Bois Boycott

[David]

1 hour ago, Pepper said:

You have form for closing threads on topics that you no longer deemed fit for discussion even when there was an appetite on the forum to continue the conversation.  Why? Because the viewpoints bejng expressed didn't match your own.

I can see this going the same way.

Really? Which threads?

If anything, I receive more complaints from individuals on the forum about the moderating staff being too lenient, suggesting that we should be taking a firmer approach.

I suppose it all comes down to perspective.

[David]

26 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

The legislation doesn't state a cut off period - just that a football related offence can include incidents before and after a game. 

Sounds incredibly vague to me. But then, I guess that may be the aim of it.

[Pepper]

1 hour ago, David said:

Really? Which threads?

If anything, I receive more complaints from individuals on the forum about the moderating staff being too lenient, suggesting that we should be taking a firmer approach.

I suppose it all comes down to perspective.

The Robinson thread is the most obvious one that springs to mind. Your pal was getting it tight so you decided that was that, discussion over, which was baffling given it was practicality the only thing posters wanted to discuss at the time and the forum was otherwise dead. Around the time of the P & B mass exodus if I remember correctly.

Back on topic - to be clear - I think it would be an absolute travesty if the Bois group were to be lost to the Club, wider fans, and the community. Far from sneering, I have lot of respect for what they have achieved, but, sometimes blunt criticism is deserved and is actually very necessary. They seem to have lost all sense of self policing that was evident in the past and have crossed the line on one too many occasions. The first thing is admitting when that happens. The lack of self awareness, and the "we are the victim" narrative gives me the boak. 

As much as us "outsiders" might be criticised for not being in the know, there are clearly some who are so close that they can't, or simply will not, see the wood for the trees. 

Support the team and don't act like wee dicks, it's not that difficult.

[David]

15 hours ago, Pepper said:

The Robinson thread is the most obvious one that springs to mind. Your pal was getting it tight so you decided that was that, discussion over, which was baffling given it was practicality the only thing posters wanted to discuss at the time and the forum was otherwise dead. Around the time of the P & B mass exodus if I remember correctly.

The most recent thread that was locked on this forum seems to have been over six months ago. It was a transfer thread that was closed because the transfer window had ended, and a new thread was created for the next window.

Based on the records I have access to, over the past five years, I have locked five threads. Three of these were the aforementioned transfer threads. One was a thread about Tony Watt after he left, which had degenerated into discussions about Albion Rovers. The last was a thread about David Turnbull after he left, which had shifted to discussions in the former player thread.

It seems that my so-called "tyranny" amounts to closing, on average, one thread per year over the past five years or so. Not bad for someone who has "form" for closing threads!

If I did close a Robinson discussion thread, you can be fairly certain that there were reasons beyond me being offended by the content. If I were to close every thread where people were posting material that I found ridiculous or in poor taste, I would be closing threads on a weekly if not daily basis.

The reality is that this forum is remarkably lenient when it comes to allowing certain individuals to air their negative nonsense, which has caused some posters to drift away over the years. There are posters on this forum who simply wouldn’t be allowed to post what they do elsewhere.

But aye, continue to discuss the bois as you see fit. So long as you don't go over the score with what you say, you won't face the brunt of my tyrannical ways! 😂

 

[Pepper]

1 hour ago, David said:

The most recent thread that was locked on this forum seems to have been over six months ago. It was a transfer thread that was closed because the transfer window had ended, and a new thread was created for the next window.

Based on the records I have access to, over the past five years, I have locked five threads. Three of these were the aforementioned transfer threads. One was a thread about Tony Watt after he left, which had degenerated into discussions about Albion Rovers. The last was a thread about David Turnbull after he left, which had shifted to discussions in the former player thread.

It seems that my so-called "tyranny" amounts to closing, on average, one thread per year over the past five years or so. Not bad for someone who has "form" for closing threads!

If I did close a Robinson discussion thread, you can be fairly certain that there were reasons beyond me being offended by the content. If I were to close every thread where people were posting material that I found ridiculous or in poor taste, I would be closing threads on a weekly if not daily basis.

The reality is that this forum is remarkably lenient when it comes to allowing certain individuals to air their negative nonsense, which has caused some posters to drift away over the years. There are posters on this forum who simply wouldn’t be allowed to post what they do elsewhere.

But aye, continue to discuss the bois as you see fit. So long as you don't go over the score with what you say, you won't face the brunt of my tyrannical ways! 😂

 

I don't seem to recall accusing you of being a tyrant. But it's convenient you don't have access to the records for the thread I'm on about. It stuck out to me as I enquired about why it was closed on another thread and was told he had left so we were not to discuss him, despite there being a former players thread where similar former employees are dicussed at length and he'd only just left. It was obvious why it was really locked and I wasn't  the only one to comment. 

So it seems it's not only the Bois who have trouble admitting when they are wrong. 

[David]

8 hours ago, Pepper said:

I don't seem to recall accusing you of being a tyrant. But it's convenient you don't have access to the records for the thread I'm on about. It stuck out to me as I enquired about why it was closed on another thread and was told he had left so we were not to discuss him, despite there being a former players thread where similar former employees are dicussed at length and he'd only just left. It was obvious why it was really locked and I wasn't  the only one to comment. 

I genuinely don't know what to tell you. I actually went to check today after your post to see what had happened in the thread, as I'm unsure who "my pal" is that I was supposedly upset about being given a hard time.

As I mentioned, I reviewed the moderating I'd done back to around 2018, and couldn't find anything related.

Even if it did occur, you're talking about an average of closing a thread once a year, with most closures being due to transfer window threads that had run their course and so on.

You mentioned that I have a history of "closing threads," but only cited one instance over many years.

The reality is that a lot of leeway is given to posters on this forum. Much of the conversation that is permitted here would be deemed trolling elsewhere, which would have led to bans long ago.

I've received numerous private messages and complaints from various forum members regarding the tone, language, and subject matter on the forum, and I've had to explain that we're not particularly strict here.

This leniency towards certain individuals has likely contributed to driving people away, and while I believe the rules we have are adequate, I don't fault anyone who leaves due to the excessive negativity present.

[wellgirl]

4 hours ago, David said:

I genuinely don't know what to tell you. I actually went to check today after your post to see what had happened in the thread, as I'm unsure who "my pal" is that I was supposedly upset about being given a hard time.

As I mentioned, I reviewed the moderating I'd done back to around 2018, and couldn't find anything related.

Even if it did occur, you're talking about an average of closing a thread once a year, with most closures being due to transfer window threads that had run their course and so on.

You mentioned that I have a history of "closing threads," but only cited one instance over many years.

The reality is that a lot of leeway is given to posters on this forum. Much of the conversation that is permitted here would be deemed trolling elsewhere, which would have led to bans long ago.

I've received numerous private messages and complaints from various forum members regarding the tone, language, and subject matter on the forum, and I've had to explain that we're not particularly strict here.

This leniency towards certain individuals has likely contribut to driving people away, and while I believe the rules we have are adequate, I don't fault anyone who leaves due to the excessive negativity present.

I've had stuff said about me on here that is completely untrue - and those posts are still up - and thousands of people have probably read them. I think there has to be a line between being lenient and where posters accuse other people of stuff that isn't factual 

Some of the stuff that was posted about me by two posters on here really upset me but not as much as the post that said you're an idiot and you should get off these boards. I had someone on here plaster stuff about my personal life that they got completely wrong - all over the boards - when all they had to do was message me directly. If someone on here thinks another poster is an idiot - they can surely ignore them - or message them in private 

Of course it's going to drive people away. No one wants to be hung out to dry by other posters  It's not just negativity - it's people going on the attack and saying stuff that has no basis in truth 

Plus. There's definitely a tone where some people don't like to be challenged and I'm not directing this at you - but some people have felt that the stuff theyve said on certain topics has been ridiculed - because it doesn't fit in with the majority this isn't an accusation against you - it's just an observation..

I think people need to be free to be able to say their piece - but when it crosses the line people are going to exit. 

By the way I'm not ban happy - but when you are on a forum and people are saying stuff about you that isn't true - you are on the back foot and you have to try and defend yourself - and you have to do that knowing the stuff that's been posted - isn't going to be deleted. 

Some of the stuff that was posted on here about me was really awful. Really triggering - it was just horrible to read - and it was also defamatory. 

I don't think anything justifies that. 

If its as lenient as that. People won't stay. 

 

 

[wellgirl]

On 9/9/2024 at 12:58 PM, Pepper said:

David and The Riddler talking nonsense again.

At least we're still allowed to debate this topic, that's a change for you David when the debate isn't going the way you would like.

I've given the Bois as a group plenty of praise in the past and acknowledged all of the good things they do. In fact I've yet to see one person who has offered criticism that hasn't.

However, the narrative that the group is trying to push that they are some sort of hard done by  innocents is simply not true. 

 

 

 

 

All I will say on this post is that I agree that some people have closed down any criticism of the well bois and there has to be some kind of balance where people can criticise aspects of their behaviour - without being shot down. 

[Cameron_Mcd]

50 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

All I will say on this post is that I agree that some people have closed down any criticism of the well bois and there has to be some kind of balance where people can criticise aspects of their behaviour - without being shot down. 

I don't think that's true, everyone I've seen post on here has acknowledged that there is an arsehole element within the Bois (and our support in general) but some of the posters here seem to be doing the opposite and portraying all of them as hardened criminals, there are one or two that I half expect to blame them for the JFK shooting and 9/11.

[wellgirl]

24 minutes ago, Cameron_Mcd said:

I don't think that's true, everyone I've seen post on here has acknowledged that there is an arsehole element within the Bois (and our support in general) but some of the posters here seem to be doing the opposite and portraying all of them as hardened criminals, there are one or two that I half expect to blame them for the JFK shooting and 9/11.

There have been posters that have closed down any criticism and not only on here. On previous threads

I'm not the biggest fan of police Scotland and I have reasons for that but my point is surely people should be able to say what they've seen at away games without being told they are talking rubbish.

There are posters on here who have gone to away games and seen some of the bois act badly to be told that didn't happen. When they saw it with their own eyes. Like SOD having water thrown on him at Dingwall - and someone who objected got abused

When people are saying this stuff -they should not be dismissed out of hand. And some people are being. 

I also think it's really concerning that someone on this forum said him and his wife got verbally abused and verbally threatened by motherwell fans because they weren't wearing Motherwell colours.. At an away game - that's grim

I also completely get that we have horrible fans who aren't anything to do with the well bois - but no need. There is no need for any of it 

[Cameron_Mcd]

28 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

There have been posters that have closed down any criticism and not only on here. On previous threads

I'm not the biggest fan of police Scotland and I have reasons for that but my point is surely people should be able to say what they've seen at away games without being told they are talking rubbish.

There are posters on here who have gone to away games and seen some of the bois act badly to be told that didn't happen. When they saw it with their own eyes. Like SOD having water thrown on him at Dingwall - and someone who objected got abused

When people are saying this stuff -they should not be dismissed out of hand. And some people are being. 

I also think it's really concerning that someone on this forum said him and his wife got verbally abused and verbally threatened by motherwell fans because they weren't wearing Motherwell colours.. At an away game - that's grim

I also completely get that we have horrible fans who aren't anything to do with the well bois - but no need. There is no need for any of it 

I had a look back a few pages and I'm not seeing anyone dispute either of these incidents, fair play if I'm just missing something.

[wellgirl]

16 minutes ago, Cameron_Mcd said:

I had a look back a few pages and I'm not seeing anyone dispute either of these incidents, fair play if I'm just missing something.

But. They've been played down by some people in their own words -I think there has to be some balance between the the way some of the bois feel that they've been treated and some of the stuff that's apparently gone on at away games. There was one poster told that the perception was far from the reality - how do any of us know that.

If someone sees sod and fans being abused at away games then that is their reality surely 

[Onthefringes]

38 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

There are posters on here who have gone to away games and seen some of the bois act badly to be told that didn't happen. When they saw it with their own eyes. Like SOD having water thrown on him at Dingwall - and someone who objected got abused 

That’s the crux. Point in the direction ‘told that it didn’t happen’….

And ‘saw it with their own eyes’ doesn’t always give a full picture. That’s reason for little balance between some posts.

O’Donnell incident was done to death real time - the drink wasn’t thrown directly at him. Poor aim granted*, it was thrown at much maligned group who stood basically pitchside spoiling views of others. Player himself recognised that at a later date.

*Thats not to condone, nor play down.

[wellgirl]

17 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

That’s the crux. Point in the direction ‘told that it didn’t happen’….

And ‘saw it with their own eyes’ doesn’t always give a full picture. That’s reason for little balance between some posts.

O’Donnell incident was done to death real time - the drink wasn’t thrown directly at him. Poor aim granted*, it was thrown at much maligned group who stood basically pitchside spoiling views of others. Player himself recognised that at a later date.

*Thats not to condone, nor play down.

There was one poster on this thread who stated that an incident that had happened with the well bois at home that they witnessed - they were told that it didn't actually happen the way they described it. 

 

 

[Onthefringes]

8 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

There was one poster on this thread who stated that an incident that had happened with the well bois at home that they witnessed - they were told that it didn't actually happen the way they described it. 

Rinse. Repeat 🙄

[steelman1991]

Reckon this thread has run it's course.

[grizzlyg]

2 hours ago, steelman1991 said:

Reckon this thread has run it's course.

Yep I agree

[David]

17 hours ago, wellgirl said:

There have been posters that have closed down any criticism and not only on here. On previous threads

How exactly is that done? If you say something, and I present an opposing view, is that me "shutting down" any criticism? Or merely offering a different perspective?

This thread is full of people expressing negative opinions about the Block E lads. It also includes others putting forward counterpoints that support them. I don’t see either side being "shut down." It’s simply a discussion.

17 hours ago, wellgirl said:

I'm not the biggest fan of police Scotland and I have reasons for that but my point is surely people should be able to say what they've seen at away games without being told they are talking rubbish.

But why? Just as people are permitted to express their observations from games and local pubs afterwards, others are allowed to counter those observations. Both viewpoints are permissible, and have been in this thread.

Unless you prefer a forum where someone can state what they claim to have seen, felt, heard, or otherwise, and no one is allowed to challenge that?

Having your view challenged does not diminish it. It simply means someone else disagrees with you.

17 hours ago, wellgirl said:

There are posters on here who have gone to away games and seen some of the bois act badly to be told that didn't happen. When they saw it with their own eyes. Like SOD having water thrown on him at Dingwall - and someone who objected got abused

When people are saying this stuff -they should not be dismissed out of hand. And some people are being.

Once again, posters are free to dismiss anything they wish out of hand. That’s part of being in a community like this. The important thing is that while some may vocally dismiss your views or those of others, it doesn’t mean that everyone who reads the thread agrees with them or sees it as a slight on you.

I really don’t think we should be considering stopping people from challenging what others say simply because it upsets the person who made the statement. If individuals are distressed by others disagreeing with them, this forum, or indeed the internet in general, might not be the right place for them.

And this isn’t me telling you to leave the boards. You’re more than welcome to post here just like everyone else, but you need to understand that your views are neither more nor less valued than anyone else’s.

18 hours ago, wellgirl said:

There's definitely a tone where some people don't like to be challenged and I'm not directing this at you - but some people have felt that the stuff theyve said on certain topics has been ridiculed - because it doesn't fit in with the majority this isn't an accusation against you - it's just an observation.

And similarly, I’m not addressing this specifically to you, but the situation you’ve described, where you say people should be able to express their views without being criticised or told they’re talking nonsense, rather exemplifies someone who doesn’t like being challenged.

18 hours ago, wellgirl said:

If someone on here thinks another poster is an idiot - they can surely ignore them - or message them in private 

And, if someone accuses a poster of being an idiot, they can surely ignore them as well?

18 hours ago, wellgirl said:

All I will say on this post is that I agree that some people have closed down any criticism of the well bois and there has to be some kind of balance where people can criticise aspects of their behaviour - without being shot down. 

Does that mean others should also be able to post about and defend the Block E group without being shot down?

18 hours ago, wellgirl said:

Some of the stuff that was posted about me by two posters on here really upset me but not as much as the post that said you're an idiot and you should get off these boards.

We've discussed this in private, and it's rather ironic that you're upset about people posting defamatory material about you, yet you're happy to constantly claim that a certain poster saying "I think u should take a break from the forum as u seem to take everything personal" is them telling you that you should "get off these boards."

It isn't. So please stop saying that.

7 hours ago, steelman1991 said:

Reckon this thread has run it's course.

Should I lock it? 👀

[steelman1991]

17 minutes ago, David said:

Should I lock it? 👀

Must admit I had a chuckle when I posted, given some of the discussion recently. But, YES. 😆

[wellgirl]

5 hours ago, David said:

How exactly is that done? If you say something, and I present an opposing view, is that me "shutting down" any criticism? Or merely offering a different perspective?

This thread is full of people expressing negative opinions about the Block E lads. It also includes others putting forward counterpoints that support them. I don’t see either side being "shut down." It’s simply a discussion.

But why? Just as people are permitted to express their observations from games and local pubs afterwards, others are allowed to counter those observations. Both viewpoints are permissible, and have been in this thread.

Unless you prefer a forum where someone can state what they claim to have seen, felt, heard, or otherwise, and no one is allowed to challenge that?

Having your view challenged does not diminish it. It simply means someone else disagrees with you.

Once again, posters are free to dismiss anything they wish out of hand. That’s part of being in a community like this. The important thing is that while some may vocally dismiss your views or those of others, it doesn’t mean that everyone who reads the thread agrees with them or sees it as a slight on you.

I really don’t think we should be considering stopping people from challenging what others say simply because it upsets the person who made the statement. If individuals are distressed by others disagreeing with them, this forum, or indeed the internet in general, might not be the right place for them.

And this isn’t me telling you to leave the boards. You’re more than welcome to post here just like everyone else, but you need to understand that your views are neither more nor less valued than anyone else’s.

And similarly, I’m not addressing this specifically to you, but the situation you’ve described, where you say people should be able to express their views without being criticised or told they’re talking nonsense, rather exemplifies someone who doesn’t like being challenged.

And, if someone accuses a poster of being an idiot, they can surely ignore them as well?

Does that mean others should also be able to post about and defend the Block E group without being shot down?

We've discussed this in private, and it's rather ironic that you're upset about people posting defamatory material about you, yet you're happy to constantly claim that a certain poster saying "I think u should take a break from the forum as u seem to take everything personal" is them telling you that you should "get off these boards."

It isn't. So please stop saying that.

Should I lock it? 👀

No problem. Thanks for your response 

[Yabba's Turd]

No doubt I'll get a reported post from a banned member but, I'm closing this thread.

Regards, America's 2nd biggest a-hole