RedZepperin Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 The Trust doesn't have any duty to protect your non existant right to freedom of internet posting. Freedom of internet posting certainly has its limits. This latest one is a new one on me, however. Any chance you could enlighten us as to which Forum rule was broken in order to justify the post's removal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Freedom of internet posting certainly has its limits. This latest one is a new one on me, however. Any chance you could enlighten us as to which Forum rule was broken in order to justify the post's removal? I don't believe the only justification for removing a post on an internet forum is breaking the rules of those forums. What gave you the impression that it was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy082005 Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 I don't believe the only justification for removing a post on an internet forum is breaking the rules of those forums. What gave you the impression that it was? Polish it up as much as you want by putting a spin on it, the simple fact of the matter is....the club said jump, the mods said how high. As someone said, nothing like taking away your freedom of speech to keep Sir happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZepperin Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 I don't believe the only justification for removing a post on an internet forum is breaking the rules of those forums. What gave you the impression that it was? Well, rules kind of help people know what they can and cannot post on a forum. The rules to this forum do not mention that posts can be moved in the interests of "keeping relations good" with the club and the Trust. Up until now, if you respected the rules and didn't post anything illegal, your post stayed on. When did the Trust decide to change this policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted July 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 So, in a nutshell, keeping good relations with the powers that be is more important than fulfilling your duty to protect our right to free speech. I guess that's one way of summing it up. As I have said, I wasn't comfortable doing it, but the club requested we remove details of a behind closed doors training game and we decided, rightly or wrongly, to abide by the request. Similarly, somebody could post something about your business that is factually correct, but that you didn't want in the public domain and we would likely remove that too, if you requested us to. I can't fully justify the decision, because I wasn't comfortable being put in the position, but I hope you can understand why we did it, even if you don't agree with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Well, rules kind of help people know what they can and cannot post on a forum. The rules to this forum do not mention that posts can be moved in the interests of "keeping relations good" with the club and the Trust. Up until now, if you respected the rules and didn't post anything illegal, your post stayed on. When did the Trust decide to change this policy? I guess your expectations are perhaps a little too high if you expect people who run internet forums to be the sort of omniscient beings who can write rules that cope with every possible future event. Or perhaps you could just accept that rules are never exhaustive and put in a very awkward position by the club the mods did the only thing they could. I doubt the situation will arise again since the Trust will now do the sensible thing and tell the club that in future this won't be done as Blagdon pointed out earlier in this thread. I was possibly the most cynical poster on here about otib's future under the Trust and I'm pleased to say that my misgivings have proved entirely false. They've done a very good job of keeping this forum running, keeping it welcoming to city fans of all ages, and it continues to be by far the most heavily used city fans forum on the net. Your little snipe about a perfectly reasonable course of action seems a bit over the top and rather petty to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 I guess your expectations are perhaps a little too high if you expect people who run internet forums to be the sort of omniscient beings who can write rules that cope with every possible future event. Or perhaps you could just accept that rules are never exhaustive and put in a very awkward position by the club the mods did the only thing they could. I doubt the situation will arise again since the Trust will now do the sensible thing and tell the club that in future this won't be done as Blagdon pointed out earlier in this thread. I was possibly the most cynical poster on here about otib's future under the Trust and I'm pleased to say that my misgivings have proved entirely false. They've done a very good job of keeping this forum running, keeping it welcoming to city fans of all ages, and it continues to be by far the most heavily used city fans forum on the net. Your little snipe about a perfectly reasonable course of action seems a bit over the top and rather petty to me. Couldn't be better put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZepperin Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 I guess that's one way of summing it up. As I have said, I wasn't comfortable doing it, but the club requested we remove details of a behind closed doors training game and we decided, rightly or wrongly, to abide by the request. Similarly, somebody could post something about your business that is factually correct, but that you didn't want in the public domain and we would likely remove that too, if you requested us to. I can't fully justify the decision, because I wasn't comfortable being put in the position, but I hope you can understand why we did it, even if you don't agree with it. Fair enough, edson. (Crikey, you've mellowed with age!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZepperin Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 I doubt the situation will arise again since the Trust will now do the sensible thing and tell the club that in future this won't be done as Blagdon pointed out earlier in this thread. Which is an admission that this was handled badly. So we are in agreement. Quite why you're getting your knickers in a twist if we all agree, I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Which is an admission that this was handled badly. So we are in agreement. Quite why you're getting your knickers in a twist if we all agree, I don't know. Ah still up to your old tricks I see. No, it wasn't handled badly. The mods were put in an awkward position and they and the trust handled it exceptionally well, the fact that the decision to remove it was posted here openly and that they will take steps to ensure that the club can't put them in that position again shows that clearly. I've no twist in my knickers thanks, I'm not the one bleating about freedom of speech... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted July 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Fair enough, edson. (Crikey, you've mellowed with age!) It comes to us all. Basically, the Trust is going to discuss this issue with the club to ensure no repeat. To my mind, the problem lays where the leak is and, while we were willing to mop up the water this time, the club would be better served changing the faulty washer to prevent future spillages. (My ability to drag out tortuous metaphors remains). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZepperin Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Ah still up to your old tricks I see ... I'm not the one bleating about freedom of speech... Have we met? For the record, my original post was directed towards edson who was perfectly capable of speaking for himself in a reasonable, good-natured and convincing manner. Lessons to be learned all-round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Have we met? For the record, my original post was directed towards edson who was perfectly capable of speaking for himself in a reasonable, good-natured and convincing manner. Lessons to be learned all-round. I'm frequently amazed by the tolerance for trolling morons shown by the mods on here so on that we can be agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictly Obi Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 I think the mods do a great job, most of the time on here. The only problem is some of the ridiculous over the top posting that blights what is essentially a great forum. I guess you will allways get the idiots with they're freedom of speech, feeling hard done by, conspiracy theories, glass half full etc But i feel in a few months even they may look back and think - "what was all that about?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZepperin Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 I'm frequently amazed by the tolerance for trolling morons shown by the mods on here so on that we can be agreed. Yes, so am I. I'm glad we can agree on that too. Excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZepperin Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 I think the mods do a great job, most of the time on here. The only problem is some of the ridiculous over the top posting that blights what is essentially a great forum. I guess you will allways get the idiots with they're freedom of speech, feeling hard done by, conspiracy theories, glass half full etc But i feel in a few months even they may look back and think - "what was all that about?" I agree that the mods do a great job. Better than ever in fact. But I also feel that we have a duty to stand up and fight for as much "freedom of speech" or "access to information" as we can and, if we suspect that the forum isn't being run properly in some way, we should say so (bearing in mind that people working on here are volunteers and, like everyone else. will make mistakes). That's partly what a discussion forum should be about, surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozo Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 News just in...Gary Johnson has decided to keep every line-up this season a secret. The media, opposition and referees will all be sworn to secrecy. The club are also rumoured to be considering keeping the scorelines a secret and inventing their own language (as pioneered by Scott Murray long ago..). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikep Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 News just in...Gary Johnson has decided to keep every line-up this season a secret. The media, opposition and referees will all be sworn to secrecy. The club are also rumoured to be considering keeping the scorelines a secret and inventing their own language (as pioneered by Scott Murray long ago..). My God - whatever next? Perhaps they will ask for World to be removed so that we can't watch the highlights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 Polish it up as much as you want by putting a spin on it, the simple fact of the matter is....the club said jump, the mods said how high. As someone said, nothing like taking away your freedom of speech to keep Sir happy Freedom of speech is a myth. Read the law (cracking read, took me ages), you can't go round saying what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.