Mod. Notice Negativity Towards the Club and Personal Attacks

[jathanas]

Hi legends,

We want to clarify our position about the negativity that has inundated this board and the personal attacks that seem to follow as a result. The mods are posters too and we have found that this has affected our own enjoyment of our online community.

It's perfectly reasonable to criticise the club, heaven knows they've done their best to give us reasons. Salary cap, selection, recruiting, game plan... the list goes on. As passionate supporters we want to discuss our views which may not always be favourable.

Having said that, there are posters that will take pot-shots at the club no matter what the topic of discussion is. They disappear after a win only to show up with the same bile after a loss. They never balance that with any praise for a player or any enjoyment from seeing Collingwood do well.

That type of poster will face a different experience on this board from now on. This serves as fair notice.

We need to tackle this as a community, so it's perfectly valid for others to call this behaviour out without insulting or attacking the poster in question. This brings us to the second part of this post.

Buying into tiffs between other posters by saying "What would you expect poster X is a flog", is not on; it isn't helpful at all and just leads to further conflict.

This forum has been a part of my life since 2010 (I lurked for a year) and it has been an amazing resource. It's up to us to set the tone and the standard.

Cheers,
J for and on behalf of the mod. team

Gone Critical Anzacday Maggie5

 

[jathanas]

But all you have to do is ignore them. You know who they are. Don't read their posts. This modern day desire to ban, censor and block people and views you find offensive or negative is a terrible way to deal with opposing views and attitudes.
As I said, what one person calls negative another may view as simply honest and accurate criticism. When you allow a moderator to enforce this policy based upon their own subjective views, we are stepping into dangerous territory.
I know it's simply a footy forum, but outside of nasty, personal abuse, people should be free t o write what they want.
If those who find such views negative and annoying simply ignore them how is this a problem?

Largely, it's what we've done and how has that worked out for the tone of the discussion?

This is not about removing the right to criticise fairly mate, don't make it about "free speech".

Trolls have technically never been allowed on the board, what we're doing is drawing a line in the sand.

 

[domus]

Largely, it's what we've done and how has that worked out for the tone of the discussion?

This is not about removing the right to criticise fairly mate, don't make it about "free speech".

Trolls have technically never been allowed on the board, what we're doing is drawing a line in the sand.

Can you give examples of unacceptable negativity ? One of our most prolific Big Footy posters routinely selects the opposition to belt us. Is that too negative?
And it is related to free speech whether you like it or not.
The best way to respond is either silence or a fact based refutation of their post.

 

[jathanas]

Can you give examples of unacceptable negativity ? One of our most prolific Big Footy posters routinely selects the opposition to belt us. Is that too negative?
And it is related to free speech whether you like it or not.
The best way to respond is either silence or a fact based refutation of their post.

I won't give you an example of what is considered a troll, for obvious reasons.

It's fine for a prolific poster to predict a loss every week.

Your opinion of the "best way" to handle trolls is duly noted and respected.

 

[MagpieJoel]

Surely, it's a simple as people having some balance in their views. If all your posts are entirely negative, then obviously that is the issue here and it's time to reflect upon that and consider whether Bigfooty is the right place for you.

 

[MagpieJoel]

I won't give you an example of what is considered a troll, for obvious reasons.

It's fine for a prolific poster to predict a loss every week.

Your opinion of the "best way" to handle trolls is duly noted and respected.

Said "prolific poster" is almost entirely negative, and doesn't just predict a loss every week. Just needs some balance IMO. It's tiresome.

 

[Markfs]

I realise that there is the option to ignore, but why should I have to do that?

Ignoring another poster is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears when someone else is talking, and saying "La la la...can't hear you"

For me, ignoring another poster doesn't cut it, because I will still know that they're posting their vitriol and bile, potentially infecting others with their negative views and generally trying to bring the place down.

Better to weed them out altogether I say.

I don't believe that the moderators are trying to censor any negative or club-critical views, not at all. What they're trying to tackle is posters who predominantly (say 85% of the time) sprout these views, almost as a default position it seems.

nice piece of satire...

 

[Markfs]

Recently I reheard an interview with Travis Cloke on SEN and he described how hurtful comments on social media were and how it affected his mental well being when he left to go to the Bulldogs. It was quite sad. Perhaps we need to keep this in mind when we post.

I would think he was talking about people who directly posted on his twitter or whatever. I think people generally need to realise that a lot of this posting has more to do with the gutless attention-seeking people who make these posts. Actually we're all attention-seeking or we wouldnt post, but I would really question my legitimacy as a vertebrate if I posted something that I wouldnt say directly to someone's face..

If Travis read BF then you have to question his original mental well being before he even entered this realm...

 

[Capital Magpie]

nice piece of satire...

Thanks, but it was meant to be authentic and sincere.

 

[Collingwood2022]

Surely, it's a simple as people having some balance in their views. If all your posts are entirely negative, then obviously that is the issue here and it's time to reflect upon that and consider whether Bigfooty is the right place for you.

What about if your posts are entirely positive? What then in terms of balance?

 

[Civilest]

 

[queensberryrules]

A victory for the timorous. However, in tune with the times.

 

[Civilest]

A victory for the timorous. However, in tune with the times.

Did East Timor win a soccer match?

 

[Maggie5]

What about if your posts are entirely positive? What then in terms of balance?

Find me one and then I will answer.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Largely, it's what we've done and how has that worked out for the tone of the discussion?

This is not about removing the right to criticise fairly mate, don't make it about "free speech".

Trolls have technically never been allowed on the board, what we're doing is drawing a line in the sand.

Can you give examples of unacceptable negativity ? One of our most prolific Big Footy posters routinely selects the opposition to belt us. Is that too negative?
And it is related to free speech whether you like it or not.
The best way to respond is either silence or a fact based refutation of their post.

I won't give you an example of what is considered a troll, for obvious reasons.

It's fine for a prolific poster to predict a loss every week.

Your opinion of the "best way" to handle trolls is duly noted and respected.

Then whatever the rules are on posting are flawed because the rules must be open to opinion of the mods and or interpretation, I'd say this would be true for any forum.

It's in the eye of the mod, even if no profanity or intentional harm is intended, but hey we have to include 'all' right, so that would include trolls right?

So what is a troll, oh that's right that's up for debate - obviously.

 

[bunter]

Oh dear, now it’s happening here as well.
how I miss the long gone days of our post game forums at the local where trolls bought the next round.

 

[jathanas]

Then whatever the rules are on posting are flawed because the rules must be open to opinion of the mods and or interpretation, I'd say this would be true for any forum.

It's in the eye of the mod, even if no profanity or intentional harm is intended, but hey we have to include 'all' right, so that would include trolls right?

So what is a troll, oh that's right that's up for debate - obviously.

The OP provides a perfect example of a troll e.g. someone with an axe to grind that appears only after a loss to vent their bile. Someone that otherwise makes no contribution.

We're not trying to gag you or anyone else. All forums have standards and rules.

 

[jathanas]

A victory for the timorous. However, in tune with the times.

Gallant of you to offer this wisdom via your keyboard.

 

[noideaatall]

I realise that there is the option to ignore, but why should I have to do that?
Ignoring another poster is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears when someone else is talking, and saying "La la la...can't hear you"
For me, ignoring another poster doesn't cut it, because I will still know that they're posting their vitriol and bile, potentially infecting others with their negative views and generally trying to bring the place down.
Better to weed them out altogether I say.
I don't believe that the moderators are trying to censor any negative or club-critical views, not at all. What they're trying to tackle is posters who predominantly (say 85% of the time) sprout these views, almost as a default position it seems.

No, it is not like the bolded at all. It is a simple mechanism to avoid reading contributions from a poster you find irrelevant or upsetting. The italics is about preventing someone from having any voice whatsoever. I wonder if more of us used the ignore function perhaps the general atmosphere might improve?

I have been here since 2011. One of the things I have appreciated about this board is the lack of censorship. To me, it shows a security in who and what we are, no need to fear or respond in kind to negativity or insults. At the same time I have always struggled with aggressive, personal attacks: play the ball not the man. For a period of time I hit the ignore button for posters with a tendency for repetitive, angry & insulting posts. The majority of the posters I ended up ignoring were those who fall in the "positive" camp, including one of our current mods.

For a number of years TG was mercilessly abused for views that didn't fit with the majority: not once did I observe a mod intervene. TG was viewed as a troll, including by myself. Mods posted TG deserved/asked for the abuse. Funnily enough today his posts look way more accurate in retospect than his detractors at that time.

If mods want to boot posters that are "85%" negative then how about booting posters that "100%" respond to said negativity with personal inferences and stoking of the fire. While you are at it, get rid of markfs as his sarcasm/irony goes above my head and makes me feel dumb.

 

[noideaatall]

Gallant of you to offer this wisdom via your keyboard.

This is an example of responding to an opinion personally. Why take it to that place? Or have I misinterpreted?

 

[jathanas]

This is an example of responding to an opinion personally. Why take it to that place? Or have I misinterpreted?

There is no insult in my response, I'm pointing out that it took little courage to label a decision timorous given that the opinion came anonymously.

Again, we're not gagging anyone. We've made a decision to enforce rules that were always there and offered examples of the type of behaviour that will be targeted.

 

[queensberryrules]

Did East Timor win a soccer match?

Timorese, interestingly, are contra timorous.

 

[noideaatall]

There is no insult in my response, I'm pointing out that it took little courage to label a decision timorous given that the opinion came anonymously.

Again, we're not gagging anyone. We've made a decision to enforce rules that were always there and offered examples of the type of behaviour that will be targeted.

A general opinion was offered, you responded by questioning that poster's courage. Perhaps you are right, it wasn't an insult. I do view it as a personal attack though. You didn't address their opinion, you questioned the legitimacy of holding that opinion.

While I trust it is not your attention to gag anyone, your response to that post suggests to me you could do so believing it warranted. If this policy was enacted 8 years ago I have no doubt TG would have been gagged.

On another note I absolutely don't get this "anonymous" thing. We are all anonymous. I had an exchange with markfs where I gave everything bar my mobile and postal address. Nothing changed, I am still anonymous like the rest of you. I put it to you questioning someone's post on the basis it is anonymous has no logical foundation. I interpret it as an attempt to stifle a voice rather than address what it is saying.

Can I ask, what do the mods intend to do with those that always respond to negative posts with personal attacks on the poster? In the OP you noted they feed the problem: will they be tolerated or treated in the same way negative posters will be?

 

[Dan Moody]

Facts don't care about your feelings.
I've paid 10's of thousands over the years in membership fees to this club. If I don't feel they are giving me value for money I will give them both barrels.
Attacking other posters is another matter, purely over a difference of opinion.
I hope this board isn't going to go the way of cancel culture

 

[jathanas]

A general opinion was offered, you responded by questioning that poster's courage. Perhaps you are right, it wasn't an insult. I do view it as a personal attack though. You didn't address their opinion, you questioned the legitimacy of holding that opinion.

While I trust it is not your attention to gag anyone, your response to that post suggests to me you could do so believing it warranted. If this policy was enacted 8 years ago I have no doubt TG would have been gagged.

On another note I absolutely don't get this "anonymous" thing. We are all anonymous. I had an exchange with markfs where I gave everything bar my mobile and postal address. Nothing changed, I am still anonymous like the rest of you. I put it to you questioning someone's post on the basis it is anonymous has no logical foundation. I interpret it as an attempt to stifle a voice rather than address what it is saying.

Can I ask, what do the mods intend to do with those that always respond to negative posts with personal attacks on the poster? In the OP you noted they feed the problem: will they be tolerated or treated in the same way negative posters will be?

I thank you for sharing your concerns, I'll try to address them.

To address your first point. I disagree that our decision to enforce this was timorous and offer you that it was quite the opposite: a confident decision. We're enforcing a standard. For obvious reasons I can't use specific examples of posters but hypothetically speaking if I were nowhere to be seen after the prelim win against Richmond, but logged-on to lay the boots in after the GF loss because I hate Bucks then what's my value to the board? To reiterate the rules:



Regarding anonymity, anyone who has spent any length of time on social media soon discovers, it can be a veritable cesspool filled with comments from people who have no fear of consequence for anything reprehensible or offensive that they might post AKA keyboard warriors.

I can't advise you re: your exchange with Mark. If you feel he crossed a line report him.

On your last point we don't discuss moderating decisions or sanctions. I trust that this will help you feel more comfortable. If not you always have the option of escalating this to admin.

 

[Civilest]

Timorese, interestingly, are contra timorous.

You could have acknowledged my hibrow comedy GOLD. GOOOLLLDD