CTO - The Future

[CaleyD]

I have but one wish for moving forward, one "Golden Rule" that I always try and follow when I post/reply and that is when I disagree with what someone says then I argue against the point, not the poster.

I've enjoyed some very interesting and, at times, heated debates with many of the forum users over the years and whilst I have a tendency to be like a "dog with a bone" I do like it when people challenge my thinking by way of reasoned argument. If I banned all these people because I disagreed with them (as some suggest is done) then we'd have a very empty forum.

Not everything needs to be serious, and of course their needs to be banter. I don't think we'll ever see a return to the "good old days" in that regard because the site is so much bigger, and it's no longer the case that we all know each other as well as we might have in the past. Some (and it''s a small portion recently) of what is seen as "abuse" is probably banter, but when you have so much that isn't it becomes very difficult for the moderators to distinguish between the two. We also have some users who seem to get a kick from pushing the boundaries and then trying to tie the moderators up in nots with whataboutery and they will refer to some of that banter as justification for their abuse......."He/She got away with saying that there, so why is it a problem for me to do the same". They ask us for things and then when we give it they use it against us.

I have been labelled a bully, which I actually find quite laughable, as will those who know me. I could name at least a half dozen posters on this forum who started out as a thorn in our side, but I have shown a lot of patience with and given a lot of time too and they are now welcome and interesting contributors to the site. On the flip side there's users who have been a thorn in not only the sites side, but mine personally, for many years. I go out of my way not to post in reply to them or to contribute to threads where they have an opposing view to mine because I know that will be twisted in to some kind of criticism of me as a person and my involvement with the site. Moderators go out of their way on occasion to protect the site users, but when they move to protect themselves, then they are faced with a multitude of criticism and abuse. Despite my avoidance of these people they still seem to go out of their way to have a go or bad mouth me at every opportunity.....and I'm the bully?

Where possible we will give reason for our actions. That's rarely done publicly as we tend to communicate our reasons via PM. Their is, in reality, very little "because we said so" reasoning and when it does happen it is often after protracted discussion with people who are proving to be awkward....people who are very quick to forget or ignore the pages of communication that came before the final "the decision has been made, if you don't like it then go elsewhere" reply....a reply that is only given when a person comes over as being impossible to reason with.

Going back to the opening paragraph, I am of the opinion that if people took the approach of keeping the personal stuff out of the discussion then many of the other issues would take care of themselves. Nobody is saying you can't be critical or make negative points on anything, but you have to go about it in the right way. Yes, we'll all get frustrated with something or someone from time to time and let something slip, but we can deal with that and provided it's not a common occurrence for any single user then they're never going to find themselves getting anything more than a shot across the bow.

It's the users who make the site what it is, and I wouldn't say we get any more hassle from younger users than we do from some of the older ones. Sometimes we have to make a judgement call, and that may look like we're treating some people different from others. That's just the way it is because we don't live in a world where one size fits all and from experience we know that different characters need to be handled in slightly different ways from time to time.

If Scotty and I thought that we should have a rigid set of rules and fixed punishment for breaking them, then we wouldn't have appointed a free thinking and wide ranging set of moderators....we would simply have a group of yes men/women carrying out our wishes.

[Guest]

I like this idea RiG, how about expanding it to "Karma" points where users get a set amount of points, variable dependent on Karma level, with which they can add good or bad Karma to a poster. If a posters Karma was to reach a deplorably low level then their posting could be restricted in some manner. This could have the potential to lead to a more self policing community, someone posting a heap of rubbish constantly would soon learn that the community do not agree with his views.

The biggest problem will be "enforcing" it and by that I mean how do we avoid one poster being picked on and lots of bad "reputation" / "karam" added which would end up in them not being able to post as freely as they would wise.

That's the whole point I am trying to make RiG, if someone finds they are picked on then they have obviously done something to upset a section of the forum. If you were to implement a system where when Karma is added then a reason has to be given in a pop up box, similar to the search box, then someone who has been auto-restricted could then take their case to a mod, that mod could then remove any unjustified Karma and make a note of any system abuse. On the other hand though, if the mod finds the Karma adjustments justified then they only have to say so to the aggrieved party.

This might seem like a work up for the mods but in practice it could reduce the need for the report button, if someone became abusive, for example, and took a lot of karma hits then the community have dealt with the problem and the moderating team save time debating the problem and dealing with the poster.

[Scotty]

There is no question, however, that things have gone downhill, but rather than taking measures to control (increased mod activity) or alienate (little brother site for section G) this church needs to broaden it's appeal. There may be an opportunity here to canvass on our core values and pin them to a code of conduct that posters adhere to. If they fail to, it's a yellow card. Another one and it's a red and you get banned for a preordained period. Serious monkey busines, straight red.

I actually quite like that idea .... a code of conduct with a clearly defined method of dealing with it in a uniquely football like way. We have already been called referees earlier in this thread so perhaps yellow/red cards (which I did use on here for a while) might be a novel (and dare I say it even fun) way to deal with things. Just so long as we are more Collina than Collum :)

At the end of the day, mods dont go looking for a fight despite what some posters say ... they try to keep everyone more or less inside the rules. If these rules can be more clearly defined and users know the openalties then perhaps we will all be better placed to enjoy this forum.

I think, though, that we have to recognise that we represent the motivated amongst the support, the ones who can actually be bothered to stand up and voice an opinion. We need more of these, of broader representation. But it has to be about opinion rather than name calling and baiting, otherwise people will become worn down by it and cease to feel that running this site is a worthwhile excercise.

That is my major complaint and it is encouraging to see more people in here (and via PM) acknowledging the need to get back to a position where we discuss rather than argue and where it is about opinion rather than name calling or baiting. If we can get that in check then I think I can safely say that we will all be happier and the site will reflect that.

A sub forum was set up for Section G / Singing Section style posts but it was removed. I think it was either hardly used by those who had demanded it. Was a couple of years ago in fairness.

It started well but after the initial enthusiasm had something like 5 posts in 3 months so was removed.

I think Scotty and Co should name and shame those users responsible for his current feeling towards the site.

I am trying to be constructive and to reverse the negativity. Naming and shaming would only add to the negativity so I will not be doing that. Besides, I have a feeling that those who are responsible for the current state of affairs are well aware of their roles and if you read the boards and take note of who is doing the arguing and name calling or who is adding nothing to the discussion other than crappy comments or digs at other posters it wont be hard to work out for yourselves !

I have stated my case, I have said we are happy to shake things up a bit in terms of rules or "code of conduct" as mentioned earlier in this response, and I have said in my initial post that how users deal with the rules is up to them. If someone who was formerly a rule breaker or abusive poster sees the light and decides to try and post within the rules and start helping everyone to enjoy the site again then great, if not, and they keep up the rule breaking then they will be gone, simple as that.

I feel that people have the right to be negative at the moment, as our league standing belies the utter garbage that is being served up and labelled as football this last few seasons. Lets remember, people pay a lot of money to go to games, and it is human nature to feel aggreived if you feel you have been short changed. And i put this down to a view i have long held. We ICT supporters have had it so good, our entire history until that game against Falkirk, last game of last season. We are now experiencing the realities of football for the first time in our short history and many are struggling to deal with it. And it is manifesting itself on here, the only place fans can vent their frustrations.

I do agree with what you say here to a point. Yes we can be negative, yes we can question the club, yes we can feel let down by performances and we can express all of that. However, none of that negativity of opinion gives anyone the right to behave in an abusive, bullying, argumentative and immature fashion towards fellow fans and site users when they come on here. As I said in my post, if a user wants, or believes he/she has the right to behave like that then we quite simply do not want them as a member of this site.

There are three types of posters on this site, The happy clappers, The Moaners, and the Realists. I consider my self a Realist. The problem is, the other two sections are as guilty as each other of attacking the other when someone airres a view contrary to theirs. This mentality is evident on EVERY forum on the internet i have been on. Its the nature of the beast!

Its not quite that simple but in essence you are correct.

we have a new generation of 15 to 25 year olds who know very little, if not nothing about the pre-merger and immediate post merger history of the club. These young guys are coming in, fresh faced full of new ideas and new ways of communicating and the old school seem intolerant of them.

This forum has to evolve to accommodate the support otherwise it will wither and die like us old feckers. If you want to keep it like an old man's club then fair enough but would you not prefer lively (but non confrontational) debate or a bunch of old men agreeing with every post written?

Being one of those mentioned in your first paragraph, I have made posts before that could be deemed inappropriate and childish. Although most of these will likely be tongue in cheek (minus a smiley) or just plain humour to me, I do respect that others will have a different viewpoint to this, and have found myself apologising to Mods on occasion when I realise I've been guilty of breaking a forum rule in one way or another.

Though I have had run ins with Mods before, I can honestly say I can't argue with any of the reasons I've had for Warning Level being increased, and would even say there have been times I've expected an increase, but Mods have looked over it. This is good how at times they will show a degree of leniency to users IMO.

New users of all ages will join the site all the time, and it is important everyones points of view are respected and tolerated by posters.

They do a thankless task, and for that I'm sure 99.999% of CTO users, myself included, are grateful, and hope they keep up the good work.

Yes Kev, we have had the odd run-in with you and to be honest, if we have the odd run-in with posters here and there it is not a problem, we deal with it, talk to the poster, and move on. If everyone got out of line just once in a while we probably would overlook more than we do ... we'd be at DEFCON5 instead of DEFCON2 most of the time and things would get more and more relaxed over time as users knew the limits and played within them.

However the reality is that there are some posters on here who take a perverse pleasure in making things extremely difficult for the moderators either directly or by following a pattern of abuse/baiting/name-calling etc. With these posters, disruption seems to be their mission on the site moreso than actually reading the posts and participating in discussions. These are the posters I dont want on the site, these are the posters who will have to change or move on once we agree a new "code of conduct" [nice one Davie - liking that expression more and more as I type this reply]. I know some of you will guess at who I am meaning and once again I am not going to go "naming and shaming", I will however say that the people I have in mind in this statement are conspicuosly absent from this thread so far :32:

[Scotty]

What do site users want from the forum and site in the future? Some suggestions might not be feasible but I am sure they will be considered if they are practical. I liked the idea of the "I Like" thing from Facebook. Maybe work that with reputation points or something along those lines?

I like this idea RiG, how about expanding it to "Karma" points where users get a set amount of points, variable dependent on Karma level, with which they can add good or bad Karma to a poster. If a posters Karma was to reach a deplorably low level then their posting could be restricted in some manner. This could have the potential to lead to a more self policing community, someone posting a heap of rubbish constantly would soon learn that the community do not agree with his views.

I like this idea RiG, how about expanding it to "Karma" points where users get a set amount of points, variable dependent on Karma level, with which they can add good or bad Karma to a poster. If a posters Karma was to reach a deplorably low level then their posting could be restricted in some manner. This could have the potential to lead to a more self policing community, someone posting a heap of rubbish constantly would soon learn that the community do not agree with his views.

The biggest problem will be "enforcing" it and by that I mean how do we avoid one poster being picked on and lots of bad "reputation" / "karam" added which would end up in them not being able to post as freely as they would wise.

That's the whole point I am trying to make RiG, if someone finds they are picked on then they have obviously done something to upset a section of the forum. If you were to implement a system where when Karma is added then a reason has to be given in a pop up box, similar to the search box, then someone who has been auto-restricted could then take their case to a mod, that mod could then remove any unjustified Karma and make a note of any system abuse. On the other hand though, if the mod finds the Karma adjustments justified then they only have to say so to the aggrieved party. This might seem like a work up for the mods but in practice it could reduce the need for the report button, if someone became abusive, for example, and took a lot of karma hits then the community have dealt with the problem and the moderating team save time debating the problem and dealing with the poster.

The new version of the forum software has reputation points built in - I didnt intend to enable that but will look at how it works and see if it has merits, perhaps even try it for a while when we upgrade. I have never been much of a fan of Karma points on other forums and automating them to do what has been suggested may not be possible or desirable.

[Libero]

What about an ignore function for the messageboard?

I am on the site most days and will generally sift through 70-90% of threads, sometimes its been evident that threads have been hi-jacked for personal fights etc which have little to do with the thread. while being very difficult to moderate an ignore function would give users a chance to ignore people causing trouble. My guess would be if someone is ignored by enough posters then they may get the message that their input is not appreciated

While everyone is entitled to their own opinion an ignore function would allow users to ignore certain posters if they deem them to be spoling threads

PS. ignore this suggestion if such a system is in use, i havent personally noticed it

PPS. it is a thankless task trying to moderate on this site so fair play to Scotty, Caley D and the team for doing what must be a very frustrating job at times :)

[ICTFCkev]

Libero, you simply click on the persons name, and 'View Member Profile' on the down arrow.

Once you are on their page, underneath their Display Picture is an 'Options' tab, where you just open it and go to 'Ignore User'

Simples. :)

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

A rather deep - but appropriate quote - from Jim Morrrison of all people for the Mods:

?I'm a word man. See, there's this theory about the nature of tragedy, that Aristotle didn't mean catharsis for the audience but a purgation of emotions for the actors them selves. The audience is just a witness to the event taking place on stage.?

Personally I feel that this form of conflict resolution is healthy but I feel that some posters are at a danger of becoming self indulgent :) and still projecting the blame

Tips to mange conflicts - The following are tips to avoid a situation from ballooning into a conflict:

?Be open with your feelings?be polite but firm, be assertive without being aggressive

?Be calm, cool and composed. Anger never won an argument. Besides there are more chances of your being heard if you keep your emotions in control and your voice down.

?Refrain from the blame game. Blaming one another will only add fuel to the fire.

?Remember the old adage, ?It takes two hands to clap?. Listen to the other person?s version of the entire episode. This may sometimes make you realize that may be you are at fault and the other person?s action may stand vindicated.

?Respect one another?s rights. Showing respect is a positive attitude and even your worst enemy may reciprocate it. When such a reciprocation of respect takes place, it is easier to resolve conflicts.

?Be genuine in your concerns and complaints. Do not feign emotions or make false allegations.

?Keep your line of opinion based on reason. Do not jump to impractical conclusions.

?Try to heal wounds rather than opening fresh ones. Do not add insult to injury.

?Opt for a compromise. If you force people to consider only your part of the problem you are sending the other party into a defensive position and virtually shutting out all doors to an amicable solution.

?Learn to forgive?most importantly learn to forget.

I still feel that there is a definite "old git" flavour to this thread - not sure if some of the younger posters are not aware of the height of present emotions - whether they dont (or cant) express their feelings in a non-craic type manner - or if they foolishly believe that this will wash itself down the drain

I wonder if some are concerned that they will be "picked on" - "bullied" - or "humiliated" if they respond in their own words. I have a feel of nepotism, agism and tribalism about all of this. The "old gits" appear to be projecting the blame on the yoof.

My words of wisdom to the yoof - say what you want to say and lets see if ya can walk the walk and remember: ?You can only be young once. But you can always be immature.? :32: and Nobody cares if you can't dance well. Just get up and dance (or sing karaoke!!).?

This is so much better than the weekly psychotherapy group that I am currently facilitating

[caley100]

Why dont the board admin just ban the erseholes causing unrest? after all the run of the mill users wont miss them one bit as all they seem to do is argue with mods and wind up other users.

They all appear in P & B slagging off all and sundry anyway, better off without them.

[Oz647]

Why dont the board admin just ban the erseholes causing unrest? after all the run of the mill users wont miss them one bit as all they seem to do is argue with mods and wind up other users.

They all appear in P & B slagging off all and sundry anyway, better off without them.

What is this P&B I hear you all talking about? Sorry if these seems a bit random but I've not managed to suss it out for myself. :)

[Renegade]

It's Pie and Bovril. It's a Scottsh football forum, where it is also fairly losely moderated and full of many nutters.

[Alex MacLeod]

Why dont the board admin just ban the erseholes causing unrest? after all the run of the mill users wont miss them one bit as all they seem to do is argue with mods and wind up other users.

They all appear in P & B slagging off all and sundry anyway, better off without them.

What is this P&B I hear you all talking about? Sorry if these seems a bit random but I've not managed to suss it out for myself. :)

Its a general supporters site called Pie & Bovril.

[SMEE]

Oz, its a Scottish fitba forum called Pie & Bovril found here www.pieandbovril.com

[Oz647]

Taa very much :)

[alimci]

People have mentioned accountability and not knowing who they were actually having an argument with.

One solution to this (although I don't even like the idea myself!) is to have photographs instead of avatars. You possibly wouldn't be calling someone an *rsehole if you realised he sat in the seat in front of you and weighed 25 stones!

[Joonya]

I've not read all of the replies on this thread and I apologise if anything I type has been said before. It's been a very long day and I've not looked at this thread since reply #3

Instead of a whole seperate section for complaints, why not have a senior moderator 'flag' a negative thread so people can easily determine where the banta is or isnt. this wont imediately eliminate negative posts, but it'll certainly show people before opening a topic what threads to avoid. By avoiding negative topics, posters can continue with the banta freely, and if others so wish to turn a positive topic into a negative one, they can then be yellow carded.

There are envolopes on each topic to say which ones you've read and replied to - why not change these to 'traffic lights'.

I hope this makes sense.

Finally, despite already PMing scotty, i would like to publicy show my gratitude to scotty, donald, the mods and everyone else who has done a fantastic job on CTO - Hopefully this negativity we're seeing is a cloud that will soon show it's silver line

[blobs]

had a read of the first page, but its got a little long so apologies if this had been said allready but...

make it work/uni email account only to join

Simples!

also helps i think with duplicate accounts, and we can post explicit pictures.

the win-win scenario!

[L_G]

had a read of the first page, but its got a little long so apologies if this had been said allready but...

make it work/uni email account only to join

Simples!

also helps i think with duplicate accounts, and we can post explicit pictures.

the win-win scenario!

I think that this is exactly the type of post that offers little to the conversation. Why the name change?

[alimci]

had a read of the first page, but its got a little long so apologies if this had been said allready but...

make it work/uni email account only to join

Simples!

also helps i think with duplicate accounts, and we can post explicit pictures.

the win-win scenario!

People are not given work emails so they can join bulletin boards. Many of us may use them, but probably shouldn't, and I fail to see why joining as a hotmail user immediately classes you as an undesirable.

Why do you think retired people, unemployed people, school children, housewives, etc, etc, etc should be excluded?

And why do you want to post explicit pictures? Aren't there enough p*rn sites out there already if that's what you want?

Edited November 18, 2009 by alimci

[Georgeios]

I'm sorry Scotty, that you have had to come out and say what you have, its your Baby after all and you have to protect her.. We do have a young fan base just now it seems and it shows at times, I'm as bad as the next but have to sometimes remind myself that im 31 not 16, if I have pee'd anyone off on here then sorry. Myself and CaleyD have had some dingers but but thats what this "Descussion forum" is about i have no problems with that or the way its run. so again Sorry if ive had any part in bugging you or the team Scotty..

P.S Just make Birdog or dog2 a mod or somthing, hes been hinting for ages!! lol

[blobs]

had a read of the first page, but its got a little long so apologies if this had been said allready but...

make it work/uni email account only to join

Simples!

also helps i think with duplicate accounts, and we can post explicit pictures.

the win-win scenario!

People are not given work emails so they can join bulletin boards. Many of us may use them, but probably shouldn't, and I fail to see why joining as a hotmail user immediately classes you as an undesirable.

Why do you think retired people, unemployed people, school children, housewives, etc, etc, etc should be excluded?

And why do you want to post explicit pictures? Aren't there enough p*rn sites out there already if that's what you want?

calm down sir, i maybe, just maybe was kidding about the last part. I agree with your points about the elderly (housewives=un pc btw), but work/uni accounts are used as a method to keep out the youngsters on many forums (tbf mainly becasue of the naughty stuff that isnt realy/ever on here). It it would prevent the kiddies joining, which i interpret to be the main problem with the forum at the moment.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Hotchop is a prime example of what destroys a credible thread.

[blobs]

thought that last one was fairly sensible to be honest (i was clearly joking about the naughty pics). As for the other thread, again it was quite clearly banter, nout personal, im sad you took offence (tho slightly surprised). Anyhows good luck with the sorting, would be sad to see many ppls source of ict news go

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

thought that last one was fairly sensible to be honest (i was clearly joking about the naughty pics). As for the other thread, again it was quite clearly banter, nout personal, im sad you took offence (tho slightly surprised). Anyhows good luck with the sorting, would be sad to see many ppls source of ict news go

I am a serious poster and I have no patience with banter, innuendo or sarcasm. :)

[blobs]

temporary bans, i.e. 1-5 days are also usually excellent detterents of scallywags

[Guest]

P.S Just make Birdog or dog2 a mod or somthing, hes been hinting for ages!! lol

Geordie, I'm a rebel not a cop, no chance I would ever want to deal with erseholes like me who love nothing more than to get hold of some other dog's osseous matter and fight them over it.