Football > Richmond Rant
OER Posters to Decide
Go Richo 12:
I agree with claw. Personally, swearing doesn't worry me, although saying things like we got raped by the umpires is a bit harsh and should be edited. My main concern is the way we turn on those we disagree with. There's heaps of posters I don't agree with but I won't get personal with them, indeed most times I just read their comments and let them go.
🏅Dooks:
I have a real issue with being banned previously for being too critical of the club.
I also have a real issue with posters being unable to be critical of players and the club without so called 'quality people' reporting them for trolling, baiting and the like.
Saying 'player x is rubbish' and then being called names, reported and banned. The name calling is edited by the mods and the name callers aren't banned.
Then after a loss, as has been shown, consensus is player x is rubbish, the so called quality posters go missing and play the man, get a reaction then report the poster. If that's not trolling or baiting I don't know what is.
Who's trolling and baiting who? Ask yourself.
I reckon over the last 12 months of might have reported one post. I respect the others rights to have an opinion even if it is contrary to others including name calling of me. It seems apparent now that everyone is reporting everybody. Why?!!!! How many reports are there a week? We should be told.
The other week Ox got a post deleted in the Morris thread which showed a teapot. A teapot!
How do we define a quality poster BTW? By a positive, non club-critical mentality who personally attacks others for their opinions and reports these by the dozen?
If that's who the preferred site member is then good luck with the site in the future.
This sites point of difference to other richmond forums has always been it's tolerance of both positive and negative opinions along with witty and quirky posts.
The tolerance has progressively diminished. Any sort of creative or edgy posts, once left, are now sanitized. Why?
The outcome will be a sanitized, relatively censord site devoid of the ability to speak ones mind
Tigeritis™©®:
I like posting my thoughts on OER. Its definitely cathartic after a loss. I don't think anyone here doesn't love the Tigers & would love nothing more than the club to succeed. I don't think any post should be personal unless it's in good fun & everyone knows your taking the pee.
The only thing I don't like is when posters question another posters allegiance to the club. I think that is a low gutless reaction to someone who may be regarded as negative.
I don't see anything wrong with negative posts , for goodness sake, how can anyone be positively buoyant with a club that's let us down for the best part of 35 years? It's also any posters right to be positive about the club if they want to as it gives good balance.
I enjoy reading most posts especially the comical ones its all in good fun.
We are allowed to be happy and we should be allowed to be peeed off too when the club lets us down as often as it has.
Gigantor:
I don't think the issue is criticism of players or club but rather the personal attacks........is this correct?
(•))(©™:
Get rid of the sooks and recruit.
The so called negativity isn't.
It's deals in fact.
Fact I believe, is a criteria for posti substance?
Negativity is a name given to it by those who, well let's just say, live in another time zone.
It's these people who mirror the clubs weakness and unknowingly perpetuate mediocrity.
My reactive posts are how I deal with the twisted emotion this stuffn club causes me.
Being banned, to me, incites disrespect and animosity toward not the admin but the gimp who complained to the teacher.
Personally I don't want those type in our supporter base. :lol
With so much wrong with the club is it any wonder the "intelligent" ones get a little frustrated ? ;D
Lmao@The Teapot being homophobic, Dooks.
I wasn't dirty with WP, like I said but rather the teapots who lagged.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version