|
Post by QPR Report on May 3, 2009 6:13:14 GMT
I have some thinking to do (and I'm not going to be around that much next couple of days)
But Three things:
1) Scott's particular post - which wasn't just one thing said off the cuff (which we all may do) although I really can't imagine anyone else saying what Scott AND not apologizing.
So should this thread be locked/deleted/edited or just let to be run on? 2) Should there be any "sanction" re Scott's continued posting here?
3) And finally Scott as moderator?
I know what I'm thinking. I don't know what Scott and others are thinking
Views welcome - publicly and privately.
This is a communal board. And I'm really not happy.
As I think we all know, some things are beyond the pale. And beyond just messageboard dialogue/debate/banter.
Bottom line: What IS this Board meant to be? What is beyond the pale? If can say this and continue, what can you not say? And what if some other poster said what Scott said, what would be my and other responses?
|
|
enzian
Gerry Francis
Posts: 15
|
Post by enzian on May 3, 2009 6:55:29 GMT
should not be a mod.it's well known he has a history of spewing vitriol,is a tosser of great order.
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on May 3, 2009 7:00:11 GMT
For my 2 cents worth, I think a lot of what scott has posted has been interesting. I think we all (Myself especially) say things from time to time which are not well thought out.
The Bill Power issue came out of no where, other than perhaps as a result of the recent court case findings. Whilst most/some of us may feel agtrieved/upset/offended by the post, it's the freedom of speech on this site which makes it better than Pete's site. Remembering we should be careful of what we do say, as litigation can be an expensive persuit.
The easiest way to dealing with offensive (Considering gow you feel about it) is to delete it, the other method is to ignore it. By using the second method, we allow the freedom of speech. Mindful of what we type of course.
I know there's been a feirce rivally between this site and QBPete's which in my opinion is getting tiresome and boring at best. We should be above that type of behaviour. Those who wish to believe Pete's every word will stay loyal to his site and likewise on this site too. I don't mind discussing what other MB's have etc so long as we stick to the topic and not to the personalities involved.
I'd like to see Pete on here responding to various comments but he chooses not to and that is his perogitive. I would not go onto his site and stir it up, mind you, I'd get banned and messages deleted. QBPete has chosen to be that way on his site and he is entitled to.
I shall be rethinking this response over the next few hours and may change it around.
All I am asking is for us to think a little before posting anything libelis or un-necessairly controversial.
I should also be honest and say up front I am an admirer of Bill Power for what I know of him. I also like some of the posts that Scott has made on here. They give me something to think about. At least Scott fronts up and is prepared to defend himself in rgards to Pete's MB.
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on May 3, 2009 7:15:57 GMT
Well maybe I'm making the right decision. Maybe I'm not.
But I did just pm Scott saying I don't see how he can continue to be a moderator of this site. Scott was the first of the moderators for this site.
There are three issues: 1) The comments "Harassing BP" - The Karma comment in particular. 2) Scott continued posting. 3) Scott as moderator
I thought the questions re BP were beyond the pale. The initial comment. And then the subsequent "aggressive" questioning. And I hope my reaction wasn't based on my "long-standing relationship" with BP.
But to what degree should I not permit something just because I don't agree with. So for better or worse, I left the thread, left it open. But posted my own responses to Scott.
But that "Karma" comment stands as one of the worst things I've ever seen on a QPR messageboard. And it didn't even have in mitigation it was directed against me. Or made in the heat of the moment in response to abuse directed on Scott. Quite the contrary. BP's responses were so gracious.
I have to think things through and I want to listen to other people's persepctives further. I am the ultimate libertarian: I don't believe in banning or deleting posts except in extremis. Which is why, at least as of now, I didn't lock the thread/or delete it.
But at a minumum, I think there has to be a tone set. And if this is an accepted form: The "harassing" of BP I think went beyond what I wanted for this messageboard - The Karma and refusal to withdraw unquestionably did. At least for this messageboard.
I've had to ask myself, suppose someone else said it on this board about someone other than BP? How Would I respond if someone else said it - say on WATRB? And I think I know the answer.
As may recall, on a couple of time previously, I've edited and made clear what I didn't think appropriate for others on this board to say. This was worse.
So...while I'm not sure what is the "right" thing to do (as I judge by my own standards). But deep down, I think I know.
It may sound incongruous, but I would like to thank Scott even as I say he won't be continuing as a moderator.
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on May 3, 2009 7:25:46 GMT
I too will continue my thinking. But I think the essence is what do what I want this board to be? I want it to be for QPR and football.
Am I certain that removing Scott was the right thing to do? No. I'm not certain. Maybe should have done nothing. Maybe should have deleted or locked thread. Maybe should have temporarily banned and not removed as moderator.
I was definitely wrong to ban Weavie a couple of weeks ago. And I apologized.
I confess my "flaws" re some of my WATRB focus on this board.
But pretty much everyone else has been wonderful on this site.
If there haven't been as many Briatore defenders or Paladini defenders, that's not because I wouldn't welcome them. And if Sousa critics wanted to come on, that would be fine.
This is a QPR/football board. Different views are of course welcome. And none of KNOW for sure that we're right about anyone. Maybe we're wrong. That's why have a board.
I want all views. But it's not just the views. It's how they're expressed. As I used the possibly-corny saying in my welcome "To Disagree Without Being Disagreeable"
Further posts to come.
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on May 3, 2009 7:31:09 GMT
Having just read all three pages of that BP thread Mike, you carry on and do what you need to. I believe very much in freedom of speech but that thread had turned into a personal witch hunt.
Keep faith in this site, It is a lot better than most others.
Chin up Mike, I believe in Karma and Bill will have his day, he's had his cycle of 3 bad things.
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on May 3, 2009 8:30:38 GMT
Mike I applaud your decision to remove scottjones as a moderator. I feel that is adequate retribution for the offending post. I also applaud your separate stance of defending free speech. scottjones has shown that he is not in line with the ethos of this site and his refusal to even acknowledge people who reply to his posts with questions, particularly when he invites discussion, is cowardly, childish, ignorant and to me shows that he does not have the capacity to even discuss with us on our level, so how could he have moderated us? It was like putting a child in charge of scientists. The thread was commented on by the majority of main users of this site and their feelings were obviously united in condemnation of scottjones. That is the strength of this board and removing scottjones as moderator removes the weakest link in that chain. Mike - well played, sir!
|
|
|
Post by superckat on May 3, 2009 10:01:11 GMT
Only just read this message and if you have removed Scott as a moderator. I think it is the correct decision. I had nothing against Scott before this. The Karma comment was a disgrace and if it was said and then apologised afterwards, well that would be one thing, but to refuse to apologise and then say it again shows a lack of respect for bill the members of this site, the Moderators and owners.
|
|
|
Post by eusebio13 on May 3, 2009 11:44:46 GMT
I think its was a hard thread to judge up until the karma comments. We have given GP/FB/QBP and others quite a hard time on this board and asked lots of hard questions and occasionally that has strayed into parody or mockery and because of that I think we need to recognise that BP should be subject to the same scrutiny (though I don't pretend to understand what Scott was going on about) and more power to BP for answering the question whch is more than has been done by many. However, to effectively say that a near death experience is somehow some form of cosmic justice is further than I have heard anyone go, perhaps Scott feels that those who died on 911 actually had it coming? I have always liked Scott in that superficial cyber way but I once again urge him to consider what he said and apologise...if not I think that banning him is not unreasonable and stripping him of his role as mod is unavoidable.
|
|
|
Post by FloridaR on May 3, 2009 11:52:11 GMT
Apologies are not a remedy.
|
|
|
Post by eusebio13 on May 3, 2009 11:57:50 GMT
Apologies are not a remedy. I think I know what you mean floridar, but in the end the measure of a man is his ability to reflect, apologise and to change. I suppose being catholic I'm predisposed to accepting contrition.
|
|
bigade
Gerry Francis
Posts: 93
|
Post by bigade on May 3, 2009 12:40:14 GMT
i think scott's lack of employment is starting to get to him to be fair.iv'e been there and its not nice so maybe his frustration is manifesting itself via the internet.
|
|
|
Post by scottjones on May 3, 2009 17:17:51 GMT
Oh, come on, it made the site busier than ever! Marketing I call it.
|
|