Rangers 2 years on

[reaper 0]

Right on cue Jack and media house getting it tight in various places, if I didn't have such a suspicious mind I would think someone knew this would come about.

[amms 0]

Nope thats not setting the tone - thats setting and enforcing the rules. Big difference

 

No, there's no difference at all. By setting the tone they set the character and attitude of a place, in this case a forum. They achieve that by setting and enforcing rules, rules which they create.

But to suggest the tone of a forum isn't set by the admins of that forum is bewildering. It seems deeply ironic that your original post bemoaned the lack of unity in our online support yet you seem unable to accept the one point of similarity they all have, indeed all forums have.

[D'Artagnan 173]

No, there's no difference at all. By setting the tone they set the character and attitude of a place, in this case a forum. They achieve that by setting and enforcing rules, rules which they create.

But to suggest the tone of a forum isn't set by the admins of that forum is bewildering. It seems deeply ironic that your original post bemoaned the lack of unity in our online support yet you seem unable to accept the one point of similarity they all have, indeed all forums have.

 

I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one then.

 

In my opinion decisions as to standards of behaviour, moderator/admin intervention are all rule related issues.

 

Tone, for me at any rate, reflects whether a particular website promotes or supports certain issues, that particular tone is further emphasised if it chooses to exclude articles which may present a different slant. Furthermore I would respectfully suggest that admin set a particular tone for a website if they write articles which have a particular leaning. The admin at RM dont write articles such as the one reaper has highlighted. Hence why I believe there are considerable differences in the 2 forums.

[amms 0]

I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one then.

 

In my opinion decisions as to standards of behaviour' date=' moderator/admin intervention are all rule related issues.

 

Tone, for me at any rate, reflects whether a particular website promotes or supports certain issues, that particular tone is further emphasised if it chooses to exclude articles which may present a different slant. Furthermore I would respectfully suggest that admin set a particular tone for a website if they write articles which have a particular leaning. The admin at RM dont write articles such as the one reaper has highlighted. Hence why I believe there are considerable differences in the 2 forums.[/quote']

 

But D'art is anybody denying those two sites have differences, I'm certainly not. I'm fully aware there are topics that get aired on RM that wouldn't on FF and that FF can take a strong 'editorial' line on some subjects. I don't feel I can criticise a site for that though, it's not a public service after all. I used to post on RM quite a lot and whilst many admire the more 'hands-off' approach to admin they usually have that also leads to problems. There are subjects on RM that cannot be discussed sensibly and that's a failing of admin. This is where they set the tone, by not intervening they allow threads to become virtual vendettas against organisations or personalities. There was a thread a couple of weeks ago attacking a member of the RST which was simply disgraceful, by allowing that type of thread to be started and attract several pages of vile comment is just as alienating to many supporters as cutting a thread because admin don't agree with a topic.

 

As I said initially though complaining about that is futile. Neither FF or RM or Vanguard or Gersnet are funded by licence fee, each has its own style and personality and that's what attracts posters to them. Birds of a feather and all that.