BlueLion.

So fucking excited to see Schwarzer make his debut, and to see Michael Essien in the flesh for the first time in a long time! Can't wait, who else is going?

I sincerely hope everyone who has been bashing him recently refused to celebrate the goal today?

When Mata and Silva were both at Valencia, they interchanged between the LM and CAM roles with regularity. I don't see why Oscar and Mata can't learn to do the same now. That sort of movement and dynamism would make us a lot more unpredictable as an attacking unit. At the minute all the defence has to do is swamp Oscar, or any other player operating centrally. We have absolutely no width at all.

Shit, I've forgotten about this completely!

What I have observed thus far this season - Cahill alongside Terry is an absolutely brilliant defensive player. Cahill alongside anyone else is a match made in Hell.

I know our strikers have only had a couple of games each, but the way Torres performed against Bayern Munich > any of Ba's, or Eto'o's performances so far. He should start versus Fulham.

Nope, just my qualifications; no room for such trivial things, but the way people react to episodes on here you'd think they were unemployed and due a feature slot on the Jeremy Kyle show. I'm just trying to keep the peace. Thank you very much! We try and do a half-decent job here. But as I've said multiple times, we have to let people meet us half-way.

Hmm, close. For the new Mod, we will accept applications from everyone, then create a shortlist of 2-3 members. Then the staff will make the decision. So it is democratic in allowing everyone to vote, but also decisive action from the current staff in appointing a new member. I am looking for someone "outside of the box", so you won't necessarily have had to have been a member for years or have 15,000 posts to apply.

Absolutely. That is the point of this thread - if you, the general populace of the forum, have problems, we can discuss them in a civil manner and try and sort them out!

The problem is, bushman, that everyone on here thinks they are a mod, or that if they were a moderator that the site would run a lot more efficiently. Trust me, it is a lot harder than many people realise. People like Barbara can support me in saying how hard it is to lead a big forum or website, because you will always have people who disagree no matter what action I take. Put it this way, in regards to spam/topic derailing: I go harshly on everyone, end up suspending 50 users in a month and handing out ten permanent bans. I'll be accused of getting rid of all the fun from the forum.Alternatively I remain lenient, and only ban people when I have to. I get accused of being lazy or not working hard enough.So instead I maintain my method of mediation. I'm therefore either too harsh, or too lenient for one persuasion.Internet politics are a bitch, right? Which is why we've introduced a new mod and are looking at adding a second by the end of the month.

So you expect us to ban tens of people today because they called someone an idiot? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I think people need to stop getting so butt-hurt over an internet forum in all honesty.

Can't you give it a rest?

We should change those words to random items. Like "cheese", "coffee" and "toilet". Would make things a lot more interesting. For instance, "fuck off you idiotic cunt" could be changed to "trampoline off you sausage-like toothbrush".

You'll be glad to know, that thanks to you help, I've created a comprehensive set of forum rules which will be published by the end of the week. Then, if we do our best to stick by them, we'll be doing ourselves a favour Comes with the job responsibilities. Jim is technical support. He delegates the everyday running of the site to myself and Steve, and we delegate it down to Nour, Jason, Kez and Nemanja, and then on to the moderators, etc. etc. I "lead" the staff team, meaning that I have to be seen to be a - defending my staff, and b - doing the right thing for the forum I help run. Nour's charge is very much along those lines. As "content manager" he's in charge of the general upkeep of the forum, so his helping me out in this sense is really part of his remit. Excellent post. Couldn't put it any better. Essentially as mods we have a responsibility to enforce the rules - which we will from here-on-in, trust me - but members also must show the maturity to meet us half-way.

I think you're right there. It is a bit disrespectful to Spike, who has been in line to be the next mod we appoint since 2011! It is long over-due. As you say, we all lose our composure in the heat of the argument. Me calling you a twat was setting a very bad example, and I apologise. But like you say, you simply laugh it off. If anyone takes seriously what people say to each other over an internet forum, they have to admit they are taking things a bit too seriously IMO. I think you're absolutely correct in that stance.

And others have received less for me. It's difficult being objective as an administrator. Trust me. Agreed. Which is what staff have been instructed to do. We're trying to clean up the forums, but we need the assistance of the regular users such as yourself to notify us of these incidents. It's difficult for us to read every post in every topic, as hard as we may try. Yep. Totally agreed. It's as I've said multiple times in the past, challenge the argument rather than attacking the person. And if you can't win an argument, don't resort to obscenities. Just agree to disagree, or, at worst, block the other person. Then we don't get any petty squabbles.

The responsibility here is with the members. The WUMs want people to bite. They want to provoke a response, because ultimately it turns on the people who bite back in response. Members need to be delegated the responsibility to show some maturity here, IMO. The only action the staff can take is to go right to the root and ban the WUMs - the likes of Rupert, KonohasOrangeFlash, Mybodyisready et al. - but instead we get slaughtered for doing it. It's a no-win situation for me and my team, sadly. I think you're right. We've always had a "three strikes rule" which we started to impose. We have returned to it recently, but then when we ban the likes of Rupert, KOF, etc. for being wind-up-merchants, we get attacked for it. As you say it is unavoidable, as we will always have to disappoint some people with our course of action. But I believe you are right in being a little more moderate at the same time as stricter. Firm, but fair. Our basic mode of operation is firstly to offer an informal warning (level one), a short suspension (24 hours usually, or maybe up to 3-5 days for severe incidents), and then comes the final permanent ban. We do also try to close threads temporarily, but people take their arguments elsewhere and the spam "spreads", if you get my point. It can be very difficult to manage. Granted. Which is why we have to punish the instigator as well. My only concern with being firmer as an admin means we're going to end up banning even more people...

There's little we can do here. In my opinion, the match threads are both brilliant and absolutely dire. Unfortunately you do some awful posts - but it is all in the heat of the moment. Likewise you see some of the best posts being made in the emotion of the moment. To prevent people from posting after the conclusion of a match would be starving the forum of a lot of character. However I entirely see what you're saying. I'll prompt the staff to remove any posts such as what you have highlighted, as all that would serve to do is create arguments, leading to name-calling, etc. A good suggestion, thank you. I'll instruct the mods to do their best, but we get an awful lot of posts during a match. We'll do what we can, you have my word. I've sent him an informal warning via PM. Fair is fair. I don't think it needs to be taken any further. I doubt people would get overly sore over people calling each other names from behind a computer screen?

Excellent post. As I have previously said, we have to meet people half-way.

We have been harsh about it. And then we get attacked for banning people, on the basis that "they spoke out" and we're trying to suppress them like the Gestapo. People have been very petty, recently, and it has stopped us from doing a job because our every little movement and action is being criticised. The reality is we don't get paid to be moderators and administrators, and we try and govern this forum in a fair, utilitarian way. But of course every action will bring about opposition.

Thanks for taking the time to post a level-headed answer, B. Doing away with the MOTM award would (as the poll I put up shows) be quite an unpopular measure. However the staff are almost completely in agreement to do away with it. I think in the recent discussion we had in the private forum, that I was the only person in defence of it. I believe there are only two ways for us to make it more democratic - the first would actually be to take away the democratic aspect of the vote - and make it staff-only. I think if the staff singled out two or three users and voted amongst themselves, it would take away any chance of an ego-war, as you put it. Alternatively, the poll should be done entirely privately, and people have to PM me or another admin with their votes? I can't think of any other realistic options, because for us to say that someone like The Skipper, who is a continuously brilliant member, is banned from winning next month's award on the basis of winning it this month!

Coming second in an election in which 70-odd different members voted is about as democratic an appointment can get. Unless you'd prefer for members to fight to the death to see who is most worthy? I honestly can't see a more inclusive way of electing an official (i.e. forum moderator) than by putting it up to a vote? You have to realise that this forum is obviously called "TalkChelsea" - but there are general forums here as well. I want to ensure that the Chelsea section remains relevant, so I am doing my best to ensure my mod team keep discussions on-topic and relevant. However that has become a lot harder than it should be with people provoking one-another, and others reacting to the obvious WUMs. General chat should go in the appropriate forum. So by appointing Spike we have another active member who can help realise that goal.

Absolutely spot on, mate. Members have to meet us half-way, which is the purpose of this thread. Again, as Choulo said to you yesterday (which you obviously seem to have ignored), if you have an issue with someone's avatar, then PM the staff rather than making a commotion on the forums. However I'll put it up for discussion in the staff room. Nevertheless, my advice here would be to stop being so over-sensitive over the smallest things...

It's a very decent line-up Liverpool have there. There is a lot of interchangability between the front four, and with Lucas and Gerrard behind them they have both goals and creativity to support them. Rodgers is building a good side, and you have to say we have strengthened them immensely with the arrivals of Sturridge and Moses.

Agreed on the MOTM issue. There is a very much a popularity contest around a number of members. It's a clichéd group of the same ten members (roughly) that could fart and it would be presented as music. Which is why I have suggested a number of ideas which can be used to get around that. My personal favourite was to stop people nominated the previous month from being elected for the next month's poll. Might mean a few more deserving people get involved. As for appointing Spike, that is a long-standing thing. He would have been the first to have been appointed whether it would have been 12 months ago, or this time next year. He finished 3rd in the 2011 moderator elections, and has been first in line to a position ever since. The decision to appoint him now is purely coincidental - it just so happens Kieran chose now to resign.