EthicalScottishFitba
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: guest19 on November 24, 2020, 06:54:29 pm
-
Who won it on here last year?
Not sure.
-
Who won it on here last year?
-
Is that mince on this board as well? Is there nothing original on here? 😂😂
Think I'll take flight before then, it's boring.
Relax. There is zero chance of you willing ROTY this year.
-
A right Mr cranky pants today.
-
Is that mince on this board as well? Is there nothing original on here? 😂😂
Think I'll take flight before then, it's boring.
-
Soon be time for the roaster award again.
-
Would all this not have been solved months ago if Coyne had just carried out his threat to phone AJs boss? 😂😂😂
-
Aye welcome back Hardliner .
Good to see you back posting the place is better with you here.
-
Glad you admitted AJ was wrong for posting names. You are made of strong stuff so good to see you back over here posting
Let's move on
-
The following is my take on the events of 21st November. It has already been released to several media outlets including AJ's board and contacts via phone.
A post was made by AJ which I was lead to believe contained Coyne's surname. An automatic ban was given to AJ, with a poll being started giving posters a choice as to the ban's duration. The post said that doxing was an automatic ban. I didn't know what had been said in the offending post at this point, and was willing to go along with admin in what seemed to be an isolated case. I'd always found Peter to be decent over the years and had even met him on Arran recently when by coincidence we were at the same hotel. I had no reason to question his judgement.
Having then been told by the alleged perpetrator what the post was, it wasn't really obvious that it was a doxing at all. The post was made in such a manner that if it indeed was the alleged victim's surname, then only he would know what was meant, but was put in such a way that any 'neutral' wouldn't have had a clue what the post was getting at, as it was presented as being the answer to a rather innocuous question. Whether it was an attempt to dox Coyne, annoy him, make him know he had info on him or even just a completely honest coincidence will only by known by AJ.
It was then commented by Mo that there should also be a 'no ban' poll option. It was clear at this stage that none of the 'righties' had voted in the existing poll, meaning that adding 'no ban' as an option would have lead to it winning. Even starting the poll again may have lead to this as those advocating a ban were split on it's duration. However, instead of adding an option or creating a new 4 option poll, an additional poll was created titled 'secondary amendment motion' in which the posters were asked whether doxing should be an automatic ban. The posters voted that it should be.
Whether Peter ran the polls this way to ensure AJ was banned or not is something only he'll know. I can't read his mind, but I've always considered him a man of high moral fibre, hence why I was delighted to be involved in this board in the first place.
However, a game changing curveball from the left flank was then thrown as evidence emerged of the alleged victim Coyne having directly doxed the poster Noah several times in the past. Now, it's unclear as to whether Noah posts on this board or not, but he is a poster who people know and who Coyne and many others believed to be posting as VoiceOfReason at the times of the doxings. As it stands, I do not know for sure whether VOR is Noah or not.
With a poll having already determined that doxing results in an automatic ban, you'd think it'd be clear that the only question to be asked would be how long Coyne's ban would be for? Or whether it would be several bans in succession, given that the doxings took place several times? Unfortunately and unethically, it would seem not. A third poll was then created, asking us to determine whether Coyne should be banned or not, completely ignoring the settled will of the board with regards to doxing bans in general.
As well as this, AJ's profession had been doxed not long after I registered here.
The final result was that AJ was banned for a month and Coyne let off scot free.
It's a shame how this has transpired, as I'll admit that I am emotionally invested in this board. It seemed like a good project, a chance for me to catch up with old posters and was great banter at times. I loved forming allies and the back and forth with 'opponents' such as Coyne, Rambo and Baird's Bar.. it was all part of the game. It was also a pleasure to see Rambo get obviously angry and agitated over the issue of the Queen's duties, an achievement I'll always be proud of. Claiming our opponents are being inconsistent, trying too hard, dancing to your tune, or of course, simply rattled was all part of the enjoyable game too, but we'd also have other random topics we discuss, adding to the depth. I especially enjoyed chatting about Neil Armstrong with Buc, for example. I was actively looking to introduce new posters and help it grow and had even introduced two already, although admittedly, one of them hadn't actually posted!
So bearing all of the above in mind, I've been left feeling rather deflated. I just don't feel compelled to post just now, nor can I refer to it as the ethical board in good faith. It seemed to me that the rules only applied to one side, and whether this was done by admin or by posters via voting.. it's still not ethical. Taking it too seriously? Not half as serious as those who were desperate to ban AJ in the first place. Hopefully things change but we'll see what happens.
I can't speak for those who are cut from the same cloth as me, but I feel that acknowledgment of the double standards shown would be a start to repairing the sense of injustice that is currently being felt by some.
No matter how this ends up, the 21st November 2020 will go down in message board history. My only fear is that unless this is dealt with properly, the only winners will be those on the board ran by 'Faniel' who'll be chortling and gloating away.
**STATEMENT ENDS AND HARDLINER CLIMBS INTO THE WAITING LIMO AS THE PRESS JOSTLE FOR POSITION**
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/3/28/1301315295165/Media-scrums-are-a-featur-007.jpg?width=445&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=7b5763d3cc014e03ade3d9de1c07ded2)
Evening Hardliner,
AJ crossed a line, he knows it but won’t admit it, he himself said he draws a line at names and addresses, but crossed that line.
It’s creepy that he knows my real details, very creepy.
It’s also worth noting, whenever there is messageboard “aggro”....AJ has always been at the centre of it.
Btw, you buns don’t half like a long winded statement about phuck all 😉
-
One more thing I must make clear, there was no organised boycott by AJ. We are taking whatever action we decide individually.
An acknowledgement of double standards would help repair things massively IMO.
#RightsForRighties
-
Good to see you back and posting Hardliner.
If the guests have read my post earlier today on the AJ thread (and I don’t doubt that they have) they will see that I have admitted errors for my part.
If that’s not good enough then I have no more to offer the faction, the leader of which has taken no responsibility whatsoever for his conduct.
-
Eff reading all that sh***. Good to see you back though mr panty.
-
TL:DR
-
The following is my take on the events of 21st November. It has already been released to several media outlets including AJ's board and contacts via phone.
A post was made by AJ which I was lead to believe contained Coyne's surname. An automatic ban was given to AJ, with a poll being started giving posters a choice as to the ban's duration. The post said that doxing was an automatic ban. I didn't know what had been said in the offending post at this point, and was willing to go along with admin in what seemed to be an isolated case. I'd always found Peter to be decent over the years and had even met him on Arran recently when by coincidence we were at the same hotel. I had no reason to question his judgement.
Having then been told by the alleged perpetrator what the post was, it wasn't really obvious that it was a doxing at all. The post was made in such a manner that if it indeed was the alleged victim's surname, then only he would know what was meant, but was put in such a way that any 'neutral' wouldn't have had a clue what the post was getting at, as it was presented as being the answer to a rather innocuous question. Whether it was an attempt to dox Coyne, annoy him, make him know he had info on him or even just a completely honest coincidence will only by known by AJ.
It was then commented by Mo that there should also be a 'no ban' poll option. It was clear at this stage that none of the 'righties' had voted in the existing poll, meaning that adding 'no ban' as an option would have lead to it winning. Even starting the poll again may have lead to this as those advocating a ban were split on it's duration. However, instead of adding an option or creating a new 4 option poll, an additional poll was created titled 'secondary amendment motion' in which the posters were asked whether doxing should be an automatic ban. The posters voted that it should be.
Whether Peter ran the polls this way to ensure AJ was banned or not is something only he'll know. I can't read his mind, but I've always considered him a man of high moral fibre, hence why I was delighted to be involved in this board in the first place.
However, a game changing curveball from the left flank was then thrown as evidence emerged of the alleged victim Coyne having directly doxed the poster Noah several times in the past. Now, it's unclear as to whether Noah posts on this board or not, but he is a poster who people know and who Coyne and many others believed to be posting as VoiceOfReason at the times of the doxings. As it stands, I do not know for sure whether VOR is Noah or not.
With a poll having already determined that doxing results in an automatic ban, you'd think it'd be clear that the only question to be asked would be how long Coyne's ban would be for? Or whether it would be several bans in succession, given that the doxings took place several times? Unfortunately and unethically, it would seem not. A third poll was then created, asking us to determine whether Coyne should be banned or not, completely ignoring the settled will of the board with regards to doxing bans in general.
As well as this, AJ's profession had been doxed not long after I registered here.
The final result was that AJ was banned for a month and Coyne let off scot free.
It's a shame how this has transpired, as I'll admit that I am emotionally invested in this board. It seemed like a good project, a chance for me to catch up with old posters and was great banter at times. I loved forming allies and the back and forth with 'opponents' such as Coyne, Rambo and Baird's Bar.. it was all part of the game. It was also a pleasure to see Rambo get obviously angry and agitated over the issue of the Queen's duties, an achievement I'll always be proud of. Claiming our opponents are being inconsistent, trying too hard, dancing to your tune, or of course, simply rattled was all part of the enjoyable game too, but we'd also have other random topics we discuss, adding to the depth. I especially enjoyed chatting about Neil Armstrong with Buc, for example. I was actively looking to introduce new posters and help it grow and had even introduced two already, although admittedly, one of them hadn't actually posted!
So bearing all of the above in mind, I've been left feeling rather deflated. I just don't feel compelled to post just now, nor can I refer to it as the ethical board in good faith. It seemed to me that the rules only applied to one side, and whether this was done by admin or by posters via voting.. it's still not ethical. Taking it too seriously? Not half as serious as those who were desperate to ban AJ in the first place. Hopefully things change but we'll see what happens.
I can't speak for those who are cut from the same cloth as me, but I feel that acknowledgment of the double standards shown would be a start to repairing the sense of injustice that is currently being felt by some.
No matter how this ends up, the 21st November 2020 will go down in message board history. My only fear is that unless this is dealt with properly, the only winners will be those on the board ran by 'Faniel' who'll be chortling and gloating away.
**STATEMENT ENDS AND HARDLINER CLIMBS INTO THE WAITING LIMO AS THE PRESS JOSTLE FOR POSITION**
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/3/28/1301315295165/Media-scrums-are-a-featur-007.jpg?width=445&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=7b5763d3cc014e03ade3d9de1c07ded2)