Please, please, please just think a little before you post

[LamieRobertson]

It's good to have alternative chat on NSC but I really don't want bozza to have to close this site down because someone says something silly. When NSC get suspended, I actually feel lost.
This site is my Albion lifeline whilst I am not at The Amex, so we all need to look after it.

Seconded

 

[Mowgli37]

The mods all do a fantastic job making NSC the very best it can be and it's always frustrating when idiots think they can write whatever crap they want and get away with it. I do agree though that some may not be too certain on where the line is, could screenshots of the posts which caused the offence possibly be provided as an example of what not to write?

 

[Arthur]

Where were people asked to speculate on it?

Well if that wasn't your intention why post it on here?

 

[Norman Potting]

I similarly felt bereft when I saw the NSC closed message early this morning. And that is genuine - not sarcastic.

I appreciate the freedom on here, prefer to put up with the idiots rather than "ignore" anyone, hope that I am not one of the idiots at any point, butwould not be unhappy if it was felt the mods should be a bit more stringent...........

.......... as long as it doesn't interfere with the Infinite Jukebox.

I'm with you on that DiS, don't lose the 'box!

 

[Goldstone1976]

The mods all do a fantastic job making NSC the very best it can be and it's always frustrating when idiots think they can write whatever crap they want and get away with it. I do agree though that some may not be too certain on where the line is, could screenshots of the posts which caused the offence possibly be provided as an example of what not to write?

Nope. That would simply be repeating the libel. It would be the same as retweeting a libellous comment which cost Sally Bercow and Alan Davies a lot of money when they were sued by Lord McAlpine.

 

[Mowgli37]

Nope. That would simply be repeating the libel. It would be the same as retweeting a libellous comment which cost Sally Bercow and Alan Davies a lot of money when they were sued by Lord McAlpine.

Fair enough, just a suggestion

 

[Diego Napier]

Albion fans have a long and proud history of not being afraid to ask the difficult questions of those in the privileged position of running what is our football club, and NSC has been a big part of that. Without this approach, there might not be a Brighton & Hove Albion around for us all to support today. As such, as long as I'm involved in NSC, I will always try to ensure this forum allows discussion and debate to be conducted with a very light moderating touch.

There is a line however, and that line is crossed when people stray into libellous territory because that causes me grief. And when I'm in bed, naked (hold that thought) at 11pm on a Sunday night quietly watching MotD2, I could do without that grief.

That grief for me, however, could be nothing compared to the grief for you if you've posted something libellous and the subject of that libel is particularly litigious. Some people and organisations will have deeper pockets than you so facing them in court is likely to be an uncomfortable experience.

So criticise all you like - constructively if you can and pass all the opinion you care to, but please try to refrain from making unsubstantiated accusations, because it might not end well.

It's been my unfortunate fate share a similarly invidious position as you Bozza, just over a year ago in fact.

The problem is that you start off thinking that a particular course of action is going to be effective but it turns out that it's a very slippery slope that you're on. One thing leads to another, you end up doing things you'd never dreamed of and the situation becomes more and more extreme. You've no idea of the particular lengths I've gone to in order to extricate myself from what's become a horrendously sticky scenario.

If I had my time a gain I'd rather cut off my right arm than chose to revive my interest in MotD2 by watching it naked.

 

[El Presidente]

Well if that wasn't your intention why post it on here?

Fair point, but I had censored it by putting asterisks instead of names. It was taken verbatim from Red Issue, the Manchester United Fanzine.

 

[TSB]

 

[brakespear]

Perhaps if you'd been wearing pyjamas, it might have helped?

It would certainly have helped everybody reading this thread who are now requiring large bottles of brain bleach to remove certain unpleasant mental images

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Where were people asked to speculate on it?

Well if that wasn't your intention why post it on here?

Exactly. I think it's a very safe bet to suggest that thread was involved, and even if it wasn't, it was CLEARLY inappropriate.

Fair point, but I had censored it by putting asterisks instead of names. It was taken verbatim from Red Issue, the Manchester United Fanzine.

That is fantastically irrelevant isn't it? It doesn't matter where it comes from, if you re-post it then it's on your head is it not?

 

[maltaseagull]

TBF (and I guess there are many exceptions) but I'm not sure many of us would know where the line was.

It's not black and white, so for example something said that causes someone offence isn't necessarily libellous but the individual or entity that was the subject of such a statement might believe it to be so and respond with the threat of action.

It's highly complex and also subjective, in the extreme it's pretty obvious but the closer to the line the more difficult it gets.

Policing, and even more, knowing when to make a stand in the defence of "freedom to express a view" must be a nightmare

Agreed, but surely, if in doubt -don't post should be easy to follow for us all?

 

[Garage_Doors]

Telly in the bedroom is the ultimate chavdom for me.

Bedrooms are for sleeping/sex/*******, not watching TV.
Leaving watching TV in the Lounge. Have some class.

 

[Bozza]

Telly in the bedroom is the ultimate chavdom for me.

Bedrooms are for sleeping/sex/*******, not watching TV.
Leaving watching TV in the Lounge. Have some class.

I agree, and I don't have a television in the bedroom.

I was watching on my iPad mini via the iPlayer app. Apologies for omitting this detail.

 

[Garage_Doors]

I agree, and I don't have a television in the bedroom.

I was watching on my iPad mini via the iPlayer app. Apologies for omitting this detail.

Thank god for that, your stature has been restored

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Obviously the screen shot repeat is a non starter, but could it be re-post but by changing the names so that we all can properly understand this breach? I'm clear on a libelous "John Doe has a very small pen1s" kind of statement if I cannot prove the size of said member" but I'd appreciate sight of the offending passage in this incident to help me [all of us?] see exactly how the line has been crossed. And would it be acceptable to say "It is alleged that John Doe has a very small pen1s" or is this no better?

 

[Pevenseagull]

Yes, those discussions have been had.

phew, I thought I might have caused trouble with my 'goat sex' comments

 

[jakarta]

I similarly felt bereft when I saw the NSC closed message early this morning. And that is genuine - not sarcastic.

I appreciate the freedom on here, prefer to put up with the idiots rather than "ignore" anyone, hope that I am not one of the idiots at any point, butwould not be unhappy if it was felt the mods should be a bit more stringent...........

.......... as long as it doesn't interfere with the Infinite Jukebox.

All of this - cannot get by without my daily NSC!

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I think the whole situation could have been avoided if I began the sentence with "in my opinion"

I don't know if that's a watertight escape clause- you'd have to ask someone who knows about libel legislation.

But- hypothetically speaking of course- perhaps if, rather than stating unequivocally that someone wasn't telling the truth, you wrote that you didn't believe them. That might be a more acceptable way of expressing your sentiments, because it is quite clearly a personal opinion, and not a statement of fact pertaining to that individual.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Obviously the screen shot repeat is a non starter, but could it be re-post but by changing the names so that we all can properly understand this breach? I'm clear on a libelous "John Doe has a very small pen1s" kind of statement if I cannot prove the size of said member" but I'd appreciate sight of the offending passage in this incident to help me [all of us?] see exactly how the line has been crossed. And would it be acceptable to say "It is alleged that John Doe has a very small pen1s" or is this no better?

If I'm right one of the posts ( not by Mustafa) was along the lines of 'Blue Valkyrie is a liar'.