Comment Moderation Thread

Any queries about moderation, please put them here and not on the main current thread.

Trisidium

Trisidium

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.

144 Comments
  1. neepheid

    neepheid


    I had a post removed yesterday. Basically I said that everyone should give up on the Tonev stuff. Now I have absolutely no issue with ny post being removed. TSFM made it clear that a load of stuff on Tonev was being removed, the good, the bad and the ugly. I was happy with that. However I am very unhappy to see the same issue being reactivated and prolonged, with no moderation, so far as I can see. I understand that the Mods have a life outside of this forum, Christmas is upon us and family time takes priority, but I would very much like to see this issue dealt with. We had capital punishment brought out for an airing last night, for goodness sake! Please can somebody stop it now. As someone on the main thread has just commented (correctly in my view) those involved are killing this forum. Help!!!!

    View Comment
  2. Cygnus X-1


    It appears I had a post removed tonight? May I ask why?

    View Comment
  3. ecobhoy


    TSFM says:
    January 15, 2015 at 4:40 pm

    I think the reference to rapeepil is less pejorative and more ironic, however fans of other clubs are not refered to in that fashion. The terms Darkside and clan are both evocative and intended to demean. Of course some may argue that this is not the intention, but I think it’s a small price to pay for our own self respect that we find other ways to express our thoughts in less evocative terms.

    The mods, with the help of the word filters, will continue to root out that kind of language. It is diametrically opposed to the ethos of TSFM. Thanks for shining a light on it.

    Some observations wrt the above comment and I don’t think anyone on this blog would class me as a Rangers Hater and indeed many might thionk the opposite.

    However you state that ‘rapeepil’ isn’t used wrt fans other than Rangers. I have never seen other fans describe themself as such and it would appear to me that only a triumphalist section of the Rangers support use the word. I therefore find it difficult to see how the use of the term can be seen as abusive.

    The Darkside is a word I use when discussing Rangers websites that spew hatred and utter the foulest attacks aimed mainly at Celtic and its support but also fans of other clubs from time to time and public servants just doing their job.

    Indeed I sincerely believe my use of the word ‘Darkside’ very much downplays the depravity to be found on these sites.

    Then we have the complaint against the use of the word ‘clan’ which I simply left flabbergasted over and that isn’t something that happens often – I can assure you.

    I did a google search for the word ‘clan’ and ‘tsfm’ and I have undernoted the results. Is the way in which this word is used by TSFM posters not acceptable? What self-respect has any of these posters lost by using the word ‘clan’

    The only reference I can find linking ‘clan’ to ‘KKK’ is used in a Celtic reference noit a Rangers one.

    It’s not my job to tell TSFM how to mod the Blog but when a poster turns-up and presents a list of words he would like banned perhaps a little circumspection is required before adding them to the filter.

    UNDERNOTE

    September 16, 2012 at 5:48 pm
    Posters please note, 2 ‘Ls’ in O’Neill. The oldest traceable clan name in Europe

    October 8, 2013 at 12:44 pm
    The McGeady clan are very aware of their nationality and ethnicity.

    September 4, 2013 at 9:20 pm
    It would not have been a family member of the Murray clan

    August 6, 2013 at 12:50 pm
    Not seen Corsica on here in a while but have followed on twitter, while he chased the charity story in the face of threats from the clan etc

    September 12, 2014 at 11:04 pm
    Wallace approached the King over the Water for some funds, and was sent homeward, to try get the loyal Clan Chiefs to take part in a whip round, with predictable results.

    January 19, 2014 at 11:08 pm
    OT, but one of those strange connections things, The Clan Fergusson which was sunk in the same convoy, was built for the old Clan Line

    January 19, 2014 at 11:34 pm
    Ma old man was sunk on the clan Ferguson

    January 20, 2014 at 12:29 am
    2102 hrs Clan Ferguson is hit by an aerial torpedo and blows up

    December 19, 2012 at 08:57
    Since joining the RTC/TSFM clan

    September 10, 2012 at 01:04
    Dissolved company previously run by the Gallagher construction clan

    December 14, 2013 at 2:02 am
    connected to the Abela clan in Lebanon and Monaco

    July 24, 2013 at 3:41 pm
    Fergus took over in 1994 – and it was hardly hostile! he paid the KKW clan for their shares and picked up the club – debts and all

    July 14, 2013 at 4:43 pm
    links to the Abela clan (airline catering and, previously, cigarette smuggling in Lebanon

    View Comment
  4. ecobhoy


    TSFM says:
    January 15, 2015 at 4:40 pm

    I think the reference to rapeepil is less pejorative and more ironic,

    however fans of other clubs are not refered to in that fashion. The terms Daurkside and

    cl*n are both evocative and intended to demean. Of course some may argue that this is

    not the intention, but I think it’s a small price to pay for our own self respect that

    we find other ways to express our thoughts in less evocative terms.

    The mods, with the help of the word filters, will continue to root out that kind of

    language. It is diametrically opposed to the ethos of TSFM. Thanks for shining a light

    on it.

    Some observations wrt the above comment and I don’t think anyone on this blog would

    class me as a Rangers Hater and indeed many might thionk the opposite.

    However you state that ‘rapeepil’ isn’t used wrt fans other than Rangers. I have never

    seen other fans describe themself as such and it would appear to me that only a

    triumphalist section of the Rangers support use the word. I therefore find it difficult

    to see how the use of the term can be seen as abusive.

    The Daurkside is a word I use when discussing Rangers websites that spew hatred and utter the foulest attacks aimed mainly at Celtic and its support but also fans of other clubs from time to time and public servants just doing their job.

    Indeed I sincerely believe my use of the word ‘Daurkside’ very much downplays the

    depravity and hatred to be found on these sites.

    Then we have the complaint against the use of the word ‘cl*n’ which I am simply left

    flabbergasted over and that isn’t something that happens often – I can assure you.

    I did a google search for the word ‘cl*n’ and ‘tsfm’ and I have undernoted the results.

    Is the way in which this word is used by TSFM posters not acceptable? What self-respect

    has any of these posters lost by using the word ‘cl*n’

    The only reference I can find linking ‘cl*n’ to ‘KKK’ is used in a Celtic reference noit

    a Rangers one.

    It’s not my job to tell TSFM how to mod the Blog but when a poster turns-up and presents

    a list of words he would like banned perhaps a little circumspection is required before

    adding them to the filter.

    UNDERNOTE

    September 16, 2012 at 5:48 pm
    Posters please note, 2 ‘Ls’ in O’Neill. The oldest traceable cl*n name in Europe

    October 8, 2013 at 12:44 pm
    The McGeady cl*n are very aware of their nationality and ethnicity.

    September 4, 2013 at 9:20 pm
    It would not have been a family member of the Murray cl*n

    August 6, 2013 at 12:50 pm
    Not seen Corsica on here in a while but have followed on twitter, while he chased the

    charity story in the face of threats from the cl*n etc

    September 12, 2014 at 11:04 pm
    Wallace approached the King over the Water for some funds, and was sent homeward, to try

    get the loyal Cl*n Chiefs to take part in a whip round, with predictable results.

    January 19, 2014 at 11:08 pm
    OT, but one of those strange connections things, The Cl*n Fergusson which was sunk in

    the same convoy, was built for the old Cl*n Line

    January 19, 2014 at 11:34 pm
    Ma old man was sunk on the cl*n Ferguson

    January 20, 2014 at 12:29 am
    2102 hrs Cl*n Ferguson is hit by an aerial torpedo and blows up

    December 19, 2012 at 08:57
    Since joining the RTC/TSFM cl*n

    September 10, 2012 at 01:04
    Dissolved company previously run by the Gallagher construction cl*n

    December 14, 2013 at 2:02 am
    connected to the Abela cl*n in Lebanon and Monaco

    July 24, 2013 at 3:41 pm
    Fergus took over in 1994 – and it was hardly hostile! he paid the KKW cl*n for their

    shares and picked up the club – debts and all

    July 14, 2013 at 4:43 pm
    links to the Abela cl*n (airline catering and, previously, cigarette smuggling in

    Lebanon

    View Comment
  5. ecobhoy


    Well two of the words have already been added to the filter which I think effectively bans them. They are potentially less offensive IMO than KKK. Still rapeepil still survives as well but not I’m afraid: ‘cl*n’ and ‘Daurkside’. They are no longer with us I. afraid 🙄

    View Comment
  6. 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.

    View Comment
  7. Smugas


    TSFM, Ryan and BB

    Wot Eco said at 9.01 but writ much better than wot I could.

    (and that’s not to completely exonerate BB either btw)

    View Comment
  8. Danish Pastry


    @Ryan

    I thought this from TSFM was good and bad. Bad in that the principle of ‘withour fear or favour’ was overlooked — the slippery slope we criticise the press for having gone down. No one should have ‘protected status’, or be so precious that their posts cannot be deleted if deemed imappropriate. We can leave that sort of thing to Hampden, compromised journos, and the others. But good, too, in that TSFM has set the record straight and promised no repeat. Bravo.

    TSFM says:
    January 29, 2015 at 9:43 pm
    65 87 Rate This

    …My main failing in this incident is that as mod on duty tonight, I should have removed the post with the “supremacist” claim. I didn’t – mainly due to BB’s previous commitment to the ethos of the blog.

    My apologies to Ryan and everyone else for that. Hopefully it is not a mistake i will repeat.

    View Comment
  9. Barcabhoy

    Barcabhoy


    Hopefully this post will not be deleted and I will be allowed the same leeway that Ryan has been allowed to put forward his view.

    Re Ryan

    Simply Ryan has twisted what I said, and as TSFM has deleted the posts I made on the matter , the rest of the blog are denied the opportunity to judge the matter in full. This isn’t the first time Ryan has reacted to questioning of claims he has made, in the way he has done over his claim that Rangers were 40% of Scottish football.

    I have no problem with posters disagreeing with me . However I do have a problem with perfectly reasonable posts being deleted. Posts that took some considerable time to write and much thought given to ensure they kept within the ethos of the blog.

    For the avoidance of doubt , I never made a single comment that called Ryan anything. None , not one.

    I stated that a claim he made was wrong and supremacist in nature. That has resulted in demands from Ryan for me to apologise, supported by TSFM.

    These claims have been accompanied by personal criticism of me from Ryan and TSFM. These criticisms are neither justified nor accurate nor reasonable.

    Ryan first came to my attention when he claimed that David Murray was only doing what everyone else was doing . This came on the back of a post i wrote when Murray was found to have short changed his pensioners out of £22 million.

    Ryans words were

    “I’m not defending Murray, however I don’t think he was doing anything out of the ordinary. Almost everybody pre 2008 was borrowing excessive amounts of money”

    That caught my attention as these were the exact words used to me by a high profile PR practictioner who has taken significant fees from Murray to defend and deflect.
    The questions I posed to Ryan are below

    “You keep stating that public companies engaged in the same practices as Murray. That’s an easy claim to make , so let’s see you back it up. Can you give me a list of plc’s who tick all of the following boxes .

    1 guilty of tax evasion ( not avoidance)

    2 underfund staff pension plans by 50%

    3 have hundreds of £millions of loans written off in return for utterly worthless shares

    4 sell company assets to Chairman / CEO for vastly under book value / original price paid

    5 destroy a Scottish sporting institution

    6 where CEO/ Chairman take a £6 million EBT loan

    There are lots more area’s of scrutiny ,however you should easily be able to list quite a few plc’s to justify your claim that Murray’s conduct was commonplace , as opposed to my claim that it was uniquely damaging”

    Ryans response was to state that Enron, an English Hotel chain and Goldman Sachs had behaved similarly. When it was pointed out to him that none of them had done all of what Murray had done, and in Goldmans case hadn’t done any of the above, Ryan then changed tack.

    He then claimed on a number of occasions that i was accusing him of being a PR Plant. In fact I never accused him of being any such thing , when what I said he was using arguments straight of of Jack Irvine’s playbook.

    So my experience of Ryan , is that he does not like being questioned when he makes statements of fact that prove or are easily proven to be wrong. His response thereafter is to claim , falsely in both cases involving discussion with me , that he is being personally attacked , when he is not .

    In Ryan’s world he equates someone pointing out he is using a similar argument to Jack Irvine to claim that he is being accused of being a PR plant. That logic was applied similarly in the latest debate.

    In short Ryan has made comments which are demonstrably wrong , and similar in nature to comments made by others who clearly have an agenda to deflect blame from David Murray or to nurture the notion that Rangers are essential for a healthy Scottish football. That’s Ryan’s prerogative, equally those who find these arguments completely false , should have the entitlement to disagree , without perfectly reasonable posts being deleted

    Ryan does not like his views being equated in this way and claims personal attack. This in my view is ridiculous , as he’s the one making the claims in the first place, and it’s perfectly reasonable to point out he is aligning himself with the views of others who are ridiculed on this blog, for entirely valid reasons.

    Deleting rebuttals to Ryan’s claims in my view is damaging to the blog. Ryan has no right to make false claims , just because his is a minority view. I would hope that his posts are not deleted , it’s much healthier to allow them to be debated, and when they are wrong to be proven to be so.

    The blog won’t therefore be surprised to learn that demands for me from Ryan and TSFM to apologise to Ryan, not only bemuse me they in my view have absolutely no merit, and are entirely unreasonable .

    View Comment
  10. RyanGosling

    RyanGosling


    Barcabhoy,

    I fear this is getting wildly out of hand.

    I have no issue whatsoever with anything I say being challenged. In past encounters I have not appreciated the manner in which you have written. I did not appreciate the fact that you said I had made a supremacist claim, as I did no such thing. I very much did not appreciate the fact that you continued to believe that that is what I had done after I clearly said I had picked a figure out of thin air.

    If you had responded to my post simply stating that the figure was incorrect, I would have had no issue whatsoever. I hope we can move on from this and have no continuing bad blood. I believe I have responded badly to assertive posts by you, and for that I apologise.

    Finally, if you are aware of someone who has received high fees from Mr Murray for using exactly the same language as I used, could you please forward me his billing address?!

    View Comment
  11. Trisidium


    Ryan/BB

    We need to draw a line under this right now. This discussion has been moved to this thread (as previous comments have) because we can’t allow spats to take up the main blog.

    Ryan, try to keep your powder dry on this and trust the mods to do their jobs. It doesn’t help if we keep stoking the fires.

    BB, the length of a post is immaterial. If it goes against the guidelines of the blog, it has to go. Ryan’s history of comment on the blog is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned – but it’s of no interest to readers who are quite capable of coming to their own conclusions.

    We are going to have to agree to disagree on the reasons why I took the action I did a few days ago. We have no doubts that it was the correct one.

    It is a pity it has come to this, but my inference is that your post was an attack on another poster. It was also the inference drawn by a good many folk. I thought that this might have been enough for you to see that at worst you had been misunderstood, but subsequent comments you have made, including the one above have only confirmed my initial impression.

    I admire your certitude. Perhaps the tone is the problem rather than the message, but I think we have all agreed in the past that the tone is important.

    Hopefully we will be able to move on from this, but I fear there is more hope than expectation that we will.

    View Comment
  12. Barcabhoy

    Barcabhoy


    i agree we should draw a line under the issue.

    it is disappointing that you continue to claim that i was making personal attacks on another poster. I am sure that there are some who agree with your view, I am equally sure that there are far more who realise I did no such thing.

    Mods have no exclusivity on calling it right. They may well have the final word, having the right of censorship and the ability to delete posts, however Mods can and do make mistakes , as does everyone.

    The danger to the blog is that points put forward as factual , which are anything but factual, will not be challenged. The length of a post is entirely relevant . Sometimes it is necessary to construct an argument which needs lengthy anecdotal or case evidence . when a post is deleted , which the vast majority of the blog did not see as a personal attack, the result is that a poster is reluctant to devote the time and effort to engage in future.

    let me give a relevant example

    BRTH wrote an outstanding article on Murray’s finances in charge of Rangers. There was a reference to Dave King which referred to him, quite properly in my view , in the manner described by a high court judge .

    The irony of that is that this phrase is banned by the Mods. There is even a warning that anyone using such a phrase risks having their posting rights revoked. It would have been a ridiculous call to delete BRTH’s article and revoke his posting rights, although under the Mods rules that was a possibility

    View Comment
  13. Tincks

    Tincks


    In defence of the Mods.

    Two posters who’s contributions are valued by me (and I think many others) have had a falling out and the Mods have done their best to calm the situation.

    It is much easier for people to fall out with written communication as opposed to the spoken word. Written words do not convey body language or tone of voice. It’s why many use these 😛 :irony: 🙄 when we make a point, they can help to soften a message.

    TSFM is a pleasure to read and engage with due to the high standards of the contributions and the civilised way in which debate is held. So much of the internet is a bear pit (no pun intended) and the level of sanity that exists within TSFM is a small miracle. Particularly on a subject that creates as much passion as football.

    No one has to volunteer to put in all the effort required to be a MOD. Most of the time they get it right.

    My plea is that if on occassion people feel harshly treated either by other posters or by the mods please cut them some slack. We are all only human after all.

    Will understand if this is booted too.

    View Comment
  14. Trisidium


    Barcabhoy

    I think we need to have a new definition of the word irony. There was never a possibility that what you said could happen. The mods have guidelines (rules if you must) and interpret them using context. I think that is sensible – and ultimately it means that we attract an audience of people who on the whole trust the mods.

    It also makes us all hostages to the mods’ interpretation, and many folk have been at the sharp end of that in the past with minimum fuss attached.

    You appear to be standing firm on a point of principle, and I respect that. However we are also standing firm on how the rules should be applied. I wish you would respect that as well.

    Clearly you are not happy with the situation, but there is little point in us going round in circles here. What happens next is up to you, but I hope that both you and Ryan can move on.

    View Comment
  15. Haywire


    Hello TSFM,

    Yet again, I seem to have had a comment go into the ether. I am struggling to understand why that is, because I deliberately removed some points I would wish to make which ‘might’ have been regarded as inflammatory.

    Please enlighten me as to my transgressions. I must admit that I did say that I had no religion. I hope that that was not the problem

    View Comment
  16. Amazingless


    Barcabhoy says:
    January 31, 2015 at 8:52 pm

    When a post is deleted…the result is that a poster is reluctant to devote the time and effort to engage in future.

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    This feels true, although it’s the not knowing why something has been deleted, as opposed to the deletion itself, which may cause a sense of unease. I’ve opted to restrict myself to sending PM’s to fellow posters, rather than rattle the heads of the poor moderators with what would necessarily be a lopsided sense of grievance. I don’t like having stuff deleted – who does? – so prefer not to take the chance any more. (If we’re at a genuine loss as to what we’ve done wrong, after all, it seems likely we may repeat the same mistakes. Why risk the shame of a banning?)

    But now that I’m here…

    1. How does one italicise words on this site? The use of BIG letters for emphasis makes us all seem a bit special – and not in a good way.

    2. In the absence of a permanently visible glossary, is it possible to implement a rule whereby posters are forced (at gunpoint, maybe?) to refer to people, at least in the first instance, by their correct names? Example: “CG gently rubbed CW’s thighs as Fluff & Yelps massaged the figures…”

    As someone who was lucky (and flukey) enough to stumble across the Rangers Tax Case website from close to the beginning, I’m going to have little trouble identifying Charles Green, Craig Whyte and Duff & Phelps from the above sentence. But what of our children or those who are new to these things or any interested party in the future? Just imagine landing on that (made-up) sentence as your introduction to the blog and trying to make sense of it. Could you? I feel it marginalises the work done here and makes it less digestible and relevant if posters talk to one another in a clubby, code-heavy or seemingly cryptic manner.

    If I had to guess, I’d imagine the moderators may feel the same way. To that end, I’d be delighted to see words like “Darkside” (and all pejorative and/or cosy descriptors) eliminated – with due acknowledgement to the valid concerns of Ecobhoy and the jarring impairment of free speech. But I can’t think I’ve ever once referred to Rangers fans as anything other than “Rangers fans” or Celtic fans as anything other than “Celtic fans” – and these are people whose clubs I want taken out of the Scottish game altogether. It’s not hard. (I should just say that nowadays I’d say “goodbye and good riddance” to Rangers and “goodbye, good riddance and good luck” to Celtic.)

    3. It’s interesting to see the blog (TSFM) defend itself against accusations of Celtic bias. I don’t feel the moderators are the main problem here; rather the posters. Sometimes we are so used to our own bias that we simply don’t see it any more. Here’s a tiny example from the other day when a poster called James Forrest (a random selection, he is not alone and by no means the worst offender) left a short message (with a link to his own blog): “They might not be Rangers … but for a multitude of reasons I want us to beat them as if they were.”

    It’s the use of the word “us” that gets me. To whom is this comment addressed? Better, surely, to say “I want Celtic to beat them” and ditch the appearance of fan-site mentality. This was merely a lapse, we must assume, and hardly a crime, but it niggles that nobody appeared to find it carelessly Celtic-centric. It suggests a certain blindness to assumptions and bias that this site frequently insists it seeks to eradicate. (And quite right, too.)

    It’s so small it seems petty, I know this, but it reminds me of sitting in Edinburgh (all those years ago) and watching a BBC weather report where a London chappy pointed to the Newcastle area and said it would be raining up here in the north. The north? That’s the f***ing south, buddy. These tiny wee niggles have a habit of stewing away in the background as the transgressors carry on, oblivious.

    View Comment
  17. PhilMacGiollaBhain


    Big Pink says:
    February 7, 2015 at 12:44 pm
    11 2 Rate This
    ========================================
    FYI
    Please avoid using the term “Plastic Paddy” as it is considered racist and pejorative by many Second Generation Irish people (2GI).
    It is used to diminish and demean people.
    #NílMéPlaisteach

    View Comment
  18. ecobhoy


    I really wonder how TSFM will ever attract input from Rangers fans when the following comment is allowed which applies to every single Rangers supporter who purchased shares in their club.

    Because if you have 5000 idiot thugs with fire in their belly hellbent on creating a scene and interfering with the business of business that is the purpose of the meeting.. well I see no reason whatsoever WHY they should be accommodated.

    There are clowns in every support and some of them are shareholders in their club as well.

    But if this blog wishes to be taken seriously then it can’t demonise thousands of people before the event has even taken place. It is up to those organising the general meeting to ensure that it can take place in an orderly fashion and anyone acting unreasonably is ejected.

    As to supporting either DK or MA then, as always, I will leave that to Rangers supporters to make that choice. It’s their club and they will have to live with their choice which could kill-off Rangers yet again.

    View Comment
  19. Resin_lab_dog


    ecobhoy says:
    February 8, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    I really wonder how TSFM will ever attract input from Rangers fans when the following comment is allowed which applies to every single Rangers supporter who purchased shares in their club.

    Because if you have 5000 idiot thugs with fire in their belly hellbent on creating a scene and interfering with the business of business that is the purpose of the meeting.. well I see no reason whatsoever WHY they should be accommodated.

    There are clowns in every support and some of them are shareholders in their club as well.

    But if this blog wishes to be taken seriously then it can’t demonise thousands of people before the event has even taken place. It is up to those organising the general meeting to ensure that it can take place in an orderly fashion and anyone acting unreasonably is ejected.

    As to supporting either DK or MA then, as always, I will leave that to Rangers supporters to make that choice. It’s their club and they will have to live with their choice which could kill-off Rangers yet again.

    ________________________________________________

    “Sack the board” “Scumbags” “out out out”….

    I did not demonise them eco.
    They did that themselves!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30574627

    View Comment
  20. neepheid

    neepheid


    I’ve just had a post pulled, which simply consisted of a link to another blog-

    I don’t think I included any of my own ravings on this occasion.

    I don’t as a matter of principle have a problem with my posts being moderated- I’m sure that in most cases the action has been totally justified. And I do consider myself a guest in someone else’s house, so I try not to break the house rules.

    However, if simple links to certain blogs are banned, can you provide a list, please? That will save me wasting both my time, and yours.

    Can we have some guidance, please?

    View Comment
  21. castaway


    TSFM to take you up on your offer to discuss further the BBC Bias problem, here’s my synopsis of what’s been said so far, starting with:

    TSFM: More paranoia I’m afraid. Sadly, it just never rests.
    M: No evidence of that.

    TSFM: It was about the circumstances surrounding the 57 LCF film.
    M: Particularly about BBCs apparent bias wrt non-showing of 2nd half of that and the reasons.

    TSFM: It had nothing to do with Peter Thomson or BBC Scotland, …
    M: Straw Mannery. I only mentioned P. Thompson in regard to his halftime statement, nothing else.

    TSFM:……nor did Thomson ever make that statement.
    M: You’ve since said you don’t know what he said. Why the vehement denial first time?

    TSFM: The tapes were not lost. A lens cap was placed over the film camera (in London) at half time and the guy forgot to go back to take it off.
    M: Possible but highly improbable. He switches off the recording camera, puts on the lens cover, goes away for a ten minute break, and forgets to go back? Did the guy keep his job?

    TSFM: More to do with the value the BBC placed on Scottish Football than any anti-Celtic bias.
    M: At the time Scottish Football was ahead of the English version.

    TSFM: Archie’s source is the same as mine. Not the BBC, but Celtic historian Pat Woods.
    M: You are saying that a real sports’ journalist at BBC Sport, Archie McPherson, had to go to Pat Woods to get a sports’ story which PW had sourced in BBC Sport? Isn’t that a bit odd too? So Archie’s source was indeed the BBC, via Pat Woods.

    With one or two exceptions, the Blog is a bit more patient and wide focussed than it’s sometimes given credit for. Celtic fans should not need to be apologetic for raising issues of obvious bias against the club. I hope we would all support fans and members of any club amateur or professional who feel they are being treated unfairly by officials on and off pitch, and the media. Isn’t that what the Blog is all about?

    Thank you for taking the time to address the minor issue I raised, still unexplained over a half century later. Was the cause malpractice or malfeasance? Truth will out.

    TSFM to take you up on your offer to discuss further the BBC Bias problem, here’s my synopsis of what’s been said so far, starting with:

    TSFM: More paranoia I’m afraid. Sadly, it just never rests.
    M: No evidence of that.

    TSFM: It was about the circumstances surrounding the 57 LCF film.
    M: Particularly about BBCs apparent bias wrt non-showing of 2nd half of that and the reasons.

    TSFM: It had nothing to do with Peter Thomson or BBC Scotland, …
    M: Straw Mannery. I only mentioned P. Thompson in regard to his halftime statement, nothing else.

    TSFM:……nor did Thomson ever make that statement.
    M: You’ve since said you don’t know what he said. Why the vehement denial first time?

    TSFM: The tapes were not lost. A lens cap was placed over the film camera (in London) at half time and the guy forgot to go back to take it off.
    M: Possible but highly improbable. He switches off the recording camera, puts on the lens cover, goes away for a ten minute break, and forgets to go back? Did the guy keep his job?

    TSFM: More to do with the value the BBC placed on Scottish Football than any anti-Celtic bias.
    M: At the time Scottish Football was ahead of the English version.

    TSFM: Archie’s source is the same as mine. Not the BBC, but Celtic historian Pat Woods.
    M: You are saying that a real sports’ journalist at BBC Sport, Archie McPherson, had to go to Pat Woods to get a sports’ story which PW had sourced in BBC Sport? Isn’t that a bit odd too? So Archie’s source was indeed the BBC, via Pat Woods.

    With one or two exceptions, the Blog is a bit more patient and wide focussed than it’s sometimes given credit for. Celtic fans should not need to be apologetic for raising issues of obvious bias against the club. I hope we would all support fans and members of any club amateur or professional who feel they are being treated unfairly by officials on and off pitch, and the media. Isn’t that what the Blog is all about?

    Thank you for taking the time to address the minor issue I raised, still unexplained over a half century later. Was the cause malpractice or malfeasance? Truth will out.

    View Comment
  22. castaway


    Sorry for double load. Can’t edit it on this machine. TSFM, can you delete one? Who knows, you might delete both 🙂

    View Comment
  23. Resin_lab_dog


    tcup 2012 says:
    March 12, 2015 at 12:26 am

    Oh well here we go posts deleted again
    So much for freedom of speech
    ___________________________________________

    We don’t have that tcup.
    It discourages the TRFC fan minority.
    Affirmative action and all that.
    Which I can live with, even though it dents our legitimacy w.r.t. equality.
    And to be fair, they are pretty open about it.
    And while it dimishes our freedoms (boo!… a bad thing. Against the spirit of us who contribute), it also progresses our inclusiveness (yay!… a good thinhg that affirms the spirit of those who contribute).

    I see it as a well intentioned move to try and stop us succumbing to the natural propensity of becoming a self affirming clique. (You may now laugh!… but that is to underestimate the level of success achieved.)

    There is no affirmative action RLD, so how can we be “open” about it?. There is good manners which needs to apply from and to the fans of ALL clubs and the clubs themselves.
    The opposite of affirmative action in fact.
    TSFM

    And It also means we are able to avoid being hijacked by trolls.
    On the basis of the assumption that you aren’t one, do not worry that you have been tarred with that monniker by some.
    On a good night after a beer or 7, I have no doubt fallen into that spiked pit ( I will not use the word ‘bear trap’ because of the pejorative nature) myself on many occasion.

    But basically the message is this.

    If you are a genuine and well intentioned supporter of any club, you will be welcomed hereabouts, so long as you abide by normal standard of decency. (A good rule of thumb is if you ‘jar’ someone, try and make it funny to the person you are ‘jarring’ as well as everyone else, or else try to refrain from insults, and deal in verifiable facts.
    Its a rule of thumb that I have doubtless transgressed myself on many occasions, so don’t bridle at summary judgements too soon.

    This does not mean you can’t upset people here.
    Disagreements can be healthy.
    We are not boys scouts.
    And people in positions of responsibility deserve to be held to account.

    A hard truth over an easy lie, any day.
    Honesty and respect are the entrance criteria, I would say.

    The fact that not all of your contributions were obliterated means that the opinion is you may be on the level, in which case, your contribution and perspective will be immensely valued.

    If you are a stirrer you will be dealt with by the processes our clever moderaters have developed.

    Whereas if you are a genuine seeker of engagement, you are in good company, pull up a seat. The floor is yours.

    As an open question…
    What is your take on Campbell Ogilvie’s position at the SFA with regard to the whole Rangers car crash?
    Genuinely interested!

    View Comment
  24. Gabby

    Gabby


    TSFM why was my post at 11.07pm edited? With selective editing like this, it is easy to see why there are accusations of this site being more of a Celtic Fan site than Scottish Football fan site. Very disappointed

    View Comment
  25. Gabby

    Gabby


    If a post is edited by the Mods, there should be a note at the bottom saying who edited it and why

    View Comment
  26. Danish Pastry


    Gabby says:
    March 21, 2015 at 8:44 am
    If a post is edited by the Mods, there should be a note at the bottom saying who edited it and why
    ———

    What’s missing from the post, Gabby? It seems a complete train of thought. I agree, by the way, about managers and players needing to shoulder the blame for cheats and cheating. Very two-faced for clubs in general to be having a go at refs when some players are quite willing to cheat to gain an advantage.

    View Comment
  27. Gabby

    Gabby


    Hi DP
    I referenced an example of a player that had deliberately dived to hide a foul he had committed that resulted in the other player being sent off falsely. It was the worst example I could think of at the time, upon reflection perhaps I should have used the Ronaldinho in the World Cup (against France IIRC) rather than a Celtic player.
    The example was for illustrative purposes only. It was factually correct in fact the incident is still on You Tube. I was just trying to highlight how players contribute to poor refereeing decisions.

    View Comment
  28. neepheid

    neepheid


    Gabby says:
    March 21, 2015 at 9:10 am

    =======================
    I agree that when a post is edited, the Mods should leave some trace of their action. And I have always thought that where a post is deleted, the Mods should make that fact known to the poster, either privately, or by a note on the forum at the place where the post would have been.

    As regards providing reasons for posts being deleted or edited, I can see that the Mods simply don’t have the resouces to go down that road.

    On your own post, I’ll try to help, because I think I can see why it was edited. You say that as a fact, a player simulated a dive following a foul by himself, the dive getting an opponent sent off. That’s fine in the abstract, you and I could watch the video of the incident a few times and agree that’s what happened, no doubt. That does not turn our opinion into fact, however, and the player being accused might well disagree with our conclusions. At that point this forum is wide open to legal action for defamation. So my advice is that it’s best not to name names at all, or if you do, qualify it as “in my opinion”.

    View Comment
  29. ecobhoy


    neepheid says:
    March 21, 2015 at 9:56 am
    Gabby says:
    March 21, 2015 at 9:10 am

    On the issue of moderation which I have slightly more than a passing acquaintance with I would assume that the site mods do have discussions and have certain policies they follow.

    However they are all individuals as is the post which might be under consideration for modding – so there can never be total uniformity in decision making.

    I’m afraid that’s life and you either choose to post on a modded site with all its imperfections or you head for the Wild West where anything goes.

    In theory it sounds great that a full and frank exchange should take place about why a post has been modded. However in the real world mods do their work voluntarily for the good of the site in general. So it doesn’t actually matter if I think they have got it wrong or not as long as I believe that they have arrived at an honest decision.

    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.

    But the site continually moves on and you can’t drag it backwards. It’s all a learning experience and neepheid makes a good point about having to always keep a weather-eye on what we say and claim as fact. It might be so but that doesn’t mean you can prove it in court and the odd IMO can be helpful 😛

    View Comment
  30. Gabby

    Gabby


    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?

    View Comment
  31. parttimearab


    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…. 😆

    View Comment
  32. ecobhoy


    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 🙄

    View Comment
  33. Gabby

    Gabby


    Oh so this is where requests for explanations why my posts were edited and removed go to be ignored. Cant have pesky little explanations getting in the way, especially when there is serious debate about why the SFA et al should be more transparent and accountable.
    I understand, I should not have suggested that a Celtic player took a dive to get a player sent off. Be reassured that I shall never make that mistake again. Perhaps it might be useful if a list of clubs/players could be provided that better fits with the tastes of the Mods?
    I cant help be think how many other opinions are being deleted by the gatekeepers? No wonder there is such a consistent message in the site, dissenting opinions seem to be discarded. Keeping the Mainstream media honest? Whois keeping this site honest?

    View Comment
  34. Trisidium


    On the current debate with respect to one sentence of a post being removed;

    1. The removal of the sentence was indicated on the post.

    2. The sentence in question mentioned an historic incident involving Neil Lennon. Not the first time that the poster in question has traduced the former Celtic manager. “Thug” was one word used previously.
    The mod in question removed it and checked with me right away. I agreed with him that the intention the sentence was to inflame the debate (trolling in other words), and its removal did not change the ostensible sentiment of the comment.

    3. There is no question of naming individual mods. Our experience of trolls is that they will simply move the debate to PMs (or the comment moderation thread) if they are indulged.

    4. We simply have no time to notify people when a post is removed/edited. Seriously, 99% of the time people who are affected are well aware of the reason for moderation. My guess is that the figure is actually 100%, but that some choose to make an issue out of it.

    5. As ecobhoy says, the issue here is the refusal to accept that the mods are acting in good faith. And he is correct in that if an error is made we try to make good on that. Moderation policy evolves in concert with trolling strategies, and from learning from our mistakes.

    6. If we had 10p for everyone who claims their comment’s removal proves beyond doubt that this is a Celtic or anti-Celtic forum, we wouldn’t be making pleas for funds. We do have an imbalance in the sense that Celtic fans are the biggest constituency of our active membership (although not a majority). Consequently moderation is sometimes tricky, but made all the more difficult when trolls hijack the debate. I think some of the posts removed (not moved) this morning more than justify the mod’s suspicions.

    7. I clearly have more time on my hands than usual 🙂

    View Comment
  35. ecobhoy


    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.

    View Comment
  36. Trisidium


    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.

    View Comment
  37. Gabby

    Gabby


    1.it was indicated by brackets.Other people who read the post couldn’t tell the post was edited so clearly that method is not effective.

    2. I didnt use that term in this post, in fact I deliberately took emotive terms from the post. Does is mean I am not allowed to mention Lennon ever again? Or should I preceed his name with “the infallable”, “the great”?
    3. I understand, that makes sense. Why not add a note to say the post was edited by mods? No names, but still acountabilty?
    4. It isnt 100%,I had no idea why. I still think the example is valid. Would it have been edited if I had said Ronaldinho instead?
    5. I am sure they are acting in good faith, refereesact in good faith all the time and yet they are getting criticism for poor judgement. pot, kettle, black.
    6. Maybe you should actually look at the validity of the claims instead if trying to earn10p from them.
    7. Me too!

    View Comment
  38. ecobhoy


    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 😆

    View Comment
  39. neepheid

    neepheid


    Apologies TSFM, if I stirred the pot. I was trying (in a very incompetent way) to cool things down.

    View Comment
  40. blu


    blu says:
    April 21, 2015 at 11:57 am
    James Forrest says:
    April 21, 2015 at 11:09 am

    The latest refereeing scandal is an opportunity for change. We need to grab this one and it’s high time Celtic led from the front.

    James, my reading of the above is that there needs to be a response because Celtic have been on the wrong end of a bad decision.

    blu

    Can you take it up with James on his own site please?
    SFM

    SFM, Unfailingly polite, as ever, and I appreciate your efforts to move on from this particular topic but I’m sorry you felt the need to chop my post. I was too polite to ask James to keep that discussion to his site but the part of my post that you’ve excised was a genuine effort to widen the discussion into something that may have been more relevant to TSFM.

    View Comment
  41. Highlander


    Could a mod please advise me why my post regarding ‘handballgate’ has been removed? As far as I am aware, it was factually correct and otherwise complied with the rules of the forum. Thank you in anticipation.

    Edit – if my mild criticism of partisanship is deemed sufficient to warrant the removal of my post, then I suspect you have made my point for me. I will return to lurking for now.

    View Comment
  42. Taysider


    Not only was your post deleted Highlander but also one from me and one from Auldheid! Guess we’re all on the naughty step!

    FWIW my post had a message for those who post on this site and for those in the Boardrooms of our clubs, that the best chance of progress in terms of Scottish football authority reform is by building as broad a consensus as you can. A CEO or Chairmen who speaks for the greater good of the game is more likely to build support than one who appears to come from a partisan perspective.

    View Comment
  43. Highlander


    SFM says:
    administrator: (388 comments)
    April 26, 2015 at 3:18 pm

    Leaving aside refereeing bias, which I completely reject anyway, there appears to be a systematic failure which needs to be addressed.

    The accusation that such a discussion constitutes a Celticcentric-ness on this site is nonsense, to those who have made those accusations, I suggest that they have not been paying attention to the general course of this blog over the last few years.

    It is also a threat to the blog’s existence when people try to set up Celtic against the rest. If we have learned anything over the course of our many debates it is that to see things from the another’s perspective brings greater understanding.

    There is no Celtic focus on this issue just for the sake of it – just that they are at the centre of the affair, and not by their own choosing. Had any other clubs been at the centre then the same discussion would have taken place.

    ——————————————————————————————

    SFM, thank you for at least attempting to answer my grievances. I have become a huge fan of this forum over the past few years, and RTC before it, and have privately defended it on numerous occasions from accusations of being a Celtic-centric board, even if I only recently began posting here subsequent to lurking. What has made it so special for so long is the obvious putting aside of club affiliations and partisanship in the spirit of unity of purpose in order to unmask and hold to account the (allegedly 😉 ) corrupt administrators of our game.

    Whether, as you rightly say, Celtic are at the centre of ‘handballgate’ through no fault of their own is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the perceived importance of the incident has been magnified exponentially because it happened to Celtic. A similarly poor decision by the referee denying ICT a stonewall penalty later in the very same match was all but airbrushed out of the story on here until I and others mentioned it some days later. (Let’s not even mention today’s penalty decision.)

    When you say that “It is also a threat to the blog’s existence when people try to set up Celtic against the rest”, bear in mind it is also a threat to the blog’s existence if it is perceived that only Celtic fans post here, or that weight of numbers hold sway. As I said earlier, I will always support this blog and the vast majority of viewpoints expressed.

    If my viewpoint (the deleted post) doesn’t meet the official party line, wouldn’t it have been better to allow fellow posters to pick holes in it through debate (it was very tame and far from controversial) rather than simply stifling debate by deleting it?

    View Comment
  44. Taysider


    I feel a bit uneasy at the line taken here. I understand how difficult it must be to moderate these sites and I don’t wish to add to that. However the comment:

    “It also seems a bit inconsistent that Celtic have long been criticised for failing to make a stand against the authorities but are castigated when they asked why the officials got it so wrong last week”

    does make me wonder if it is perceived as “out of order” to question how the club have approached this issue. If Celtic wish to be seen to be in the vanguard of a push for reform of our governing bodies then the way to do that is surely to build as wide a consensus as possible? If you want to raise an issue about refereeing standards, recognise that it can cut both ways and say that for all of Scottish football you want to raise the issue of how to improve them rather than focus on an explanation for one decision against your team.

    View Comment
  45. tayred

    tayred


    SFM,

    I’m afraid I am largely with Taysider and Highlander here. The fact is that time and time again whenever an issue comes on here that doesn’t necessarily paint a certain side in a good light all hell breaks loose. Tonev, Budge, and now handball gate (there was another one but I forget what it was (anyone?)).

    One important fact that a large part of the population here seem to miss is that Budge, Tonev etc were not footballing issues – they were related purely and simply to what is deemed as acceptable behaviour of fans and players. The lack of a penalty was purely a footballing issue (assuming you can see past the ridiculous suggestions of an apparent blatant anti-Celtic bias amongst the authorities that several comments by various folks seem to hold in very firm belief – and the underlying current that this is in some way related to religion). Trying to argue your point that a missed penalty is the same as complaining about bigoted messages being sprayed on stadia doors, families feeling threatened or racism is really beyond the pale.

    As an individual I have grown tired trying to sell SFM as a genuine opportunity for Scottish football fans to get together and try and solve some of the very big problems our game has. Most of my friends and family just laugh now, viewing this place as no more than just another Celtic talk shop. This latest issue has sealed the deal as far as most of the few remaining were concerned – sickened by it. It is also the reason why I have as yet not contributed financially to the site, I often feel guilty about that but events like this last week relieve me of that guilt.

    I’ll still come here every day, and try and tune into the general chat comment, as some of it has been superb. My knowledge of the financial and legal side of Scottish society has benefitted hugely from coming here although I have no qualifications to add much to it. No doubt I will be drawn into more unbearable arguments here when the green side starts spouting forth on certain issues. I’ll maybe reach the heights of being blacklisted and accused of a Celtic hatred again just cos I don’t agree with the majority view. When I read something I find truly offensive that is just glossed over by the majority, I will also respond – I guess that will be the level of my contribution to the site. The irony is, and especially over this last week or so, that many here accuse TRFC fans of having a sense of entitlement, of arrogance, superiority etc and yet they seem entirely blind to what is being written in the name of Celtic here. It’s really rather sad…

    I don’t envy your job of moderation, I dread to think what some of the cut messages actually say. I’ve never worked out where your own particular allegiance lies, occasionally something happens and I have a good idea, but that its not clear says much about the quality of the work you are doing. Wishing you all the best.

    View Comment
  46. Bryce Curdy


    I had a post deleted as well yesterday in which I politely asked on what basis did SFM reject even the possibility of refereeing bias. I know that non-Celtic fans believe that the notion of anti-Celtic bias is absurd, but my reason for posting is simply to reassure the non-Celtic fans that they are not being victimised.

    Moderation is a thankless task but sometimes feels heavy handed on this site. Ultimately posters will move with their keyboards if they feel it detracts excessively, but we do have to recognise that it is SFM’s ball.

    Regarding yesterday’s penalty Paul67 on CQN predicted that Celtic would benefit from a relatively inconsequential refereeing error in their next match to perpetuate the myth that the ‘honest mistakes’ even themselves out. He was nearly right.

    View Comment
  47. Bryce Curdy


    SFM – a few of us, myself included, feeling a bit sore having had posts deleted yesterday. While my own post was about refereeing it was very generic and made no reference to last week’s incident. I thought it genuinely added to the debate and was consistent with the stated aims of the site. Ultimately we do all have to respect that it is your ball and therefore your rules and if we don’t like them we can go and play elsewhere, in the same way that if you don’t like any of us you can stop us playing. I have never moderated a blog and can only imagine what a thankless task it must be.

    How would you feel about a deleted posts thread where you thought material that you thought was unsuitable for whatever reason for the main blog could be moved to, an extension of the current moderation thread if you like. There will obviously be a few posts that merit permanent deletion.

    View Comment
  48. Bryce Curdy


    Above post moved from the main blog. Not sure if SFM is taking me up on my suggestion or trying to be funny, probably the latter lol. Think I’ll give up at this point.

    View Comment
  49. blu


    test

    View Comment
  50. causaludendi


    Has the PM facility been removed?? All I get is the message ‘Page not found’ ?!

    View Comment
  51. mcfc

    mcfc


    Mods – you’ve been very busy pruning comments over the past day or so. How would you describe the reason for that.

    erm, moderation?

    y4rmy – totally agree with your recently deleted comment – fancy a quick pint – and maybe a few slow ones ?

    View Comment
  52. ekt1m

    ekt1m


    Mods- Why was my post removed 2 minutes after posting?

    because it was off topic. Mods decide on moderation policy, and it’s not on topic to tell us that you’re going away for a few days.

    View Comment
  53. hector


    Why do my posts keep vanishing ?

    Basically because your recent posts have been off- topic and contained personal criticism of another poster and the moderation policy of the site. There really is only one rule here; show some respect to others. Your posts of late have not shown that.
    If the presence of another poster upsets you maybe this is not a good fit. You haven’t thought any topic worthy of response since January, and your intervention now has nothing to do with the OP – just another poster.

    That is a very good description of trolling.

    View Comment
  54. hector


    Hi thanks for the reply and sorry to have caused any offence. I think your observation of my not being a good fit for this blog is valid and I wish you well with the new direction the blog is taking . All the best.

    View Comment
  55. Haywire


    Dear Mods,

    I know that it is usually me that falls foul of your rules, but I am more than somewhat put out at a comment from FF this evening.

    In his 9.11 pm reply to my earlier posting, he says, “I swear on your life …” and so on. Now you can accuse me of being a bit picky, or over sensitive, but I am extremely unkeen on somebody swearing on my life rather than their own. You could even say that there was an element of threat in the phrase.

    I leave it to you as to how it is dealt with.

    Regards,

    Haywire

    View Comment
  56. Fisiani


    Moderation is just like being a referee. There are a set of basic rules and anyone who transgresses commits a foul. The referee is the sole arbiter of what constitutes a breach of rules. If you cannot accept the rulings of the referee then take your ball and go play somewhere else. What constitutes rough but fair play to one ref can be construed as a foul by another. It would help improve posting if some indication was left in the thread to alert others to foul play.
    eg, swearing, trolling, ad hominen,

    View Comment
  57. Cluster One

    Cluster One


    No problem with my comment being deleted…..sorry

    View Comment
  58. occam


    Not quite sure what’s happened here but would welcome clarification. I posted a comment on the entry (in Why we need to change) by
    ‘TheClumpany says:
    Member: (115 comments)
    July 13, 2015 at 6:01 pm’
    Initially, all seemed fine, with reaction as normal. However, I see that my comment and the original one by Clumpany seem to have disappeared. Any reason for this?

    View Comment
  59. neepheid

    neepheid


    jimbo says:
    Member: (54 comments)
    August 3, 2015 at 6:09 pm

    Starman, Can’t see anything about it in the Moderation thread, although I don’t know how that thread works, seems a lot of questions are left unanswered.

    Why don’t you state your post in a different way?

    =================

    I have no issue with moderation, but I do get a bit annoyed when a post disappears without explanation, or even any indication that it ever existed.

    I would suggest that a simple comment in place of the post, on the lines of “this post was removed by the moderators” would be helpful. I do understand that the mods probably don’t have the time to provide a detailed explanation in every case, but then, I have no idea how many posts get removed. I think most people will understand the reason for moderation (even if they don’t agree with it), and only a limited number will want any further explanation.

    In ths instance, I read Starman’s very eloquent post, and was surprised to find it had been removed shortly afterwards. Maybe I missed some potential libel, or whatever- that’s why I couldn’t be a moderator 😳 😳 .

    View Comment
  60. Starman


    neepheidneepheid says:
    Member: (709 comments)
    August 3, 2015 at 6:49 pm
    —–

    Moderation must be a nightmare. Moderators have my sympathy. I think I used a sweary-type sentence. Or perhaps it was for some other reason. Moderators are doing everyone a favour and if they remove poor errors of judgement or fact then more power to their elbow.

    View Comment
  61. Starman


    Moderators, can you tell me why my post to jimbo was deleted? So that I do not make the same mistake again I will pause from posting until I hear from you.

    View Comment
  62. jimbo

    jimbo


    I’m totally not understanding this. Read Starman’s posts above nothing harmfull. And Neepheid’s too?

    View Comment
  63. causaludendi


    Self moderating here, but is there a reason for the, what appears to be slightly over-zealous moderation this afternoon? There are a few posts I’ve seen in the passing that are no longer there. From a quick glance they appeared to be praising the behaviour of the fans at ibrox. As the yoof are so fond of saying; “hashtag confused.com” :irony:

    View Comment
  64. Trisidium


    Not quite causaludendi,

    A couple of posts (this morning not this afternoon), the first of which was an OT non sequitur attempting to introduce sectarianism into the debate, were removed. Only the first of those posts was worthy of moderation. The other was simply following on from it and was also removed. The author of the second post (Blether veteran ianagain) was mailed with an explanation.

    Neither praised the behaviour of Rangers fans, although the second pointed to an absence of sectarian singing.

    Although it does beg the question, “why on earth would we over-zealously remove posts which were positive about TRFC?”; and I am dismayed that one of our regulars would assume it to be so.

    View Comment
  65. causaludendi


    Tris,

    Thanks for the reply, it is genuinely appreciated. As is the thankless task of moderation that you (and others) perform, without which I have no doubt that the blog would have foundered long before now.

    I had caught sight of the dreaded, highly contentious ‘S’ word but didn’t mention it for fear of becoming part of a discussion that we weren’t meant to be having.

    As I said I had only skimmed over so wasn’t properly aware of content or context and that was the reason for posing the question. It is frustrating trying to read the blog when outside influences (namely work, so shouldn’t really complain too much! 😉) prove a constant hinderance.

    I hope you don’t think I was questioning the motivation of your moderation or suggesting any ulterior motive as nothing could be further from my mind. I should probably refrain from looking at the blog until I am settled and able to give it my full attention and that way I won’t be quite so confused – heaven-knows I’m bad enough at times! 😳 😆

    Keep up the good work! 👍

    View Comment
  66. tayred

    tayred


    Hi Tris,

    Interesting that my use of “bonkers” is pulled and yet the original message to which I was replying remains. Two statements of personal opinions (not sure I played the man but I will go along with your decision on that one). One is apparently ok, one not.

    Anyway, lets hope this debate can lie, as it was yet another clearly another club based line in the sand debate. Unfortunately I have become something of a sucker for those debates it seems – sorry!

    View Comment
  67. neepheid

    neepheid


    I’m not sure if this is the correct place for this, but here goes anyway.

    I’m in a state of confusion (and not just the general one that Mrs NH points out daily) regarding the posting of links to external sites, such as blogs, newspapers, etc. and the alternative approach of doing copy and paste routine with other people’s stuff.

    Would it be possible to draw up clear guidance on the subject, so that we can have a consistent approach, without the risk of any copyright infringement problems for the forum or its members?.

    View Comment
  68. iki


    So far …
    2 posts deleted by mods from main discussion.
    The second of which was informing the original poster that I had responded.

    In addition,1 post on Comment Moderation thread has been deleted by mods.

    I know that mods have a life to live but ……. a word of explanation would be appreciated.

    View Comment
  69. iki


    What is the point of Comment Mod Thread if mods neither acknowledge nor respond?

    My written contributions are neglible but I have tried to be a generous financial contributor.
    I will not be seeking any return of donations nor of subscription as I know that to do so would be tantamount to being condemned, with the blessing of mods, by others who know nothing of the circumstances. I gave freely at the time and would never consider asking for a refund.
    But not a penny more will be coming.
    One week after the start of the mods deleting my comments, as described above, there is neither explanation nor Acknowledgement.
    The origin of this was a poster who congratulated Malmo after the first leg. My response was measured.
    The congratulations remained whilst all of my subsequent comments deleted with no explanation.

    There will be no further donations and my sub will be cancelled.

    View Comment
  70. Massive support from Clumpany Towers, which I know will be echoed everywhere. https://t.co/DYGVxqksu1

    "The words Jackson chose to write today could be potentially damaging to a very small charity like ours"

    https://t.co/9EAQs8CBNt

    50 Years Ago Today: Jinky sees red as poor run continues 23rd September 1967: Celtic v St Johnstone – League https://t.co/IUAcIl73XI

    In hide and seek terms, they have some way to go to beat your lack of comment on BTC outcome & whether there should be an independent review https://t.co/s5SPou4MFD

    Please share folks, especially with those who still don't get it.

    https://t.co/yLFe1ncPfQ

    Load More...

Leave a Reply

SSL Certificates