WiganWarriorsFans.com

You're not into to talking about Wigan online?

I love coming on here and hearing everyones opinions whether I agree with them or not. It's great to remain fairly anonymous but say what you want (to an extent)

Who's the senior 1st team player?

warriors posted:

robjoenz posted:

mrs_carney posted: Got to agree with you there fraggle

Me too!

It was just my opinion, im not really in to talk about wigan over the net an the rest.
Just thought i would say my opinion an if people thought the same an it might of been done.

I see why you joined a wigan rugby message board then :conf:
It's great coming on here to discuss the goings on with people who care about the club like you do and to see what they think of the goings on.

Guessing sean was just common sense though

ok Brian Carney is my first guess because he needs some game time
Denis Moran is my second guess because he needs to practice his kicking
Danny Orr is my third guess to test his fitness

:eh:
Terry Newton, Wayne Mcdonald, WAyne Godwin, Danny tickle (surely not)

Interesting Sean Gleeson has been added to the senior squad, well his name and number have :doz:

robjoenz posted:

mrs_carney posted:

Fraggle posted: Indeed, it would be a pretty dismal place if someone posted something and all anyone else could reply was "I agree", "Me too", "Me too", "me 2", "mee to" etc.

Got to agree with you there fraggle

Me too!

Fraggle, Mts C, Rob et al...

Don't be so hypocritical. Tell the truth. All you want is the usual back slapping. You all couldn't wait to jump on wnac or anyone with a different point of view.

Heydude and Waterside Glens are prime examples. Never start a debate but are always ready to shoot someone down.

I've not got a problem with this - I'll just not post anything for debate, but please don't try to portray this site as a mouthpiece for free speech!!

The outsiders get deleted, the insiders can swear like f***, insult the rest and still get away with it. I've quoted many facts to prove this and no-one has been able to come back because it's all been true.

Double standards, insider crowd, "yes" men (and women), etc.

ADMIT WHAT YOU ARE!!

jinkin jimmy posted:

Fraggle, Mts C, Rob et al...

Don't be so hypocritical. Tell the truth. All you want is the usual back slapping. You all couldn't wait to jump on wnac or anyone with a different point of view.

Heydude and Waterside Glens are prime examples. Never start a debate but are always ready to shoot someone down.

I've not got a problem with this - I'll just not post anything for debate, but please don't try to portray this site as a mouthpiece for free speech!!

The outsiders get deleted, the insiders can swear like f***, insult the rest and still get away with it. I've quoted many facts to prove this and no-one has been able to come back because it's all been true.

Double standards, insider crowd, "yes" men (and women), etc.

ADMIT WHAT YOU ARE!!

Sorry, jj, but that's nonsense. I answer the post, not the poster, as do the others. I've agreed with a lot of DoD's posts, for example, despite being called a "s-o-g" (and I didn't even know that one had been deleted - I replied to it saying that I'd been called worse, or words to that effect, as I recall, and once I've read a post I don't go back to see what happens to it.)

I'm not sure what you mean by the "insider crowd", as you call it - if by that you mean long-standing members of the board (as wnac claimed to be, but then refused to give his previous user names), then we rarely agree about anything! DaveO and I, for example, have been coming on here as long as most, and we have approximately a 50% disagreement rate! (I've even criticised a moderator's spelling, on several occasions, without being deleted! Rob?)
AFAIK, the only posts I remember being deleted (as distinct from "asterisked") are some from Latics trolls. (if , as you claim, the "s-o-g" post was deleted, it was some considerable time after it was posted, which proves Fraggle's point about timing).
Most of the recent new members of the board have been made very welcome, because they know (instinctively or otherwise) how to conduct themselves on an internet forum...perhaps by reading one of the many web pages on "netiquette". P'n'B, despite being a Wire fan, does know this - Wiresphs doesn't (or doesn't care, which comes to the same thing.)

I love reading and taking part in the debate on this message board, it's extremely interesting seeing other peoples points of view and I've learnt a fair bit on here.

To say that the moderators on this board delete 'outsiders' posts (by this I assume you mean new posters) is unfair. I cannot speak for the other moderators when I'm not online but I have only deleted posts containing abuse from/towards the Latics or when arguments begin to get personal to keep the board as well respected as it is now. I also occasionally replace swearwords with less harsh words. I'm not a fan of using *'s either because even younger children are intellignent enough to realise what letter you are replacing.

I have noticed though as jinkin said that there are sometimes several (often two) camps on certain issues, this is inevitable. If one person registers a good post and another could not have put it better themselves then they post their agreement. I quite like this as it gives me an idea of the spread of opinion on the board (without reading repeat messages).

OK maybe I've overstated my case but sometimes that's necessary to get the point across.

I have mentioned deleting posts when I should have said deleted/edited/amended whatever.

For my info, could you explain what the moderators' powers are. For example, I take it you can enter a post and edit the text - do you make it plain when this has been done?

Regarding the rest there is definitely a clique (you know who you are!) with a group of hangers on surrounding it (you know who you are too!). OK, maybe not a clique but "like minded individuals"?

jinkin jimmy posted:
OK maybe I've overstated my case but sometimes that's necessary to get the point across.

I have mentioned deleting posts when I should have said deleted/edited/amended whatever.

For my info, could you explain what the moderators' powers are. For example, I take it you can enter a post and edit the text - do you make it plain when this has been done?

You'll hopefully notice that I almost always indicate when I've edited a message. As for deleting messages, I've only ever done this when the same message has been posted several times. I completely agree with free speech, you can say what you like, but if you use insulting words or excessive bad language then you should expect to have those words replaced with more moderate language.

We can edit posts, delete posts, only delete an entire thread if all the individual messages are deleted, and block threads so that subsequent messages cannot be posted.

Regarding the rest there is definitely a clique (you know who you are!) with a group of hangers on surrounding it (you know who you are too!). OK, maybe not a clique but "like minded individuals"?

But isn't life like this? We can't all agree on everything, but with a large user base there are people with similar experiences who will tend to agree with each other. Some of us have had dealings with club officials over the years so we've had an insight into the way things are done which others have not. Some people know the players individually and they also will see things differently. Other people are more commercially minded, others know the playing side of the game and it often seems to be the case that what's good for one of those isn't necessarily good for the other. If it just happens that some of us have similar opinions, then that probably means our interactions with the club have been similar. And yet the recent appointment of Millward as coach should have shown up that not everyone shares the same opinion, even amongst the cliques you mention. In terms of hangers-on etc, the only individuals I know personally on here only post once every 3 or 4 months; I've never, to my knowledge, met anyone else and have no need to make myself popular with anyone. If people want to agree or disagree with me, that's entirely up to them. I may be talking sense to some people, and utter rubbish to others. As I said elsewhere, we can't all agree all the time otherwise this would be a very pointless place to be with lots of "me too", "me too" etc type messages.

Talking of agreeing with others, you say we (moderators) were quick to shoot down WNAC; infact I said on more than one occasion I agreed with his general point but not with the way it was being put across. I also disagreed with a number of his other claims which he was never prepared to back up with any facts or justification. Maybe it's because of the way I've been educated, but I was always taught that if you make a claim about something then you need to justify whatever it is you say. The claim by WNAC, for example, that we'll have to move out of the JJB if Whelan sells us was pure speculation with no factual support at all, at least none that (s)he was ever prepared to post on here.

And that leads to another issue that we moderators watch out for. We have to watch the unsupported claims for anything that might cause problems on a legal basis. If someone posts a message to say "I heard that such-a-person called someone-else a something" or "A reliable source tells me that so-and-so has been doing something they shouldn't" then we have to be very careful. If the person the message is about reads this, and there is no truth to the rumour or claim, then they may sue the siteowner for allowing untruths to be published. A couple of years ago there were rumours about issues between Faz and Dave Furner, various claims about Millward doing various things, and going way back there were some unpleasant messages directed at a former member of staff at Wigan who had recently left at that time and who then threatened the site with closure. None of these claims were supported by any concrete evidence, and in one case could have led to the end of this site and possible legal problems for the webmaster.

I hope that clarifies my position on this whole moderation issue. It's a shame that we can't concentrate on talking (agreeing and disagreeing) about rugby instead.