[Stoptalkingbol]

Westbars Spireite, on 24 April 2016 - 11:24 AM, said:

I'm struggling to understand Pete's stance on this messageboard full stop if I'm honest. I don't know him other than through here and social media so it's important I make it clear what I'm about to say is in no way personal.

Why not just pack it in? Surely this being a genuinely independent place, which he acknowledges this isn't, would be far better for the future good of CFC regardless of what Turner, Allen, Carson etc may think.

Furthermore who decides who is admin on here? Shouldn't it be a case that all positions can be open to question, otherwise we effectively have a dictatorship?

Some people love the power and to be in control. Why else would you do something that is supposedly hours worth of ball ache to go through and have the threat of legal action supposedly constantly hanging over your head for free?

Let folk dig their own grave if they're stupid enough to do so and cut all your ties with the message board. It's blatantly obvious he has ties with the current cfc regime as he rarely posts on here to clarify any situations, just the usual secret squirrel PMs. A little embarrassing really.

[DIFH]

Westbars Spireite, on 24 April 2016 - 11:24 AM, said:

I'm struggling to understand Pete's stance on this messageboard full stop if I'm honest. I don't know him other than through here and social media so it's important I make it clear what I'm about to say is in no way personal.

Why not just pack it in? Surely this being a genuinely independent place, which he acknowledges this isn't, would be far better for the future good of CFC regardless of what Turner, Allen, Carson etc may think.

Furthermore who decides who is admin on here? Shouldn't it be a case that all positions can be open to question, otherwise we effectively have a dictatorship?

Your playing straight into the hands of the hieracy doing that - this has been the only outlet where a direct critism of the goings on have hurt the untouchables/chancers and the like. You only have to go back to DB and his antics.

[Westbars Spireite]

Dave In Footie Heaven, on 24 April 2016 - 11:34 AM, said:

Your playing straight into the hands of the hieracy doing that - this has been the only outlet where a direct critism of the goings on have hurt the untouchables/chancers and the like. You only have to go back to DB and his antics.

Doing what? Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?

[dim view]

Westbars Spireite, on 24 April 2016 - 11:24 AM, said:

I'm struggling to understand Pete's stance on this messageboard full stop if I'm honest. I don't know him other than through here and social media so it's important I make it clear what I'm about to say is in no way personal.

Why not just pack it in? Surely this being a genuinely independent place, which he acknowledges this isn't, would be far better for the future good of CFC regardless of what Turner, Allen, Carson etc may think.

Furthermore who decides who is admin on here? Shouldn't it be a case that all positions can be open to question, otherwise we effectively have a dictatorship?

Obviously you can't replicate deleted posts, but in what generic areas are you dissatisfied with the service?

If Pete gets a call from DA or CT or LS or anybody else saying that they feel a post is libellous, is it really worth the effort of contesting it?. From what I've been reading, if you get rid of the mods, you expose the Bridge Inn to possible pressure.

[Bobby Darling]

spireitenag, on 24 April 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

Whilst I am totally in agreement with the right to free speech on a board that is independent of CFC,there will always be a need for some form of moderation.

Pete is in a position as administrator on here and in his involvement with the community trust where their will on occasions be a conflict of interest.

If however Pete's actions in removing what are deemed as potentially libellous comments saves posters on here from the threat of litigation it's a job well done.

But leaves Pete 'Damned if he does,damned if he doesn't'.

The last thing any of us wants is another S6 scenario.

I think administrators should remove anything that they think is illegal or abusive. Removing stuff that they deem to be "potentially libellous" is a grey area for me unless it exposes the Board to legal action. I'm not well up enough on libel law to know whether the administrators have any legal exposure as individuals for what's posted on the board. If they have then I understand them being cautious. If not it is a big step to assume that they are protecting people from the actions of others.

[Westbars Spireite]

dim view, on 24 April 2016 - 11:38 AM, said:

Obviously you can't replicate deleted posts, but in what generic areas are you dissatisfied with the service?

If Pete gets a call from DA or CT or LS or anybody else saying that they feel a post is libellous, is it really worth the effort of contesting it?. From what I've been reading, if you get rid of the mods, you expose the Bridge Inn to possible pressure.

I don't think it's for the greater good if that call takes place full stop.

This, and all places like it, should be feared by the powers that be and not be able to controlled.

This post has been edited by Westbars Spireite: 24 April 2016 - 11:46 AM

[Forever a Spireite]

Dave In Footie Heaven, on 24 April 2016 - 10:41 AM, said:

Are moderators in any way liable for what is poted on this board.

If you are going to pull Pete to pieces then please have the bollux to post your full name. Yo can always go back behind the keyboard in a new reincarnation.

I've posted my name on here in many occasions ! If you actually read what I've said I actually thank and congratulate him for trying to make sure that libellous stuff is taken off. My only criticism is that in my opinion he bowed to pressure from the turnipe and co because they simply don't like being called a root vegetable and such. In those situations he should tell them to one!

[dim view]

Forever a Spireite, on 24 April 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

I've posted my name on here in many occasions ! If you actually read what I've said I actually thank and congratulate him for trying to make sure that libellous stuff is taken off. My only criticism is that in my opinion he bowed to pressure from the turnipe and co because they simply don't like being called a root vegetable and such. In those situations he should tell them to one!

His online editing feature has made them appear even more ridiculous. You underestimate Pete.

[ELTON 2020]

metallilad, on 24 April 2016 - 09:39 AM, said:

I think Pete does a fine job on here.
He has now got to sit and read all those posts from the threads that have been made invisible to ensure that nothing libellous has been stated.
He's got to know where everything stands lawfully so that means that he must "swat up" to ensure that he is correct in his assessments.
He has to tread carefully in what he does becaus there's always going to be somebody that will question his actions so he needs to make it clear that it's for a particular reason.
He does this as a labour of love aswell, doesn't get paid a penny for doing it.
And all this whilst getting criticised by a few on here.
Now. I don't know him, I'm only guessing that he does all of this in his spare time because he works.
For godsake people give the man a break. It's a lot to cope with and criticising him doesn't make it a worth while job to do. We're all frustrated at the way the clubs going at the moment but let's not let our frustrations spill over onto somebody that is only really trying to protect the our message board.

If it's true it's not libellous....

[DIFH]

Forever a Spireite, on 24 April 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

I've posted my name on here in many occasions ! If you actually read what I've said I actually thank and congratulate him for trying to make sure that libellous stuff is taken off. My only criticism is that in my opinion he bowed to pressure from the turnipe and co because they simply don't like being called a root vegetable and such. In those situations he should tell them to one!

Thats all well and good if that is the case. Of course we've no idea.

[metallilad]

Elton John 1866, on 24 April 2016 - 12:18 PM, said:

If it's true it's not libellous....

And let's be fair. A lot of what gets posted is a truth that gets "Chinese whispered". That is why he is doing what he's doing.
All this bo**ocks about letting people hang themselves is why he is being extra vigilant, whilst I agree that it's a public forum, that the last time I checked we still had freedom of speech some people seem to think that posting up insults & calling names of our board members and CEO is perfectly acceptable.
You call somebody that's not white a racist name it's wrong.
You call somebody who is disabled a name it's wrong.
You defend somebody who commits a crime it's wrong.
Everybody calls for action to be taken against these type of perpetrators (and rightly so) if any of those examples are done. But because it's against the top brass at the club and were not very happy with them we seem to expect that it's our forum and we can say it even if it is grossly exaggerated. And that is my point. All Pete is doing is not only protecting us but also protecting the board, he is doing it in his own time. It's not a power trip it's keeping the name of "Bobs board" going on for us all to use.
It's not really that hard to understand.

This post has been edited by metallilad: 24 April 2016 - 12:47 PM

[Westbars Spireite]

What makes you think this place cannot function without Pete's, or anyone else's, guidance?

[The Rec]

Forever a Spireite, on 24 April 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

I've posted my name on here in many occasions ! If you actually read what I've said I actually thank and congratulate him for trying to make sure that libellous stuff is taken off. My only criticism is that in my opinion he bowed to pressure from the turnipe and co because they simply don't like being called a root vegetable and such. In those situations he should tell them to one!

Just be careful here as calling someone a certain root vegetable can be construed as libel, based upon the fact that the 'someone' can prove, without doubt, that he isn't and therefore the statement is a lie however, that said, with the way the board changes the specific root vegetable name to a certain 'someone's' name, there is also scope that any specific root vegetable reading this board, could pursue legal action at being called a certain 'someone' based upon that they can categorically prove that they are, in fact, a root vegetable.

Hope this clears things up?

[Forever a Spireite]

Perfectly lol!

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

metallilad, on 24 April 2016 - 09:39 AM, said:

I think Pete does a fine job on here.
He has now got to sit and read all those posts from the threads that have been made invisible to ensure that nothing libellous has been stated.
He's got to know where everything stands lawfully so that means that he must "swat up" to ensure that he is correct in his assessments.
He has to tread carefully in what he does becaus there's always going to be somebody that will question his actions so he needs to make it clear that it's for a particular reason.
He does this as a labour of love aswell, doesn't get paid a penny for doing it.
And all this whilst getting criticised by a few on here.
Now. I don't know him, I'm only guessing that he does all of this in his spare time because he works.
For godsake people give the man a break. It's a lot to cope with and criticising him doesn't make it a worth while job to do. We're all frustrated at the way the clubs going at the moment but let's not let our frustrations spill over onto somebody that is only really trying to protect the our message board.

Sorry to be a killjoy. But None of this is true.

You don't have to have a moderator. A message board is not required to have any moderation.

Whilst not wanting to make this personal, I found PP's responses to me rude and authoritarian. Maybe it's about time the board users decide if they think they need someone to monitor what they say. Personally, I like to manage my own speech.

[DMU Blue]

People don't half get wound up over little things.

[Mr Mercury]

Westbars Spireite, on 24 April 2016 - 12:58 PM, said:

What makes you think this place cannot function without Pete's, or anyone else's, guidance?

I think I mentioned this before but I had the pleasure of reading the completely Independant Stags message board that that fool from Mansfield set up, it was absolutely rubbish, caused mainly by foul mouthed posters turning every thread into a disgusting free for all. I can assure you if this board didn't have moderation there's a few posters on here who would reduce this to the same level very quickly indeed.
It might not be perfect but believe me it could get a lot worse.
I'm not on Petes side at all and believe that there is probably still to much pressure from the club, but I do agree with his saying that if you don't like it post elsewhere. Without moderation this board would degenerate and quickly falter into memory.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

Mr Mercury, on 24 April 2016 - 02:24 PM, said:

I think I mentioned this before but I had the pleasure of reading the completely Independant Stags message board that that fool from Mansfield set up, it was absolutely rubbish, caused mainly by foul mouthed posters turning every thread into a disgusting free for all. I can assure you if this board didn't have moderation there's a few posters on here who would reduce this to the same level very quickly indeed.
It might not be perfect but believe me it could get a lot worse.
I'm not on Petes side at all and believe that there is probably still to much pressure from the club, but I do agree with his saying that if you don't like it post elsewhere. Without moderation this board would degenerate and quickly falter into memory.

Free speech is often ugly. The alternative is far worse.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

a kick in the balls, on 24 April 2016 - 11:02 AM, said:

It might be!

A court subpoena for documents might make interesting reading, and perhaps make a few sphincters twitch.

I think that someone, somewhere has been badly advised.

It's only natural to assume that any individual or company would want to keep negative press coverage to a minimum & would seek to do everything possible to ensure that's the case. However, litigation would almost certainly be counterproductive.

Judging by posts on other social media platforms recently, this board and its contributors is the least of their worries.

This post has been edited by freelander2: 24 April 2016 - 02:47 PM

[Westbars Spireite]

Mr Mercury, on 24 April 2016 - 02:24 PM, said:

I think I mentioned this before but I had the pleasure of reading the completely Independant Stags message board that that fool from Mansfield set up, it was absolutely rubbish, caused mainly by foul mouthed posters turning every thread into a disgusting free for all. I can assure you if this board didn't have moderation there's a few posters on here who would reduce this to the same level very quickly indeed.
It might not be perfect but believe me it could get a lot worse.
I'm not on Petes side at all and believe that there is probably still to much pressure from the club, but I do agree with his saying that if you don't like it post elsewhere. Without moderation this board would degenerate and quickly falter into memory.

Perhaps my point wasn't clear.

I wasn't suggesting no moderation. My post was in response to the suggestion that it needed moderation by specific individuals.