Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
Rather than start a new thread, I decided to bump this one.

Given the recent drama in the forum surrounding bannings and other such matters, I think it's a natural question to ask... just how many mods ARE there in the forum... and what is considered the necessary number to have. I think it's a reasonable question, since mods obviously have a lot to do with what gets permitted here and what isn't.

Personally, I was happy with the original number of mods (since 2005 anyway)... and adding too many can create issues. To begin with, and stressing it's only my opinion, mods need special characteristics to be good mods. It helps if they don't have any personal vendettas, secret or otherwise. It helps if they're not given to frequent skirmishes. It helps if they're level-headed about issues, even emotional ones. I have my own personal opinion of who's a good mod and who isn't, just by the years of reading everything that's said. Again, opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one. But again, I think you start flooding a forum with too many mods... and you're bound to get some trigger-happy, power-drunk, not-very-objective person who can singlehandedly drive away some pretty good posters. Which is a shame, of course. The ideal mod should be "clique-less", which to me means he/she should view everyone the same way, regardless of nationality, politics, religious beliefs, etc. The ideal mod should also be immune to brown-nosing, ass-kissing... whatever you want to call it.

Being totally open, I'm disappointed with the departures of some of our more recent posters, such as vidgil. I thought he was pretty decent, and didn't engage in anything the rest of us haven't engaged in at some point or another. Him and walrus I sort of group together. A couple of self-effacing American guys who came into the forum looking for a little fun, and contributed some pretty good, albeit different points of view. At some point they got into some scraps, but hey... if everyone who ever got into scraps was gone from here... someone would have to shut out the light, 'cause they'd be nobody left. Analyzing the situation a bit, they probably felt like they were being shunned by what they consider a cliquish atmosphere. If that's the case, I can sort of understand where they're coming from.

Going back to the mods, the important thing is they're fellow human beings like the rest of us, who are prone to get pissed like the rest of us. If a mod takes something personal, he/she's bound to respond in a perfectly understandable human way. In other words, mods are not mistake-proof. I only wish there was a mechanism by which a mod mistake could be rectified or undone. After all, I would think we all want the forum to grow in numbers and diversity. If it becomes an exclusive, good ol' boys club.... I think it'll be to the detriment of the overall atmosphere.

Consistency is probably the most important feature of a mod's function. It's like calling balls and strikes in baseball (sorry... hopefully our British friends will follow the analogy). A good umpire isn't one who has the perfect strike zone. A good umpire is the one who calls pitches consistently from one pitch to the next, from one pitcher to the next... and even from one game to the next. I guess that's my way of saying that what is "bannable" on the one hand, should be "bannable" no matter WHO it comes from, or when it happens.

Just my worth.
This is a very funny post.

"..you're bound to get some trigger-happy, power-drunk, not-very-objective person who can singlehandedly drive away some pretty good posters"

is probably the funniest line

or so I thought until

"Being totally open, I'm disappointed with the departures of some of our more recent posters, such as vidgil. I thought he was pretty decent, and didn't engage in anything the rest of us haven't engaged in at some point or another. Him and walrus I sort of group together. A couple of self-effacing American guys who came into the forum looking for a little fun, and contributed some pretty good, albeit different points of view. At some point they got into some scraps, but hey... if everyone who ever got into scraps was gone from here... someone would have to shut out the light, 'cause they'd be nobody left. Analyzing the situation a bit, they probably felt like they were being shunned by what they consider a cliquish atmosphere. If that's the case, I can sort of understand where they're coming from."

So in the spirit of openness and frankness that you have espoused I am guessing that the first sentence refers to Master. Which makes your second point all the more hilarious.


First neither Walrus or Vidgil have been banned as far as I can tell and so you first have to wonder if they have even left. People take a break from posting sometimes but you may be right about Vidgil. What prompted it ? could it have been this post from Master


The OP is going through a crisis and should be ignored.

So you have to remember that this is the same poster who had just posted a thread listing all the things wrong with the right in order to bait people and give them enough rope to hang themselves, before claiming it was all down to some kind of crisis or funny turn and he didn't mean any of it.

and then right afterwards this post from him


"No wonder this board only has like 5 posters, the admins are a bunch of gay cunts! There's one on the boxing forum telling people to ignore me! What a lib pussy!

Don't bother banning me you brit fags, I won't be back!

This board can eat my ass AND my balls!

And fuck @Beanz I pity your kids growing up with a pussy wannabe punk for a dad!

See ya, libtard pussies!!"

I see how you have turned it all onto it's head, but really myself and Master do not constitute much of a clique. That is two people. Unlike Vidgil, Walrus, Brockton, and sometimes Lyle all singing from the same hymn sheet. You would even have to include many others at times and then even yourself when it came to @Calling out Denilson.

That gang of which you are often a member is much more like an old boys club in it's values and pretty sad childish stuff for three or four of it's core members. I would like to think that most people here post considering they are amongst friends, but you are correct in that can be seen as cliques for newer posters, and that some of the things posted by some long time posters who should know better, actively discourage new people from joining.

But because they are in your 'Clique" you still defend them.

just my hay pennies worth