same as your lot we lost your point
The Liverpool Thread
- Thread starter Steve*
- Start date
- Replies 44K
- Views 3M
Sorry, meant warning. You don't need to PM as well as quoting my post for me to see it. I look at all quoted and liked posts.
I appreciate that it is a sensitive subject but common sense should prevail. How can you twist animal exrement to a munich disaster reference?
You've said I can post pictures of Manure. So what is the difference between me saying the word and posting a picture of said item?
Ride The Walrus
A pretty cool guy.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Boy this is a stupid argument looking back through the pages.
Manure is used simply because 'man utd' is two letters off manure. It's just one of those terms, like 'Liverfool'. I wouldn't use them, because they're a bit ******* stupid, but it seems maddening to to cause such a fuss over it all. That link by Jake about it being about Munich just sound right to me.
Of course if it was, then no one in their right mind would use it.
heck, liverpool fans called everton 'blue *****', everton call liverpool 'diverpool' etc.
Manure is used simply because 'man utd' is two letters off manure. It's just one of those terms, like 'Liverfool'. I wouldn't use them, because they're a bit ******* stupid, but it seems maddening to to cause such a fuss over it all. That link by Jake about it being about Munich just sound right to me.
Of course if it was, then no one in their right mind would use it.
heck, liverpool fans called everton 'blue *****', everton call liverpool 'diverpool' etc.
Stupid argument. Yes. Trivial. Yes.
I'm not the one twisting anything, whilst I posted the link, I did not provide it. It was provided to me by the person who raised the issue initially. I said before I had no knowledge of this potential meaning and am still not entirely convinced by the whole thing.
I made the post as a simple request not to use a term that might somehow possibly offend someone somewhere. Normally I wouldn't care, collateral damage and all that, but on such a sensitive subject I decided to errr on the side of caution.
simple as that really. The longer this goes on the sillier it will become. Please try to refrain from using the term. As everyone has found, there are plenty of alternative names with which to address rival teams.
I'm not the one twisting anything, whilst I posted the link, I did not provide it. It was provided to me by the person who raised the issue initially. I said before I had no knowledge of this potential meaning and am still not entirely convinced by the whole thing.
I made the post as a simple request not to use a term that might somehow possibly offend someone somewhere. Normally I wouldn't care, collateral damage and all that, but on such a sensitive subject I decided to errr on the side of caution.
simple as that really. The longer this goes on the sillier it will become. Please try to refrain from using the term. As everyone has found, there are plenty of alternative names with which to address rival teams.
Again, the twist comment wasn't aimed directly at you. It was at whoever comes up with the conclusion that animal ***** is somehow related to the munich disaster.
I'll try to. But I say it regularly to a mate, who's a manc, and who has also never heard of this rubbish.
While we're at it why don't we ban ManWho, Chelski, ****-****, and ******* Liverpoo while we're at it. As they're all blatantly references to disasters.
I didn't. And that's a very strong accusation to use. I am offended.
Yes, let's. Even if they're not references to disasters they're ******* stupid and nobody in their right mind should use them.
I didn't. I was too busy raging from the games we should've won lol
I personally find the use of Manure, Chelski etc to be ****** (☜(ﾟヮﾟ☜) ) lowest denominator "banter" that's almost painful to read, but I certainly don't think other people should be unable to say it if they wish. It makes sense to ban them in environments where they're needlessly provocative, like in the club's respective threads, but just outright getting rid of them is stupid.
Even if it was appropriate, it would rather imply an active and in depth moderation policy, given how it's such a minor issue. In that case I would question why people are able to shitpost with virtual impunity. I'm fine with lax moderation, and I rather like it, but things should at least be consistent. If mods are wanting to step in to raise the quality of posts, it should be across the board and not just for the use of a word that someone has invented a convoluted reason to be offended by.
I actually approve of this.
This is the internet, we should have some freedom to say what we like. Obviously some stuff goes too far, but I'm not entirely sure this is too far. It's stupid and childish, yes, but I don't think anyone was aware of the apparent deeper meaning and I don't think anyone meant it that way even if they did.
I think having this lax moderation policy adds quite a bit to the site, and I'm loathe to just infract anyone who steps out of line right away. Generally we allow people to get away with a lot, then if it gets out of hand it's a warning via post, then a warning via infraction, then a straight up full infraction. I think it works pretty well, in comparison to the somewhat draconian SI main site. The main problem with trying to institute a ban on phrases like Manure - quite apart from the controversy, and talking about the actual mechanics of it - is that despite our large number of mods, so many aren't around because they work. I'm on quite a bit, but I've got a job now, ajt is so old he only knows how to use a computer when his grandson comes round so he's not on all the time, Dunc spends his days playing table football and bursting into my office at random times, Mike works long hours virtually every day and yet somehow runs out of money for dates, and pretty much all of the old guard of moderators are inactive. This particular sub-forum is pretty well moderated because we've got two quite active mods and then Dunc and Mike who turn up every now and then. The problem is sub-forums like GD, where Redrup doesn't seem to exist, Andy is on irregularly and iamauser is shouldering quite a lot of the workload.
I think it's something worth discussing. Probably not here, mind.
I should so ban your candyass for this...........
But yeah I have to say I dislike the SI site intently. It's like the mods have epic sized chips on shoulders at times
Last edited:
epic terrorist
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2010
- Messages
- 5,009
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I should so ban your candyass for this...........
But yeah I have to say I dislike the SI site intently. It's like the mods have epic sized chips on shoulders at times
Is it that bad? Never been on it I always use base for FM related stuff
Edit I don't use many forums paradoxplaza is probs the worst I have seen
It's not great. It's like the 'Post your frustrations' thread just five times the size and EVERYWHERE.
I had to track down an older user made Level 11 or 12 DB for an older FM, and there were times when it got a bit OTT at times. That's how it was then though-never been back since
Which backs my point even further that the word isn't offensive. They're stupid little words, nicknames if you will, for a rival club. My step brother 99% of the time greets me with "alrite red *****".
Silly little insulting words that are not even insults, and some insecure little person has reported my use of the word - not because it insults a club disaster - but because I've called his team a pile of animal *****.
Rant over.
LFCMarshall
YNWA.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Allen, Henderson, Can and Coutinho injured.. Central Midfield well and truly struggling with injuries
Dannybell2010
Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2010
- Messages
- 376
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Henderson injured?
That's all i asked, to try. I understand it may be difficult with a term that is widely embedded into club to club 'banter.'
I am not going to police this like some sort of OTT profanity ****, especially considering i haven't been around enough in the past year or so to know whether the vibe of the forum has chilled out since the days when countless muppets were spitting the dummy and arguing/reporting/posting total bollocks enough to create a 24/7 job for us staff.
I totally understand how this can be seen as going too far with moderating. I only sent a warning infraction in order to ensure that you saw my post. And i only stepped in and posted at all because someone raised the issue directly with the staff of the forum. 99% of the time i wouldn't entertain such a request, especially when the reasons/back story seem pretty ropey. BUT, on what is a very sensitive subject (and as i have done with Hillsborough related posts that could be offensive) i decided to take a more cautious route.
Yes, the word has a clear and defined meaning, it is animal waste used to assist crop/plant growth. If there is even a slim chance that it somehow relates to a well publicized football disaster then surely it is better for me to at least point that out and ask for people to consider that when making posts in the future?
It's not like you are referring to disaster victims as 'dirty ***** who deserved it' or something like that which would widely be regarded as offensive and would probably result in a more serious infraction. I am happy to leave it now with my request to try not to use the term. If it turns out that a few people use it here and there in the future i would imagine people won't even notice.
Last edited:
Having an assessment before the game apaz.