Got a warning from

[Zinzan]

Oh no, god forbid cricket discussion take place here.

Get with the program, it's about posting your favourite curries if some of the recent tour threads are anything to go by.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Damn it.. You were keeping Cricket Chat alive

 

[Black_Warrior]

So I see how prompt CW moderators can be when they want to. Usually they are lazy af, forgetting to make threads sticky, forgetting to take threads off sticky, turning a blind eye to personal attacks, name calling and insults but when Slippy888 creates a few threads, they're suddenly not lazy and useless anymore

 

[Athlai]

So I see how prompt CW moderators can be when they want to. Usually they are lazy af, forgetting to make threads sticky, forgetting to take threads off sticky, turning a blind eye to personal attacks, name calling and insults but when Slippy888 creates a few threads, they're suddenly not lazy and useless anymore

Well hes actually made 50 threads in the last 2 months so still a fair chance they've been lazy in responding. Still stupid though.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I was referring to his thread being moved from CC.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Some of his threads were stupid, but he got a warning for this? Jesus. Considering how much crap on here seemingly gets ignored, this is incredibly silly.

 

[the big bambino]

cricketweb today i cant do anymore vs threads wtf

Who's the best mod? Want a couple of choices?

 

[Smudge]

Some of his threads were stupid, but he got a warning for this? Jesus. Considering how much crap on here seemingly gets ignored, this is incredibly silly.

Depends what the warning was. If it was "hey, slippy, would you mind cutting back on the mindless comparisons and actually consider using punctuation", that would be entirely fair.

 

[BeeGee]

Depends what the warning was. If it was "hey, slippy, would you mind cutting back on the mindless comparisons and actually consider using punctuation", that would be entirely fair.

No it wouldn't. Moderators are there to enforce the forum rules, not to pass personal judgement on content that breaks no rule.

It always happens that moderators become overly officious and I'm always having to lecture the ones on the forums I've created.

 

[Burgey]

No it wouldn't. Moderators are there to enforce the forum rules, not to pass personal judgement on content that breaks no rule.

It always happens that moderators become overly officious and I'm always having to lecture the ones on the forums I've created.

This seems extremely discordant to me.

 

[Daemon]

Make a new vs thread imo

slippy888 and CW vs moderators

 

[BeeGee]

This seems extremely discordant to me.

Why is that discordant? Moderators aren't a protected species. They need to follow the rules too. If they overstep the bounds of their remit then there are consequences, just like there are for anyone on the forum.

 

[GIMH]

I blame Loony Bob

 

[fredfertang]

I blame Loony Bob

I'm sure the slightly soiled kitchen furniture industry wouldn't have flourished on his watch

 

[Furball]

No it wouldn't. Moderators are there to enforce the forum rules, not to pass personal judgement on content that breaks no rule.

It always happens that moderators become overly officious and I'm always having to lecture the ones on the forums I've created.

Some of the topics he's posted are exactly the same as previous discussion (Flintoff vs Cairns being one), which is actually against the rules

 

[Shri]

Then the mods should merge the threads and shut up. Something they ****ing signed up to do.

 

[BeeGee]

Some of the topics he's posted are exactly the same as previous discussion (Flintoff vs Cairns being one), which is actually against the rules

And here is that rule:

Read before posting - Odds are that most threads have already been covered before you thought of it. Thus just check back a day or two to see if the topic your so curious about has already been played out. It saves your time, and our time, it works out great like that!

The rule requires the poster to check back two days to see if it's already been posted. The previous Flintoff v Cairns thread was 7 years ago and the last post in it was 6 years ago.

It would be utterly ridiculous to expect new members to search the entire history of CW every time they wanted to post a new thread to see if it's already been posted. That's why the ability to merge threads exists.

 

[Furball]

OP isn't a new member.

 

[BeeGee]

OP isn't a new member.

Jesus.

The requirement, per the rules, is to look back two days. End of story.

 

[indiaholic]

I don't think Furball is being serious here. He added this: to the end of his first post.