Forum Behaviour

[Pegleg]

Am I one of the 3? If you answer this, I guess I'm not. If you don't, then I guess I am. Unless, you just don't answer it. I'm getting a headache

Nope not on the list. I doubt those who are will read this thread.

 

[Pegleg]

I hope I'm one of the three. Dickie, he could view your post, answer it and still let you on his ignore list.
I think ignore lists are a good thing, since they help cut down on the very behaviour the OP speaks of.

Again no. Odd post, wanting to be on someone's ignore list. Still it take all sorts.

 

[Pegleg]

I've noticed I've "liked" a lot of your posts of late Pegleg I am obviously teaching you well ;-)

didds

I learn a lot from a number of posters. One thing I find useful in your posts is the alternative view of the coach. Refs can tend to exist in a bubble without considering properly what coaches and players etc want / expect from us. We don't have to agree at the end but we do need to hear and consider.

 

[Paule23]

I learn a lot from a number of posters. One thing I find useful in your posts is the alternative view of the coach. Refs can tend to exist in a bubble without considering properly what coaches and players etc want / expect from us. We don't have to agree at the end but we do need to hear and consider.

Get a room you two :buttkick:

 

[didds]

I learn a lot from a number of posters. One thing I find useful in your posts is the alternative view of the coach. Refs can tend to exist in a bubble without considering properly what coaches and players etc want / expect from us.

Cheers - that is one reason why I post/read here. Another is from a coaches perspective its great to read/hear what REFS think. Some two way communication can only make both our jobs more efficient.


didds

- - - Updated - - -

Get a room you two :buttkick:

Jealousy is a terrible thing!

didds

 

[Dickie E]

So I am curious .. do the mod team think that the standard of behaviour is just peachy and there is nothing to be done ? Or do they think standards do need to be improved and they are putting f some actions into place ?
Ditto for the problem that Phil E raises

when issues come up the mods have a space where they discuss/debate the pros & cons. This type of issue usually percolates to a freedom of expression debate with (suprise, surprise) diiferent mods having a variety of views.

I'd be disappointed if you don't receive a reply to a PM.

 

[didds]

I'd be disappointed if you don't receive a reply to a PM.

see above...

my message that I remember was not a "message" via the inbox etc facility, it was a "report this post ". Ive just "reported" Dicke's post above as a test - maybe such reports aren;t getting through. I do not have a problem with Dickie's post for the record - Ive only "reported" it as a test!

didds

 

[Simon Thomas]

Reported Post noted and read in my role as a moderator.
Even though I have not posting regularly on here for some time, I have carefully read all such Moderator based reports, discussed with fellow Mods or replied to posters as necessary.

In general I try to do what Robbie asked initially - to moderate the site. That is not being a thought or behavior policeman day-to-day, but deal with excesses.

My view is that the standard of posts and objective debate has gone down in the last 5 years, with too many being focused on obscure law interpretations or debates, or in some cases personal fads.

Hence I have not been very active on here, with time conflicting RFU Group level duties and Society work.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Just to be clear.

Reported threads are sent to Mods via email, and we have a private Mods Staff Forum on here too to open discuss the few serious problems that do arise occasionally.

Anyone who sends me a Private Message usually gets a same day reply - most are personal rugby related requests or questions. I can only recall onePM about a Forum member's behavior in the last few years.

 

[crossref]

.

My view is that the standard of posts and objective debate has gone down in the last 5 years, with too many being focused on obscure law interpretations or debates, or in some cases personal fads.

.

Is that view shared by the other mods, and if so any consideration of actions the Mods could take to change things ?

 

[SimonSmith]

I'm not going to speak on behalf of the mods, but my view:

As any forum will, it has evolved (or devolved) over time, according to the membership and how they use.

Way back in the mists of time, when SimonT and I were refereeing together in Hampshire, the original intent was that this would be some kind of resource for referees looking for advice and/or help - I'm having management issues, what should I do differently? I'm struggling with the breakdown, can you help me? New referee, help! - thoe kinds of things.

It's beyond debate that we've gone away from that. That's not good or bad, it just ...is. I don't think it's for the Mods to enforce a "hey, that's not why we're here" standard on the community. And this subject comes up every once in a while.

We seem to spend a lot of time looking at Elite level stuff and picking it apart. I don't see how that actually helps anybody improve their refereeing. It's a game apart with different expectations. It's not often that someone steers us to "here's how this would play out at my level - is this the right way to think about it?"

If it's the wish of the community that we continue to discuss issues in the way that we are, then that's OK - community wish. I see our role as Mods to generally make sure that behavior doesn't stray too far over the line. It doesn't happen too oftern.

 

[winchesterref]

I think it's quite good to use the videos from elite rugby to look at how incidents are handled, as there is still a lot of good to be picked up from what they do, providing it isn't endless criticism and nit-picking.

I would also certainly like to see a lot more "problem solving" and advice type threads but I guess people don't like to post them? I certainly usually try to work it out myself, but I guess when I go back to refereeing I could start doing that some more.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Is that view shared by the other mods?

Its shared by me.

I see far too much "I don't like how this is interpreted so I'm going to do it my way" attitude here. This is not what I expect from a person out in the middle with the whistle and frankly, its a rogue/rebellious attitude that has no place in refereeing. Next week's referee will not thank anyone for taking that approach this week.

I also have a beef with people who are picky-choosey about advice from elite referees. This is something that annoys me about you in particular Crossref (but you are not the only one by any means)

Back a few months ago when we were having the debate about Law 14 and the ball being played by a player off his feet, I posted some information in the form of an emailed reply from Rod Hill, the NZRU Referee High Performance manager. You werent interested in taking this information on board and continued to argue that you would go with your own interpretation.

Fast forward to last week, when a new poster asked a question about creation of a "mono" ruck under the new Law, a couple of experienced regulars posted information from a Panel Ref, a Panel AR and their Society's "resident Premiership Referee". You accepted this without question, and said you regarded their comments as "well sourced and eminently practical".

Now, it is not my intention to embarrass you by pointing this out, nor is it my intention to re-debate these points, but can you see how I have a problem with this?

 

[Dickie E]

Is that view shared by the other mods, and if so any consideration of actions the Mods could take to change things ?

Not by me. I don't have an issue with minutiae being raised & debated - its all part of the fun and helps me deepen my understanding of the laws, practices & history of the Game. I even appreciate OB..'s arcane references to times past.

And as per my cocktail party analogy, if I don't find the discussion interesting, I move on elsewhere.

It's the stuff as per post #1 that I don't like.

 

[crossref]

Its shared by me.

I also have a beef with people who are picky-choosey about advice from elite referees. This is something that annoys me about you in particular Crossref (but you are not the only one by any means)

Back a few months ago when we were having the debate about Law 14 and the ball being played by a player off his feet, I posted some information in the form of an emailed reply from Rod Hill, the NZRU Referee High Performance manager. You werent interested in taking this information on board and continued to argue that you would go with your own interpretation.

Fast forward to last week, when a new poster asked a question about creation of a "mono" ruck under the new Law, a couple of experienced regulars posted information from a Panel Ref, a Panel AR and their Society's "resident Premiership Referee". You accepted this without question, and said you regarded their comments as "well sourced and eminently practical".

Now, it is not my intention to embarrass you by pointing this out, nor is it my intention to re-debate these points, but can you see how I have a problem with this?

- your problem with me is that I am picky-choosy about advice from elite referees, and I didn't think that Rod Kafer's email definitively settled a long-running debate.
- and my problem with you is that you are consistently aggressive and quite unnecessarily rude to multiple posters.

 

[Ian_Cook]

- your problem with me is that I am picky-choosy about advice from elite referees, and I didn't think that Rod Kafer's email definitively settled a long-running debate.
- and my problem with you is that you are consistently aggressive and quite unnecessarily rude to multiple posters.

Very good. Rod Kafer is a former Wallaby rugby player. I've never had an email from him.

What Rod Hill said, was

"Simple answer is that there has been no change to Law 14 and a player is out of the game if they are on the ground."

Geez! How much more definitive would you like him to be?


PS: You didn't answer the question

 

[crossref]

we don't a have an agreed moderator view on my original post - and I am guessing that perhaps this is because the mods disagree amongst themselves.

But a few individual mods did say some interesting things about how moderation works here, and what they perceive to be the general role of a mod

when issues come up the mods have a space where they discuss/debate the pros & cons. This type of issue usually percolates to a freedom of expression debate with (suprise, surprise) diiferent mods having a variety of views.

.
In general I try to do what Robbie asked initially - to moderate the site. That is not being a thought or behavior policeman day-to-day, but deal with excesses.
.

I don't think it's for the Mods to enforce a "hey, that's not why we're here" standard on the community. And this subject comes up every once in a while.
[...] I see our role as Mods to generally make sure that behavior doesn't stray too far over the line. It doesn't happen too oftern.

Returning to the analogy I drew earlier I think good moderation is like good rugby refereeing --- and good rugby refereeing isn't about sitting back and letting players get on with it, only intervening when there is an egregious excess.

That sort of reactive approach wouldn't normally lead to the best game of rugby, I don't think it's how you all go about reffing, and I don't think it's how players even want to be reffed

Good rugby refs are more proactive -- they think about the standards they want to set, communicate the standards clearly, and enforce them appropriately. If they are very good they can accomplish an enormous amount with Ask and Tell, but they musn't be afraid to Penalise. That way a good game of rugby can happen


At one of our society meetings J P Doyle said something along the lines the objective of the referee is try and give the 30 players in front of you the best game of rugby they can have.

I thought that was good. I think the objectives of you mods should be to give posters the best possible rugby referees forum they could have.

I'm not saying it's entirely easy or straightforward, but I am saying that you could do more

[TBH I suspect that it doesn't help you that that there are large number of you and that (so far as I can tell) no one is in charge]

 

[Pegleg]

Crossreff, So you think that Ian C oversteps the mark at times. YES he does. As do many posters from time to time. It's no big deal. We are rugby people and, if we want an rugby match analogy, at times there a bit of "handbags". What happens in a game? A quick "sort it out or I will" and the games gets back to normal and the player move on and get on with it rather than getting all prissy because they were sledged. With a few notable exceptions , that is what generaly that is what happens here. I worry how some of the less robust of us cope with a crowd and players on a Saturday if this forum is too rough for them.

Do Mods get away with what the ordinary members do not? It does seems so at times. But we don't know as our "disciplinary hearings" are not public nor are the results. So any evidence is at best "unclear".

Didds refers to reported posts where no feedback is given. Giving feedback would, perhaps, help. The Mods could let the reporter know that their comments have been "upheld" or "dismissed". At least Didds would know what was considered ok or not. Maybe thought could be given by admin / mods to a standardised acknowledgement and feedback to complainants.

 

[SimonSmith]

Good rugby refs are more proactive -- they think about the standards they want to set, communicate the standards clearly, and enforce them appropriately. If they are very good they can accomplish an enormous amount with Ask and Tell, but they musn't be afraid to Penalise. That way a good game of rugby can happen

I thought that was good. I think the objectives of you mods should be to give posters the best possible rugby referees forum they could have.

I'm not saying it's entirely easy or straightforward, but I am saying that you could do more

[TBH I suspect that it doesn't help you that that there are large number of you and that (so far as I can tell) no one is in charge]

Well, no. I don't think your example works.
Referees are working within a framework that is laid out by Laws. We aren't, and I strongly resist the idea that Mods proactively define the standards of the community. It isn't "ours" to do so.

There are expected behavioral standards - we all have different tolerance levels and that why we discuss the edge cases that need determination. Here's a good example of why we shouldn't be doing it:
1. My observation here is that some folks are perfectly fine with blunt speech; Pegleg's observation about how he interacts with IanCook is a great example.
2. Others are less so. Where group 1 and group 2 meet things can derail.
3. Some folks can personalize things in a way that I personally find unnecessary. There is a fine difference, but a difference nonetheless, between "that's a dumb idea" and "you're dumb". The first, to my mind, is just about OK; it's the idea that's being attacked. As I tell people at work - smart people can make dumb statements, it doesn't make them dumb. "You're dumb" is ad hominem and probably just over the other side of the line. People, in my general life experience, conflate the two statement.

Moderation should be light touch, and only when absolutely necessary.

 

[Dickie E]

There is a fine difference, but a difference nonetheless, between "that's a dumb idea" and "you're dumb".

or maybe the poster who is tempted to say either of those things can dig a little deeper into their vocabulary bag and save everyone some grief