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
Hi NOS, I appreciate you retracting the claim. As noted, I take personal attacks seriously and would not have attacked Muttman or others in that way.
For clarity sake, I am unaware of blogs closed for anything to do with comments toward me. I have found the site to be excessively negative and have probably tuned out of it a bit because the negativity was overly repetitive. It was boring, in other words!
But I should be clear I'm happy to debate my anti-scapegoat point until the cows come home. It just has to be a debate: reasons, coherent relations between reasons, more factual than speculative. I made my point in those blogs but probably wasn't that dialed in to how discussion flowed because it got a bit too negative and repetitive.
As for moderation, I'll be honest and say I like the new tougher approach to conduct, in part because I was so often the target of very personal remarks. So I was shocked to see you claim I was now engaged in fhen! You've even been in the trenches with me as the insults flew at us! If some have left the site it's because, ultimately, they might have liked that style of discussion, where insult and trolling replace reasons. I was listening to a TCT podcast after Knights game where they lost it at super repetitive negative club critique, they complained it's flooded their site now. Maybe it's 1EE defectors, taking their schtick there?!
I'll be honest and say I have zero sympathy for posters who spent so long dragging discussion down and now the bar has been raised they're whining. I have no idea why Muttman left but we've had a big rump of the crowd that was happy to insult and pile in on others up and leave. No sympathy, none, zip. It's possible to disagree without trolling people personally. I personally don't feel I can get worked up about those who are leaving because trolling people personally has been mitigated and that might have altered what gets discussed. I mean I would go for more political talk but I respect if mods - who see more than I do - say too many just can't keep it civil.
NOS, before we get onto all the questions and claims you've raised, 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 sharing your experiences.
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.
Spot on, Bourbs. The ultimate solution to disliking external moderation is to self moderate. We would then have more scope in discussions because they would not costantly spill over into personal invective. I don't agree with the pining for the "lost members". In most cases what's really happening there is the majority of lost members were the causal motor of debates spilling over into personal invective, and so they're the cause of moderation that now cuts off discussion, not the victim of moderation. Not only do I have no sympathy for the lost members, I'm actively mad at them for frakking it up for the rest of us!
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
of 8 Next