Unfair Moderation

[HOCOLITE]

Why is it if a discussion is started Mharky sees fit to moderate it out. If he thinks it justifies a new thread then fine surely he can move it but to moderate it because he doesn't want to read it in a particular thread is unfair. We are all entitled to our views and if we want to discuss Sprints, Urban or relays we should be able to. The content is not offensive but I think moderating peoples opinions out is not just

[rocky]

Not sure what Mharky did, but if a thread says "JK Trophy" then I'll choose to read it cos I'm interested in the JK Trophy. If it's degenerated into moaning about sprint races then I feel like I've had precious minutes of my life wasted by trawling through it - anything not relevant should really be split off to another thread, be it by starting a new thread or by a moderator splitting the thread, but this takes effort. At an extreme I'd say anything not relevant to a thread title could be deleted - you might think what you post if that was rigorously enforced!

-m

(note - not an active moderator/administrator anymore, despite what it says at the side)

[mappingmum]

There are still plenty of other posts in the JK Relay thread discussing sprint.

[graeme]

Probably my fault
_________________________________________________________________________
Sent at: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:51 pm
From: graeme
To: mharky awk

Subject: JK Relay
awk wrote:
I'm not arguing against longer legs, but i am intrigued by this.

I'm not going to reply to this online so the thread doesn't drift.
I'd prefer long legs, but accept there's valid competition on shorter courses. Mark's point is (I think):
1/ A 22 minute winning time course is NOT so far that it precludes slower runners taking part. So there's no need for another shorter course.
2/ The change was (allegedly) made not because anyone wanted short courses, but because it was going to increase the numbers. Many of us thought that was rubbish, and suspected a hidden agenda of dumbing down. The facts now show that it was rubbish - numbers have gone nowhere and the courses are worse for elites. Also, we would, I guess, like it admitted that we were right all along...

[NeilC]

But Mharky does have a history of personal moderation. My favourite was when I pointed out an omission in one his posts. He then deleted my post and edited his to correct the omission.

[Mrs H]

Oh I can think of an even more personal moderation by Mharky - but if i mention it he'll probably moderate it - but to be honest who cares - we all know what we think

[andypat]

MAybe Mharky will tell us the correct definition for moderation - I thought it was more to ensure against harm or offence?

[rocky]

But Mharky does have a history of personal moderation. My favourite was when I pointed out an omission in one his posts. He then deleted my post and edited his to correct the omission.

That sounds fine to me.

[AndyC]

But Mharky does have a history of personal moderation. My favourite was when I pointed out an omission in one his posts. He then deleted my post and edited his to correct the omission.

That sounds fine to me.

Only if he acknowledges the assistance

[Jon X]

The change was (allegedly) made not because anyone wanted short courses, but because it was going to increase the numbers. Many of us thought that was rubbish, and suspected a hidden agenda of dumbing down. The facts now show that it was rubbish - numbers have gone nowhere and the courses are worse for elites. Also, we would, I guess, like it admitted that we were right all along...

Interesting one this - Elite Competitions Group proposed the following after the 2008 season
- all classes with the same courses to start in a single mass start
- the 120+ courses to be combined with the open courses
- the Short Open classes to be abolished
As fas as I remember (or can see), they did not propose any change to the course lengths.

Somewhere in Rules / Competitions / Events Committees this got changed to something less radical but (in my view) still an improvement
- point 1 to be implemented
- point 3 not to be implemented (something to do with the top teams on Short Open would now form the bottom half of the Open field, I think - not sure why that is a problem as surely that is why they have entered the B race in the first place).
- point 2 to be sort-of-implemented, some combination of courses has taken place which for me is a good thing as it rationalises the number of different races but retains trophies for age classes.

As far as I am aware no-one actually asked why Elite Competitions recommended the abandonment of Short Open in the first place, however clearly the proposed changes to bolster numbers in the Open races and make the whole thing more of a race for everyone will be less effective if they are not all made!

Perhaps someone should put a motion to BOF AGM proposing only 3 levels of relay - say Men, Women and Ad Hoc??

(just waiting now for Mharky to move this from the moderation thread to the JK thread)

[graeme]

Elite Competitions Group proposed ...

All very sensible proposals, but what the [nope] does the 120+ and short open relay have to do with elite competitions

[Adventure Racer]

Elite Competitions Group proposed ...

All very sensible proposals, but what the [nope] does the 120+ and short open relay have to do with elite competitions

Because the runners in them will be taking part in the elite race once the proposals are followed?

In the interests of promoting thread drift, I might as well continue the relay discussion here - I've certainly run most of the way round a leg of the JK trophy all by myself a couple of times, but then apparently unlike other clubs, we felt we should be entering a team in the elite class when we had runners capable of doing so (and being mostly M21/M35 not able to run a different championship race), despite having no hope of being competitive. If I was still in the same situation I'd certainly be all for combining into a bigger class with more packs further down the field - though of course now I could run M120+ by right if I was fit enough for it to be an issue.

[Jon X]

Elite Competitions Group proposed ...

All very sensible proposals, but what the [nope] does the 120+ and short open relay have to do with elite competitions

I should of course have written what it says in the minutes and put "suggested" not "proposed"........ECSG can of course make suggestions for how the depth of the elite race can be enhanced, it cannot make decisions affecting 120+ and short open which is why those suggestions went elsewhere for a decision.

Adventure Racer - nice one and I agree the more clubs that take that approach, the better for the race. At least now you can run 120+ and still be part of the Open too!

[RS]

Like the idea of men, women, adhoc for seniors. Simplifies lots of things and makes for great racing/participation