Topic: The media, earthworms, and a bit of a self-indulgent rant

[Johnny Foreigner]

And you spectacularly miss the point again. The reason for this topic is not that those points should not be made. It is that they should not be made in every single fucking topic. And rather than address that point the soap box has come out and you have made the same speech again. That is exactly what this topic is about in a nutshell.

When the overall direction, culture and management is not clear/weak, it will influence the day-do-day running of the club, it will influence the transfers and it will even influence what is happening on the pitch..

I am not sure but it could be an age/generation thing.. Some of the earliest names I can recall from my early LFC days were keegan/dalglish, stevie heigway and peter robinson...

united spent their money and had dave sexton and tommy docherty; the london-clubs were the media darlings, but liverpool just kept on winning.. That was based on footballing knowledge, hard work from the top, good players - a formidable team machine that just kept on going and no-one was stronger/bigger than the club..

No point on dragging up the state of the union, but for me - ian ayre and the instagram-account of mario balotelli which for some masoschist reason I clicked on, sums it up..

It just feels like the club is going a little backwards day-by-day, and until the owners get a management team on board that can actually run a football club to its bigger extent, the drop continues..

[I-was-watching-it-on-Sky]

I'd set myself the task of not posting anything until the new APLT thread opens up, but I've been sucked in...

To me it seems as though some people are confusing two different things, 'negative' posts and 'negativity'. I have some sympathy with SP's argument that threads are diverted into discussions which are nothing to do with the thread. I've stopped reading the Paul Tompkins thread because most of what's said on there now gives you the impression that the posters haven't even read the OP or the Tomkins article. To some extent...that's what's happened in this thread too, but it's not getting us any closer to the confusion between negative & negativity. The mod's do drag discussion back on-topic from time to time, or even lock threads that have run their course...which is no bad thing.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with posting something which is 'negative', I've done it myself (or at least, something which I've thought as balanced but others thought were negative). I'd defend myself by saying that I try and present it within a reasoned argument (mostly). I don't detect that the majority get pissed off with 'negative' posts if it's presented as a reasoned argument. It's quite possible to hold a negative view on one issue and a positive view on a different issue. Such individuals views tend to aggregate to an acceptable middle/ balanced outlook.

Negativity is a different thing, at least I think so. That's the basic disposition to view each issue/ prospective outcome in a negative light. In essence they don't have what most of us would regard as a balanced view. This comes across as them driving an agenda. With no sense of irony, they are the usual subjects in here who are agenda driven and who themselves use that epithet as a label to dismiss people who disagree with them...and they're not necessarily always the ones we'd think of as 'negative'.

Another thing which has been called for is a sense of moderation in arguing/ discussion. Some people don't help their own cause with this... A page or two back one contributor, making the case for moderation, described having to read this constant negativity as "...abject misery..." Abject misery...really...? I'd have thought that trekking bare foot over snow covered mountains to escape murderous bandits was a bit of a piss off, sitting cold and hungry exposed to the elements beside the earthquake ruins of your home was a tad inconvenient but sitting in your warm home, sweet coffee in hand reading something you don't need to read is apparently abject misery.

In short, the call is for each of us to stay on topic, argue with balance & moderation and not promoting an agenda. I can't see who could argue with that.

[The 5th Benitle]

In short, the call is for each of us to stay on topic, argue with balance & moderation and not promoting an agenda. I can't see who could argue with that.

Indeed.

Nothing wrong with being negative, the whole point of this thread is that there are quite a few posters who ruin a lot of threads by posting the same negative viewpoint every single time.

[TSC]

It would be interesting to compare posting activity of some of these posters between some negative times (Kenny gets the boot, the lacklustre performances this season) and the better times (cup finals, goal records, nearly winning against all odds).

Sadly I seem to remember these posters being much more vocal during the down times than the good times. Particularly when those good times were delivered in conflict to the doom that they predicted.

Kind of sums up this thread.

That's the nature of the beast.  You look at any post match thread, even for a mundane game, maybe a friendly even.  Many more posts when we lose v when we win.  This is not a mere characteristic of this site.  It is a reflection of all sites football & probably sport. 

However to do a fairly accurate comparison of specific posters during good times v bad times you'd effectively need the internet to have been invented 20 years prior, as good times have been in short supply for the reds (relatively) from its inception, particularly if you're at least old enough to remember the 80's.

[I-was-watching-it-on-Sky]

"... if you're at least old enough to remember the 80's..."

I'm getting to the point where I'm starting to forget the 80's...

[Ken-Obi]

Can't wait for the 29-page dissection of a friendly we fail to win this summer

[Crosby Nick]

Can't wait for the 29-page dissection of a friendly we fail to win this summer

The 3 pager for when we do win will be more enjoyable!

[SerbianScouser]

Can't wait for the 29-page dissection of a friendly we fail to win this summer

Thing is, the atmosphere here wasn`t that much better and happier at the start of 13/14. People were pretty much on the fence then when it comes to Rodgers, so the pressure was immense as the overall narrative was that it was time for him to show if he can implement the football he promised to deliver. We started the season very well and it was apparent pretty soon that we can score goals and be up there in the Top 4.

So the only way for Rodgers to silent the doom mongers on here and elsewhere is to do something similar this time around and make sure we start well and start scoring goals again. I believe we are one top class forward away from that as the amount of talented players we have in support is frankly ridiculous but it`s never gonna work unless we find that player to be a catalyst and a driving force in the final third. Sturridge getting to his best once he comes back can only be a huge bonus.

[Mutton Geoff]

i will tell you what would help if people stopped with the cliche stuff:

Rose Tinted Specs, Happy Clappers, Doom Mongers, Accepting Mediocrity, calling the players Deadwood or worse etc ,

The whole issue is not that people want to moan at lets say Rodgers just don't hijack every goddam thread to do it, it's tedious .

[JerseyKloppite]

Doing something about it is a shared responsibility between every single one of us who posts here, though. To make considered posts. To self-moderate. To add to a debate instead of posting for the sake of posting.

...

 

Couldn't agree more.

[keyo]

Indeed.

Nothing wrong with being negative, the whole point of this thread is that there are quite a few posters who ruin a lot of threads by posting the same negative viewpoint every single time.

tends to happen more the longer a thread goes too.....probably as posters drift away to more current or interesting topics, and those entrenched in their position remain, probably why the same names crop up (both as negative and positive, and the mods of course!!)

[Draex]

Indeed.

Nothing wrong with being negative, the whole point of this thread is that there are quite a few posters who ruin a lot of threads by posting the same negative viewpoint every single time.

Can I ask why they aren't banned? Clear rules to say agendas aren't allowed on the forums, especially if they constantly derail a thread.

[TSC]

Can I ask why they aren't banned? Clear rules to say agendas aren't allowed on the forums, especially if they constantly derail a thread.

You may make that 'ban' call on the basis an individual consistently derails threads with the same point, especially if it's clearly largely irrelevant to the thread topic.  However if relevancy is 'debatable' it then becomes a subjective call from an individual mod. 

Generally imo if posters are going to be banned for having a negative point of view then the forum may as well pack up and go home.

[I-was-watching-it-on-Sky]

You may make that 'ban' call on the basis an individual consistently derails threads with the same point, especially if it's clearly largely irrelevant to the thread topic.  However if relevancy is 'debatable' it then becomes a subjective call from an individual mod. 

Generally imo if posters are going to be banned for having a negative point of view then the forum may as well pack up and go home.

It is a difficult call for the mod's but in some cases it has to be done. I don't think people will get banned for having a negative point of view on a single issue, it's the whole issue of individuals who seem to be driving negative agendas across thread after thread which seems to be what the mod's are taking issue with (and has given rise to this thread).

Personally I'm not so bothered by the different/ negative opinions, that's the very foodstuff of a debate forum and my feeling is that the forum would wither away out of disinterest if it was only 40,000 people saying the same thing. For me it's how some people quickly ratchet up the tone against anyone expressing views they don't like which is a big problem (see how difficult it is, I'm pretty sure we don't all agree on what problem we need to solve). Thread discussions soon become, 'you c***', 'only gobshites think that', 'you're a twat'' etc. etc. Pointless bickering & insults are a kind of catalyst which harden people's resolve to dig their heels in and the discussion element of the thread comes second to 'winning' the argument. The thing is, there are some individuals for whom that it their normal way of behaving and for whatever reason they just don't self-moderate it properly.

You can see it happening in threads time and again, 2-3 people locking horns. I've been sucked into it and in more reflective moments it's quite shaming but in the moment it seems reasonable & justified. When we have particular people doing it in thread after thread, dominating the debate and pissing people off with the same attitude...that's a different thing. Then there is reasonable cause to give them a time-out.

How it's applied is a whole can of worms in itself, which I'm glad I don't have to deal with.

[SP]

It is often a marginal call. The individual occurrences are often borderline. Taken individually it would be harsh to ban on the one instance. But the pattern of behaviour has an effect that probably is worthy of a shot across the bows.

I believe part of the rational for a topic like this the plea to self-moderate, and the veiled threat that we would act. Any bans on those explicit grounds are likely to end up messy though, and will no doubt swell the ranks of the RAWK martyrs. But we will probably intervene more for negativity thread derailment.

[the 92A]

 Think SP hits the nail firmly on the head, we don't like banning people, especially if they've been around so we're calling for a bit of self moderation. On one hand I think if we sign a decent striker who remains injury free we might surprise a few people but I do have reservations about how the football side of FSG's business is being managed. I'd love to have the same sort of conversations I have with my mates where we respect each others views but differ on here but when there are no shades of grey and everything is pushed to for or against it's boring. That said we've had a difficult season and RAWK reflects that, if we'd have got fourth I doubt we'd have this thread. Differences are healthy I read Al555's posts and Craigs both coming from different POV and respect both posters. Disagree but have a bit of panache to what you're arguing don't just drag everything down.

[SP]

How does anyone explain the echo piece (sponsored by the club) a week ago that used the signings of Joe Cole and Jovanovic as a reason not to reward Skrtel with a decent contract?

This is not the topic for that discussion.

[Mumm-Ra]

i will tell you what would help if people stopped with the cliche stuff:

Rose Tinted Specs, Happy Clappers, Doom Mongers, Accepting Mediocrity, calling the players Deadwood or worse etc ,

Bit pot/kettle that Geoff, you've had hundreds of posts containing cliches like "skywashed", "modern-day fans", etc. It gets very repetitive on both sides.

[Theoldkopite]

I'm getting to the point where I'm starting to forget the 80's...

The 80's???

[Mutton Geoff]

Bit pot/kettle that Geoff, you've had hundreds of posts containing cliches like "skywashed", "modern-day fans", etc. It gets very repetitive on both sides.

Did i say i didn't,  just like smart arsed replies like yours, as for hundreds of posts Feck off and count them

[kcbworth]

In light of some of the animosity in the ownership thread, a nice reminder to everyone about this pleasant moment of introspection we had last year.

[Cormack Snr]

We started off moaning about how shit Sakho is in The Central, continued in The Midland about needing a commanding goalie, The Post Office was all about letting Agger go too early and reminiscing about going to Germany and Holland on a pre-season tour in 1975 in what turned out to be a robbed car.
Playing players out of position was all the rage in The First National while the players not being up for the Villa game in our biggest game of the season was the topic of conversation in The Liverpool.
Thumbing to the games in the very early 70's and pissing about with the contract of The best of a bad bunch Skrtel was on the agenda in Rigsby's.
After that I don't remember much, it's good to moan..

We weren't far off the mark all that time ago..

[has gone odd]

its a great post, I am a bit of moaner myself but move on the next day!

the internet is in the home of nearly everyone, this is the result. Any forum in the land is full of whinge and whine , in the early days it wasnt so bad.