|
|
Post by space hardware on Jul 18, 2021 22:37:47 GMT 1
Out of interest.. what political parties do the admins vote for? Is it representive of the conservatives majority, or is it a snowflakey left. I'll have a go... Kenny - SNP Grim - UKIP Rigsby - Yorkshire First š |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 22:40:51 GMT 1
So, warnings, a series of bans that increase in time and ultimately a permanent ban. How is that any different to the process on this site? On Wikipedia all warnings and blocks (bans) are publicly visible on the person's user page so everyone can see the process that was followed. There is also a well-established system of appeals for anyone who has been banned. Would you, please, list the previous warnings and blocks (with dates) so we can see the procedure that was followed? Why do they need to provide an electronic trail? Otium was known to be a serial offender and the Admins eventually took action after he had been warned on a number of occasions. Why do they need to give you evidence of their decisions! |
|
|
|
Post by BlueValour on Jul 18, 2021 22:55:28 GMT 1
On Wikipedia all warnings and blocks (bans) are publicly visible on the person's user page so everyone can see the process that was followed. There is also a well-established system of appeals for anyone who has been banned. Would you, please, list the previous warnings and blocks (with dates) so we can see the procedure that was followed? Why do they need to provide an electronic trail? Otium was known to be a serial offender and the Admins eventually took action after he had been warned on a number of occasions. Why do they need to give you evidence of their decisions! Because justice needs to be seen to be done as well as being done. That applies to Wikipedia, it applies in the outside world and it should apply here. |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jul 18, 2021 22:58:44 GMT 1
The Admin log was started in June 2018, and every sanction we've taken against any poster since then is visible.
For the record this was something I suggested, advocated for and implemented when other admins at the time didn't want it.
My apparent power trip is such that I made the admin decision making process the most transparent it's ever been.
What isn't visible is the number of posts that have been reported over the years that we took no action on. If it were, it might give our most vociferous critics cause to stop and reflect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2021 1:24:19 GMT 1
The Admin log was started in June 2018, and every sanction we've taken against any poster since then is visible. For the record this was something I suggested, advocated for and implemented when other admins at the time didn't want it. My apparent power trip is such that I made the admin decision making process the most transparent it's ever been. What isn't visible is the number of posts that have been reported over the years that we took no action on. If it were, it might give our most vociferous critics cause to stop and reflect. How many posts actually are reported as a matter of interest in a typical day / month?? Iāve been on here in various guises since we moved from Rivalsā¦.and I donāt think Iāve seen a single post that merited āreportingā (although I may have reported a couple in jest). |
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Jul 19, 2021 8:53:30 GMT 1
Out of interest.. what political parties do the admins vote for? Is it representive of the conservatives majority, or is it a snowflakey left. Jesus wept. Are you posting this sober? No standard fayre |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jul 19, 2021 10:27:30 GMT 1
The Admin log was started in June 2018, and every sanction we've taken against any poster since then is visible. For the record this was something I suggested, advocated for and implemented when other admins at the time didn't want it. My apparent power trip is such that I made the admin decision making process the most transparent it's ever been. What isn't visible is the number of posts that have been reported over the years that we took no action on. If it were, it might give our most vociferous critics cause to stop and reflect. How many posts actually are reported as a matter of interest in a typical day / month?? Iāve been on here in various guises since we moved from Rivalsā¦.and I donāt think Iāve seen a single post that merited āreportingā (although I may have reported a couple in jest). Ok, I've done a quick count. 2021 to date we've had 138 reports. 16 of those relate to the banning of Otium and the subsequent discussions. Some of these 16 may result in action, but having initially reviewed and discussed these, the feeling among us admins is that none are likely to result in formal sanctions (i.e. yellow cards or upwards). So, 138 posts reported year to date, just over halfway through the year. Barring major incident, this means likely around 250 for the year, or about 5 per week. In this time we have issued: 32 Yellow cards for abuse 2 posters instantly banned as they were new posters who had clearly created accounts to troll/abuse 1 Yellow card for persistently poor thread creation/post content 1 yellow card for trolling 3 yellow cards were issued for homophobic language Bans resulting from cumulative yellow cards: 1 week - 7 1 month - 1 Lifetime - 2 Bans for other reasons: 1 lifetime ban for spam (poster created an account solely to advertise) 5 lifetime accounts were banned as they were identified as a previously banned poster in a new incarnation That equates to about 1 in 4 posts that are reported resulting in admins taking punitive action. It's perhaps worth noting that of the 8 lifetime bans issued, only Otium's has resulted in this level of reaction. This is clearly because many people were fond of his presence, and we as an admin team have always been acutely aware of this. However, we have also always felt that it's important not to give undue weight to that. Clearly, a long serving poster who is popular will get a little more rope than a brand new poster who has not built up any goodwill, but in reality this pragmatism can only go so far. Some people have suggested that we have been unfair here, and we do understand the strength of feeling. Having reviewed the admin log of Oti, in March of this year he was issued a yellow and a one month ban for homophobic post in which he said, and I quote "gays are deviant". It was explained to him at the time that he was actually benefitting from the 2018 revision of the rules, as transgressions prior to those being issued had effectively been expunged - had this not happened he would have been banned in March for life, not one month. It was also explained to him that "we have people of different sexual persuasions to your own on this forum, and sometimes young people have difficulty in coming to terms with this. Outbursts such as yours could be really hurtful to these youngsters and contribute to difficulties in accepting of their sexuality. Please be aware of this when posting such things in future."Last week he doubled down by again stating that homosexuality is deviant. In between his March ban and last week's incident, he had accrued another yellow card, this time for threatening behaviour towards another poster, and it was made explicitly clear to him that "This is your absolute, final warning. The next yellow is a lifetime ban.". If anyone wants to review the action log (which details posts we have sanctioned, but not those we have decided not to) they can do so here: downatthemac.proboards.com/thread/109816/datm-admin-action-logIf anyone wants to review the latest incarnation of the rules they can do so here: downatthemac.proboards.com/thread/115461/datm-forum-rulesFor the record, March 2021's update to the rules was merely a simplification of the rules. No wholesale changes were made whatsoever, with the sole exception of introducing a rule regarding the explicit abuse of club officials. This means the current rules have, in reality, existed for several years, having been documented by Cowshed or Dead before I was even an admin. |
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 24,111 
|
Post by Tinpot on Jul 19, 2021 10:34:34 GMT 1
Given that this is a controversial topic and has absolutely nothing to do with our football club, would it not be a good idea to shift it over to the politics & current affairs section?
I'd honestly rather see reference to NickHudd in the transfer rumours section. Why pollute the football bit with political stuff & infighting?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jul 19, 2021 10:41:57 GMT 1
Given that this is a controversial topic and has absolutely nothing to do with our football club, would it not be a good idea to shift it over to the politics & current affairs section? I'd honestly rather see reference to NickHudd in the transfer rumours section. Why pollute the football bit with political stuff & infighting? We are discussing this as an admin team as we speak. I do think it should be moved, but we're also acutely aware that some people will almost definitely by cynical and accuse us of wanting to hide this way or some other power hungry nefarious motivation, so forgive us if we take a breath. |
|
|
|
Post by Down at the Makka on Jul 19, 2021 10:42:26 GMT 1
Why do we even need a politics section on a football forum? Cant we just stick to talking about, well, football?
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 24,111
|
Post by Tinpot on Jul 19, 2021 10:45:43 GMT 1
Why do we even need a politics section on a football forum? Cant we just stick to talking about, well, football? One of the reasons is to keep political chat from getting in the way of discussing your football club. If you don;t want to discuss politics, just stay away from that section. It (usually!) works well. |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jul 19, 2021 10:46:30 GMT 1
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 24,111
|
Post by Tinpot on Jul 19, 2021 10:51:15 GMT 1
Given that this is a controversial topic and has absolutely nothing to do with our football club, would it not be a good idea to shift it over to the politics & current affairs section? I'd honestly rather see reference to NickHudd in the transfer rumours section. Why pollute the football bit with political stuff & infighting? We are discussing this as an admin team as we speak. I do think it should be moved, but we're also acutely aware that some people will almost definitely by cynical and accuse us of wanting to hide this way or some other power hungry nefarious motivation, so forgive us if we take a breath. Yep, I get what you mean & you have my sympathy. And I speak as somebody who would have preferred him to stay. Although it's been on the football section for long enough now that anyone who wants to continue discussing it would find it pretty easy to find. |
|
|
|
Post by ritchie on Jul 19, 2021 11:13:56 GMT 1
Problem with that is it was on the board a lot of fans dont visit, myself being one given it often overspills onto the football board it would have been a 'yes' from me to closing it, and i would imagine a lot of others who just come on for town too. im not a 'snowflake' and can see/read/ignore anyones opinion however 'offensive' without personally giving a shite...but that doesnt mean everyone else is the same and should/can simply ignore something they find offensive someone in the otium thread said something like 'its simple, if you dont like this kind of stuff then dont read the politics board'..... ironically, when the offending post was there quoted in the huddersfield town board. proving they dont mix |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jul 19, 2021 11:17:22 GMT 1
Problem with that is it was on the board a lot of fans dont visit, myself being one given it often overspills onto the football board it would have been a 'yes' from me to closing it, and i would imagine a lot of others who just come on for town too. im not a 'snowflake' and can see/read/ignore anyones opinion however 'offensive' without personally giving a shite...but that doesnt mean everyone else is the same and should/can simply ignore something they find offensive someone in the otium thread said something like 'its simple, if you dont like this kind of stuff then dont read the politics board'..... ironically, when the offending post was there quoted in the huddersfield town board. proving they dont mix no, it was on the main board and only moved a decent time after the poll was concluded - see this post: This poll is now closed with a clear majority for keeping the politics & current affairs thread. This subject will not be revisited by further polls. I'll sticky this thread at the top of the main board for a further week before moving it to politics & current affairs. Aye Kenny |
|
|
|
Post by ritchie on Jul 19, 2021 11:20:37 GMT 1
Problem with that is it was on the board a lot of fans dont visit, myself being one given it often overspills onto the football board it would have been a 'yes' from me to closing it, and i would imagine a lot of others who just come on for town too. im not a 'snowflake' and can see/read/ignore anyones opinion however 'offensive' without personally giving a shite...but that doesnt mean everyone else is the same and should/can simply ignore something they find offensive someone in the otium thread said something like 'its simple, if you dont like this kind of stuff then dont read the politics board'..... ironically, when the offending post was there quoted in the huddersfield town board. proving they dont mix no, it was on the main board and only moved a decent time after the poll was concluded - see this post: This poll is now closed with a clear majority for keeping the politics & current affairs thread. This subject will not be revisited by further polls. I'll sticky this thread at the top of the main board for a further week before moving it to politics & current affairs. Aye Kenny Ah fair enough, my mistake!  |
|
|
|
Post by townrwe on Jul 19, 2021 11:33:22 GMT 1
So the forum owned by the members has spoken and Otium should be reinstated after a sensible weeks ban. Shut down this thread and sort it out. The ADMINS weren't elected, don't own the site and are here only to serve the general will of the forum members.
Yes we want a safe, clean, tolerant environment to post in, but it should also allow free speech, freedom of expression and freedom to disagree and be challenged at any level. Short bans should be last resort and life bans for any Leeds fans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jul 19, 2021 11:37:30 GMT 1
So the forum owned by the members has spoken and Otium should be reinstated after a sensible weeks ban. Shut down this thread and sort it out. The ADMINS weren't elected, don't own the site and are here only to serve the general will of the forum members. Yes we want a safe, clean, tolerant environment to post in, but it should also allow free speech, freedom of expression and freedom to disagree and be challenged at any level. Short bans should be last resort and life bans for any Leeds fans. I'll exercise my free speech, freedom of expression and freedom to disagree to say that yours is the funnies post I've read all week, and that if you think that's going to happen I've a bridge you can buy. |
|
|
|
Post by townrwe on Jul 19, 2021 11:41:10 GMT 1
Out of interest.. what political parties do the admins vote for? Is it representive of the conservatives majority, or is it a snowflakey left. Jesus wept. Are you posting this sober? Just trying to ascertain if the Admin is representative or inherently racist, sexist, ageist, homophobic or dominated by a particular political viewpoint. How many BME admin do we have? Females? U21s? Over 55s? I added political viewpoint as the ban seemed to result from a political expression rather than a football opinion... etc etc. Maybe a jury or 10 diverse members should have to ratify life bans with a normal jury majority of 9-1. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2021 11:41:18 GMT 1
How many posts actually are reported as a matter of interest in a typical day / month?? Iāve been on here in various guises since we moved from Rivalsā¦.and I donāt think Iāve seen a single post that merited āreportingā (although I may have reported a couple in jest). Ok, I've done a quick count. 2021 to date we've had 138 reports. 16 of those relate to the banning of Otium and the subsequent discussions. Some of these 16 may result in action, but having initially reviewed and discussed these, the feeling among us admins is that none are likely to result in formal sanctions (i.e. yellow cards or upwards). So, 138 posts reported year to date, just over halfway through the year. Barring major incident, this means likely around 250 for the year, or about 5 per week. In this time we have issued: 32 Yellow cards for abuse 2 posters instantly banned as they were new posters who had clearly created accounts to troll/abuse 1 Yellow card for persistently poor thread creation/post content 1 yellow card for trolling 3 yellow cards were issued for homophobic language Bans resulting from cumulative yellow cards: 1 week - 7 1 month - 1 Lifetime - 2 Bans for other reasons: 1 lifetime ban for spam (poster created an account solely to advertise) 5 lifetime accounts were banned as they were identified as a previously banned poster in a new incarnation That equates to about 1 in 4 posts that are reported resulting in admins taking punitive action. It's perhaps worth noting that of the 8 lifetime bans issued, only Otium's has resulted in this level of reaction. This is clearly because many people were fond of his presence, and we as an admin team have always been acutely aware of this. However, we have also always felt that it's important not to give undue weight to that. Clearly, a long serving poster who is popular will get a little more rope than a brand new poster who has not built up any goodwill, but in reality this pragmatism can only go so far. Some people have suggested that we have been unfair here, and we do understand the strength of feeling. Having reviewed the admin log of Oti, in March of this year he was issued a yellow and a one month ban for homophobic post in which he said, and I quote "gays are deviant". It was explained to him at the time that he was actually benefitting from the 2018 revision of the rules, as transgressions prior to those being issued had effectively been expunged - had this not happened he would have been banned in March for life, not one month. It was also explained to him that "we have people of different sexual persuasions to your own on this forum, and sometimes young people have difficulty in coming to terms with this. Outbursts such as yours could be really hurtful to these youngsters and contribute to difficulties in accepting of their sexuality. Please be aware of this when posting such things in future."Last week he doubled down by again stating that homosexuality is deviant. In between his March ban and last week's incident, he had accrued another yellow card, this time for threatening behaviour towards another poster, and it was made explicitly clear to him that "This is your absolute, final warning. The next yellow is a lifetime ban.". If anyone wants to review the action log (which details posts we have sanctioned, but not those we have decided not to) they can do so here: downatthemac.proboards.com/thread/109816/datm-admin-action-logIf anyone wants to review the latest incarnation of the rules they can do so here: downatthemac.proboards.com/thread/115461/datm-forum-rulesFor the record, March 2021's update to the rules was merely a simplification of the rules. No wholesale changes were made whatsoever, with the sole exception of introducing a rule regarding the explicit abuse of club officials. This means the current rules have, in reality, existed for several years, having been documented by Cowshed or Dead before I was even an admin. Wow thats a lot of 'reporting', seems there's plenty folk on here who've never been outdoors before! |
|
incognito
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
Posts: 1,515
|
Post by incognito on Jul 19, 2021 11:54:47 GMT 1
Why do we even need a politics section on a football forum? Cant we just stick to talking about, well, football? One of the reasons is to keep political chat from getting in the way of discussing your football club. If you don;t want to discuss politics, just stay away from that section. It (usually!) works well. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has had to resort to browsing DATM by "Recent Threads" since the transfer-related content was moved to a separate sub-forum. Historically, my visits to DATM would have simply involved a quick scan of TOTT, but now I find myself regularly clicking on threads I subsequently wish I hadn't! I fully support the proposal to move this thread (and the other one) to somewhere that casual visitors to the site are less likely to have to see it. |
|
|
|
Post by ritchie on Jul 19, 2021 11:55:25 GMT 1
So the forum owned by the members has spoken and Otium should be reinstated after a sensible weeks ban. Shut down this thread and sort it out. The ADMINS weren't elected, don't own the site and are here only to serve the general will of the forum members. Yes we want a safe, clean, tolerant environment to post in, but it should also allow free speech, freedom of expression and freedom to disagree and be challenged at any level. Short bans should be last resort and life bans for any Leeds fans. Ive not voted, because of the question. I'll somwhat miss his posts, but he continuinly broke the rules. So it would be a 'no' from me However under the circumstances, it would be a 'yes - providing he keeps within the rules/talks footy/fighting bears/rejecting pornstars, and doesnt post offensive/rule breaking rubbish' though i imagine he's too much of a martyr to just abide by the rules and keep his 'free speech opinions' to the pub/people who care |
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 24,111
|
Post by Tinpot on Jul 19, 2021 12:01:28 GMT 1
TBF, there's a lot about him that I'll miss (he can be quite the raconteur) but having seen his history you can't really say that the admins haven't given him a fair crack of the whip.
|
|
|
|
Post by upthetown on Jul 19, 2021 12:04:48 GMT 1
Ok, I've done a quick count. 2021 to date we've had 138 reports. 16 of those relate to the banning of Otium and the subsequent discussions. Some of these 16 may result in action, but having initially reviewed and discussed these, the feeling among us admins is that none are likely to result in formal sanctions (i.e. yellow cards or upwards). So, 138 posts reported year to date, just over halfway through the year. Barring major incident, this means likely around 250 for the year, or about 5 per week. In this time we have issued: 32 Yellow cards for abuse 2 posters instantly banned as they were new posters who had clearly created accounts to troll/abuse 1 Yellow card for persistently poor thread creation/post content 1 yellow card for trolling 3 yellow cards were issued for homophobic language Bans resulting from cumulative yellow cards: 1 week - 7 1 month - 1 Lifetime - 2 Bans for other reasons: 1 lifetime ban for spam (poster created an account solely to advertise) 5 lifetime accounts were banned as they were identified as a previously banned poster in a new incarnation That equates to about 1 in 4 posts that are reported resulting in admins taking punitive action. It's perhaps worth noting that of the 8 lifetime bans issued, only Otium's has resulted in this level of reaction. This is clearly because many people were fond of his presence, and we as an admin team have always been acutely aware of this. However, we have also always felt that it's important not to give undue weight to that. Clearly, a long serving poster who is popular will get a little more rope than a brand new poster who has not built up any goodwill, but in reality this pragmatism can only go so far. Some people have suggested that we have been unfair here, and we do understand the strength of feeling. Having reviewed the admin log of Oti, in March of this year he was issued a yellow and a one month ban for homophobic post in which he said, and I quote "gays are deviant". It was explained to him at the time that he was actually benefitting from the 2018 revision of the rules, as transgressions prior to those being issued had effectively been expunged - had this not happened he would have been banned in March for life, not one month. It was also explained to him that "we have people of different sexual persuasions to your own on this forum, and sometimes young people have difficulty in coming to terms with this. Outbursts such as yours could be really hurtful to these youngsters and contribute to difficulties in accepting of their sexuality. Please be aware of this when posting such things in future."Last week he doubled down by again stating that homosexuality is deviant. In between his March ban and last week's incident, he had accrued another yellow card, this time for threatening behaviour towards another poster, and it was made explicitly clear to him that "This is your absolute, final warning. The next yellow is a lifetime ban.". If anyone wants to review the action log (which details posts we have sanctioned, but not those we have decided not to) they can do so here: downatthemac.proboards.com/thread/109816/datm-admin-action-logIf anyone wants to review the latest incarnation of the rules they can do so here: downatthemac.proboards.com/thread/115461/datm-forum-rulesFor the record, March 2021's update to the rules was merely a simplification of the rules. No wholesale changes were made whatsoever, with the sole exception of introducing a rule regarding the explicit abuse of club officials. This means the current rules have, in reality, existed for several years, having been documented by Cowshed or Dead before I was even an admin. Wow thats a lot of 'reporting', seems there's plenty folk on here who've never been outdoors before! Reported for being indoorist. |
|
|
|
Post by townrwe on Jul 19, 2021 12:11:36 GMT 1
Ive just read through the Admin log and he has had two bans for describing Homosexuality as Deviant, Whilst i dont agree with him, He is entitled to that opinion, and the same opinion that is voiced by religions and governments around the world. Behaviour considered deviant by grandparents may be socially acceptable by grandchildren, and considered normal within another generation after that. Those generational divides are blurred and take longer to manifest in some families. Surely its better that his opinion is heard, challenged and educated, than to have his opinion heard and then censored.
From reading Otiums posts, he still has views common with older generations, I have no idea how old he is, but change takes time, and is generational, you wouldn't censor your granddad, so you shouldnt censor someone else's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Jul 19, 2021 12:16:21 GMT 1
Problem with the reporting log is that I would imagine the vast majority of reporting is done by certain individuals with the standard 'wokey' intolerance to any comment that flicks their 'offensive' button.
And its a button thats easily flicked.
The reporting is always going to be a pretty one sided affair on here as a result.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jul 19, 2021 12:17:44 GMT 1
Ive just read through the Admin log and he has had two bans for describing Homosexuality as Deviant, Whilst i dont agree with him, He is entitled to that opinion, and the same opinion that is voiced by religions and governments around the world. Behaviour considered deviant by grandparents may be socially acceptable by grandchildren, and considered normal within another generation after that. Those generational divides are blurred and take longer to manifest in some families. Surely its better that his opinion is heard, challenged and educated, than to have his opinion heard and then censored. From reading Otiums posts, he still has views common with older generations, I have no idea how old he is, but change takes time, and is generational, you wouldn't censor your granddad, so you shouldnt censor someone else's. This debate has raged all weekend. The rules of this board do not, can not and should not take into account the age of a poster. Imagine if the rules said "we prohibit behaviour X unless we decide the poster is too old to know better" That's a ridiculous suggestion. It was put to me that I would not sanction a poster of the Islamic faith for posting homophobic views, The poster who suggested this was arguing that we would make an exception for a poster who was raised in a certain faith. This is poppycock. The rules apply regardless of your background. They have to. So, frankly, your argument is as weak as your record predicting transfers. |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jul 19, 2021 12:19:40 GMT 1
Problem with the reporting log is that I would imagine the vast majority of reporting is done by certain individuals with the standard 'wokey' intolerance to any comment that flicks their 'offensive' button. And its a button thats easily flicked. The reporting is always going to be a pretty one sided affair on here as a result. Believe it or not, we do take that into account. There are plenty of reports that we don't act on with the reporter being a factor in the decision. |
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Jul 19, 2021 12:26:11 GMT 1
Ive just read through the Admin log and he has had two bans for describing Homosexuality as Deviant, Whilst i dont agree with him, He is entitled to that opinion, and the same opinion that is voiced by religions and governments around the world. Behaviour considered deviant by grandparents may be socially acceptable by grandchildren, and considered normal within another generation after that. Those generational divides are blurred and take longer to manifest in some families. Surely its better that his opinion is heard, challenged and educated, than to have his opinion heard and then censored. From reading Otiums posts, he still has views common with older generations, I have no idea how old he is, but change takes time, and is generational, you wouldn't censor your granddad, so you shouldnt censor someone else's. Of course he is entitled to his opinion. He is not entitled to post it on a forum which specifically bans it and and expect it to come free of consequences. The admins, like all of us, sign up to Pro Boards rules voluntarily. Your free for all, Iāll say what I like and they can bloody well lump it idea is far more likely to see the forum disappear entirely. If you were an admin, I guarantee you would take this very seriously, once you had got your head around implications etc. When you press āI agreeā when signing up to anything on social media, it means what it says. Even the most powerful man in the world found that out. Pro Boardsā own rules pretty much mirror the rules of this forum (or, probably more accurately, the other way around). |
|
Champers
Andy Booth Terrier
Posts: 3,422
|
Post by Champers on Jul 19, 2021 12:46:34 GMT 1
Ive just read through the Admin log and he has had two bans for describing Homosexuality as Deviant, Whilst i dont agree with him, He is entitled to that opinion, and the same opinion that is voiced by religions and governments around the world. Behaviour considered deviant by grandparents may be socially acceptable by grandchildren, and considered normal within another generation after that. Those generational divides are blurred and take longer to manifest in some families. Surely its better that his opinion is heard, challenged and educated, than to have his opinion heard and then censored. From reading Otiums posts, he still has views common with older generations, I have no idea how old he is, but change takes time, and is generational, you wouldn't censor your granddad, so you shouldnt censor someone else's. He was challenged about it more times than you've made up nonsense rumours. In fact, come to think of it, you've been challenged about your bullshit hundreds of times, yet you've not been educated and changed for the better because of it have you? I think in conclusion, what I'm really trying to say, is shut the fuck up. |
|
