- This topic has 74 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
I think those that do leave will only improve the forum anyway, the strength and quality of poster are still here but aren’t making any silly remarks or rising to the bait.
Pompete –
Surely you appreciate that we can’t just let the forum be a free-for-all. It’d disintegrate within a week. One of the strengths of this forum since its inception has been that the moderation has been tight. How would you moderate it Pete? Leave all the comments up there and wait for the laywyers letters to drop through your letterbox. Your view might be different if it was your front door those letters were likely to come through.
Recently there have been a plethora of threads singling out individuals and I’ve been uncomfortable with a good many of them. Not because I’m a ‘yes Sir, no Sir’ person but because I’ve felt on a personal level that they were unfair or over the top. However, unless these threads have contained anything I’ve felt the forum might be taken to task over they generally stay up, untouched. As I’ve said before there is a difference between criticism and some of the material on the Naughton thread.
I’ve no wish to moralise to anyone and I certainly haven’t expressed any moralising views in this instance I don’t think. I’ve simply stated the facts. The thread was taken down as it contained material that we were advised we should remove. I expected people would be unhappy about it but it was a no win situation.
It hardly ever happens.
I can count on the fingers of one hand the posts or threads that have been removed this year (not counting the ones from the complete nutjobs and spammers).
If I come across as moralising in tone then I apologise, I don’t mean to.
I’m obviously disappointed with the personal remarks you’ve directed at me Pete – I feel they are unjustified and unwarranted and a poor return for all the effort that I and others put into the forum.
- Total Posts 17716
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….
I do hope this will be censored, given its unsubstantiated, defamatory and libellous nature
The thread itself was little more than an experiment, a means of either confirming or denying the claims Peter Naughton makes. Indeed, the first post began:
"I have long been sceptical of the claims made by the majority of tipping services and it often proves to be the case that the numbers (strike rate, average price and profit) they provide simply don’t add up. In the past I have made the effort to research a handful of telephone-based ventures and have found them, by and large, to be absolutely pointless.
Having finally grown weary of the smugness that seems to ooze out of Peter Naughton – whether he be presenting or patting himself on the back (for the three-hundredth time) in his notebook – I decided to make him the focus of my latest project.
Operating one of the most expensive services on the market – a none-too-shabby £199 for a five-week membership – I had relatively high expectations of his daily update."
I made no secret of my personal opinion of Mr Naughton, but his advice was transcribed accurately, his selections listed (on all but one occasion) only after the first had run and his results and comments appraised fairly and objectively.
How successful can an experiment be without objectivity?
This was not a means of proving a man to be deceitful, but to determine whether he was capable of performing in such a way as to justify the claims he makes; had he selected 26 winners across the seven day period rather than just 1, he would have had free publicity in one of the best (virtual) shop windows on the internet.
Are people of the belief that I’d have removed the thread (or its contents) were my supposed vendetta knocked on its a*se?
It mystifies me that I am being portrayed as some sort of vengeful, vicious and vindictive pedant when, in reality, I have done little more than move information from one place to another and ask pertinent questions at various junctures.
Quite how that offends the sensibilities of some is beyond me, especially when claims of maliciousness (borne of my ‘singling out’ of Mr Naughton) are accompanied by the affirmation that other named tipping services aren’t entirely honest. What evidence was gathered in each case and what justification was offered to support such remarks? Or is it deemed to be acceptable to make throw-away comments when perched conveniently on one’s high horse?
In one of Pinza’s many holier-than-thou contributions, I was said to have been ‘gulled’ by Peter Naughton and as such was on something of a revenge mission. Now, my understanding of the law is obviously no match for that of the prestigious Pinza, but a statement of this nature isn’t based on fact, is not backed up by evidence of any kind and could be construed as detrimental to my integrity. But it’s deemed acceptable presumably ‘because it’s Pinza’.
TRF member Matthew, god love him, was on the receiving end of my frustration on more than one occasion, having started a number of threads both praising and criticising jockeys. Sometimes the same jockey in fact, proclaiming them to be superstars when winning on horses he had supposedly backed and suggesting foul play when odds-on shots were turned over. Indeed, he accused Tony McCoy (of all people) of taking back-handers – or ‘brown envelope jobs’ to be factually correct – from Gordon Eliot. I will freely admit that I could have made my feelings known in a more productive, less potentially confrontational manner, but I was told by cormack15 that ‘we post a certain way on TRF’.
So, far from not censoring the forum the powers that be will only allow certain comments to be made if they’re made the way they want them to be. As such Ken and Pompete’s criticism is not at all unfair.
My contributions to the original thread did not give any cause for legal concern, with Pinza’s Wiki-school libel lesson distinctly inaccurate in places. The
facts
I posted were easily verifiable and any comments deemed to be ‘unsuitable’, either from myself or other members, could have been removed with the bulk of the thread left intact.
However, one libel element Pinza did identify correctly was that of the need to justify that the interests of the general public were being served. What Pinza forgot to say is that he/she isn’t necessarily representative of the general public and what he/she suspects to be true of tipping line operators a) may not be true at all and b) may not be accepted by the wider population. As Drone has said, there is obviously a market for tipping services or they wouldn’t exist and it doesn’t always follow that those unfortunate enough to be parting with £1.50 per minute on a regular basis are entirely aware of what they’re paying for.
This, in all honesty, has descended in to farce, with an innocent account of the performance of one service turned in to a circus of unsubtantiated suggestion, accusation and malice – with very little of it aimed at the subject of the original thread. And it’s a nonsense, a*se gravy of the very worst kind (to quote Stephen Fry).
Just because you believe something to be true, doesn’t mean the belief is held by everyone else. Hop off that high horse once in a while and find out for yourself.
O, and I’ve just heard from my man at the BBC that Watchdog is being taken off the air because their exposure of a corrupt builder – I’m sure they used the term ‘cowboy’, but it sounded libellous to me; I couldn’t believe the BBC would take such a risk – was deemed to have been targetted and thus unfair. The man in question isn’t taking legal action despite having lost business, but he’s heard of someone with information pertaining to a sure-fire winner at York tomorrow. All he needs to do is ring 090…
Stacelita – FYI certain individual posts were removed from both Curley and Findlay threads.
Quite who else you mean by the ‘et al’ in Naughton et al I don’t know. Could you enlighten me?
There were no ‘special circumstances’ – ffs we let the thread run for eight frigging pages – I even posted on it myself – but THERE WAS QUITE A LOT OF STUFF POSTED BY INDIVIDUALS ON THAT THREAD THAT NEEDED TO COME OFF FOR LEGAL REASONS!!!!!!!
That’s it – no conspiracy, I don’t know Naughton from Adam, never spoken to the guy, unlikely ever to and there is no hidden or underhand benefit for me or the forum derived from removing the thread.
Armchair Jockey –
I do accept that it is possible that the offending bits could have been taken out. Perhaps that’s the approach, in hindsight, that should have been taken.
Pinza doesn’t get any special treatment.
Matthew’s comments were removed. You admit in your post that your response to him was unproductive and confrontational and I make no apology for stepping in on that occasion.
If you don’t like the way the forum is moderated then you don’t need to post. Simple as that.
Where I know banned members are back on the forum Marble they are banned again once I know for sure who they are.
We do have problems with banned people coming back to cause us difficulties and to try to put the forum into difficult situations. It’s very difficult to stop people logging in on a different ip, different email and different username.
I’ve been informed today that Armchair Jockey may well be the poster who used the usernames Media Gecko, Equitrack and others before that and, if that is the case (I don’t know), has a long track record of causing difficulties on the forum, falling out with me, the previous forum owner and a variety of forum members.
All that is incidental to the removal of the thread though as I didn’t appreciate that info until today.Ok can we please have the results part of the thread put back up for all to see or is that too much to ask?
No hindsight or this or that simply put the results part backup but am not holding my breath.
Yes I know things were removed the other threads like when I accused 2 trainers of being up to no good yet Findlay and Curley are castigated?
Et al since you ask "Sir" Micheal Stoute and "Sir" Mark Prescott.
I thought a forum was for discussion yet it seems you can throw stones at certain people for their actions whereas others are protected for no particular a bit like Bookmakers over the Punters. hmmmm.- Total Posts 17716
I am indeed LGR, who then became Equitrack and Media Gecko following exclusion for a) supposedly arguing with other forum members and b) expressing, in no uncertain terms, my displeasure at Cormack’s ‘turn the other cheek’ approach when moderating the activites of certain members.
I recall one particular instance – which, if I remember correctly, led to my demise as Media Gecko – when Cormack decided to treat me like an insolent school child and tell me off for referring to another member as a ‘clown’. In the very same thread ‘apracing’ was similarly critical of the member in question and my desire to learn whether or not he had received a similar message resulted in my account being de-activated.
The only member I have had any issue with in recent months has been TAPK – who I assume alerted Cormack as to my presence – and since my return (I was hardly exiled for war crimes) I don’t believe I have spoken out of turn at any time (though to Matthew I apologise for my rather forthright expression). Indeed, I seem to recall being rather helpful in discussing the development of TRF with James, going so far as to draw up designs for the newest edition to make best use of the available space.
The double standards evident on this forum have to be seen to be believed on occasion and if I have to pay the price, then so be it. I’d rather that turned out not to be the case as, for all its faults, TRF harbours some truly admirable racing minds, but I fear the inclination to save face will triumph more often than not.
Anyone who gets hooked on horseracing is an easy target.Remember the words of the playwrite Dante hung over the entrance to the gates of Chel."abandon all dope ye who enter here".
Armchair Jockey –
I do accept that it is possible that the offending bits could have been taken out. Perhaps that’s the approach, in hindsight, that should have been taken.
Corm, with the greatest respect, hindsight was never needed in the past when deleting potentially libelous content.
I even posted at the very start of the thread that
as long as it’s kept clean, it should run
… And it was kept clean by the OP.
To have such a sudden change of heart on a topic that you yourself had a genuine interest in wouldn’t have taken much moderation, so removing the whole thing was strange and harsh on AJ, IMO.
I feel his long explanation was absolutely on the money and a few posters around here should take a long look at themselves.
I think the heat is starting to get to people
Let’s spend the day in the shade people, there are 8 races on terrestrial TV today. I suggest we all watch the Morning Line, whinge til our throats are dry about how we could do a better job then marvel at the afternoon program as our 8 selections get stuffed.
Life is too short for all this squabbling amongst ourselves.
We seemed to have moved on from the Naughton thread to a more general discussion on moderating on this forum.
In Armchair Jockey we have someone that’s been banned on serial occasions, whose history of agitating on the forum goes back well beyond my time running it (in other words the evidence suggests there is more to it than just a clash with myself). He’s been banned (Media Gecko) when I initially had no idea who he was or of his former history (i.e. nothing at all to do with ‘previous’) and, in short, ends up causing strife and shooting himself in the foot on every occasion he rejoins (why he keeps coming back and ending up causing problems I have no idea).
So, for clarification, here are the general rules we moderate by…
Anything potentially defamatory or libellous is removed. No hard and fast rules on what constitiutes that – I’m afraid we have to judge it as best we can.
We won’t tolerate people indulging in any form of cyber-bullying. Again, it is based on our judgement.
Spamming isn’t allowed. Certain types of advertising/promo is allowed , generally by arrangement when we will again make a judgment.
Finally, anyone clearly out to disrupt the forum in a negative manner who doesn’t quite fall foul of the above general guidance but whose posts stop the forum functioning as we think the vast mahority of posters would like may find themeselves warned or banned.
That’s pretty much it.
Almost always subjective, sometimes wrong, sometimes heavy-handed perhaps but there you go. You either accept the limitations we have (mainly time) and that the forum isn’t going to be run 100% (or 50% or 10%) the way you want it but carry on posting – or you post elsewhere where the moderators will tolerate some of the stuff we don’t allow to be posted.
Onthesteal – I do accept that I could have edited that Naughton thread and perhaps left it up. But, bear in mind, there were 8 pages, a good couple of hours work and loads of other stuff to attend to on the forum.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.