Wise up

Right, ive been a reader of this forum since it started and used to read the old 606 on bbc also. Have never bothered to create an account due to the fact i prefer to hear other opinions and really don't have time to write something..................................until now!!!

Anyway what i have actually joined up to say is that this forum, or sorry its founder/administrators etc etc take themselves far far too seriously, its a joke, its like yes you can have an opinion but only if Adam D or whoever he is deems what you're saying will not result in a court case. Point in case "do not use the term slave contract" (IN BIG BOLD RED!!!!), wise up Adam, who really is gonna bother to sue some guy on a forum becasue he expresses an opinion that the K2 contracts are slave contracts?? Whats even more ridiculous is that Adam D then goes onto mention how slaves never had contracts blah blah blah, give it a rest mate would you.

Also, someone creates a thread about for example Holyfield still fighting at his age, then someone else might create a thread about Holyfields fights with Tyson for example, two different guys wanting opinions and discussions on two different topics but told to merge into one, why?

This could be a good forum and possibly have more peoples inputs if it wasn't so heavily moderated, i'm not saying let anything go, racist terms, bigotry etc but forums are a place for free speach (within reason) but this forum, or sorrys its founders/administrators/managers/supervisors, whatever they call themselves need to wise up and stop policing the site so heavily, posters on here are treated as kids and get told off by the founders/administrator/supervisors/managers/directors etc etc!!

PS Manos de Piedra, i always enjoy reading your posts, very knowledgable and unbiased points of view continuously, even since the old 606, ever consider writing for seconds out or something?

Imagine with posts like this jimmy you won't be posting again soon. The mods and admins do a good job on here and stop it degrading into petty insults and name calling.

i'm not talkin about allowing insults etc, i'm making an opinion that is over moderated

all this about slaves not having contracts etc etc, its a bit sanctimonious i feel

Not really mate, as far as I can see they are trying to take the site further and further with professional input, etc. They'd be hard pressed to get such input if certain statements are allowed to be made by people.

yes but what certain statements, i'm not saying have an 'anything goes' approach, i'm saying that it is heavily moderated and seems that some guys are on a power trip, its an 'opinion' whihc is what forums are for.

if the guys who post on this site regulalry are happy with the level of policing/moderating that takes place then so be it, i'm making an opinion that it appears to be over moderated and over policed.

Don't agree, whilst sometimes it may seem OTT I'm sure that this is done to keep this site civilised and not let it degrade into drivel as some other sites do. Where do you draw the line? You let something go once and then it keeps happening. Then eventually things deteriorate.

trottb, i agree, the old 606 went way off topic on numerous occasions so yes where do you draw the line. As i said i've been an avid reader of both site for years and having read this site lately i felt compelled to write this forum. I was enjoying the discussion on the 'Contracts' issue and then all of a sudden Adam D pops up and on his high horse starts goin on about slaves never had contracts, K2 could sue blah blah, and i thought there was no need for it. Its happened before when posters are told to merge articles etc

But in some cases it's fully justified. For example say they were trying to get an interview with the Klitschkos and one of their people come on here and read comments like that, it's only going to put them off.

The merging of threads I agree with as the amount of times you look at articles only to find that they are the same or have shifted (despite the OP) into one and the same it's boring. Yes sometimes it's not the original posters fault but if something like what happened this past weekend occurs and you raise an article on Chisora, no matter what the topic chances are it will go back to the past weekend.

Another example for you, on the boxing section we were given our own section called trash talk for banter and so threads didn't get derailed. We were warned numerous times to keep it clean, we didn't and we lost it. So the moderation is fully justified in my opinion.

yes but what your saying there then in your example is that in order to guarantee an interview with either of the Klitschkos the posters on here should refrain from giving their honest thoughts on what contracts they offer their opponents.

I nearly choked when i read Chisora was Paid £300k for his bout with Vitali, £300k for a world heavyweight fight? 1st thing i thought was i would love to know what Vitali got paid in comparison. So on your example i should refrain from posting my disgust at the money offered to Chisora incase Vitali pops in to the forum for a chat and might not like seeing me slagging him off for paying Chisora £300k. If thats the case, lets just say every boxer is great and they're all honest fighters who aren't interested intheir padded records etc just incase they or their representatives don't like to read peoples honest opinions of them

No not particularly I think that the aim was that they are being labelled as giving slave contracts when it is a common practice for dominating heavyweight champs without the term ever being spoutted before.

£300K for Chisora sounds like good earning to me for a man not really deserving of a shot. Not ranked and holds none of the cards, sure it was a career high for him as well.

Would also add that no-one on here, to the best of my knowledge, has seen one of the contracts so how does anyone know what they contain? Because Adam Booth and David Haye say so.

£300 k yes is a lot of money in anyones book and yes Chisora was undeserving of the shot, BUT, without an opponent there is no show, without an opponent Vitali doesn't make his millions etc, therefore its only fair that a fair packet is paid to an opponent who puts his life on the line.

For me its greed pure and simple!!!

trottb wrote:Would also add that no-one on here, to the best of my knowledge, has seen one of the contracts so how does anyone know what they contain? Because Adam Booth and David Haye say so.

yes but opions are only made from what information is amde available, from Hayes comments, Booths comments, £300k to chisora (fact) etc ect

Sure they could have found someone else willing to fight him. Chisora was given the prestige of being allowed to fight for the championship that should have been enough.

Haye and Booth reliable sources these days then are they. The people that sold Audley as a genuine grudge match and credible contender. Ok then.

trottb wrote:Haye and Booth reliable sources these days then are they. The people that sold Audley as a genuine grudge match and credible contender. Ok then.

right i'm not saying Haye and/or Booth are credible. Lets remeber that this 'debate' for want of a better word is regards posters being able to post honestly on this forum without OTT moderation and policing!!!

trottb wrote:Haye and Booth reliable sources these days then are they. The people that sold Audley as a genuine grudge match and credible contender. Ok then.

i was making the point that people will make their opinions based upon what they read, hear etc etc If haye and Booth were the only ones ever to have complained about the contracts then i'm sure people will gather that that was the exception rather than the rule, but with Chisora being paid £300k Compared to Vitalis' how much, i woud say its unfair and greedy, BUT the beauty of forums are that thats my opinion and i can (or should) be able to discuss that and air my views and opinions on it. Are K2 likely to sue me for libel for insuating that their contracts are unfair and they are greedy?

Ha. Kind of got side tracked there.

You can't just go typing they do this they do that without an ounce of proof. Otherwise the forum becomes a joke and I'm not sure what legal action is possible. Unlikely as you say but still possible.

trottb wrote:Ha. Kind of got side tracked there.

You can't just go typing they do this they do that without an ounce of proof. Otherwise the forum becomes a joke and I'm not sure what legal action is possible. Unlikely as you say but still possible.

But its only an opinion. In my opinion the Klitschkos are greedy when it comes to paying their opponents and their contracts. I may be wrong but i've based that opinion on what i read etc. It may be wrong but its an opinion, thats all, how is that libelous?

As I said I'm not sure of the possible legal action from slander such as that, a bit different though when you're introducing the term "slave contract"

trottb wrote:As I said I'm not sure of the possible legal action.

well i'm pretty sure that 'opinions' on a boxing forum are not libelous.

WElcome to the board Jimmy Joe

If possible, can you put up a link where I have censored opinion

I will look into it for you.

Adam D wrote:WElcome to the board Jimmy Joe

If possible, can you put up a link where I have censored opinion

I will look into it for you.

Adam my original post refers simply to the OTT moderation/policing of the site. Mine and trottb discussion moved onto what is libelous and what isn't.

I am of the opinion that this site is over moderated, mostly by you, and the moderation at times comes across as patronsising and sanctimonious and is off putting to the external observor which i was one of until this morning.

Oh yeah by the way welcome aboard Jimmy.

trottb wrote:Oh yeah by the way welcome aboard Jimmy.

cheers, better late than never

Long term reader, occasional poster. Jimmy has his opinion and it's worth noting. The problem comes when we never question our own actions. I have no problems with the mods, but also do not accept the argument that someone may not talk to us because of an opinion expressed on here. If I am only allowed to praise Floyd Mayweather (as an extreme example) and stroke his ego for him to deem us worthy, I'd prefer to give it a miss!

Welcome aboard Jimmy

As someone who I guess must now be considered one of the heavy handed mods feel I should defend us somewhat. First thing to say is no decisions of a major nature such as to ban someone or remove a thread are done arbitrarily, they are always done as the result of lengthy discussions and on the basis of a consensus decision.

What also needs remembering, but is often forgot is most of the mod team do the job whilst holding down full time jobs or studies and whilst also trying to use the board as users, as such we don't have the time or inclination to follow every thread from start to finish or when it does kick off unpick who started it or whether reactions or transgressions were appropriate or justified.

With regard to the removal of threads on the grounds of libel, the reality is none of us on the moderation team are lawyers, nor do we have the funds to consult one before making a judgement, as such we will undoubtedly get things wrong, such is the consequence of trying to assess tricky legal questions armed with little more than having seen A Few Good Men a couple of times.

Also on the question of libel there are certain economic realities that are associated with running a board like this, namely we need advertising, as was agreed many a month ago we try to make the advertising as work friendly as possible but recently have been able to make the advetising sport specific such as the boxnation tie up, the associated potential benefits of this such as competition prizes and Q&As etc should be obvious, however if we are to encourage these tie ups and or attract new ones we need to watch what we post on the forum. This is not saying you cannot criticise advertisers, a look at my own posting history will prove this, all we ask is reign in the hyperbole and don't post things you cannot back up, which lets be honest you shouldn't be doing anway.

Even we didn't have decent modding this board would end up some of the other cack out there (think ESB is an example) where it seems to be full of American teenagers threatening to "bust a cap in yo' ass" whenever anyone disagrees. It's like one-step up from the kind of comments you see below Youtube videos, pathetic.

The modding on here might seem a tiny bit heavy-handed at times but it is generally there to allow mature adult discussion which generally flows quite well on here. Things like the thread merging had to put in place because people like D4 would write half a dozen Manny articles a day which was ridiculous.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Even we didn't have decent modding this board would end up some of the other cack out there (think ESB is an example) where it seems to be full of American teenagers threatening to "bust a cap in yo' ass" whenever anyone disagrees. It's like one-step up from the kind of comments you see below Youtube videos, pathetic.

The modding on here might seem a tiny bit heavy-handed at times but it is generally there to allow mature adult discussion which generally flows quite well on here. Things like the thread merging had to put in place because people like D4 would write half a dozen Manny articles a day which was ridiculous.

[b]

there i was nodding to myself in agreement at this post until i reached the 'mature adult discussion'. If ever there has been a libelous statement wrtitten on this board, that must be it. Ban top hat now, before the writs come flying in and this gets out of hand.

See I told you there was censorship....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:See I told you there was censorship....

The moderation team also exercise a great deal of tolerance and flexibility, Truss, as you should know as well as anybody.

Good article. I agree you don't want the boards getting out of hand, but you also don't want them being strict

To add to my previous comment much of what we are criticised for such as terms like "too strict" etc are largely subjective terms, one persons perception of what that entails will be radically different from anothers, as such when we make calls they will by their very definition be interpreted differently from person to person. We try and make decisions in line with the house rules and what we consider to be basic civility, but it isn't and never can be an exact science.

Everybody who joins this site agrees to be bound by House Rules. The House Rules haven't changed in any significant way since the get go, and if everybody adhered to them - at least in spirit - there would be little need for the mod team to intervene.

Then we, who would also like to post comments about boxing and who only perform moderation duties at the behest of the Founders and without reward, financial or otherwise, might also be able to enjoy our time here.

The interests of democracy must be served, and the silent majority wish to discuss boxing without insults, racism, nationalism, sexism or any other kind of 'ism.'

Democracy can also be served as regards the conduct of the admins and mods. If you believe we abuse our 'position' you should lodge official complaints with the Founders. It is not in their interests to allow their moderators or admins to behave like tyrants, and if your complaints are upheld then offending team members will be censured or asked to stand down, as has happened in the past.

Yes but the interests of democracy aren't served because certain posters are still spreading their racist views and being allowed to get away with it on a daily basis as you know!!

However the actual moderation team is excellent......the middle management..

With respect, Truss, what you are advocating is, therefore, tougher moderation.

Tough but fair kind of guy...

Personally I'd like to know who is posting racist views and what those raacist views are. In my humble opinion, anyone posting racist views should be banned outright. That is not stricter moderation but common sense and decency.

jimmy joe wrote: who really is gonna bother to sue some guy on a forum?

"Libel laws apply to the Internet the same way they do to newspapers and TV stations,"
explains former Federal Communications Commissioner Nicholas Johnson, a professor at the Iowa University school of law. "The same technology that gives you the power to share your opinion with thousands of people also qualifies you to be a defendant in a lawsuit."

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/defamation-in-cyberspace.html

Posting in a forum does not relieve from the threat of liability. For better or worse, you can still be sued for anything from character assassination to invasion of privacy to...well, anything that you can be sued for in the brick and mortar world. Laws in the physical world apply to the virtual world as well.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Can-You-Be-Sued-For-Posting-in-Forums?&id=2383002

But it is not just the user that can be sued, the forum itself can be for allowing the content on the site.

Exhibit A :

https://www.606v2.com/t24389-wise-up#981937

Exhibit B :

https://www.606v2.com/t24389-wise-up#981979

This has been going on for weeks, and the moderation and admin team have all but gone down on bended knees to beg the protagonists to stop it.

Those of you who criticise us might ask yourselves what you would do in our position.