Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Ken Early haters tread in soccer

  • 15-02-2009 12:10am
    #1
    deadhead13
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,034 ✭✭✭


    I get an infraction for calling someone a muppet on the soccer forum. Then get lectured about what a rarefied atmosphere that forum is.

    Tonight I see one of the soccer mods starting a Ken "Early/hating" thread on the forum. Doesn't quite add up.


Comments

  • #2
    Gordon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    If you call someone a muppet then it's against forum policies afaik. I've no idea what a Ken 'Early/hating' thread is.


  • #3
    deadhead13
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,034 ✭✭✭deadhead13


    Its a thread where in the op, fellow "Early/haters" are encouraged to post.


  • #4
    Xavi6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,919 ✭✭✭✭Xavi6


    deadhead13 wrote: »
    Its a thread where in the op, fellow "Early/haters" are encouraged to post.

    It is possible to dislike someone without actually calling them an abusive name.

    E.g.

    "I hate the way Ken Early comes across as arrogant on Off The Ball"

    is completely different to

    "Ken Early is an absolute wanker on Off The Ball"


  • #5
    Gordon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    deadhead13 wrote: »
    Its a thread where in the op, fellow "Early/haters" are encouraged to post.


    Still doesn't make much sense to me. Have you pmd the mod about this or reported the post?


  • #6
    Xavi6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,919 ✭✭✭✭Xavi6


    Gordon wrote: »
    Still doesn't make much sense to me. Have you pmd the mod about this or reported the post?

    He can't report the posts as he's had his access removed at his own request.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    deadhead13
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,034 ✭✭✭deadhead13


    I refer you to post 3 on the Off the Ball thread on the radio forum.I would have post on the thread if I was able, but as you know I'm not.

    I think how the thread was started was out of order. Whether you agree are not is up to you. I really don't mind.


  • #8
    therecklessone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,213 ✭✭✭✭therecklessone


    Against my better judgement I'm replying to this when I should be getting to bed as I'm up for work in less than 6 hours.
    Xavi6 wrote: »
    He can't report the posts as he's had his access removed at his own request.

    He can report posts Xavi, the removal of access only stops him from posting, he can still read/thank posts/report.

    I've had a quick look at the thread the OP is talking about, so here are a few points worth noting:

    1. The forum charter does not prohibit disliking someone, indeed that would seem to be one of the common themes of football, so would be rather pointless.

    2. Stating you do not like someone is not an offence either.

    3. Abusing a sports personality is prohibited under the charter, with good reason. However, that clause is mitigated somewhat by us allowing some level of passionate language as long as it is contextual. Xavi has provided an example above, another would be:

    (a) "Shay Given is a fcuking idiot"

    (b) "I can't believe Given just dragged their striker down in the box, what a fcuking idiot!"

    The former is outright abuse, the latter while it contains earthy language is judged acceptable given the context.

    As always, that call is made by one or more of the moderators, and in the vast majority of cases we get it right. Some posters find it difficult to see the line that separates the two examples I gave, my advice as always is that if a poster is not sure whether what they intend to post is acceptable or not, then they should choose not to post.

    I hope that is of some help.


  • #9
    Xavi6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,919 ✭✭✭✭Xavi6


    deadhead13 wrote: »
    I refer you to post 3 on the Off the Ball thread on the radio forum.I would have post on the thread if I was able, but as you know I'm not.

    What has the Radio forum got to do with the Soccer forum? They are not one and the same.
    I think how the thread was started was out of order. Whether you agree are not is up to you. I really don't mind.

    Why? There's a thread criticising Andy Gray that has been for the most part very well discussed. Early is in the same boat - some like him, some hate him.


  • #10
    deadhead13
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,034 ✭✭✭deadhead13


    If you don't think the term "early/haters" doesn't contravines the soccer charter, fine. I registered my protest. Maybe this wasn't the best place to do it. And I have nothing further to add.


    Sorry to have kept you up The Recklessone


  • #11
    Xavi6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,919 ✭✭✭✭Xavi6


    deadhead13 wrote: »
    If you don't think the term "early/haters" doesn't contravines the soccer charter, fine. I registered my protest. Maybe this wasn't the best place to do it. And I have nothing further to add.

    It doesn't.

    I hate Roy Keane. I hate Gary Neville. I don't particularly like Manchester United, Celtic and Liverpool. I'm entitled to say so, as is anyone else. Outright abuse is completely different to that and that's when the charter comes in.

    There's a pretty straight forward distinction between the two.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement