A plea for non-discrimination

[fredfertang]

I have just been reading Corrin's surprisingly eloquent post about the recent unfortunate banning of my favourite Scottish poster.

I know the thread has been locked, and I understand therefore that Furball's demise is not therefore considered a matter for public debate, but one point arising from the post does, in my view, deserve some further consideration.

I have noted a trend for any post that is negative on the subject of Mr Tendulkar to result in warnings/infractions, and worryingly that seems to be reaching a stage where legitimate comment and criticism or humour are being stifled.

On the other hand some players, notably Stuart Broad and Ian Bell, get regularly pilloried, and some very personal remarks made about them, with it seems there being no issues raised.

Surely this should be consistent? If someone questioned Sachin's gender, however deeply their tongue was planted in their cheek, I'm pretty sure there would consequences. Our Stu on the other hand seems to be fair game.

Or is Sachin just a special case? If he is he shouldn't be - any supporter of his who can't utilise 33,000 International runs and 99 centuries, not to mention all his other achievements, to repel any criticism of their hero really shouldn't, due to being so intellectually lacking, be posting on a cricket forum in the first place.

 

[Hurricane]

It is not just Tendulkar - if you go after Bradman you will probably get warned as well. I am a fan of both players and I personally don't like it when either gets mocked.

Stuart Broad if and when he has taken a prolific number of wickets will probably get due protection as well.

All this said I hate it when my own countries players cop flack from anyone other than my own countrymen. And I think people should be careful about running down players outside of your jurisdiction.

 

[GIMH]

I don't care how many moderators post in here and say it isn't policy. Because it's what's been happening.

I've never been bothered, personally, by posters calling my favourite players by certain names,- in some cases it can be quite funny. What concerns me is that all banter is taken out of the equation just because some people are likely to react more preciously than others.

 

[Sanz]

I have just been reading Corrin's surprisingly eloquent post about the recent unfortunate banning of my favourite Scottish poster.

I know the thread has been locked, and I understand therefore that Furball's demise is not therefore considered a matter for public debate, but one point arising from the post does, in my view, deserve some further consideration.

I have noted a trend for any post that is negative on the subject of Mr Tendulkar to result in warnings/infractions, and worryingly that seems to be reaching a stage where legitimate comment and criticism or humour are being stifled.

On the other hand some players, notably Stuart Broad and Ian Bell, get regularly pilloried, and some very personal remarks made about them, with it seems there being no issues raised.

Surely this should be consistent? If someone questioned Sachin's gender, however deeply their tongue was planted in their cheek, I'm pretty sure there would consequences. Our Stu on the other hand seems to be fair game.

Or is Sachin just a special case? If he is he shouldn't be - any supporter of his who can't utilise 33,000 International runs and 99 centuries, not to mention all his other achievements, to repel any criticism of their hero really shouldn't, due to being so intellectually lacking, be posting on a cricket forum in the first place.

Mocking Tendulkar is probably the easiest way to provoke a section of Indian fans and it is often the motive behind positng negatively about Mr. T. That IMO is the reason why negative posts about Mr. T get special attention.

 

[Athlai]

This is rubbish.

 

[Daemon]

Sachin is a homosexual ****sucking ******.

I won't get infracted. Context, people.

 

[Turbinator]

Seriously, some members on here (I won't name names) need to get out more and take in some fresh air.

This is what comes to mind everytime I see such posts/threads.

 

[GIMH]

It's tiresome to see you telling people to get out more. What's it got to do with anything?

 

[Turbinator]

Surely kids can be taken to the park, play a little cricket with them.

Breed the new generation of English cricketers that hopefully won't kick India's ass as bad as this current crop.

EDIT: Oh you edited your previous post it seems. All I mean to suggest is that these seem like such trivial matters, surely not something to get worked up over on the internet again and again. I mean it seems extremely silly to suggest that mods are biased towards a certain group, especially since the mod team is comprised of members from all parts of the world and really have no incentive to favour one group over another.

 

[GIMH]

I edited my post because I was taking you too literally. It was a silly post by me.

Nonetheless, it's not as simple as thinking the mods are 'biased' because I don't think as individuals they are. It's much more complex than that.

 

[Daemon]

While I agree with the general sentiments of Turbinator, it's easier for someone to say that when they're not that active on CW. I'm assuming a lot of these guys access CW at work or something and it does take up a large part of their day, so it is somewhat significant to them. Got nothing to do with what's being discussed really.

What I think should be the case is that everyone knows the rules pretty clearly, and if you're going to try and stretch the rules and work ways around it, or even do it subtly then expect to pay the consequences. If someone else does the same and they don't get punished, then they probably just got lucky or overlooked, but that doesn't excuse your own actions does it?

I'm verryyy sleepy so I hope it somewhat made sense, if not I'll edit/elaborate tomorrow, if this isn't locked by then.

Oh, and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LanCLS_hIo4

 

[G.I.Joe]

As has been mentioned already, it's a case of reading the context. It's natural for people who the bait isn't dangled for to often completely fail to see it for what it is, and so assume that there's double standards at play.

 

[GIMH]

As has been mentioned already, it's a case of reading the context. It's natural for people who the bait isn't dangled for to often completely fail to see it for what it is, and so assume that there's double standards at play.

Yeha which is all well and good but the point you seem to be missing is that the bait is constantly dangled just as much for England/Australia/etc players as it is for precious Sachin.

The difference is in the reactions. I was warned for calling the India bowlers 'clowns'. Do you think that would happen if there weren't a bunch of posters likely to overreact (even though it was a 100% accurate statement)? England have been **** for a lot of the time I've posted here and nobody has ever been told off by the mods for saying it.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeha which is all well and good but the point you seem to be missing is that the bait is constantly dangled just as much for England/Australia/etc players as it is for precious Sachin.

I don't think so. I might be missing it for reasons I have stated, but considering the recent reactions of neutral posters that aren't prejudiced against either team, I'm inclined to believe that it's not an equal give and take like what you make it to be.

The difference is in the reactions. I was warned for calling the India bowlers 'clowns'. Do you think that would happen if there weren't a bunch of posters likely to overreact (even though it was a 100% accurate statement)? England have been **** for a lot of the time I've posted here and nobody has ever been told off by the mods for saying it.

I agree that the example you provide should not be grounds for infarction, but I wouldn't for one second pretend that that's representative of the instances that have led to a couple of recent bannings. Those were clearly a build up of posts deliberately designed with intention to provoke.

 

[Cevno]

The things people call Gambhir, Sreesanth and Harbhajan sometimes are way worse than Broad.

Also have seen Sachin called a lot of things too, it is all a matter of what context it is used in and how repetitive aka Shivfan and the West Indies/India series it is(which was a valid opinion for the first few times before it became irritating and just trolling).

 

[GIMH]

I don't think so. I might be missing it for reasons I have stated, but considering the recent reactions of neutral posters that aren't prejudiced against either team, I'm inclined to believe that it's not an equal give and take like what you make it to be.



I agree that the example you provide should not be grounds for infarction, but I wouldn't for one second pretend that that's representative of the instances that have led to a couple of recent bannings. Those were clearly a build up of posts deliberately designed with intention to provoke.

Well a lot of people say Furball has been trolling, yet every cricket related post he's made, however much people might be peeved by it, matches up with the real opinions he's expressed when I've talked cricket with him off the forum.

I can't really go into detail with other examples, because if I call names out, mods will shut this thread down. That's the sad state of affairs round these parts currently.

How many people have ever been infracted for saying something about Tendulkar? Would love to see some data comparing it with any other player. Reckon I've seen as much trash thrown at Broad, Mitchell Johnson, Ravi Belowpara (see what I did there) etc.

I'd actually ****ing be happier if people just came out and said it was cultural sensitivity because insulting Tendulkar is akin to insulting someone's religion. I'd find that more satisfying that all this nonsense context bull**** that contradicts itself at every second turn.

 

[G.I.Joe]

You've made up your mind, GIMH. Carry on.

 

[Cevno]

Btw, when was anyone infracted for Saying anything about Tendulkar?

The one which seems to be famous is "Tendulkar is a Buffoon" one and i don't really know the context to it clearly , but if i suddenly bump into a thread about Bradman and say "Bradman was a buffoon" without any context or explanation to provoke a reaction i would expect to be infracted or warned too.

Also many people have called Tendulkar a buffoon jokingly after that and don't think anyone has been infracted or warned for that?
Though i someone goes into every thread about him to call him a buffoon i guess he would.

 

[GIMH]

Also have seen Sachin called a lot of things too, it is all a matter of what context it is used in and how repetitive aka Shivfan and the West Indies/India series it is(which was a valid opinion for the first few times before it became irritating and just trolling).

Okay, you do make a fair point. shivfan's first post was fine (well, it wasn't, talking about how "all his friends agreed", but he wasn't doing anything wrong expressing his opinions, however **** they might have been), second one even you could let go. But by the 19th time. Jesus.

Nonetheless, look at some of the things that people have been pulled up for saying about Tendulkar. We have an India fan being asked to stop calling him chokedulkar. Now Voltman might be right - maybe that will cause a bad forum atmosphere. But when an India fan is doing it, you're pushing it calling it trolling. So why will it cause a bad atmosphere. Because there are people who are likely to overreact, that's why! It is the people who overreact that are the problem, IMO, because I can guarantee you if I reacted to Broad being called a Ladyboy in an OTT manner, it would be me and not the perpetrator who was on the receiving end of the mod's ire.

I made this point along similar lines about the infraction Burgey received lately for expressing a perfectly legitimate opinion. Mods wouldn't have gone near the post if people hadn't responded childishly to it.

Mods can't get everything perfect and I don't expect them to, but if as many people think things are happening this way as there are who believe the opposite, then something is obviously happening to cause that perception.

Of course, it could be that the moderation just isn't transparent enough. There is no doubt that one of the worst facets of the moderation currently is the atrocious communication. Have a look at Scaly Piscine's signature. Even if the mods don't have much to say in response to him, a reply to say "we stand by the ban" would be courteous. Furball has queried them about the length of his ban, and hasn't received response yet (or hadn't more than a day after sending the email anyway). It's not good enough. And when threads like the one I made the other day are locked, it only fuels the feelings people like me have. Call them conspiracy theories or facts depending on which side you are on, the bottom line is the belief will only burn stronger if mods refuse to discuss these points and run around with their padlocks.

My kids have just finished eating so I'm gonna sort a film out for them now, that's my two cents anyway, like it or hate it, I'm just calling it as I see it.

 

[Sanz]

GIMH, don't be mad. English team has been taking the revenge for all the discrimination faced by English fans on this forum.