Dollymarie Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 It wasn't anything PC related. He was reporting that there had been a murder at ***** ********* home, and suggesting that ***** was somehow involved. Kind of an easy decision don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frome Red Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Maybe a fair reason to ban him then ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 He left of his own accord I think With all the money he makes I would have thought he could afford something better than an old Honda! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge's Cider Mug Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 It wasn't anything PC related. He was reporting that there had been a murder at ***** ********* home, and suggesting that ***** was somehow involved. Kind of an easy decision don't you think? No I don't. I saw the original post - typical nttds. Totally overly sensitive reaction by the mods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greedo Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Colonel Mustard in the Drawing Room with the Candlestick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider head Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Maybe. But is it all about the perceived fear of legal action against those deemed responsible for the content of the website? To answer my own question, it must be - we are in danger of letting the PC police infiltrate free speech yet again. You have an unenviable position, I guess, but do you really think this ban (and others?) is necessary? It is not the free speech which was a problem but more like inaccurate content which could tarnish a persons character who we would rather not match the legal fee's that could be involved, so in this case a ban was necessary, funny enugh to protect him, and the forum owners from potential court dealings. For the record i like NTTDS met him a few times and he is ok, but there are times when you need to go careful what you put on forums and in this case we - mods/admins had no choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphindevon Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 It wasn't anything PC related. He was reporting that there had been a murder at ***** ********* home, and suggesting that ***** was somehow involved. Kind of an easy decision don't you think? That's a it bazaar even by his standards, it might be best to stick to radio frequencies for commentary and pictures of roundabouts in the future. Still, hope he's not gone too long, quite amusing at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greedo Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 He left of his own accord I think I assumed he was finally banned I guess he makes to much money to hang around on OTIB these days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chowie Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 It wasn't anything PC related. He was reporting that there had been a murder at ***** ********* home, and suggesting that ***** was somehow involved. Kind of an easy decision don't you think? Yes, but I find that hard to believe, I mean, he said all that without mentioning BBC Radio Bristol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge's Cider Mug Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 It is not the free speech which was a problem but more like inaccurate content which could tarnish a persons character who we would rather not match the legal fee's that could be involved, so in this case a ban was necessary, funny enugh to protect him, and the forum owners from potential court dealings. For the record i like NTTDS met him a few times and he is ok, but there are times when you need to go careful what you put on forums and in this case we - mods/admins had no choice. OK, but do you really think nttds meant what he typed literally? I suspect that you and I both know he didn't (but admittedly, I don't know him personally although have read enough of his posts to get what I believe is a realistic view of him). I still maintain that a 'warning' would have been sufficient - still the mods know best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 It wasn't anything PC related. He was reporting that there had been a murder at ***** ********* home, and suggesting that ***** was somehow involved. Kind of an easy decision don't you think? I know John and as others have said he's a really decent bloke but agree that the post in question was not thought out fully. However I'm not convinced a ban was necessary. Deleting the offending post and sending John a pm explaining why would have been more appropriate. I hope he's not banned for very long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nogbad the Bad Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 I know John and as others have said he's a really decent bloke but agree that the post in question was not thought out fully. However I'm not convinced a ban was necessary. Deleting the offending post and sending John a pm explaining why would have been more appropriate. I hope he's not banned for very long. Didn't see the offending post, ( not sure many did?) but agree with every word above. I'm certain Ted would have meant no harm and deleting the post with explanation should surely have sufficed. 24 hour ban? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider head Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 OK, but do you really think nttds meant what he typed literally? I suspect that you and I both know he didn't (but admittedly, I don't know him personally although have read enough of his posts to get what I believe is a realistic view of him). I still maintain that a 'warning' would have been sufficient - still the mods know best. In my opinion i feel he got the post title wrong with the post content with maybe him not thinking about it with no real intent however when the complaints come in and your on the spot (like a ref in a match) you act there and then and all mods/admin agreed to give him time off, delete the thread and let it die down as a few phones were going with some unhappy people on the other end. Storm in a tea cup for some maybe but let the storm blow over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 End of the day I think anyone thy knows John would know that what he posts wasn't malicious. But.... If phones were going I think it's fair to say action needed to be taken. When/if he does come back it would be nice to see more protection from mods, as he gets some pretty vile abuse which goes unpunished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge's Cider Mug Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 In my opinion i feel he got the post title wrong with the post content with maybe him not thinking about it with no real intent however when the complaints come in and your on the spot (like a ref in a match) you act there and then and all mods/admin agreed to give him time off, delete the thread and let it die down as a few phones were going with some unhappy people on the other end. Storm in a tea cup for some maybe but let the storm blow over. I understand your position. But for people to ring in to complain about it - come on, they really need to get out more! They didn't happen to live in Ashton vale, did they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 It wasn't anything PC related. He was reporting that there had been a murder at ***** ********* home, and suggesting that ***** was somehow involved. Kind of an easy decision don't you think? Most of us on here hadn't read John's original post, and so had no idea of the content of it. It was removed because the post made some very serious allegations, even if they were made tongue in cheek. And then a Moderator comes on and repeats what was in the post, meaning that it is back online for all to see. I fail to see the logic. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Most of us on here hadn't read John's original post, and so had no idea of the content of it. It was removed because the post made some very serious allegations, even if they were made tongue in cheek. And then a Moderator comes on and repeats what was in the post, meaning that it is back online for all to see. I fail to see the logic. Sorry. Like I said earlier, damned if we do, and damned if we don't. People were asking for explanations, I gave them one. Maybe they'd like to pick up the legal bill if we got sued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider head Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 I understand your position. But for people to ring in to complain about it - come on, they really need to get out more! They didn't happen to live in Ashton vale, did they? No comment :tongue: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrdc Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 All seems a bit unbalanced to me. What he wrote was a bit daft and it need to be deleted but was a ban needed. He is a truly unique member of the forum and his posts are just totally different to what anybody else would write. On the other hand, some of the abuse he gets on here is awful and seems to get no protection from mods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge's Cider Mug Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Like I said earlier, damned if we do, and damned if we don't. People were asking for explanations, I gave them one. Maybe they'd like to pick up the legal bill if we got sued. Accept the potential concerns. But sued, by who? Steve Lansdown? Really??! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greedo Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Ignore. If you're reading this, you didn't ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrdc Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Accept the potential concerns. But sued, by who? Steve Lansdown? Really??! From memory, the posted suggested that something was happenning on Stephen Landsdowns island and nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge's Cider Mug Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 All seems a bit unbalanced to me. What he wrote was a bit daft and it need to be deleted but was a ban needed. He is a truly unique member of the forum and his posts are just totally different to what anybody else would write. On the other hand, some of the abuse he gets on here is awful and seems to get no protection from mods. Here, here (or is it hear, hear?). Either way ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted August 23, 2011 Admin Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 This site is indexed by bots for the search engines of Bing & Google and our results feature quite prominently. Given the field our ex chairman is in, it is entirely likely that people totally unconnected with Bristol City let alone having the knowledge that John's a decent bloke, would have found that it was being alleged that someone had been murdered in his home. This clearly places this website in a perilous position and forced our hand. A "slap on the wrists" wasn't really an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greedo Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Most of us on here hadn't read John's original post, and so had no idea of the content of it. It was removed because the post made some very serious allegations, even if they were made tongue in cheek. And then a Moderator comes on and repeats what was in the post, meaning that it is back online for all to see. I fail to see the logic. Sorry. Exactly what I was thinking. The thread was deleted because of hypothetical implications and so that people couldn't see what was said and then a Mod, of all people, comes onto the forum and repeats what was said! Madness, absolute madness! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge's Cider Mug Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 This site is indexed by bots for the search engines of Bing & Google and our results feature quite prominently. Given the field our ex chairman is in, it is entirely likely that people totally unconnected with Bristol City let alone having the knowledge that John's a decent bloke, would have found that it was being alleged that someone had been murdered in his home. This clearly places this website in a perilous position and forced our hand. A "slap on the wrists" wasn't really an option. Afraid I don't agree, given the content of the entire post. However, we will have to agree to disagree. Hope the ban is shortened due to the weight of (common sense) feeling already expressed here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Red Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 On the other hand, some of the abuse he gets on here is awful and seems to get no protection from mods. I wouldn't say he gets ''abuse'' at all. I like Nttds and think he adds something different to the forum, however you have to admitt many of his post's are very strange and very random. Its no wonder some people react in the way they do.. Going back to the point of this thread i did actually read the post and TBH it has been blown WAY out of proportion. Are people really telling me Lansdown would consider legal action against this forum or one of its members? In no bit did Nttds directly say ''there was a murder at Lansdown's property'' it was written in no offence to him a very stupid way but thats all it was stupid no malice in it at all. If somebody not connected with the club happens to stumble across this site and interpret it differently then surely that's down to them isn't it? Maybe im being naive and in the pathetic PC world we live in maybe taking the thread down was the best option but fo0k me it all seems a lot of fuss about sod all IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 This site is indexed by bots for the search engines of Bing & Google and our results feature quite prominently. Given the field our ex chairman is in, it is entirely likely that people totally unconnected with Bristol City let alone having the knowledge that John's a decent bloke, would have found that it was being alleged that someone had been murdered in his home. This clearly places this website in a perilous position and forced our hand. A "slap on the wrists" wasn't really an option. I can see where you are coming from, but won't the fact that yourself and Dolly are repeating these ludicrous allegations, or at least trying to dispell them, put them back "out there", for the search engines to pick up again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider head Posted August 23, 2011 Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 Most of us on here hadn't read John's original post, and so had no idea of the content of it. It was removed because the post made some very serious allegations, even if they were made tongue in cheek. And then a Moderator comes on and repeats what was in the post, meaning that it is back online for all to see. I fail to see the logic. Sorry. Fair point so names have been taken out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted August 23, 2011 Admin Report Share Posted August 23, 2011 I can see where you are coming from, but won't the fact that yourself and Dolly are repeating these ludicrous allegations, or at least trying to dispell them, put them back "out there", for the search engines to pick up again? There's a difference between reading my post which could be found by the search engines looking for "ex chairman" rather than a specific name, and would then pull up a post explaining that a forum user was banned for posting a "misleading" post & one who's headline was completely libellous and the message body didn't exactly explain fully that the headline was a misnomer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.