We understand the frustration many are feeling, and the overwhelming, relentless sentiment surrounding the club at the moment.
However, we are not going to tolerate abuse or harassment directed at others simply because they may hold a different opinion. This also extends to individuals within the club itself and players.
We all expect standards from our club and players. We also expect standards on this forum.
For clarity's sake, the majority of posters have not crossed the line.
Moving forward, we will begin shutting down blogs, archiving threads, or removing content where necessary, and expect people to de-escalate in order to avoid further moderation action.
Replies
Wtf, which blog was this in?
NOS, Muttman and I have been members of this forum for the better part of 20 years.
I completely respect him and often compliment his considered judgment.
On one occasion, out of frustration, I reacted to his regime of agendered negative commentary that lays the blame at the feet of our admin and MoN for our current footy results. He may be absolutely right, but he may also be wrong and is simply finding the simplest punching bag to vent his frustrations.
I was mad when James Hooper was pissing all over our Club in the media and nothing was being said in rebuttal. Then, the bald cunt got drunk and drove his car (and brain) into a tree. With a bit of luck it knocked some sense into him. When Lomax and the NRL tried to piss all over us, this admin - and MoN - stood up and said, "No more!" For that I'm grateful. That's why I continue to reserve judgment over the current admin.
To suggest my expression of my opinion on Muttman's views on the Club and admin is an example of a "personal attack", and to the extent that moderation is 'one-sided', is completely mischievous. The amount of shit folks like me had to put up with, pretty much since COVID when all the crazies on the forum went mad, is extraordinary and I've managed to keep the sand out of my vagina.
NOS, before we get onto all the questions and claims you've raised in relation to "moderation" please let's start with your claims of Daz's "very personal attacks" on Muttman.
You may be completly correct, but please provide evidence supporting this claim.
NOS, I received a message from HOE, noting you had made this accusation I see above. HOE was clearly suggesting I should address it and if I had made a "very personal attack" upon Muttman (as accused) then I would be held to account.
I replied that I had little idea what was being referred to, as the only exchange I could recall with Muttman was the same I had with others around my claim that we could all agree poor onfield performance was frustrating and disappointing, but that I thought scapegoating wasn't a productive way to critique poor performance because it was too often guilty of cherry picking and confusing responsibility and accountability. But why rely on memory when we can just check?
I accessed my personal page and traced back to April 27-28 in a blog titled "Thirteen Minutes", about p.6. There I see an exchange with Muttman. I have pasted in the most germane remarks. We are debating cherry picking and scapegoating. Muttman does claim my critique (of scapegoating and cherry picking) is based on an inference of an agenda on his part. Muttman then accuses me of maybe also having an agenda. In my reply I note I never made the claim of an agenda, and I cannot find myself making that claim. My reply reiterates that the conversation should stick to the arguments themselves (that is, not bother with agenda talk).
I see no personal attack on Muttman. I respectfully suggest you have made a mistake in believing I launched a personal attack on Muttman. If you believe I am misremembering, can I request you do as I did, and go back and check and verify?
Looking back over comments I see the same remark repeated (by myself). Cherry picking and scapegoating is a poor basis for productive critique. In the face of some - Randy being one I can note because you raise the issue of me objecting to remarks by Randy - there were personal attacks on me. To which I didn't run to mommy or performatively leave the site, instead I asked those people to divert from personal remarks about me to directly addressing the argument itself: that is, why is my anti-scapegoating wrong? I note in reviewing comments that there are a series of exchanges between, say, myself and Captain or myself and Chiefy and . . . myself and NOS (!) . . . that do just that (debate substantive arguments avoid personal remarks).
So, to sum up: I reject this accusation. I take personal remarks seriously. Especially because they normally come my way. If you think I fell foul of my own standard, please draw my attention to the remarks with receipts and I'll certainly give myself a ban if I've fallen foul of the code of conduct. I just don't think you're correct in this instance. I also note you're happy to claim Randy was pulled up for personal remarks toward me, but apparently my personal remarks toward Muttman went unchallenged. But I made no such remarks toward Muttman, and yet Randy made them toward me and you remained silent. What does that really say about this standard you think was broken?
Some receipts:
Daz, appreciate the response mate and you expressing your position.
I still would like to understand why NOS claims you made "very personal attacks" on Muttman.
You both definitely vigorously debated/argued (as above).
No doubt, there is a fine line. If you argue against "an idea" (is that an "attack"?), which people feel very attached to, it can be taken personally. That's quite normal.
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
of 7 Next