Sacred Cows

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Has anyone else noticed that it is impossible to post ANYTHING on this site now about certain other posters.

I am not talking about anything more than tongue in cheek digs.

It seems that if you whine about going away and not coming back then the moderators will protect your sensitivities.

Pathetic......moderate that!

[Ginja 43]

I think the moderators are just trying to be careful and stop the board dropping into petty name calling and silly insults, remember the BBC board and now its gone and I don''t want it to happen to this board. To be fair to the moderators it must be difficult for them to differenciate between a simple joke and proper insults.

[philbuzz 0]

I believe the slogan above (next to the pink un) says "where football really matters". If you want to throw rocks then go and play near the stream!! God you should go on Trisha mate :-)

phil

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

What''s Tricia?

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Sorry to be flippant Phil...

you obviously take yourself really seriously.

I don''t take myself too seriously, perhaps posters should rate themselves on a ''self-seriously scale'' so they can be addressed accordingly.

If you have an ''ism'' then mention that too so offence can be avoided.

Perhaps NCFC can use the ''Pink Un'' slogan so we know it really means business too?

[Evil Monkey 52]

I know what you mean, Rudolph.  I made a slight dig at a fellow poster yesterday after what can only be described as a "wild accusation" was cast about our football club, yet it was cut from the rest of the post.  Later in the day I saw far worse against other posters.

But then I know the moderators can''t trawl through every single post to determine context and seriousness of such comments, plus there has been a lot of petty name-calling recently and it''s fair to see it stop.

[philbuzz 0]

I don''t take myself seriously mate, it just seems to me that your getting your knickers in a twist about an irrelivant point.This board recently has becoming more of a "slagging off" or having having a dig at each other board rather than constructive debate about norwich. We could be talking about the potential loan signing of Theo Walcott but instead i''m talking about you not being able to insult other posters.

[Yellow Rages 0]

I fully back you Rudolf on this one.

It would seem under the current ruling that it''s OK to make any off the cuff remark about the club and any individual within it but not even mildly return the compliment to the guilty party.

In the defence of the moderators though, I can see why they do what they do, I''m not blaming them or having a dig. They do this to make posters feel more comfortable about saying what they want without fear of insult and therfore block the heated response. The problem then is that they can''t create any consistancy because they are by doing this limiting posts as one way traffic directed at the club.

I too had a post edited recently where a poster discribed an individual as ''lazy''. In response, I pointed out that they too would appear lazy when taking into account the amount of copying and pasting they do rather that actually putting into words their own thoughts.

Their comment about the individual remained whilst my comment was deleted. Again, I understand why it was done but don''t think it creates any consistancy.

I have had many heated debates with the likes of Rudolf and YC but don''t ever recall crying myself to sleep over it. Perhaps the answer is to ensure that moderation is done a little more sparingly and those with thinner skin try and toughen up a bit.

I don''t for one second advocate the use of profanities or blatent cutting insults to any poster. Ultimately, if you are prepared to comment on another individual on this board or within the club then you shouldn''t be surprised if you get dealt a like hand. That''s only natural isn''t it? That''s life.

[Evil Monkey 52]

[quote user="philbuzz"]

I don''t take myself seriously mate, it just seems to me that your getting your knickers in a twist about an irrelivant point.This board recently has becoming more of a "slagging off" or having having a dig at each other board rather than constructive debate about norwich. We could be talking about the potential loan signing of Theo Walcott but instead i''m talking about you not being able to insult other posters.

[/quote]

You know Phil, if you don''t want to be talking to Rudolph, you don''t have to...

I don''t think the "slagging off" thing is too much of a problem in recent weeks - there was a spate of bickering from certain posters, and most of them have now either gone off in a huff, or have seen the error of their ways.  Most, anyway...

And most of the posters on here are sensible people who know not to take things personally - a prime example is a post from Canary02 yesterday where he told Blahblahblah that Worthy was married and to give it up - Blahblahblah seemed to take it in the good humour that it was intended, or chose not to "rise to the bait".

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Phil,

Moderation, and attempt to avoid it end up taking comments out of context.

If Archant will post this I am talking about one poster in particular who likes to be caustic and who uses inflammitory language against individuals within NCFC who have little or no form of redress.

When the going gets tough the toys are thrown out of the pram and it is ''off forever'' which usually means two weeks.

Sorry you (and others) failed to read between the lines.

[Mook 0]

I must say I find it FLAMING frustrating that I have to read about "The Irish Clown", the "numpty" in charge, the "Muppet", "Worthless" and every other play-ground name that people can come up with.

But if we want to point out that the name-callers are the ... erm .... silly ones (for the sake of being moderated) then our post gets squashed.

Don''t geddit.

[beelsie 0]

Mook and Rud well put.  I hope I do not offend a possible third party, by agreeing ?

[blahblahblah 2]

To be fair, I think the moderators do a decent job, the only things they take out of mine tend to be things I wish I hadn''t said after I''ve pressed the post button.

Although there was a paragraph the other day I wrote that I wished they''d passed, where I likened the constant use of "Worthy Out" at the end of posts to the use of a different phrase by some characters in Allo Allo.  If I say any more it''s bound to be moderated. :).

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Rudolph Hucker"]Phil, Moderation, and attempt to avoid it end up taking comments out of context. If Archant will post this I am talking about one poster in particular who likes to be caustic and who uses inflammitory language against individuals within NCFC who have little or no form of redress. When the going gets tough the toys are thrown out of the pram and it is ''off forever'' which usually means two weeks. Sorry you (and others) failed to read between the lines.[/quote]

Mooooooo!

If you mean me Rudolph, please say so my friend.

As most posters are aware, I''m a bit tied up elsewhere these days, but I still like to pop in and have a look around here.

I  must say I''ve been quite impressed with it all so far this week.

[Jerzy Krukowski 5]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]

[quote user="Rudolph Hucker"]Phil, Moderation, and attempt to avoid it end up taking comments out of context. If Archant will post this I am talking about one poster in particular who likes to be caustic and who uses inflammitory language against individuals within NCFC who have little or no form of redress. When the going gets tough the toys are thrown out of the pram and it is ''off forever'' which usually means two weeks. Sorry you (and others) failed to read between the lines.[/quote]

Mooooooo!

If you mean me Rudolph, please say so my friend.

As most posters are aware, I''m a bit tied up elsewhere these days, but I still like to pop in and have a look around here.

I  must say I''ve been quite impressed with it all so far this week.

[/quote]

 

Isn''t the whole point of this that you can''t be named!

Guess also the point is the wonderment that you''re on here at all. I for one welcome your presence

[Nobodys Perfect 0]

I too was "moderated" recently for suggesting to another poster who had moaned about my boring message that perhaps he could start a more interesting one.What the hell needs moderating there? What''s the difference between moderating and censorship? There is hardly any point in posting on here if comments are going to be chopped out willy nilly. My post, or what was left of it, lost all it''s impact. (I flatter myself that it had any in the first place, it''s just my opinion!) Thanks Mr Moderator.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

There is a Wizard in the Harry Potter series

''He who must not be named.''

It is a shame that some people become so sensitive that they receive no replies to their posts if the content is a little caustic.

I see you received no replies to your ressurected ''We are all but broke'' Post, Wiz.

But you did actually, and the moderators decided to protect you. Have you put a charm on them? They obviously recognise me as your nemesis.

As they say in that little shop in Diagon Alley

''If the pointy hat fits....wear it.

[YankeeCanary 0]

I must say that, normally, it is not my nature to announce that I will no longer participate on this message board. I prefer to go quietly into the night from time to time. In respect to this subject, however, I am making an exception. If censoring is to take place I clearly will not be participating from this point forward. This has been a good message board which, in part, has been due to some healthy and, at times, heated debate between posters. I most vehemently oppose any level of moderation with the exception of removing bad language contained in certain posts. That is certainly not appropriate, particularly where we have younger participants. Other than that, I strongly urge the moderators to reconsider any amount of interference. On the contrary, you should be standing tall on the side of freedom of the press, the industry in which you reside. I urge you to read again the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"

Any newspaper worth its salt allows for vigorous inputs between individuals from the public contributing opinion. In any public forum when a given individual gets heavy handed with another ( I have from time to time ) the masses will draw the line or circle the wagons to ensure that someone who may feel put upon is protected. That''s life, and that''s the way it should be in a free society. Please re-consider your decision so that I, and others who feel as I do, may continue to participate on this otherwise fine messsage board.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Rudolph Hucker"]There is a Wizard in the Harry Potter series ''He who must not be named.'' It is a shame that some people become so sensitive that they receive no replies to their posts if the content is a little caustic. I see you received no replies to your ressurected ''We are all but broke'' Post, Wiz. But you did actually, and the moderators decided to protect you. Have you put a charm on them? They obviously recognise me as your nemesis. As they say in that little shop in Diagon Alley ''If the pointy hat fits....wear it.[/quote]

It is well known and writen into Pink Un folklore, that my good mate Yankee Canary is my one and only true nemises.

[Web Team - Vince 0]

Er... I don''t think any Pink ''Un editor has ever been signatory to the Declaration of Human Rights, although surely its point is that you should have the freedoms to set up your own newspapers, websites, TV stations, soapboxes... But we hear what you say.However, there are such things as libel laws and Archant Regional, as a publisher, has taken the view that these message board should be moderated based on the limited legal rulings by the English and Scottish courts on internet message board activity so far. However going unmoderated (with reactive moderation -- i.e. Report this post) is a prospect -- but it takes time to make sure that we have the right approach that works out best for everyone - including our libel insurers.I haven''t have been on intensive message duty for a few weeks, but the biggest problem appears to have been an escalation of slanging matches that developed from NCFC''s  performances last season and lack of squad news that have grown into personal attacks to fill the void -- which in itself was causing people to declare they were leaving. We don''t want to stop posts but we do want to calm things down and get people talking about the football - not attacking each other. I think the World Cup forum has proved it can still be done.Hopefully the start of the new season will fuel the good discussions we have been used to.

[Herb 0]

[quote user="Web Team - Vince"]I haven''t have been on intensive message duty for a few weeks, but the biggest problem appears to have been an escalation of slanging matches that developed from NCFC''s  performances last season and lack of squad news that have grown into personal attacks to fill the void -- which in itself was causing people to declare they were leaving. [/quote]Errr, forgive me for correcting you, but the only people declaring they were leaving was the usual suspect who miraculously reappeared within a week, as predicted by anyone who''s spent any time browsing these forums.So one drama queen gets uppity and half the boards posters get censored?

[Yellow Rages 0]

[quote user="Web Team - Vince"]Er... I don''t think any Pink ''Un editor has ever been signatory to the Declaration of Human Rights, although surely its point is that you should have the freedoms to set up your own newspapers, websites, TV stations, soapboxes... But we hear what you say.

However, there are such things as libel laws and Archant Regional, as a publisher, has taken the view that these message board should be moderated based on the limited legal rulings by the English and Scottish courts on internet message board activity so far. However going unmoderated (with reactive moderation -- i.e. Report this post) is a prospect -- but it takes time to make sure that we have the right approach that works out best for everyone - including our libel insurers.

I haven''t have been on intensive message duty for a few weeks, but the biggest problem appears to have been an escalation of slanging matches that developed from NCFC''s  performances last season and lack of squad news that have grown into personal attacks to fill the void -- which in itself was causing people to declare they were leaving. We don''t want to stop posts but we do want to calm things down and get people talking about the football - not attacking each other. I think the World Cup forum has proved it can still be done.

Hopefully the start of the new season will fuel the good discussions we have been used to.
[/quote]

Understood Vince about the liability law. What I don''t get though in my case specifically is that it is OK for a poster to call a player lazy but it is not OK for me to call that poster lazy.

I''m touching on a grey area here I know but is it not libelous for a member of this board to call a player lazy in the same way as it is to call a player a drunk of a drug addict? Where is the proof that a player is lazy? This is nitpicking to the highest degree I know but certainly something I would like to be educated on. I am playing devils advocate here, and as so am not trying to stimulate antagonism. I just want to know where the land lies, using my post as an example. That way as long as I know what the deal is, I won''t do the same again. One less post for you yo delete!

[Tumbleweed 106]

I don''t come on here as much any more because too many of the threads do degenerate into slanging matches and I am in full support of Vince in that anything they can do to stop this Board going the way of others is good. Of course it needs to be balanced with the needs of "free speech", but yankee misses the point somewhat in that it is not Archant''s duty or obligation to have any sort of messageboard. As a commercial enterprise they can choose what they wish to sposnor or promote and if they wish to promote the supporting of a blue team down the road they are at liberty to do so, or if they wish to argue that Lord Levy is Tony Blair''s poodle they can do that also (subject to libel laws of course). What Archant do not have to do is provide any Message Board or even an open "free" Board, it is their choice to moderate and I personally think they do a pretty good job.

I was however surprised to see the comment about Nigel and potatos in the "City transfers" thread- had Materazzi said that to Zidane he (Materazzi) would  be in big big trouble.

[Web Team - Vince 0]

[quote]

Understood Vince about the liability law. What I don''t get though in

my case specifically is that it is OK for a poster to call a player

lazy but it is not OK for me to call that poster lazy.

[/quote]

Because the message board is for discussion about football - so saying a player puts in a lazy performance is on topic. But I could see reasons why a post (or poster) could be called lazy too - e.g. a poster being lazy in his response to another post - which wouldn''t bother me, but maybe another moderator (or me) may take a different view depending on the context of the message.[quote]I''m touching on a grey area here I know but is it not libelous for a

member of this board to call a player lazy in the same way as it is to

call a player a drunk of a drug addict? Where is the proof that a

player is lazy? This is nitpicking to the highest degree I know but

certainly something I would like to be educated on. I am playing devils

advocate here, and as so am not trying to stimulate antagonism. I just

want to know where the land lies, using my post as an example. That way

as long as I know what the deal is, I won''t do the same again. One less

post for you yo delete![/quote]It could be argued that if a player isn''t delivering performance on the they are capable of, then seeing them lazy is a fair comment. Some may also think that Worthy has made idiotic decisions about substitutions, signings, etc - but does that make him an idiot? We don''t want to censor/cut posts every time this happens, but these are views at the low end of the scale - it could be argued that a series of idiotic decisions or lazy performances may create an image of someone being an idiot or lazy. However calling someone an alcoholic or drug addict needs solid proof.PS I''m not a lawyer.

[Cantiaci Canary 610]

.... I was under the impression that this was a FOOTBALL forum? Get over yourselves ... who cares?

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Now things have been well and truly aired perhaps I can come to the point without fear of moderation.

I endorse the comment of Herb. I haven''t a clue what Yankee is going on about but I dare not libel him on a UK message board because I might find myself on a flight to Texas courtesy of the US to be clapped in a pen-i-ten-tu-hury of correction for a couple of years while Archant supply the evidence (if there is any).

I was miffed that Wiz, who uses language which might be insulting to those fond of certain people in the Club complains about receiving terms he might find acceptible back and says he will leave the Board on that basis.

Having always dealt with Wiz in friendly jest: getting him to support the opposition or impersonating him to get him back after an earlier departure, I try again and find one post moderated so much it makes me look an even bigger idiot than I generally set myself up to be and another not even included. This is censorship pandering to the sensitivities of one poster and, I would submit, deny that poster of the canteen culture banter and leg pulling he craves.

What has all this got to do with football. Well, the game isn''t just about 90 minutes on the pitch is it and our personalities or assumed personalities deserve to be tested by our peers when an opinion is expressed.