Justice for big Danny

[robf]

As a mater of interest Rob you banned REP from here some time ago. He actually did some very good work for Port Vale FC especially the link with away fans on here. I realise he was obnoxious to some posters and don't know the true reason for his ban but he was actually a devout Valiant attending many home and away games. Presumably he used incorrect language or some other such no no to be permenantly banned?

 

Not true actually. That particular user is NOT banned. Thanks!

[RailwayRowdy]

I don’t know for what or why SOTT has been banned.

 

However, one thing I do know is that these pages will be a poorer place in the absence of one of it’s more interesting, humourous and thought provoking posters.

 

I personally shall miss his input. Yet another interesting voice lost to OVF.

 

Indirectly, Smurfthwaite is now ruining OVF as well as our beloved club.

[whotobeakiller]

I'm sure we'll all miss you and your ten posts. A great loss to the site.

 

I liked SotT and without seeing his banned post, certainly wouldn't place him in the same bracket as the likes of REP and Michael's various pseudonyms. Rob does seem pretty fair with his bannings though so guess it's horses for courses. Think we may as well lock the Brexit thread now.

 

I read his posts and do not believe either SOTT or Micky Ferns should be banned. I think there are people on this site who get to walk over the red line far too often, but as they are in certain cliques of posters they get away with it.

 

It's a bit like going back to primary school and not being allowed to play football with the'bigger' boys

[PV1973]

I read his posts and do not believe either SOTT or Micky Ferns should be banned. I think there are people on this site who get to walk over the red line far to often, but as they are in certain cliques of posters they get away with it.

 

It's a bit like going back to primary school and not being allowed to play football with the'bigger' boys

The actual hosts of forums and internet sites also have guidelines to adhere to as well. If they have sites that they host that break these rules then in the extreme they can just shut the forum or internet site down if they want to. In the case of wishing Smurf dead (which I think was the offending post) then it could also be construed as a threat.

[whotobeakiller]

The actual hosts of forums and internet sites also have guidelines to adhere to as well. If they have sites that they host that break these rules then in the extreme they can just shut the forum or internet site down if they want to. In the case of wishing Smurf dead (which I think was the offending post) then it could also be construed as a threat.

 

It was possibly a OTT statement to make and I agree. But overall their opinions are as legit and valid as any one else. A mere warning by the site owner I think would have been enough. An OTT response from a passionate supporter...nothing more nothing less

[PV1973]

It was possibly a OTT statement to make and I agree. But overall their opinions are as legit and valid as any one else. A mere warning by the site owner I think would have been enough. An OTT response from a passionate supporter...nothing more nothing less

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'm just saying thats how some things could be seen in the extreme. This forum isn't locked down so anyone perusing through can report stuff they see that they think is offensive. Someone has to decide where that line is that you don't cross.

[geosname]

It's a very simple concept really.... to post on the forum follow the simple rules.... there are consequences if you don't.

[whotobeakiller]

It's a very simple concept really.... to post on the forum follow the simple rules.... there are consequences if you don't.

 

That's fine but surely there has to be some discretionary common sense from time to time.

[robf]

That's fine but surely there has to be some discretionary common sense from time to time.

 

I think it's very easy to attack from the outside without the benefit of seeing what myself and the team see.

 

Let me just fill you in:

 

1. The Admin team are constantly sending "friendly" PMs to people with warnings and offering advice when they are close to breaking rules. If possible we will try and nip issues in the bud, out of the spotlight and privately.

 

2. We also regularly discuss threads as a team so there is a "group" decision and so we are aware of what is going on.

 

3. However, in this case I took rapid action for the reasons below. This was my sole decision as site owner and I stand by it. Let me explain...

 

Not all rule breaks are as bad as others. PV1973 is correct - I could potentially be subject to legal or police action if I allowed something like a libellous remark, threat of violence or a death thread (whether it was meant seriously or not) to be published online.

 

So there is stuff like calling people names, winding up people which is annoying and childish (and which can ultimately result in a ban) but then there are things that are a whole lot bigger and more serious.

 

This is my site. If someone gets sued then it will be me. It will be my money, my house at risk, not yours. For those reasons I have to play safe and by the rules.

 

I have had run-ins before with previous Port Vale Directors (note - not the current owner) and had calls from the police / lawyers over things that other people, without thinking, had posted on my forum. I was the innocent party, I hadn't condoned or posted those opinions but I was the one liable. They were unsettling experiences which has stayed with me.

 

I therefore take some rule breaking very seriously and if I deem it serious enough to potentially cause OVF to be subject of legal/police action then regardless of who it is, they will get a lifetime ban.

 

That rule even applies to Admin staff by the way.

 

So let's just run that "common sense" argument again... am I using my "common sense to remove a post which could have very serious legal consequences for OVF? Am I using "common sense" to protect myself? Is it "common sense" to issue a ban for someone making a very serious breach of rules? I would argue that "common sense" suggests I am right to take the action I have.

[whotobeakiller]

I think it's very easy to attack from the outside without the benefit of seeing what myself and the team see.

 

Let me just fill you in:

 

1. The Admin team are constantly sending "friendly" PMs to people with warnings and offering advice when they are close to breaking rules. If possible we will try and nip issues in the bud, out of the spotlight and privately.

 

2. We also regularly discuss threads as a team so there is a "group" decision and so we are aware of what is going on.

 

3. However, in this case I took rapid action for the reasons below. This was my sole decision as site owner and I stand by it. Let me explain...

 

Not all rule breaks are as bad as others. PV1973 is correct - I could potentially be subject to legal or police action if I allowed something like a libellous remark, threat of violence or a death thread (whether it was meant seriously or not) to be published online.

 

So there is stuff like calling people names, winding up people which is annoying and childish (and which can ultimately result in a ban) but then there are things that are a whole lot bigger and more serious.

 

This is my site. If someone gets sued then it will be me. It will be my money, my house at risk, not yours. For those reasons I have to play safe and by the rules.

 

I have had run-ins before with previous Port Vale Directors (note - not the current owner) and had calls from the police / lawyers over things that other people, without thinking, had posted on my forum. I was the innocent party, I hadn't condoned or posted those opinions but I was the one liable. They were unsettling experiences which has stayed with me.

 

I therefore take some rule breaking very seriously and if I deem it serious enough to potentially cause OVF to be subject of legal/police action then regardless of who it is, they will get a lifetime ban.

 

That rule even applies to Admin staff by the way.

 

So let's just run that "common sense" argument again... am I using my "common sense to remove a post which could have very serious legal consequences for OVF? Am I using "common sense" to protect myself? Is it "common sense" to issue a ban for someone making a very serious breach of rules? I would argue that "common sense" suggests I am right to take the action I have.

That's fine Rob and fully understood. But would it also be fair to say that on a football site such as this supporters are occasionally going to go over the top in the heat of the moment and unless only there is constant recurring threats then surely it is clear that would then only warrant a ban?

 

The example I used was obviously a Vale fan spouting off hot air. A one off could he have not been given a formal warning instead of in your own words...a life time ban?

 

I don't think any thing that was read on reference the two banned posters would be serious enough for legal proceedings or the Police to be involved as it was heat of the moment stuff. However if people are threatening the site, particularly from the club, I think it is in the supporters/posters interests to know about this. This site was instrumental in organising the recent protests against Deakin and Miller/Bratt and every supporters organisation surely has a right to exercise protests or to voice opinion within reason. It seems that there is a lot of Political correctness within the site.

 

Free speech seems to be being completely eradicated. Yes I agree you have to protect yourself but what I am trying to put across is the site should allow people a reasonable opportunity to put right their conduct instead of issuing life time bans which further display an element of the club pushing away supporters as the club appear to be doing with their high end admission prices regardless of there being no intention to do so.

 

Finally in regards to the nastiness on this site that you mention- Yes I think that is really serious and should be eradicated as it bullies people and actually induces posters into making OTT comments. There are groups of cliques who bully people on this site and it is them you should be going after as well

[robf]

That's fine Rob and fully understood. But would it also be fair to say that on a football site such as this supporters are occasionally going to go over the top in the heat of the moment and unless only there is constant recurring threats then surely it is clear that would then only warrant a ban? The example I used was obviously a Vale fan spouting off hot air. A one off could he have not been given a formal warning instead of in your own words...a life time ban?

 

If I see that someone has posted something so serious that it could result in legal action then regardless of whether it is a one-off, in the heat of the action or neither it is obviously in my interests to stop it. If someone can do something so serious what confidence do I have that a) they will listen to a warning b) not "spout off" again? It's surely in my interests for safety first and a ban.

 

I don't think any thing that was read on reference the two banned posters would be serious enough for legal proceedings or the Police to be involved as it was heat of the moment stuff. However if people are threatening the site, particularly from the club, I think it is in the supporters/posters interests to know about this. This site was instrumental in organising the recent protests against Deakin and Miller/Bratt and every supporters organisation surely has a right to exercise protests or to voice opinion within reason. It seems that there is a lot of Political correctness within the site.

 

A few replies to that:

 

1. With due respect, you have no idea what comments can result in threats of legal action. One was such a minor issue (at least in my view) I was amazed to get a police phone call but get it I did.

2. It is indeed in the supporters interests to know that legal action has been threatened in the past. This is why I make it abundantly clear that a) users need to follow the rules b) users are responsible for their posts and c) OVF will always co-operate with authorities. I have made all of these three things clear over the years but it's also fairly common sense (you only have to read the news) to know that if you post something potentially libelous on here, on Facebook or anywhere then you run the risk of being sued. Not only that but more damagingly for me the provider (i.e. me) can also be acted against if they are deemed not to take fast and comprehensive action. That's why I acted as I did in this case.

3. Supporters have a right to post whatever they want within the site rules. That's not political correctness - this isn't a public organisation like the BBC, it is a private site/club with its own rules.

4. Everyone who signs up to OVF ticks a box to agree to the terms and conditions which expressly say - you agree to the forum rules - it's not political correctness, it's simply asking people to agree to a reasonable standard of behaviour on someone else's site.

 

Free speech seems to be being completely eradicated.

 

Free speech is a myth in terms of a private website forum. This is a private site where access is only granted if you agree to the rules. It's actually my goodwill to adopt rules and to try and explain them. I could (as the payer of the bills) simply boot off anyone with no explanation (and no comeback for you guys) but I don't on the understanding and expectation that everyone shows reasonable behaviour in line with my rules.

 

What I am trying to put across is the site should allow people a reasonable opportunity to put right their conduct instead of issuing life time bans

 

Why? Let's be completely honest here. I have run OVF for 20 years, it has cost a lot of money and I have pretty much put in at least an hour's work on it every day of those years. I have set up fair rules. I have a job and a family. Why should I put in even more time communicating with people, negotiating with them and wasting more time? The rules are very clear and I have a life away from OVF.

 

which further display an element of the club pushing away supporters as the club appear to be doing with their high end admission prices regardless of there being no intention to do so.

 

I can use the reverse logic here. You don't know how many emails, texts or calls I get when things erupt on OVF. Not everyone posts on the forum. The reverse argument is that I am bringing in some of the silent majority who read but don't post and are put off by some of the completely unjustified comments on here.

 

I guess we will have to agree to differ but as it's my site, I take responsibility for it then I stand by my decision. Again, I won't go into specifics but I felt that the issue was so serious the only sensible outcome was a life ban.

 

I am going to take a break from this now so there will be no more posts from me on this matter.

[Thevalefan]

If he said Smurf is drop dead gorgeous then yeah, ban him. Otherwise... Justice for SOTT!

[Jacko51]

Rob's site. Rob's rules. Rob's decision.

[Realism]

Rob and his team do a great job on here. Lies were spread about me by a poster some time ago and they sorted it out with no fuss. Anyone who thinks that Rob et al are doing anything wrong needs to have a serous think about what it’s like to run a site like this.

[JohnJames]

Actions have consequences.