Football betting site Betway

Why is Andrew banned

edited August 1 in The Lounge
I don’t agree with what he’s been saying but il defend his right till the day I die to express his views as long as they’re not promoting hate or bigotry and everything he’s said can be challenged with a grown up debate!so what’s the problem 
barryPablobigoak

Comments

  • I feel the same Brownie. What are we here, the spanish inquisition? ignore buttons and bans if you don't follow consensus? sad day for the forum. and I'm one of Andrew's critics. 
  • Always good to have alternate viewpoints on a forum, so not a good decision in all honesty
  • Didn’t Ponty or someone with equally extreme views on the opposite end of the spectrum get banned previously? (Apologies to Ponty if I got that wrong.)

    I agree that debate is healthy. Pouring petrol onto a fire just to get a reaction is not. 
  • Im relatively new to the forum, but it seems to me that if you want to have a conversation about issues, there is a real risk of offending people.

    As long as the comments dont become personal and stay on the issues its fine, but there is definitely a line that can be crossed.
    Cadleighmoorlandsbigoak
  • To be honest there are some on here I don’t agree with but Andrew was antagonising. I’m sure someone knows who he is but to me he strikes me as someone with little connection to our club and is just a wind up
    bigoak
  • edited August 1
    The reason that @Webmaster and I took the decision to temporarily ban Andrew2 (and some others) over the last week or so was because we received several complaints about the provocative nature of some of his recent posts, namely:

    https://www.scfc2.co.uk/forums/discussion/4416/hope-for-defeat

    https://www.scfc2.co.uk/forums/discussion/4426/poor-players-or-poor-coach

    Whilst everyone who uses the forum is entitled to their opinion, the opinions expressed on some occasions are quite extreme and in our opinion purely aimed at provoking a reaction.  Needless to say, sometimes some people ignore such 'bait' and others 'bite' - which sometimes ends up in petty name calling and general tit-for-tat child like behaviour.

    In all honesty, there have been a few other users who have sailed close to the wind recently and have been close to being also temporarily banned due to such behaviour.

    We have always encouraged fans on the forum to engage with each other in a sensible, mature way, whilst requesting that everyone respects each others contrasting views (whether backed up with fact or purely personal opinion) and not resorting to any form of name calling or petty one-upmanship just because you don't agree. 

    People also need to realise that Alex, myself and the other people who run this site are volunteers - this isn't our day job!  Therefore, try and be mindful that we'd rather not have to continually monitor, police and indeed referee petty slanging matches on this forum on a daily basis. 

    Things get to us sometimes too you know, as we are all also lifelong fans of Swansea City football club, regardless of the good and not-so good times, so please remember that.
    JackRavenJackaremebarryBobMalcMalagamoorlandsenaitchdeekayFyldeJack
  • edited August 1
    While I respect the decision, and the fact it's not mine to make, I'm really not sure I agree with it. 

    Yes, Andrew2's posts can be very forthright, often represent a minority view, and I suppose at times can be taken as being provocative. 

    But - and I think this this is a very important point to make - I don't think they are ever personal, they are always about the football, and nothing else. I'm happy to be corrected on this, but I never see him throwing about personal abuse, insults etc. Though he usually attracts such responses. 

    Is the tail wagging the dog here? Just because someone's a polemicist, does it mean we turn a blind eye or even pander to those reacting to it in a negative way?

    So - just a personal view - I think it's a dangerous road to start going down, banning people for just having opinions, especially when other posters who are frankly downright rude and regularly indulge in personal attacks are allowed to remain on the site. 

    As I say, just a personal view - others are available!  :+1:
  • edited August 1
    Thanks for the feedback @garythenotrashcougar :)

    The key thing here is that Andrew2 wasn't banned for having an opinion, it was a case of the fact that people complained to us about his almost constant negative posts and us then trying to stop it getting to the petty name calling stage.

    Exactly the same happened with Ponty Jack, as in the end the number of complaints we received required decisive action.

    We are not, as you put it, "banning people for just having opinions".   

    To give a specific example, your post entitled "Reality Bites" posted during/after the 2nd leg defeat at Brentford could be considered by some people as provocative, especially given the timing, but that was your opinion and one which you are perfectly entitled to share on here.  The post didn't get deleted and you weren't banned.

    As for personal attacks, such as the regular clash of opinions between @pablo and yourself, we do delete the offending posts, when we notice or are made aware of them and when the time allows.

    We aren't pandering or turning a blind eye to anything or anyone, and in all honesty we continually try to resist temporarily banning people, as that isn't what we want to do.

    The irony for us is that banning people would be the easiest thing in the world to do, especially given the time it takes to monitor the forum, but we'd much prefer people to police themselves!

    In my opinion, everyone here has a role to play in making this Forum a welcome, diverse and thought-provoking platform for discussing all things Swans related, so hopefully we can all now move on.
    JackRavenCadleighbarryGingergit
  • Thanks for the response @DDWT.
  • DDWT said:
    Thanks for the feedback @garythenotrashcougar :)

    The key thing here is that Andrew2 wasn't banned for having an opinion, it was a case of the fact that people complained to us about his almost constant negative posts and us then trying to stop it getting to the petty name calling stage.

    Exactly the same happened with Ponty Jack, as in the end the number of complaints we received required decisive action.

    We are not, as you put it, "banning people for just having opinions".   

    To give a specific example, your post entitled "Reality Bites" posted during/after the 2nd leg defeat at Brentford could be considered by some people as provocative, especially given the timing, but that was your opinion and one which you are perfectly entitled to share on here.  The post didn't get deleted and you weren't banned.

    As for personal attacks, such as the regular clash of opinions between @pablo and yourself, we do delete the offending posts, when we notice or are made aware of them and when the time allows.

    We aren't pandering or turning a blind eye to anything or anyone, and in all honesty we continually try to resist temporarily banning people, as that isn't what we want to do.

    The irony for us is that banning people would be the easiest thing in the world to do, especially given the time it takes to monitor the forum, but we'd much prefer people to police themselves!

    In my opinion, everyone here has a role to play in making this Forum a welcome, diverse and thought-provoking platform for discussing all things Swans related, so hopefully we can all now move on.
    Grateful for your work 
    moorlandsWebmaster
  • Who snitched on Andrew2, go on own up! Lol
    Pablo
This discussion has been closed.