Comment Moderation Thread

By

TSFM says: January 29, 2015 at 8:54 pm Barcabhoy says: January 29, 2015 …

Comment on Comment Moderation Thread by ecobhoy.

TSFM says:
January 29, 2015 at 8:54 pm
Barcabhoy says:
January 29, 2015 at 8:28 pm

TSFM and Ryan

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this. Ryan can claim that he could have used any % , but he didn’t. He claimed 40% , a ridiculous figure.

This exaggeration of Rangers size and importance is typical of the “Armageddon proponents “. The theme is that Scottish football can’t exist without Rangers . If that’s not an example of supremacist thinking then I’ll need a new definition.
_________________________________________________

BB

I think it is a shame that we need to disagree on the definition of something so simple and straightforward.

It is ridiculous to say that Ryan’s 40% remark was suprmacist – with all the dark negative overtones that word carries. I don’t know if you’ve just had a bad day, but I am disappointed that you are persisting with it. As far as I can see, Ryan made some fairly uncontroversial (albeit mistaken) observations.

He needs to be able to do so without fear of that kind of name calling.
———————————————————————–
I think perhaps a lot of knickers are getting in a twist here and I would observe that the issues surrounding Supremacy are not ‘simple and straightforward’ and when discussing the issue we have to be careful with precise definitions and any ‘facts’ used.

I think Ryan will probably accept I bear no ill will towards him or the club he wants to see Rangers become.

I hear what he says that he could have plucked any figure out of the air from 5% to 40% to represent the Rangers share of Scottish football supporters. In retrospect it’s a pity that 40% was chosen without any research quite simply because BB’s back of a fagpacket calculation appears to have easily demolished it.

It may well be that deep down in Ryan’s thought process he actually has previously heard the 40% claim many times in his life and simply accepted it as fact without ever checking it out. He is not alone as a football supporter nor a human being in that as we all fall victim to it from time to time.

That of course doesn’t make him a supremacist but my reading of BB’s post doesn’t actually accuse him of that. However BB – quite rightly IMO – then pointed to the belief in the 40% as part of the Supremacy cult.

I realise Ryan and a lot of other decent Bears are going through a helluva time emotionally at the moment but some of Ryan’s response to BB was OTT IMO and I think on reflection he might well agree with that or at least see how others would construe it.

Moderation is up to the Mods but sometimes thorny issues have to be explored on the blog that might annoy or upset participants as long as people are not being deliberately baited or villified.

We are all entitled to our opinions and I would like to think that something positive has been learnt from this incident on all sides and I include myself in that by reolving to try and be as accurate as possible with any ‘facts’ I introduce and where I don’t know if they are accurate to make that clear.

ecobhoy Also Commented

Comment Moderation Thread
TSFM says:
March 21, 2015 at 11:30 am

Actually one example of evolving moderation is the collective decision to allow the Dundee United / Celtic debate to take place. Mods had been accused of over-Nannying the blog and we did try to take that on board.
———————————————————————
I think that was a good decision simply because at one level the debate could be seen as one for a club fan site. But there are all sorts of other issues involved which reach beyond individual clubs into the wider game.

And in the main it was an honestly conducted debate wil people arguing their corner as they should and we all benefit from hearning contrary opinions being expressed – as long as we think about them which doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing with them but at least recognising the right to hold and express them.

You’ve always got to start somewhere 😆


Comment Moderation Thread
Gabby says:
March 21, 2015 at 10:30 am

Ecobhoy

How can we ask for more accountabilty and transparency from the SFA,SPFL et al, if we are not prepared to apply it to this site?
———————————————————-
We ask for accountability and transparency on issues where there is a consensus on this site that the SFA/SPFL have got it wrong.

If you have a similar consensus on this site wrt to your post then you may have a point. I haven’t read your post but from the neepheid summary of it it seems unlikely that you would achieve a consensus here for your position no matter how interesting it might be.

And that takes us back to the starting point that there are hundreds of other sites out there which may provide you with what you seek. However football fans don’t have the luxury of swapping our governing bodies for other ones.

And that’s why one of our main aims is to demand transparency and accountability from the SFA/SPFL. That truly is more important than the ruffled feathers of any single poster and I have been that poster on many an occasion 😆

ADD TSFM: Just noticed debate has been moved to mod thread – pls move this if appropriate.


Comment Moderation Thread
parttimearab says:
March 21, 2015 at 10:34 am
ecobhoy says:
March 21, 2015 at 10:20 am

As to naming the individual Mod who has made a decision – well that’s simply not on IMO. I have no doubt that – even like referees – when they’ve made a dodgy decision that will be recognised internally and in turn the modding policy will reflect this development.
=====================================
Perhaps they get sent to moderate the OC/NC thread for a couple of weeks…. 😆
—————————————————
Not allowed as it would breach their Human Rights being an extremely cruel and unnatural punishment 🙄


Recent Comments by ecobhoy

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
jimmci says:
April 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm

And why did we not get the panel’s reasoning together with the decision last night?
———————————————-

Simples ❗ The Decision was the easy bit 😆 The explanation to sell it was the hard bit and despite a nightshift they appear to have fluffed their lines AGAIN 🙄


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Allyjambo says:
April 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm

Might I suggest that SD’s main interest in this meeting was to put the RIFC board straight on some matters regarding the security over the IP and just how watertight it is, rather than to discuss funding or any ‘amicable’ discussion how best to move the club forward!
———————————————————-
You might be right but would SD want the club suffering another Insolvency Event? Perhaps they were asking for the second loan tranche of £5 million which the new board apparently rejected on taking control.

I have undernoted a reply I made to parttimearab last night which may have been missed but may also be relevant.

3. Insolvency events

(i) The inability of the Company to pay its debts as they fall due within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”);
(ii) The issue of an application for an administration order or a notice of intention to appoint an administrator in relation to the Company;
(iii) The passing of a resolution or order for the Company’s winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation;
(iv) The declaration of a moratorium in relation to any of the Company’s indebtedness;
(v) The making of any arrangement or any proposal for any arrangement with any of the Company’s creditors; and
(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

Now I haven’t a clue whether that has anything to do with the SPFL Rule Change. But it’s clear that there could be various stages in an Insolvency Event and perhaps the rule change is to cover all eventualities which might not have been previously defined in the Rule Book.

In particular I look at:

(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

And I think of the various charges which have been placed on Rangers assets wrt the £5 million loan. I have previously posted that the contracts wrt a Default Event could see the assets pass to SportsDirect without any court hearing and SD also already has the power to appoint a Receiver to deal with any of the assets that pass to it via a loan default event.

Now that might not ultimately lead to a full-blown Insolvency depending on what SD actually decide to do with Rangers. But looking at the above I wonder whether with the SPFL rule change that just taking control of the assets is enough to be classed as an Insolvency Event under SPFL Rules?

Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead ?

But does the rule take effect immediately or from the new season?

It seems that if it is immediate and Rangers suffers an Insolvency Event then that would be an automatic 25 points this season and 15 next season. Assuming it is able to survive death a second time.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am
________________________________________________

From what I saw, all criticisms emanating from ICTFC was directed towards the SFA machinery and not towards CFC. Similarly, I have seen no evidence of any criticism of ICTFC being put forward by CFC. I see that fact as quite telling.

Celtic were quite entitled to make all the statements they made and had the boot been on the other foot, in the circumstances I am sure KC at ICTFC would have done likewise.

Similarly, had the situtaions been reversed w.r.t. the foul, I would have expected CFC to back their player robsutly in the same way that ICTFC did.

This is about governance of the sport, not internecine disagreements between member clubs – for which I am yet to see any cause advanced from either party.
——————————————-
Couldn’t agree more!


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

My view is that Celtic played this one wrong (only in the public nature of it)and it was easy for media outlets to infer cause and effect in the Celtic/Compliance Officer actions.
———————————————–
There is some merit in your view IMO. However there’s a balancing act to be achieved which requires an answer to what the officials saw, didn’t see, or decided or didn’t decide on Sunday.

All I heard in the ground, leaving the ground, on the train, in the pub, was real anger and disbelief at the decision which worsened with the TV replays.

I do think Celtic fans were due an explanation and tbf to Celtic I doubt if they could have forseen what an absolute hash the SFA would make of it. Obviously the SMSM has ridden to the rescue of the SFA so what’s new about that?

But we’re still awaiting the answers requested. Will we get them? Not without keeping the pressure on the SFA on all fronts where Hampden’s dark secrets exist.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Gabby says:
April 24, 2015 at 10:18 am

If Celtic really, really felt they needed to send a letter, then this is the type of thing they should have sent…
———————————————
I disagree as the letter you suggest goes way beyond the immediate point which is simply: ‘Please explain how the decision was arrived at’. I say decision because when Celic sent the letter it seemed there had been no decision reached but that the incident had been ‘missed’ by all officials.

Once the SFA provide that info then Celtic can make a decision as to if and how it should proceed with the matter.

My credo in a situation like this is not to give any leeway to a slippery character or room for manoeuvre. Ask the straight simple question and take it from there once the basic position is established.

Never jump fences too soon and never ever jump fences you don’t need to especially if you don’t know what lies in wait on the other side.


About the author