[Albion] GP: I think that anyone who criticises someone like Dan Burn doesn't understand football.

[Albion Dan]

Players know full well what happens on football social media forums and their clubs will brief and prep them too. If they then decide to look and don’t like what they see then it was their choice. If they had a look and can’t take it then they are certainly in the wrong job.

It’s always happened, it always will, it drives debate and conversation, and if it stops then the snowflakes have well and truly won.

 

[Easy 10]

Your observation is correct. Outright censorship is obviously wrong. But respectfully that’s not what we’re talking about. It’s more about thread titles that are hateful or incendiary and would give a false or sometimes horrific impression of our fan base.

“Hopefully the end of Connolly” with 100 odd pages. For an honest young player starting his career, I’m sure most agree is clearly a disgraceful title. Now maybe only the first opening post is hateful.. but an outsider would just see the topic top of the forum and assume the 100 odd posts are mainly in favour.

That’s all some of us requested. Rename some of these horrific titles.

Usually the OP chooses a thread title that grabs attention, so it doesn't just sink down the board. Kind of like a red-top tabloid hack, putting up (in this day and age) incendiary clickbait in the hope of getting a big reaction.

If a player clicked on a title such as "Hopefully the end of Connolly", he'd see as many supportive posts on here attacking the OP's post, if not more, as he would the negative stuff.

He's a footballer in the public eye, and EVERY fan will have an opinion. If he'd come on here after his game last season against Spurs then he'd have seen posts comparing him to being the new Michael Owen. Its called taking the rough with the smooth, and every player must learn to cope with it.

I omit personal abuse from this, particularly on Twitter / Instagram as people can @ message them directly for them to see it. But a football forum like this - if they log on, they're going to have to expect to see a wide spectrum of opinions, and it ain't all going to be sugar-coated. Thats just the nature of the beast.

 

[Bry Nylon]

Usually the OP chooses a thread title that grabs attention, so it doesn't just sink down the board. Kind of like a red-top tabloid hack, putting up (in this day and age) incendiary clickbait in the hope of getting a big reaction.

If a player clicked on a title such as "Hopefully the end of Connolly", he'd see as many supportive posts on here attacking the OP's post, if not more, as he would the negative stuff.

He's a footballer in the public eye, and EVERY fan will have an opinion. If he'd come on here after his game last season against Spurs then he'd have seen posts comparing him to being the new Michael Owen. Its called taking the rough with the smooth, and every player must learn to cope with it.

I omit personal abuse from this, particularly on Twitter / Instagram as people can @ message them directly for them to see it. But a football forum like this - if they log on, they're going to have to expect to see a wide spectrum of opinions, and it ain't all going to be sugar-coated. Thats just the nature of the beast.

Wise words Easy.

But I fear they will be wasted here. Expect to be quoted the number of "likes" for the opposing view to yours, which I know will be wasted on you as you never even check your NSC notifications. Imagine living in a world where you don't require validation of your every waking thought?!

 

[vagabond]

Usually the OP chooses a thread title that grabs attention, so it doesn't just sink down the board. Kind of like a red-top tabloid hack, putting up (in this day and age) incendiary clickbait in the hope of getting a big reaction.

If a player clicked on a title such as "Hopefully the end of Connolly", he'd see as many supportive posts on here attacking the OP's post, if not more, as he would the negative stuff.

He's a footballer in the public eye, and EVERY fan will have an opinion. If he'd come on here after his game last season against Spurs then he'd have seen posts comparing him to being the new Michael Owen. Its called taking the rough with the smooth, and every player must learn to cope with it.

I omit personal abuse from this, particularly on Twitter / Instagram as people can @ message them directly for them to see it. But a football forum like this - if they log on, they're going to have to expect to see a wide spectrum of opinions, and it ain't all going to be sugar-coated. Thats just the nature of the beast.

You make some good points, it is a tricky one to resolve. I don’t think there is a right answer. Maybe not generally, but some titles, and again the extreme example “Hopefully the end of Connolly” do seem to cross a line though.

I think the club are correct to take Aaron of Social Media and tbh if I were in charge of a club I wouldn’t want any of my players on there.

 

[Silverhatch]

Really wanted BDB to be thrown up front (at various times this season) but he is SHIT @ finishing.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

Usually the OP chooses a thread title that grabs attention, so it doesn't just sink down the board. Kind of like a red-top tabloid hack, putting up (in this day and age) incendiary clickbait in the hope of getting a big reaction.

I agree with everything else you’ve written so am genuinely interested to hear if you think that a thread title like that should be allowed?

IMHO, it’s incredibly shitty and crosses the line of giving a player stick. It’s far too emotive.

 

[Easy 10]

Wise words Easy.

But I fear they will be wasted here. Expect to be quoted the number of "likes" for the opposing view to yours, which I know will be wasted on you as you never even check your NSC notifications. Imagine living in a world where you don't require validation of your every waking thought?!

I'm not a 'likes' person, although I do now pop a few out as an acknowledgement. And I'm always interested if someones quoted me, just to see what they've replied of course. But gathering 'likes' or 'thumbsups' is for the birds. There is a particular place in Hell reserved for those posters who back up their argument by saying "well I MUST be right - look at all the LIKES I got"

I mean honestly. And yes, I have seen that on here.

 

[Easy 10]

I agree with everything else you’ve written so am genuinely interested to hear if you think that a thread title like that should be allowed?

IMHO, it’s incredibly shitty and crosses the line of giving a player stick. It’s far too emotive.

Yes I do think it should be allowed. Its shitty and emotive and got called out, but if its not outright abusive or racist then I don't want to see that level of censorship on NSC. As said earlier, on the offchance that Connolly went into that thread, he'd have seen more support for him and people defending him than people abusing him or digging him out, and I'd hope he's intelligent enough to appreciate that opinion swings both ways, particularly online where things can get very polarised.

If someone is going to put up a thread title like the one you refer to, then they'd better be prepared to stand ground and back it up with a decent well-reasoned argument, or you just end up looking like an utter tit.

 

[Easy 10]

I've mentioned this before, but I had a mild spat with David Stockdale on Twitter a few years back after we'd been humped 0-3 at home to Middlesbrough. On the way home from the game he was 'liking' and 'retweeting' various tweets that were moaning about the defence in front of him giving him no protection, effectively absolving him of any blame for the goals. I replied to one of his retweets, saying something along the lines of "not great throwing your team-mates under the bus, chap". He replied (within seconds) saying something like "oh well I suppose I'll just take all the blame again then". I replied with something along the lines of "thats not what I said", but damage was done. And having seen some of his other activity on that platform, he laps up the praise but is very, VERY sensitive to anything that criticises. He's had a few truly embarrassing run-ins with Birmingham fans after he went there.

I guess the point is some players are very thin-skinned and react to seeing criticism of their performances poorly. If Connolly is one of those then its best he comes off social media. But that doesn't mean we, as fans, are not allowed to discuss him in positive AND negative terms on forums such as this. You draw the line at abuse, but anything else is fair game as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Bry Nylon]

There is a particular place in Hell reserved for those posters who back up their argument by saying "well I MUST be right - look at all the LIKES I got"

I mean honestly. And yes, I have seen that on here.

I agree, it is especially sad and needy; but right now I can't think of a specific example. If I can, I'll be back to you.

 

[vagabond]

I'm not a 'likes' person, although I do now pop a few out as an acknowledgement. And I'm always interested if someones quoted me, just to see what they've replied of course. But gathering 'likes' or 'thumbsups' is for the birds. There is a particular place in Hell reserved for those posters who back up their argument by saying "well I MUST be right - look at all the LIKES I got"

I mean honestly. And yes, I have seen that on here.

I agree.

 

[Lethargic]

Criticism is not the issue so much as the delivery and nature of the criticism. BDB had a dreadful game against Wolves and highlighting that is part of football but to add the personal attacks is bollox.

That said anyone that criticised him should be calling him out in the last couple of games for his strength of character and excellent performances.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

Yes I do think it should be allowed. Its shitty and emotive and got called out, but if its not outright abusive or racist then I don't want to see that level of censorship on NSC. As said earlier, on the offchance that Connolly went into that thread, he'd have seen more support for him and people defending him than people abusing him or digging him out, and I'd hope he's intelligent enough to appreciate that opinion swings both ways, particularly online where things can get very polarised.

If someone is going to put up a thread title like the one you refer to, then they'd better be prepared to stand ground and back it up with a decent well-reasoned argument, or you just end up looking like an utter tit.

Fair enough. That does assume he sees the thread and reads it. You could easily assume he’d read the title and think sod that. IMO it’s also not really about how the person putting the stuff up comes across - I doubt they give a shit. Not to mention that they’re anonymous. It’s more about the toxicity and malignancy that potentially filters (whether consciously or subconscious) from a headline like that.

 

[BNthree]

Yes I do think it should be allowed. Its shitty and emotive and got called out, but if its not outright abusive or racist then I don't want to see that level of censorship on NSC. As said earlier, on the offchance that Connolly went into that thread, he'd have seen more support for him and people defending him than people abusing him or digging him out, and I'd hope he's intelligent enough to appreciate that opinion swings both ways, particularly online where things can get very polarised.

If someone is going to put up a thread title like the one you refer to, then they'd better be prepared to stand ground and back it up with a decent well-reasoned argument, or you just end up looking like an utter tit.

I’d much rather there was criticism of players on a forum like NSC, which really is tucked away and won’t be seen unless looking for it, than people posting on Twitter then tagging the players’ accounts so it gets seen by the players. Connolly deleted his Twitter account after the Spurs game as he was getting so much grief. He’s not going to get a notification on his phone every time someone criticises him on NSC.

 

[BNthree]

I agree.

Err? On the olive branch thread you posted about how many likes you got to try to prove you were right?

 

[BN9 BHA]

I agree.

Yes, he means you

 

[Swansman]

I've mentioned this before, but I had a mild spat with David Stockdale on Twitter a few years back after we'd been humped 0-3 at home to Middlesbrough. On the way home from the game he was 'liking' and 'retweeting' various tweets that were moaning about the defence in front of him giving him no protection, effectively absolving him of any blame for the goals. I replied to one of his retweets, saying something along the lines of "not great throwing your team-mates under the bus, chap". He replied (within seconds) saying something like "oh well I suppose I'll just take all the blame again then". I replied with something along the lines of "thats not what I said", but damage was done. And having seen some of his other activity on that platform, he laps up the praise but is very, VERY sensitive to anything that criticises. He's had a few truly embarrassing run-ins with Birmingham fans after he went there.

I guess the point is some players are very thin-skinned and react to seeing criticism of their performances poorly. If Connolly is one of those then its best he comes off social media. But that doesn't mean we, as fans, are not allowed to discuss him in positive AND negative terms on forums such as this. You draw the line at abuse, but anything else is fair game as far as I'm concerned.

Telling a 21 year old to "come off social media" in 2020 is like telling some mine worker in the 1960s to stop drinking alcohol. While it would certainly be wise and healthy, its also not that easy. As for the "you draw the line at abuse", that's just what the discussion is or should be about - where do you draw the line? Its very subjective, and the mods decide. Usually I think they got it right, I like when the ceiling is high. Plenty thought the Connolly thread was over the line, I am one of them - the "Adam Webster is not a defender", "Solly March is not a defender" stuff is one thing, "Hopefully the end of Connolly" is another, if you ask me. But its all pretty subjective, I dont know where to draw the line.

The one thing I know though is that plenty of loudmouthed people with anger issues are quick to join the "we really should think about mental health/stop abusing people/Twitter should ban this lot" whenever we read about a young man or woman killing/harming himself/herself due to online bullying while in the next breath go some distance to defend their own right to push someone down a dark hole or participate in some herd minded abuse. Only in this thread there is plenty of people saying "if you cant cope with it, dont be come a footballer". I think many just dont quite grasp that all footballers are humans and not some kind of NPC appearing on TV to please them.

 

[herecomesaregular]

I agree that some thread titles should be changed by mods. Not the content of the OP but the title. It's happened before hasn't it?

 

[Easy 10]

Telling a 21 year old to "come off social media" in 2020 is like telling some mine worker in the 1960s to stop drinking alcohol. While it would certainly be wise and healthy, its also not that easy. As for the "you draw the line at abuse", that's just what the discussion is or should be about - where do you draw the line? Its very subjective, and the mods decide. Usually I think they got it right, I like when the ceiling is high. Plenty thought the Connolly thread was over the line, I am one of them - the "Adam Webster is not a defender", "Solly March is not a defender" stuff is one thing, "Hopefully the end of Connolly" is another, if you ask me. But its all pretty subjective, I dont know where to draw the line.

The one thing I know though is that plenty of loudmouthed people with anger issues are quick to join the "we really should think about mental health/stop abusing people/Twitter should ban this lot" whenever we read about a young man or woman killing/harming himself/herself due to online bullying while in the next breath go some distance to defend their own right to push someone down a dark hole or participate in some herd minded abuse. Only in this thread there is plenty of people saying "if you cant cope with it, dont be come a footballer". I think many just dont quite grasp that all footballers are humans and not some kind of NPC appearing on TV to please them.

I don't disagree with what you say. But there is a massive difference between Twitter and NSC, they can't just both be lumped into the 'social media' box in the same way. If you have a Twitter account, you are choosing to give a portal to everyone else on that platform to contact you directly with messages, that everyone else see's and can reply to as well.

NSC is just an echo chamber. Sure the same kind of loons inhabit it and post their shite, but you'd have to actively go and LOOK for it. This place is easily avoidable. In fact, as a footballer you'd have to be something of a narcissist to come on here to see what people are saying about you anyway. If Connolly doesn't want to see unkind words written in threads and thread titles here, then simple answer - don't log on. But I bet if he scored a hattrick tomorrow, he'd be tempted to take a peek.

The point being - unless its outright filthy abuse or racism, then posters should be able to express an opinion on here without it being diluted or removed in case some oversensitive players decide to log on for a gander. They are not the ones who use this forum, so they don't get to (indirectly) dictate what can and can't be said about them. This isn't a cheerleading club for players - if they've been shite, then they can expect to see some vinegar on here. Whether they choose to read it is their lookout.

 

[b.w.2.]

At least I can think for myself...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk