Well has it?

 

I can't tell the difference anymore.

 

Heavy handed modding, people being warned and posts removed?

 

Hi Bench.

Well has it?

 

I can't tell the difference anymore.

 

Why,have you been banned from this one aswell? ::::::::::::::

Well has it?

 

I can't tell the difference anymore.

 

Heavy handed modding, people being warned and posts removed?

 

Hi Bench.

 

here you go again

 

as per

 

spouting off about something you know nothing about

Natasha,

You were moderately amusing when you were convinced you knew pop stars. Now you're hanging around with the producers of Panorama.

You just never get the balance right do you?

It is getting like the wanderer.

The other day you gave me a warning for saying Nat Lofthouse didn???t mean an awful lot to me. That???s fair comment in my book. I also stated he was out of shape in response to someone saying he should start against Boro. Fair comment again I???d say.

 

This morning you lock my thread about Allardyce even though I didn???t mention any allegation. I said even if the allegations were not true it would still damage him ??? a la David Jones.

 

A forum is where people with different views can debate or even argue ??? it shouldn???t be a forum where only Mod views are permitted.

I agree

 

I really has gone down to shitbox

 

People taking it far far too seriously

 

Rules, when did we ever have any rules except the porn ones

 

Arses

At a guess the higher profile of the site now means that rules have to be stricter eg racism, libel etc

fookin spot on frank!

 

happy will tell you, the site is MUCH larger now that it ever has been. It now has very close connections with the club and cant really be seen as an 'underground' site with 'different' views shall we say.

 

suppose you could say its a victim of its own success, bit like bolton wanderers football club.

 

oh and for the record, 90% of natasha's posts are complete and utter crap and just there to provoke a reaction.

 

this is not interesting reading imo!

Edited September 19, 200619 yr by HomerJay

At a guess the higher profile of the site now means that rules have to be stricter eg racism, libel etc

 

I quite agree, but Nat Lofthouse isn't black.

Too many mods

 

Too many rules

 

Too much f??cking locking of threads and moving posts here & there

 

Eeeeeh, I remember the good old days before WW was invaded by flat-dicks, bed wetting liberals & posters-turned-moderators. It was lads having a good crack about the match & owt else they felt like saying.............bit like comparing Burnden to the Reebok really.

Quick question to as and the others moaning about the mods:

Does the site need moderating or not?

Some mods do seem too trigger happy to lock threads.

 

Take todays, just because the mod could not be arsed with Natasha's latest post!

 

WHAT!!

Some mods do seem too trigger happy to lock threads.

 

Take todays, just because the mod could not be arsed with Natasha's latest post!

In fairness, it was probably locked due to it being very likely to spin into a thoroughly libelous thread, hurling accusations and insinuations around, also starting any thread with "A friend of mine at the BBC has told me........." is bound to be utter bollox

No as this place has not banned boring little twonks like you

In fairness, it was probably locked due to it being very likely to spin into a thoroughly libelous thread, hurling accusations and insinuations around

 

thanks, saved me an answer

 

shame the original poster needed it spelling out, but hey ho

Thousands of football sites up & down the country will be talking about it, as if we'll be the only one

 

Shame some mods need that pointing out to them, ho hum

In fairness, it was probably locked due to it being very likely to spin into a thoroughly libelous thread, hurling accusations and insinuations around, also starting any thread with "A friend of mine at the BBC has told me........." is bound to be utter bollox

 

So can I get this right

 

Are we saying that whoever locked the post has been taking a PHd at the Royal Doris Stokes College and knew that is was going to get out of hand or was it a premature assumption, just for clarification you understand

So can I get this right

 

Are we saying that whoever locked the post has been taking a PHd at the Royal Doris Stokes College and knew that is was going to get out of hand or was it a premature assumption, just for clarification you understand

 

spot on

 

one of them

 

 

Quick question to as and the others moaning about the mods:

Does the site need moderating or not?

 

 

i'm guessing this has been missed

Quick question to as and the others moaning about the mods:

Does the site need moderating or not?

 

The site needs modding, definitely. But there are way too many mods, of which a couple of them are power crazy ??? something that ruined Bolton Banter before it got started.

 

But the beauty of this site used to be that anything goes.

 

Quite rightly the racist and hardcore porn stuff should go but locking threads because one particular mod doesn???t like something is ridiculous. Forums are for people to have a good old argument ??? let them run their course rather than locking them in their prime. The cream will always rise to the top.

 

I want to say what I want to say. If people don???t like it or it bores them they ignore me. Simple.

 

One man???s drivel is another man???s gold.

So can I get this right

 

Are we saying that whoever locked the post has been taking a PHd at the Royal Doris Stokes College and knew that is was going to get out of hand or was it a premature assumption, just for clarification you understand

 

Thats what happens when you let people like Traf take control.

The site is getting corporate, just like the club itself.

 

 

Harsh..but true.

 

It's what happens when you grow.

Sad to admit it...

 

...but I agree with Natasha on this one.

 

 

The post I mentioned was locked on the thinking of a mod that the thread MAY contain libelous thread, hurling accusations etc etc if allowed to continue.

 

On that logic of moderating WW we may as well shut it down now and not bother as every single thread on here has the potential to libelous, racist etc

But the beauty of this site used to be that anything goes.

 

Quite rightly the racist and hardcore porn stuff should go but locking threads because one particular mod doesn???t like something is ridiculous

 

i don't disgree with a word of that

 

not one word

 

but there is a contradiction between saying that 'everything goes' is the way to go, then following it with 'but delete stuff i don't approve of..............

 

and the thread was locked because i feared your involvement would lead to it getting out of hand, and in the absence of anybody else to protect unhappy from the excesses of one or two, i locked it

 

we have another thread where the general theme of bungs can be discussed

I agree this site should be moderated, if only to stop the continuous drivel and sh'te posted by that bint N, why did 'it' finish it's last post with"one man's drivel is another man's gold" is 'it' a man?

I agree this site should be moderated, if only to stop the continuous drivel and sh'te posted by that bint N, why did 'it' finish it's last post with"one man's drivel is another man's gold" is 'it' a man?

 

Is that Shakespere?