Ladies and Gentlemen,
This site has never been the most endearing to the club or even parts of our own fanbase. A common piece of feedback I receive privately is that some find it too negative or drama-filled, which is why many choose to stay away. At times we clash hard and put each other down, the club, the players, and even Super, who pays for this site out of his own pocket. Some of this could understandably offend players’ families. In conversations I’ve had with people within the club’s hierarchy, the club takes a fairly open-minded view and accepts that it can’t control what others say or think. That’s a mature approach.
That said, I believe the majority of us are good eggs, mean well, even if some are rough around the edges and a small minority hold more extreme views. Over the past decade, I’ve met many wonderful people through this site, some of whom I now count as close friends and have learned a great deal from. You’re a big reason I’m still here and why I care about this community.
If you’re willing, I’d appreciate your thoughts on the direction the site should take. Ultimately, Super will decide, but it’s helpful to understand how people feel, here or privately, on:
- Current affairs and political blogs: Even if personally enjoy them, these often become the most feral and attract extremist views, especially in challenging times. They can flood the site and turn off many who simply want to talk footy, the one thing we all share. Life has enough dramas.
- Moving these blogs to The Cave: Making them members-only allows discussions without overwhelming those who’d want to avoid it. Could it be a win-win?
- Any other ideas for improving the site.
Please don’t comment on political, religious or current affairs issues in this blog. This is about improving the site, not saving the world from an apocalypse.
Replies
Pops & Bourbon, I just want to clarify Brett was not suspended for his beliefs, right-wing leanings, religion, views on blacks, Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians, intentions, women, or rudeness. He was suspended for conduct, especially:
• Persistent inciteful trolling (he continued despite warnings)
• Persistent implicit hate speech aimed at provoking others (again, continued is key)
• Persistent political weaponising and permanent political advertising using a flag tied to active conflicts that act as social and emotional triggers in the community
• Persistent refusal to self-correct despite being repeatedly asked to do so by moderators (Super)
All of the above are clear breaches of the Code of Conduct. If he stopped and self-corrected he would not have been suspended. Self-moderation is always preferred. It's a pity it panned out the way it did, as he was a valuable contributor with many good attributes, but that's life.
What makes it worse is the ongoing spread of false narratives that continue to poison the atmosphere. The fact that we’re still talking about this long after the suspension is evidence of that. It suggests some members don’t have a clear understanding of the COC, which is why I’m considering writing a blog to demystify it.
Moderators can’t continually explain why individuals are suspended. In some cases, the questions themselves are used to troll, provoke, and push a victimisation narrative, or to claim moderation is politically biased. Some simply don't seem to get it, at the moment.
Mark's point about the loss of "advertising" power in the Cave, is correct. Spot on. And a brilliant analogy. And it's particularly telling, as essentially persistent trolling/ hate speech/ permanent flag avatars is a excessive advertising forced down others' throats and disregards consequences and makes excuses for poor conduct often along with a victimization narrative.
Poor conduct cant hide behind “freedom of speech”.
Disagreement is allowed. Beliefs are allowed. Behaviour still matters.
I don't know ask Albo.
That's where all social media is headed including blog sites like this.
Every site member selects the topics or posters they'd like to see and only these blogs or contributors will show up in their thread.
This way they don't have to pull out the razor blades everytime they see negativity or opinions opposing there's or heaven forbid, a poster pointing out the 40 year drought.
How dare you mention the 40 year drought. Thats the most triggering topic on the whole site!
Exactly, Tankie & Perpetual, Thanks for talking footy, gentlemen. Commentary around "40 year droughts", we're "dopes" with "bottom of the barrel standards" — except for a small minority of geniuses with high standards — is triggering. Surprising. Shocking. Saucy. If only Super could get a dollar for every time we heard that, we could create one heck of a site. Beauuutiful as Con the Fruiterer used to say...
Well we all can't be apologists and excuse makers for the club now can we ? And we all can't have the same standards , but it's always better to push for high standards than low standards and it's always better to point out failure than defending it .
And if Super had a dollar for everytime he has been wrong and defended failure and garbage at the club he wouldn't have to drive a corolla.
😆😆😆
Frankie, Some hold overly positive views. Some overly negative. Some are balanced in between. Some are like tractors stuck in first gear that hasn't seen WD40 since the 90s playing the same old song.
😂😂
The 40 year drought would have ended years ago if Phil didn't post that infamous Dynasty blog, damn you Phil, damn you to hell.
-
25
-
26
-
27
-
28
-
29
of 29 Next