Let's set the standard on Big Footy...

[The Coach]

Sure i understand your point

lol lol lol You don't seem to understand a thing ODN has said. If I have upset you or belittled you that is OK because I am only Venting. The Venting Card is to Abuse Charges what

card is to Monotony


The point is that most people can handle this and the ones that can't IMO must have deep problems that maybe they should address before they step into a field that is going to put them in the public light and which many people are passionate about.

What % is most ?
Your qualifications to diagnose deep problems?
What if they do have deep problems - what else should we stop them from doing?
What if they have small problems and abuse makes it a larger problem?
The passion defense has be stricken from the books by the way.

Footballers are not born to be role models - they are a normal/not so normal cross section of the population. Notice any rage when you're out on the road Nuts? Do they always fit your stereotyped image of a looney or are they sometimes old men, young women, manicured housewives, suited businessmen. You can't pick them and you won't pick your vulnerable to abuse footballer either.
So just improve your driving

 

[nutcase888]

]Telling the bullying victim to deal with it is easier than trying to educate bullies?

As i said earlier, there is a diffrence between venting on an internet forum and bullying

posted by Old Dark Navy's
How so? Certainly these things are not on the same scale but you did just suggest that someone should have told these shooters to get help instead of having systems in place to stop bullies. Schoolyards are brutal for some people. You would probably have to walk a mile in their shoes.

I went to a very rough public school ODN and I have suffered bullying. so now it is u that are doing the assuming? anyhow i learnt how to deal with and it made me stronger.

posted by Old dark Navy's
I'll get emotive again for the sake of it .... do you try and stop rapists or do you just accept it as part of life and tell prospective victims not to put themselves in a position to get r*ped?

ridiculous comparison. the mental and physical suffering caused by rape is a thousand times worse than hearing something said about yourself that is not nice.

posted by Old Dark Navy's
How do I get inside the head of a footballer or family member that is distressed by angry responses from posters? Bit hard from here. I do not understand your point here.

its not your job to get inside their head. If Ackland is truely suffering due to him being called 'HAckland' then it is his responsibility to get help.

posted by Old Dark Navy's
You actually think threads saying '@#$% of you @#&%ing loser, you disgust me' and the like are the right of every poster. You don't even seem to think it affects the quality of the board.[/QUOTE]

thats correct b/c i choose to ignore the stuff i don't like. I don't really get alot out of people saying @#$% but at least they get it out their system. better they vent on an internet forum than in some other ways.

posted by Old Dark Navy's
We have had this freedom of speech discussion before and you know it only exists on BF if those in control let it exist. There is no divine right. For mine, I see nothing wrong with some quality control.[/QUOTE]

a little bit sure, but as i have said before once u start censorign where does it end? Now u are asking the question should we start censoring further. You see my point?

posted by Old Dark Navy's
Well, that truly was a wild assumption filled piece of waffle. I said 'on the surface', meaning my first concern is our own players and the thought that we could hurt our own in such a way. As a Carlton supporter, member, sponsor, and moderator, I make no apologies for that .... ON THE SURFACE. That in no way suggest I am happy for anyone else to be abused. You need to ask questions if you are unsure rather than assume you know my intention. This is what has got you into trouble in the past, a tendency to go off on your own tangent.

No the point i was making is if u want to ban posts that are insulting towards players then u should apply it to anyone who is called a #$%^ whether they be an umpire, a journalist, another poster etc. I also argued that your comments that a player would be more hurt b/c the criticism comes from someone that is meant to be supporting them was rubbish and i explained why i felt that was rubbish. There was no waffle about it but don't u think in the interests of not hurting people that u could have said that a bit more nicely?

posted by ODN
Personally, I think the FLOG awards are stupid. Then again, I don't post on Bay 13, the awards were the innovation of the mods there and the posters that frequent there seem to do so because they enjoy the cut and thrust. Nice of you to again assume something about what I will come back with. You really are cynical and premature sometimes nutcase. The civility seems to disappear quickly from your posts every time you find a debate.[/QUOTE]

oh for crying out loud. no wonder u are taking this stance, u seem to be easily offended.

You do realise that censoring is either deleting posts or editing some language don't you? It doesn't actually hurt the person posting it. I never said I was going to infract or ban anyone. I still encourage venting too.

if i remember correctly u asked do we have a social responsibility to edit or delete such posts. I am arguing no and it is not the right way to respond

Once again nutcase, it is about comprehension. Patrick Smith and other journos actively go on the attack against others. It is not just an opinion, sometimes it is a malicious agenda. How else do you explain the continued campaign against Pratt referring to the Price Fixer and we supporters as sycophants?

i don't know..maybe he is passionate about people found guilty of collusion being able to hold the presidency of an AFL club? and as I have said before think he has a good point. Leaving aside whether he deserves it or not, isn't one of the arguments here how loved ones feel to see other loved ones abused or ridiculed? What if Smith's wife or mother read this forum and saw him being called 'fatpatrick'? u see to me u seem to be picking and choosing and their is no consistency. so u seem to be saying that its ok to be derogatory if the person has brought it upon themselves. but some would argue that Ackland deserves everything he gets b/c he took a big pay check and has given the club nothing back.

 

[nutcase888]

This is the funniest thing I've ever read on this site.

Well.

Maybe not, but it's up there. Are you drunk or just taking the piss here?

i'm not sure why u feel that was funny Thrawn. I definetly was not taking the piss. i thinkk a 13 year old that is portrayed as a FLOG all over Big Footy would bemore damaging to their psyche than say Ackland being called 'Hackland'. I would like to know what u think is wrong with that logic?

 

[KarmaGeddon]

[

i don't know..maybe he is passionate about people found guilty of collusion being able to hold the presidency of an AFL club? and as I have said before think he has a good point. Leaving aside whether he deserves it or not, isn't one of the arguments here how loved ones feel to see other loved ones abused or ridiculed? What if Smith's wife or mother read this forum and saw him being called 'fatpatrick'? u see to me u seem to be picking and choosing and their is no consistency. so u seem to be saying that its ok to be derogatory if the person has brought it upon themselves. but some would argue that Ackland deserves everything he gets b/c he took a big pay check and has given the club nothing back.

For one that is all for free speech you seem to be quite biased about VISY having the liberty to discuss pricing with competitors!

It's apparent that you believe that Socialistic governing is ok on an economic level but not on a communicative/free speech level?

 

[Thrawn]

i'm not sure why u feel that was funny Thrawn. I definetly was not taking the piss. i thinkk a 13 year old that is portrayed as a FLOG all over Big Footy would bemore damaging to their psyche than say Ackland being called 'Hackland'. I would like to know what u think is wrong with that logic?

You do realise that most people who are known as "flogs" over there are serial attention seekers with the intent to shit-stir and rile up opposition supporters? A 13 year old who posts drivel at will just to get a reaction would be smart enough to know that such a reaction would be in a negative light. In other words, they don't care because they are hiding behind an alias. Behind a keyboard, knowing full well that they are anonymous.

What I actually found funny was that you implied this may scar them for the rest of their lives. There's the logic I find... well, illogical. Tell me, how can a teenager be scarred for life through "keyboard abuse", of their alias no less, when their full intention was to create such controversy in the first place?

 

[nutcase888]

You do realise that most people who are known as "flogs" over there are serial attention seekers with the intent to shit-stir and rile up opposition supporters? A 13 year old who posts drivel at will just to get a reaction would be smart enough to know that such a reaction would be in a negative light. In other words, they don't care because they are hiding behind an alias. Behind a keyboard, knowing full well that they are anonymous.

What I actually found funny was that you implied this may scar them for the rest of their lives. There's the logic I find... well, illogical. Tell me, how can a teenager be scarred for life through "keyboard abuse", of their alias no less, when their full intention was to create such controversy in the first place?

yes but the term FLOG in itself which is defined as the opposite to a potent mind is very insulting. It's not just about getting back at posters that shit stir, the term FLOG implies deficits in mental capacities, not clever or cutting etc. DO u think that they are basically labeled as idiots has no impact on them? I'm sure they put on a brave face but i bet u deep down it hurts them. At least more than it hurts Ackland being called 'Hackland'

BTW i am not actually saying i think the FLOG awards should be banned. I am just giving another example of how language and speech can be hurtful to people and that we shouldn't just be focusing on footballers if we want to go down the path of protectign people from insults, vitriol or any other term u want to use.

 

[blue07]

and jordan russel is player sponsored by talking carlton.... geeese ouch

 

[blue gunslinger]

Everything is relative.
Cranium and I often get stuck into EddieB over issues such as his unusual relationship with goldfish.
We are grown men and he is but a young man and thus it may be considered bullying
But if we ever did anything that really dented EddieB we would be the first to realise we had crossed a line. EddieB has shown he has an old head on young shoulders, thick skin and can give as good as he takes.
It is about context and self discipline.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

As i said earlier, there is a diffrence between venting on an internet forum and bullying

Yes but you went on to dismiss those driven to murder/suicide through bullying, suggesting they should have got help rather than have the bullying addressed.

I went to a very rough public school ODN and I have suffered bullying. so now it is u that are doing the assuming? anyhow i learnt how to deal with and it made me stronger.

I'm not assuming anything. Just because you went through something, doesn't mean you are in the place of those that went through something else. You seem to think that every reaction to bullying is roughly the same and easily fixable through help. Part of my job involves Workplace Bullying and I assure you we don't tell the victim to 'go get help'. We also ensure the employer has systems in place to adequately control bullying behaviour. Every victim is different and for some it is life changing.

For those that come out the other side stronger ... fantastic!! For some, it doesn't work that way. This notion that bullying is part of life and everyone should deal with it is ridiculous. It is basically a green light to every bully that they are not responsible for their own behaviour.

ridiculous comparison. the mental and physical suffering caused by rape is a thousand times worse than hearing something said about yourself that is not nice.

As if I was comparing the severity of it. Honestly. The point remains though, you have a perpetrator and you have a victim. Based on severity, in one situation you would want the perpetrator to alter their behaviour, in the other situation you deem it minor and want the victim to harden the ____ up. It's a double standard based on your own sense of victim impact. A position that is possible to understand unless you are that victim.

We have what you call a reasonable person test to determine if alleged bullying is repetitive and would be considered humiliating or injurious. This weeds out situations where a worker just doesn't like being told what to do by a boss in what is a reasonable management decision. We recognise that some victims are not really victims but believe that they are so it isn't all one way traffic.

its not your job to get inside their head. If Ackland is truely suffering due to him being called 'HAckland' then it is his responsibility to get help.

Hackland is a pretty tame albeit juvenile example but in some of the worse examples, you again want to protect the right of some drunken internet hero to say whatever he wants and exercise zero self control, while telling the person directly affected by it that they should get help. Nice.

thats correct b/c i choose to ignore the stuff i don't like. I don't really get alot out of people saying @#$% but at least they get it out their system. better they vent on an internet forum than in some other ways.

Okay, so this is about your personal preference. You don't care about the stuff you read so nobody else should care either. Happy to accept your personal opinion on it, but find it impossible to transfer that opinion across to an argument about whether others should or not.

a little bit sure, but as i have said before once u start censorign where does it end? Now u are asking the question should we start censoring further. You see my point?

Where does it end? Well naturally, it ends with the BigFooty military police kicking down your door and putting thumb tacks under your fingernails. It's the internet, it doesn't have too many places to go, and better still, nobody is held here against their will to put up with oppressive censorship. You are free to go wherever you want, whenever you want. You seem to think that zero censorship is the way to go lest it leads to more censorship. You have no way of knowing what it leads to or if it leads anywhere beyond that point.

No the point i was making is if u want to ban posts that are insulting towards players then u should apply it to anyone who is called a #$%^ whether they be an umpire, a journalist, another poster etc. I also argued that your comments that a player would be more hurt b/c the criticism comes from someone that is meant to be supporting them was rubbish and i explained why i felt that was rubbish. There was no waffle about it but don't u think in the interests of not hurting people that u could have said that a bit more nicely?

You have indicated you are not bothered by what you read so I was forearmed with that information. I am quite capable of addressing my audience. Some posters here love the cut and thrust and are happy to be on the end of a sharp jibe or two and happy to give it back. They know their audience too. Others I wouldn't dare address in such a way as they have not indicated that their sense of humour is in tune with mine.

Besides you are missing the point, waffle is hardly over the top criticism. Akin to telling a footballer he didn't put in hard enough. I am encouraging of constructive criticism towards the players.

I have a developed sense of justice. If a journo attacks our club and supporters, tries to harm it in some way, they have willingly fired an opening salvo. If Cain Ackland had come out and said that Carlton supporters are a bunch of ignorant meatheads, I'd be less likely to want to protect players of his ilk. People seem to think that because his football is not of an AFL standard, that this is a person affront to them. It's not, he never attacked them, he never set out to personally offend them.

oh for crying out loud. no wonder u are taking this stance, u seem to be easily offended.

Not offended. Just letting you know that I know.

if i remember correctly u asked do we have a social responsibility to edit or delete such posts. I am arguing no and it is not the right way to respond

Correct. For my part I disagree in part and find your right way to respond, very simplistic and dismissive.

i don't know..maybe he is passionate about people found guilty of collusion being able to hold the presidency of an AFL club? and as I have said before think he has a good point. Leaving aside whether he deserves it or not, isn't one of the arguments here how loved ones feel to see other loved ones abused or ridiculed? What if Smith's wife or mother read this forum and saw him being called 'fatpatrick'? u see to me u seem to be picking and choosing and their is no consistency. so u seem to be saying that its ok to be derogatory if the person has brought it upon themselves. but some would argue that Ackland deserves everything he gets b/c he took a big pay check and has given the club nothing back.

I do hold a view that some people bring things on themselves. It is only the degree of the response that would concern me. If Smith actively tries to harm and discredit the club via his mass media connections, then I have no issue with others trying to actively discredit him and his chosen profession. Let he who casts the first stone be without sin. He is fair game. If people start throwing bricks through his window, bringing his family into it or threatening actual physical violence in public places, that is going overboard.

The difference between Ackland and Smith is that Ackland hasn't made a decision to rip off the club or members or tank his football career. He simply doesn't seem to be good enough to compete consistently. The club made the decision to recruit him, he wasn't forced on to them. Nobody makes the decision to write a Smith article, but himself.

 

[nutcase888]

posted by OlDarkNavy's
Yes but you went on to dismiss those driven to murder/suicide through bullying, suggesting they should have got help rather than have the bullying addressed.

I did????? If i did i apologise b/c that is not right. But the point i am arguing is that there is bullying and then there is bullying. Some of the things that go on in the schoolyard are horrendous ( i have seen it) and i can understand how someone would be affected by it. What i am arguing is that the term 'cyber bullying' is exagerrating what goes on at Big Footy. Being called 'Hackland" is a juvenile insult that should not register any impact on a healthy mind. If the mind is not healthy then the individual should logically seek help. As i said earlier if someone threatens Ackland by knee capping him then i could see how this would be upsetting him and by all means take action. Sure we are all diffrent and there are some people who have really bad anxiety conditions that could be affected by any negativity. But these people are in a minority and i don't see why we should focus on stopping everything in the world that is negative for the benfit of these people. These people should be getting treatment.

posted by OldDarkNAvy's
I'm not assuming anything. Just because you went through something, doesn't mean you are in the place of those that went through something else. You seem to think that every reaction to bullying is roughly the same and easily fixable through help. Part of my job involves Workplace Bullying and I assure you we don't tell the victim to 'go get help'. We also ensure the employer has systems in place to adequately control bullying behaviour. Every victim is different and for some it is life changing.

As i have just said i do not support bullying but it comes down to what is bullying. I work for the government and there is a strong emphasis on protecting people from bullying in my workplace also. But like everything in government it goes completely over the top. I have seen people that have made light hearted jokes about people get brought up on bullying charges. People are afraid to joke around and just be normal, it is very sad.

For those that come out the other side stronger ... fantastic!! For some, it doesn't work that way. This notion that bullying is part of life and everyone should deal with it is ridiculous. It is basically a green light to every bully that they are not responsible for their own behaviour.

I have no argument with this. But what i am saying is that venting on Big footy does not constitute bullying. Ackland should no it is not serious when someone vent's and calls him Hackland. This is alot diffrent to gangs of people following around some poor kid in the schoolyard b/c they don't fit it and endlessy calling them names to their face, spitting on them , putting them in headlocks etc. That is real bullying and harrasment and it should not be allowed to happen. Ackland being called Hackland is nothing.

posted by OldDarkNavy's
As if I was comparing the severity of it. Honestly. The point remains though, you have a perpetrator and you have a victim. Based on severity, in one situation you would want the perpetrator to alter their behaviour, in the other situation you deem it minor and want the victim to harden the ____ up. It's a double standard based on your own sense of victim impact. A position that is possible to understand unless you are that victim.

It's not a double standard. Laws are based upon the severity of impact on a person. Rape normally involves a long prison sentence b/c it ____s people up for life. Personal insults do not even attract a fine b/c it barely registers an impact on people. As someone said earlier it is a mosquito bite. Anyone would suffer a 100 times more if they were r*ped then what they would if they were told they were useless.

We have what you call a reasonable person test to determine if alleged bullying is repetitive and would be considered humiliating or injurious. This weeds out situations where a worker just doesn't like being told what to do by a boss in what is a reasonable management decision. We recognise that some victims are not really victims but believe that they are so it isn't all one way traffic.

I am fine with this, I believe that happens alot also

posted by Old DarkNavy's
Hackland is a pretty tame albeit juvenile example but in some of the worse examples, you again want to protect the right of some drunken internet hero to say whatever he wants and exercise zero self control, while telling the person directly affected by it that they should get help. Nice.

I think you are manipulating my words here. As I have already said in my reply i believe that somebody should get help if they are hurt in a way that is disproportiate to the majority of the population. This evidence of a damaged mind and i think they should get help. As I have also said it depends on what the drunken internet hero says whether it is just venting or goes beyond that to threatening behaviour.

Where does it end? Well naturally, it ends with the BigFooty military police kicking down your door and putting thumb tacks under your fingernails. It's the internet, it doesn't have too many places to go, and better still, nobody is held here against their will to put up with oppressive censorship. You are free to go wherever you want, whenever you want. You seem to think that zero censorship is the way to go lest it leads to more censorship. You have no way of knowing what it leads to or if it leads anywhere beyond that point.

I have never said zero censorship, i believe there will always be a need for some but it should be kept to a minimum. History shows that things start of small and then get bigger and bigger.

posted by OldDarkNavy's
You have indicated you are not bothered by what you read so I was forearmed with that information. I am quite capable of addressing my audience. Some posters here love the cut and thrust and are happy to be on the end of a sharp jibe or two and happy to give it back. They know their audience too. Others I wouldn't dare address in such a way as they have not indicated that their sense of humour is in tune with mine.

don't get your point

I have a developed sense of justice. If a journo attacks our club and supporters, tries to harm it in some way, they have willingly fired an opening salvo. If Cain Ackland had come out and said that Carlton supporters are a bunch of ignorant meatheads, I'd be less likely to want to protect players of his ilk. People seem to think that because his football is not of an AFL standard, that this is a person affront to them. It's not, he never attacked them, he never set out to personally offend them.

This the part of your argument I find the most dissapointing and frustrating. How do u know what Smith's motivation was for writing the articles about Pratt? From his point of view he may have just felt that it was wrong that Pratt continue and that he should advocate for him to step down. You don't know that he set out with the intention to harm the club, u just assume it. Smith may have felt what he is doing was right. But just b/c he has in your view brought it upon himself u seem to think it is ok for him to be abused and ridiculed. This is essentially the eye for an eye principle. But the reality is that if Ackland can be hurt for being called "Hackland' then Smith can be hurt for being called 'Fatpatrick' And also u did not address my point that how would Smith's loved ones feel about him being denigrated in a public forum? Isn't that one of the key issues here?Also as far as your concerned its not hard for people to put forth their views respectively so why can't u advocate for posters to be respectful to all people including journos, footballers, other coaches, their fellow posters, umpires etc?

I do hold a view that some people bring things on themselves. It is only the degree of the response that would concern me. If Smith actively tries to harm and discredit the club via his mass media connections, then I have no issue with others trying to actively discredit him and his chosen profession. Let he who casts the first stone be without sin. He is fair game. If people start throwing bricks through his window, bringing his family into it or threatening actual physical violence in public places, that is going overboard.
The difference between Ackland and Smith is that Ackland hasn't made a decision to rip off the club or members or tank his football career. He simply doesn't seem to be good enough to compete consistently. The club made the decision to recruit him, he wasn't forced on to them. Nobody makes the decision to write a Smith article, but himself.

But once again this is just your viewpoint. If you hold a view that personal abuse is justified b/c someone brought it upon themselves then u are just going to regulate according to your values and beliefs. As i said u seem to have this idea that Smith set out to hurt the club but how do u really know this? Also one could argue the case for Ackland that u have just done (Which i actually agree with BTW). but somebody may have the view that he has taken money from the club, hasn't worked hard and in essence ripped the club off, henceforth their abuse is justified.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

This the part of your argument I find the most dissapointing and frustrating. How do u know what Smith's motivation was for writing the articles about Pratt? From his point of view he may have just felt that it was wrong that Pratt continue and that he should advocate for him to step down. You don't know that he set out with the intention to harm the club, u just assume it. Smith may have felt what he is doing was right. But just b/c he has in your view brought it upon himself u seem to think it is ok for him to be abused and ridiculed.

Again the reasonable person test. Journalists can write an article to inspire debate. When they start writing essentially the same article over and over to get people to act, and when they start name calling i.e price fixer, sycophants, then they are making it personal. Unlike Ackland, Smith deliberately set out to offend a group of people. Do you think that he didn't know that calling Carlton supporters sycophants (more than once by the way) was going to upset them? I hope you are not that naive. Journos recognise their target audience. Smith would know that calling Carlton supporters names would bring rousing cheers from the supporters of 15 other clubs, that it would sell papers. He didn't use the term lightly. He expected feedback and got it. There is not one doubt in my mind on this point.

This is essentially the eye for an eye principle. But the reality is that if Ackland can be hurt for being called "Hackland' then Smith can be hurt for being called 'Fatpatrick' And also u did not address my point that how would Smith's loved ones feel about him being denigrated in a public forum? Isn't that one of the key issues here?Also as far as your concerned its not hard for people to put forth their views respectively so why can't u advocate for posters to be respectful to all people including journos, footballers, other coaches, their fellow posters, umpires etc?

The difference here is the injury factor. A footballer's career can be damaged when supporters call for their head as the club are often looking for scapegoat's to appease the masses when performances are down. A journalist gets a Walkley award and a payrise when he creates controversy that sells newspapers. Journos set out to be controversial and their families know it.

But once again this is just your viewpoint. If you hold a view that personal abuse is justified b/c someone brought it upon themselves then u are just going to regulate according to your values and beliefs.

Of course I am but that is why I am seeking debate, to exhaust all arguments. I was selected as a moderator for my ability to weigh things up and be rational when all is said and done. It may be argued that I don't have a 100% success rate in that regard, I don't know, but I am here to make exactly these decisions. Inspire debate, moderate discussion where warranted. The last thing we are appointed to do is sit back on our hands and let everything slip through to the keeper.

 

[Thrawn]

yes but the term FLOG in itself which is defined as the opposite to a potent mind is very insulting.

Everyone who is a regular on Bay13 are very aware of the rules and what is expected and posted on there. That a handful of people shrug their shoulders and act like idiots is their fault alone. It is also explicitly stated that Bay13 allows for a little more leeway, and people with thin skin are advised not to take it so seriously.

DO u think that they are basically labeled as idiots has no impact on them?

Yes, I do. With the exception of your typical "no, you're the idiot" retorts. Get some perspective - you're on an internet message board, hiding behind an alias. No one here knows you personally. If somebody calls a person a flog because he's acting like a bloomin' idiot, more power to them. We shouldn't shelter people who purposely go out of their way to act stupid for the sake of it, to belittle people because they feel like it.

I'm sure they put on a brave face but i bet u deep down it hurts them.

Why?

If I get called an idiot on a message board, I shrug it off because I am smart enough to realise that they only know me as an anonymous poster, and not me personally. In addition, have you seen any complaints from the people who get called "flogs" or are awarded the term? Just one? Where is the massive outcry if it is that bad for their psyche?

Good grief.

 

[nutcase888]

[

quote=The Old Dark Navy's;11108567]Again the reasonable person test. Journalists can write an article to inspire debate. When they start writing essentially the same article over and over to get people to act, and when they start name calling i.e price fixer, sycophants, then they are making it personal. Unlike Ackland, Smith deliberately set out to offend a group of people. Do you think that he didn't know that calling Carlton supporters sycophants (more than once by the way) was going to upset them? I hope you are not that naive. Journos recognise their target audience. Smith would know that calling Carlton supporters names would bring rousing cheers from the supporters of 15 other clubs, that it would sell papers. He didn't use the term lightly. He expected feedback and got it. There is not one doubt in my mind on this point.

LOL i don't even know what a sycophant is and i just asked two colleagues and they don't know either.

A footballer's career can be damaged when supporters call for their head as the club are often looking for scapegoat's to appease the masses when performances are down.

sounds alot like the postion poor old Dennis was in last year. If a similar situation was to arise again would u be looking to protect him also? I think your argument about players feeling anxiety due to bloggers is weak. In one sense its life, we all feel anxious about our employment. I could argue that this behaviour from smith that u think is damaging to the club could be motivated to get people to read his colums and by the Age. No doubt b/c if he does not write somethign that is going to draw alot of attention he cold lose his job or get a demotion. maybe he has to do this sort of thing to survive? So does that give people the right to call him 'Fatpatrick'

A journalist gets a Walkley award and a payrise when he creates controversy that sells newspapers. Journos set out to be controversial and their families know it.

Well given u say that personal abuse effects people or some people it is quite likely that Smith's loved ones still feel pain and hurt if they read him being sledged like this. Once agian u seem to be justifying abuse or implying it is less serious if someone brings it upon themselves. In a court of law if u assault someone it is assault whether they egged u on or not. It's the same principle.

Of course I am but that is why I am seeking debate, to exhaust all arguments. I was selected as a moderator for my ability to weigh things up and be rational when all is said and done. It may be argued that I don't have a 100% success rate in that regard, I don't know, but I am here to make exactly these decisions. Inspire debate, moderate discussion where warranted. The last thing we are appointed to do is sit back on our hands and let everything slip through to the keeper.

Thats fine, i hope u will conclude though that the answer is not more censorship.

 

[nutcase888]

posted by Thrawn
Why?

If I get called an idiot on a message board, I shrug it off because I am smart enough to realise that they only know me as an anonymous poster, and not me personally. In addition, have you seen any complaints from the people who get called "flogs" or are awarded the term? Just one? Where is the massive outcry if it is that bad for their psyche?

Good grief

agreed...but my argument was that there should be consitency in editing personal insults etc. The FLOG awards as i understand them are not about belittling people who come along just to cause trouble. They are picking on people who's responses are not funny or lack that cutting edge. It implies diminished mental capacity.

Now as u say people that attend Bay 13 no what its about and should know what to expect. I would argue that players that enter into the AFL know what its about and know what they are getting themsleves into. Most have been to the football as a kid and i'm sure would understand the passion of the supporters and how they can behave. What is the diffrence between these two principles? This is what the intial argument was about, why should AFL players be awarded special protection through censorship that is not availaible to anyone else in the community?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

LOL i don't even know what a sycophant is and i just asked two colleagues and they don't know either.

n. a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.
n. A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.

I'm not thrilled about that and I think there is no doubt that Smith could reasonably expect abuse back in regards to it.

sounds alot like the postion poor old Dennis was in last year. If a similar situation was to arise again would u be looking to protect him also?

Protect him from criticism, no. From puerile abuse, most certainly. I think you are having problems separating the issues here. It seems to go from over the top angry abuse to nobody saying anything critical about someone. I am only looking to up the standard and concentrate of specific more constructive criticism as a preference.

I think your argument about players feeling anxiety due to bloggers is weak. In one sense its life, we all feel anxious about our employment. I could argue that this behaviour from smith that u think is damaging to the club could be motivated to get people to read his colums and by the Age. No doubt b/c if he does not write somethign that is going to draw alot of attention he cold lose his job or get a demotion. maybe he has to do this sort of thing to survive? So does that give people the right to call him 'Fatpatrick'

If your job is to abuse people, then you can reasonably expect you will be abused. You are hung up on this. Ackland willingly plays a sport with an objective to play well and help win games of football. Smith willingly writes for a newspaper with an objective to create controversy and boost circulation through that controversy.

Now Kyle Sandilands is another good example. He is crass and rude and back stabbing to many people. By your logic, that is his job not his intention, so we should hold him accountable for the things he says.

Well given u say that personal abuse effects people or some people it is quite likely that Smith's loved ones still feel pain and hurt if they read him being sledged like this. Once agian u seem to be justifying abuse or implying it is less serious if someone brings it upon themselves. In a court of law if u assault someone it is assault whether they egged u on or not. It's the same principle.

Yes it is assault. However, if someone assaults you and you defend yourself, you will find the court will hold differing views to if you just walked up and slugged an innocent bystander.

Thats fine, i hope u will conclude though that the answer is not more censorship.

How else do you suggest we raise the standard of the board and avoid swear filter evasions, needless name calling and unconstructive rants?

 

[blues4flag]

What's the record for the highest word to ratio? Reckon this thread will give it a fair crack.


*watches ratio drop by few hundred words*

 

[Kramer1]

Now Kyle Sandilands is another good example.

I think we can all agree that this thread has plunged to new depths. I started the thread as a well meaning gesture about adopting a certain level of respect for our players. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine it would go this far...anytime you are citing Kyle Sandilands, regardless of context, its probably time to stop and have a deep breath.

Unless of course you are talking about anlther Kyle Sandilands...maybe Aaron's as yet undiscovered cousin?

 

[BlueGibbs2011]

I think we can all agree that this thread has plunged to new depths. I started the thread as a well meaning gesture about adopting a certain level of respect for our players. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine it would go this far...anytime you are citing Kyle Sandilands, regardless of context, its probably time to stop and have a deep breath.

I know what you're saying Kramer1, i put the popcorn down long ago and ran out screaming

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I think we can all agree that this thread has plunged to new depths. I started the thread as a well meaning gesture about adopting a certain level of respect for our players. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine it would go this far...anytime you are citing Kyle Sandilands, regardless of context, its probably time to stop and have a deep breath.

Unless of course you are talking about anlther Kyle Sandilands...maybe Aaron's as yet undiscovered cousin?

Nah, the point is pretty valid IMO. Some people make a living out of abusing others and probably shouldn't be afforded the same protection that nutcase was expousing.

 

[Korn]

Im only a relative newbie, but we seem to have one of the more mature boards, with lot's of balanced opinion in amongst all the rubbish. Im all for banter, critical appraisal, and calling a spade a bloody shovel, but a bit of respect has to come into at times, even for the Russel's and Acklands of the world. You don't have to like them...you just don't have to personally insult them.

We don't insult them personally, we only judge his football ability.
I don't like to see this forum becoming like North Korea under Kim Jong-il's regime, ie, you are only allowed to say good things about the club.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

We don't insult them personally, we only judge his football ability.
I don't like to see this forum becoming like North Korea under Kim Jong-il's regime, ie, you are only allowed to say good things about the club.

I am not sure why this has to be explained over and over and people are still missing it and taking it to extremes.

We are not talking about not being able to be critical. If someone wants to say that a player is not up to it, that they turn the ball over too much, that their skills are terrible etc etc, go for it.

Posts that say that one of our players is a $%&@ing ******, a disgrace to the jumper, a ________, etc etc .... well how is that judging football ability? Sometimes we just go over the top and perhaps the quality of posts could be considered a bit when people are angry. At any rate, in North Korea, you would be murdered for stepping outside the square. On BigFooty, in this context, a moderator might edit your post.

 

[nutcase888]

Posts that say that one of our players is a $%&@ing ******, a disgrace to the jumper, a ________, etc etc .... well how is that judging football ability? Sometimes we just go over the top and perhaps the quality of posts could be considered a bit when people are angry. At any rate, in North Korea, you would be murdered for stepping outside the square. On BigFooty, in this context, a moderator might edit your post.

u know although i am upset by the sort of things ppl say at the same time someone saying 'Ackland u &$%@' that is pure emotion. i know its not nice but could imagine what the board would be like if u could no longer do that. It would be weird, instead of Ackland u &$&#$ it would be ACkland 'dam it i'm sorry but u are just not of the required standard' or sth similar like that. It's not normal. If a poster is saying Acklnad u ****** every post then sure take action. But if someone says in the heat of the moment like during a game or straight after loss i really feel that its not that big a deal and players should just rise above it. as has laready been said i'm sure they get alot worse at the ground anyway. why is the spotlight on Big Footy???

 

[nutcase888]

I am not sure why this has to be explained over and over and people are still missing it and taking it to extremes.

We are not talking about not being able to be critical. If someone wants to say that a player is not up to it, that they turn the ball over too much, that their skills are terrible etc etc, go for it.

Posts that say that one of our players is a $%&@ing ******, a disgrace to the jumper, a ________, etc etc .... well how is that judging football ability? Sometimes we just go over the top and perhaps the quality of posts could be considered a bit when people are angry. At any rate, in North Korea, you would be murdered for stepping outside the square. On BigFooty, in this context, a moderator might edit your post.

no its not as bad as North Korea but this is what people naturally think of when these measures are proposed. I was telling a work colleague about this debate i was having today and his first response was that if u ban everything u will end up like China. Of course i explained to him that u are not proposing to take away the right to be critical but just to do it respectfully. He still thought it was an over the top reaction and said its the first step to becoming like China where the governemnt just controls everything that is said. You mods are the government of Big Footy and you are proposing further regulation of expression. If this was the australian government planning this i would be on the streets protesting tonight.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

no its not as bad as North Korea but this is what people naturally think of when these measures are proposed. I was telling a work colleague about this debate i was having today and his first response was that if u ban everything u will end up like China. Of course i explained to him that u are not proposing to take away the right to be critical but just to do it respectfully. He still thought it was an over the top reaction and said its the first step to becoming like China where the governemnt just controls everything that is said. You mods are the government of Big Footy and you are proposing further regulation of expression. If this was the australian government planning this i would be on the streets protesting tonight.

And yet again, nobody is controlling everything that is said. What a hysterical overreaction.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

u know although i am upset by the sort of things ppl say at the same time someone saying 'Ackland u &$%@' that is pure emotion. i know its not nice but could imagine what the board would be like if u could no longer do that. It would be weird, instead of Ackland u &$&#$ it would be ACkland 'dam it i'm sorry but u are just not of the required standard' or sth similar like that. It's not normal. If a poster is saying Acklnad u ****** every post then sure take action. But if someone says in the heat of the moment like during a game or straight after loss i really feel that its not that big a deal and players should just rise above it. as has laready been said i'm sure they get alot worse at the ground anyway. why is the spotlight on Big Footy???

Man, why is this so hard for you. You are now saying it is okay to remove persistent abusive posting but to let it go during the heat of a game or immediately after. Does anybody actually go off on an abusive tangent in the heat of the moment and then revisit the thread later on to admire their handiwork?

Will they even care that their post got edited as long as they got to vent in the first place? Again and I can NOT stress this enough, not once have I said we will infract or ban anyone for reacting in the heat of the moment. It's an emotional game. When you say these things in the pub after the game, it is gone the moment you say it. It leaves no lasting impression. Some of the more spite filled posts however ... why would you leave them hanging like a testiment to anger management issues?

I'm starting to think you have no idea how this would work and are merely protesting the idea of anything being altered or removed because you have these pronounced freedom of speech issues. Viva le revolution!!!!