anonimity of posters

Just been reading one of the threads with accusations of racism being raised.
I wonder if any of our legal experts can tell us if forums are duty bound to protect the true identities of posters in the event that the authorities were brought in to investigate racist/homophobic comments.
Could the forum organisers be held to account in any way?

 

Since being a member from the start, I found myself not contributing on here due to the fighting and tripe posted. Let's hope racism isn't included. I know 606 was heavily moderated but I must admit, I still miss it.

 

Who would want to protect the identity of a racist?

 

On that subject, I can't reply directly as the thread is closed but I want to respond to PattyNchips2 - he had a dig saying if I didn't like the word why did I open the thread? He then had a hissy fit about it. The point was in this particular thread I didn't need to open it, the word offensive to be was in the title.

I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks.

 

Wasn't he Baldrick in Blackadder?

 

On a similar note I am all for a good swear word or two but I can't help but feel that this board would be better off with a zero tolerance policy. It would force people to articulate their point logically rather than turning every thread into a bar fight.

 

To be honest, and in my own humble view there are too many off topic threads with either a racist/homophobic/sectarian/political agenda going up. I wouldn't ever wish to deny anyone free speech, each to their own, but it's a football forum ffs. If I want to argue the other stuff, I would do it on political or academic forums where the real and sincere debate is taking place (and indeed I do so). Dear mods, there is an increasing instance of this happening on what is otherwise a great forum. If someone wants to run their own political agenda via the (national) Daily Mail or Telegraph political agenda (or any paper for that matter) can they do it over there and not here. It's getting tedious...

 

some sort of rules would certainty help.

can I suggest one.

Rule 1# No linking to non sporing articles in the Daily Mail.

 

First of all you weren't a member from the start.

Secondly this site was founded on a anything goes as long as its funny ethos.

Third mick would never give out user info because someone was offended. He lives offshore and is very difficult to sue, the bbc tried and failed. In mick we trust.

 

It's getting too serious round here.

Have a coke. Coke makes it all better...

[video=youtube;m1NeogMh1JI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1NeogMh1JI[/video]

 

I stand corrected. This site WAS heavily promoted when it was announced that 606 was to close. I STILL found it superior.

 

I mentioned the other week that things were becoming quite playgroundish and some of these emotive threads that are appearing at the moment don't help things. Take the thread on Mandela for example, it didn't take long for accusations of racism or ignorance to start flying around. We're all adults at the end of the day and its a shame to see the forum being spoilt through petty arguments and stupid comments. Like Beverley Tiger said, it doesn't take long for people to articulate a point logically and thoughtfully, be that on football or any other issue, and some people could do to think 'would I say this to someone in the street' before posting. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but we need to be sensible about what we post and think of the consequences before we post something that is likely to be controversial. This is a great forum and its disappointing to see people at each other's throats, name calling and pushing the boundaries beyond what is generally accepted as reasonable. I can't wait for the football to start again.

 

That sounds like Patty. Perfect example of a think before you post type of thing.

 

I know who all of you are and where you work.

 

There seems to be a lot of people wanting to make poltical comments to complain about the number of political comments.

Generally people get upset at opinions that don't match their political ideology and far too many people have an odd view of what racism is.

Based on comments I receive, some people think that because they think it's offensive it is and should be actioned. The problem is an equal number will disagree and complain at the action.

For my part, I try to strike a balance, letting some topical politics run while it's busy and reasoned before closing, but more often just locking such topics from the off. In general politics and religion
ae no no's.

What I'd ask is that people that object to threads or posts that we've missed or left open PM's a mod instead of contributing to the issue. Bear in mind though, we won't always act just because someone feels offended.

 

The problem sometimes occurs when we get visiting fans (the Celtic "debate" over Hooper being the most recent one - where footballing opinion was clouded by comments regarding the quality of each city and the residents etc), which I know sounds like a cheap excuse (and some of us could be accused of fanning the flames on other clubs' threads). But there is no excuse for sexist/racist/schoolboy humour (especially about the attributes of certain ladies), due to as far as I know there is no age limit on this site - and (yes I know I'll get the standard response to this comment) do we really want children of Hull reading some of what has been written

 

I was involved in the other thread and just want to make quite clear was not accusing anybody of racism, I objected to the term being used for the thread which was a racial stereotype but as the OP pointed out it was in common usage before even if it is inappropriate now. I agree about the board here and have noticed since the season finished a lot of dubious comments on threads which wouldn't have made it on the old 606, which was a naff website but well policed

 

Based on replies on here and other boards, the majority view (by a very long way) was that the other site was over-moderated.