S T / B C F C P R

[Maesknoll Red]

Well maybe I should take the line of the mod who sent me a pm, my version would be 'My opinions are not for debate and I will not tolerate you questioning them' This thread would then be deleted, get my drift?

I have no idea who the mod who PM'd you is, or why. I am asking you to bring your greviances into open forum and I've offered to do my best to answer them or at least open them for discussion. What else I can do to offer you a a public voice?

[worthyred]

I have no idea who the mod who PM'd you is, or why. I am asking you to bring your greviances into open forum and I've offered to do my best to answer them or at least open them for discussion. What else I can do to offer you a a public voice?

And I appreciate you doing that, one instance, I made a post which was polite and asked only for common sense with the moderation on here, I received a pm from a mod telling me that mods decision are not for discussion, posts regarding mods decision will not be tolerated and the thread deleted, furthermore no further discussion is permitted and any attempts to contact mods regarding decisions will be met with a ban.

This is OTT and unnecessary, if a post is genuinely likely to cause problems for the forum owners/administrators then fair enough, when a post is asking for common sense and has caused no legal problems or offence then there is no excuse for this overkill.

Nibor, I apologise for my earlier reply to your self, but to be honest i'm pretty fed up the sarcasm that is used when replying to some posts. As stated above I can't post on certain subjects as they are taboo for the mods on this site and your reply was both condesending and sarcastic.

[Nibor]

Nibor, I apologise for my earlier reply to your self, but to be honest i'm pretty fed up the sarcasm that is used when replying to some posts. As stated above I can't post on certain subjects as they are taboo for the mods on this site and your reply was both condesending and sarcastic.

Fair enough worthy, but in my defence I'd say I was responding in kind. Unless I've got it wrong again (as usual). :razz:

[Maesknoll Red]

And I appreciate you doing that, one instance, I made a post which was polite and asked only for common sense with the moderation on here, I received a pm from a mod telling me that mods decision are not for discussion, posts regarding mods decision will not be tolerated and the thread deleted, furthermore no further discussion is permitted and any attempts to contact mods regarding decisions will be met with a ban.

This is OTT and unnecessary, if a post is genuinely likely to cause problems for the forum owners/administrators then fair enough, when a post is asking for common sense and has caused no legal problems or offence then there is no excuse for this overkill.

Nibor, I apologise for my earlier reply to your self, but to be honest i'm pretty fed up the sarcasm that is used when replying to some posts. As stated above I can't post on certain subjects as they are taboo for the mods on this site and your reply was both condesending and sarcastic.

As I haven't seen the PM's, nor, (not that I can recollect) the referred to posts, I asume it refers back to RichieB. As Geoff Adams the MD of CLIK has posted on this - http://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=58289&hl= - (last post in this thread) it is the one subject I will not comment on further.

As there have been accusations of OTT moderating and comments alluding to other topics being subject to locking / deleting, I can see no reason for these not to be discussed openly.

[zookeeper]

Talk to your fellow mods about a pm i was sent last week.

Sounds like rather than a genuine concern about moderation in general there is a small group of people who want to try and force the moderation team to change their minds on one particular issue by trying to make it a PR faux pas for the trust.

Does that answer it for you?

No it doesn't but thanks for posting it.

Unless you specifically took that reply to be aimed at your post. It didn't quote your message so was a general comment not necessarily aimed at yourself. Have I made myslef clear on that or are you going to try the patronising route again. Not really a good way to get your message across.

[rod12]

A quick question:

Has the same company that has been advising BCFC on their Public Relations initiatives now been contracted by the ST?

I have to say that the events of the last few weeks have left me feeling like we need to have this forum moderated by people who are further distanced from the club and who do not feel so emotionally bought-in to the point that their hearts rule their heads.

How it was moderated before was far from perfect, but I definitely feel that it was handled much more professionally than it is now.

Right now it seems some people are running this site like whistle-happy referees with any minor infraction being blown up and the cards being taken out.

In the interests of a more free-flowing game, it would be nice to see a bit of advantage being played from time to time.

This forum is what it is.

We all make mistakes due to irritation, boredom, sometimes even because of too much booze.

That is OK and seems to be accepted.

The point here - and I never saw the posts which brought about the situation - is that the poster was WARNED to stop posts on the subject and ignored those warnings.

That being the case I think the ban is fair.

As to its length that is open to debate - as are most sentences in the UK !

[RedZepperin]

[BigTone]

[M_Porter]

I was asked to help with richieb's ban...

I missed all the posts but after 37 emails about it i get the jist of what was going on,

IMO

Richeb had a right to post what he did..again imo

however Someone be it mod or admin took offense for one reason or the other,richieb was told not to post a similar topic but he did more than once........

so lets sumurise...

He posted...it was deleted

he was warned...he posted....it was deleted..

guess what...yep...he posted it was deleted...he was banned

Where is the problem

Ok so you all agree he deserves a ban (as i do) so your problem is the length of the ban ????????

I agree the ban is a bit OTT.however if you have been wared 3 times and yet you still post are you not asking for trouble? of course you are.

And yes I'm a S.T member and Yes i also think this forum is over moderated..........

Thanks

mark

[Dan C]

Why would Clik be liable to pay any court costs because of what a poster wrote? Its not like they agree with what that poster has written.

Every poster should take full responsibility for what they post and if any libelous cases come out against them then they should be liable to pay court costs not Clik.

To me it seems like if I go to a party or something at a pub and then have a fight with someone then that person will take the pub to court but not me. Sounds stupid don't it.

RichieB was goaded into making further comments from another poster who called him a liar. If someone called me a liar when I believed I was right then I would not be to happy.

A 3-6 month ban for posting these comments after being warned not to would have been appropriate IMHO but 12 months is way to OTT

[Maesknoll Red]

Why would Clik be liable to pay any court costs because of what a poster wrote? Its not like they agree with what that poster has written.

Every poster should take full responsibility for what they post and if any libelous cases come out against them then they should be liable to pay court costs not Clik.

http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/defamation2.html

The legal precedent for hosting companies being sued.

[CGS RED]

See post #8 this thread, its quite simple, just some egos getting in the way, and thats my professional opinion.

The original legal threat came from DaveL on Tinnions behalf. The threat revolved around richieb's posts affecting Tinnions future employment, I agree on the point of law.

Lets summarise the current situation. Tinnion has sold up, leaving Gt Britain, and moving to a new career in Spain, another country and a new set of circumstances. His career is now back on track.

Richieb, Mods, Clik, the forum itself, its all about BCFC. Lets react to this new set of circumstance in a positive manner, allow richieb back on the forum from, say July 1st.

The ST operated forum, needs some goodwill, a clean start to the new season, this approach will benefit fans and forum alike. In principal richieb needs to send a valid affadavit quantifying his agreement to current forum rules. Please let sanity prevail and put this case to rest.

[Dave L]

I have no problem at all with richie posting on here, providing he stops confusing opinion with fact. On that basis I would welcome his return as the forum is a duller place without him.

[RedTop]

Just a few observations on this topic, which I have steered clear of up until now.

1. I think the forum DOES have a responsibility to allow freedom of speech. It is supposed to be run 'by the fans, for the fans'. As such there should be a presumption that someone should be allowed to post on any topic, using any language, provided it does not contravene reasonable rules which are published on the site. I see no reason why bans etc should not be discussed on the forum, provided the threads do not replicate the original offence (e.g. repeating a potentially libellous allegation, very bad swearing etc). And I see no reason for postings to be removed or threads to be locked because the subjects are inconvenient or uncomfortable for the club, the Supporters' Trust or any individual.

2. Forum moderators surely have a responsibility to intervene as infrequently as is necessary in order to enforce the rules. If they put themselves up as moderators, either as Clik employees, ST or other volunteers, they also have a responsibility to understand the basics of defamation to avoid pulling a thread because of a misguided belief it could be defamatory. While I understand and support the principle of 'better safe than sorry', that should not mean being weak and taking the easy way out by pulling threads unless there is a genuine argument that it could be ruled to be defamatory. Just because a posting may express extreme views, or even be factually inaccurate, does not make it defamatory.

3. In the specific case of RichieB it seems quite straightforward to me. There seems to have been a genuine threat not only that the posting was potentially defamatory, but that his 'target' had seen it, felt that it did indeed risk lowering his standing in the eyes of possible employers and expressed a warning that he may sue if action was not taken to remove it. From what I have read, I believe it was indeed defamatory. The poster was warned on a couple of occasions and continued to post on what he had been told not to. Had he been posting on something that was factually accurate and provable (thus removing a risk of defamation via the defence of justification) then I would have supported his right to post it and, in fact, re-post it as a matter of protest.

However, the fact of the matter is that RichieB repeatedly posted untrue, defamatory allegations despite repeatedly being warned not to and told of the consequences if he did not desist. It can surely, therefore, be no surprise when he is then banned. Worse, his apparently genuine inability to distinguish between opinion and fact leaves open the very real risk that unless limits are put on him in terms of what he can post, he will simply re-offend when the ban lapses. I don't think the length is unjustified as it has to be long enough to send a very clear message to RichieB and also to anyone else who might think of posting something that could risk Clik being taken to court.

RichieB was prolific, antagonistic and often took extreme views. I can understand why people found him entertaining and as an anti-Establishment 'champion', though personally it puzzles me why people elevated his position when most of his posts appeared unsupported by either reason or evidence. However, the bottom line is that the moderators got it right and he not only got what he deserved, his behaviour was such that he appeared to be almost begging for it. If the moderators had not taken such an extreme action, it may have sent the message that people could get away with posting libellous comments, which would have been very dangerous and risked Clik having to shut the forum to protect their own interests, which would have benefited none of us.

Since the ST took over the running of the forum, if anything I have found it to be moderated in a less authoritarian fashion, though I do wish there was less locking of threads. The fact that we all know the identities of all the moderators also helps to create a fairer and more answerable system. And the fact that an element of colourful language can be used without being patronised is also to be welcomed.

[Milo]

In order to get a clearer idea of how representatives of the Supporters' Trust view this situation, it would be helpful if one of them stated that he or she was happy with the outcome of this affair, namely:

1. A top poster has been banned for a year despite not having broken any forum rule.

2. This poster has no right to appeal.

3. He will be banned for life on return as soon as he makes an "inappropriate comment". Again, with no right to appeal.

Regurgitating the different steps that took place on the road to this appalling balls-up and posting links to websites which discuss forum libel cases is not enough.

Once a reasonable statement of this nature is received from the people who run this Forum (i.e. the Supporters Trust) then I'm sure we can all "move on".

As Chair of the Supporters Trust, here's my view.

Firstly, you cannot ask for an explanation and deny the respondent the right to point to the crux of the argument. When a poster makes libellous comments, the poster, the hosting company and the owner of the website can all be sued for losses resulting from the libellous comments. The links that you say we cannot refer to are posted up in this thread and prove that failure to take action against posters making libellous comments can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds.

I can understand why many people are seeing this from richieb's perspective. Can people also try to see it from the other point of view please?

If The Sun printed a libellous story based on someone's comments, The Sun would be considered as the vehicle that made the libellous comments possible and would be expected to make good any financial loss incurred by the injured party. The Sun could then put the journalist responsible for the article on a warning and might possibly sack the journalist if he/she persisted.

On contentious issues The Sun can get solicitors involved before the story is printed. An internet forum cannot do that. It has to trust the posters using the forum to post comments that will not put the owner's and hosting company's reputation and financial security at risk. Where a poster does so, the moderators can step in to protect both the poster from litigation and the owner and hosting company. If, after warnings, a poster is repeatedly risking the futures of the hosting company and forum owner then they have the right to prevent that poster from continuing.

To many of us as posters, OTIB and similar forums are a bit of fun. For Clik it is a livelihood. If Clik are taken through the courts for allowing libellous comments to be hosted on their sites, not only would it be damaging for their reputation but it might also costs hundreds and thousands of pounds in damages (or certainly a big hit on their future Professional Indemnity insurance premiums). If you ran a business and had someone acting in a manner that jeopardised the future of your business would you ban them? Would you ban them for life, a year, or just until enough people who didn't seem to care about your livelihood complained loudly enough?

In response to your 3 points;

1/ Common sense should be sufficient to realise that making libellous comments risks a ban.

2/ Appeals usually involve bringing along evidence of mitigating circumstances or being able to demonstrate convincingly why it won't happen again. The risk of reducing the ban is partly that it gives the message that libellous comments can be tolerated and also that if the libellous comments are repeated by the same person then the defence that Clik and the ST might have about effective moderation of the site is severely weakened.

3/ If, after a one year ban, richieb were to repeat the allegations surely you can understand that the only way to protect the ST, Clik and richieb from himself would be to stop him using the forum?

I'm not sure that getting an affidavit is practical and not only do they have computers in Spain, but it is still possible for libellous comments to create a financial loss in the future.

For the record, I miss richieb. Having met him I can tell you that in my opinion he's a genuinely nice bloke. I like his company in person and on OTIB. There have been times in the past when richieb would come to my defence in an argument with other posters and times when I'd back him up too. I wish that he was still posting and I really hope that after his ban he returns to OTIB.

This whole situation is difficult for the Supporters Trust. We want to attract new members and fans opinion of our actions whether as moderators or fans representatives will influence our ability to get people to join. It is this mindset that means that the ST mods are always on tenterhooks about doing the right thing and being seen to be doing the right thing. Accusation of 'power-hungry' actions must really annoy them because I know that they are moderating in as lenient a manner as they can.

As moderating this site in conjunction with Clik is always likely to generate more negative feedback than positive you could argue that for the purposes of good PR the ST should withdraw from OTIB. Or you could take the alternative view, which I do, that taking ownership of the site is good for the Club because we're saving it an estimated £6K a year and is consistant with the ST's aims of getting involved with the community.

If you share my view then it means that we have to do the job properly, to the best of our ability and to make the effort to justify our decisions when they are questioned. After that, if doing the right thing means bad PR then I'd rather we did the right thing and hope that enough supporters can recognise the positive benefits that we've already brought to our community. In case people are unsure of what we've achieved, I've copied and pasted a few comments from a post I put up on the ST forum yesterday.

Miles

Supporters Trust Achievements in One Year

. Hosted a free Parade of Legends evening enjoyed by 600 people

. Saved the Club at least £6,000 a year through taking on OTIB

. Agreed to invest £5,000 of members money in our Club that will allow improvements to be made to the Team's training facilities

. Hosted social evenings such as Wine & Cheesley and Poker Night with a sponsored Sportsman's evening due in October.

. Created an Industrial & Provident Society that is owned by the community that exists to safeguard the future of our Club, with a fully elected board

. Initiated a structure of fans representation events for next season

. Ensured that an elected fans representative will have access to the board in board meetings from next season and to start to influence decisions from a fans' perspective

. Launched a website with informative content

. Agreed with the Club to address stewarding practices in G Block at the start of next season.

This list could go on - it could also include other initiatives such as plans to raise funds for a commemorative plaque / statue, the 25th anniversary event for the AG8, sponsorship of shirts and matches etc.

[Dan C]

It isn't the ban that concerns us as many feel he deserves a ban. But we feel the length of the ban is a issue. I and many feel a 3-6 month ban would have been more appropriate with a period of moderator preview at the end.

Lets not forget that what RichieB typed he believed to be correct. However he agreed to say no more about it, Like when your younger and your mum makes you say sorry to your brother or sister for something even if you don't mean it.

He was then goaded into making these comments again by being called a liar. If someone called me a liar about something I believed to be true I would also do the same as RichieB and defend myself.

IMHO the ST have lost a lot of credit over this and it has been a Pr disaster and a lot of hard work has gone down the drain.

Can someone please explain what a "inappropriate comment" is? Is it just reference to the comments he made or is it to do with with anything?

[RedTop]

It isn't the ban that concerns us as many feel he deserves a ban. But we feel the length of the ban is a issue. I and many feel a 3-6 month ban would have been more appropriate with a period of moderator preview at the end.

Lets not forget that what RichieB typed he believed to be correct. However he agreed to say no more about it, Like when your younger and your mum makes you say sorry to your brother or sister for something even if you don't mean it.

He was then goaded into making these comments again by being called a liar. If someone called me a liar about something I believed to be true I would also do the same as RichieB and defend myself.

IMHO the ST have lost a lot of credit over this and it has been a Pr disaster and a lot of hard work has gone down the drain.

Can someone please explain what a "inappropriate comment" is? Is it just reference to the comments he made or is it to do with with anything?

I am not going to go back over the ins and outs of what RichieB did or didn't do. But frankly to suggest the ST has lost credit for banning someone for repeatedly making a defamatory statement that could have resulted in costly legal action, defying repeated warnings not to do so, is ridiculous. He deserves his ban, the length is justified and in fact you could argue, given the blatant nature of the offence, that Clik would be taking a risk in ever letting the poster return without his comments being checked in advance of being posted on the puiblic board.

There is only one person to blame for RichieB's lengthy ban. And it ain't a moderator or anyone from the ST.

[Milo]

It isn't the ban that concerns us as many feel he deserves a ban. But we feel the length of the ban is a issue. I and many feel a 3-6 month ban would have been more appropriate with a period of moderator preview at the end.

Lets not forget that what RichieB typed he believed to be correct. However he agreed to say no more about it, Like when your younger and your mum makes you say sorry to your brother or sister for something even if you don't mean it.

He was then goaded into making these comments again by being called a liar. If someone called me a liar about something I believed to be true I would also do the same as RichieB and defend myself.

IMHO the ST have lost a lot of credit over this and it has been a Pr disaster and a lot of hard work has gone down the drain.

Can someone please explain what a "inappropriate comment" is? Is it just reference to the comments he made or is it to do with with anything?

In your reply you highlight the main reason why the ban was a long one. Your comment "he agreed to say no more about it ... he was then goaded into making these comments again...". We're not talking about silly name calling here, Dan, we're talking about peoples' careers and livelihoods.

I hope that most fair minded supporters, even if they don't agree with the length of the ban, will understand the actions taken by the ST and Clik and can look at what the ST is achieving before concluding whether that work is "down the drain" due to the length of a ban of one poster.

[RedZepperin]

1/ Common sense should be sufficient to realise that making libellous comments risks a ban.

2/ Appeals usually involve bringing along evidence of mitigating circumstances or being able to demonstrate convincingly why it won't happen again. The risk of reducing the ban is partly that it gives the message that libellous comments can be tolerated and also that if the libellous comments are repeated by the same person then the defence that Clik and the ST might have about effective moderation of the site is severely weakened.

3/ If, after a one year ban, richieb were to repeat the allegations surely you can understand that the only way to protect the ST, Clik and richieb from himself would be to stop him using the forum?

1. Common sense would also suggest that if richieb was making the exact same comments over a period of months, they became no more "libellous" just because someone suddenly lost their temper. People representing this hosting company have themselves admitted that richieb was prevented from using the forum because they (and I quote) "couldn't be arse with the aggro". Richieb is not serving a ban as such. He is merely prevented from using the forum because originally it was too uncomfortable (and, they say, potentially dangerous) for the hosting company and now it seems that they are sticking to this prohibition through pig-headedness. If, as it appears, there no longer exists a danger of suing the hosting company then why not let him back?

How you interpret what constitutes a libellous comment is a tricky one. Comments made against Mr Anthony Pulis if challenged as in this case could potentially lead to hundreds of people being banned and the hosting company going bust in a matter of seconds.

2. I have read similar statements about this issue recently and the message I get is that people should have no right to appeal because they might exercise that right. But that's what it's there for. You have alluded to the accusations that some people have become power-mad. I don't know if that is true but I do sense that some people are very glad to see that they can curtail certain rights that we hold dear in the western world such as freedom of speech, the right to appeal and not being allowed to make up the rules as you go along.

If the threat to ban him for life is in the event of him mentioning the same affair as before, why was he told something completely different? Shouldn't this at least be clarified?

3. I always understood why the hosting company would want to delete comments that could place them in danger and to stop people from posting on a temporary basis if they could be taken to court. But please don't dress this up as a result of an infringement of forum rules (it wasn't) or the breach of some law (if it was - why wasn't this same "crime" reported months ago?).

The term of a year for the "ban" was decided because it was the same length of ban that was given to someone who had behaved in a violent behaviour on the forum. I think that it is disgraceful to criminalise richieb in this way.

As for your comments about your personal feelings towards richieb as a poster and as a fellow City fan, with all due respect, they are irrelevant. To our shame, more antagonistic personal feelings towards richieb have influenced the way in which he was chucked off the forum in the first place, how the rules were changed to make it look like a bona fide ban, how he was goaded into making more comments on the subject, how his actions were portrayed as illegal and how people who have questioned these actions have been treated rudely, topics have been locked, etc.

He broke no rule, he broke no law, he wasn't "banned" - he was simply stopped from posting because someone "couldn't be arsed with the aggro". I am surprised that you consider this to be a fair way to run the forum.

Now that the "danger" has passed, richieb should be allowed back.

[Milo]

1. Common sense would also suggest that if richieb was making the exact same comments over a period of months, they became no more "libellous" just because someone suddenly lost their temper. People representing this hosting company have themselves admitted that richieb was prevented from using the forum because they (and I quote) "couldn't be arse with the aggro". Richieb is not serving a ban as such. He is merely prevented from using the forum because originally it was too uncomfortable (and, they say, potentially dangerous) for the hosting company and now it seems that they are sticking to this prohibition through pig-headedness. If, as it appears, there no longer exists a danger of suing the hosting company then why not let him back?

How you interpret what constitutes a libellous comment is a tricky one. Comments made against Mr Anthony Pulis if challenged as in this case could potentially lead to hundreds of people being banned and the hosting company going bust in a matter of seconds.

2. I have read similar statements about this issue recently and the message I get is that people should have no right to appeal because they might exercise that right. But that's what it's there for. You have alluded to the accusations that some people have become power-mad. I don't know if that is true but I do sense that some people are very glad to see that they can curtail certain rights that we hold dear in the western world such as freedom of speech, the right to appeal and not being allowed to make up the rules as you go along.

If the threat to ban him for life is in the event of him mentioning the same affair as before, why was he told something completely different? Shouldn't this at least be clarified?

3. I always understood why the hosting company would want to delete comments that could place them in danger and to stop people from posting on a temporary basis if they could be taken to court. But please don't dress this up as a result of an infringement of forum rules (it wasn't) or the breach of some law (if it was - why wasn't this same "crime" reported months ago?).

The term of a year for the "ban" was decided because it was the same length of ban that was given to someone who had behaved in a violent behaviour on the forum. I think that it is disgraceful to criminalise richieb in this way.

As for your comments about your personal feelings towards richieb as a poster and as a fellow City fan, with all due respect, they are irrelevant. To our shame, more antagonistic personal feelings towards richieb have influenced the way in which he was chucked off the forum in the first place, how the rules were changed to make it look like a bona fide ban, how he was goaded into making more comments on the subject, how his actions were portrayed as illegal and how people who have questioned these actions have been treated rudely, topics have been locked, etc.

He broke no rule, he broke no law, he wasn't "banned" - he was simply stopped from posting because someone "couldn't be arsed with the aggro". I am surprised that you consider this to be a fair way to run the forum.

Now that the "danger" has passed, richieb should be allowed back.

1/ Let's not get into a debate about semantics. This particular accusation became a problem when someone threatened legal action.

2/ From my perspective, there should be a right of appeal and the conditions should be as I stated in my previous post. I agree that conditions related to a potential ban for life should be clearly stated.

3/ Sorry, but where did I refer to infringement of rules and breach of law? If someone who is banned for a year comes back and wilfully repeats the comments that caused the ban in the first place there is nowhere else to go but a life ban is there? To re-iterate, we are talking about comments that might affect someone's career and a subsequent agreement in court that the loss is attributable in some way to the ST and Clik could see us making good the financial loss. We should always be wary of this risk but in the situation where an injured party has threatened legal action it would be a dereliction of duty to allow it to go unchecked.

I gather from your comments that at the time of the ban the rules did not explicitly state that making libellous comments was not allowed. If that's the case then surely you agree that is a technicality? The point is that libellous comments are a clear risk to the hosting company and owner and surely you respect their right to take action to prevent themselves from getting sued?

If richieb was told he was banned because someone "couldn't be arsed with the aggro" then that's a regretable turn of phrase. What I imply from that comment is that it would be preferable to avoid getting involved in a protracted legal dispute.

You could argue that the "danger" has passed because richieb is unable to post. As stated earlier, they have computers in Spain and there is still potential for libellous comments on OTIB to harm someone's career. If richieb came back, re-iterated the comments and we were all sued, the ST and Clik would have lost its main defence, namely that we took action to prevent a repetition.

[robins72]

Tinnion isnt in Spain I saw him up the Mall in Cribbs Causeway yesterday. Perhaps the weather is better here in the Uk?

[RedTop]

1. Common sense would also suggest that if richieb was making the exact same comments over a period of months, they became no more "libellous" just because someone suddenly lost their temper.

Actually, as any lawyer will tell you, although the posting might remain as potentially libelous, the risk attached to them is obviously increased if the subject of them subsequently notifies you that they are untrue and expresses a willingness to resort to legal action if necessary. So although they were no more or less libellous, the danger of being sued did increase in this case.

If, as it appears, there no longer exists a danger of suing the hosting company then why not let him back?

An interesting argument. Let's try it in another case. Let's assume I've just murdered my wife. Since she is dead, it follows that there no longer exists a danger of me killing her, so why not let me out of jail straight away?

The answer is that punishment has several elements. It must be harsh enough to act as a deterrent to make others think twice before committing the same offence. And, of course, just as there's no guarantee that although my original victim is dead I won't reoffend, the same goes for RichieB. I'm sure part of the reason it is so long is to drum it home that when he does return (if he chooses to do so) he must not under any circumstances ignore warnings from mods and continue to repeatedly post potentially libelous comments. Given what is at stake if he does, and that it would not be him that paid the price by Clik, it strikes me as entirely appropriate that Clik should make the decision on that.

How you interpret what constitutes a libellous comment is a tricky one. Comments made against Mr Anthony Pulis if challenged as in this case could potentially lead to hundreds of people being banned and the hosting company going bust in a matter of seconds.

It is tricky but there are several easy pointers to help sort it out - the easiest (and one that RichieB seemed to have trouble with) is being able to distinguish between comment/opinion and fact. Opinion is covered by a defence of 'fair comment'. Thus, you can be pretty much as horrible as you want about any manager if you make it clear that it is simply your honestly held opinion. Look at an opinion piece on Sven's tactics in any paper for an example. But to suggest that he in fact was taking bribes from the players would be libelous because it implies wrongdoing.

I always understood why the hosting company would want to delete comments that could place them in danger and to stop people from posting on a temporary basis if they could be taken to court. But please don't dress this up as a result of an infringement of forum rules (it wasn't) or the breach of some law (if it was - why wasn't this same "crime" reported months ago?).

Surely to God it must be held as self-evident that the forum must stay within the bounds of UK law, without explicitly stating all the laws of the land in the forum rules! The comment was, in my opinion, a genuine libel risk and as such action was justified.

He broke no rule, he broke no law, he wasn't "banned"

The rules clearly state that warnings and bans can be issued for libelous comments and that moderators have a right to ban posters. Seems pretty clear to me. How you can say he wasn't 'banned' is mystifying.

[Mr Mosquito]

I have no problem at all with richie posting on here, providing he stops confusing opinion with fact. On that basis I would welcome his return as the forum is a duller place without him.

There are now, at time of writing, 223 replies to skinemclive's topic on richieb's ban from this forum on the main subcider message board. Click on the link below and read for yourselves.......

http://www.subcider.co.uk/subb/index.php?showtopic=3465

As far as I'm aware, the subcider message board was founded to be inclusive rather than exclusive. In this respect the full range of views and opinions from our fellow BCFC supporters are positively welcomed with pub language not a problem. Fair play to cider head and Co for creating a forum to reflect some of the true language and viewpoints that eminate from Ashton Gate on matchdays.

Germany 2006 - The XVIII World Cup celebratory photographs. No. 2 Berlin April 1945, MASSIVE ATTACK !!! "Roll out the barrel, we'll have a barrel of fun and sing Boom Tarara" - the Red Army have the German Gestapo blues on the run.

[RedZepperin]

... So although they were no more or less libellous, the danger of being sued did increase in this case.

So you agree with me. His comments didn't suddenly become "libellous". What happened was that someone suddenly decided to use the threat of financial ruin on a hosting company in order to stop someone else from expressing something that he'd been banging on about for months.

An interesting argument. Let's try it in another case. Let's assume I've just murdered my wife...

Murder is a crime. Having someone say that they might consider seeking legal action about comments that you have made on a football forum is not.

Surely to God it must be held as self-evident that the forum must stay within the bounds of UK law, without explicitly stating all the laws of the land in the forum rules! The comment was, in my opinion, a genuine libel risk and as such action was justified.

Another outrageous exaggeration in order to make your point. If these "libel" scares are causing such a commotion on the web you would have thought that this hosting company would have bothered to mention something about it in the rules. They didn't before, during or shortly after the "ban" debacle. If you take the trouble to sign up for the ST forum you will see, ironically, that the rules there are very clear, that they cover "libel" issues and that they haven't needed to cite the rest of UK law, as you put it.

The rules clearly state that warnings and bans can be issued for libelous comments

They didn't until a couple of weeks ago, well into richieb's made-to-measure "ban". Too late, I'm afraid. I could illustrate the point with an outrageously exaggerated story about people killing each other but I'm sure most people can understand this point without resorting to such extremes.

How you can say he wasn't 'banned' is mystifying.

You could resolve the mystery by reading through my previous exchange with Milo. richieb has been gagged, deprived of his freedom of speech because someone threatened financial ruin on the company which hosts this website. It's as simple as that.

[Nibor]

I find it hard to credit that someone would fail to understand that repeatedly doing something that could cost the owners a fair amount of money or get the forum shut down is likely to result in a ban, especially after a number of specific warnings!! You guys must have a pretty low opinion of richie? I'm sure he understood it.

Given that the forum rules have now been updated to make this crystal to even the least sharp tools in the box, and that the ban is obviously not being changed... let's just move on eh?

I think it's worth considering a couple of minor changes to mod policy as a means of reducing ammunition:

- Posting moderation decisions publicly in a locked forum so there's no dispute as to what's been done or why and people can see consistency.

- Don't delete threads unless absolutely necessary, lock those that break the rules and state why they've been locked in the last post.

Can we get on with laughing at the French please?

[Jay]

Though many of you may not care for my opinion, I feel that I ought to give a ST Mod persepective on this matter:

Firstly, all of the Clik Admin have been excellent & extremely supportive. We (BCST) like to think that we work along side Clik & help keep a good, lively forum available to all.

The term/accusation 'power hungry' couldn't be much further from the truth. With the execption of Tom & Geoff, all other mods offer their time freely. Sometimes it's difficult to devote as much time as we'd like but, after all, we all have day jobs and personal lives. I'll personally vouch for all mods & confidently state that NONE of them get a kick out of moderating, suspending or banning users - frankly, it's a pain in the ass. We would love to not have to spend the amount of time that we do on this forum searching for posts that may contain inappropriate content but since this forum was relaxed, people seem to ant to push the limits rather than get involved with healthy debate.

At the moment, it would seem that the vocal minority are bent on spending their time questioning & accusing BCST &/or Clik about their moderating abilities rather than enjoying the forum for what it is. It's also apparent that many of the objectors are those that don't seem to get too heavily involved with discussions regarding their team & club.

No decisions are taken lightly when we suspend or ban a user. All mods are in regular contact with each other and we all offer of views on diffcult situations. To use richieb as an example - we spent a long time discussing his future & it was a tough decision to suspend a long serving & popular member. Like Miles, I enjoyed reading richie's posts & hope he returns.

When I volunteered to help moderate this forum, I did so as I felt that I could be unbiased & not play favourites to certain users or BCST members. Furthermore, before becoming a moderator, my profile on otib was almost non-existent. I felt that I had no friends or enemies here & that this would help keep any personal attacks & administration to a minimum. I, along with all other BCST mods, are aware of the equilibrium that needs to exist & we all try very hard to make sure that this forum is fair to ALL users whilst not wishing to reflect badly on BCST. Believe me, it's not an easy task and Clik have been very supportive throughout the past 4 months.

I like otib & it can be a great read. Sometimes I miss being a humble member - I used to happily spend my time reading thread after thread, enjoying the banter & dicussion. This forum is at its best when people talk football rather than moan about a mate that's been removed/suspended.

We all try hard to keep this a relaxed forum but it would seem that if we give an inch, people try to take a mile. Maybe it's time to return to the BCFC method of moderation & become harder.

[Milo]

As far as I'm aware, the subcider message board was founded to be inclusive rather than exclusive. In this respect the full range of views and opinions from our fellow BCFC supporters are positively welcomed with pub language not a problem. Fair play to cider head and Co for creating a forum to reflect some of the true language and viewpoints that eminate from Ashton Gate on matchdays.

The subcider message board hosted, for about a week, allegations about an incident in the town centre involving players who were named. There were apparently scores of witnesses to this incident. When one of these players threatened to sue the threads were taken down. When it comes to responding to threats of legal action the subcider site behaves as any well run site should run and acts to ensure that libellous comments are not posted on the site.

richieb has been gagged, deprived of his freedom of speech because someone threatened financial ruin on the company which hosts this website. It's as simple as that.

richieb has been banned because, despite warnings, he continued to post accusations that were libellous.

[PhatWill]

I have no problem at all with richie posting on here, providing he stops confusing opinion with fact. On that basis I would welcome his return as the forum is a duller place without him.

Erm you stated that you knew 'for a fact' that there had been no prior discussions between Tinnion and Lansdown regarding the City manager job.

Now, I don't care if you're married to Tinnion or are Lansdowns private investigator - there is no way you can state 'for a fact' that no discussions took place. So Richie wasn't the only one confusing opinion with fact.

[Dave L]

I am not going to continue this debate any further as I don't thik it helps anyone to be constantly going over old ground. Personally I'm looking forward to next season with Gary Johnson as manager. He will have my full support.

[reddoc]

Obviously numerous people on here with a far more detailed knowledge of the law than I. However for that very reason , when I occasionally in the past have found myself unsure of my legal standing I've fairly quickly approached my lawyers for an opinion. Appears to me that assuming OTIB/Clik have done the same, wouldn't it benefit all to provide details of the outcome, which would essentially put the argument to rest?