Moved Stuff

If it ain't amber or ain't football then it belongs here!
no avatar
User

George Street-Bridge

Posts

5650

Re: Ownership

Postby George Street-Bridge » May 15th, 2018, 10:59 am

I hope this "one line per paragraph" layout means there actually are two forum users with this idiosyncrasy, not just the one (with previous for multiple IDs).
no avatar
User

Stan A. Einstein

Posts

9324

Re: Ownership

Postby Stan A. Einstein » May 15th, 2018, 11:29 am

George Street-Bridge wrote:I hope this "one line per paragraph" layout means there actually are two forum users with this idiosyncrasy, not just the one (with previous for multiple IDs).


Agree with you here. I personally think that if one has to register to be on this board it would make sense for real names to be known. Freedom of speech is for me vital. But with that freedom should be tempered with accountability.
no avatar
User

excessbee

Posts

2933

Re: Ownership

Postby excessbee » May 15th, 2018, 12:19 pm

George Street-Bridge wrote:I hope this "one line per paragraph" layout means there actually are two forum users with this idiosyncrasy, not just the one (with previous for multiple IDs).


I think the person banned for multiple IDs has already resurfaced under another guise. Another anomaly, which I suppose breaks no forum rules, is the idea that more than one poster can post under the same username. From quite some time ago I have wondered if that is happening, and recently that seems to have resurfaced.
no avatar
User

Stan A. Einstein

Posts

9324

Re: Ownership

Postby Stan A. Einstein » May 15th, 2018, 12:42 pm

excessbee wrote:
George Street-Bridge wrote:I hope this "one line per paragraph" layout means there actually are two forum users with this idiosyncrasy, not just the one (with previous for multiple IDs).


I think the person banned for multiple IDs has already resurfaced under another guise. Another anomaly, which I suppose breaks no forum rules, is the idea that more than one poster can post under the same username. From quite some time ago I have wondered if that is happening, and recently that seems to have resurfaced.


Yes I agree with your analysis. Other than rather than resurface this has always gone on.

All I can can suggest is that regardless of taking utterly different views those of us who are known, yourself, GSB, owlsabout, Corky have a credibility that others lack.

By credibility I don't mean that one agrees with the general world view but rather the points they raise are deserving of being answered.
no avatar
User

Fourthousand

Posts

364

Re: Ownership

Postby Fourthousand » May 15th, 2018, 1:55 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote:
excessbee wrote:
George Street-Bridge wrote:I hope this "one line per paragraph" layout means there actually are two forum users with this idiosyncrasy, not just the one (with previous for multiple IDs).


I think the person banned for multiple IDs has already resurfaced under another guise. Another anomaly, which I suppose breaks no forum rules, is the idea that more than one poster can post under the same username. From quite some time ago I have wondered if that is happening, and recently that seems to have resurfaced.


Yes I agree with your analysis. Other than rather than resurface this has always gone on.

All I can can suggest is that regardless of taking utterly different views those of us who are known, yourself, GSB, owlsabout, Corky have a credibility that others lack.

By credibility I don't mean that one agrees with the general world view but rather the points they raise are deserving of being answered.


Why don't you try a third time - the first was apparently taken down for 'abusive'comments and this one has descended into going off topic from the inconsequential and unimportant subject thread around 'ownership' (of our club) to the possible identity of a dodgy poster and the old chestnut of how this board is set up, followed by the opportunity for you to inderline your own creditability.
no avatar
User

rncfc

Posts

2926

Location

Caerphilly

Re: Ownership

Postby rncfc » May 15th, 2018, 8:46 pm

Willthiswork wrote:OK, another thread 'tidied up'. I've also merged it with the 'tidied' original thread too. Keep this one on track please - I think this is an important thread that doesn't need immature comments spoiling it.


Ok Mr Poopyhead.
no avatar
User

theale

Posts

794

Re: Ownership

Postby theale » May 15th, 2018, 11:37 pm

Will this work.....know it won't until you lighten up and start thinking logically,I've assertained that your getting angrier by the day,calm down please your spoiling people's debate.
no avatar
User

pembsexile

Posts

5229

Location

Sunny and warm Pembrokeshire

Re: Ownership

Postby pembsexile » May 16th, 2018, 6:43 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote:
George Street-Bridge wrote:I hope this "one line per paragraph" layout means there actually are two forum users with this idiosyncrasy, not just the one (with previous for multiple IDs).


Agree with you here. I personally think that if one has to register to be on this board it would make sense for real names to be known. Freedom of speech is for me vital. But with that freedom should be tempered with accountability.


Accountability to whom? Such a wonderful phrase 'freedom of speech'. What does it mean in the context of this board though? The admin rules quite clearly state that anonymity is a fundamental concept in use on this board. Any poster who tries to reveal the 'real' name of a poster will have measures taken against them. Rules are rules eh? I have been reminded of this fact by a few posters over the last few months. Harps 62, Jackorias, et al, are you reading this?

To the best of my knowledge there have been two attempts this week whereby a poster has asked someone to reveal their identity. What happened - sod all. Furthermore, in an attempt to 'tidy up' this messageboard, I know of one post that has been deleted. I suspect that you do as well.

Rules are rules, accountability, freedom of speech - bull***t.
no avatar
User

excessbee

Posts

2933

Re: Ownership

Postby excessbee » May 16th, 2018, 6:57 am

But surely there is a fundamental difference between asking someone to reveal their identity (which will result in a refusal) and revealing someone else's identity, which is beyond their control.
no avatar
User

Willthiswork

Rank

Moderator

Posts

1334

Moved Stuff

Postby Willthiswork » May 16th, 2018, 7:08 am

To keep a topic on track I've moved some stuff here!
no avatar
User

Stan A. Einstein

Posts

9324

Re: Ownership

Postby Stan A. Einstein » May 16th, 2018, 7:15 am

For me the problem is this.

If you are going to be critical of people it is unfair to attack them publicly whilst maintaining anonymity. I have been very critical of Gavin Foxall. As chairman of Newport County he has placed himself in a position where people are entitled to be critical. As they are of any elected representative.

However if my identity was secret then to make open criticism knowing that I could do so with impunity would cause me two problems. Firstly, and this is what I would do in Gavin's position, he could indeed should say, I don't have to reply to people who hide their identity. Secondly I am not prepared to say anything which can't be attributed to me. If I were not prepared to either stand by or retract anything I said then I would be a coward.

If you don't believe me ask Kevin Ward this. When you were editing the Argus would you print a letter which was signed and addressed the contents of which you disagreed with? I am confident his answer would be yes. Ask him would he print a letter which he wholeheartedly agreed with but was from an anonymous source, and I am confident his answer would be no.

I don't care too much when people simply want to post comments which are innocuous. However when people want to voice strong criticism of others I think that they should have the courage of their convictions and identify themselves.
no avatar
User

Jimmy Exile

Posts

284

Re: Moved Stuff

Postby Jimmy Exile » May 16th, 2018, 10:59 am

hi stan this is nonsense in my opinion.

the Argus letters page allowed you to be anonymous at one point and also the messages under the articles are anoumymous.

the whole message board thing works because it’s anonymous. football forums would have a handful of people only if it went down the route of having to ID yourself.

I don’t care myself if you know who I am or not it doesn’t bother me but others do. it doesn’t give anymore credibility if you know who is posting.

take you for an example. it wouldn’t matter if you were anon or not. you get so much wrong, you flounce when you are proved wrong and attention seek at all times. you have no credibility whether you are anonymous or wether you post your passport up.
no avatar
User

pembsexile

Posts

5229

Location

Sunny and warm Pembrokeshire

Re: Ownership

Postby pembsexile » May 16th, 2018, 8:57 pm

excessbee wrote:But surely there is a fundamental difference between asking someone to reveal their identity (which will result in a refusal) and revealing someone else's identity, which is beyond their control.


Fair point, and I agree with your sentiment. Hopefully most people would agree that we would like as many people as possible using this board. However, as people have said, 'rules are rules'. If you continue to press and use conjecture to reveal the identity of persons on this board you will incur an indefinite ban. Thems the rules. It's on the front page.

I will re- emphasise, I do not want to see people unnecessarily banned from this board. Unless of course they post homophobic, racist or incitement to violence comments. I cannot remember seeing one of those posts, thank goodness.

I will ask again, why can't we have an amnesty for people like Harps 62 so that we can start again. Harps broke the rules, so did (and do) others. This identity rule is not working. It is not consistent. They don't get a ban, Harps and a few others did. Where is the fairness in that?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Powered by phpBB ®