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

macybrown replied to Frankie Fong's discussion STORM V PENRITH GRANDFINAL BLOG
"No surprise smith gets away with blatant coat hanger on Api?"
32 seconds ago
CarloEEL2 replied to Frankie Fong's discussion STORM V PENRITH GRANDFINAL BLOG
"Two head highs w no repercussions
thank god we didn’t get there 
would have had no chance "
2 minutes ago
HKF replied to Frankie Fong's discussion STORM V PENRITH GRANDFINAL BLOG
"Why?, the calls have been correct, I hate the storm as much as anyone but both calls were right. "
2 minutes ago
Evil Elvis replied to Frankie Fong's discussion STORM V PENRITH GRANDFINAL BLOG
"How many tackles around the neck are Storm going to be allowed to make?"
2 minutes ago
My Bob replied to Frankie Fong's discussion STORM V PENRITH GRANDFINAL BLOG
"So true, I’m not a ruff supporter and I am spewing at this shit. "
3 minutes ago
Graham polkinghorne replied to Frankie Fong's discussion STORM V PENRITH GRANDFINAL BLOG
"Go you mighty Storm, just lead them Cam, like the champion you are."
3 minutes ago
My Bob replied to Frankie Fong's discussion STORM V PENRITH GRANDFINAL BLOG
"The fix is on! First bullshit penalty try when May had his leg already extended so how is it a kick, then the disallowed try as obstruction when it was a defensive decision by the Storm player. The fucking NRL want give Smith a fairytale goodbye  
 "
4 minutes ago
HKF replied to Frankie Fong's discussion STORM V PENRITH GRANDFINAL BLOG
"He is doing my head in with his panthers bias, both try calls were correct."
4 minutes ago
Evil Elvis replied to Frankie Fong's discussion STORM V PENRITH GRANDFINAL BLOG
"NRL doing there best to help out the Storm. "
5 minutes ago
Longfin Eel replied to Frankie Fong's discussion STORM V PENRITH GRANDFINAL BLOG
"Well it's clear who is supposed to win this game."
5 minutes ago
Nitram replied to Frankie Fong's discussion STORM V PENRITH GRANDFINAL BLOG
"Does Gus even know the rules / interpretations?"
5 minutes ago
CarloEEL2 replied to Frankie Fong's discussion STORM V PENRITH GRANDFINAL BLOG
"The script is written 
it’s cams party 
I’d be livid already if I was a riff supporter "
5 minutes ago
My Bob replied to Frankie Fong's discussion STORM V PENRITH GRANDFINAL BLOG
"FUCK the Storm!"
6 minutes ago
Frankie Fong replied to Frankie Fong's discussion STORM V PENRITH GRANDFINAL BLOG
"Fuck Gould is a cunt. "
10 minutes ago
Tad replied to Tad's discussion Random Thoughts
"How financially secure are you.? These guys can easily make you homeless. Hackers convention--Can you beleive it?"
21 minutes ago
Poppa replied to Mr Analyst loves Rugbah Leeg's discussion Eels hunt the Fox
"That's a shame Monts, which one of those sides you following next year.
Personally I will be here to the end, that's what real Parra supporters do.....sorry to lose you Mont's ....you are a good man. Maybe Penrith could be your side....good time to…"
23 minutes ago
More…

Random Thoughts

You come from dust and to dust you will return. That's why you shouldn't dust. It could be someone you know. When one door closes and another door opens, you're probably in prison.If you answer your phone with "Hello. You're on the…

Read more…
81 Replies · Reply by Tad 21 minutes ago

 

<script src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<!-- Sidebar -->
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<script>// <![CDATA[
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
// ]]></script>