Any queries about moderation, please put them here and not on the main current thread.
Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.
No comment? Nothing at all? Thats depressing. Just as well I didn’t pass on my thoughts about Scott Brown then, or indeed comment on the continued use of flares by the Celtic support at the Inter match. I’d probably have been banned! Following on from BP’s poor post attempting to deflect criticism of Celtic and its players on Saturday its a worrying development.
I’d hoped for response to my request for feedback but alas, as my fellow poster added later yesterday, not a Celtic site – my e**e!!
Glad to see the back of those TUs & TDs. I lost count of the amount of innocuous posts that got TDs, and I’m not just talking about me. I think they could be used to be disrespectful because of the posters club allegiance alone.
And I agree with Tris. I think it encourages posters (lurkers) to be lazy. TD it and job done! Instead of engaging with a couple of lines giving an alternative view.
Not even sure if I would have any ratings, but the stars are better than previous.
Just wondering why my posts on the evenings of 23/8 and 24/8 were removed? Thanks
Sure – although you probably guessed – it was for trolling on both occasions.
I find it pretty poor that a site whose stated intention is to hold the SFA to account cannot itself take constructive criticism from its posters. I have had all my posts blocked since using the term “couch potato”, and subsequent argument as to why it was appropriate, in an attempt to move those who only want to talk about others taking action into being proactive themselves. In the last 24 hours posts have been put up with suggestions as to what others should do to make a difference so nothing has changed.
I would like it explained to me how SFM are meeting their stated aim when they gag those prepared to act against the SFA as a means to not upsetting those that would rather just live the fantasy that something will turn up that will fix the problem. The BTC would force change, Mike Ashley’s court cases were going to blow it all open, then the trials against Whyte et al, then the failure to pay back Mike’s £5M and now it is TRFC’s rumoured failure to pay tax that will have HMRC exposing everything. Many, many words written about this that have done nothing to “hold the SFA to account” so it must surely cause those that run SFM to question whether the site is meeting its goal.
Or is the site just a place for individuals to be funded by contributions to enable them to live their dreams of having their own internet TV and radio slots?
Actually Reiver, your posts became ineligible for posting when you resigned rather spectacularly from SFM – and explained it was because the preponderance on SFM of the afforementioned couch-potatoes.
Should we infer that you intend to un-resign? If so, a wee bit of humility might be in order given your valedictory invective.
I have always claimed that our only possibility of success is spreading the word as too few actually are aware that there is a problem. To that end I still consider it acceptable to use any method to attempt to get even one extra person to attempt to find a means to target a bigger audience than the closed community that frequent blogs. That is a sign of how seriously I view this matter.
Lack of humility was not an issue, it is more a surplus of frustration. I know that what I do in my attempts are amateurish and relatively ineffective but I do try. My resignation(?) from the site referred to the amount of time I spent discussing issues repeatedly and fruitlessly. Time that was non-productive and consuming. It was to free myself from the feeling of wasting my time that I decided to remove myself from the discussions on here. I do find now though that, when there are announcements to be made that would further the cause, that to be totally blocked is a disadvantage. For instance, the report that the Sports Integrity Initiative have written in the SFA has cleared the legal hurdles and will be put up on their site shortly. To be effective we need as many people reading it and discussing it as possible and so I need an outlet.
This report has come at great cost to the reporter. When I first contacted him I insisted on anonymity and he agreed as long as he could stick to the principles of the site of being open and the reporters could be easily contacted on a personal basis. Anyone visiting the site just now will see that it is under-going a relaunch. The timing of this is a result of advice he has received from his legal team regarding the reporters’ safety. The site will look different but more importantly all information that may be used to identify the reporters and their families will have been removed. The basic tenet of how that site was envisage has had to be binned because of the lack of integrity in Scottish football. Needless to say I compare that sacrifice to the inactivity of those of sites like SFM and JohnJames and cannot help but be depressed.
Comments are closed.
Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Shk Corporate by Webriti