Mod. Notice Adam Goodes and racism discussion on the main board

[Forward Press]

Over the past few months the main board moderators have had to deal with several Adam Goodes and racism threads, all of which contained thousands of deleted messages, dozens of infractions and numerous warnings to stay on topic and play nice. We are also sick of Adam Goodes and racism 'discussions' derailing any thread relating to Sydney or booing crowds or the like.

Since it appears some posters cannot stay on topic and play nice, we are now enforcing the following, effective immediately:

1. If you wish to post about Adam Goodes or racism - think very carefully about whether it actually relates to the topic at hand, and isn't just a continuation of the usual circular arguments. We are happy if you want to run the post by me or another main board mod via PM before you do so.

2. If you wish to create a thread about Adam Goodes or racism - you will need mod approval to do so. If something controversial or newsworthy enough happens, me or another main board mod will create the thread and establish the rules again in the opening post.

3. Do not be surprised if you receive an infraction if, in our view, you are deliberately derailing a thread with more Adam Goodes/racism rubbish, or are simply using it to troll or abuse others. As a reminder, the main board posting guidelines (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...es-includes-mod-list-updated-10-3-14.1051872/) apply at all times, not just in Adam Goodes or racism or Sydney or booing etc threads.

4. If you really really want to discuss racism, we have Society, Religion and Politics available (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/forums/society-religion-and-politics.46/). Please note that SRP also has its own set of rules (stickied at the top of the thread list), and this moderator announcement is not an encouragement to take the same old stuff to annoy another forum - do not complain to a main board mod if you aren't playing by SRP rules when posting there and consequently get infracted.

The main board moderator list is available at the top right of the thread list if you need to PM one of us. A big thank you to the posters that were reporting posts in previous threads and playing by the rules - as always, report the posts for us to look at instead of engaging, otherwise you may also cop a penalty.

- Main board mod team.

 

[Forward Press]

In the interests of accountability, we will allow some feedback on this new rule for a limited time. If you want to use this thread to troll or just generally be an idiot, expect an infraction and a thread ban.

Thanks.

 

[woopedazz]

Do you really want to segregate him from every other player to have ever played or ever been criticised?

EDIT: Talking specifically about the new mod approval precedent.

 

[Messenger]

Do you really want to segregate him from every other player to have ever played or ever been criticised?

EDIT: Talking specifically about the new mod approval precedent.

The threads start poorly and get worse from there. It seems impossible to discuss any aspect of him without it degenerating into a mess.

 

[Forward Press]

Do you really want to segregate him from every other player to have ever played or ever been criticised?

EDIT: Talking specifically about the new mod approval precedent.

Messenger has echoed the reasons why, and I also add that most if not all Goodes threads invariably turn into a 'discussion' of who is racist and what is racist etc, which is not really suited for the main board in any event.

 

[woopedazz]

I get that. But why not just ban offending posts? Point 2 just doesn't make sense to me. If you want to reduce moderator time spent on this stuff just blanket ban anything racist as you are planning on doing. Problem will fix itself within 2 weeks.

If it was a call from higher up to "clean up" the site then just ban offending posts and you remain a free-speech forum that is clean within 2 weeks.

I am confused.

 

[Power Raid]

I understand the purpose of the rule is to keep threads on topic and avoid meaningless debate about a well trodden ground.

but isn't the multiculturalism and diversity in footy just a part the attraction within the game and life itself? with diversity comes both positives and negatives elements which may include the response of racism etc.

I'm just not sure banning discussion about something as important as racism as a positive.

Footy forums, like footy, should be more than just kicks, marks and pretty guernseys. Just a thought!

 

[Righteo]

Do you really want to segregate him from every other player to have ever played or ever been criticised?

EDIT: Talking specifically about the new mod approval precedent.

Don't pretend it's apples with apples though, no other player attracts nearly as much attention as Goodes. It's currently as the level of genuine obsession.

Not a main board mod btw although I do think action had to be taken.

 

[woopedazz]

Don't pretend it's apples with apples though, no other player attracts nearly as much attention as Goodes. It's currently as the level of genuine obsession.

Not a main board mod btw although I do think action had to be taken.

Was there ever a blanket ban on Milne threads? I just think this goes about it the wrong way. Feel this is a weaker stance than banning offending posts. A stronger stance would be to ban offenders, not possible offenders.

 

[Forward Press]

I get that. But why not just ban offending posts? Point 2 just doesn't make sense to me. If you want to reduce moderator time spent on this stuff just blanket ban anything racist as you are planning on doing. Problem will fix itself within 2 weeks.

If it was a call from higher up to "clean up" the site then just ban offending posts and you remain a free-speech forum that is clean within 2 weeks.

I am confused.

We have banned the offenders. Numerous ones. But we can't suspend or thread ban them all permanently. Just look at the sheer volume of Goodes threads since that Collingwood game.

I understand the purpose of the rule is to keep threads on topic and avoid meaningless debate about a well trodden ground.

but isn't the multiculturalism and diversity in footy just a part the attraction within the game and life itself? with diversity comes both positives and negatives elements which may include the response of racism etc.

I'm just not sure banning discussion about something as important as racism as a positive.

Footy forums, like footy, should be more than just kicks, marks and pretty guernseys. Just a thought!

Discussion of racism and multiculturalism does occur on BigFooty - but we have SRP for that. See point 4.

Was there ever a blanket ban on Milne threads? I just think this goes about it the wrong way. Feel this is a weaker stance than banning offending posts. A stronger stance would be to ban offenders, not possible offenders.

It was moderated harshly but back then BF was not as big as it is today. And like I said before, you can't ban them all permanently. In the end, you have to stuff up pretty seriously to lose access to the main board, or BigFooty altogether. We stepped in here because the whole racism thing was getting way overdone.

 

[Power Raid]

We have banned the offenders. Numerous ones. But we can't suspend or thread ban them all permanently. Just look at the sheer volume of Goodes threads since that Collingwood game.



Discussion of racism and multiculturalism does occur on BigFooty - but we have SRP for that. See point 4.



It was moderated harshly but back then BF was not as big as it is today. And like I said before, you can't ban them all permanently. In the end, you have to stuff up pretty seriously to lose access to the main board, or BigFooty altogether. We stepped in here because the whole racism thing was getting way overdone.

the point I was trying to make is footy is bigger than kicks, marks, 4 points etc. it has a real life social aspect as well.

the SRP is fine to discuss racism but one would assume a footy thread it more appropriate to discuss racism or racial issues in footy

 

[Forward Press]

the point I was trying to make is footy is bigger than kicks, marks, 4 points etc. it has a real life social aspect as well.

the SRP is fine to discuss racism but one would assume a footy thread it more appropriate to discuss racism or racial issues in footy

I completely agree. If people behaved themselves we wouldn't have this new rule. But they didn't, and so now the preferable course of action is to direct racism discussion to SRP and vet all potential firestarters (pardon the Dwayne-ism) before they even get off the ground.

 

[Byron2008]

Wasn't the whole point of Goode's actions to create a forum to discuss racial inequality?! I don't really see what the big deal was, those who did not care for the topic were not forced to open the thread.

Perhaps take a step back and see how this looks generally. A special posting rule for one AFL player

 

[deltablues]

This is not a criticism (nor an endorsement) of OP's instructions per se, but the whole topic illustrates on a more specific level the arguable hypocrisy of a player (irrespective of race etc) who by his civic award would be expected to be inclusive, but who engaged in a divisive act which would have been banned, no question, in the NFL for inciting the crowd; and illustrates on a more general level the underlying resentment of many folk (see also public on-line comments to articles by the bien pensants in the MSM; and the booing etc) being forced down the very slippery slope regarding freedom of speech versus freedom from being offended by speech (2 very different concepts).

It is the difference between John Stuart Mill's concept of freedom of speech (i.e. you can test opposing ideas, and mock, expose and refute them, but not use the law to asphyxiate debate, because in the silence that follows a dreadful conformism would set in - aka PC speech) and the American legal philosopher Joel Feinburg's "offense principle" - where the law should stop freedom of speech that causes serious offense (the latter now seemingly being part of Australian case law on issues of race).

The point being - who decides/what are the tests relating to being offended? See also the comment "if people behaved themselves".

Anyway - discussion on these points is on the SRP forum.

 

[Power Raid]

The more I think about this rule, the stupider it is.

I can understand having a dedicated thread, I can understand not wanting to derail threads etc


If there is a driver I'm not seeing, like advertising or other drivers then fine. but football is bigger than a game and it DOES include issues of culture, diversity and racial issues.

Atttested by:
1) Goodes raising awareness of indigenous issues IN HIS CAPACITY AS A FOOTBALLER

Personally I don't care whether I can or can't write about Goodes but I do raise my eyebrows regarding seemingly STUPID knee jerk policies, especially if there is no rational disclosed driver behind the policy.


Thanks.....I've said my 2cents worth.

 

[DrEvil_]

Should just create an Adam Goodes board and move all threads there, it's practically the same and sounds better.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Would it be worth creating a SRP-type sub forum on the main board, for these sorts of discussions??

Everything from Goodes and GAJ, to players speaking out about social/political issues or doing work in disadvantages communities, etc etc.

There'd be a place for those sorts of discussions, I would think.

 

[Impunity!]

And if you see any of your posts are missing, you might want to check the lake.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

If bloody ASADA/WADA/CAS would just get on with it, we could go back to using the Hot Topic board for what it was brought in for!

 

[pantskyle]

If bloody ASADA/WADA/CAS would just get on with it, we could go back to using the Hot Topic board for what it was brought in for!

WTF, Adam Goodes is not James Hird!

 

[Syd]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution codifies the freedom of speech as a constitutional right. The Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What my Country of birth giveth, Forward Precious taketh away.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution codifies the freedom of speech as a constitutional right. The Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What my Country of birth giveth, Forward Precious taketh away.

Pretty sure BigFooty rules don't pass through Congress.

 

[Syd]

Pretty sure BigFooty rules don't pass through Congress.

Strongly aware, esp. considering I used to be part of the Mod Squad here.

Still see no reason why freedom of speech\expression should be trampled on overall when the miscreants should be held accountable.
Taking the easy way out by censoring speech is what brought the Illinois Nazi's to power

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

The threads start poorly and get worse from there. It seems impossible to discuss any aspect of him without it degenerating into a mess.

Threads regarding racism in football are sensitive, absolutely no doubt, but by having them remain open to free speech big footy has the ability to inform, educate and enlighten those who may have been, up until that time, quite close minded about the issue.

Seems like the racism/Goodes issue has just been thrown in the too hard basket, or in this instance, sent off to the SRP board which has half the traffic(at a guess) of the main board, and half the chance of educating some of the younger and impressionable heads of this board.

 

[Doss]

Hey folks, don't bother with the primate puns. They're neither funny or original.