Why is that annoying? Surely moderators are as entitled to an opinion, an affiliation or even a bias as anyone else? If it's completely impartial, opinion free moderators you're after, the position will be permanently vacant.

I have no problem with it Nasher however a couple of moderators seem to have only one opinion and that pervades every thread.

The nett result is I don't even read what a couple post.

There is no need to I have heard it 1000 times over the last few years.

My is it necessary to attack every one who has a varying opinion?

I have no problem with it Nasher however a couple of moderators seem to have only one opinion and that pervades every thread.

The nett result is I don't even read what a couple post.

There is no need to I have heard it 1000 times over the last few years.

My is it necessary to attack every one who has a varying opinion?

I think that's true for both sides of this discussion.

In this case, I can't see why so many have flipped their wigs over Fan's comments. They're rational and grounded, as far as I can see do not seek to heroize the previous board or slander the existing one (Fan didn't even mention either board; WYL brought it up), and most of all, make complete sense. It's not a message of doom either, if I took one message away from it, it would be "we've got a lot of work to do still". And don't we?

Too many in this thread are looking at who is delivering the message and not the message that is being delivered. The reactions from some members of this forum have been completely over the top.

I think that's true for both sides of this discussion.

In this case, I can't see why so many have flipped their wigs over Fan's comments. They're rational and grounded, as far as I can see do not seek to heroize the previous board or slander the existing one (Fan didn't even mention either board; WYL brought it up), and most of all, make complete sense. It's not a message of doom either, if I took one message away from it, it would be "we've got a lot of work to do still". And don't we?

Too many in this thread are looking at who is delivering the message and not the message that is being delivered. The reactions from some members of this forum have been completely over the top.

I was not referring to Fan Nasher, my comment was on moderators.

I try not to make personal attacks on other contributors having a difference of opinion is the basis of the System we live under.

I just wish some people would be a little bit less personal

Why is that annoying? Surely moderators are as entitled to an opinion, an affiliation or even a bias as anyone else? If it's completely impartial, opinion free moderators you're after, the position will be permanently vacant.

I would expect moderators to be moderate and reasonably objective.

Some are just so predictably oppositional that they appear politically motivated rather than seeking the betterment of the MFC.

Most of the moderating team do a very good job and provide good banter, and even the ones I joust with do a good job most of the time.

I would expect moderators to be moderate and reasonably objective.

I'd expect a moderator to be objective when it comes to making decisions on what is and isn't appropriate content for the forum, but I take the view that a moderator can hold whatever opinion they like on topical matters, no matter how extreme.

I'd expect a moderator to be objective when it comes to making decisions on what is and isn't appropriate content for the forum, but I take the view that a moderator can hold whatever opinion they like on topical matters, no matter how extreme.

Thats fine, my expectations of humanity are probably unreasonable, but why can't we make observations and conclusions about the consistently extreme opinions a moderator or any poster may post?

And while we are on that why does one moderator consistently descend into name calling when contradicted?

I'd expect a moderator to be objective when it comes to making decisions on what is and isn't appropriate content for the forum, but I take the view that a moderator can hold whatever opinion they like on topical matters, no matter how extreme.

Has a moderator every been suspended?

I'd expect a moderator to be objective when it comes to making decisions on what is and isn't appropriate content for the forum, but I take the view that a moderator can hold whatever opinion they like on topical matters, no matter how extreme.

I haven't really followed the above discussion but I do take issue with this comment. I'm not sure you can be objective at the same time as holding an opinion "no matter how extreme"

I'd expect a moderator to be objective when it comes to making decisions on what is and isn't appropriate content for the forum, but I take the view that a moderator can hold whatever opinion they like on topical matters, no matter how extreme.

Within the rules that us regular posters have to comply with?

I haven't really followed the above discussion but I do take issue with this comment. I'm not sure you can be objective at the same time as holding an opinion "no matter how extreme"

Welcome to the internet

Yes we still have a long way to go. And no we are not out of the woods.

I think everybody is well aware of that.

But we still made a tiny profit in a very bad year.

I am proud of the MFC for doing that.

I hope that the profit for 2013 is larger.

Chin Chin....

Yes we still have a long way to go. And no we are not out of the woods.

I think everybody is well aware of that.

But we still made a tiny profit in a very bad year.

I am proud of the MFC for doing that.

I hope that the profit for 2013 is larger.

Chin Chin....

+1

Bottom line is we have to start winning games and i believe the club can grow reasnoably quickly.

But we have to start performing on the grass.

Coach Neeld is aware of this.

Thats fine, my expectations of humanity are probably unreasonable, but why can't we make observations and conclusions about the consistently extreme opinions a moderator or any poster may post?

You can, and I haven't suggested otherwise. But like anyone else, I reserve the right the call you on it if I don't agree.

I haven't really followed the above discussion but I do take issue with this comment. I'm not sure you can be objective at the same time as holding an opinion "no matter how extreme"

The moderators' job on this forum is to ensure topics remain civil and readable, so yes, so long as the moderator does that then he has the right to whatever opinion he wants. If a moderator isn't doing that, take it up with Jack.

And while we are on that why does one moderator consistently descend into name calling when contradicted?

Is that really a question for me...?

Edit: I've entered this discussion on the assumption that B-H was talking about Fan here, but I get the impression you guys are talking about Rhino? I haven't read his contributions in this thread.

The moderators' job on this forum is to ensure topics remain civil and readable, so yes, so long as the moderator does that then he has the right to whatever opinion he wants. If a moderator isn't doing that, take it up with Jack.

Your reply is unnecessarily brusque. Unfortunately, I don't know Jack (please don't pick up on that statement) so I won't be taking it up with him. However, I was not aiming to be polemical, but simply to state that, in my observation, people who hold extreme views are rarely objective and , ipso facto, your argument was flawed.

You can, and I haven't suggested otherwise. But like anyone else, I reserve the right the call you on it if I don't agree.

It is not in my nature to accept the status quo without question nor is it in yours I would imagine.

Is that really a question for me...?

Edit: I've entered this discussion on the assumption that B-H was talking about Fan here, but I get the impression you guys are talking about Rhino? I haven't read his contributions in this thread.

In this thread it is all entwined.

Fan suspects books have been manipulated by board to show profit, Fan is accused of usual unreaonable bias against board.

Rhino disagrees with assertion that a membership that financially supports it's club is a strength, calls people names and belittles those contrary.

Your reply is unnecessarily brusque. Unfortunately, I don't know Jack (please don't pick up on that statement) so I won't be taking it up with him. However, I was not aiming to be polemical, but simply to state that, in my observation, people who hold extreme views are rarely objective and , ipso facto, your argument was flawed.

I apologise If it was brusque, it was unintentional. I tend to be overly blunt when expressing opinion and I have to self-manage it, but sometimes I fail. It comes from being an anti-social nerd

My point was that I don't believe that holding a strong opinion precludes someone from performing moderator duties, so long as they don't start breaking the rules when expressing them, or lose sight of what's appropriate behavior in others. I understand your point that holders of extreme opinions most probably will lose sight of that, but I don't think it's a given or an obvious contradiction as you suggest.

Jack is Whispering_Jack, co-owner of the site. The man I consider to be the "managing director" of Demonland.

I apologise If it was brusque, it was unintentional. I tend to just speak like when expressing opinion, it comes from being an anti-social nerd

My point was that I don't believe that holding a strong opinion precludes someone from performing moderator duties, so long as they don't start breaking the rules when expressing them, or lose sight of what's appropriate behavior in others. I understand your point that holders of extreme opinions most probably will lose sight of that, but I don't think it's a given.

Jack is Whispering_Jack, co-owner of the site. The man I consider to be the "managing director" of Demonland.

Fair enough.

for me a profit is well done , when you look at we spent approx 1.7 mill MORE on the football department
and still made a small profit and had a year we finished bottom 3 .
I think its a great result

any year in business you can increase spending buy 10% on your assets and still show a profit is a good year , well to me if I spent that much more on my business and still showed a profit I would be VERY happy

[censored]'s be crazy at the moment. We got viney at pick 26 toumpass who should have been a top 3 pick, Dawes and hogan and we made a profit from one of the suckiest years going around. This [censored] be happy not crazy.

Fan suspects books have been manipulated by board to show profit, Fan is accused of usual unreaonable Bias against board.

...because usually when a company with a turnover the size of ours registers a profit the size we have, it usually is because the books have been manipulated. I've seen first hand the level of manipulation that goes on in companies with big turnovers to ensure a particular threshold is crossed when it's borderline. It isn't even accusing the board of anything sinister; this is common practice. It happens all the time. I'd expect the board to do it. It is simply pointing out that the profit doesn't tell the entire story, and it doesn't.

This view is borne out of business experience, not out of an unreasonable bias for mine.

I'd expect a moderator to be objective when it comes to making decisions on what is and isn't appropriate content for the forum, but I take the view that a moderator can hold whatever opinion they like on topical matters, no matter how extreme.

I like moderators, in moderation.

...because usually when a company with a turnover the size of ours registers a profit the size we have, it usually is because the books have been manipulated. I've seen first hand the level of manipulation that goes on in companies with big turnovers to ensure a particular threshold is crossed when it's borderline. It isn't even accusing the board of anything sinister; this is common practice. It happens all the time. I'd expect the board to do it. It is simply pointing out that the profit doesn't tell the entire story, and it doesn't.

This view is borne out of business experience, not out of an unreasonable bias for mine.

At the risk of going over old ground, there is a limit on how much manipulation can be achieved and it is not something that can be sustained.

It was also suggested that by others that previous boards would have has the same ability (to manipulate figures).

I accept on face value that it is in an improvement on our position some years ago and that those involved have done well, being the board and the membership and corporate supporters.

It is a moderate improvement which should be enjoyed in moderation.

...because usually when a company with a turnover the size of ours registers a profit the size we have, it usually is because the books have been manipulated. I've seen first hand the level of manipulation that goes on in companies with big turnovers to ensure a particular threshold is crossed when it's borderline. It isn't even accusing the board of anything sinister; this is common practice. It happens all the time. I'd expect the board to do it. It is simply pointing out that the profit doesn't tell the entire story, and it doesn't.

This view is borne out of business experience, not out of an unreasonable bias for mine.

"manipulated" or "managed"?

"manipulated" is an emotive word and suggests wrong-doing or deception

I think the terminology used tends to misleading Just a minor point.