Rule clarification

[Captainslapper]

So admins,

After having , what was it, 5 threads removed last night and ultimately being banned from DATM for ( I presume as you refused to talk to me ) criticising you as admins and pointing out the negative effects of your actions on the board , can I ask again?

Is it now, as with talking about anything political, not allowed to criticise the admins.
It would seem it is so should the site rules be amended to make that clear?

And I post this once again as a genuine question but also in knowledge that it could well be ignored and deleted and that I could immediately be banned from the site again for this post.

[artysid]

Dec 19, 2021 10:42:51 GMT 1 Captainslapper said:

So admins,

After having , what was it, 5 threads removed last night and ultimately being banned from DATM for ( I presume as you refused to talk to me ) criticising you as admins and pointing out the negative effects of your actions on the board , can I ask again?

Is it now, as with talking about anything political, not allowed to criticise the admins.
It would seem it is so should the site rules be amended to make that clear?

And I post this once again as a genuine question but also in knowledge that it could well be ignored and deleted and that I could immediately be banned from the site again for this post.

Moving the thread to the appropriate Board I can understand. Not answering a genuine question I don't.

At least your threads get moved. Mine just get deleted without any explanation.

Do they have reasons for moving or deleting threads? I'm not sure they do. Just an exercise of power.

[King Curtis]

[Tinpot]

Dec 19, 2021 10:42:51 GMT 1 Captainslapper said:

So admins,

After having , what was it, 5 threads removed last night and ultimately being banned from DATM for ( I presume as you refused to talk to me ) criticising you as admins and pointing out the negative effects of your actions on the board , can I ask again?

Is it now, as with talking about anything political, not allowed to criticise the admins.
It would seem it is so should the site rules be amended to make that clear?

And I post this once again as a genuine question but also in knowledge that it could well be ignored and deleted and that I could immediately be banned from the site again for this post.

If you've been banned from this forum:

1) Why is there no record of it on the Admin log? (one perhaps for Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) Rigodon or kennyk2 to answer)

2) How have you managed to post this?

[ambryboy]

Dec 20, 2021 13:24:50 GMT 1 Tinpot said:

Dec 19, 2021 10:42:51 GMT 1 Captainslapper said:

So admins,

After having , what was it, 5 threads removed last night and ultimately being banned from DATM for ( I presume as you refused to talk to me ) criticising you as admins and pointing out the negative effects of your actions on the board , can I ask again?

Is it now, as with talking about anything political, not allowed to criticise the admins.
It would seem it is so should the site rules be amended to make that clear?

And I post this once again as a genuine question but also in knowledge that it could well be ignored and deleted and that I could immediately be banned from the site again for this post.

If you've been banned from this forum:

1) Why is there no record of it on the Admin log? (one perhaps for Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) Rigodon or kennyk2 to answer)

2) How have you managed to post this?

Both Digs and myself suffered the same fate a couple of days ago. It looked like a temporary block on your IP address but nothing is recorded on the admin log. It's like the DATM equivalent of the naughty step by the looks of things - we were sent away to take the rest of the day to reflect on what naughty boys we've been .

[sensible idiot]

Same for me last week.

Questioned the admins current way of doing things…. Questioned their comments about 90% of the complaints came from politics boards…. Said, if you don’t like the work don’t do the job - no one forced you to apply… suggested they step down and let folk be admins who are actually happy to do the job with all the ‘work’ it entails.

That thread was removed in it’s entirety… subsequent thread asking what the hell is wrong with you… and it’d be funny if it wasn’t so tragic were moved….

….. and I was blocked from the boards with a message saying ‘banned.. etc’. Only lasted a day, but nothing on the admin log.

It was suggested that this can happen as a blip occasionally so I gave them the benefit of the doubt….

…. But odd that it’s happened to numerous posters just at a time when they are questioning the admins.

If the admins are banning folk for a day and not following the disciplinary process… and not logging things on the admin log…. And not posting anything to clarify that there have been ‘blips’ ….

….. then they deserve all the scorn that comes their way. It is NOT their board… they do NOT own it… they do NOT have the right to do whatever they like without some explanation.

[Tinpot]

Dec 20, 2021 13:32:43 GMT 1 ambryboy said:

Dec 20, 2021 13:24:50 GMT 1 Tinpot said:

If you've been banned from this forum:

1) Why is there no record of it on the Admin log? (one perhaps for Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) Rigodon or kennyk2 to answer)

2) How have you managed to post this?

Both Digs and myself suffered the same fate a couple of days ago. It looked like a temporary block on your IP address but nothing is recorded on the admin log. It's like the DATM equivalent of the naughty step by the looks of things - we were sent away to take the rest of the day to reflect on what naughty boys we've been .

Odd. I would have thought that would have been noted on the Admin log as well.

FWIW I've never been naughty stepped, banned or owt else remotely similar - whether admin led or glitch led. Never even received a yellow card. I'm like a small eared version of Gary Lineker in that sense.

[sensible idiot]

Dec 20, 2021 13:54:12 GMT 1 Tinpot said:

Dec 20, 2021 13:32:43 GMT 1 ambryboy said:

Both Digs and myself suffered the same fate a couple of days ago. It looked like a temporary block on your IP address but nothing is recorded on the admin log. It's like the DATM equivalent of the naughty step by the looks of things - we were sent away to take the rest of the day to reflect on what naughty boys we've been .

Odd. I would have thought that would have been noted on the Admin log as well.

FWIW I've never been naughty stepped, banned or owt else remotely similar - whether admin led or glitch led. Never even received a yellow card. I'm like a small eared version of Gary Lineker in that sense.

Odd… I’ve never thought as you as a smug twat🤣

[Tinpot]

Dec 20, 2021 13:57:05 GMT 1 sensible idiot said:

Dec 20, 2021 13:54:12 GMT 1 Tinpot said:

Odd. I would have thought that would have been noted on the Admin log as well.

FWIW I've never been naughty stepped, banned or owt else remotely similar - whether admin led or glitch led. Never even received a yellow card. I'm like a small eared version of Gary Lineker in that sense.

Odd… I’ve never thought as you as a smug twat🤣

I fucking love crisps, me!

[impact]

Dec 19, 2021 10:42:51 GMT 1 Captainslapper said:

So admins,

After having , what was it, 5 threads removed last night and ultimately being banned from DATM for ( I presume as you refused to talk to me ) criticising you as admins and pointing out the negative effects of your actions on the board , can I ask again?

Is it now, as with talking about anything political, not allowed to criticise the admins.
It would seem it is so should the site rules be amended to make that clear?

And I post this once again as a genuine question but also in knowledge that it could well be ignored and deleted and that I could immediately be banned from the site again for this post.

I was banned on one browser and not on another that same day. I think it was a proboards glitch rather than anything else. It's happened a couple of times before to me.

[sensible idiot]

An admin has confirmed that I was banned for 24 hours as I was ‘agitated’.

Same admin admits the rules don’t allow that but due to aforementioned state of agitation… he made it up on the fly….

….. and tried selling it to me on the basis that it saved me from derailing the entire cosmos etc.

And he hasn’t logged it on the admin log to save me from ‘ignominy something something’ .

I wouldn’t normally reveal details of PM’s
But said admin hasn’t responded to my question ‘if the rules are no longer fit for purpose, should they be changed and then posted so all are aware of the changes’.

So…… be aware - the rules as published are no longer the rules.

[Deleted]

Dec 20, 2021 22:30:09 GMT 1 sensible idiot said:

An admin has confirmed that I was banned for 24 hours as I was ‘agitated’.

Same admin admits the rules don’t allow that but due to aforementioned state of agitation… he made it up on the fly….

….. and tried selling it to me on the basis that it saved me from derailing the entire cosmos etc.

And he hasn’t logged it on the admin log to save me from ‘ignominy something something’ .

I wouldn’t normally reveal details of PM’s
But said admin hasn’t responded to my question ‘if the rules are no longer fit for purpose, should they be changed and then posted so all are aware of the changes’.

So…… be aware - the rules as published are no longer the rules.

How did that admin communicate that to you?

I haven’t seen anything on threads. If it was via DM then that’s interesting.

EDIT: sorry, I posted that without reading your final two paragraphs. Still, very interesting that they took issue with you via private message.

[sensible idiot]

Dec 20, 2021 22:53:33 GMT 1 @rickyterrier said:

Dec 20, 2021 22:30:09 GMT 1 sensible idiot said:

An admin has confirmed that I was banned for 24 hours as I was ‘agitated’.

Same admin admits the rules don’t allow that but due to aforementioned state of agitation… he made it up on the fly….

….. and tried selling it to me on the basis that it saved me from derailing the entire cosmos etc.

And he hasn’t logged it on the admin log to save me from ‘ignominy something something’ .

I wouldn’t normally reveal details of PM’s
But said admin hasn’t responded to my question ‘if the rules are no longer fit for purpose, should they be changed and then posted so all are aware of the changes’.

So…… be aware - the rules as published are no longer the rules.

How did that admin communicate that to you?

I haven’t seen anything on threads. If it was via DM then that’s interesting.

EDIT: sorry, I posted that without reading your final two paragraphs. Still, very interesting that they took issue with you via private message.

To clarify…. Last week I started a thread that asked questions of and was critical of the admins.

That thread disappeared.

I started another thread asking what was wrong with them…. That thread was moved (I thought it had been also been removed)…

…. I started another thread along the lines of ‘it’d be funny if it wasn’t tragic’.

I then couldn’t access the boards and had a ‘banned’ message for 24 hours.

After that elapsed, I checked the admin log - no record of my sanction! I posted about it and a couple of posters suggested a blip in the system - so I gave the admins the benefit of the doubt.

Since then, I have realised it’s happened to numerous other posters….. so I PM’d kenny and asked him what is going on.

Abridged version of his comments are in my previous post.

[ambryboy]

Dec 20, 2021 22:30:09 GMT 1 sensible idiot said:

An admin has confirmed that I was banned for 24 hours as I was ‘agitated’.

Same admin admits the rules don’t allow that but due to aforementioned state of agitation… he made it up on the fly….

….. and tried selling it to me on the basis that it saved me from derailing the entire cosmos etc.

And he hasn’t logged it on the admin log to save me from ‘ignominy something something’ .

I wouldn’t normally reveal details of PM’s
But said admin hasn’t responded to my question ‘if the rules are no longer fit for purpose, should they be changed and then posted so all are aware of the changes’.

So…… be aware - the rules as published are no longer the rules.

Seems odd that access to this board is determined by your mental state, we'd better all do a session of yoga before logging on in future. Nice of them to save us from ourselves, in fact it's rather sweet of them

[Deleted]

Arbitrary-Whim At The Mac?

Who needs rules when you're having fun?

Are there any penalties for the admin breaking the rules like this? Or was an emergency 'War Powers' act brought in on the sly?

[sensible idiot]

Dec 21, 2021 1:22:30 GMT 1 @belinko said:

Arbitrary-Whim At The Mac?

Who needs rules when you're having fun?

Are there any penalties for the admin breaking the rules like this? Or was an emergency 'War Powers' act brought in on the sly?

And the admins get all huffy when folk suggest they are acting like dictators!

If it looks like an duck… etc.

Still no response to my question:

If the current rules aren’t fit for purpose.. and changes are made for ze benefit of der volk… will the rules be changed and posted for all to see?

[Deleted]

If the rules are being followed:

Administrators have the difficult job of deciding who has committed an offence - this can be a grey area - but the admins aim to make decisions objectively and in the best interests of DATM. At present there are three administrators, two of whom need to agree on an outcome following a reported post. The current admin team are Gag_N_Bone_Man , kennyk2 and Rigodon . All 3 have an equal say.

Who backed Kenny up in issuing these one day bans?

Generally, if the admin team come across a post that may break the rules, we’ll only act in serious cases.

What serious offence did Muito, or some of the others who got short bans, commit?

We operate a yellow and red card disciplinary system - posters who are in contravention of the rules for a minor offence will receive a yellow card (a warning level of 50%). Two yellow card offences (a warning level of 100%) will result in a suspension of one week.

Why were no cards issued? Why wasn't it put in the admin log? In which it states:

The intention of this is to be transparent and to make the endless speculation over our action/inaction seen recently a thing of the past.

We will post details of action taken only when it results in action - yellow cards/bans - we will not post PMs sent as an informal warning etc.

Action was taken - no details posted.

kennyk2 should stand down. You can't expect anyone else to obey the rules if you don't yourself.

[Essex Terrier]

Anyone would think kennyk2 was....

[ambryboy]

Dec 21, 2021 10:14:41 GMT 1 Essex Terrier said:

Anyone would think kennyk2 was....

A clueless buffoon? Ooh harsh!

[Deleted]

Dec 21, 2021 9:27:40 GMT 1 @belinko said:

If the rules are being followed:

Administrators have the difficult job of deciding who has committed an offence - this can be a grey area - but the admins aim to make decisions objectively and in the best interests of DATM. At present there are three administrators, two of whom need to agree on an outcome following a reported post. The current admin team are Gag_N_Bone_Man , kennyk2 and Rigodon . All 3 have an equal say.

Who backed Kenny up in issuing these one day bans?

Generally, if the admin team come across a post that may break the rules, we’ll only act in serious cases.

What serious offence did Muito, or some of the others who got short bans, commit?

We operate a yellow and red card disciplinary system - posters who are in contravention of the rules for a minor offence will receive a yellow card (a warning level of 50%). Two yellow card offences (a warning level of 100%) will result in a suspension of one week.

Why were no cards issued? Why wasn't it put in the admin log? In which it states:

The intention of this is to be transparent and to make the endless speculation over our action/inaction seen recently a thing of the past.

We will post details of action taken only when it results in action - yellow cards/bans - we will not post PMs sent as an informal warning etc.

Action was taken - no details posted.

kennyk2 should stand down. You can't expect anyone else to obey the rules if you don't yourself.

Can only assume the admins are keeping hush until it naturally blows over.

Such a shame that they can’t be transparent with DATM members.

[hoggy1975]

I have sent Kenny a PM asking him politely to respond on this thread. I am sure I will get no response or I will be shadow banned for a couple days.

I’m just hoping Kenny or gag man can finally address these issues and discuss them properly. Just ignoring this situation makes them look cowardly IMO.

[Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser)]

Dec 21, 2021 11:25:34 GMT 1 hoggy1975 said:

I have sent Kenny a PM asking him politely to respond on this thread. I am sure I will get no response or I will be shadow banned for a couple days.

I’m just hoping Kenny or gag man can finally address these issues and discuss them properly. Just ignoring this situation makes them look cowardly IMO.

Kenny is away for a few days. In terms of actions taken over the weekend, they broadly fall under the poor quality thread creation rules and Kenny took the decision that, as it was becoming a game of whack-a-mole, it was appropriate to restrict access temporarily. Whilst it's not necessarily the approach I'd have taken at the time (my approach may have made things worse) I understand his thinking and agree something needed to be done. 

The failure to log on the admin log won't happen again. This was an oversight, but in addition these temporary suspensions will not be taken into account should the posters involved be found to have broken the rules in the future and in need of a sanction. 

As admins, whilst we maintain the politics board's removal was the right thing to do (and have explained our reasoning at length already) we understand feelings have been running high. We accept that people disagree with the decision, but since we made that decision several posters have clearly taken the decision to be as disruptive as possible in an attempt to force our hands. 

To be clear, if threads get derailed by people dragging politics into them, that is on those people, not us. Everyone here is responsible for what they post. Everyone. If you decide that, as a grown up human being, you need to behave in a way that is clearly both against the rules and designed to disrupt then you need to accept that we might act on that. 

It would be the easiest thing in the world, in many ways, to simply backtrack on our decision and bow down to the handful of posters agitating for this. It would certainly make our lives easier in the short term. The fact that we are not is not due to some over-inflated sense of self-importance, nor is it due to us obstinately digging our heels in. It's because we believe it is the right thing to do and for the best for the future of DATM. If we look back at 2021 we have had some of the most venomous, vitriolic and potentially legally actionable conduct on that section of DATM. This is, and should always be, primarily a football fans' forum. It had stopped being that. It was becoming impossible to police it. The only options realistically open to us were to apply the same admin rules to that sub-board as elsewhere, which would have resulted in more bans (and we know what happens when admins ban people, dolt we?), to restrict access to certain posters (and we know what would be argued then - we've already got one witless poster comparing us to Kim Jong Un  and Xi Jinping) or to remove the board altogether. We knew it would lead to flack. We're prepared to take it. 

My sincere hope is that we can get back to discussing whether Phil has a pot, whether Dean is a saint or a sinner and when Kevin Phillips will finally sign for us. That's what this forum should be for. 

[Deleted]

Dec 21, 2021 12:33:58 GMT 1 Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) said:

Dec 21, 2021 11:25:34 GMT 1 hoggy1975 said:

I have sent Kenny a PM asking him politely to respond on this thread. I am sure I will get no response or I will be shadow banned for a couple days.

I’m just hoping Kenny or gag man can finally address these issues and discuss them properly. Just ignoring this situation makes them look cowardly IMO.

Kenny is away for a few days. In terms of actions taken over the weekend, they broadly fall under the poor quality thread creation rules and Kenny took the decision that, as it was becoming a game of whack-a-mole, it was appropriate to restrict access temporarily. Whilst it's not necessarily the approach I'd have taken at the time (my approach may have made things worse) I understand his thinking and agree something needed to be done. 

The failure to log on the admin log won't happen again. This was an oversight, but in addition these temporary suspensions will not be taken into account should the posters involved be found to have broken the rules in the future and in need of a sanction. 

As admins, whilst we maintain the politics board's removal was the right thing to do (and have explained our reasoning at length already) we understand feelings have been running high. We accept that people disagree with the decision, but since we made that decision several posters have clearly taken the decision to be as disruptive as possible in an attempt to force our hands. 

To be clear, if threads get derailed by people dragging politics into them, that is on those people, not us. Everyone here is responsible for what they post. Everyone. If you decide that, as a grown up human being, you need to behave in a way that is clearly both against the rules and designed to disrupt then you need to accept that we might act on that. 

It would be the easiest thing in the world, in many ways, to simply backtrack on our decision and bow down to the handful of posters agitating for this. It would certainly make our lives easier in the short term. The fact that we are not is not due to some over-inflated sense of self-importance, nor is it due to us obstinately digging our heels in. It's because we believe it is the right thing to do and for the best for the future of DATM. If we look back at 2021 we have had some of the most venomous, vitriolic and potentially legally actionable conduct on that section of DATM. This is, and should always be, primarily a football fans' forum. It had stopped being that. It was becoming impossible to police it. The only options realistically open to us were to apply the same admin rules to that sub-board as elsewhere, which would have resulted in more bans (and we know what happens when admins ban people, dolt we?), to restrict access to certain posters (and we know what would be argued then - we've already got one witless poster comparing us to Kim Jong Un  and Xi Jinping) or to remove the board altogether. We knew it would lead to flack. We're prepared to take it. 

My sincere hope is that we can get back to discussing whether Phil has a pot, whether Dean is a saint or a sinner and when Kevin Phillips will finally sign for us. That's what this forum should be for. 

Clearly some new rules are needed - otherwise it makes you (all) look like the administrator of a certain other forum - taking action at will, based purely on personal preference, rather than applying rules.

I'm assuming that the official reasons given for the board's removal do not entirely cover your reasoning - perhaps there are others too. I'm not being conspiratorial here, merely suggesting that the extremely personal heat/hatred directed at certain people on here from another place might have played into your reasoning too. The return of a permanently banned poster, who can't help but say outrageous things can't have helped either. It was a bit like inviting Katie Hopkins on board, and assuming she wouldn't say anything outrageous.

I do object to your description of a "handful of posters agitating for this". If you want to slyly maintain that most people are happy for the board to be removed - why not move my poll on the issue to the main board, and see if when the voting gets to the hundreds, that the results imply that the 'silent majority' is on your side. You may notice that those who are vocally unhappy with the board's removal, by and large, are those who contributed to it. Hardly a shock that when something gets removed/withdrawn, those who used it are the ones who complain the most.

Surely the answer to "venomous, vitriolic and potentially legally actionable conduct" is to ban the relevant posters. Rather than hold everyone responsible, and start moving (effectively deleting) threads at the bat of an eyelid.

I also don't think it'd stopped being predominantly a fans' forum. Surely most the posts were still on TOTT. Will you be removing the mental health board for similar reasons? Isn't it a good thing to encourage political discussion between people who share a non-political (supporting a football club) property in common? Surely it offers the rare chance to allow discourse in a non-echo-chamber (unlike the other place).

I'd also urge that if you find administrating the site too much - you could invite some new people on board. Admin decisions have seemed very arbitrary lately - like the actions of a pub landlord who can do what he wants, rather than representative fans who are governing the board on behalf of everyone else.

One final thing - I'm not expecting you to provide a comprehensive definition of 'politics' - clearly it's as blurry a concept as any. But - can you at least make clear that some political issues, say bearing on football can be discussed? And does the ban extend to current events too, or not? If some disaster happens, can we discuss it? When an election comes round, is it forbidden to mention it? A bit of clarity would help, and would make your decisions seem less arbitrary.

Cheers

p.s. can you at least leave the politics board on here as an archive? Perhaps apart from the most outrageous threads. There were some interesting discussions that now only the admins are privy to.

[Chips Longhorn]

10 out of 10 for diplomacy grimois

[Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser)]

Dec 21, 2021 13:42:47 GMT 1 Chips Longhorn said:

10 out of 10 for diplomacy grimois

?

[Deleted]

Dec 21, 2021 15:03:00 GMT 1 Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) said:

Dec 21, 2021 13:42:47 GMT 1 Chips Longhorn said:

10 out of 10 for diplomacy grimois

?

Answering some questions might help your case...

[Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser)]

Dec 21, 2021 15:27:53 GMT 1 @belinko said:

Dec 21, 2021 15:03:00 GMT 1 Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) said:

?

Answering some questions might help your case...

I thought I had.... 

[Deleted]

Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser)

See my last post.

Here's a couple more for you - homophobia and racism in football - allowed to discuss it or not?

[Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser)]

Dec 21, 2021 15:29:42 GMT 1 @belinko said:

See my last post.

Here's a couple more for you - homophobia and racism in football - allowed to discuss it or not?

We have discussed this as an admin team. It's an inexact science, but our take would be that when the discussion moves from being predominantly about the issues and their impact on football and more about the rights and wrongs of the issues generally, then we'll shut the conversation down. An example would be the covid thread about accessing football grounds - once this became (predictably) about covid generally and football was no longer the driver for the conversation, it was shut down. 

In the summer I started a thread about racism in football after the Euros and the abuse received by England's BAME players. This, again predictably, descended into a pretty unpleasant debate about how it wasn't an issue, BLM, racism generally etc. and football was no longer really being discussed. 

Hypothetical: the rainbow laces campaign recently seen - if a thread was started discussing this, and homophobia specifically within football, we'd watch with interest. If this (as I predict it would) descended into debates about LGBT rights generally, transgender rights and so on, and football ceased to be at the centre, we'd shut it down. 

So they key message is, keep things polite, friendly and football-focused and actually a hell of a lot of "life" - social issues, politics etc. can be discussed. 

[Deleted]

Dec 21, 2021 15:37:13 GMT 1 Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) said:

Dec 21, 2021 15:29:42 GMT 1 @belinko said:

See my last post.

Here's a couple more for you - homophobia and racism in football - allowed to discuss it or not?

We have discussed this as an admin team. It's an inexact science, but our take would be that when the discussion moves from being predominantly about the issues and their impact on football and more about the rights and wrongs of the issues generally, then we'll shut the conversation down. An example would be the covid thread about accessing football grounds - once this became (predictably) about covid generally and football was no longer the driver for the conversation, it was shut down. 

In the summer I started a thread about racism in football after the Euros and the abuse received by England's BAME players. This, again predictably, descended into a pretty unpleasant debate about how it wasn't an issue, BLM, racism generally etc. and football was no longer really being discussed. 

Hypothetical: the rainbow laces campaign recently seen - if a thread was started discussing this, and homophobia specifically within football, we'd watch with interest. If this (as I predict it would) descended into debates about LGBT rights generally, transgender rights and so on, and football ceased to be at the centre, we'd shut it down. 

So they key message is, keep things polite, friendly and football-focused and actually a hell of a lot of "life" - social issues, politics etc. can be discussed. 

Okay, thanks. My concern is that by limiting discussion, you're letting the homophobes and the racists win (you couldn't stick by your guns with banning them, after all). As long as we don't need to pretend that there isn't racism and homophobia in football, I guess I'll stick around for now.

I did ask a bunch of questions in my longer previous post too, that I'd appreciate an answer to.