Leggo - Latest

[Frankie 8,843]

Leggo isn't stupid. He may not have been suggesting they were responsible for the threats/hacking/RST smears etc but he was inferring they were just as much an enemy within simply for holding different opinions to him.

 

It was a nonsensical blog that day and while Leggo has never been the most credible of writers, it's stuff like that (and misspelling Copland Road today) which make him fair game for ridicule amongst others. The worst thing about that is that he does have some good contacts and some solid info which can easily be dismissed because of the more silly stuff he writes about.

 

I've said for a long while, Leggo would be better served writing weekly instead of trying to shoe-horn inane stuff into a daily blog.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

yeah I have to agree with that. very hit and miss.

[3909 04 0]

I think it's fair to say every Rangers website has their fair share of fifth columnists or even just Rangers minded trolls - both the type of people I personally can't understand.

 

Now, you either allow them to dictate the narrative or you moderate strongly (but fairly) to isolate such people. It's not overly difficult to do on a smaller forum such as this but I do sympathise with the admin at FF and RM where they have much more traffic.

 

It's sometimes easy to forget when online that arguably we're a bit more militant than offline bears so even the most liberal of fans on a conservative forum such as this can appear to be hard-line to an ordinary supporter who's just interested in going to the games.

 

Hmm. Presumably it was this selfsame "strong (but fair)" moderation you were displaying earlier this year when I pointed out another poster's trolling on this site? Your response was to issue me with the following stark warning: "Now, either stick to our rules or go elsewhere."

 

As you're the mod, obviously you can adjudicate as you see fit. I'm just wondering, though; does that make me a fifth columnist or a Rangers minded troll?

[Frankie 8,843]

I'm afraid I can't remember the issue you're talking about.

 

But yes, as a mod, I am free (along with my team) to decide just who is breaking the relaxed rules on here. Majority rules in that sense and I'm comfortable enough with our performance there. Minimal bannings in over 10 years suggests we are doing something right.

 

Obviously we can't be correct all the time though but we don't force people to stay here should they decide the content isn't for them.

[craig 5,199]

Hmm. Presumably it was this selfsame "strong (but fair)" moderation you were displaying earlier this year when I pointed out another poster's trolling on this site? Your response was to issue me with the following stark warning: "Now, either stick to our rules or go elsewhere."

 

As you're the mod, obviously you can adjudicate as you see fit. I'm just wondering, though; does that make me a fifth columnist or a Rangers minded troll?

 

But did you just "point it out" or did you get into a slanging match ? Not suggesting the latter, just wondering - because it would be very unlike us to ban somebody, or even issue a "go somewhere else" warning without good cause. Being a mod I am obviously biased but I think we take a very, very relaxed approach to censorship on this forum. We probably actually let things go further than we should before we issue a ban.

 

As for the "go somewhere else" thing - like Frankie I cant recall your incident but on occasion we have had people make comments about going somewhere else and we have simply said "fine, we dont hold people here against their will" - we had somebody (cant remember who) call me Hitler earlier this year and he eventually had to ASK to be banned, which we did according to his wishes. He thought we were keeping him around to "make membership number look better than they are".

 

I could be wrong, but if you were moderated that way I suspect there would have been good reason for it. Hopefully so anyway !

[3909 04 0]

But did you just "point it out" or did you get into a slanging match ? Not suggesting the latter, just wondering - because it would be very unlike us to ban somebody, or even issue a "go somewhere else" warning without good cause. Being a mod I am obviously biased but I think we take a very, very relaxed approach to censorship on this forum. We probably actually let things go further than we should before we issue a ban.

 

As for the "go somewhere else" thing - like Frankie I cant recall your incident but on occasion we have had people make comments about going somewhere else and we have simply said "fine, we dont hold people here against their will" - we had somebody (cant remember who) call me Hitler earlier this year and he eventually had to ASK to be banned, which we did according to his wishes. He thought we were keeping him around to "make membership number look better than they are".

 

I could be wrong, but if you were moderated that way I suspect there would have been good reason for it. Hopefully so anyway !

 

The subject of trolling and de-railing threads had come up. The mod had asked users to desist, to which I said:

 

Perhaps you should consider dealing with obvious "trolling" threads in the literal sense, ie threads designed to provoke an emotional response, rather than threatening to censure those who pass comment on them?

 

I find it's always beneficial to attack the root cause of a malaise, rather than treating the symptoms.

 

Just a suggestion.

 

The mod replied:

 

With respect, I know exactly what the issue is here.

 

Now, either stick to our rules or go elsewhere. That goes for all who'd prefer to spoil the discussion of valid topics.

 

That was me told!!

 

Anyway, no harm done. I just cheekily wondered if I was pigeonholed in either of the categories mentioned earlier today...