We can do this...

[morty 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="morty"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="morty"][quote user="TIL 1010"]I make that 8 points out of a possible 39. It''s points that keep you up not plaudits for good performances.[/quote]Thats genius, get in touch with the club immediately and let them know this[Y][/quote]My response was to the post by MP where he says we play better against the '' top '' teams. Sorry to see it as usual received the Morty seal of disapproval. [/quote]Well if it was specifically just for him, maybe you should have quoted him then?[/quote]Well it certainly was not for you but you just cannot help putting your five penneth worth in Morty. The man who talks about debate and playing the ball not the man. Well from where i am sitting your comment was not adding to a debate where i posted facts and it certainly looked to be playing the man. Then again do as i say not as i do fits you well.[/quote]Sorry, what you adding to the debate here again?

[morty 0]

I treated your sarcy, smart ar$e comment exactly how it deserved[:)]

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]We can do this, true. So can Sunderland. So can Newcastle. The Toon with the extra two points have the edge, but it is not entirely in their own hands. Both us and Sunderland have the available points to overtake them. We virtually need a faultless run-in. I feel Sunderland have the edge over the three. We are very slightly the worse off. My survival estimates based on current position and games ahead and hours of careful calculation are:- Sunderland: 36% Toon: 34% NCFC: 30% Nearly too close to call. We can do it. Bring on the Reds.[/quote]

 

Yep those percentages are about how I see it.  Newcastle have a small advantage but only 2 games left to play, both a bit tricky.  Sunderland and us, intriguingly, both play Everton & Watford, plus a game against a bigger team that hasn''t had a great season.  They have the point + GD advantage above us, and a game over Newcastle with just a point behind, so are definitely in the driving seat.

 

But a 30% survival shot, not great, but equally anyone who writes off our chances is being a bit pathetic IMO.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]We can do this, true. So can Sunderland. So can Newcastle. The Toon with the extra two points have the edge, but it is not entirely in their own hands. Both us and Sunderland have the available points to overtake them. We virtually need a faultless run-in. I feel Sunderland have the edge over the three. We are very slightly the worse off. My survival estimates based on current position and games ahead and hours of careful calculation are:- Sunderland: 36% Toon: 34% NCFC: 30% Nearly too close to call. We can do it. Bring on the Reds.[/quote]

 

Yep those percentages are about how I see it.  Newcastle have a small advantage but only 2 games left to play, both a bit tricky.  Sunderland and us, intriguingly, both play Everton & Watford, plus a game against a bigger team that hasn''t had a great season.  They have the point + GD advantage above us, and a game over Newcastle with just a point behind, so are definitely in the driving seat.

 

But a 30% survival shot, not great, but equally anyone who writes off our chances is being a bit pathetic IMO.

[/quote][Y]

[mrs miggins 0]

Although we do have a chance, it''s not pathetic to say that we will probably go down or will go down.

It''s like if a poster says; ''we''ll stay up.'' - It''s an opinion and I don''t expect to see constant moderation of a comment like this, despite out of the two view points, statically speaking, it''s the less likely one.

It''s not defeatist to think we''ll go down, many thought that at the start of the season because of the lack of quality in the team, inexperienced manager at the helm, lack of money being spent etc. However it doesn''t affect how they support the club, they still turn up every other week in full voice. Criticising your team on a forum should not be moderated, it should be questioned.

As someone in another thread pointed out, if strong opinions are going to continually be moderated, it will end up like the norwichtalkforum. Glad that people are not giving in to the desire from posters wishing to moderate this forum.

I encourage a good debate but just calling someone negative and not a supporter for thinking that we''ll go down is pathetic.

[morty 0]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]Although we do have a chance, it''s not pathetic to say that we will probably go down or will go down.

It''s like if a poster says; ''we''ll stay up.'' - It''s an opinion and I don''t expect to see constant moderation of a comment like this, despite out of the two view points, statically speaking, it''s the less likely one.

It''s not defeatist to think we''ll go down, many thought that at the start of the season because of the lack of quality in the team, inexperienced manager at the helm, lack of money being spent etc. However it doesn''t affect how they support the club, they still turn up every other week in full voice. Criticising your team on a forum should not be moderated, it should be questioned.

As someone in another thread pointed out, if strong opinions are going to continually be moderated, it will end up like the norwichtalkforum. Glad that people are not giving in to the desire from posters wishing to moderate this forum.

I encourage a good debate but just calling someone negative and not a supporter for thinking that we''ll go down is pathetic.[/quote]Couple of things Miggo.Where is criticising your team moderated?As regards to Norwichtalk, in nearly 30,000 posts on there the sum total of the "moderation" is one member banned for a week and zero threads deleted. Hardly a Nazi regime, is it?And lastly, I have seen plenty of people saying we''re definitely down, but don''t think I have seen anyone say "We''ll definitely stay up"? Have I missed those posters saying that, could you point them out at all?

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]Although we do have a chance, it''s not pathetic to say that we will probably go down or will go down. It''s like if a poster says; ''we''ll stay up.'' - It''s an opinion and I don''t expect to see constant moderation of a comment like this, despite out of the two view points, statically speaking, it''s the less likely one. It''s not defeatist to think we''ll go down, many thought that at the start of the season because of the lack of quality in the team, inexperienced manager at the helm, lack of money being spent etc. However it doesn''t affect how they support the club, they still turn up every other week in full voice. Criticising your team on a forum should not be moderated, it should be questioned. As someone in another thread pointed out, if strong opinions are going to continually be moderated, it will end up like the norwichtalkforum. Glad that people are not giving in to the desire from posters wishing to moderate this forum. I encourage a good debate but just calling someone negative and not a supporter for thinking that we''ll go down is pathetic.[/quote]

 

That''s not what I said.  I have no problem with someone saying we''ll probably go down.  I agree with Broadstairs percentages which give us a 30% chance of survival.  Which means I think it''s about 70% likely we''ll go down.  So I can hardly criticise someone for agreeing with me !

 

But what I think is a bit pathetic are the people who have been saying we have no chance, or that we are definitely going down, or that we won''t get another point etc.  And there have been plenty of posts along those lines.  That''s what I mean by "writing us off".

 

It would be equally silly to say we''ll definitely stay up.  Can''t remember any posts saying that though.

[mrs miggins 0]

"Where is criticising your team moderated?"

http://services.pinkun.com/forums/pinkun-forums/cs/forums/180/ShowForum.aspx

----

"As regards to Norwichtalk, in nearly 30,000 posts on there the sum total of the "moderation" is one member banned for a week and zero threads deleted. Hardly a Nazi regime, is it?''

I haven''t been seen anything on there for about 7-8 months so it may have changed but, especially at the start, the amount of threads that seemed to be locked were ridiculous, there doesn''t seem to be any strong opinions on there I noticed, just a sea of whipped posters...reminds me of tory MP''s (except for the EU referendum).

--------------

''And lastly, I have seen plenty of people saying we''re definitely down, but don''t think I have seen anyone say "We''ll definitely stay up"? Have I missed those posters saying that, could you point them out at all?''

If you go to the search engine, type in ''we''ll stay up'' or words to that effect then click search forum, it comes up with a list matching that. Thats what I did and I thought I''d just copy and paste one link in.

http://services.pinkun.com/forums/pinkun-forums/cs/forums/3371006/ShowPost.aspx

The point was also about the moderation of this view. The people who think we''ll stay up I''m pretty sure won''t get much grief (and nor should they).

[morty 0]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]"Where is criticising your team moderated?"

http://services.pinkun.com/forums/pinkun-forums/cs/forums/180/ShowForum.aspx

----

"As regards to Norwichtalk, in nearly 30,000 posts on there the sum total of the "moderation" is one member banned for a week and zero threads deleted. Hardly a Nazi regime, is it?''

I haven''t been seen anything on there for about 7-8 months so it may have changed but, especially at the start, the amount of threads that seemed to be locked were ridiculous, there doesn''t seem to be any strong opinions on there I noticed, just a sea of whipped posters...reminds me of tory MP''s (except for the EU referendum).

--------------

''And lastly, I have seen plenty of people saying we''re definitely down, but don''t think I have seen anyone say "We''ll definitely stay up"? Have I missed those posters saying that, could you point them out at all?''

If you go to the search engine, type in ''we''ll stay up'' or words to that effect then click search forum, it comes up with a list matching that. Thats what I did and I thought I''d just copy and paste one link in.

http://services.pinkun.com/forums/pinkun-forums/cs/forums/3371006/ShowPost.aspx

The point was also about the moderation of this view. The people who think we''ll stay up I''m pretty sure won''t get much grief (and nor should they).[/quote]The locked threads were mainly people stirring up $hit between Norwichtalk and the pinkun. They were locked because it was just a bit pathetic, and still is.Plenty of strong opinions and topics there, we managed to keep threads about Adam Johnson and Hillsborough running without them being removed by a moderator, such as they did here.The fact that you don''t even read the forum, but would rather believe some pillock that follows me round on here, kinda doesn''t add much weight to your opinion I''m afraid.And I clicked your link, and didn''t see anyone guaranteeing we''d stay up....

[mrs miggins 0]

It''s Character Forming wrote the following post at 06/05/2016 1:23 PM:

That''s not what I said.

------------------------------

I know ICF, I didn''t quote you. It was just a continuation of some of the ideas in this thread.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="morty"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="morty"][quote user="TIL 1010"]I make that 8 points out of a possible 39. It''s points that keep you up not plaudits for good performances.[/quote]Thats genius, get in touch with the club immediately and let them know this[Y][/quote]My response was to the post by MP where he says we play better against the '' top '' teams. Sorry to see it as usual received the Morty seal of disapproval. [/quote]Well if it was specifically just for him, maybe you should have quoted him then?[/quote]Well it certainly was not for you but you just cannot help putting your five penneth worth in Morty. The man who talks about debate and playing the ball not the man. Well from where i am sitting your comment was not adding to a debate where i posted facts and it certainly looked to be playing the man. Then again do as i say not as i do fits you well.[/quote]Sorry, what you adding to the debate here again?[/quote]

I see the thread wreckers are out early today.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="Katie Borkins"][quote user="morty"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="morty"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="morty"][quote user="TIL 1010"]I make that 8 points out of a possible 39. It''s points that keep you up not plaudits for good performances.[/quote]Thats genius, get in touch with the club immediately and let them know this[Y][/quote]My response was to the post by MP where he says we play better against the '' top '' teams. Sorry to see it as usual received the Morty seal of disapproval. [/quote]Well if it was specifically just for him, maybe you should have quoted him then?[/quote]Well it certainly was not for you but you just cannot help putting your five penneth worth in Morty. The man who talks about debate and playing the ball not the man. Well from where i am sitting your comment was not adding to a debate where i posted facts and it certainly looked to be playing the man. Then again do as i say not as i do fits you well.[/quote]Sorry, what you adding to the debate here again?[/quote]

I see the thread wreckers are out early today.

[/quote]

[Y][:D]

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]Although we do have a chance, it''s not pathetic to say that we will probably go down or will go down.

It''s like if a poster says; ''we''ll stay up.'' - It''s an opinion and I don''t expect to see constant moderation of a comment like this, despite out of the two view points, statically speaking, it''s the less likely one.

It''s not defeatist to think we''ll go down, many thought that at the start of the season because of the lack of quality in the team, inexperienced manager at the helm, lack of money being spent etc. However it doesn''t affect how they support the club, they still turn up every other week in full voice. Criticising your team on a forum should not be moderated, it should be questioned.

As someone in another thread pointed out, if strong opinions are going to continually be moderated, it will end up like the norwichtalkforum. Glad that people are not giving in to the desire from posters wishing to moderate this forum.

I encourage a good debate but just calling someone negative and not a supporter for thinking that we''ll go down is pathetic.[/quote]

I will steer clear of any debate about the merits or otherwise of NorwichTalk, but there are some points about why moderation here can sometimes - only sometimes - seem draconian.For starters, there is an aggressive- defensive mantra on the lines of "This is a football message-board. You have to expect bad language." Well, some message-boards are essentially lads'' magazine in cyberspace with an unshockable clientele. This isn''t. The moderators have to assume it is seen by as broad a cross-section of people, from six-year-olds to nonagenarian maiden aunts, as read the EDP.This board is moderated by one or more professionals who, because it is part of their training, know the laws on defamation and contempt of court in particular, and could even by in danger of disciplinary action if their laxity caused a costly lawsuit. I don''t know, but from what I have seen I doubt that applies to other boards.This board has a wide readership and is run by a multi-million pound company, as opposed to boards with small readerships and with not a penny to their name. Given a choice, which is more likely to be sued?! 

[Van wink 2,994]

Good post Purple.

[morty 0]

Stir stir....

[Van wink 2,994]

Explain

[mrs miggins 0]

PurpleCanary wrote the following post at 06/05/2016 3:42 PM:I will steer clear of any debate about the merits or otherwise of NorwichTalk, but there are some points about why moderation here can sometimes - only sometimes - seem draconian.

For starters, there is an aggressive- defensive mantra on the lines of "This is a football message-board. You have to expect bad language." Well, some message-boards are essentially lads'' magazine in cyberspace with an unshockable clientele. This isn''t. The moderators have to assume it is seen by as broad a cross-section of people, from six-year-olds to nonagenarian maiden aunts, as read the EDP.

This board is moderated by one or more professionals who, because it is part of their training, know the laws on defamation and contempt of court in particular, and could even by in danger of disciplinary action if their laxity caused a costly lawsuit. I don''t know, but from what I have seen I doubt that applies to other boards.

This board has a wide readership and is run by a multi-million pound company, as opposed to boards with small readerships and with not a penny to their name. Given a choice, which is more likely to be sued?!

-----------------------

I second Vanwink when when he says this is a good post.

I think this forum is moderated pretty well by the proper moderators. Agree with you on your point v this forum and smaller forums (e.g. norwichtalk). The criticism of that forum wasn''t meant to be personal to the moderators; as you say purple, they are more likely to be sued, the comparison is that on the other forum this is exactly why there are no real strong opinions on that forum. Posters who are on both forums act completely different in each of them which I think also demonstrates this point.

[morty 0]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]PurpleCanary wrote the following post at 06/05/2016 3:42 PM:I will steer clear of any debate about the merits or otherwise of NorwichTalk, but there are some points about why moderation here can sometimes - only sometimes - seem draconian.

For starters, there is an aggressive- defensive mantra on the lines of "This is a football message-board. You have to expect bad language." Well, some message-boards are essentially lads'' magazine in cyberspace with an unshockable clientele. This isn''t. The moderators have to assume it is seen by as broad a cross-section of people, from six-year-olds to nonagenarian maiden aunts, as read the EDP.

This board is moderated by one or more professionals who, because it is part of their training, know the laws on defamation and contempt of court in particular, and could even by in danger of disciplinary action if their laxity caused a costly lawsuit. I don''t know, but from what I have seen I doubt that applies to other boards.

This board has a wide readership and is run by a multi-million pound company, as opposed to boards with small readerships and with not a penny to their name. Given a choice, which is more likely to be sued?!

-----------------------

I second Vanwink when when he says this is a good post.

I think this forum is moderated pretty well by the proper moderators. Agree with you on your point v this forum and smaller forums (e.g. norwichtalk). The criticism of that forum wasn''t meant to be personal to the moderators; as you say purple, they are more likely to be sued, the comparison is that on the other forum this is exactly why there are no real strong opinions on that forum. Posters who are on both forums act completely different in each of them which I think also demonstrates this point.[/quote]Despite not actually reading it....This forum is moderated reactively. The only time a thread is even read, never mind moderated, is when someone hits the report button.Which leaves scope for people to very much shape what sort of things they don''t want to see, if they are the sort that love a button push.I suspect Mr Purple is no stranger to a button push, but lets hope he is an equal opportunities grass and he pushes it when you drop C bombs too Miggins[:)]If every single thing in the T&C''s were adhered to, this would just be one big, blank page.

[Van wink 2,994]

I would be interested to know how the "report " button actually works on here, if you hit that does the thread just get pulled? Can''t believe that''s the case or loads would have gone, particularly when old LDC kept getting stick even for posting?

So I am guessing you press the report button and then there is a moderation? Is that right?

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="Vanwink"]I would be interested to know how the "report " button actually works on here, if you hit that does the thread just get pulled? Can''t believe that''s the case or loads would have gone, particularly when old LDC kept getting stick even for posting?

So I am guessing you press the report button and then there is a moderation? Is that right?[/quote]

[:D][Y]

No wooden spoon icon available

[morty 0]

[quote user="Katie Borkins"][quote user="Vanwink"]I would be interested to know how the "report " button actually works on here, if you hit that does the thread just get pulled? Can''t believe that''s the case or loads would have gone, particularly when old LDC kept getting stick even for posting?

So I am guessing you press the report button and then there is a moderation? Is that right?[/quote]

[:D][Y]

No wooden spoon icon available

[/quote][:D]

[Van wink 2,994]

Hmmm... thanks.

Anybody actually know?

[Katie Borkins 1]

I will tell you if, for once, you can choose an avatar without an incredibly punchable face.

(Apologies if your latest one is actually you.)

[Van wink 2,994]

Cheers Katie

[morty 0]

[quote user="Vanwink"]Hmmm... thanks.

Anybody actually know?[/quote]Yup[Y]

[Katie Borkins 1]

Did "The Gut" get banned, by the way? He''s been awfully quiet of late.

Anybody know?

[Van wink 2,994]

Well if you know Morty answer the question, if you don''t then why post?

[morty 0]

[quote user="Katie Borkins"]Did "The Gut" get banned, by the way? He''s been awfully quiet of late.

Anybody know?

[/quote]Quite a mystery indeed....

[morty 0]

[quote user="Vanwink"]Well if you know Morty answer the question, if you don''t then why post?[/quote]Top secret moderator business.Loose lips sink ships.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[img]http://i.giphy.com/12OyhOh3vqSnhS.gif[/img]