It needs saying

I'm with you on this Syd.

Everyone knows my passion and love for Sunderland Association Football Club, but i'm actually very glad that I am one of the posters who's opinion is generally well received by the Mags.

Now don't get me wrong, you've all seen me wade in and have a pop back at them to defend our own, it's more when they are given **** just for commenting, when they have made a valid point, or at least a debatable one, that causes the problems.

Facts are, I, and i'm sure most, choose to use this forum ahead of the hundreds of other options, because although I mainly care about Sunderland, of course I look out for the Mags, and other teams when we are playing or competing with them.

There's a time for abusing each other, and if it's justified, then we unite against them, but in the same way that many of us count a number of Mags amongst our closest friends, I'd say at least half of my best pals are Mags, and my dad, and my bird, then we should be able to all speak together on a forum.

I'm not saying let's all blow each others flute, i'm just suggesting that the abuse should be justified.

Even posters who some feel have been confrontational in the past, 5-1, Leazes our mate Chappaz, don't shoot them down as soon as you see their name, that's bollocks.

I've found all 3 of them to have some very decent input and knowledge, they aren't twats because, in essence, they were the same 'own club beer goggles' that we wear.

We use forums as a means to talk to like-minded people who wanna talk football, and other ****e all day.

If we try and treat each other with respect, until such times that it's not warranted, we'll have a much better forum for everyone.

 

cant argue with any of that BB, I suppose I should start saying MM

 

Or handsome, whichever you prefer

 

The problem with that is which of the two parties was purposely being abusive and which responded. Last week, I answered a good thread by Commachio. It was all very civilized until one snide, sarcastic, smarta*se came on and I blasted him for a whole page. Then he came on whingeing 'You've been nasty to me twice now. It isn't fair'!!!! I don't doubt he's just the sort that pm's syd 'boo hoo, my dear friend, syd, I've been abused, boo hoo that cutey is so awful to me'.

Everybody knows I don't make a habit of that. But I'd have got the yellow card for it - he makes a habit of snide drivel and expert enough at it to see to that. Now, I just don't read anything with his name on it. End of matter.

 

please log in to view this image

tag: <M$M's kinky username history>

 

I am a member of another, non-sports, forum and this method is quite effective.

Having a "you've been warned because...." edit on the original post allows you to see why you have been warned and what the warning relates to. It also allows you to contest it if you do not agree (normally via exchanged PM with the mod who warned you, or the super-mod)

What pissed me off with the original 606 was not the moderation itself (though it was very strict) but the fact the bastards didnt allow you to contest what the moderators had deemed "wrong"

 

I know what you are getting at but it would not work on here. Right now its me who bans, usually after warnings and when the person banned they do know why, its on the message they get. Its all done by PM and often is followed by PM after PM of why the mods are wrong and the banned person is right.

If it was done on a thread it would simply add to the arguments with everyone joining in.

Most people banned are banned because they are not reasonable posters, it follows that trying to then reason with them is a waste of time.

 

I am probably one of the ones that has prompted Syd to start this post as I sent a private message saying I was not happy with the abuse. When a thread like the Niall Quinn one descends into verbal abuse then for me it is a step too far. I don't mind swearing, arguing, discussions, banter etc. I have had loads of laugh out loud moments reading some of the posts but why oh why do people feel the need to abuse each other?

Maybe I am just too nice a person and others aren't.

 

**** off and put your turban back on !!!

 

excellent post, Im all for debate and banter, but there is no need for personalising it.

 

Hi Moo, I bacically agree with what your saying but could I add just one thought.
If you read across a number of threads the same suspects pop up with the wumming & OFTEN the same defenders get a little tired of it with the result being all to clear for all to read the abuse?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's like bumping into the same person every day walking down the street that you get a dirty look from & are expected to always look away. There just comes a day when you don"t

 

Agree with Syd and the majority...no need for abuse or aggression,just similar or differing views discussed in a good manner..banter is free!!

 

QED for the OP!

No one wants moderation to be like it was in the BBC 606 days and I can't find the t's and c's for this site so not sure what I and everyone on here signed up to, but as far as I am concerned the mods have the final say on thread etiquette, who stays and who goes etc, - no arguments.

It is noticeable that those who have just signed up tend to be the worst (not always, I know many newbies are perfectly sensible). What about trying a new rule where anyone who has just signed up can read threads, but not post at all for a certain length of time, perhaps 3 days or even a week? That might put off the trolls who constantly register with new user names. Since they have no attention span by the time they are allowed to post they might have forgotten what they wanted to wum about!

 

Some people can go over the top I agree, just ignore them or don't get involved if your a sensitive soul. This is just an internet forum lads, the way some people are going on its like some great works of literature or philosophical arguments are being corrupted or someone has dropped a bollock in the UN assembly.

More than anything else plain abuse i.e **** off you **** is BORING, good put downs are the funniest things you will read on here many a time.

 

Mate - i wasn't having a pop at you (well i i suppose i did) - I just feel that i needed to highlight a problem what i think is quite prevalent on here (it was aimed at a previous thread) - that is all - i think that your riposte proves it - although i do like the pussy

 

Mate - i am not normally aggressive nor does much offend me, but you are seriously a complete inept version of a placenta, **** off and crawl into the massive fanny that you came from

 

filth

 

The "sensitive souls" could always use the sites “Ignore List” function as I thought thats what it's for

Isn’t that the truth

 

Know why I have the ignore link in my signature?

Because what I post are my genuine, honest thoughts, and I post them with the intention of genuine replies. I actually don't like the annoying anger-fuelled responses, at all, and I would enjoy my time here much more if they simply weren't there, so the people who don't mind me can continue having some lively debate and a bit crack on from time to time.

Some people simply won't believe me, but I'm not here to wum, and that should be evidenct as a implore certain people to put me on ignore so they never see one of my supposed 'wum' comments ever again. Problem solved for everyone.

That's just the aggro 'caused' by me of course. There's obviously a bigger picture.

 

Well written Chappy