RWO rules reminder (Updated May 28th)

[Kirkari]

FWIW I see no evidence of any new direction.

Nor do I think the rules have changed, and frankly I can't understand how anyone with any degree of emotional intelligence could find them repressive.

As for banter: I think Scott was being exceedingly generous by using that term because the word banter contains a suggestion of wit. An ingredient almost completely lacking from some of the pointless, trivial, banal and above all thread clogging drivel that seems to be infesting the site atm.

Some RWOers are posting with such rapidity, and going off topic so quickly it's pretty obvious that they aren't bothering to read through the thread. They're in too much of a hurry to add their 2 cents worth. If only they took the time to ensure their posts were actually worth 2 cents.

At it's best RWO is a diverting way to avoid doing anything productive at work for a little while. A place to exchange ideas and opinions, preferably those which contain original and cogent arguments, with fellow Swans fanatics. The humour and spirited banter was always the frosting on the cake.

At the moment there's more frosting than cake. Not that that's against the rules, I just wonder if it's easier to transgress if you're not thinking too hard about what your posting.

Nicely put.

[Margie]

FWIW I see no evidence of any new direction.

Nor do I think the rules have changed, and frankly I can't understand how anyone with any degree of emotional intelligence could find them repressive.

As for banter: I think Scott was being exceedingly generous by using that term because the word banter contains a suggestion of wit. An ingredient almost completely lacking from some of the pointless, trivial, banal and above all thread clogging drivel that seems to be infesting the site atm.

Some RWOers are posting with such rapidity, and going off topic so quickly it's pretty obvious that they aren't bothering to read through the thread. They're in too much of a hurry to add their 2 cents worth. If only they took the time to ensure their posts were actually worth 2 cents.

At it's best RWO is a diverting way to avoid doing anything productive at work for a little while. A place to exchange ideas and opinions, preferably those which contain original and cogent arguments, with fellow Swans fanatics. The humour and spirited banter was always the frosting on the cake.

At the moment there's more frosting than cake. Not that that's against the rules, I just wonder if it's easier to transgress if you're not thinking too hard about what your posting.

Well said.

There used to be some very good football analyses pre and post games on this site. Unfortunately the quality of discourse has deteriorated and there are only a few posters left whose opinions make interesting reading.

I do like that different people have diverse views, there is nothing wrong with that, but I sometimes wonder what has happened to some great contributors who don't post anymore.

The moderators do a great job in their own time and deserve a lot of credit for running the site.

[Dirtyburt]

Possibly the reason that it appears that some new posters are hounded is a thing called reputation. People who have been here for years have that already. New posters don't.

Exactly my point about the cliquey nature of this board

As for the people that moderate on Bigfooty and here, that is there choice, I can't force them to change.

With all due respect that is nonsense. it's simple, If someone is already a moderator, at another 'independent' site, don't let them be a moderator on this board. Surely you must question why individuals want to be moderators on both 'independent' swans boards?

The only reason I have bothered giving this opinion is that you have said you appreciate the feedback. Feel free to completely ignore it. However, I can assure you that a number of swans fans like myself would post on this board if the site was not moderated in such a petulant and overbearing manner. If you were to allow some banter, stand back a bit, not allow 'off topic' reporting cowards to dominate, this site would thrive and grow like the multitude of other independent club sites.

Again, If you want it to be a site where a dozen or so posters are the only unchallenged experts, great. If you want it to be a site where every topic is dull repetitive and without any banter, great. However, if you genuinely want the site to grow and be a truly independent swans site. One that is representative of swans supporters/members;

1)Stop hounding out new posters
2)Stop clamping down on any banter
3)Stop allowing the ludicrous 'nameless' cowardly reporters to dominate
4)Stop allowing people on a power trip to moderate on both independent swans sites, it is extremely unhealthy for genuine debate

Basically, stop over moderating, allow the site to flow. I think you will be surprised how many more people would get involved.

[jono2707]

A few points from me:
* always remember that people are using this site - I don't set out to offend people when I speak to them in person, so nor should I here. I am happy for a level of moderation here to ensure that this site remains a pleasant place - if over moderation is keeping some people away, maybe that's a good thing.

* welcome new posters, and new posters, be respectful the current members.

* can we keep the gameday rants to a minimum? They're getting a bit tiresome....

* keep posts reasonably short and don't overdo the frequency of posting.

* have fun and have a laugh, but try to also offer something relevant to the conversation, and remember we support the best team in the AFL and that this is a fantastic site to share ideas and opinions.

[ScottH]

Exactly my point about the cliquey nature of this board

Reputation is earned, not given. Any site will be wary of new posters who "rattle the cage".

1)Stop hounding out new posters doesn't happen. Many other new posters slot in just fine
2)Stop clamping down on any banter It's not the banter, it's the continual dragging threads off topic.
3)Stop allowing the ludicrous 'nameless' cowardly reporters to dominateThey don't dominate, we treat each reported post of any nature on it's own merits
4)Stop allowing people on a power trip to moderate on both independent swans sites, it is extremely unhealthy for genuine debateAFAIK it's only one person, That person is highly respected, and also a valuable contributor to this site, in more ways than just posting. They were given moderator access due to the content that they were posting, to allow them to do it unaided from us.

Basically, stop over moderating, allow the site to flow. I think you will be surprised how many more people would get involved.

The main complaint I hear as to why people don't post on RWO is the negativity. Again, we do not moderate that, that would be censorship.
Not once have I heard anyone say they won't post because there is no banter (which is untrue), or that the site is over moderated.
370+ active members suggests otherwise.
I do know plenty of people who are regulars here but either don't post for various reasons or only post sparingly, which is fine too. They do enjoy reading the site.

Each to their own.

[RogueSwan]

FWIW I see no evidence of any new direction.

Nor do I think the rules have changed, and frankly I can't understand how anyone with any degree of emotional intelligence could find them repressive.

....

Couldn't agree more, especially with the EI bit. ...

I have been on these boards for a very long time and I also agree that I can see no evidence of a change in tack by the moderators.
It must be a tough job not pulling a lot of the inane,childish stuff that can be sprouted by so-called "adults".
At it's best RWO is insightful and often a good laugh, we have some entertaining posters.

[Frog]

The last time the rules were changed?

Last Update: ScottH, June 22nd, 2008 (Included Spouses/partners in Rule 6)
Last Update: Frog, August 16th, 2010 (Added rule 7c)
Last update: ScottH July 17th, 2011 (Added Rule 7d)

It's at the bottom of the RWO Rules announcement

[Frog]

Since most of you have a fair idea what should be done, it is time to put your money where your mouth is.

We are looking for new moderators to complement/replace our current moderators. Moderators do a fine job and are necessary for good health of the boards, sanity of the RWO members and assistance for the administrators.

Nominations are now being accepted. This nomination must be from yourself, for yourself and please, give us an idea why you would want to be a moderator.
You may send your nomination to any of the three admins (ScottH, Liz or Frog) via PM. Note that the nominations will be shared between the admins (so telling ScottH you hate Frog will not stay a secret, besides, he knows, he does and so does (almost) everyone else ).

If you choose to nominate on the boards, we will ignore it, as we will ignore all the banter that results from it (other than normal rule adherence).

Acceptance of your nomination does not automatically make you a moderator. We do not need more than a dozen and a few are already there. Places are limited.
Rejection of your nomination does not mean we don't like you. It simply means we have too many applications and the admins have to make a choice (I am expecting from the responses in this thread that this may be the case this time - and if it isn't, it should).

Nominating will result in you receiving initial guidelines for the position. You may withdraw your nomination after that if you like, again, by notifying one of the admins.
We will start sending out the guidelines at a later date (they are being drafted as we speak). Don't expect them by return message please.

This post will also be made into its own announcement, so people not active in this thread will also be notified.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Frog
(on behalf of the administrators)

[dimelb]

I wasn't here when all this stuff came to a head. I agree with Scott's position and think the mods do a good job.
I also agree with R'n'R above.
I have visited sites where the cows are allowed to roam free and the result is about six cows and cow@@@@ everywhere. (I approve of the swear filter).
I enjoy the banter on the site - I have been the butt of it once or twice. I have recovered.
Carn the Swannees!

[ScottH]

Just looking at the infractions and warnings handed out since the start of 2011, there are plenty of the "cliquey" group in there as well as some newbies.

Many of these either argue their point in private, or in most cases apologise, then get on with posting.
A small few crack the sads and cause us all sorts of disruption to our normally daily lives. These posters we are happy to see leave, as it causes us less frustration.

And more than half were only warnings, usually to bring their attention to the site rules.

[Dirtyburt]

Reputation is earned, not given. Any site will be wary of new posters who "rattle the cage".



The main complaint I hear as to why people don't post on RWO is the negativity. Again, we do not moderate that, that would be censorship.
Not once have I heard anyone say they won't post because there is no banter (which is untrue), or that the site is over moderated.
370+ active members suggests otherwise.
I do know plenty of people who are regulars here but either don't post for various reasons or only post sparingly, which is fine too. They do enjoy reading the site.

Each to their own.

Fair enough, as i said, it was just 'a' view for your consideration. I find it extraordinary that you dont question the motives of anyone wanting to moderate on the only 2 non club funded sites. I find it a shame that there is not a genuinely independent and open forum for all swans fans to post on.

However, as stated previously, it is your site, your choice. No wish to bore everyone with constant back and forth.

[ScottH]

Fair enough, as i said, it was just 'a' view for your consideration. I find it extraordinary that you dont question the motives of anyone wanting to moderate on the only 2 non club funded sites. I find it a shame that there is not a genuinely independent and open forum for all swans fans to post on.

However, as stated previously, it is your site, your choice. No wish to bore everyone with constant back and forth.

Honestly, if the mod in question was, there more than here I probably would question it, but given they provide service to both sites, and have the time to do it.
I don't have an issue. We have chatted about this, btw.
In the past robbieando was a mod on both sites, and it served us both well.
I'd love BF swans and RWO to join, but fear that will never happen, thus cross pollination by some is not really an issue. After all we are supporting the same team.
Many members post on both.

Our rules are set bearing in mind that not everyone that posts here is an Adult, we have had kids on here in the past, and possibly have some now.

As I've said I do appreciate the feedback.
It hasn't been ignored. It's just difficult to find the right balance. And we'll never please everyone.
I don't have all the answers and I quite often ask what we want. Don't always get a lot of useful feedback, most are happy with the way things are.

You've been a fairly prolific new poster this year, and as far as I can see have not been hounded by the mods, so I'm not sure where you get that idea from.
I hope you continue. But that is your choice.

[Nico]

FWIW I see no evidence of any new direction.

Nor do I think the rules have changed, and frankly I can't understand how anyone with any degree of emotional intelligence could find them repressive.

As for banter: I think Scott was being exceedingly generous by using that term because the word banter contains a suggestion of wit. An ingredient almost completely lacking from some of the pointless, trivial, banal and above all thread clogging drivel that seems to be infesting the site atm.

Some RWOers are posting with such rapidity, and going off topic so quickly it's pretty obvious that they aren't bothering to read through the thread. They're in too much of a hurry to add their 2 cents worth. If only they took the time to ensure their posts were actually worth 2 cents.

At it's best RWO is a diverting way to avoid doing anything productive at work for a little while. A place to exchange ideas and opinions, preferably those which contain original and cogent arguments, with fellow Swans fanatics. The humour and spirited banter was always the frosting on the cake.

At the moment there's more frosting than cake. Not that that's against the rules, I just wonder if it's easier to transgress if you're not thinking too hard about what your posting.

R & R, I am sorry I have to pick you up on this but it is; "icing on the cake".

[dimelb]

R & R, I am sorry I have to pick you up on this but it is; "icing on the cake".

I thought the answer was in the pudding?

[Nico]

I thought the answer was in the pudding?

Nup, the proof is in the pudding.