Rangers 2 years on

[Frankie 8,846]

I think the general point AMMS is making is correct but D'Art's point of order is fair as well.

 

I'm not even sure who 'owns' RM nowadays. Is CanadaReady still involved?

[D'Artagnan 173]

I think the general point AMMS is making is correct but D'Art's point of order is fair as well.

 

I'm not even sure who 'owns' RM nowadays. Is CanadaReady still involved?

 

I dont know who owns it now Frankie - Bluepeter appears to be the voice of authority on admin related matters and site policy. Its perhaps to their credit that if such ownership has changed hands it has made no difference whatsoever to the ethos and general running of the site.

[Frankie 8,846]

I dont know who owns it now Frankie - Bluepeter appears to be the voice of authority on admin related matters and site policy. Its perhaps to their credit that if such ownership has changed hands it has made no difference whatsoever to the ethos and general running of the site.

 

Fair comment. Like AMMS said above, I'm not a huge fan of FF and/or RM (in more recent times) because their demographic and style is a bit different from my own personal preferences. However, both are very popular sites so I doubt either care too much about any criticisms that come their way.

[craig 5,199]

Gersnet Rules.

 

Nuff Said

[reaper 0]

It seems to be a common story but I'm afraid I can't pass judgement on the way MD runs his forum. I know how difficult it can be here so when you have much more traffic as FF does, then I don't envy the admin there.

 

 

There is no moderation on FF it is either my way or the highway as extrapolated by a rather childish thread MD started today, he very firmly nailed his colours to the mast by doing so but I think that escaped him.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2013 by reaper

[amms 0]

Rangersmedia do not take their lead from the site owner - and I think that comment is disrespectful to the admin guys on there - they allow a variety of opinions to flourish without censure' date=' providing posters do not resort to personal abuse.[/quote']

 

 

 

I'm lost as to why you think I'm being disrespectful, to who? I've not criticised RM or any person associated with it. Admins and owners set the tone of a site, what is erroneous about that? The admins and owner(s?) set the tone for this site, I happen to like that tone, who knows that might change. It's their site though so that's up to them.

 

Furthermore the articles they publish as site articles reflect both sides of the debate when there are a diversity of views.

I don't understand what that has to do with anything we're talking about?

[Guest govansw1]

It seems to be a common story but I'm afraid I can't pass judgement on the way MD runs his forum. I know how difficult it can be here so when you have much more traffic as FF does, then I don't envy the admin there.[/quote

 

To be banned for life simply by saying 'I don't agree with you' has nothing to do with the amount of traffic.

[D'Artagnan 173]

I'm lost as to why you think I'm being disrespectful, to who? I've not criticised RM or any person associated with it. Admins and owners set the tone of a site, what is erroneous about that? The admins and owner(s?) set the tone for this site, I happen to like that tone, who knows that might change. It's their site though so that's up to them.

 

 

I don't understand what that has to do with anything we're talking about?

 

Because the admin dont set the tone on RM they allow the poster to do that so long as they adhere to the general rules re abuse.

 

Rather than give you a long winded reply - I think reapers highlight above says it all. Who said a picture doesn't paint a thousand words ?

[amms 0]

Because the admin dont set the tone on RM they allow the poster to do that so long as they adhere to the general rules re abuse.

 

Rather than give you a long winded reply - I think reapers highlight above says it all. Who said a picture doesn't paint a thousand words ?

 

This thread has almost turned into parody. Mark Dingwall can say and do what he wants on his forum because it's his. If you don't like it don't use it, what's difficult about that?

 

Of course the admin's on RM set the tone, they decide what's acceptable behaviour, they decide when to step in or when not to, they decide what can and can't be said. That's setting the tone D'art, whether it is heavy handed and proscriptive or softly, softly and liberal it is still setting the tone.

 

I don't know Mark Dingwall, I've never met or spoken to him. But I've seen him called some fairly unpleasant things by fellow Rangers supporters, I could see why he might not want people associated with some of them posting on his forum.

[D'Artagnan 173]

This thread has almost turned into parody. Mark Dingwall can say and do what he wants on his forum because it's his. If you don't like it don't use it, what's difficult about that?

 

Of course the admin's on RM set the tone, they decide what's acceptable behaviour, they decide when to step in or when not to, they decide what can and can't be said. That's setting the tone D'art, whether it is heavy handed and proscriptive or softly, softly and liberal it is still setting the tone.

 

I don't know Mark Dingwall, I've never met or spoken to him. But I've seen him called some fairly unpleasant things by fellow Rangers supporters, I could see why he might not want people associated with some of them posting on his forum.

 

Nope thats not setting the tone - thats setting and enforcing the rules. Big difference