First post and controversial
- Thread starter jimmythesaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
That is very undemocratic Beddy. Everyone has a right to free expressing and to voice their opinions even if they seem odd or stupid to 99% of the people, as long as they are not insulting people or saying anything racist then their opinion should be tolerated and validated, not deleted and subsequently banned.
Maybe it was a great idea for you to step down as a mod if you have ideas like that, it makes me sad to read your post, it really does.
I couldn't stand gmi, but his opinion was valid and I tolerated it, even though I rarely agreed with him. I though he got banned for insulting a fellow member, did he or didn't he? If he didn't get banned for that reason, but because he had a different opinion to everyone else then I will look to bring him back then.
OP said:
Well I'll be even more controversial and say that Le Tissier probably wouldn't make it into a modern day side. Like I stated earlier, in the eighties and nineties he could make a huge impact on the game but football has changed. Teams do have flair players nowadays but they afford no passengers. Everyone has to put a shift in now. He was the best in the world at his time but I'm not sure many modern Prem teams would be able to make up for the other 88 minutes.
As for Hurlock getting in this team, that is laughable.You could argue for Case because he wa twice the player Hurlock was however as stated earlier they are both a liability in the modern non contact game. Their game was as much about their reputation/presence scaring the opoosition as it was perfectly timed tackles.
I think you could argue that Mickey Adams might get into the team as he was quite a cultured full back but Jason Dodd as much as we love him was only marginally better than Benali (who we also love.) Both would do anything for the team but they were your average meat and drink full back. Benali and Dodd would not make a modern team. they were in effect solely defence.
In that early era we relied solely on MLT to make attacks and score goals with our back 4 + defensive midfielder hardly moving from their stations. Was a good job that we did have solid centre back pairings because without that we would have been down in the early nineties and under the old regime would have struggle to get back up.
So I am sort of agreeing with you as do many others that what we lack is a good solid CB pairing and maybe a defensive midfielder in front of them (if Cork doesn't make the grade) however I think the rest of the team is pretty good. Our first 3 full backs IMO are: Clyne, Richardson, Shaw. We have backup in Fox and we are light on backup but CLyne would get into a lot of Prem sides' first teams. Shaw undoubtedly will be the same.
Lets se how much Cortese backs Nigel with in January. If he gives him 10m to get 2 centre backs then I think you'll know if Cortese is likely to remove him or not. I do think Adkins will be here for the transfer window. I may be wrong but like yousay. I am entitled to that opinion and far from being as you say, I am probably in theminority on that belief no matter how positive many of us are abou the situation.
If Adkins goes at all (and I hope not) it would be done before the January window so the new manager (shudder) could have input on purchases/loans and affect our ability to convince people to come. We mustn't put too much hope on January signings...who would be available? The best we would get would be players being cleared out from clubs higher up in PL. We wouldn't want their youngsters on loan..we would need someone experienced and hoping for a contract. Someone from abroad? We don't need anyone else trying to get used to the PL, do we?
It makes me sad to see that you haven't read it properly. Beddy clearly states that the unwritten rule applies to controversy brought about by trolling, not controversy itself. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to share it. GMI simply takes delight in arguing despite being patently useless at it and his constant posting of the same, tired, instantly recognisable drivel is what puts people off him. His inability to abide by a ban and continue to do the exact same, apart from draw attention to how many replies he's getting (LOOK AT ME MUM!) using multiple accounts tells you everything you need to know about him.
EDIT- Oh and welcome to the board by the way
I am a bit puzzled that despite coming up as a Newbie, that you seem to know a lot more about this Forum than a newbie would know, so you have either been a guest observer or a previous poster that may have been banned, sorry if I seem dubious, but I don't think your criticism of Beddy was fair, but perhaps you misunderstood what he was trying to say. I didn't have gomarchingin on ignor because in between the dross he said some good stuff, jimmy however is on my ignor list, but only because I didn't like what he was preaching and being a happy clapper myself, I prefer the Ostrich approach, that is my right, This Forum is probably the best of the bunch, but only because the people on it behaved themselves for most of the time, despite some real provocation, which wasn't asked for or needed. This is a Saints Forum, post your criticism in a manner where we can debate the subject, nothing annoys us more than someone posting hearsay based opinionated posts without a scrap of truth or proof, we aren't stupid, it doesn't take much to see through fake posters, we have had lots of experience in the subject. You will also notice that if we have got something wrong we admit and apologise straightaway, we are human and make mistakes, forgiveness is free.
Nothing undemocratic about it.........for the the record I was not talking about GMI.......I was talking generally. I did not actually recommend to ban any one during my tenure accept for insulting behavior. Then it was for a few days only. Each and every one acknowledged their failure to keep to the rules. Each and every one as far as I know are still posting today. Not a bad record seeing as I was there almost at the start of the Forum!
(A few exceptions to people who chose not to see there bans out and keep coming back on with new identities. That is breaking the Forum rules and a permanent ban is then made)
Nothing to do with the mods at all!!
If you read the post correctly you would have seen that I am very much an advocate of allowing opinions. Differences of opinion is what debate is all about. However if you will not acknowledge others opinion and expect others to except your opinion because you say so. You are going to get slated and it will cause trouble.
If enough members actually complain both via the official channels and by PM to the mods, then something has to be done.....that sounds democratic to me!!
There then follows a procedure that will involve all our mods after various exchanges of Pm's with the person concerned. There is a procedure at admin where evidence is produced and the final decision rests with them. Not the moderators!!!! How much more democratic do you want it????
There is not a board on this Forum that will allow someone to constantly domineer threads continuously cause upset on the board.
As far as GMI was concerned I had no part in his ban what so ever........I have not been told why he was officially banned at all. Nor should I be......
All I do know is that admin had received nigh on a hundred complaints from Saints fans in regards to his posting. That does not include the complaints received direct to the mods. I also know of numerous posters who have left the Forum because of his posting.
Now you may feel that it doesn't matter about the numbers leaving......fair enough. You might feel the same about people complaining....fair enough. However the vast majority of this board and the administration of the Forum are of the opinion that it does matter and that complaints should not be ignored.
Criticising a moderator for doing their job is all well and good but you will not always know the full facts or procedures. A lot goes on behind the scenes and a persons privacy has to be respected. So giving out reasons for actions sometimes cannot be given...that is the very nature of the job.
Human nature being what it is may cause you to disagree that is always your right but if you choose to criticise then it is best to make sure your facts are correct.
Just wanted to make sure no-one was confused.
I was suspicious but hate to get egg on my face acusing someone and getting it wrong, anyone know the sense in this kind of behaviour, I am confused about that?
Trouble is they see rules as needing to be broken just so they can say they have done that. Rules they feel do not apply to them, it is a sad fact of life that at sometime, somewhere, the truth will be brought home. They will then feel the world is against them and it isn't fair......
I have just seen what GMI was banned for, calling someone a bellend and telling them to chill out with a smiley, now he was called an ignoramus twice before that and also called what only one can presume a bellend with actual purpose straight after it.
Were there other bans?
Did GMI get an explanation?
Right of appeal?
How long was his ban for and how long were the others?
This seems to me as total bullying and a witch hunt because a select few did bit like his repetitive nature and opinion, other teams forums are not like that, an example is the Sunderland board from yesterday, they would have no one on there today if that was us and there language was extreme.
It seems adults developed a childlike mentality of pack wolves , nice one good move.
You successfully and unfairly removed someone from the boards.
Were there other bans?
Did GMI get an explanation?
Right of appeal?
How long was his ban for and how long were the others?
This seems to me as total bullying and a witch hunt because a select few did bit like his repetitive nature and opinion, other teams forums are not like that, an example is the Sunderland board from yesterday, they would have no one on there today if that was us and there language was extreme.
It seems adults developed a childlike mentality of pack wolves , nice one good move.
You successfully and unfairly removed someone from the boards.
GMI was banned for totting up. 793 counts of being deliberately obtuse, argumentative and destroying threads. The bellend was just the bellend that broke the bellend's back.
For a poster who only recently joined, you seem very much clued up about GMI's past and awfully keen to defend him when (as mentioned above) over 100 complaints had been received - none from me, before you ask.
You also, like him, start discussions (even your first, begad!) in quite aggressive, contentious tones.
You also, like him, post something then let the discussion drift into a discussion about argument styles rather than the original subject of discussion.
Odd, that's all I'm saying. Very odd. Probably just coincidence, though.
Vin
That can be shot down as it's take more than one to argue
Obtuse? Can you price that in a written forum?
Destroying threads? Again thats debatable because if forums did not go off topic every user would use only one reply to the thread poster.
Did he get an explanation?
A right to reply?
No sorry packhound mentality.
Good to have different opinions that can start discussions, but what is tolerated will vary from forum to forum. This is a family-friendly forum (for lack of a better phrase), so won't tolerate some things that will be accepted or regarded as funny on another site. Sometimes with arguments, you have to accept you feel differently and let it go.