I assume Mods have to work as well. :biggrin:fair enough , so why not take a minute to talk amongst yourselves then?
menace;351889[B said:]The added complexity is everyone has a different "offensive meter" - so youll be relying on mods meter as the moral compass to censor the site. [/B]Which is fine by me..but presumably guidance about what will be censored will need to be provided?
Did you take the time to read the linked articles? All human beings are subject to subconscious bias.
SS position that Wayne Barnes is above this is ridiculous. It is equivalent to saying WB is not subject to the same faults and failings we all have. Putting referees on a pedestal and saying they can do no wrong is not what Robbie Burns’ “Better officials, better game” is about.
The added complexity is everyone has a different "offensive meter" - so youll be relying on mods meter as the moral compass to censor the site. Which is fine by me..but presumably guidance about what will be censored will need to be provided?
Frankly, I don't see this as an issue. If RRF were to adopt a position that moderators cannot post in closed threads, then we would be a rarity among internet forums. Besides, all it would do is make the moderator have to go through the process of unlocking, posting and locking it again - what a waste of time that would be.
However, lets recognise what this is really about, the closing of the thread in the first place (and I think we all know which thread it was and why it was closed).
I chose to take no part in the staff discussion as regards to the thread that was closed, nonetheless, I agree with the reasons why it was done. Accusing referees at any level of personal bias is tantamount to an accusation of cheating, and it has no place on this forum.
If it is a low level referee you suspect, make a formal complaint to his Society/Association. If it is an elite level referee you want to accuse of cheating, there's a place of that.... its called Planet Rugby.