| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys 17:13 - Aug 30 with 46396 views | Darran |
You know the ones,Warwick,Spratty,T2C.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 00:41 - Sep 2 with 1903 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 00:01 - Sep 2 by Davillin |
Humbled, I must agree with this post and apologize. |
No worries man, forget it. This is what supporting a football club is all about, all of us having grand opinions and meeting people with different ones.
Let's all just enjoy the success the lads are achieving . That's the big picture |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 00:54 - Sep 2 with 1872 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
I'm of the opinion I've been very fair towards Garry and have been so since our run of form began late last season.
I won't deny I've been very critical of the board but I was and still continue to be very justified in doing so. They're under performing in their duties and it must be addressed. |  |
| |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 06:37 - Sep 2 with 1806 views | DJack |
WOW, just WOW!
This thread is an absolute car crash. |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Let's all laugh at theAgenda Boys on 07:09 - Sep 2 with 1788 views | Phil_S |
| Let's all laugh at theAgenda Boys on 23:22 - Sep 1 by Spratty |
Are you sure about that Phil. You did not say anything like you would not have chosen him as temp.
The little argument with Darran is actually a serious complaint against your website and the behaviour you condone from your chief mod. You not going to take any responsibility for this Phil then OK for him to constantly badger me and call me vile and abusive names. OK if he did this to your daughter for politely expressing her opinion?
No comment of the repeated accusations of child abuse made against me by an adult poster pretending to be a child who also had a 2nd ID to support himself. Again you ignored my abuse complaint delivered to your inbox when Darran supported this by letting it continue. Do you think you are discharging your duty of care as website owner. Abuse is not banter Phil, nor is facilitating racial abuse. Is it OK for your chief mod to hope someone is put in hospital? |
There's a massive difference between saying I would not have made the appointment and being against it. Especially in the context that you have decided to use it. |  | | |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 07:22 - Sep 2 with 1782 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 00:39 - Sep 2 by Darran |
DYS hasn't stopped criticising Monk and the dealings of the board for months and he's out of order in a lot of his posts.
I ask you again are you behind our new young manager? |
So why do you pick on Spratty so much then? Or is DYSS really Fath? | |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 07:51 - Sep 2 with 1746 views | Jackfath |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 07:22 - Sep 2 by Brynmill_Jack |
So why do you pick on Spratty so much then? Or is DYSS really Fath? |
 |  |
| |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 10:44 - Sep 2 with 1662 views | Shaky |
As a financier of considerable status, sagacity and above all seriousness I have so far maintained a dignified absence from this discussion. That's mainly because I am snowed under right now, but at the same time my views on all this may surprise a few people.
First of all let there be no doubt that I have been on the receiving end of Darran on numerous occasions. Not only was I banned from the old board on the false Dimi pretext, but when I re-registered here he constantly harassed me on the same subject for what 6 months? Furthermore, by constantly fingering me as Dimi he gave an official imprimateur to this falsehood that was unsurprisingly accepted by many others, even though I knew that he could have no real evidence of any of it because it was simply not true, as Darran no doubt now accepts.
So to put it kindly Darran is not perfect. But the fact is that none of us are.
I like Baker a lot and don't want to undermine him, but as a counterpoint to this I can not help but recall when I joined the other board. I already had reservations about this due to what I perceived as a completely over the top Puritanical approach to moderation - eg no swearing at all - so I approached the board with some caution seeking to clarify the boundaries. Within a day or two of tentatively participating I had already received a one week ban on account of some wild-eyed moderators absolute insistence I was a poster I had never heard of on a message board I didn't even know existed! When my ban expired I then went back and fired off a couple of PMs to the moderator in question as well as the owner that in no uncertain terms set out my opinion on their competence to which they responded with another ban.
Now I accept there may have been extenuating circumstances that caused them to behave like bunch of hysterical paranoid delusionals and their approach may well have improved since them, but the point remains; even with the best of intentions moderating is a tricky business as has widely been understood on messageboards even before the dawn of the proper internet.
Therefore I tend to look at this question in the same way as the great philosopher Karl Popper analysed the leadership of states in his criticism of Plato. He had asked the question who should lead, to which his reply was the best amongst us. (BTW, Popper convincingly shows that by this Plato certainly meant himself, in a manner you could imagine St Davlon championing). But Popper points out that is is bleeding obvious. After all who in their right mind would want the worst person to lead?
His approach instead is that knowing all men are imperfect to plan for the worst while hoping for the best, to ensure that whoever is chosen can do the least damage. In practical terms that means taking an institutional approach laying down rules and procedures for what can and should happen rather than argue about who is the best person to receive absolute authority.
This would clearly require some thought, but to me the central issue is how to deal with the tricky issue of banning, which I consider to be the intellectual/debating equivalent of violence and therefore unacceptable. Clearly banning posters is warranted in some circumstances for example in the case of genuine trolls without any redeeming qualities. On the other hand banning T2C for using rich language as St Davlon would like to see, or Sprats for making reasoned criticism is not acceptable.
As such it seems to me the focus of attention should be on devising a sensible mechanism for dealing with bannings that provides a transparent mean of appeal; that would require some further thought and as I said I am busy right now, so maybe others have some ideas. |  |
| |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 10:52 - Sep 2 with 1648 views | Musical_Swan |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 10:44 - Sep 2 by Shaky |
As a financier of considerable status, sagacity and above all seriousness I have so far maintained a dignified absence from this discussion. That's mainly because I am snowed under right now, but at the same time my views on all this may surprise a few people.
First of all let there be no doubt that I have been on the receiving end of Darran on numerous occasions. Not only was I banned from the old board on the false Dimi pretext, but when I re-registered here he constantly harassed me on the same subject for what 6 months? Furthermore, by constantly fingering me as Dimi he gave an official imprimateur to this falsehood that was unsurprisingly accepted by many others, even though I knew that he could have no real evidence of any of it because it was simply not true, as Darran no doubt now accepts.
So to put it kindly Darran is not perfect. But the fact is that none of us are.
I like Baker a lot and don't want to undermine him, but as a counterpoint to this I can not help but recall when I joined the other board. I already had reservations about this due to what I perceived as a completely over the top Puritanical approach to moderation - eg no swearing at all - so I approached the board with some caution seeking to clarify the boundaries. Within a day or two of tentatively participating I had already received a one week ban on account of some wild-eyed moderators absolute insistence I was a poster I had never heard of on a message board I didn't even know existed! When my ban expired I then went back and fired off a couple of PMs to the moderator in question as well as the owner that in no uncertain terms set out my opinion on their competence to which they responded with another ban.
Now I accept there may have been extenuating circumstances that caused them to behave like bunch of hysterical paranoid delusionals and their approach may well have improved since them, but the point remains; even with the best of intentions moderating is a tricky business as has widely been understood on messageboards even before the dawn of the proper internet.
Therefore I tend to look at this question in the same way as the great philosopher Karl Popper analysed the leadership of states in his criticism of Plato. He had asked the question who should lead, to which his reply was the best amongst us. (BTW, Popper convincingly shows that by this Plato certainly meant himself, in a manner you could imagine St Davlon championing). But Popper points out that is is bleeding obvious. After all who in their right mind would want the worst person to lead?
His approach instead is that knowing all men are imperfect to plan for the worst while hoping for the best, to ensure that whoever is chosen can do the least damage. In practical terms that means taking an institutional approach laying down rules and procedures for what can and should happen rather than argue about who is the best person to receive absolute authority.
This would clearly require some thought, but to me the central issue is how to deal with the tricky issue of banning, which I consider to be the intellectual/debating equivalent of violence and therefore unacceptable. Clearly banning posters is warranted in some circumstances for example in the case of genuine trolls without any redeeming qualities. On the other hand banning T2C for using rich language as St Davlon would like to see, or Sprats for making reasoned criticism is not acceptable.
As such it seems to me the focus of attention should be on devising a sensible mechanism for dealing with bannings that provides a transparent mean of appeal; that would require some further thought and as I said I am busy right now, so maybe others have some ideas. |
Yaaaay!!!! This thread's gonna run and run...
 |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 10:53 - Sep 2 with 1640 views | Darran |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 10:52 - Sep 2 by Musical_Swan |
Yaaaay!!!! This thread's gonna run and run...
|
That was my first thought too.  | |
| |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 11:52 - Sep 2 with 1586 views | jackonicko |
 |  | | |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 12:45 - Sep 2 with 1544 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 10:44 - Sep 2 by Shaky |
As a financier of considerable status, sagacity and above all seriousness I have so far maintained a dignified absence from this discussion. That's mainly because I am snowed under right now, but at the same time my views on all this may surprise a few people.
First of all let there be no doubt that I have been on the receiving end of Darran on numerous occasions. Not only was I banned from the old board on the false Dimi pretext, but when I re-registered here he constantly harassed me on the same subject for what 6 months? Furthermore, by constantly fingering me as Dimi he gave an official imprimateur to this falsehood that was unsurprisingly accepted by many others, even though I knew that he could have no real evidence of any of it because it was simply not true, as Darran no doubt now accepts.
So to put it kindly Darran is not perfect. But the fact is that none of us are.
I like Baker a lot and don't want to undermine him, but as a counterpoint to this I can not help but recall when I joined the other board. I already had reservations about this due to what I perceived as a completely over the top Puritanical approach to moderation - eg no swearing at all - so I approached the board with some caution seeking to clarify the boundaries. Within a day or two of tentatively participating I had already received a one week ban on account of some wild-eyed moderators absolute insistence I was a poster I had never heard of on a message board I didn't even know existed! When my ban expired I then went back and fired off a couple of PMs to the moderator in question as well as the owner that in no uncertain terms set out my opinion on their competence to which they responded with another ban.
Now I accept there may have been extenuating circumstances that caused them to behave like bunch of hysterical paranoid delusionals and their approach may well have improved since them, but the point remains; even with the best of intentions moderating is a tricky business as has widely been understood on messageboards even before the dawn of the proper internet.
Therefore I tend to look at this question in the same way as the great philosopher Karl Popper analysed the leadership of states in his criticism of Plato. He had asked the question who should lead, to which his reply was the best amongst us. (BTW, Popper convincingly shows that by this Plato certainly meant himself, in a manner you could imagine St Davlon championing). But Popper points out that is is bleeding obvious. After all who in their right mind would want the worst person to lead?
His approach instead is that knowing all men are imperfect to plan for the worst while hoping for the best, to ensure that whoever is chosen can do the least damage. In practical terms that means taking an institutional approach laying down rules and procedures for what can and should happen rather than argue about who is the best person to receive absolute authority.
This would clearly require some thought, but to me the central issue is how to deal with the tricky issue of banning, which I consider to be the intellectual/debating equivalent of violence and therefore unacceptable. Clearly banning posters is warranted in some circumstances for example in the case of genuine trolls without any redeeming qualities. On the other hand banning T2C for using rich language as St Davlon would like to see, or Sprats for making reasoned criticism is not acceptable.
As such it seems to me the focus of attention should be on devising a sensible mechanism for dealing with bannings that provides a transparent mean of appeal; that would require some further thought and as I said I am busy right now, so maybe others have some ideas. |
It's a good job you're busy Shaky otherwise you might have been tempted to write a long post on this matter  |  | | |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 13:01 - Sep 2 with 1532 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 12:45 - Sep 2 by londonlisa2001 |
It's a good job you're busy Shaky otherwise you might have been tempted to write a long post on this matter |
Fair play you waited in the undergrowth patiently, and when your quarry reared his head out you pounce! | |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 13:16 - Sep 2 with 1509 views | JackSomething |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 10:52 - Sep 2 by Musical_Swan |
Yaaaay!!!! This thread's gonna run and run...
|
Heh.
Take away his usual hubris in the first and last paragraphs and that was a great post from Shaky. |  |
| You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don't help. |
| |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 13:31 - Sep 2 with 1482 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 13:01 - Sep 2 by Brynmill_Jack |
Fair play you waited in the undergrowth patiently, and when your quarry reared his head out you pounce! |
Actually it was a coincidence as I hadn't looked at this thread for ages and was reading it in disbelief :-)
I just found Shaky's post amusing (genuinely) and albeit quite long, he made some very valid points I thought.
Shaky and I haven't had a disagreement in many many weeks - I assume one or both of us is feeling unwell !! | | | |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 14:51 - Sep 2 with 1402 views | Shaky |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 13:16 - Sep 2 by JackSomething |
Heh.
Take away his usual hubris in the first and last paragraphs and that was a great post from Shaky. |
Evidently one man's hubris is another's irony. | |
| |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 14:59 - Sep 2 with 1384 views | JackSomething |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 14:51 - Sep 2 by Shaky |
Evidently one man's hubris is another's irony. |
If you were being ironic then I'm afraid I missed it.
I should add that I was in the process of writing a reply to the thread you just started when it disappeared. What happened there then? [Post edited 2 Sep 2014 15:01]
| |
| You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don't help. |
| |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 15:02 - Sep 2 with 1372 views | Darran |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 14:59 - Sep 2 by JackSomething |
If you were being ironic then I'm afraid I missed it.
I should add that I was in the process of writing a reply to the thread you just started when it disappeared. What happened there then? [Post edited 2 Sep 2014 15:01]
|
Write it in here. | |
| |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 15:04 - Sep 2 with 1353 views | JackSomething |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 15:02 - Sep 2 by Darran |
Write it in here. |
Alright.
Basically, I'd be disappointed if T2C was banned (as has been suggested by Shaky), unless he did something I didn't see. As horrific as this thread is, I don't see anything from him specifically that deserves a ban. Not without a few more suffering the same fate. | |
| You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don't help. |
| |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 15:06 - Sep 2 with 1345 views | Shaky |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 14:59 - Sep 2 by JackSomething |
If you were being ironic then I'm afraid I missed it.
I should add that I was in the process of writing a reply to the thread you just started when it disappeared. What happened there then? [Post edited 2 Sep 2014 15:01]
|
Chris has just been banned, and my post informing everybody of that was deleted on the non-footy board.
Probably Darran's finger was hovering over the ban button in respect of me, hence my temporary disappearance from time and space. | |
| |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 15:12 - Sep 2 with 1319 views | Baker |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 15:02 - Sep 2 by Darran |
Write it in here. |
So you can delete more posts? |  |
| May I say? what a smashing blouse you have on! |
| |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 15:22 - Sep 2 with 1293 views | JackSomething |
If T2C really has been banned, it would be nice to hear the reason. If it's based on this thread, then he surely can't be the only one as he's not the worst offender.
Sadly this is probably where this thread was destined to end up. | |
| You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don't help. |
| |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 15:26 - Sep 2 with 1277 views | Shaky |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 15:22 - Sep 2 by JackSomething |
If T2C really has been banned, it would be nice to hear the reason. If it's based on this thread, then he surely can't be the only one as he's not the worst offender.
Sadly this is probably where this thread was destined to end up. |
If this thread is the reason, you only have to scan the header to realise it a rather primitive form of entrapment.
Case dismissed. | |
| |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 15:34 - Sep 2 with 1254 views | JackSomething |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 15:26 - Sep 2 by Shaky |
If this thread is the reason, you only have to scan the header to realise it a rather primitive form of entrapment.
Case dismissed. |
Which would be ironic given that perhaps the worst offender in this thread is the poster who wrote the thread header. | |
| You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don't help. |
| |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 15:48 - Sep 2 with 1219 views | monmouth |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 15:34 - Sep 2 by JackSomething |
Which would be ironic given that perhaps the worst offender in this thread is the poster who wrote the thread header. |
In my view, 'The thread Header' could be applied to quite a few of the contributors on this thread.
T2C, agree or disagree, starts thought provoking football arguments. On a football board. As a general point banning anyone is pretty cowardly isn't it? After all as Phil quite rightly sort of said, it's the constant like for like abusive escalations that cause the issues. No one has to respond, and indeed, no one needed to respond to this thread, and probably shouldn't have. Multiple pages of utter sh1t is the result, which I've just stupidly added to. |  |
| |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 15:56 - Sep 2 with 1199 views | Musical_Swan |
| Let's all laugh at the Agenda Boys on 15:48 - Sep 2 by monmouth |
In my view, 'The thread Header' could be applied to quite a few of the contributors on this thread.
T2C, agree or disagree, starts thought provoking football arguments. On a football board. As a general point banning anyone is pretty cowardly isn't it? After all as Phil quite rightly sort of said, it's the constant like for like abusive escalations that cause the issues. No one has to respond, and indeed, no one needed to respond to this thread, and probably shouldn't have. Multiple pages of utter sh1t is the result, which I've just stupidly added to. |
I know. Infectious isn't it!  | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
