The purpose of this post and page is to allow comments regarding the moderation of posts on the site. Since the inception of this blog, the moderators have repeatedly asked that such matters are dealt with by private email.
Unfortunately, many people disregard these requests for reasons not immediately apparent to the moderators. We have come to the conclusion that people like to have readership of their penmanship, no matter what the subject matter may be 🙂
From now on, if posters make complaints on the main blog about moderation, the posts will not – as previously – be deleted. Instead they will be moved here.
The same common sense rules of respect and decency that apply on the main blog are still in operation though.
Hello,A post of mine was removed this morning because,I assume,comments I made to ecobhoy.
Let me first say that I am quite shocked that I have been suspended, I never once called into question ecobhoy’s integrity or his identity.
I stated twice yesterday that I have agreed with most of his posts in all matter of subjects, I also said that I wanted him to stay because he has more to offer the blog,I don’t want him ,or anyone (other than trolls) to be driven out because of disagreements over content.
My reaction was to certain comments he has made to other posters.An over-reaction possibly,but I would have thought a warning to myself would have been sufficient, a suspension followed by the statement that I would be not really be welcomed back was shocking.
I will bow to your wishes,could you please pass on a message to ecobhoy,tell him I am sorry if he was offended by my comments. I was a wee bit angry with his attitude,not his ability.
He will continue to post,and I will continue to read without comment on the man,only the content.
Also my apologies to anyone else offended.
I’m sorry that my posts from yesterday caused offence. I must admit that at the time of posting I thought I had gone a bit far myself. My posts were ill judged. To the poster in concern I wish no ill will and never have done. My area of expertise is neither fiscal or legal so I may not have a lot to offer this site anyway so your wish for me not to post further will be observed. Good luck in all future endeavours of this site.
TSFM, I appreciate your need to moderate posts but feel the need to articulate my feelings concerning recent sanctions placed on posters.
In relation to Tic 6709, I have to advise that I am guilty of his crime by association. It is not possible for me to know precisely what the crime was but there was one post in particular that mirrored my thoughts, although I was not prepared to put these thoughts into writing.
Posters have different attributes and characteristics and some express their opinions in a manner that I find inelegant. However it is this diverse spectrum of points of view that gives the forum its robustness I feel. Although posters are required to stay within your posting rules (which I had’t taken the time to read until just now), I think there is always room for interpretation. I do not think you, TSFM, exercise that right in anything other than a measured fashion. However there may be a fine line between keeping the blog on track and maintaining the inherent robustness that has grown up over the months and years.
During the post I have in mind, Tic 6709 sain what I was thinking and I was glad he said it. Some perceptions defy logic. We cannot always explain why we feel a certain way but feel justified in feeling it nevertheless. Tic has given a contrite apology and I think this is commendable. Similarly for Fara (I am not here to plead every case but it will make a point), I can understand that when faced with a blizzard of indigestible ‘facts’, frustration may break out and the mode of expression may reflect this.
As I said, I cannot be sure why posting rights (or a request to desist) have been removed. However I do feel a deal of solidarity with Tic and I think the blog might lose some of its instinct for the truth if the moderation is heavy handed. I appreciate in such a fluid forum it is a difficult judgement to make and nothing is clear cut in this respect.
Could I humbly suggest that in the spirit of BRTH’s headline post, a system of governance might be evolved. It should not be allowed to become endlessly complex as the rules we have been discussing but more in the vein of your posting rule. Perhaps such governance might list sanctions to be applied in the case of misdeamenours that were not too gross. Perhap’s bans (or request to desist) might be applied for limited time periods. I would not wish that poster’s gut instinct or frustration led them to being erased from the blog. In a heated and contentious debate any of us could fall foul of that crime.
Castofthousands says:
June 22, 2013 at 12:59 pm
…
Could I humbly suggest that in the spirit of BRTH’s headline post, a system of governance might be evolved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps we could develop a system of yellow and red cards? Two yellows with a period or a straight red leads to suspension… 🙂
Castofthousands says:
June 22, 2013 at 12:59 pm
===================
Thank you.
obviously anyone can walk from tupe, I disagree tupe applied but without some kind of traffic light system on here to state you are overstepping the mark, i know i could be banned instantly so i cannot freely discuss… you win
Hi,
I made a donation to TSFM. I got an acknowledgement but not a thank you.No big deal but thought I’d mention it anyway.
borussiabeefburg says: June 28, 2013 at 8:57 am
I see the mods chiding CF for name calling: I’d put blackening the name of one of our wee clubs in a similar unacceptable category.
—————————————————–
I haven’t seen anyone publically chided for referencing CF as Charlotte the Harlot either. 🙁
The issue might have been handled better by a private message or email.
EJ
The CtH reference, coined I think by BRTH, has never been used pejoratively by anyone on the site, and in fact is a term of endearment. Although is she were to complain about it, I would ask posters to refrain from using it.
I do take your point about PM or private mail, and in fact I agree with you, but since CtH is not registered on the site (so no PM), and has provided no email address, that is simply not possible.
Charlotte was also warned twice about abuse yesterday, but continued to offend. Clearly she doesn’t see the need to comply, so future contributions will go through the moderation filter.
TSFM
One thing you can’t do is to fool the punters.
I suggest you look back at my last post (quoted elsewhere by others) and give yourself a shake before you’re left talking to yourself.
I’ll engage with the others via twitter.
You are not worthy.
Danish Pastry says: June 28, 2013 at 7:41 am
wottpi says: June 28, 2013 at 8:31 am
borussiabeefburg says: June 28, 2013 at 8:57 am
————————————————–
You have all commented this morning on CF having been reprimanded for “name calling”
I had a brief two sentence post deleted by the mods this morning, which suggested that others (no names mentioned) hadn’t been reprimanded for similar misdemeanours and that the issue with CF may have been better handled privately.
It would appear that my post has been deemed too critical of the mods, by the mods, thus was deleted, without any explanation to myself either publically or privately.
I’m afraid that I find such a degree of censorship unacceptable, so I’m out.
easyJambo says:
June 28, 2013 at 1:25 pm
You have all commented this morning on CF having been reprimanded for “name calling”
I had a brief two sentence post deleted by the mods this morning, which suggested that others (no names mentioned) hadn’t been reprimanded for similar misdemeanours and that the issue with CF may have been better handled privately.
It would appear that my post has been deemed too critical of the mods, by the mods, thus was deleted, without any explanation to myself either publically or privately.
——————————————————————————————————————–
I agree with you on this, perhaps the mods are off their rocker.
Moderation does seem to be a bit OTT
easyJambo says:
June 28, 2013 at 1:25 pm
Danish Pastry says: June 28, 2013 at 7:41 am
wottpi says: June 28, 2013 at 8:31 am
borussiabeefburg says: June 28, 2013 at 8:57 am
————————————————–
You have all commented this morning on CF having been reprimanded for “name calling”
I had a brief two sentence post deleted by the mods this morning, which suggested that others (no names mentioned) hadn’t been reprimanded for similar misdemeanours and that the issue with CF may have been better handled privately.
It would appear that my post has been deemed too critical of the mods, by the mods, thus was deleted, without any explanation to myself either publically or privately.
I’m afraid that I find such a degree of censorship unacceptable, so I’m out.
======================================================================
I believe that TSFM was right not to play Lorraine Herbison to CF’s Craig Whyte but nothing in your post merited deletion by mods. Like Wottpi, I’d much would much prefer that you kept posting
easyjambo
It would be a great shame if you were to leave now. There’s plenty going on in scottish football that needs this site, not least with respect to Hearts and we would all benefit from your contributions if you do stay.
I don’t know any of the mods here, but he/she/they seem to be pretty new at running a blog site and they’re balancing learning all about the admin side with trying to raise the cash to run the thing, getting on with their own lives and trying not to let their own football preferences impact the moderation decisions they make.
None of these things are easy and they’re never going to be completely successful at any one of those things.
In the end though, Scottish football needs something like this, with participation from fans of all clubs and every contributor who doesn’t come back makes this a weaker place. Every contributor who takes one on the chin and comes back with advice about how to make this site better strengthens it.
easyJambo,
Don’t leave because of this. You’re a popular poster with a lot to offer. I think the whole point of your post being moved is that moderation issues are for this section was simply so as not to clog the blog.
TSFM says:
June 28, 2013 at 9:38 am
“The CtH reference, coined I think by BRTH, has never been used pejoratively by anyone on the site, ”
——————–
Obviously EasyJambo is disconcerted by something here.
I think the CtH moniker was used pejoratively initially at a time when we were unsure of her motives. As time has progressed it seems less and less appropriate. Perhaps what would previously have been acceptable would be less so now and thus EJ’s sensitivities might be triggered by this, rather than caused by it.
I can understand that the moderators need to intervene at certain points and without the application of a clear policy, decision could be viewed as subjective. It is not possible to legislate for every circumstance so we rely on the monitors to maintain a general civility.
I’m surprised that this post has gained prominence (easyJambo says: June 28, 2013 at 9:05 am).
It didn’t seem controversial.
easyJambo says:
June 28, 2013 at 1:25 pm (Edit)
You have all commented this morning on CF having been reprimanded for “name calling”
I had a brief two sentence post deleted by the mods this morning, which suggested that others (no names mentioned) hadn’t been reprimanded for similar misdemeanours and that the issue with CF may have been better handled privately.
It would appear that my post has been deemed too critical of the mods, by the mods, thus was deleted, without any explanation to myself either publically or privately.
I’m afraid that I find such a degree of censorship unacceptable, so I’m out.
________________________________________________________________________________
Demonstrably not true EJ, but thanks for the contributions you have made over the last year. Good luck
Fwiw EJ I’m with the others who hope you’ll have a change of heart.
I’ve just read the above again. Excuse the pedantry. Canny help it. But EJ, we need your knowledge.
easyJambo says:
June 28, 2013 at 1:25 pm
_________________________________
You will be sorely missed on here EJ if you go. Please stay – you know this is a worth while project. The we are the mods should be a little less school marmish
TSFM says:
June 28, 2013 at 4:11 pm
1
1
Rate This
easyJambo says:
June 28, 2013 at 1:25 pm (Edit)
You have all commented this morning on CF having been reprimanded for “name calling”
I had a brief two sentence post deleted by the mods this morning, which suggested that others (no names mentioned) hadn’t been reprimanded for similar misdemeanours and that the issue with CF may have been better handled privately.
It would appear that my post has been deemed too critical of the mods, by the mods, thus was deleted, without any explanation to myself either publically or privately.
I’m afraid that I find such a degree of censorship unacceptable, so I’m out.
________________________________________________________________________________
Demonstrably not true EJ, but thanks for the contributions you have made over the last year. Good luck
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Really really poor response. Why are you letting such a valued contributor walk like that?
TSFM says:
June 28, 2013 at 9:38 am
2 2 Rate This
EJ
The CtH reference, coined I think by BRTH, has never been used pejoratively by anyone on the site, and in fact is a term of endearment.
=====
There are no women that I know who would regard such an epithet as a term of endearment.
“TSFM says:
June 28, 2013 at 4:11 pm
Demonstrably not true EJ, but thanks for the contributions you have made over the last year. Good luck”
Sorry TSFM – but with all due respect that is a snide and arrogant reply and really does nothing to enhance this blog.
bayviewgold says:
June 28, 2013 at 10:35 pm (Edit)
_________________________________________________________________
Sorry you feel that way. Nothing snide intended at all. EJ made some accusations which were simply not true – and demonstrably so. He also indicated that he wouldn’t continue to post. I thanked him for his contribution. Nothing more or less than that..
I don’t think that does enhance the blog, but I infer you meant that as a euphemism for hurting the blog? If so, with the greatest of respect, you need to walk me through that, and the snide bit as well.
TSFM – a suggestion for you to consider.
Perhaps the moderation thread blog could be expanded to include what is acceptable and what is not so people could read over before posting, this may help posters before submitting comments.
I agree with others that the response to EJ doesn’t come across well. If that wasn’t your intention then maybe an olive branch by private email to EJ may help bring a well respected contributor back to the debate.
TSFM says:
June 29, 2013 at 12:37 am
I don’t think that does enhance the blog, but I infer you meant that as a euphemism for hurting the blog? If so, with the greatest of respect, you need to walk me through that, and the snide bit as well.
——————————————————————————————–
Seriously? that answer above was even more patronising than the original comment. I am sorry I was not clear enough in my original language that you felt you needed to correct my grammar or question my syntax. My comment was relatively clear and I was not the only person to read your post in an unflattering light. As you also seem to not understand the “snide” reference I refer you to : http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/snide?q=snide see definition No.1. That is how your reply to EJ read to me. I started following this blog as I believed it was a badly needed forum for cross partisan supporters to discuss the state of Scottish Football in an inclusive environment, part of my attraction was that the Blog wasn’t being pitched as an obvious individual’s blog (e.g. James Forrest’s one) where it is very clear that the rules of engagement are that the blog belongs to an individual and like it or not – their say goes. With TSFM I saw it differently, I had thought the intent was for it to “belong” to everyone but with the realisation that moderators would be required to police the renegades. However it is becoming clearer with every moderation comment that I was mistaken and this blog is clearly the possession of someone with the pseudonym TSFM, and is not the communal blog I thought it was going to be. I have no complaints about most of this as “your baw – your game” but it would be good to see that made clear in the “about” section and also if you are taking personal monies as funding some level of customer service civilities should apply. If it was not your intent to annoy either myself or EJ and nuances that you meant to convey were lost in your posts, I apologise, but they did not read that way to myself and others.
You also raised my annoyance level a few weeks back when I contacted you offering help, funding or even potential hosting, you did not even give me the decency of a reply. I understand there are many reasons why you felt it could be in your interest to decline but a simple “thanks but no thanks” would have been the courteous thing to do. I am supportive of the aims of this blog but there seems to have been a few “shots applied to feet” in the recent past.
I should add that my reference to James Forrest’s excellent blog was purely to refer to an example of a blog with an identified individual as the clear owner. Not meant as any criticism, I could have used one of many others.
TSFM says:
July 3, 2013 at 9:55 pm
8
4
Rate This
Folks, I’ve had to remove a post concerning Masonic conspiracy theories – which have apparently been “proved”.
Notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of that sentiment, I think we have established that this sort of thing is not for this blog. Please can we stay focused and stick to facts and reasoning?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Apologies TSFM
will try to stick to facts.
I didn’t mention the “M” word, and while I agree that this blog perhaps is not the place to air it I will not mention or infer it again.
I think my other point was valid and will try to repost minus the conspiracy theory.
Post in mod
responded to email
Response was Address could not be verified
Pity …
@TSFM
please hold in moderation for now
Cheers
@TSFM
newtz says:
July 10, 2013 at 9:03 pm
———————————
am now OK when you are (sorry)
I believe have validated address can you respond if probs
Seriously? EJ alienated by moderation? I am genuinely surprised and disappointed.
I’ve had issues with TSFM and don’t post any more (as you can see!), but I take a rather contrary line and know it’s not always appreciated or welcome. EJ has been nothing but reasonable, fair and friendly as far as I can remember. One of the very best contributors in expertise and spirit. A pity.
looks like the resident TD er is around …..hahahaha…..sad sad People! braw!
Here you are TD er read and squirm ….. “Internet Bampots”:
http://lwordsblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/internet-bampots-totally-my-own-views/
The last time I commented on issues of moderation (privately) via the contacts page I found my posts placed in pre moderation before being printed 48 hrs later by which time no one would read them.
I didnt throw the toys out the pram but continued to fight my case (privately)
Eventually some 2 months later my ban was lifted , I had broken no rules and all I was told was that my views on moderation were not in synch with the moderators on TSFM.
I am surprised that an open thread has been started to allow posters to make comment but I do wonder how many of those who do post negative comment are allowed to continue posting unhindered afterwards.
I realise that posting this is therefore a risk as I may end up back in the doghouse never to be heard of again but heyho I have never been one to hold my wheesht .
It was commented earlier that its TSFMs baw ,my opinion is that its really RTCs baw that TSFM picked up and without the majority of us tuping over this forum would never have been the success that it is .
However the uber moderation and the mass deleting of posts has consequences (as I had pointed out privately) It discourages people to post and eventually drives posters away thus diminishing the quality of the forum. Some top quality posters from the early days of RTC are no longer with us, EJ,Barcabhoy Bartin Main to name a few ,and one has to ask if this forum is better for their departure ?
Over the years of reading and contributing on RTC/TSFM I have rarely found posters to need any sort of moderation ,it has been a collection of respectful and intelligent individuals who know the boundaries of polite society ,the deletion of their comments is to be frank insulting
I would like the moderators on TSFM to consider writing to those who have given great service in exposing the wrongs of Rfc* and the compliant media monkeys and ask them to return ,unless of course their own egos are more important .
Gaz @ 6:44pm
That type of post should be for Kerrydale Street or similar.
@Greenockjack
Agreed. And yet it stays.
Have the mods given up?
NT
No surprise but it still rankles.
Basically I don´t think the site is what it purports to be.
The RTC blog was what it was and was named accordingly.
IMO this site would be better calling itself something more akin to what it actually is and the day that the saga at Ibrox comes to an end then is the time to try and be neutral and encompass all.
I like the new options after each post, especially the edit function, but (there’s always a ‘but’ 🙂 ) I’ve not actually been able to use it yet. I’ve tried twice on my iPad but ran out of editing time waiting for the edit page to load. Is editing time deducted from the time you spend actually composing each post?
Has anyone else experienced log in problems? The site didnt even recognise my email address never mind the username. Had to register with new details.
@Greenockjack – agreed, but if one imagines the site to be named “The The Rangers International Sevco Liquidation Fraudster and Gullible Club Monitor”, it does a pretty good job. I just don’t have much to contribute to such a site, but am glad others do. It is clear to me that veering into matters more widely appropriate to Scottish Football are not appreciated as much as I would like. I will moan yet again about the lack of a multi-thread comments system making this a needless conflict of topics.
I’m delighted to hear of the DoS and script attacks recently – that means there are some very worried people out there prepared to pay to bring the site down.
Night Terror says:
July 17, 2013 at 9:09 am
====================================
Agreed. The site needs to consider issues in Scottish football more widely and multiple threads would be a way of achieving that as contributors would be free to post topics of wider concern to the game and if there is no appetite for those threads they will just drop to the bottom of the pile..
Drew Peacock says:
July 17, 2013 at 10:47 am (Edit)
The site needs to consider issues in Scottish football more widely and multiple threads would be a way of achieving that as contributors would be free to post topics of wider concern to the game and if there is no appetite for those threads they will just drop to the bottom of the pile.
______________________________________________________________________________
Fair comment Drew, but after a poll a couple of months ago, we voted overwhelmingly to stay as we are.
http://www.sfmonitor.org/survey/
TSFM says:
July 19, 2013 at 10:41 pm
Drew Peacock says:
July 17, 2013 at 10:47 am (Edit)
The site needs to consider issues in Scottish football more widely and multiple threads would be a way of achieving that as contributors would be free to post topics of wider concern to the game and if there is no appetite for those threads they will just drop to the bottom of the pile.
______________________________________________________________________________
Fair comment Drew, but after a poll a couple of months ago, we voted overwhelmingly to stay as we are.
http://www.sfmonitor.org/survey/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Who are the we you refer to?
Drew Peacock says:
July 19, 2013 at 10:50 pm
__________________________________________
Me and a couple of other mods who voted multiple times.
.
neepheid says:
July 24, 2013 at 9:45 am
Another great post from Neepheid and far more pertinent than BRTH’s piece.
“We saw how press behaviour currently stands at the weekend, and as confidently predicted, we have another outbreak of dignified silence from the Celtic Boardroom regarding The Scottish Sun’s outrageous piece of mischief making on Sunday night. Unless I’ve missed something? An apology from the Sun? A strongly worded statement from CFC? Any statement from CFC? Sun journalists banned from Celtic Park? Anything?”
I posted the exact same question on here on Monday night and it was deleted with no explanation given whatsoever. There is a real danger that this site (in my wee guy doesnae know a great deal opinion) wastes the only really chance of affecting change in the Scottish game and insteads becomes the cyber equivalent of a Gingerbread group.
ecobhoy says:
July 24, 2013 at 3:44 pm
I posted on here what I thought about the Sun piece and what I thought Celtic should do about the disgraceful journalism involved which I do not believe was accidental. I followed that up with a separate email to Parkhead.
However as a Celtic supporter I don’t regard this site as one in which to air any personal disagreement that I may or may not have with the club I support. There are other more relevant forums IMO where I can do this and I do when the spirit takes me. This is of course is not to deny your right to post whatever you want on here.
I have no doubt that matters have been or will be raised between Celtic and the Sun and sometimes these issues are not ones best suited to a knee-jerk response. There is an element to the Sun story which is of interest to this blog in that it raised legitimate concerns about the behaviour and possible bias of the newspaper.
I think the Celtic reaction or lack of it is an issue of interest for Celtic supporters and best dealt with on a Celtic football site or direct with the club as it is unlikely I reckon to be of much interest to supporters of other clubs. I also think that this week it was probably not at the top of Celtic’s TO DO list.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
Of course you did. And I’m more than aware of your position on any disagreements you have with the club you support. Furthermore, I do my best to post my views here although not always with success. It does concern me that some of you do see those views but not all. Admin is well aware of my position on this. But this is the rub bigman, unlike you I do have doubts. Apart from that is dealing with whatever Red Tops disgraceful repeat behaviour being anywhere near Celtic’s TO DO list, I agree with you there.
As I said in my post you have the right to post what you want on the site. Obviously that right is constrained if moderation issues become involved but as I am not involved in that I can’t really comment based on fact.
It’s a bit like the Green Brigade situation at CP at the moment in that I believe there is a legitimate area of comment around the safety issues involved and the wider regulation issues which could ultimately see Celtic playing behind closed doors.
But I don’t see it as part of this site’s remit to enter into a detailed discussion of the rights and wrongs of how the GB should be treated by the club. That’s not to say the issue is not an important one but IMO it’s one for Celtic supporters on a Celtic fan site.
Similarly with the point you were making I just happen to think it was one better suited for a Celtic site – that’s my opinion and others might disagree but I find it hard to see where Celtic supporters arguing over what Celtic should do wrt the Sun fits within what I understand the remit of this blog to be.
I think the disgust expressed on here was in order over how the Sun had acted and I think that any action taken by Celtic would also be fine to report. But the in-between bit which is basically a spat in the Celtic family from your point of view I just don’t see as relevant for TSFM.
I don’t decry it’s an important issue but as I alluded in my post that perhaps it wasn’t top of the priority agenda. And no visible surface activity doesn’t mean that things aren’t being done beneath the waves and I predict frantic back-paddling at the Sun.
I am unaware that I have ever been ill-mannered, taunting or abusive on here. Merely observant, exasperated and critical.
Curious that my comments in defence of John Reid were deleted as off topic but the post i was answering was left up, hey, ho, one of those things i guess…
Shame my comments in response to steerpike were caught in the crossfire. Collateral damage I guess.
jockybhoy on August 3, 2013 at 7:16 pm
7 0 Rate This
Curious that my comments in defence of John Reid were deleted as off topic but the post i was answering was left up, hey, ho, one of those things i guess…
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Same thing happened with my post on JR.
Some posts early Saturday morning I found beyond the pale too. If the person referred to in the posts took action it’s the type of thing that could get this site shut or the poster in bother. I may be over reacting, (I hope so) but I’m surprised to see the mods keeping the posts up.
We complain about SMSM being unable to fillet PR statements yet can’t manage that ourselves when a suspected one appears on a blog? I thought several posters were doing rather well engaging with Steerpike, as was she in return.
What was Steerpike preventing folk from discussing? Who was she compelling to respond to her posts? How many of “us” are there and how many of “her” are there?
If posters and administrators here are unable to handle a little bit of contrary opinion, whatever the source, what does that say?
I don’t see any value in shutting off discussion on any topic so long as the topic is not utterly off topic or is impossible to conduct without bile and insults.
[Admin – punt to Moderation thread if you feel necessary]
So another of my posts bites the dust yet the propoganda piece I was replying to remains
“In a time of universal deceit -telling the truth is a revolutionary act”
“Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”
For a blog that took control of the Orwell prize winning forum RTC the actions of
its moderators are a slap in the face to both truth and freedom.
Your claim to “holding the MSM to account” is hypocritical when you act in exactly the same manner
This forum is supposed to give the fans a voice ,if you dont like what we say move it to a sinbin
deletion of our words is akin to burning books .
heil heil
A quick question for the moderators
have you placed anyone into moderation for disagreeing with your policy via PM (apart from me)?
If you have then this thread is a sham ,you are using it to out those who disagree with you
and then silencing them .
I warned about this in my post of July 11th
This is not a forum that voices the opinion of Scottish football fans but a forum that voices the opinion of fans who are in sync with TSFM .
Jack would be proud of your actions
Post from this morning removed from main thread? Puzzling. Because it was aimed at Steerpike perchance? Nothing malicious in it. Very puzzling.
TSFM please move this comment to the moderation page.
And offer clarity on the reasoning behind the deletion of my post made yesterday between 03:00 & 04:00.
I am genuinely puzzled.
Thanks and regards…
Scottish football needs… no unwarranted censorship.
What’s going on with the Twitter account login? Doesn’t seem to work any more.
Lord Wobbly says:
August 19, 2013 at 9:51 am
TSFM says:
August 19, 2013 at 9:09 am
Sportscene highlights bias? Really?
Enough please.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quite right. On to more important matters..
====================================================
There was a comment posted earlier this morning regarding Sportscenes coverage of the weekends top flight action and in particular, the highlights shown of the Aberdeen v Celtic match. I believe the remarks above from TSFM and LW refer to this post which has been removed.
I didn’t particularly agree with the commentors opinion on bias however I wholeheartedly agreed with his/her take on the highlights of the match. Sportscenes depiction would lead the observer to believe that Celtic won in a canter. Anyone who watched the whole game would know that is not true, it was a hard fought match in which Aberdeen acquitted themselves well. Sportscene is part of the SMSM and as such is subject to criticism regarding their coverage of Scottish Football. The earlier commentator was, in my opinion, perfectly entitled to raise this matter.
So my question to TSFM is this. Why was his/her post removed?
I have another opinion. Sportscene is utter rubbish. There is more coverage given to English footballs second tier on BBC Scotland than there is to our own top league. It is totally unacceptable.
And finally, as a TV licence payer, a tax payer and NI payer, I find Billy “EBT” Dodds presence on a state funded media platform highly objectionable. Offensive even. Rant over.
A player is charged with betting on games he is involved with. He either was or wasn’t.
His manager claims that he has a list of ‘players and officials who are also in breach of the rule.
His manager also claims that there is a lack of clarity in relation to the rules.
A poster on here posts a link to a blog which claims that other football players have been involved in the same alleged offence.
So far no-one has denied the original offence.
Incidentally, the link is to a blog which claims that all Celtic/Hibernian fans are supporters of terrorism and paedophiles.
Is this what TSFM is for?
Hi TSFM,
I notice my post challenging FIFA for proof that I was a troll was deleted. It’s not a nice thing to be accused of. In fact it seems to be a good defence mechanism by many posters here who don’t like a good debate, or don’t like the reply from their own posts.
My earlier post about Brenda’s SSB rantings were, in my honest opinion, justifiable. How does that make me a troll ?
Hi TSFM,
I notice my post challenging FIFA for proof that I was a troll was deleted. It’s not a nice thing to be accused of. In fact it seems to be a good defence mechanism by many posters here who don’t like a good debate, or don’t like the reply from their own posts.
My earlier post about Brenda’s SSB rantings were, in my honest opinion, justifiable. How does that make me a troll ?
If you delete this, then sorry, democracy will have been suppressed. If you do delete it, then you’re as bad as The MSM for picking and choosing what to print. You can’t then really complain about them not telling the truth.
causaludendi says:
August 13, 2013 at 2:01 am
TSFM Reply:
____________________________________
The post was written in a light-hearted, jovial sense with more than a smattering of humour. I didn’t feel it was malicious nor offensive. The ‘hang in there cupcake’ comment may not to have been to all comedy tastes but was, to my mind, in context.
As for your comment re. identity; I struggle to see how my alluding to the fact that ‘steerpike’ seemed to be more than one person warranted mention in your reply when it was discussed in many, many posts around the time.
But, as has been mentioned before, It is your ball and as such pick the teams, set the jumpers and decide the rules. Is there a warning in there somewhere that we are all railing against?
Scottish football needs…
Hi TSFM
Have not recieved email (checked junk) re post in mod
thks
will email anyway
newtz
RyanGosling says:
September 20, 2013 at 1:27 am
Stevie, fair enough, have a laugh – I didn’t do anything to bring this on. David Murray’s spending? Loved it!! Of course I did. For ever fiver Celtic spend I’ll spend a tenner. Why would I doubt he would?! He said he would. Craig Whyte, billionaire. Awesome, glad to have him with us. What? He’s a con artist? What can I do? Nothing. Tried. Told my mates. Nothing doing. So please don’t take pleasure in what is befalling me now.
__________________________________________________________________________________
[TSFM]
Carntyne, you’ve made your point to the point of being rude and totally off topic.
I find your remarks insulting and non-sensical.
My response was to a post by Ryan Gosling.
He raised the matter not me, I merely replied, so it’s not me who is off topic.
You would need to be super sensitive to consider my opinion rude.
If you would like to point out any inaccuracies in what I said I’d be pleased to discuss them with you.
Otherwise I’d appreciate it if you restored my post.
Edit
TSFM: I see Jack Jarvis has written to you on the Moderation thread, and I’ve sent you a PM.
Was my post too long? 😯 😛
Bangordub says:
September 29, 2013 at 9:51 pm
15 1 Rate This
I’m out,
Thanks to all who may have given me the odd TU over the years here and on RTC.
Best of luck in the future.
I truly hope Scottish football will emerge stronger and better equipped in the years ahead.
I also know that elephants in rooms have to be confronted and dealt with before the decorators can move in.
Thank you
BD
———————————————————————————
I was of the opinion that any event taking part on a football field in Scotland fell into the category for debate on TSFM.
Why the change? There is more to football than football in this country.
My perfectly reasonable comment made this morning, challenging whether the principles of the blog are being adhered to, has been removed. This is a good site, but I hope it does not go down the road of cliques and pet posters like so many other forums.
valentinesclown says:
September 29, 2013 at 10:27 pm
I was of the opinion that any event taking part on a football field in Scotland fell into the category for debate on TSFM.
Why the change? There is more to football than football in this country.
_____________________________________________________________________
No change at all VC. Rock concerts take place on football fields, and they have nothing to do with us. There are political and historical reasons for attitudes of Rangers and Celtic fans which are a mystery to the rest of us. I should add that many of the posts which were removed yesterday fell into that rather unfortunate reactionary trap of tagging a whole section of our community pejoratively.
That development, coupled with previous experience, has shown us that we are not yet ready to have that debate.
For the record, I personally found the events at Ibrox to be cheap, tacky and distasteful, but still irrelevant to the business of this blog. If this becomes a deal-breaker for some (and it has), then we are allowing ourselves to be distracted from the real issues which directly affect the governance of the game.
UpTheHoops
For the reasons stated above, the principles of this blog are being adhered to. The comment you spoke of was perfectly reasonable as you say, and should have been moved to this thread instead of being deleted. Apologies for that – it’s been a busy 24 hrs..
Would like to associate myself, with Ecoboys last deleted post over on the live thread.
BartinMain says:
October 3, 2013 at 9:27 pm
13 4 Rate This
TSFM
I don’t think you should remove the posting rights of interesting people. Whatever Charlotte or Goldstein’s agenda, whether they be at opposite poles or not, they are nothing if not interesting.
This blog is largely populated by bores and insufferable back slappers. Despite that, I frequent it nearly every day, but it’s a hard job wading through the sycophancy.
You’ve made a mistake banning Goldstein, just as you made a mistake with Charlotte.
What does it matter if Goldstein has deleted his posts? I was quick enough to copy and paste the lot- and they are no less intriguing reading them now, than when they first appeared.
Keep your eyes on the cases that will be heard before the year is out- and keep checking Companies House.
Bartin.
================================================================
Quite agree, Bartin.
Best not rock the boat though, they don’t like criticism. Might get your posting rights removed. It happened to, shall we say, someone I know.
Danish,
Fergusslayedtheblues,
the malcontent
I haven’t been rude in ignoring your concerns re source of The Sun article. My replies have been stuck in moderation ether for an inordinate length of time : in fact I’ve just seen Montenegro score a late equaliser at Wembley.
TSFM has never barred anyone from posting.
True or untrue ?
[TSFM – True!]
Let’s see if the ban is over 😮
1, 2, 3 Test