet I made a tongue in cheek comment after Scotland beat Samoa, and Londontiger was all over it.

Never mind.

I had no issue with your tongue in cheek post LD and I even said if Scotland were offside all game then I'd be happy as it would show we're not also annoyingly naive. I'm not sure why/if LondonTiger was looking at it.

If I say team A is offiside and you disagree and say they aren't then its a difference of opinion and theres more to life to worry about that differnent opinions. The problem is when people start to make things personal or descend the thread not into talking about rugby but start making it a country vs country issue.

"you're wrong because you can see the ball clearly travelled forward" is a perfectly acceptable post
"you're wrong because you are scottish/irish/welsh/englaish" is not an acceptable post

[thebandwagonsociety]

Could it be argued that slow action by mods has done the most harm, the vitriol stays while the open and lively debate leaves.

Quite possibly. 

While it is out and out WUMs that lead to the most complaints, it is actually debate with heavily entrenched views (which then leads to vitriol) that actually seems to drive people away. We have all seen posters we respected leave after angry debates on European Structures/Lions Selection/Salary Cap Abuse/"PrO'14"/WRU competence. It is hard to police that though as when it does kick off it is very quick.

It should also be noted that what constitutes a WUM is highly subjective. There is a fine line between banter and WUMery with those accused of being WUMs the most likely to also accuse others. First people will write things they would never say in person, and secondly attempts at humopur can struggle to translate just in the written word.

Or has toxic personal attacks driven people away?

This has been our main focus over the last 6 months. There are still disagreements over what constitutes a personal attack and what is just debating.

This is rwc window right now, and the level of activity on 606v2 is relatively low.

Yes it is. Should be noted though that the rugby board is far and away the most active.

How do the mods and 606v2 increase the activity on 606v2, how does it evolve, how does it survive, how does it succeed?

Things evolve based on the posters. This board grew out of the old BBC 606 bulletin board which to a large degree predated the massive rise in the general use of social media. While this is a form of social media, it is perhaps an old fashioned type. I am honestly not sure how long it will survive but will do everything in my power to keep as many posters here as possible.

Thanks for the responses LT. The last section is in reality the most important set of questions for 606v2 to figure out. While 606 was old school territory, 606v2 doesn't need to remain there. Figure out your current positives (for me, it's insight into the thinking in other clubs/leagues, it's upcoming rules/interpretations, it's gossip and semi-informed hearsay, it's debate, it's keeping informed of games that I don't have subscription to or aren't watching and it's adding peer group commentary during a game that I am watching.) If most of those are consistently appearing on 606v2 then I (and most people) will keep coming back to the site. I'll filter through tripe and narky threads in order to find these things. But I'll only keep doing that if the good parts remain here (ie. removing the vitriol doesn't really matter if the good parts can't be found behind it).

Can a bit of machine learning be set up to filter in/out the personal stuff. A banter button almost.
Can the fixtures for a match be autogenerated into a thread.
Can the team lineups but auto pulled from team website/ league website.
Can the post match highlight clip be auto-linked into the thread so it becomes the one-stop-shop to buildup-watching-reviewing a fixture.

How is the thread shared out into the ether?, how do you drive footfall/new users?

[BamBam]

Did you report it LD?

No point. Nothing gets done.

Wales are playing Fiji on Wednesday, if we win, I expect tighthead, majesticimpealman, BamBam, tigertattie and the likes to be all over the thread complaining about Wales being offside, and having the ref in their pocket, yet I made a tongue in cheek comment after Scotland beat Samoa, and Londontiger was all over it.

Never mind.

Go on then, find a post I've made about Wales being offside at this tournament. Otherwise you'll look even sillier than you already do

[Old Man]

Banter or debate doesn’t require name calling, calling someone stupid, ignorant, a sack of marbles, dumb etc. is personal.

Any criticism of the person is personal.

Starting a sentence with I disagree with you, or I vehemently disagree with you, or I don’t understand how you can say that. These are all acceptable to start a counter argument.

starting an argument with you are as dense as a door nail, as thick as mud, you are ignorant, etc. These are all personal.

[LondonTiger]

How about:

"That is the stupidest argument I have ever seen"?

[Old Man]

Yep, personal

[LondonTiger]

There is a grey line though. 

"I believe only people with a surname beginning with D should play for <Insert Team Name>" - does not warrant "I disagree" (imo). And then we get to the subjectivity of what is stupid and what is not.

Direct insults should not be allowed, and we try very hard to ensure they are addressed. The issue tends to be what are perceived as indirect insults. While posters need to be less offensive, at times readers need to be less offended.

[Barney McGrew did it]

WUMery is almost always acceptable if it's amusing. If offence is taken to something funny maybe the problem lies with the WUMee not the WUMer. I'd rather have a few too many amusing WUMers than a few too many of the permanently offended.

So my solution is: WUMers - up your game!

[Old Man]

There is a grey line though. 

"I believe only people with a surname beginning with D should play for <Insert Team Name>" - does not warrant "I disagree" (imo). And then we get to the subjectivity of what is stupid and what is not.

Direct insults should not be allowed, and we try very hard to ensure they are addressed. The issue tends to be what are perceived as indirect insults. While posters need to be less offensive, at times readers need to be less offended.

Agreed, but a comment such as your example isn’t really debatable in the sense of logic or debatable points.

And yes offense goes both ways, however, I would say for the short period I have been here it is easy to identify those who are serial offenders

[TightHEAD]

Did you report it LD?

No point. Nothing gets done.

Wales are playing Fiji on Wednesday, if we win, I expect tighthead, majesticimpealman, BamBam, tigertattie and the likes to be all over the thread complaining about Wales being offside, and having the ref in their pocket, yet I made a tongue in cheek comment after Scotland beat Samoa, and Londontiger was all over it.

Never mind.

When have I questioned your profession or traded personal insults with you?

Discussing the off side aspect of a rugby game is a legitimate discussion on a rugby forum, Ireland v Japan, Gareth's interception try (which was perfectly legal btw) etc. That is why we are here is it not?

[LondonTiger]

WUMery is almost always acceptable if it's amusing. If offence is taken to something funny maybe the problem lies with the WUMee not the WUMer. I'd rather have a few too many amusing WUMers than a few too many of the permanently offended.

So my solution is: WUMers - up your game!

Dibble tells me that you are talking out of your...........

[LondonTiger]

There is a grey line though. 

"I believe only people with a surname beginning with D should play for <Insert Team Name>" - does not warrant "I disagree" (imo). And then we get to the subjectivity of what is stupid and what is not.

Direct insults should not be allowed, and we try very hard to ensure they are addressed. The issue tends to be what are perceived as indirect insults. While posters need to be less offensive, at times readers need to be less offended.

Agreed, but a comment such as your example isn’t really debatable in the sense of logic or debatable points.

And yes offense goes both ways, however, I would say for the short period I have been here it is easy to identify those who are serial offenders

Both ways. And some are close to permanent bans.

[SecretFly]

"you're wrong because you can see the ball clearly travelled forward" is a perfectly acceptable post
"you're wrong because you are scottish/irish/welsh/englaish" is not an acceptable post

But it's verifiable fact that most of them are indeed wrong most of the time - I think Opta did the data collection on that one.  It's in the latest Science Magazine.  
Except the Irish, who are considered an indangered species and are therefore protected by the World Wildlife Fund.  Under the Geneva Convention, it's a war crime to accuse them of being wrong.

Read the report and weep, suckers!

[LondonTiger]

"you're wrong because you can see the ball clearly travelled forward" is a perfectly acceptable post
"you're wrong because you are scottish/irish/welsh/englaish" is not an acceptable post

But it's verifiable fact that most of them are indeed wrong most of the time - I think Opta did the data collection on that one.  It's in the latest Science Magazine.  
Except the Irish, who are considered an indangered species and are therefore protected by the World Wildlife Fund.  Under the Geneva Convention, it's a war crime to accuse them of being wrong.

Read the report and weep, suckers!

Indangered because they are inbred?

[mikey_dragon]

Did you report it LD?

No point. Nothing gets done.

Wales are playing Fiji on Wednesday, if we win, I expect tighthead, majesticimpealman, BamBam, tigertattie and the likes to be all over the thread complaining about Wales being offside, and having the ref in their pocket, yet I made a tongue in cheek comment after Scotland beat Samoa, and Londontiger was all over it.

Never mind.

I had no issue with your tongue in cheek post LD and I even said if Scotland were offside all game then I'd be happy as it would show we're not also annoyingly naive. I'm not sure why/if LondonTiger was looking at it.

If I say team A is offiside and you disagree and say they aren't then its a difference of opinion and theres more to life to worry about that differnent opinions. The problem is when people start to make things personal or descend the thread not into talking about rugby but start making it a country vs country issue.

"you're wrong because you can see the ball clearly travelled forward" is a perfectly acceptable post
"you're wrong because you are scottish/irish/welsh/englaish" is not an acceptable post

Nah he was right to call you out, because you've had some offside fetish for a long time. You're always at it when Wales play. Too bad you can't coat-tail Australia any more as well hey?

[tigertattie]

"you're wrong because you can see the ball clearly travelled forward" is a perfectly acceptable post
"you're wrong because you are scottish/irish/welsh/englaish" is not an acceptable post

But it's verifiable fact that most of them are indeed wrong most of the time - I think Opta did the data collection on that one.  It's in the latest Science Magazine.  
Except the Irish, who are considered an indangered species and are therefore protected by the World Wildlife Fund.  Under the Geneva Convention, it's a war crime to accuse them of being wrong.

Read the report and weep, suckers!

Indangered because they are inbred?

Who do I speak to about reporting this? Shocking comment to come out with in this day and age! I bet you were also offside when you made the comment!

[LondonTiger]

"you're wrong because you can see the ball clearly travelled forward" is a perfectly acceptable post
"you're wrong because you are scottish/irish/welsh/englaish" is not an acceptable post

But it's verifiable fact that most of them are indeed wrong most of the time - I think Opta did the data collection on that one.  It's in the latest Science Magazine.  
Except the Irish, who are considered an indangered species and are therefore protected by the World Wildlife Fund.  Under the Geneva Convention, it's a war crime to accuse them of being wrong.

Read the report and weep, suckers!

Indangered because they are inbred?

Who do I speak to about reporting this? Shocking comment to come out with in this day and age! I bet you were also offside when you made the comment!

You will need to speak to my nanny, because us English Rugger Buggers are all posh don't you know.

[tigertattie]

"you're wrong because you can see the ball clearly travelled forward" is a perfectly acceptable post
"you're wrong because you are scottish/irish/welsh/englaish" is not an acceptable post

But it's verifiable fact that most of them are indeed wrong most of the time - I think Opta did the data collection on that one.  It's in the latest Science Magazine.  
Except the Irish, who are considered an indangered species and are therefore protected by the World Wildlife Fund.  Under the Geneva Convention, it's a war crime to accuse them of being wrong.

Read the report and weep, suckers!

Indangered because they are inbred?

Who do I speak to about reporting this? Shocking comment to come out with in this day and age! I bet you were also offside when you made the comment!

You will need to speak to my nanny, because us English Rugger Buggers are all posh don't you know.

Well allo Mary Poppins!!!

[LondonTiger]

Much more Nanny McPhee

[TightHEAD]

Yet another one of my threads had a title change, is there really a need for this big brother is watching you attitude? Its killing this site.

[LordDowlais]

Yet another one of my threads had a title change, is there really a need for this big brother is watching you attitude? Its killing this site.

Well, you and your chums have just got another thread locked because of your nonsense.

[Sponsored content]