Usual_Suspect
Members
I can't believe he'd rather sponsor the I's away kit when the IIIs home kit is on offer.
I can't believe he'd rather sponsor the I's away kit when the IIIs home kit is on offer.
Agree with that.Surely though, ultimately, we have to remember we have no rights on this board other than those the owners deem to give us.
Disagree with that. The sites gone through several changes of ownership and with the current base of users, I believe it's more than possible you'll find others willing to take over the ownership in the future.If they got fed up with it all and pulled the plug we would all turn up to work one morning and there be no site here....
Effectively, every time you now click on this website you are now paying for the website. The more hits this website gets, the higher the price it costs to sponsor the website. (Log on with your colleagues laptops/computers for extra unique hits!)it is not a site that we pay for
Agree with that as well. It's not for personal gain. However, nobody in any position should be exempt from criticism. Whether that's Ron Martin, Steve Tilson, an SZ Owner or the local Chairman of the Chess Committee! People make decisions to the best of their ability. However, sometimes the decisions are through personal choice and not in the interests of the board. That's the luxury you have (and pay for) as an owner. Is it right? Well, everyone has a different opinion on that.I just dont buy into complaints that the owners treat people badly as being some kind of breach of civil rights. I dont agree with many decisions by the owners but know my place and know they are entitled to make those decisions. It's not like they are making decisions for the sheer hell of it or for personal gain, they do so (As far as I can tell) out of goodwill to keep this running to the best of their ability. Surely if people dont like the way things are run they can just look elsewhere for a site they prefer.
I've never donated through paypal, however I have signed up to various things such as player sponsorship/raffles etc whilst also dedicating my own time moderating over the past four years. Therefore, like Napster, I also believe I'm entitled to my opinion.Incidentally, I wonder how many of those who moan about the owners or this site have made contributions through paypal for the running of the site? I will be honest and admit that I have never donated despite following this site since the day it went online. Not really sure of the reason for that, like many things I just have never got round to it, but certainly, without making such a contribution, I feel even less inclined to criticise the owners who do put their hand in their pocket to keep this site running.
I have stated before that I believe it is only a matter of time before the first Shrimperzone honour killing.
Agree with that.
Disagree with that. The sites gone through several changes of ownership and with the current base of users, I believe it's more than possible you'll find others willing to take over the ownership in the future.
As you may recall, I questioned the price for ownership of the website over the Christmas period, however this was just ignored. Clearly, there was no intent to sell and good luck to them.
Effectively, every time you now click on this website you are now paying for the website. The more hits this website gets, the higher the price it costs to sponsor the website. (Log on with your colleagues laptops/computers for extra unique hits!)
Agree with that as well. It's not for personal gain. However, nobody in any position should be exempt from criticism. Whether that's Ron Martin, Steve Tilson, an SZ Owner or the local Chairman of the Chess Committee! People make decisions to the best of their ability. However, sometimes the decisions are through personal choice and not in the interests of the board. That's the luxury you have (and pay for) as an owner. Is it right? Well, everyone has a different opinion on that.
Therefore constructive criticism should be welcomed. You could just delete it, but what's the point in that? Is that not just continuing to alienate the very supporters who had made this website what it is today? I'm wasn't exempt from criticism when I was Moderating SZ, so why should anyone else be?
Without opinions we would not be anywhere. Ian had an opinion whether you agreed or disagreed with it.
What's the difference in being barred from the local pub or from this forum? Would you not feel slightly aggrieved if you were barred from the Spread despite not doing anything? Same thing IMO.
I've never donated through paypal, however I have signed up to various things such as player sponsorship/raffles etc whilst also dedicating my own time moderating over the past four years. Therefore, like Napster, I also believe I'm entitled to my opinion.
I'm fully aware the Owners backs are against the wall sometimes, however do I really think many of the recent decisions have been met with a 5-0 majority in favour? Do I heck.
Trading in Irate Ian and getting Tonic in return would be akin to exchanging McCormack for Kaka.
I paid for the website for over a year, and so I have every right to criticize. I think this is heavy-handed and have told the owners so. I have also resigned my moderating duties, given that this was something I do not agree with and in fact advised against.
I paid for the website for over a year, and so I have every right to criticize. I think this is heavy-handed and have told the owners so. I have also resigned my moderating duties, given that this was something I do not agree with and in fact advised against.
a real shame, seems we are getting through mods at a rate of knots... MK must be rubbing his hands with glee!
I trust there will still be Hip-Hop Tuesday?!
a real shame, seems we are getting through mods at a rate of knots... MK must be rubbing his hands with glee!
I trust there will still be Hip-Hop Tuesday?!
a real shame, seems we are getting through mods at a rate of knots... MK must be rubbing his hands with glee!
He may be rubbing his hands with glee at the moment, but he will be weeping when Rusty gets the gig.
...there is a line between discussion / debate and abuse / nuisance and the owners must decide where that line lies.
If I went into the spread, continually criticised the suppliers of the Ale, in particular the Chairman or MD of the brewery, both in the quality of product they are providing and the way that brewary is run, AND also then criticised the owner of the pub and perhaps even alleged corruption on their part, then yes I would think me being banned was reasonable. I would then drink elsewhere (though that could entail the Nelson!!!).
I was though only looking at the point in discussion on this thread as not on whether the ban was reasonable (I dont know the facts), but whether the right to ban is reasonable. And I'm of the view it is if the owners decide as its their right to do so.
If they want to allow healthy debate about the site (which I think they should) then it is their right to decide if this happens. If people want to post elsewhere, resign from moding than that is their right.