I've not really been around the last couple of days, so am not fully up to speed, but let me just clarify on certain points.
We make a very big thing about personal abuse towards individual posters for two reasons:
1. Because for a forum to operate long-term successfully, it has to have certain controls and guidelines that make it by and large a harmonious environment. If certain standards of debate deteriorate and are allowed in some individual cases, then it becomes open season for everyone to personally slate everyone else. The environment then becomes childish in its abuse, and an unwelcoming atmosphere, which usually leads to the quality of a forum disintegrating very quickly.
2. Because you simply have to be careful in what is said to fellow posters. I know of a similar site that is currently under not just the threat of closure, but also a lawsuit due to personal abuse towards an individual poster.
Please think carefully about those two points, and what the potential implications are for both aspects. 'We' are not a big media company employing a moderator to admin a forum, we are a couple of fans like you, who do this as a hobby and because we love Charlton. Point 2 is something that would directly impact on not just our site, but also our personal lives greatly, so please understand why we are sensitive to certain things that may appear trivial to others.
I know its frustrating, i find it frustrating too when someone posts something that i quite clearly think is bollocks. If its someone i think i can have a debate with, i try and prove by reason that they are talking rubbish, if its those i don't, then i simply ignore them. If everyone ignored, they would soon get bored.
Those deliberately on a wind up we ban, but until someone crosses the line to far in what they say what realistically can we do ? How can we differentiate between say Charlie posting something anti-Richard Murray, when for example another poster starts a thread calling the manager a w***er ?
Do people realistically want an individual banned just because the majority disagree with their view ?
Please try not to get too drawn into petty disagreements with other posters. This forum has always worked really well because the majority of the posters are reasoned and articulate. Read the considered posts in the takeover thread for example. Its never going to be perfect, particularly when there are a 1000+ contributors, but it certainly helps by concentrating on the bulk of the stuff which is good, and not to get too wound up with minor stuff that you, and i, happen to disagree with, or winds you up.
As always, me and lookout are always open to feedback from others via whisper on how we can either maintain standards, or improve things for the better. We may not always agree and act upon them, but i can assure you we always take feedback on board, consider and appreciate it.
I'd just say that saying constantly that the board are C**** is not "anti-Richard Murray" but abusive to him and a few others (and incidentally to me personally) who might read this board.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Fair enough D and points taken.
I'd just say that saying constantly that the board are C**** is not "anti-Richard Murray" but abusive to him and a few others (and incidentally to me personally) who might read this board.
There is the fine line example.
The manager is xxxx is viewed as acceptable to some because they have misgivings about the job he is doing.
The board are xxxx is viewed as unacceptable because the majority of us disagree with it.
And you are not, and never have been a proper director, you are an elected Supporters Representative, so until you ebay the full catalogue of the Hayes cardigan range and chuck a few million into the kitty, don't get ideas above your station :-)
And you are not, and never have been a proper director, you are an elected Supporters Representative, so until you ebay the full catalogue of the Hayes cardigan range and chuck a few million into the kitty, don't get ideas above your station :-)
Cruel : - 0 and technically incorrect
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]
There is the fine line example.
The manager is xxxx is viewed as acceptable to some because they have misgivings about the job he is doing.
The board are xxxx is viewed as unacceptable because the majority of us disagree with it.
Not sure if it is about majorities or not.
The first is an extreme view (which I don't share) but which the holders are willing to debate even if their original way of expressing themselves is, IMHO, excessive.
The second is a deliberate attempt to cause offence for no other reason than that he can. There is no attempt to back up the statement or temper it in anyway when challenged. He will not enter into any form of real debate, legitimate questions are ignored so the argue him down argument does not stand.
I also dispute the "ignore him and he will go away" argument. He has been constantly repeating the same abuse for at least 5 years on different forums. He has no intention of stopping. I don't pretend to understand why he does it but he does and always will until stopped.
In the meantime other members are, IMHO, entitled to show their aversion for his views and distance themselves from them. I agree that some, including myself, have not always done that in the best possible way but that is a product of the original abuse.
Glynn Jones had no problem banning him after 5 years of constant abuse to people at the club, and on a number of occasions threats at people who disagreed with him to alert there employers.
The bloke is waste of space, and a gutless one (in terms of debating his abusive nature). If he won't engage, why shouldn't people treat him with the disregard he deserves
I've probably been more guilty than most on here of egging this tool on. the fact is, he's got some bonkers hidden agenda regarding the board, and has had for a long time. I don't know what his problem is, and I don't rightly care. Spouting off about Pardew is one thing - having a go at the board is entirely another.
Its well known that lazy football journalists read Internet messageboards, and have been doing so for years now. All it takes is for one of them to pick up on what this numpty says and run with it and, before you know it, we have headlines in the Evening Gooner or South London Glazier to the effect that 'Charlton fans are not happy with the current board'. If you took a straw poll of fans of the 92 clubs in the football league, I pretty much guarantee you that satisfaction with how the board have run their club over the past five years would have CAFC sitting at the top of the tree.
My original post (deleted) and the subsequent post (also deleted) were aimed, not so much at proving our erstwhile Sheffield-dwelling, board-game playing, bile-spouting chum wrong, but at asking him to answer for his constant unfounded, inaccurate and dangerous allegations against our board over the past five years. I have since been whispered regarding the deletion of those posts, and am entirely satisifed with the reason for this course of action.
Would I like him banned? Yes - because I think he's a cancer in our club and, left alone to foment his ridiculous rantings there is a danger he could really cause a nuisance. However, its not my board - I don't make the rules and anyone who posts here has to abide by them, which I am happy to do.
I doubt that any of us wants anyone banned just because we disagree with their take on things. It is a perfectly reasonable position to take (although not one I share), that the ills of this club in recent times have been solely down to board room failures. Equally that it's all down to the manager, or all down to certain players under-performing. The answer is always a combination of things including factors outside the control of all those I've mentioned. It is because of these things and our love for the club, that we like the debate and we all have our own views as to how best to move things forward.
If somebody though, for whatever reason, decends into highly personal abuse of those in charge, or of another poster, that is beyond the pale.
In my view calling the Board c*nts is totally out of order and certainly needed to be challenged by the moderators (I assume it was) and the poster should have been warned in no uncertain terms that repetition of such a statement or similar offensive statements will lead to immediate banning. In the same way individual posters using abusive language to other posters also need to be challenged. It's not always easy to moderate, especially when somebody is spouting off in a way that most disagree and my view is that this site is generally well moderated.
This is a fans site, that pre-supposes that those who contribute like the club and have had some positive experiences over the years. Posters who cannot ever see anything positive (by their silence when things go well) and only see negatives do not sit well in a fans run site which has as it's motto "Live, Love Laugh and Be Happy", however unreasonably aspirational that may often seem....:o)
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]If its someone i think i can have a debate with, i try and prove by reason that they are talking rubbish, if its those i don't, then i simply ignore them.
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]If its someone i think i can have a debate with, i try and prove by reason that they are talking rubbish, if its those i don't, then i simply ignore them.
Comments
We make a very big thing about personal abuse towards individual posters for two reasons:
1. Because for a forum to operate long-term successfully, it has to have certain controls and guidelines that make it by and large a harmonious environment. If certain standards of debate deteriorate and are allowed in some individual cases, then it becomes open season for everyone to personally slate everyone else. The environment then becomes childish in its abuse, and an unwelcoming atmosphere, which usually leads to the quality of a forum disintegrating very quickly.
2. Because you simply have to be careful in what is said to fellow posters. I know of a similar site that is currently under not just the threat of closure, but also a lawsuit due to personal abuse towards an individual poster.
Please think carefully about those two points, and what the potential implications are for both aspects. 'We' are not a big media company employing a moderator to admin a forum, we are a couple of fans like you, who do this as a hobby and because we love Charlton. Point 2 is something that would directly impact on not just our site, but also our personal lives greatly, so please understand why we are sensitive to certain things that may appear trivial to others.
I know its frustrating, i find it frustrating too when someone posts something that i quite clearly think is bollocks. If its someone i think i can have a debate with, i try and prove by reason that they are talking rubbish, if its those i don't, then i simply ignore them. If everyone ignored, they would soon get bored.
Those deliberately on a wind up we ban, but until someone crosses the line to far in what they say what realistically can we do ? How can we differentiate between say Charlie posting something anti-Richard Murray, when for example another poster starts a thread calling the manager a w***er ?
Do people realistically want an individual banned just because the majority disagree with their view ?
Please try not to get too drawn into petty disagreements with other posters. This forum has always worked really well because the majority of the posters are reasoned and articulate. Read the considered posts in the takeover thread for example. Its never going to be perfect, particularly when there are a 1000+ contributors, but it certainly helps by concentrating on the bulk of the stuff which is good, and not to get too wound up with minor stuff that you, and i, happen to disagree with, or winds you up.
As always, me and lookout are always open to feedback from others via whisper on how we can either maintain standards, or improve things for the better. We may not always agree and act upon them, but i can assure you we always take feedback on board, consider and appreciate it.
Cheers
Danny
I'd just say that saying constantly that the board are C**** is not "anti-Richard Murray" but abusive to him and a few others (and incidentally to me personally) who might read this board.
There is the fine line example.
The manager is xxxx is viewed as acceptable to some because they have misgivings about the job he is doing.
The board are xxxx is viewed as unacceptable because the majority of us disagree with it.
And you are not, and never have been a proper director, you are an elected Supporters Representative, so until you ebay the full catalogue of the Hayes cardigan range and chuck a few million into the kitty, don't get ideas above your station :-)
The bloke is waste of space, and a gutless one (in terms of debating his abusive nature). If he won't engage, why shouldn't people treat him with the disregard he deserves
Its well known that lazy football journalists read Internet messageboards, and have been doing so for years now. All it takes is for one of them to pick up on what this numpty says and run with it and, before you know it, we have headlines in the Evening Gooner or South London Glazier to the effect that 'Charlton fans are not happy with the current board'. If you took a straw poll of fans of the 92 clubs in the football league, I pretty much guarantee you that satisfaction with how the board have run their club over the past five years would have CAFC sitting at the top of the tree.
My original post (deleted) and the subsequent post (also deleted) were aimed, not so much at proving our erstwhile Sheffield-dwelling, board-game playing, bile-spouting chum wrong, but at asking him to answer for his constant unfounded, inaccurate and dangerous allegations against our board over the past five years. I have since been whispered regarding the deletion of those posts, and am entirely satisifed with the reason for this course of action.
Would I like him banned? Yes - because I think he's a cancer in our club and, left alone to foment his ridiculous rantings there is a danger he could really cause a nuisance. However, its not my board - I don't make the rules and anyone who posts here has to abide by them, which I am happy to do.
Do I have to look at that every time I log on for the rest of time?
Thanks Admin for sorting it.
After all that it was only from Off-it - what a let down ; - )
Please let me know when you've read the whisper.
If somebody though, for whatever reason, decends into highly personal abuse of those in charge, or of another poster, that is beyond the pale.
In my view calling the Board c*nts is totally out of order and certainly needed to be challenged by the moderators (I assume it was) and the poster should have been warned in no uncertain terms that repetition of such a statement or similar offensive statements will lead to immediate banning. In the same way individual posters using abusive language to other posters also need to be challenged. It's not always easy to moderate, especially when somebody is spouting off in a way that most disagree and my view is that this site is generally well moderated.
This is a fans site, that pre-supposes that those who contribute like the club and have had some positive experiences over the years. Posters who cannot ever see anything positive (by their silence when things go well) and only see negatives do not sit well in a fans run site which has as it's motto "Live, Love Laugh and Be Happy", however unreasonably aspirational that may often seem....:o)
The main point i wanted to make was to explain my thinking on the subject of moderation, and not to highlight individual posters.
And mine :-(
Bloody charming that is! Can't we ban this cardy wearing ****?
;o)
As for the other thing, what Leroy said.