Would banning The Stirrers Benefit this Board??

[qblockpete]

Funky was giving an opinion on Sousa. He didn't agree with yours, so what?

Not everyone loved the guy !!

I'm not against different opinions, I'm fed up with the Gianni posts to be honest. Think most are.

If, at this time where we have Warnock and Amit at the club and no orange one and we can't agree, then we never will,. so whats really the point ??

Surely its about the future and not the past. We will live our lives talking about the past?/ This is a new chapter in our clubs history, i want to enjoy it. Okay, if 12-24 months time its not gone well, than lets point fingers, but no point whatsoever in going over old ground.

[Sharpy]

Sharpy, if the meeting was about that, than maybe you have a point.

Thats the point, why is the owner of a site not representative on views simply about fans getting an affordable price to watch games, ditching the gold, silver and bronze sections etc

I am not a spokesman, thats why the thread in the first place, so I can put those points forward made by fans. If I was just steaming ahead, I'd be putting forward my personal concerns and not asking for fans input, yours included. I simply have a vehicle to come back on replies to those points put forward, on which I will try in the short space of time to put across.

Think we maybe the only board who has asked its members, for suggestions. ( could be wrong) So, we cannot be that bad.

Totally agree Pete,can`t have a couple of thousand fans storming LR.Total chaos,and i don`t think they will have enough biscuits anyway.But you highlighted that thread for the reason to this banning malarky,which IMO would be un-workable,and unreasonable.He asked you a valid question,although it has been a question raised on numerous occasions.I would like to think,with the outcome of the lastest changes at QPR of late,maybe things will change and for the better.

I have a question for you though.Could you ask the powers to be,that if Beefy don`t get my shirt signed soon,that he receives a life time ban from all beverage out lets within the w12 area.

[Quaz]

Surely its about the future and not the past. We will live our lives talking about the past?/ This is a new chapter in our clubs history, i want to enjoy it. Okay, if 12-24 months time its not gone well, than lets point fingers, but no point whatsoever in going over old ground.

spot on.

[Fawny]

OK this is my final point on this, already I can see that some people will spend their time bleating because somebody has been banned and they disagree with the ban, people have come on here enough times moaning because they have been banned from other sites.
Answer is simple-whoever runs whatever messageboard can ban who they like for what they like, what is it "My gaff-my rules".
I don't think there is any question of people being banned just for being boring, or for disagreeing with Pete, or for silly reasons.
I think the proof will be if and when the bans actually start, we should see an improvement right away, and that doesn't mean we can't have disagreements by the way.

[Bernie's Barnet]

I think there is a fine line between stirring and genuine debate and argument.

on a messageboard a poster cant expect to post thier thoughts or viewpoint without it being challenged. the problem really is the level of the challenge and reactions to it.

what seems to happen here is that threads quite often descend quickly into personal abuse. if you are gong to start banning more people you should look to start with these instances, as for stirrers well there are stirrers on both sides of the fence as far as I can see, you would need to define stirring and then act on that definition regardless of the posters affiliation. I have mentioned before that threads are set up to cause arguments and a lot of these come from what I would call the pro paladini faction. if you police the board fairly and consistently in conjunction with a defined set of rules that you can have little complaint after all there are plenty of other places people can go to if they dont like it.

however if you simply ban people who dont match your own or the board owners viewpoint then you will simply have a happy clappy cliche with lots of in jokes and a bit of banter but that can quickly become stale

Absolutely 100% spot on. You have rules regarding use of the MB and what behaviour contravenes those rules. Abuse can be defined, "stirring" is very much more subjective.

As I pointed out last week, one particular individual started a thread asking for everyone to let bygones be bygones and get behind the team prior to the WBA game, and then started a thread after the game digging out certain posters after the game. Anyway you look at it, that is "stirring".


At a time where Amit & Ishan are placing emphasis on clearer lines of communication with the fanbase, it's to be hoped that this will mean the era of spin and propaganda ruthlessly and relentlessly employed by the club PR and its mouthpieces in the last 2 and a half years will be confined to history.

In which case, it would be nice to think we as fans could follow their example.

[qblockpete]

Sharpy

Beefy had enough beverage to last him a season on saturday

[W12_Ranger]

what i find quite funny is the people that accuse me of hijacking

blimey lets use the gianni thread as a example, i made 1 post in it, was told it was not for that purpose and didnt post any further in that thread

to accuse me of hijacking threads in frankly laughable

anway this is the last i say on this matter and respect the site owners decision

And the other 6050 posts, what about them.

10000 smilies, 4000 sly digs, 1000 abusive remarks, 500 posts playing the victim, 0 threads / posts of any value

[qblockpete]

No-one will be banned on the basis of having a difference of opinion.

Thats part and parcel.

[Sharpy]

Beefy had enough beverage to last him a season on saturday

No Surprise there then.

[Quaz]

think this could now turn into a witch hunt...........

[Stanley]

You have message-board rules clearly listed for this site. If posters consistantly violate them then by all means ban them. I dont see what the argument is over. You sign up to a site and you abide by the rules or your out, end of.

I've now added Hi-jacking thread to the infractions system which gives them 3 points, another one and they are gone.

cannot see that working...too many good posters will be banned as alot are hijacked with banter......

Define hijack. You'd have no posters left if you banned everyone everytime a post veered off-topic. Threads veer off-topic all the time on messageboards. Where do you draw the line between a thread going off-topic and it becoming hijacked. If youre going to start banning people for that you'd need to make that distinction very clear and it would end up becoming confusing and messy.

Agree also with other posters that the term "stirring" is a very grey area and needs much clearer definition.

[Sharpy]

No Scott,you got banned for stirring up the same old tirred **** over and over again.

It`s what you do,but not very well at times.

[Fawny]

well i got banned for highlighting Paul Finney is a mentalist on qpr report and got banned from the official email list for being antagonistic. Seems you can get banned for anything these days!

See my post a wee bit earlier, you've just proved my point I reckon

[Gtleighsr3]

The somalis have the highjacking market sewn up.

[Sharpy]

Scott.

You and i both know,that you love a little wind up,that`s one thing,but add that up along with a couple of remarks you have made against former directors of our club.Mike made the right decision on this occasion.