|
Post by spencerbloke on Sept 21, 2006 22:39:58 GMT 1
I seem to recall UCLCook (or Blissycook as was) launching a personal attack on someone who dared to be critical (note; critical NOT abusive) about Scott Carlin. So is that OK simply because UCLCook is registered?
"Hello Mr Kettle - Pot here..."
I'm with skip.
I get enough sanitized corporate "on-message" spin in my day job.
If you want this to be representitive of the UCL, then you have to hear all opinions.
And before someone (guess who) says "oh so it's alright to insult people then?" (cf Scott Carlin issue above), no it probably isn't but hey .... s**t happens.
And as for all this "oh it's our duty to uphold the sanctity of the UCL.." and all that - for christ's sake - it's a provincial football league, not a Masonic oath!
|
|
|
Post by ianh on Sept 21, 2006 23:32:48 GMT 1
I seem to recall UCLCook (or Blissycook as was) launching a personal attack on someone who dared to be critical (note; critical NOT abusive) about Scott Carlin. So is that OK simply because UCLCook is registered? that wasnt quite what it was, it was a misunderstanding yes, I personally as a moderator didnt think it was warranted but John E West seem to be giving as good as he got without name-calling (I dont know John but I hope his wife gets better soon) This isnt corporate spin its just common decency, treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. Tony Kempsters forum is a very successful and knowlegable forum, people go on there with very contrasting views, but it doesnt have abusive posts because parameters were set a long time ago (and its members only) Whats that all about, a bit reactionary just remember if Jimmy hadnt set this up we wouldnt be on here So Thanks Jim and keep up the good work, it is appreciated
|
|
|
Post by spencerbloke on Sept 22, 2006 9:33:30 GMT 1
*sigh*
I'm not sure you are remembering the same incident as me, but my recollection is that someone posted some criticism of Scott Carlin, and UCLCook's reaction was simply to insult the poster, and make no attempt to address the criticisms levelled. No there was nothing that you could call "foul or abusive", but the intent was the same. Don't you see? It's the top of the slippery slope into cliquiness and limiting of opinion.
The emphasis was on the word "sanitizes" and I don't believe it was me who introduced that term into the thread.
What that's all about is that we should regain a little perspective here - some people are placing an unrealistic level of importance on the UCL as an entity.
And who the hell DOESN'T appreciate what Cuckooman has done on here? Were I in his position, I'd be pleased that I'd created a forum that promotes such a diverse level of opinion and emotion. I bet there isn't a forum in the country for this level of football that generates this level of activity or passion.
But remember - you can't have good without bad, genius without idiocy ............. even polite wthout rude. It's the breadth of that spectrum that makes the fruit of Jimmy's labours so spectacular.
|
|
|
Post by nptfcfan1 on Sept 22, 2006 11:13:12 GMT 1
Blimey.. I leave the internet for a few days and look what happens!.
I think I've made my opinion's clear on other threads that I believe this should be a members only forum. If somebody seriously has something worthwhile to add then what is the problem with taking 5 minutes to register and stand by your opinion?. The mythical guest post in most cases is simply abused by the same old ghost IP bashers to spread rumours and slanderise against people they hold grudes against, which is not what a football discussion forum is about.
Yes freedom of speech an a different viewpoint will always add to a thread but its not very often we get this from a Guest poster.
|
|
|
Post by blissycook on Sept 22, 2006 14:29:43 GMT 1
Spencer bloke you are quite right .. if you knew the background to the postings you would appreciate why I took such a strong stance. The posting was aimed at stirring something up after we had all moved on, just someone being downright nasty at worst or at best not realising what the likely outcome would have been.. Thank fully as a result (apart from one bogus posting) its all calmed down. We do disagree however on the area of what people should post. This site is for chat, bit of banter and fun based around a common love for the game and UCL football. should not need a moderator we should each take responsibility and your view that its ok to write anything on here because you think its enjoyable, again I do not agree with.
|
|
|
Post by kilnparkman on Sept 22, 2006 16:01:49 GMT 1
I am with you spencerbloke... which seems to be happening increasingly.. a little worried... anyway that's not for now. Tony kempsters forum works because every fan of every club from the conference down knows of its existence and many will use the site regularly (if not the forum). UCL chatter is known by a few fans from not even all of the UCL clubs. Guests have valuable in put. When there is silly abuse - delete it, when there is criticism, discussion, even argument, embrace it. I have said many controversial things, some of which I kind of regret now, had I been a guest, it would have contributed the the "make it members only" argument... but instead, nothing. Embrace the freedom of discussion and the variance of opinion. Root out those which are just purely being Idiots. And to be honest, there are very few of them. For example, just one or two people over a 2 day period can create the illusion of there being 25 irritating people... Have some faith. Vast majority want to contribute. Just delete this really silly posts... and don't take it to heart of you're abused. Who are they? They just make themselves look ridiculous. You must try not to react like this Jimmy. You have the credibility, and they know they have none. Which is why they say irresponsible things. They will only have power ovr you and over the forum if you let them by acknowledging that their actions cause you to take actions. Plus of course, the argument that a members only forum with such a small audience WILL become stagnant, and will breed a kind of "yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir" situation. You've already gone too far Jimmy, but you can still recover and nip this in the bud. If it's taking a lot of effort for the league to officially recognise this forum... why bother? I mean it. Why? It's a lively and successful forum, what the hell do we need their say so for? And to be honest, if they were to recognise this forum, they should have no say in it's moderation or in it's content. By it's very nature this is a place where people who think differently about UCL matters discuss them. Don't implement this type of control Jimmy... think about it. Where will it end? I've seen it happen to football forums before... just checkout Bedford Town official forum... bloody awful. Full of "fans" saying, "Oh how delightful", and "I'm sure his efforts will be more productive next time"... and other such mediocre, boring pretentious rubbish... I know you don't want that. None of us do. Please remember I have the utmost respect for you, and this is not a personal attack. Look forward to seeing you in December for the fans match...
|
|
|
Post by spencerbloke on Sept 22, 2006 16:05:24 GMT 1
I am with you spencerbloke... which seems to be happening increasingly..... ...they all come round in the end.....
|
|
|
Post by spencerbloke on Sept 22, 2006 16:18:10 GMT 1
......... and your view that its ok to write anything on here because you think its enjoyable, again I do not agree with. Can somebody point out where I said that was my view? My view is that by making the board "members only" we will be missing out on the full spectrum of opinions and issues, and curbing (to whatever degree) total freedom of speech. Yes I know people can easily register, but half of the time they won't. Simple as. And no I don't think it's OK (and certainly not enjoyable) to call people names, or be generally foul or abusive, but people do it. It's not OK. A lot of things aren't OK but people do them. So if someone oversteps the mark he'll either be moderated out, or be shouted down by more reasonably-thinking posters. That reaction in itself is probably worth more to the victim, in terms of visible support, rather than closing off a large section of the user-base to make sure the minority don't get heard. "If we don't see it then it's not happening". Take the recent episode that has catalyzed all this. The person claiming to be Jed Ainge has been childishly abusive. Who's come out of it the worst? The people he insulted? Or himself? We're becoming enough of a nanny-state as it is. Let's keep a bit of reality for ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by grassroots on Sept 22, 2006 17:29:11 GMT 1
The main reason why people go on as guests is quite simple you can say something controversial and not be blocked for it. May I remind all what you did to JOHN E WEST this year that was awful thing to do to a genuine nice bloke, he was upset about that. Then some of you then ridiculed the bloke for that. I restate my view be controversial as long as it is not slanderous, offensive by bad language or be racist and malicious etc. So some of you guardians of the forum should take a long at your conduct before you judge us! Shall we drop this now? Have i missed somthing here? What happened with John E West? I vaguely remember some problems with a Wellingborough guy? Was that it? I cant remember yesterday, let alone a few months ago!!! ;D I still ask this Question- Why cant people registers as members? If they are real UCL team supporters with Genuine views they would register. Its not rocket science! Im with you NPTFCfan. Its not very often us Newport fans are wrong. ;D
|
|
|
Post by blissycook on Sept 22, 2006 17:29:48 GMT 1
In truth how can Jimmy be on here all the time deleting posts?
It appears that you think this is all words.. and that can’t hurt you.. and to a certain extent that’s true however this kind of stuff builds up bad feeling between players, supporters and managers etc of clubs.... and if that spills over into matches etc then it certainly does effect the UCL. I am not aware that the UCL has approved or not this forum or indeed if it has tried to influence it in anyway. Ian is on the committee but also a moderator so I can’t see that the UCL are trying to do anything.
Collectively we have a responsibility and unfortunately there seems to be only one answer, a members only forum, but I agree we do lose something as some positive posts have come from guests however I feel we stand to lose a heck of a lot more if we continue to have the kind of posts which have caused so much concern.
|
|
|
Post by grassroots on Sept 22, 2006 17:47:14 GMT 1
I still havent made my mind up wether it should be Members or not. One thing i will say it might stop people posting spam. It gets on my nerves and i dont run the site!
|
|
|
Post by kilnparkman on Sept 23, 2006 16:49:29 GMT 1
Why does Jimmy need to be on here 24/7 deleting posts? Of course he doesn't, and there are other moderators as well...
If the poster has no credibility - then the post has no influence.
Disallow guests and the forum WILL become stagnant sooner or later
|
|
|
Post by grassroots on Sept 23, 2006 20:47:37 GMT 1
I think guests should be able to view the message board to see what topics / messages are going on but for them to post they would have to register.
Members only but can only be viewed by guests. Thats my personal opinion!
It works on the Newport Pagnell Message Board.
|
|
|
Post by blissycook on Sept 23, 2006 21:27:40 GMT 1
I understand what you are saying Kilnpark man and I agree going members only the forum loses something. The trouble is who decides what posts to close and when? If guests are allowed to post then it could be quite sometime before the post is taken down... in which case we might as well stay as we were... and live with guests. It appears to me that other forums have lived through this process and ended up as members only forums. On balance... it seems to me that members only is the lesser of the two evils.... sadly...
|
|
|
Post by ianh on Sept 24, 2006 8:10:17 GMT 1
If the poster has no credibility - then the post has no influence. Sorry KPM, I dont agree, 1st impressions count, if I (and I would think this is indicative of most people) went on a forum and saw inane chat, abuse and insults on the forum, I would look for somewhere else. KPM, that is wrong, I am on several forums and this is the only one that isnt members only, I use this one because it is probably the most pertinent, not because it allows casual posting. I am not saying that the others dont have fly-posters spouting rubbish, but posters realise there are rules to be adhered to and soon drift off when their posts are deleted. lastly, as for going stagnant, these sites thrive because posters know they can join, ask a civil question and get feedback from members who are likely to give a decent reply.
|
|