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.
Bourbon Man, I'll go even further than you. Way before Covid, because I've been on 1EE for decades, it became absolutely impossible to keep track of the very personal attacks on me. Now, apparently, because I have stated clearly that I don't think scapegoating is a productive critique, that's is a very personal attack? And to boot, mods are biased toward me by letting this claimed very personal attack slide?
You folks want personal attacks? Up until very recently when moderation cracked down on the tone of speech, my history on this site has been to put up with LOADS of freaking "very personal attacks". My profession: apparently both an elite and a parasite, and indoctrinating kids, and slurs on professional integrity. Also my relationship integrity: the amount of times a reply of "not sure that's factual" was met with "cuck". Unclear how that follows but whatever. One time there was even a whole thing about me driving a Toyota, which I've never owned, but apparently something about my sexuality wasn't man enough. Huh? Unclear how that identity speculation was relevant but there you go! Also unclear who's Toyota related. Anyway, talk of which car I drove and its relation to some posters deciding to speculate on sexuality was apparently an answer to "no climate change is not due to solar flares". What? Unclear how that follows. My teenage daughter even knows to tread on identity claims more respectfully but nah, it was fair game on 1EE! Most recently it was the old refrain about lefty Marxists actually want to kill everyone. Which seems a crazy jest until I'm also told I just can't be trusted as a person and deserve constant personal remarks because (see stuff about crazy lefty Marxists something or other).
So I think it's now a little but rich to all of a sudden discover that very personal attacks are actually bloody terrible and what's going on! Because I agree, very personal attacks are bad. So I'm just wondering why - IF I'm now accused of making them - they were not apparently worth defending me from for god damn about two decades?
Frak me, if it's one thing I do in fact try to indoctrinate into my students, it's that claims should display self-consistency! If very personal attacks are bad, guess what, that didn't start yesterday.
Couldn't agree more Daz.
Not wanting to make it sound political, but, this is what the "right wing" / "real Australians" / "non-politically correct" / "anti-woke" crowd carry on with. They shit can everyone they don't agree with and when they get push back, they're the biggest fucking snowflakes this side of Thredbo!
NOS, before we get onto all the questions and claims you've raised, one by one, 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 launched "very personal attacks" at Muttman.
Muttman and 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 very personally. That's quite normal.
HOE, it's possible for attacks on ideas to be attacks on people. It can be a fine line. But we can test the line.
The test is to ask if the premise of an attack relates to some aspect of the identity of a person making a claim, or to the substantive assumptions in a claim in question.
If someone suggests the line has been blurred, they must identify the premises in question and show how an identity claim and an assumption cannot be disentangled
On the topic of moderation, there's something I think needs to be absolutely spelled out.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't need moderation because we would all be responsbile enough to engage in robust debat, sometimes quite vigorous debate, possibly using profanity, but we'd all be just fine. That's not the world we live in.
The number of times I've seen folks copy and paste content from Code Sports (or content from other subscription services) onto this forum in complete breach of copyright; the number of times I've seen folks make comments that, if not rising to the standard of defamation, certainly could prompt a lawyer to issue a 'Concerns Notice'; the number of times there's been an ongoing regime of bullying of certain members (e.g. Tad) to the point they left the forum for periods of time (go look up Brodie's Law - it's a crime in Victoria that can land you in jail for up to 10 years); the number of times comments have been made that could lead to a prosecution of the webmaster on grounds that it published remarks that were discriminatory or hateful in contravention of legislation; the number of times folks posted blatant misinformation, particularly during COVID; the paucity of female contributors on this forum?
I hate moderation - and I would hate to be a moderator. I simply couldn't do it - and there's quite a few of us on here who have been members of this forum for many years - who have been entrusted with the responsibility and have ultimately handed it back. HOE not only moderates, but he takes its fucking seriously. He's mates with pretty much all of us and it's just a cunty thing to do to put him on blast for simply trying to save us from ourselves.
If we don't like moderation, let's not provide reasons that necessitate moderation.
In fairness, I've been guilty of poor conduct in the past. I'm now making a point of not doing that anymore.
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
of 7 Next