Whoever runs the facebook account

Sluffy wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:Can I just point out that this thread was made by Johnny about something not involving me, breadman chose to involve

This thread is just a continuation of all that shit.

Again, this thread had nothing to do with me.

These patronising lectures about "vendettas" and "growing up" and "getting on with it because life's too short" would be easier to swallow if you hadn't spent weeks and weeks ranting about the ST (and by extension Mike Smith) a few months back.

That's partly what winds people up - Obvious double standards.

It's come to something when we're arguing about arguing. Over the years we've discussed just about everything so I guess we have become over-concerned about the characters at the expense of the discussion. What happened to the free exchange of ideas and outward-looking threads like Nat's BEL? We have replaced them with introspective ramblings and "personal" digs at the people we imagine sit behind the characters portrayed on here. 

As a product, the site is suffering and it's become less attractive to browsers and a pain in the ass for regulars who have to trawl through loads of personal exchanges in the hope that someone will actually write about the topic in hand. If we really want to grow the membership, something has to be done, but what? 

If the mods are unable or unwilling to stamp out personal exchanges we could have a sticky "personal exchanges" thread where characters can "take it outside" to get it off their chest and the rest of us can get on with discussing the topic - whilst still having the option to check out the exchange of insults if we can be bothered. Seems a good idea as some characters seem to revel in hijacking threads with "personal" insults and I occasionally wonder if it's people from other sites deliberately sabotaging NUTS to drive members and potential members away.

I also question the validity of allowing multiple accounts from the same IP address. Sure it's good inasmuch that people like Nat can generate interest by having different characters argue different perspectives but it falls down when multiple characters exist to argue the same point and give the impression that multiple people agree with a particular perspective.

Nuts is becoming petty and cliquey and inaction won't turn the ship around, so some hard decisions are needed if things are going to improve in the future. New blood will be needed to freshen up the site and the current situation won't help to achieve that. Not everybody is as thick-skinned as me so whilst I agree that people should recognise that these are just words from an unknown internet character, not everyone does. That fact should be recognised and the default mod position should be to treat words as if they were written by a real person to another real person.

wanderlust wrote:Sure it's good inasmuch that people like Nat can generate interest by having different characters argue different perspectives

I don't have multiple accounts so you can take that back.

As a half-newbie looking in, I see every single poster has at some time posted crap with the possible exception of Chairmanda. You all have also posted informative, funny, absolute bolleaux on more than a few occasions. It only becomes wearisome when someone runs with the ball and the rest chase hurling insults at each other. On my military website you get categories from swearing, even mildly, is verboten, insults not allowed and everything modded to buggery. Any infringement gets a number of points. Get 10 and you're gone for a day or two, serious lapses for good. Lower down the scale there are other categories allowing from specialised postings to absolute wankerish topics. Even on the lower echelons there are rules, no illegals, no gash shots and no revealing personal info.
We've all made note of the fact we're  adults and this really shouldn't be happening in order to attempt to prove a minor point. We all need to get a grip and show respect for others' posts, even the crap ones, but please make the posts at least show a modicum of contributory effort. 

Bread2.0 wrote:These patronising lectures about "vendettas" and "growing up" and "getting on with it because life's too short" would be easier to swallow if you hadn't spent weeks and weeks ranting about the ST (and by extension Mike Smith) a few months back.

That's partly what winds people up - Obvious double standards.

You're as spot on with this as you are with how the sites post count means so much to me.

There's only you who have been banging on about the ST for months now.

I've not mentioned them for ages.

I've even asked other folk to drop making references to the ST because it was becoming an unhealthy obsession of yours in an attempt to keep beating me over the head with.

What I have said about the ST at the time was genuine comment and not some vendetta against Smith - even though he clearly has one against me and on more than one occasion tried to wreck the Nuts site simply to get to me.

Once I start taking something that some bloke I've never met nor ever intend to do so, POSTED on the internet seriously then that's the time I will pack up going on to forums.

For now at least I can still tell the difference between the real world and the internet one.

wanderlust wrote:It's come to something when we're arguing about arguing. Over the years we've discussed just about everything so I guess we have become over-concerned about the characters at the expense of the discussion. What happened to the free exchange of ideas and outward-looking threads like Nat's BEL? We have replaced them with introspective ramblings and "personal" digs at the people we imagine sit behind the characters portrayed on here. 

As a product, the site is suffering and it's become less attractive to browsers and a pain in the ass for regulars who have to trawl through loads of personal exchanges in the hope that someone will actually write about the topic in hand. If we really want to grow the membership, something has to be done, but what? 

If the mods are unable or unwilling to stamp out personal exchanges we could have a sticky "personal exchanges" thread where characters can "take it outside" to get it off their chest and the rest of us can get on with discussing the topic - whilst still having the option to check out the exchange of insults if we can be bothered. Seems a good idea as some characters seem to revel in hijacking threads with "personal" insults and I occasionally wonder if it's people from other sites deliberately sabotaging NUTS to drive members and potential members away.

I also question the validity of allowing multiple accounts from the same IP address. Sure it's good inasmuch that people like Nat can generate interest by having different characters argue different perspectives but it falls down when multiple characters exist to argue the same point and give the impression that multiple people agree with a particular perspective.

Nuts is becoming petty and cliquey and inaction won't turn the ship around, so some hard decisions are needed if things are going to improve in the future. New blood will be needed to freshen up the site and the current situation won't help to achieve that. Not everybody is as thick-skinned as me so whilst I agree that people should recognise that these are just words from an unknown internet character, not everyone does. That fact should be recognised and the default mod position should be to treat words as if they were written by a real person to another real person.

We don't.

All KNOWN fake accounts are long gone.

As I've said many times before it's easy to register via a proxy server and be a fake account, with a unique ip - we simply have no idea if they are genuine posters or 'characters' until they slip up sometime or other.

Also as I've said before we try and run this site as if we were on the terraces / stands at a game and generally what we hear and see there, we allow on Nuts (as long as it doesn't break the law of course).

People are sometimes abusive but they mostly calm down and move on.  

People sometimes do argue but often it comes to nothing.

People sometimes don't like what is being said or the way it is said but usually they let it go.

The trouble we have is that two sides have locked horns with each other and can't seem to let it go.

If we were the stewards at the match we would probably bang theirs heads together and tell them to pack it in or throw them all out.

That is basically what we are trying to do here on Nuts.

Of course people take sides when they are at the game when such things happen but usually they don't know why things kicked off or who was the one that started it in the first place.

The big difference of course is that we aren't at the match and we deal in WORDS only.

I'm fairly certain that any other forum would have banned for good one or both sides involved in this internet vendetta between themselves, permanently by now.

Maybe I've been wrong all this time thinking that grown men can sort themselves out, draw a line under stuff and move on - when it clearly is being detrimental to the site and everybody else's enjoyment of it?

Sluffy you've eluded to 'the Boggers account' being run by someone else though?

Norpig wrote:Sluffy you've eluded to 'the Boggers account' being run by someone else though?

There's my name again

Norpig wrote:Sluffy you've eluded to 'the Boggers account' being run by someone else though?

Maybe it is.

We can't tell for certain either way but we do have our suspicions.

Sluffy wrote:

Norpig wrote:Sluffy you've eluded to 'the Boggers account' being run by someone else though?

Maybe it is.

We can't tell for certain either way but we do have our suspicions.

Go on then, what are your suspicions?

Boggersbelief wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Norpig wrote:Sluffy you've eluded to 'the Boggers account' being run by someone else though?

Maybe it is.

We can't tell for certain either way but we do have our suspicions.

Go on then, what are your suspicions?

I suspect you aren't a 23 year old Bolton fan.

Sluffy wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Norpig wrote:Sluffy you've eluded to 'the Boggers account' being run by someone else though?

Maybe it is.

We can't tell for certain either way but we do have our suspicions.

Go on then, what are your suspicions?

I suspect you aren't a 23 year old Bolton fan.

Based on?

Boggersbelief wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Norpig wrote:Sluffy you've eluded to 'the Boggers account' being run by someone else though?

Maybe it is.

We can't tell for certain either way but we do have our suspicions.

Go on then, what are your suspicions?

I suspect you aren't a 23 year old Bolton fan.

Based on?

Suspicion of course.

Sluffy wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Norpig wrote:Sluffy you've eluded to 'the Boggers account' being run by someone else though?

Maybe it is.

We can't tell for certain either way but we do have our suspicions.

Go on then, what are your suspicions?

I suspect you aren't a 23 year old Bolton fan.

Based on?

Suspicion of course.

So nothing concrete then?

Don't get me wrong here, I liked Johnny, but he was somewhat of a drama Queen, having deleted his account on various occasions, it wouldn't surprise me if he was sat watching this thread to see the reaction it makes.

Boggersbelief wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Norpig wrote:Sluffy you've eluded to 'the Boggers account' being run by someone else though?

Maybe it is.

We can't tell for certain either way but we do have our suspicions.

Go on then, what are your suspicions?

I suspect you aren't a 23 year old Bolton fan.

Based on?

Suspicion of course.

So nothing concrete then?

If it was concrete then we would KNOW you were a fake account and then have no need to be suspicious, wouldn't we.

Sluffy wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Norpig wrote:Sluffy you've eluded to 'the Boggers account' being run by someone else though?

Maybe it is.

We can't tell for certain either way but we do have our suspicions.

Go on then, what are your suspicions?

I suspect you aren't a 23 year old Bolton fan.

Based on?

Suspicion of course.

So nothing concrete then?

If it was concrete then we would KNOW you were a fake account and then have no need to be suspicious, wouldn't we.

Basically what you're telling me is you are rather paranoid.

Boggersbelief wrote:Basically what you're telling me is you are rather paranoid.

No, what I'm saying is that I very much doubt you are a 23 year old Bolton fan.

But as this is the internet you are free to be whoever you want to be and quite frankly I don't lose any sleep over it either way.