Replies

  • As much as I admire and like Fong sometimes his,'blog' topics can be a bit negative, argumentative and pointless in terms of the Eels Rugby League season at hand. I can understand why it would have been questioned by the moderators and it wouldnt have been deleted being disrespectful to Fong but more related to the essence of the topic.

    •  Censorship is an evil and toxic thing. It can come back and bite the sensor. Fong`s work does go over the top and needs to be removed often. But could not the offensive word or words be removed leaving the blog otherwise intact? It may read strange but something is better than nothing.

  • The blog was only an introduction.....people can see it how they like.....personally I saw nothing controverial in it or likely to offend anyone. Everyone knows that Arthurson was a crook and I was interested in seeing what else he had to say.

    I now understand that Fong has been suspended.....I think that is totally unfair and unwarranted.

    I think in this case that it needs to be explained to the site, why it was deleted and Fong banned.....did anyone but Fong know where it was headed? If so how?

    Moderation is a good thing for the site and Super has a bastard of a job, but if you want to have control as a moderator you need to explain the credibility of your actions, otherwise people just see it as a Dictatorship.

    That doesn't mean every action, some can be obvious but in this world of political correctness, I cannot see anything that Fong has done is dangerous or threatening or more insulting of anything we read here on a daily basis.

    Over to you Super, you can fix this or rethink it at least.

    • Poppa I didn't delete the blog so you can p!ss off with accusing me of doing that.

      And I'd like to point everyone to the code of conduct available here: https://www.1eyedeel.com/notes/1Eyed_Eel_Code_of_Conduct

      There's a section towards the bottom that states:

      "Moderators may edit or delete content that breaches the code of conduct. If your content has been moderated or deleted, you should consider it an indication that you have breached the code of conduct. If you do not feel this to be the case then respectfully raise it in the Site Matters group. Content that strays into defamation or might be considered a legal threat to the site, will be likely be deleted upon suspicion to protect the site."

      So there is a process for any issues regarding moderation to be raised and that's the main reason I rarely respond to blogs on the main page questioning moderation decisions. If you don't follow the process in bringing up an issue with moderation respectfully then I'm simply not responding to it. Mick, given you're not the blog author, the moderation of Fong's blog is of little concern to you. If Fong has an issue he can bring it up in the Site Matters group.

      • Super, all you needed to say was you didn't delete it....saves every one time and energy.

        I gave an opinion, recognised the bastard of a job you have and suggested you should respond to it. You have, good for you. It is not just me you are satisfying but many other are discussing it and calling for an explanation.

        If your response is indicative of you being criticised for the constant barage you receive, so be it.....but I cannot see why I have to "piss off for the accusation". 

        I am one of the few people here that will defend you if you have been hard done by. 

      • Super I Disagree with this statement “Mick, given you're not the blog author, the moderation of Fong's blog is of little concern to you. If Fong has an issue he can bring it up in the Site Matters group.”

        Would it be true that anyone that contributes to a blog raised by another person is in fact a Co Author of such blog.

        I acknowledge that you didn’t delete it however I do believe what should have happened is that the blog could have been closed for comment with a statement for the reasoning as to why it is closed. 

        This would have lead to a lot of people dropping the topic, as it currently stands a lot of people are justifiable asking questions about why this blog was closed because on the face it seemed harmless and was actual an interesting and from memory factual read.

        Now if in fact it’s not factual then a comment saying why and closing the blog for comment would have satisfied a lot of us. 

        To be honest it seems like a knee jerk reaction caused by a build up of a lot of past in fighting. 

        Like I said I acknowledge that you didn’t delete the blog so my comment is purely food for thought for you guys on how to treat future such blogs and I also acknowledge that you don’t have to listen to my thoughts however just remember that without us there is no site.

        Normally yeah just delete but I think sum smarts needs to be shown in this case to realise that this blog was gathering some interest from members and by no means in a viscous way.

    • So very true Poppa, these are events that happened 20-30yrs ago. Before we shoot Super down, I feel this decision to delete Fongys blog has come from the top, there was nothing wrong with what was said, it was very interesting reading and I feel it filled a few blank spaces in the minds of us supporters re: the running of the game all those years ago. This blog was not a deletable offence but, more to do with what was to come. To top it off, it's a disgrace if Fongy was banned for this.

      • Agree Doc

  • As much as i can’t stand the bloke I didn’t see any issue with the blog and it should never have been removed. Perhaps it should be up to us punters to have a vote on the value of the blog. Perhaps a 5 star rating system on blogs. Any thing over 3 stars can stay. 

    • Nice idea parra dice

This reply was deleted.

Latest comments

The Ape replied to CURSED EEL's discussion SIVO UPDATE
"No."
1 hour ago
Tad "living in a world of spin" replied to MontoEel's discussion Legal Question
"Hi Colin, It is a difficult one really. I think it is fair for Companies to put employees on a probationary period as it often is difficult to assess a persons capability in fitting into their organisation. Sometimes the employee might be great but…"
3 hours ago
colin hussey replied to MontoEel's discussion Legal Question
"Tad. that avenue would still be there, but I have yet to read what the job was and in what industry.  Being an ex Branch Secretary and divisional councilor, there are traps used by companies to side step unions and if a new employee, especially if t…"
4 hours ago
Tad "living in a world of spin" replied to MontoEel's discussion Legal Question
"In the old days you just approached your Union rep and used their resources. It is a lot of pressure to have to address these things on your own when you are the underdog and have little power."
4 hours ago
Micky replied to MontoEel's discussion Legal Question
"Monto, If you sign a contract it is your own responsibility. The Job Description would have been outlined to you. If you feel that you have been hard done by, then your only option is to work it out with your HR and get the JD off them. If this was…"
4 hours ago
Nitram replied to CURSED EEL's discussion SIVO UPDATE
"So if he's guilty does he have to pay back the full pay he's been paid waiting for court?"
6 hours ago
DRIZA PORT - voting Parra No. 1 replied to MontoEel's discussion Legal Question
"Good  advice Johnny  . "
6 hours ago
Hell On Eels replied to CURSED EEL's discussion SIVO UPDATE
"Mitchy, Fair call. Great question: let's play out a situation where DeBelin is genuinely innocent and proven so, without a shadow of doubt (a big factor).
Firstly, though I'm not a lawyer, he could look to sue the accuser that damaged his commercial…"
7 hours ago
Prof. Daz replied to CURSED EEL's discussion SIVO UPDATE
"Maybe he is found not guilty, Mitchy. Maybe not. But as HOE mentioned, the court found that because players are essentially moving advertisements for the game, the game’s administration has a duty to fans, sponsors and shareholders to minimise risk.…"
7 hours ago
Poppa replied to Poppa's discussion A Game of Golf and why you can't trust a woman's politics if she is 15 minutes late, whether Right or Left.......This is for you Carlo
"he hits it pretty clean PT......I am just having this vision of carlo changing to the right side!"
7 hours ago
GRUNTA BIGWAD - Soggy Salada replied to CURSED EEL's discussion SIVO UPDATE
"A pair of gloves for the future, Monts.
 "
7 hours ago
Prof. Daz replied to MontoEel's discussion Legal Question
"I’m not a lawyer, MontoEel, so those saying call Fair Work are giving the best advice. But I can offer one correction to some comments on the thread. Can you be fired for asking your employer why the contract did not land in your lap before starting…"
7 hours ago
Parramatta Tragic replied to Snake - Internet safety officer's discussion TYSON FURY, LETS GO LEGEND!
"There are so many genuinely big guys now in MMA and boxing it may be time to introduce a new Super Heavyweight division in both sports. Old school boxing is starting to make a comeback as a result of the upsurge in MMA and we are seeing guys who are…"
8 hours ago
Mitchy replied to CURSED EEL's discussion SIVO UPDATE
"That is point too."
8 hours ago
Mitchy replied to CURSED EEL's discussion SIVO UPDATE
"Ok, fair enough HOE; but let us say he is found not guilty? The old saying is mud sticks and he has been stood down for about 2 seasons. My concern is players are meant to be not guilty and i get the argument about sponsors etc. my point is this guy…"
8 hours ago
Parramatta Tragic replied to Poppa's discussion A Game of Golf and why you can't trust a woman's politics if she is 15 minutes late, whether Right or Left.......This is for you Carlo
"Sounds like she could play a bit like this....all in one take."
8 hours ago
More…