The new rules

[Robbo]

I'll run a scenario past you:

Someone replies to a poster/comment with the following: "Shut the fuck up, you thick fucking cunt - you're worse than a woman!"

Depending on the person, there's scope within that statement for someone to have a genuine grievance based on one or all of the following:

- It could be perceived as being overly aggressive, even threatening.
- The person may have some mental impairment/recognised disability for which this statement which causes them genuine upset.
- The reference to a woman could be interpreted as being misogynistic.

I'm only highlighting this as a possible example, as I've been involved as an independent moderator in enough employer/employee disputes where genuine grievances have been lodged based on someone's perception of a statement.

And I suppose that's the point I'm trying to make - how can rules like this be implemented and managed without it being misconstrued? Who's responsibility is it to determine what is allowed and what isn't?

I appreciate common sense has to prevail where possible, but I think this is going to be really hard to manage...

Good points that is why folks need here to discuss this properly one person wouldn't care if someone said your examples another would that's why there is this thread. 99% of the folks here have been members for so long that they should know how to take others.

Another important thing is in the football forums we try and stay on topic because we have the people here to have good discussions and you want to misbehave do it in the off topic forum

[Fuck the Glazers]

I'll run a scenario past you:

Someone replies to a poster/comment with the following: "Shut the fuck up, you thick fucking cunt - you're worse than a woman!"

Depending on the person, there's scope within that statement for someone to have a genuine grievance based on one or all of the following:

- It could be perceived as being overly aggressive, even threatening.
- The person may have some mental impairment/recognised disability for which this statement which causes them genuine upset.
- The reference to a woman could be interpreted as being misogynistic.

I'm only highlighting this as a possible example, as I've been involved as an independent moderator in enough employer/employee disputes where genuine grievances have been lodged based on someone's perception of a statement.

And I suppose that's the point I'm trying to make - how can rules like this be implemented and managed without it being misconstrued? Who's responsibility is it to determine what is allowed and what isn't?

I appreciate common sense has to prevail where possible, but I think this is going to be really hard to manage...

It will be hard to manage but we have to try. We'll just do our best. It int going to be perfect, we just need to try and make this place somewhere where every United fans feels comfortable posting regardless of race, gender, disability etc.

One thing I'd say is lets not get too worried about hypothetical situations because they might never happen

But in reply to that example, I'd say it's sexist. I'd throw it open to everybody to see what they think, and what the action should be taken. "Don't be a cock" might be enough, then a series of warnings if it carried on, then a ban if they were to keep at it. Just like you would in a pub, you'd warn em then bar em. Let em go elsewhere and do that stuff, but don't let em here because it int fair on the drinkers / ranters.

[Fuck the Glazers]

Can I ask ,are all/ most of you season ticket holders for ManU ?

Is this a genuine Man U forum?

ok... pint... I did realise you were from the same ISP and you sort of let yourself down with your inability to use a comma.

I thought that might be Pint too

Why won't they just fuck off

This forum means too much to them

[Fuck the Glazers]

Why has Harry been let back in? He's acting like fuck all has happened. He's banned, he's just sneaking in the pub through the back entrance

Anyway, everybody needs to post and say what they want and don't want. Come on you twats. Sheesh, Alf, Senna, Max come on.

Then we need to make a list and make it sticky

[Robbo]

Harry that's why this thread is here to set guidelines it's pointless making analogys. The more who input here the better it will be, fine people need to use discretion and common sense and not take offense straight away that's what we are trying to do here.

[swampash]

Pikey makes a good point. A set of fixed 'rules' could be hard to implement. Perhaps we need a set of guiding principles instead, which then leaves scope for the mods to interpret?
Three things have fucked me off lately:
- hijacking a thread for the purpose of virtue-signalling
- lack of thread discipline - not sticking to the point of the thread
- a tendency for certain personal vendettas to get in the way of a proper thread debate

[FuB]

Pikey makes a good point. A set of fixed 'rules' could be hard to implement. Perhaps we need a set of guiding principles instead, which then leaves scope for the mods to interpret?
Three things have fucked me off lately:
- hijacking a thread for the purpose of virtue-signalling
- lack of thread discipline - not sticking to the point of the thread
- a tendency for certain personal vendettas to get in the way of a proper thread debate

Is there not scope for a hybrid of the two. There are surely some clear hard rules that could and should be implemented and, provided a subset of more flexible guidelines are agreed and applied in a consistent and fair manner, the two concepts don't need to be mutually exclusive.

re your bullet list:

1. people need to start using the post report facility and, if they really need to make a public issue of things, this should be made a new thread in off topic
2. would you concede that, as long as your other two points aren't violated, a certain degree of tangential conversation is ok and maybe even desirable in a thread, so long as the general theme takes centre stage?
3. enough people posted on this concept in the earlier thread bri started and I think the general consensus was "take it to off topic and bash your heads together in a new thread... or take it to PMs"

[Robbo]

Pikey makes a good point. A set of fixed 'rules' could be hard to implement. Perhaps we need a set of guiding principles instead, which then leaves scope for the mods to interpret?
Three things have fucked me off lately:
- hijacking a thread for the purpose of virtue-signalling
- lack of thread discipline - not sticking to the point of the thread
- a tendency for certain personal vendettas to get in the way of a proper thread debate

Points I mentioned in the Pogba thread if people want to slag each other do it in Off Topic maybe a Rant Fight Thread is needed again.

[Snoopcousins]

Can I ask ,are all/ most of you season ticket holders for ManU ?

Is this a genuine Man U forum?

Are you on a wind-up ?

[lkhmffsstopmovingabout]

tbf rants the least offensive its ever been yet has the least regular posters since ive been here

if the goal is a knockoff redcafe for cunts whove been baned from there might as well pack it in tbf