Mod. Notice 'Adelaide Posters Only' option - do you want it?

[*PAF]

He is a crows supporter. Don't let him kid you not.

And the fun part is - he can not deny it as he can not post.

Ah watch your tongue there young fella as I have just been given the right of reply by Gibby almighty.

* PAF runs and hides under the only tree in Outer Mongolia *

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Ah watch your tongue there yoing fella as I have been given reply rights by Gibby almighty.

Lucky you didn't have a typo and call him Gobby almighty.

That would be awkward.

Edit: stay on topic please. Damn port supporters, always going off topic. #shakesFistLikeBT.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I am pretty sure it doesn't. Go to the other boards - its pretty clear whats restricted and what isn't.

I have been on numerous other boards and had no problems because I stayed away from the threads that clearly said 'Team X supporters only'.

Your missing the point completely - it's the message it sends that we don't want opposition supporters when we choose.

 

[Allefgib]

Lift what?

your game...

 

[Allefgib]

Lucky you didn't have a typo and call him Gobby almighty.

That would be awkward.

Edit: stay on topic please. Damn port supporters, always going off topic. #shakesFistLikeBT.

but more accurate.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

but more accurate.

Too much information.

 

[Slippery Pete]

your game...

I thought I was in reasonably good nick tonight...Back to the drawing board then.

 

[Godallblighty]

Seriously theres no big secret. I just added the two options that say "Yes" and subtracted the port supporters from the option that says "No".

I'm confused that you're confused.

Oh, I just realised that you can click on the votes and see the names of everyone who voted. I stand corrected. Your maths is good enough for me.

 

[Allefgib]

I thought I was in reasonably good nick tonight...Back to the drawing board then.

So you did cope with them all at once then?
Commendable.

 

[LiquidCrow]

Seriously theres no big secret. I just added the two options that say "Yes" and subtracted the port supporters from the option that says "No".

I'm confused that you're confused.

I couldn't be bothered checking myself, but thanks for the analysis. Just wondering if there are any zero posters/recently joined members amongst the "no " votes? It would be quite sad, but I'd bet there would one or two who would spoof an account to manipulate the voting.

 

[Slippery Pete]

So you did cope with them all at once then?
Commendable.

There might've been a couple disapppointed but they were collateral damage.

 

[Niximus]

I find it amusing that some are so worried that having a thread or two just for ourselves would rob us of the input and differing viewpoints from opposition supporters. It is like their entire BF existence is just on the AFC board and they never venture to any of the dozens of other boards out there. Talk about insular!

Then there are the posts about posters who rip into opposition posters who come here and how apparently they want a place to do that free from rebuttal - how can they attack the opposition posters in a thread without opposition posters? lol.

Why are we worried that having an AFC only thread would give us a reputation? I have come across several in my time on BF and I could say that Essendon has one, the rest I have no idea where they were, it was so unimportant a detail that I don't remember which boards I saw them in...

 

[ManInTheArena]

Do other posters really come on here with bad manners that much? unless the Mods are deleting posts I don't see it often...

 

[Niximus]

I don't I could be bothered checking myself, but thanks for the analysis. Just wondering if there are any zero posters/recently joined members amongst the "no " votes? It would be quite sad, but I'd bet there would one or two who would spoof an account to manipulate the voting.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/members/nick78.152856/

A no vote that joined this week - 0 posts.

Also, a very unoriginal name...

 

[Slippery Pete]

Why are we worried that having an AFC only thread would give us a reputation? I have come across several in my time on BF and I could say that Essendon has one, the rest I have no idea where they were, it was so unimportant a detail that I don't remember which boards I saw them in...

We already have moderators who can ban members and delete posts. How much more of a nanny-state do you want? Are our feelings that precious we have to lock out dissenters altogether?

 

[Niximus]

We already have moderators who can ban members and delete posts. How much more of a nanny-state do you want? Are our feelings that precious we have to lock out dissenters altogether?

How is a couple of threads altogether? Geeze, anyone would think we were planning to buy out Chief and convert the site to Big Crow.

It's a couple of threads, people...

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I guess if they're so unimportant and meaningless we don't need them at all then

 

[Slippery Pete]

How is a couple of threads altogether? Geeze, anyone would think we were planning to buy out Chief and convert the site to Big Crow.

It's a couple of threads, people...

Big Crow...I like that.

 

[Niximus]

I guess if they're so unimportant and meaningless we don't need them at all then

Their existence on other boards was unimportant...but you knew that's what I meant.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Their existence on other boards was unimportant...but you knew that's what I meant.

That Spackler style of circular logic works wonders in an argument with a woman.

 

[Hank93]

I think I've almost switch to no on this. I voted yes, but the more I think about it the more I feel a bit silly for voting that way.

If an opposition poster provides nothing of worth, it'll be deleted anyway. If it's a valid post that generates healthy discussion, then that's good for the board.

If god help us we ever have a Tippett like scenario again, then I'd be open to having a Crows only thread on that. But I doubt we'll ever get to that level again.

 

[cmndstab]

I think I've almost switch to no on this. I voted yes, but the more I think about it the more I feel a bit silly for voting that way.

If an opposition poster provides nothing of worth, it'll be deleted anyway. If it's a valid post that generates healthy discussion, then that's good for the board.

If god help us we ever have a Tippett like scenario again, then I'd be open to having a Crows only thread on that. But I doubt we'll ever get to that level again.

Even in the Tippett case, we basically had a "if you're an opposition supporter and you post anything even leaning into the trolling side of things, you'll be banned" rule for the main run of that thread.

 

[Macca Pakka]

After we ban the opposition supporters can we then ban all those agitators too?!

BACCS and jenny61_99 might be the only ones which are left... although BACCS you did question team selections the other week so you are probably gone too.

P.S. I actually enjoy what you both bring to the forum, keep it up

 

[NTRabbit]

First they came for the opposition supporters, and I said nothing

 

[footy4ever]

Do other posters really come on here with bad manners that much? ...

Yes.