A Forum...

[LIBERTARIAN]

... according to my dictionary,is "a meeting or medium for the open discussion of subjects of public interest".

So,the question that needs addressing is a simple one - "Do contributors want an "open discussion" Forum,or not?"

As for me,I think any opinion/point of view is a valid one,and should be heard,providing of course,there are no insults, personal attacks,or the like,associated with the production of said opinions/points of view.

The inclusion of insults, etc.,in a post, seriously devalues it,and it loses credibility, possibly resulting in it's removal,thereby obviating the need for "open discussion",which was the point of making it in the first place.

Opinions,however controversial and wide of the mark some see them as being,can either be debated insult free,or ignored. The reader being free to chose.

Shouldn't our goal be to allow a free exchange of opinions without the fear of scorn and ridicule being heaped on the poster?

Isn't that what was intended when this Forum was created?

In conclusion,I would add that to condemn an individual simply because they hold diametrically opposing opinions is fundamentally wrong,and defeats the purpose of a Forum such as we hope to achieve here.

 

[PGFWhite]

Quite right Vetch.

But perhaps you should have included definitions of "supporter" and "wumming" in the OP.

 

[Ramblin'Jack]

I agree with the OPs description of how a forum and a debate should be.

Not that it matters particularly what I think but I just dont have the time and temper for this sort of obvious wumming. I want to discuss football with reasonable grounded people who can critizise without a hidden agenda. We tried it the whole of last season every single time Swansea lost 1-2-3 games in a row and it was dreadfull and a constant cause for bitterness and trouble.

And maybe it should be noted that a good debater comes up with solutions and alternatives which is completely lacking in certain persons way of debating.

 

[Terror ball]

I shouldn't have insulted Dai the other day as it cheapens my contribution, but that guy does not want a discussion or open debate.

People discuss the points he makes, offer good counter arguments and ask him questions (ie. debating).
He doesn't respond.
Or he does respond with the argument he's already made 20 times already whilst mocking others for not having the intelligence to debate and making out people haven't addressed the issues he raised. Making a debate with him impossible. It is not what he is looking for.

What gets me to respond these days (never used to because you don't get a debate and frankly he's boring) is that he puts this crap on about half a dozen threads of an evening....meaning any potential new forum users or visiting fans from other clubs might think "these Swans fans have got a bit above themselves haven't they, wanting to sack the manager after 2 games! Expecting results against the champions and at White Hart Lane"....it reflects badly on us all, but it's only 1 bloke as far as I can see.
I've never met anyone either in a pub or at a game who comes out with similar stuff to DaiSwan.

I've concluded he is either;

- the most eccentric Swans fan with possibly a low IQ / personality disorder
- A Swans fan on this site who has created this character to spark debate. Not a bad idea but at least debate the points out!
- A Cardiff fan on the longest WUM of all time.


I do not want to see him banned or his posts censored, I'm totally against that.....but if he is going to spout the same rubbish in the face of reasoned debate I want to see him called up on it. If he is going to be condescending and pull stunts like making out he is superior and has more money than his fellow posters (to try and get a rise) I want to see him treated with the disdain he deserves.
Without personal insults (holds hands up).


I apologise to you Dai for calling you a plank and a twat and stating that you have no bollocks. I also apologise for implying you have a low IQ and possible personality disorder.

I look forward to some reasoned debate.

 

[Ramblin'Jack]

People discuss the points he makes, offer good counter arguments and ask him questions (ie. debating).
He doesn't respond.
Or he does respond with the argument he's already made 20 times already whilst mocking others for not having the intelligence to debate and making out people haven't addressed the issues he raised. Making a debate with him impossible. It is not what he is looking for.

Exactly and well said. And the lack of respons to peoples arguments also proves he is wumming. I'm still waiting for his alternative line up, positioning and tactics against Tottenham. Others have done it, why not him? Because he can't and because he wont. He has another agenda to think about.

Remember the couple of weeks last season when he was away and the forum was bursting with joy and good debating only for him to return and it all went to hell again.

Are we trying to uphold the sacred flame of democracy or creating an enjoyable and productive forum?

 

[Pete from Crete]

Rambling /Terror - Correct in a nutshell!

 

[Kifflom!]

I haven't posted on last night's performance as yet because I know what will happen. I'll have the usual suspects mocking and puring scorn on what I have to say, together with sarcastic remarks about my earlier comments about leaving the forum.

Sadly, the forum isn't really a forum at all. It's more about back slapping and clique mentality. You're either in it or you're not and I doubt things will change, unfortunately.

 

[gendrosjack]

Often the posts themselves are obvious wums , attacks or sheer bloody minded ignorance. People then respond accordingly. Empty vessels make most noise and some of the posters here are the most odious, self opiniated of individuals. Long gone are the discussions on BBC's 606.

 

[LIBERTARIAN]

PGF,(Post 2), I firmly believe that we are all "supporters" here,of Swansea City that is,and one man's wum is another mans genuine post.

It's difficult to create a wum of any quality, since subtlety and lack of certainty are essential components,leaving the reader in two minds as to whether it is,or isn't,a wum.
Not everyone is gifted in the art of subtlety.

A certain Cardiff City poster back in the old BBC days,who will remain nameless,was an excellent wummer.
He was full of guile,and cunning.
His posts were measured, complimentary,and reasoned,but usually contained an undercurrent of something less tangible.
Some were almost works of art,and must have have taken a considerable amount of time to hone.
It took me,and a few others, quite a while to suss him out.
His posts were so good, however, that it was difficult to fall out with him.
I have not seen his like since.

A wum simply isn't a wum if there is certainty as to the meaning/motivation of the post.
Having a contrary point of view,or expressing a strongly held opinion, isn't a wum,in my opinion anyway.
I pointed no fingers,nor inferred any guilt, when creating this thread.
A certain poster seems to inflame the wrath of several regular posters,and I merely wished to stress that such inflaming of passions is easily avoided.

 

[aswan_dam]

Dai has started a thread about football and Swansea City in particular and there are no insults in it, so therefore it is perfectly valid and should not be deleted.

The fact that he seems to be in a minority of one should, strictly speaking, be irrelevant.

To the vast majority of us, his left-field views are completely IRRATIONAL but none the less if they are his OPINION he has every right to post it. If the thread were posted by a QPR fan, for example, it would be a clear WUM and should be deleted but as Dai is a long-standing supporter of Swansea City (we assume) and a long-standing member of this forum it has to be left for all to read (if they choose).

To be fair, the title of his thread tells you what the content is going to be. If, as a group, we don't want to encourage him, the best thing to do is not reply to his thread or even read it in the first place.

I have read it. It contained everything I expected it to contain and in my OPINION, his OPINION is bonkers and I didn't respond.

Dai does have a problem 'debating' in the conventional sense and this can be frustrating - he either won't or can't, but we're all different so we'll have to accept it.

 

[LIBERTARIAN]

Ramblin'Jack,(Post 3).

Of "course it matters what you think".
Not everyone who posts here necessarily possesses debating skills,and allowances could be made for that,don't you think?
As for "bitterness and trouble",well,they don't really need to rear their ugly heads, simply place the offending poster/s on ignore.
It's what I do,and it works.

 

[PGFWhite]

I think the context/background has got to be taken into account Vetch.

We have had to put up with negative anti-Swans posts for many years now with the poster only too willing to ridicule and humiliate other posters. He seems to wallow in any Swans defeat and has also spent years ridiculing our Chairman during an unprecedented rise in the Clubs fortunes.

Anyone who takes such a stance will naturally feel the wrath of the majority of the Clubs supporters who take opposite views

 

[LIBERTARIAN]

Ramblin'Jack,(Post 5), "Are we trying to uphold the sacred flame of democracy or creating an enjoyable and productive forum?"

Why can't we have both?

It is surely not beyond the wit of man to accommodate a lone voice?

 

[Stereo]

I agree Knackered ( is that back slapping ?) - there is a bit of a clique mentality here that it quite plain to see.

For me the OP is just raising the point of what a forum is supposed to be - and how we should debate rather than aim insults at people. Yet the very first response from PGF can be construed as a thinly veiled insult at Dai - whether or not it is intended - that's how I see it. So now we await Dai's response and then we could be back in to a **** fight again. Everyone is responsible for how this forum runs, not just one person who is deemed to be nuts by others as an excuse for a verbal punch up.
It's just so easy not to bite when someone offers the bait - just ignore it and move on.
Terror - you're right when people resort to name calling it does cheapen their contribution, but it does feel good to get it out of your system in an environment that causes no physical harm - if people spoke this way out in a pub, there would be carnage. That's the beauty/ugliness of the internet - very little consequences in the real world.
Come on guys - it's not a school yard here - were all adults (I think)

Peace

 

[PGFWhite]

Ramblin'Jack,(Post 5), "Are we trying to uphold the sacred flame of democracy or creating an enjoyable and productive forum?" Why can't we have both? It is surely not beyond the wit of man to accommodate a lone voice?

Perhaps if the loan voice had been less demeaning to fellow posters over the years then it would be accommodated in a more respected manner

 

[PGFWhite]

For me the OP is just raising the point of what a forum is supposed to be - and how we should debate rather than aim insults at people. Yet the very first response from PGF can be construed as a thinly veiled insult at Dai - whether or not it is intended - that's how I see it.

I guessed the reason behind Vetch's thread and I felt that if you want a debate about something then you have to look at all aspects of it - hence my comments. Or aren't I allowed to voice them!!

 

[LIBERTARIAN]

PGF,(Post 12).

No poster has the right to ridicule and humiliate other posters,but it's been going on for so many years now,and I can't remember who threw the first stone.

The Forum should be big enough to accommodate one individual,who I firmly believe to be a committed Jack,despite the views of others to the contrary.

There is no law against liking more than one Club,or admiring other Managers. None that I'm aware of ,anyway.

I'm not sure that his posts are necessarily "anti - Swans'",he posts as he thinks. He has concerns,and he expresses them,in the only way he can.

I simply cannot condemn him for having an opinion,or even being a lone voice,providing his posts are insult/abuse free. But that must apply to everyone.

Respect your opinions though,PGF.

 

[Stereo]

I guessed the reason behind Vetch's thread and I felt that if you want a debate about something then you have to look at all aspects of it - hence my comments. Or aren't I allowed to voice them!!

Of course you're allowed to voice your opinions PGF, but look at what Libertarian said:

"As for me,I think any opinion/point of view is a valid one,and should be heard,providing of course,there are no insults, personal attacks,or the like,associated with the production of said opinions/points of view."

Does your comment adhere to that ?

 

[PGFWhite]

Of course you're allowed to voice your opinions PGF, but look at what Libertarian said:

"As for me,I think any opinion/point of view is a valid one,and should be heard,providing of course,there are no insults, personal attacks,or the like,associated with the production of said opinions/points of view."

Does your comment adhere to that ?

Did I insult anyone - No
Did I launch a personal attack - No

My comment adhere's to Vetch's statement.

 

[taffthefish]

Lib, I have posted many times on here and been subjected to abuse for no apparent reason by Swans posters. Your thread is refreshing and I hope posters from other clubs (Cardiff included) can now post here without having to deal with some of the abuse I have suffered in the past.