Would banning The Stirrers Benefit this Board??

[Stanley]

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

Bang on the money there, PeterG.

[Goddard]

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

Good points there.

[W12_Ranger]

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 Spot On!

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!

For what its worth, most of the "stirrers" DO contribute on the football side of things now which makes it better IMHO

Your site, your call..but banning someone as you disagree with them is petty IMHO

You deserved to get banned Scott, LFW should also ban you. Personally I have never had a problem with you but you really know how wind up a few posters on those 2 sites.

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.

Well said mate.

[W12_Ranger]

W12

Clive would never ban me...his hits go thru the roof when i post.

im tempted to impose a ban on myself fro a bit and then suggest a % deal on his advertising revenue to come back.

I'm surprised Clive lets you get away with it, those threads do make me laugh though.

The abuse is frightening you receive.

[Sharpy]

You`re part of the fixtures and fittings Scott,a bit like a stress ball.Where as James only lasted one sitting,went in all billy big ****** and got his just deserts.Pretty much how he carried on over at Mike`s site.

[W12_Ranger]

Walk in, chuck a grenade, walk out.

He gets shed loads of hits, couple of quid in advertising hits*, the site livens up and the racist threads get bumped down..suits everyone i suppose..well apart from me lol.

*just to clarify im sure a fiver a week or whatever he gets is JACK considering the effort he puts in etc etc. Probably the best QPR m/board journo out there

I think so, I don't rate that David McIntyre at all.

[Receed R]

You`re part of the fixtures and fittings Scott,a bit like a stress ball.Where as James only lasted one sitting,went in all billy big ****** and got his just deserts.Pretty much how he carried on over at Mike`s site.

not at all, i posted nicely, got called all the names under the sun, ignored it for over 2 weeks and then reacted when it got way to personal towards me, fyi i wasnt banned i asked for my account to by removed

LFW - ive not going to bother answering that apart from a poster called "dogs dangelies" threatening to petrol bomb my place and slit my throat even without provacation

end of, last im saying on those matters

[MYU]

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.





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.

Sorry, I mean the ones looking for trouble and the moderators decide.

[W12_Ranger]

Dave is sound as a pound..really is. Disagree with him on a lot of things but, and i ve changed my mind, i think hes honest and realistic.

I think McIntyre gets it wrong a lot personally, for example on how he thinks we should line up. Over rates Legiertwood to high heaven, struggle with anyone who has that opinion TBH.

[brightonr]

A difficult decision to make Pete, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

From a personal perspective, I just think it is a great shame that certain people, regardless of their views, simply have to continuously look to be controversial for the sake of it. Perhaps they think it makes them look clever. It does the opposite.

Maybe I am a little old fashioned, but when people such as yourself and MYU put the effort that you do into providing such a good opportunity to discuss all things QPR, with fellow fans at no cost to anybody, that some cretins, and they must know who they are, cannot abide by a few simple rules that include respect for other people's opinions and a certain level of good manners, is simply beyond belief.

Absolutely no problem with having different points of view from others, it would be an artificial experience if everyone had the same opinions. I just wish that some could convey and justify their points of view a little more eloquently. Perhaps if they could explain their views and the basis upon which they are formed, they might stand a chance of getting others to question their own.

[Sharpy]

not at all, i posted nicely, got called all the names under the sun, ignored it for over 2 weeks and then reacted when it got way to personal towards me, fyi i wasnt banned i asked for my account to by removed

LFW - ive not going to bother answering that apart from a poster called "dogs dangelies" threatening to people bomb my place and slit my throat even without provacation

end of, last im saying on those matters

So how come people said things to you on LFW,when you made it quite plain on here that you never posted on there ?.How does that work then ?

No-one called you any names on Mikes site,don`t get carried away,or are you refering to the "Cancer" comment,of which was un-founded.

Are your pants on fire,as we speak ?

[W12_Ranger]

oh i agree.

meant on a journalistic sense. he airs on the negative side but IMHO speaks a lot of sense re off the pitch.

on the pitch, yeah, often disagree....but i think he is alright..think kosky is ok as well.

Yeah I only really referring to his on the pitch analysis in comparison to Clives Reports.

Kosky is alright to, better with the off the pitch journalism IMO. Young SM's reports could give Clive a run for his money but he needs to write less personal accounts to be on par.

[Sharpy]

I agree SM`s match reports are up there.But it`s the in between articles that set Clive on another level.

[W12_Ranger]

So how come people said things to you on LFW,when you made it quite plain on here that you never posted on there ?.How does that work then ?

No-one called you any names on Mikes site,don`t get carried away,or are you refering to the "Cancer" comment,of which was un-founded.

Are your pants on fire,as we speak ?

Stealing another posters Username was a pretty low thing to do as well.

[Receed R]

So how come people said things to you on LFW,when you made it quite plain on here that you never posted on there ?.How does that work then ?

No-one called you any names on Mikes site,don`t get carried away,or are you refering to the "Cancer" comment,of which was un-founded.

Are your pants on fire,as we speak ?

i think the phrases was "cancer" "p rostitues" " "p rostitues playing with free tickets in the bok" to name but a few

FYI - Before i asked report to close my account down i compiled a dosier of over 100 - 150 libelous / insulting posts towards me and others

Report was confronted with these allegations and his moderators quickly took down the sticky "allegation statement from HA9" as he realised they had edited what i alledged

anyway thats water under a bridge now and if you want to discuss it further start a new thread or pm so i can show you myself as this thread is going off topic and i dont want to be accused of hijacking