Does NSC Need A 'Vulnerable Posters' Policy?

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

In the olden days of NSC, few of us knew anything about each other. Nowadays, within a month of joining, posters have links to their medical records in their signature. Things have changed.

IMHO that Falkor thread should have been closed down earlydoors. NSC should have bowed out as soon as it was established that the professionals were involved and the fellow had a couple of trusted friends looking after them. Likewise, martyn20 has been allowed to post in extremis such that he's getting far more grief than he deserves and hs drifted so far into unknown territory that he's actually registered on NSP where he'll find it a far rougher ride than NSC would ever give him.

Seems to me clear that NSC needs a policy towards vulnerable posters, to protect both the poster and the forum. Who knows what random less than supportive post will be the one that tips a vulnerable poster over the edge and lead to 'sick internet ghouls' charges. And possible criminal charges.

Thoughts?

 

[00snook]

An interesting idea, but raises many questions.

Who decides if a poster is vulnerable?

Why should somebody who lays their life out for all to see on a public internet forum be protected (nobody is forced to post on here after all)?

Very hard to police imo.

 

[Titus]

We're all vulnerable in one way or another.

 

[WildWood]

Imagine policing that in the aftermath of last seasons home defeat to our inbred fire starters up the road, we would have needed more Mods than we had posters!

I think it would need to be handled with extreme care. Who's to say that just "locking" a thread in the middle of someone's cry for help doesn't have a potentially disastrous effect also?

 

[Titus]

How about we ban Tom Hark to help him with his 34,000 post NSC addiction?

 

[Garage_Doors]

Been on here for some years now and still don't anyone on except my son on here.
And i go to every home game ! (and some aways )

 

[smeariestbat]

to be fair, its a public internet forum, bozza and the mods close threads when they put the site in jeopardy, not if someone says something a bit silly and then gets reminded how silly their post is. yes some people take it too far, but take it with a pinch of salt. this is not real life. If the mods closed every thread where someone was likely to be offended then there wouldnt be any site left. And that is what would have to happen, as who are we to judge who is 'vulnerable'. It takes teams of social workers, doctors and other professionals to judge if someone is vulnerable out in the real world, so you would need to close evry thread that went south in case the person is vulnerable.

 

[Rugrat]

binfest alert!!

 

[Steve.S]

I must admit i have seen some people on here get a rough ride. Maybe you could argue that maybe someone steps in and shuts thread to safe these people from themselves.

 

[Wozza]

And a register for attention-seekers?

 

[Titus]

Been on here for some years now and still don't anyone on except my son on here.
And i go to every home game ! (and some aways )

You still don't make sense either.

 

[Muhammed - I’m hard - Bruce Lee]

Been on here for some years now and still don't anyone on except my son on here.
And i go to every home game ! (and some aways )

you stood behind me at liverpool

 

[junior]

Simple, limit new posters to 5 posts per day for the first 6/12months until they start to understand how this place works. That way we wouldnt have had to listen to half that crap [MENTION=25154]martyn20[/MENTION] has posted and people like [MENTION=21578]Worthingite[/MENTION] and [MENTION=20728]Lady Gull[/MENTION] would not even be on peoples radars.

 

[Return of the Rev]

In the olden days of NSC, few of us knew anything about each other. Nowadays, within a month of joining, posters have links to their medical records in their signature. Things have changed.

IMHO that Falkor thread should have been closed down earlydoors. NSC should have bowed out as soon as it was established that the professionals were involved and the fellow had a couple of trusted friends looking after them. Likewise, martyn20 has been allowed to post in extremis such that he's getting far more grief than he deserves and hs drifted so far into unknown territory that he's actually registered on NSP where he'll find it a far rougher ride than NSC would ever give him.

Seems to me clear that NSC needs a policy towards vulnerable posters, to protect both the poster and the forum. Who knows what random less than supportive post will be the one that tips a vulnerable poster over the edge and lead to 'sick internet ghouls' charges. And possible criminal charges.

Thoughts?

Or just get rid of the bullies?

 

[hitony]

to be fair, its a public internet forum, bozza and the mods close threads when they put the site in jeopardy, not if someone says something a bit silly and then gets reminded how silly their post is. yes some people take it too far, but take it with a pinch of salt. this is not real life. If the mods closed every thread where someone was likely to be offended then there wouldnt be any site left. And that is what would have to happen, as who are we to judge who is 'vulnerable'. It takes teams of social workers, doctors and other professionals to judge if someone is vulnerable out in the real world, so you would need to close evry thread that went south in case the person is vulnerable.

THIS!!!!! It is a messageboard. Your post above is just so spot on!

 

[Billy the Fish]

In the olden days of NSC, few of us knew anything about each other. Nowadays, within a month of joining, posters have links to their medical records in their signature. Things have changed.

IMHO that Falkor thread should have been closed down earlydoors. NSC should have bowed out as soon as it was established that the professionals were involved and the fellow had a couple of trusted friends looking after them. Likewise, martyn20 has been allowed to post in extremis such that he's getting far more grief than he deserves and hs drifted so far into unknown territory that he's actually registered on NSP where he'll find it a far rougher ride than NSC would ever give him.

Seems to me clear that NSC needs a policy towards vulnerable posters, to protect both the poster and the forum. Who knows what random less than supportive post will be the one that tips a vulnerable poster over the edge and lead to 'sick internet ghouls' charges. And possible criminal charges.

Thoughts?

I think it should be the complete opposite.

Everyone should be treated the same regardless of race, religion, mental health or disability. Opening an account on NSC is like being born - we all start in the same way and start on a level playing field. If you create a persona that you're not happy with and feel it doesn't reflect the kind of person you'd like it to then everyone has the ability to change that persona, or to be re-born.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Simple, limit new posters to 5 posts per day for the first 6/12months until they start to understand how this place works. That way we wouldnt have had to listen to half that crap [MENTION=25154]martyn20[/MENTION] has posted and people like [MENTION=21578]Worthingite[/MENTION] and [MENTION=20728]Lady Gull[/MENTION] would not even be on peoples radars.

LOL.

Patronising in the extreme. How, pray tell, does NSC 'work'?

You could always use the ignore function, or just Don't click on a thread?

In answer to the OP, no, I don't think it needs a 'vulnerable posters' policy. We are all adults, people come here for numerous reasons - and some get a lot out of it apart from football chat. If you don't like a thread, stop reading it, or don't click on it in the first place. Alongside the criticism, people, as we have seen, get a lot of support on here when they need it.

Anyway, I'm off to confession - I've exceeded my 20 posts a day limit, which I believe is frowned upon on here, especially for people that haven't been part of the furniture for 18 months or more

 

[rool]

There is a bit of personal responsibility required on both sides too.

Yes, the 'vulnerable' posters need to take a step back and not take things so seriously. On the flip slide there are a regular pool of posters who will hijack any threads or posts by these with the sole aim of provoking the inevitable reactions.

 

[hitony]

There is a bit of personal responsibility required on both sides too.

Yes, the 'vulnerable' posters need to take a step back and not take things so seriously. On the flip slide there are a regular pool of posters who will hijack any threads or posts by these with the sole aim of provoking the inevitable reactions.

More sensible posting whats gone wrong with NSC!!!!