Off Topic ... not so sure

[darkside lightside]

...my post was in no way inappropriate ...So in that context there is no reason whatsoever for a mod to do whatever they like. .

this is to miss the point - under the terms and conditions its the moderators who decide what's appropriate not you, and that's just the way it is! websites are not public goods, they belong to whoever set them up, and i repeat, we are all here as their guests - i don't see what's so hard to understand here! If I invite you to a dinner party at my house, and you start chatting about something that I don't like, and I consequently feck you out of the house, you may disagree with me on the appropriateness or otherwise of your conversation, you may think it was very rude of me to have done so, but you can't disagree that it's my right to ask you to leave my property.

The only way to have absolute carte blanche at all times is to set up your own blog or website..

...in my extensive experience of being on messageboards...I have never ever seen a moderator plant a message on someones post...

I have seen this happen - on slugger as it happens! The mod will often insert a note saying "comments removed - mod" or something of that nature. What happened to your post earlier was however admittedly rather clumsy.

...I'm somewhat surprised at the number of people who have come on the forum and implied variously the subject...Was neo political-not rugby...I'm on here by the grace of moderators...That moderators can do whatever they like should they feel the urge to...The Maze and UR usage of the stadium is now the domain of Slugger O'Toole's forum.

Re points 2 and 3 - you are. Re point 1, like I said, NI being NI there are endless crossover topics, and you're right, this is one. So for the mods there is a balancing act - between keeping the site rugby-related and trying to avoid the political baggage that attaches to most things in NI, and ensuring that the users of the board can voice their opinions on matters relating to UR.

If you look back at the thread that was closed, the penultimate post was a long listing of what the hunger strikers were convicted of - which i actually found interesting, but I do not think that the thread was going in the right direction for this website.

As for the Maze discussion, this has been discussed on this board in the past, and at length, and several posters have highlighted reservations about aspects of it, such as the ones you and CT mentioned - these threads were not closed or edited.

I'm not saying that these topics are only for slugger, i'm simply saying this particular topic was heading the wrong way. If it was announced that O'Neills were actually in discussion with Ulster for shirts then I would see this as a topic that could and should be discussed on here.

I would suggest that it is a sign of a certain mentality which still permeates wider political debate here that people get the jitters when certain subjects are discussed.

I don't think so - I think people get jittery when certain subjects are discussed on rugby websites. Speaking for meself, if I want to debate about NI politics and current affairs, I go to slugger (where in any case you are subjected to a much more challenging level of debate); if I want to chat about rugby I come here.

...not a license to rubbbish others who want to discuss the impact of the Stadium

Seriously I'm not sure that any rubbishing is going on! Let's keep this in proportion - on this particular thread me, I thought we all were having a pretty civil exchange!!

[ballpark]

Caolan, you have your point of view and I have mine obviously and there will lie disagreement for what it's worth. However your analogy of comparing this forum as dinner party and posters on it as house guests is a little wide of the mark. This forum is in the public domain and that is a crucial difference. Your analogy would be pertinent to a forum which I know of, where participants are vetted and only those invited may go on it or access it.

This forum is not in that category and as one of the so called moderators pointed out in an earlier post in trying to justify locking the shirt thread he said something along the lines, that the forum can be accessed by google indicating a public accessibility to it. The dinner party analogy is not quite apt I would suggest.

If it was announced that O'Neills were actually in discussion with Ulster for shirts then I would see this as a topic that could and should be discussed on here. I think you failed to understand my point in respect of this. I suggested that posters who where uneasy (because of O'Neill's outletting a hunger strike commemoration shirt) and as such about the prospect of O'Neills and UR getting involved in a shirt deal should understand that UR already had a link to aspects of the hunger strike through the Maze stadium deal. In other words why fret over a potential link when one already existed. A fair point in my opinion.

I don't have a difficulty with moderation on a forum, i've been on messageboard forums a long time and would suggest i know my way round them and what constitutes debate and so on. My problem is with the lack of consistency and the suggestion of agenda setting by certain posters, that cannot be good. Some months ago there was a flag debate on the forum in which there were some pretty incendiary things posted which myself and other posters chose to ignore in the interests of board peace, that is an example of what I'm talking in terms of consistency on topic, there appeared to be no panicking moderators in that instance if remember it right.

I do agree with a lot of what you said Caolan other than the points i made above.

[Cockatrice]

I think we can all agree that the insertion was clumsy or ill-advised and as others have alluded to time to move on from.

However in keeping the site rugby-related there are a large number of other threads that could be examined for not being so and whilst there is a back-room chat many other rugby related topic are interjected with unrelated chit-chat.

Whilst slugger may be the place for politics they should not be excluded when rugby related topics involve them as is clearly the case with the Maze.

However this topic started with an article on O’Neills launching a GAA style Hunger Strike shirt the relevance to us being that O’Neills are a sponsor of the URSC Player of the Month and Year Awards.

As such IMHO clearly a topic worthy of discussion on this board under the circumstances and whilst it then introduced the Maze aspect it was still very much receiving thoughtful debate.

The thread for the record was moved after BP’s post from back room to rumours then after my subsequent post closed.

I considered my last post before making it and felt that it was directly relevant to a thread that after all started out about a sponsor of the supporters club launching a commemoration shirt for the Hunger Strikers. By this time I had already previously asked whether most people were actually aware that the building of any new stadium at the Maze was directly dependant on a conflict resolution centre (museum to terrorism) being included. That centre (museum) was to include the hospital in which the Hunger Strikers died and one of the H Blocks.

So to ensure the pleasure of thousands of sporting fans throughout Northern Ireland a centre had to be included to these men. I named them and provided factual information to inform many reader who probably didn’t know who they were or what they had actually done. Political I accept but directly related to the Maze and something that shouldn’t be lost sight off nonetheless.

Happy to now discuss other more economic reasons against the Maze as I have for the most part done in the past. For the record I too thought it was a pretty civil and thoughtful exchange and one that could have been allowed to delelop.

[mikerob]

Be clear Mike, my post was in no way inappropriate in any shape or form, it was bang on topic and contained no inoffensive language or subject matter. - So in that context there is no reason whatsoever for a mod to do whatever they like. You seem to imply otherwise.

I'll do more than imply it - I'll state it. This is a privately owned and run forum. "Public access" is irrelevant - this isn't a road or a pub. The owners can do whatever they like provided they don't break the law. They can switch off the entire site right now. They can ban you. They can be as arbitrary, biased, inconsistent and illogical as they want to be and they don't need to give a reason or explanation for anything.

Sure, if a large number of users are unhappy with the way the site is run, then there won't be much of a forum but if you don't like something, the only thing you can do is try to persuade the owners to change the way they run things - but they are under absolutely no obligation to do so.

[ballpark]

Public access is not irrelevant Mike?, your entitled to your opinion stated or otherwise.

[Cockatrice]

Think that is now twice that this has been called a private board so I thank those for letting me use it and also wonder whether potential sponsors would be put off knowing that it isn't a public forum as such.

[mikerob]

Think that is now twice that this has been called a private board so I thank those for letting me use it and also wonder whether potential sponsors would be put off knowing that it isn't a public forum as such.

I didn't say private board - I said privately owned. As with any privately owned undertaking, the owners are entitled to do whatever the hell they like with it.

And from my perspective, I'd like to very much thank the owners for letting me use it. I have contributed precisely £0 for this board but I know that the costs for hosting, administration and maintenance of websites are certainly not free and the time required can be significant.

[darkside lightside]

BP - in fact I think my dinner party analogy remains perfectly appropriate; whether or not the forum is public is irrelevant, the pertinent fact is that it takes place on private property - however to make it more analogous, imagine that the dinner party was being broadcast live, and viewers could phone in opinions - none of this changes the fact that I retain the right, as owner of the property, to feck anybody "orf my land" at my discretion, regardless of how disruptive, inconsistent, rude etc it may be perceived by the feck-ee...

Anyhow, I still don't think that any of us should get this out of proportion - like yourself, I have posted on loads of boards and blogs over the years,and of them all this is probably the most consistently good-natured, and lightly-edited of them all, and long may it continue..

rgds, C

[darkside lightside]

...this has been called a private board so I thank those for letting me use it and also wonder whether potential sponsors would be put off knowing that it isn't a public forum as such.

eh??? I think you're maybe confusing the forum's availability with its ownership - it is public in the sense that anyone who has a computer can view it, and anyone who signs up to the t&cs can use it, but it is NOT "publically" owned - its a private enterprise.

From a potential advertisers point of view, the only concern is how many hits it gets, not the minutiae of how the forum operates..

[Cockatrice]

I made mention of private because I think it had been mentioned twice in the relevance of some of BP comments.

Still I view it more like an open party for anyone with a couple of simple guidelines to ensure things tick along and probably as with most things nowadays to keep the right side of the law with regards regulations.

By an large it is well conducted and not abusive however in this case one of the reasons the thread was closed was apparently because people were getting fed up listening to the same subject going round and round.

In fact there doesn't appear to have been one single complaint either re the subject matter or any of the comments within yet it was closed wuth this being one reason. I for one thought that the subject matter was at least considered rather than abusive or a any form of slanging match.

Indeed there are many other threads that have gone down this road yet they remained open and many others have no relevence to rugby whatsoever.

Subjetcs such as flags and anthems have been around for a while and in both cases are allowed to continue. There are many other subjects that I and others find boring yet they continue and I can choose whether to get involved or not.

I think most of us agree that the subejct was getting the proper attention without offense being caused to anyone.

[jamesie]

one of the reasons the thread was closed was apparently because people were getting fed up listening to the same subject going round and round.

... and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round......

[browner]

Not the best defence.

[jamesie]

Not the best defence.

who mentioned leinster?

[Cockatrice]

No not the best defence indeed especially given the number of other threads that could be said to go round and round and round. In truth the easy solution is to avoid the thread and contribute to matters that one is interested in and although those interested in the subject to debate it accordingly.

[Rooster]

I was of the opinion that it was your last post CT of the biography's of the hunger strikers that was actually the problem, it certainly made me feel a bit uneasy and may have made for uneasy reading by some of the board readers here, afterall who knows but some readers may have been directly affected by the actions of some of them. The topic did however seem ok up till that stage.
The O'Neills saga is one however that should be discussed at URSC committee level with perhaps a representative from O'Neills if they feel the need to clear the air on this one.