- This topic has 74 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Shame the thread has been removed. Thought it was a very interesting educational read.
If just results were posted, but still with the tipster identified, would this also be silenced?Moderation on the forum is often very difficult and is often a matter of judgement.
I stand by the statement that we very rarely remove posts or threads. Conundrum is right in that this has increased a little of late (although still miniscule) but he is wrong in suggesting that this reflects a more draconian moderating strategy. It is simply a reaction to having had more threads which have required that approach. We’re addressing this currently by tightening up registration protocols.
The forum operates as a limited company and I have a personal duty to protect what I believe may be the best interests of the forum, even when that may conflict with the interests of one of more individual contributors.
There are several shareholders with an interest in the company and they assist with the day to day running of it to varying degrees. When I talk about ‘we’ in respect of the forum, that is generally what I am referring to. In other words it is not solely ‘cormack’s enterprise’, as conundrum suggests in his rather unfair attack on how the forum is run.
That said, moderation responsibility does lie in the main with myself.
A brief glimpse over even the last month or two would illustrate that there is no protecting of interests at work on the forum. There are many instances where people have been criticised and those who accuse us of being overly censorial need only look back at some of those for evidence that we’re not
too
twitchy.
But, we are a
bit
twitchy and there were certain aspects of the Naughton thread (some of which have been alluded to here) which gave cause for concern and which marked that particular thread out as requiring specific attention. I don’t want to go into detail or prolonged debate on the merits of this individual case because, in the end, it comes down to differing judgements which are unlikely to be reconciled in an ‘I thought you should have done this or that’ style argument.
I’ll once again repeat the assertion that I made some months back. There is no ‘right’ for anyone to post any remarks with impunity on this forum, as some seem to believe.
I’d just like to add, on a personal note, that I find Conundrum’s post on this thread extremely unfair. I believe that the vast majority of forum members recognise some of the difficulties of running the forum and would appreciate some of the hard work that goes into it such that, even when we get it wrong or make decisions you might disagree with, there is an understanding of the difficult position we are often in.
The majority of feedback I receive on how the forum is run is complimentary and I would hope that Conundrum’s views are in the minority and that he might also find a more appropriate way of expressing them rather than the unfair attack he’s made here.
Finally – unless there is a copyright issue, I have no problem with a tipster being named along with results, so long as it is accurate and can be proved to be so.
Fair enough Cormack. If the reason for the thread’s removal was because it was possibly libelous, you had no alternative.
I know very little about UK’s libel laws apart from them sometimes being used to stop people informing others of the truth.- Total Posts 17716
PN’s tipping stinks, but not nearly as much as us not being allowed to say so.
When commercial considerations take precedence over integrity, it’s time to call it a day, methinks!- Total Posts 17716
PN’s tipping stinks, but not nearly as much as us not being allowed to say so.
When commercial considerations take precedence over integrity, it’s time to call it a day, methinks!I agree we have a right to say what we want but there are boundaries that if passed Cormack will take the flack, he doesn’t want that no much as we don’t want the forum to be closed.
I think everyone knows each members thoughts on Peter Naughton and if you wanted to continue the discussion with each other not at TRF expense then you should exchange phone numbers – it clearly is a matter that means something to those complaining about the topic closure.
Aaron, read your post. Take your point too.
If I ever started up as a phone tipper (cue insane laughter from down Leicester way), I’d defintely be on the side of the er, descriptive banter merchants.
"Its been a delightful day here in Southwell as the sunshine makes the frozen misery of the bleak midwinter seem a distant memory. Warlock and I wandered down to the course earlier today to see if any sneaky so and so had booked the final four furlongs, but no – all was silent. The visit was worthwhile though: I thought the horses from neighbouring Eoghan’s yard have have never looked in better condition as they trotted up and down Racecourse Road on their way to morning stables. It fair set me up for the day.
At lunch, I spotted Alan and Marie McCabe in the Co-op, each with an armful of buy-one-get-one-free blueberry muffins and several bottles of cloudy lemonade. Alan and I spoke briefly while we queued and he gave me the nod about a horse he said was making the hedgerows tremble along the gallops at Averham Park and you, dear subscriber, will be the first to get the information, as always."
Love it matey. Worth a fiver of anyones cash.
- Total Posts 17716
I think everyone knows each members thoughts on Peter Naughton and if you wanted to continue the discussion with each other not at TRF expense then you should exchange phone numbers – it clearly is a matter that means something to those complaining about the topic closure.
A sensible suggestion. I have taken some hot flack (not to mention at least one accusation of being "Peter Naughton’s man") for daring to criticise the vindictive, personal aspect of that thread and its obsessive repetition.
When it reached the point where Nick Luck was making references to "Peter Naughton’s notebook", drawing chortling off from Steve Mellish (Newmarket yesterday afternoon), it became obvious that unless the complainers desisted, there might be some nasty consequences both for them and – much more importantly – the Forum.
This Forum is respected and browsed by a lot of people with clout in the industry, and some of them contribute too. If we want that happy state of affairs to continue, we have a duty of self-restraint – self-censorship if you will – to avoid turning the Forum into yet another brawling bear-garden of trivial, tabloid insults with about as much interest or influence as a cageful of headless zombie chickens.
Having enjoyed a welcome break from the PC for a couple of days I missed the denouement of the Naughton thread, so while not being aware of what the precise cause was I’m not entirely surprised it was pulled; we live in a too-litigious society and if unequivocal words of damnation were being hurled at Naughton then it is all too easy to cross the vaguely-defined border into Libel Land
For every one of us who are wise to the shady practices and weasel words of tipsters and see no need to single one out for vivisection there’s likely to be many more in need of having their eyes opened; therefore Armchair Jockey is to be applauded for making an example of Naughton’s ‘service’, not because it was Naughton but because it was typical of the way most tipsters operate. And it is to be hoped that those who were considering throwing good money after bad by subscribing to a tipping service have, on digesting AJ’s thread, done the sensible thing and resisted the temptation.
Amongst the disparate punting population there’s a significant number who are weak-of-will, easily-led, impressionable, lazy and only looking for a quick ‘n’ easy buck from a pastime that doesn’t provide it; it’s these that the tipsters prey on, safe in the knowledge that once one subscriber has had his fingers burnt and walked away in a cacophany of Anglo-Saxon invective there will always be another sucker to take his place…again…again…evermore
Some years ago now there was a short-lived publication called Smartproof run by Dave Stewart – the instigator of the now-moribund uk.sport.horseracing newsgroup – who monitored the performance of tipsters. The number of tipsters – most of whom I’d never heard of – was extraordinary and while there were a few that performed well (returned a long-term level-stakes profit) the overwhelming majority didn’t. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, there appeared to be an inverse relationship between notoriety and profit
Mr Stewart had to give up his welcome crusade due to a combination of financial problems and ill-health, which was a great shame as if ever there was a magazine that deserved a wider audience Smartproof was it.
caveat lector
caveat emptor…a given
A wholesale review of the manner in which tipsters are permitted to advertise and peddle their services is long overdue
caveat lenditor
…would be nice
This Forum is respected and browsed by a lot of people with clout in the industry, and some of them contribute too. If we want that happy state of affairs to continue, we have a duty of self-restraint – self-censorship if you will
I thought the aim of AJ’s thread was to expose a ‘racing personality’ telling lies in order to get people to subscribe to his tipping service?
Would those people with clout in the industry who browse and contribute to this forum have a problem with that?
If the answer is ‘Yes’ then I have to question why I bother to have an interest in this sport at all..
The only other thing I can think is that AJ was telling lies himself? In which case I could totally understand the censorship….
So, looks like normal service has been resumed. Cormack “Yes Sir, No Sir, Three Bags Full Sir” 15 can look forward to his beano’s at Ascot, Cheltenham and Epsom. Max, Pinza et al can continue wasting their time starting as many threads and posting as they like on the fixture list, race names, funding etc – in fact any subject in which they have absolutely no say (in the real world) on at all . Our resident pretend journalist can carry on moralise to the rest of us and little Billy Bullshitter Naughton can carry on coining it in.
Ah….all is right in the world.
The trouble is that far too many people think they can get away with making defamatory remarks on the internet. The majority of the stuff on the Naughton thread was fine, but some posts overstepped the mark.
PN’s tipping stinks, but not nearly as much as us not being allowed to say so.
When commercial considerations take precedence over integrity, it’s time to call it a day, methinks!Not just his tipping that stinks reet but hey ho! I hope you aint gonna chuck the towel in over this!
So, looks like normal service has been resumed. Cormack “Yes Sir, No Sir, Three Bags Full Sir” 15 can look forward to his beano’s at Ascot, Cheltenham and Epsom. Max, Pinza et al can continue wasting their time starting as many threads and posting as they like on the fixture list, race names, funding etc – in fact any subject in which they have absolutely no say (in the real world) on at all . Our resident pretend journalist can carry on moralise to the rest of us and little Billy Bullshitter Naughton can carry on coining it in.
Ah….all is right in the world.
Many a true word spoken in jest.
- Total Posts 17716
So, looks like normal service has been resumed. Cormack “Yes Sir, No Sir, Three Bags Full Sir” 15 can look forward to his beano’s at Ascot, Cheltenham and Epsom. Max, Pinza et al can continue wasting their time starting as many threads and posting as they like on the fixture list, race names, funding etc – in fact any subject in which they have absolutely no say (in the real world) on at all . Our resident pretend journalist can carry on moralise to the rest of us and little Billy Bullshitter Naughton can carry on coining it in.
Ah….all is right in the world.
Speaking for myself, I do not want a "say". I wish to be informed – as I so often am – as well as entertained by well-expressed and cogent posts from people who know much more about racing than I do. If opinion on this Forum influences those who do have a "say", so much the better. And I believe it does have that small, but significant, influence.
Potentially libellous, repetitious threads bordering on the malicious do not enhance that influence.
Clearly in an ideal world this forum should carry an age rating of 18+, though the problem if you listen to some is half the content of TRF is made up (excuse the pun) and written by under 12’s.
So how did you get £500 e/w on Madison du Berlais?
No wonder whenever I come on these days the place is empty with the crap going on, certain people are castigated (Findlay, Curley) yet no moderator bats an eyelid but for Naughton et al there is some need for special circumstances something stinks.
As a younger member it feels like am entering a pension club compared to other forums which are bright and bubbly and open and people can say what they like about conmen and shysters and all.
Time to move on.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.