c0lz
North East Stand.
And you should know about that.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Harty SOCKS it to the NSC LICKERS (& Hyypia) in the Herald this week
- Thread starter Ernest
- Start date
And you should know about that.
Thank goodness - at last some common sense from someone whose comments can't be dismissed with that boring cry od 'Bedwetter'! I do not know about any thread being removed, so cannot / will not comment on that, but agree with all the rest.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
All I can report is four text messages and one 15 minute phone conversation - since 6.30pm yesterday evening.
Was that from Harty or the phone sex line you use to cheer yourself up whenever the Albion don't win at home?
Box of Frogs
Zamoras Left Boot
Certain threads suggests multiple threads when you state in fact only one thread has been deleted, and the reason why is was deleted has already been adequately explained.
He has exaggerated the scale of the so called censorship of threads to make it fit in with his ongoing criticism.
I hope this answers your question and I apologise for answering despite not being a moderator.
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
This bit. Why mention the club at all.
imissworthing2
New member
What thread was deleted then?
1. Despite saying that "I’m not for one minute suggesting that Paul Barber, or anyone else at the club is controlling or censoring the forum" he was very clearly sowing the seed of thought for his readers that the club do have an active hand in what content is allowed to stand on NSC, and is also responsible for trying to set an editorial tone. That was confirmed on Friday night when Harty revealed he had taken 2 added another 2 and come up with 739.
2. I'm not sure I even know what thread you are talking about. Regardless, the article mentioned 'threads'. Plural. There is a very clear indication that widespread censorship has been taking place when the fact is threads that are controversial are NEVER removed. You don't have to look very far on NSC to see that is the case. The only threads that are removed are those which could get either an NSC user, NSC and/or me into legal trouble. I may be slightly more conservative than some but for that I make no apology - it's my name that sits behind NSC. If you are happy to gamble with your own finances and the home of your children etc then go and set up your own site and allow all manner of potentially libellous content to be written. It's very easy to be reckless if you don't believe there is any risk to yourself.
The one about Paul Barber killing puppies and kittens to comply with FFP.
- Aug 8, 2005
- 27,217
[MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] I completely agree with your approach to running the forum. It's your forum and you can do exactly what you want and you do a brilliant job for which we are all very grateful. I am simply stating the facts as I know them as I feel that the whole thread has gone away from the original Ian Hart article.
You are correct in that only one thread vaguely relating to the subject was deleted. However we both know that the club and other clubs in general look at forums much more and libel action has been threatened against individual posters or yourself if anyone says anything libellous against anyone at the club. That is a fact and as a result I believe that to some degree means that a more conservative moderating outlook has to be taken. It doesn't mean widespread censorship has occured as Harty says he is not saying it has and neither am I but it does change things a little bit. We can argue over scale perhaps but surely you can't deny that in the last couple of years the probability of legal action from the club against this forum has increased. To say that doesn't change the way it is moderated to some degree is non sensical.
I said I didn't know what thread you were talking about and I still don't. I'll say it again (and again, if I have to): controversial content is not removed from NSC.
No, I don't believe moderating on NSC has changed at all. Potentially libellous stuff always has, does and always will be removed when known about.
I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse about this. We all know what...
"I'm not racist but..."
"I'm not saying all recruitment agents are tossers but..."
...really means, so we also know what...
"I’m not for one minute suggesting that Paul Barber, or anyone else at the club is controlling or censoring the forum but..."
...really means, particularly as Harty came out and stated it on Friday night - he believed the club steer content on NSC.
I'm getting very tired of trying to justify what surely must be one of the most transparently run forums that exists.
I disagree, I think we have always sought to be as liberal as possible in allowing people to post their views, subject to
(a) Our understanding of the libel laws (which are a bit hazy), which have been applied reasonably consistently, and
(b) The constraints put upon the board by Google Ads, which have been far more restrictive than anything to do with libel.
There have been times when we have had to be more zealous than others, such as 'Poogate', and it's of great credit to everyone on NSC that they, IMO, made our job as mods pretty straightforward in this regard.
Genuine LOL!
Mackenzie
Old Brightonian
Poogate, Harty and everything else you can remove/ban to your hearts content BUT whatever happened to a thread full of beautiful women? Now that was SUPERB.
NOOooooooo! Not that one!
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
Working class pride
Banned
- Feb 14, 2010
- 4,932
My two penneth:-
1. For the size o the support this club has always been able to command, BHA have to be the most unsuccessful club in the country with one Charity Shield in 1910 and one FA Cup final appearance in 1983.
2. Some Brighton fans like to be negative and hold Brighton to standards without true comparisons.For example I see some fans on here moaing that the club disclose tickets sold not bums on seats but they fail to mention that all other clubs do exactly the same. The also point out Brighton could get crowds of 14000 at times in the top flight in the early 80s. They fail to mention that at the same time Arsenal were getting 18000 at times and when palace dropped to the second tier they went down to 4000. I wish people would compare like with like.
3. The club went into serial decline from 1984 onwards, then there was Archer, the loss of the Goldstone, Gillingham and Withdean. The job Tony Bloom has done to put the club back to where it was in the 1970s means that Barber is right. The fans have nothing to moan about with the Chairman.
4. As for Barber. He doesnt buy the payers or pick the team and he does not kick a ball. The people who are at fault are (as usual with BHA) the players, managers and the director of football.
1. For the size o the support this club has always been able to command, BHA have to be the most unsuccessful club in the country with one Charity Shield in 1910 and one FA Cup final appearance in 1983.
2. Some Brighton fans like to be negative and hold Brighton to standards without true comparisons.For example I see some fans on here moaing that the club disclose tickets sold not bums on seats but they fail to mention that all other clubs do exactly the same. The also point out Brighton could get crowds of 14000 at times in the top flight in the early 80s. They fail to mention that at the same time Arsenal were getting 18000 at times and when palace dropped to the second tier they went down to 4000. I wish people would compare like with like.
3. The club went into serial decline from 1984 onwards, then there was Archer, the loss of the Goldstone, Gillingham and Withdean. The job Tony Bloom has done to put the club back to where it was in the 1970s means that Barber is right. The fans have nothing to moan about with the Chairman.
4. As for Barber. He doesnt buy the payers or pick the team and he does not kick a ball. The people who are at fault are (as usual with BHA) the players, managers and the director of football.
Cheshire Cat
The most curious thing..
I thought you had set up a shell company which actually owned NSC to protect yourself from this sort of thing. There used to be a note right at the bottom of the home page - something like "so and so ltd trading as NSC" (I've forgotten the actual details), but it disappeared after one of the upgrades.
Dorset Seagull
Once Dolphin, Now Seagull
Obviously it would appear that NSC is being more highly regulated because there have been a lot more high profile news stories in the last few months. Couple this with everybody being a bit more willing to take legal action then you are bound to see more censorship being applied.
We have entered a new era in terms of what can and can't be said on social media and NSC needs to be aware of this so it is actually self imposed censorship rather than someone from the outside wielding a big stick
We have entered a new era in terms of what can and can't be said on social media and NSC needs to be aware of this so it is actually self imposed censorship rather than someone from the outside wielding a big stick
We want Jamie back, unedited. Bet that was Barber's fault too.Poogate, Harty and everything else you can remove/ban to your hearts content BUT whatever happened to a thread full of beautiful women? Now that was SUPERB.