Trinity wrote:Truth is still waiting for an explanation of why he had his access removed from this site Keith.
What term was he non compliant with?
Really Sue, that's very odd. Perhaps your e-mail isn't working because I responded to you at 2:09pm on the 16th January. Perhaps you should check your e-mail again to make sure you didn't get it? As there is clearly a problem with your e-mail, I'm sure you will excuse me repeating it here, then you can point it out to Stephen so that he is also clear?
Hello Sue,
It's not my intention to get in to a protracted debate but I am happy to respond to you at this point, with the intention of clarifying our position.
The simple answer to your question asking "does site admin and your mod team not respect freedom of speech?" is quite simply, 'no'. The message board has never purported to respect freedom of speech. We have in the past suggested "a benevolent dictatorship" is a closer way of understanding the message board moderators. While we have said that slightly tongue in cheek, the point is that we are first and foremost a forum to talk about Morecambe Football Club. We do have off topic debates but at times a decision is taken that the debate has gone far enough. Usually there are one of four reasons for a thread to be locked.
1. It has become repetitive, usually two or more people have become entrenched in opposite camps and are simply going over the same old ground. "Boring" is another word for it.
2. It has become personal.
3. It has potentially become libellous or looks like it may head in that direction.
4. It is potentially damaging to the club.
The reason for banning people is that they have decided their 'freedom of speech' means that they can ignore our rules and guidance. As I recall, (I haven't gone back to check) 'Truth' was repeatedly told not to bring Glen Cooper's professionalism in to the debate. We weren't prepared to have a fellow Morecambe fan's professionalism questioned in a public forum in which he didn't have a position to reply. I think it was in that thread that I suggested the press complaints commission would be an appropriate vehicle. There were other warnings that went unheeded. Your husband never posted in threads about Morecambe FC, only the political ones.
You may want to set up a 'free for all' forum in which you do not moderate it and allow people complete 'freedom of speech'. I am happy to suggest reasonably priced hosting and advice if required, on how to set the forum up. I will even be happy for you to post on Shrimpsvoices linking to your new forum. It will be interesting to see what happens when you receive phone calls from the council and police as we have, regarding certain posts and suggesting 'libel'. You can then make your own decision as the site owner, whether to take on the council and fight for your 'freedom of speech' or to take the easiest and much cheaper route? If you and your husband have pockets deep enough and the moral high ground to take a decision to fight on, good luck. However for us, moderating a message board that is supposed to be about Morecambe Football Club, we will continue to take a pragmatic view, if that upsets some people, so be it, we will return the money they paid to join Shrimpsvoices.
Finally, it is a shame that your husband and child no longer go to Morecambe FC on the basis of a perceived slight on an un-official forum. Shrimpsvoices is in no way connected to the club, they have no say in the running of the site. Indeed a club officials remarks recently in the match day programme suggest quite strongly that the club would rather it wasn't there at all (you see, no one likes us!) That the locking of a thread and banning of a poster have led to the club losing money actually vindicates the position taken by some moderators that we should lock non-football related threads even earlier. Freedom of speech? No such thing, it all costs, one way or another.
Kind regards, Keith
Trinity wrote:Acts of moderation on a professionally run website should comply with the rules of the game (i.e the terms when you ragree to register). Any non compliance with those terms deserves admin/mod action. But of course as myself and Truth have discovered this is not a professionally run website.
Freedom to express an opinion and state facts on this site is clearly not allowed unless you go with the flow/sheeple as Truth discovered and also I have with locked threads and edited posts.
"professionally run"? Who ever gave you such an idea? Many hours of unpaid time spent clearing up on here suggests quite the opposite, it is truly amateur!
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=amateur1. a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons. Compare professional.
I am sorry that you didn't receive the e-mail that I posted to you because I'm sure that if you'd had the chance to read it before tonight, you would have noticed the bit about not using this forum to attack Mr Cooper's professionalism, which would have saved you the time it took to type it and me the time it took to edit your post. This simple understanding regarding how things work around here may have caused you less stress or indeed, paranoia?
The offer still stands that I will support you to set up your own forum that you can then be responsible for, at your own cost and that we will even provide a link for you from this forum.
*tsk* if only they could make e-mail more reliable, all of this could have been avoided... you don't think
they are spiking your e-mails do you?
