Talking Footy

NSWAFL came up with a pretty good suggestion.

When things are claimed by any poster they require proof, or they must be accompanied with a comment stating it is your opinion only (or along those lines)

He suggested a stickied thread that lists all the claims that have been challenged because they fail to provide adequate proof. The original poster could be given a time frame of say 5 days to back up there statement with facts. If they fail to prove the claim it be labelled a 'fail' and the person awarded a BS point.

At the end of the year we could tally all the BS points and see who the biggest BS artist is! We could even tally the overall AFL and NRL fans' points and see which side BS the most. Furthermore, we could tally the number of successful claims and work out the 'best and smartest' of us all.

What are your thoughts? I suspect some statements could be very hard to prove because the source data isn't conclusive or the topic too subjective. Maybe these claims could be labelled 'undecided'' after the debate appears to be undecided.

If we go down this track I would like:

- Another moderator, preferably an NRL fan, for balance

- each claim to have its own thread and must stay on topic! No distracting tactics like constant references to crowds or TV accumulative audiences, unless of course that is the topic of discussion. In fact off topic posts, other than banter, would be deleted to keep the debate on track!

Thoughts guys?

Ps nice suggestion NSWAFL!

My thoughts.
Shorter time frame - say a day - posters will know the expectation.
There has to be a clear distinction between a statement of fact and opinion.
The challenge has to be clear as to what they challenging - eg - "that's bs" is not sufficient.
The criteria has to be very clear. eg bigger - there are many ways to be bigger.
In such a case a poster should be allowed to qualify his statement for clarity.
And then the big one . Validation. What do we accept as validation - moot point with some people.

If people know there is a system in place then they will be more careful in what they write.

The point I really like is that this covers abuse too.
If for example someone refers to another as a wombat and is challenged that person will have to prove such accusation.

cos789 wrote:

My thoughts.
Shorter time frame - say a day - posters will know the expectation.
There has to be a clear distinction between a statement of fact and opinion.
The challenge has to be clear as to what they challenging - eg - "that's bs" is not sufficient.
The criteria has to be very clear. eg bigger - there are many ways to be bigger.
In such a case a poster should be allowed to qualify his statement for clarity.
And then the big one . Validation. What do we accept as validation - moot point with some people.

If people know there is a system in place then they will be more careful in what they write.

The point I really like is that this covers abuse too.
If for example someone refers to another as a wombat and is challenged that person will have to prove such accusation.

Good points.

I like that last line!

This thread should join the BS file. Cant be proven it will work, and it wont. Point, all AFL supporters could not fathom within their miniscule minds that I've played AFL in both aus and o/s. They asked me to prove it, which is not possible online. The people who are spreading the BS here are those who cant handle the truth.

The file wont work, to think you can judge fairly in this manner is complete BS. Do I need to add some abuse directed at you folk to get this straight in your mind? :D

You can, but it will only prove that you are sooking as badly as Dave or Parra! In case you haven't noticed it looks like the first of two entries will be from Beaussie! Anyway, you won't be added to the BS file for that because you're making a claim about yourself and nothing else. I can't prove that I work for the Sydney AFL with links. No one else can prove with links what they do or whatever. It's personal and it should stay that way.

It's claims about other things that would enter the file.

King-Eliagh wrote:

This thread should join the BS file. Cant be proven it will work, and it wont. Point, all AFL supporters could not fathom within their miniscule minds that I've played AFL in both aus and o/s. They asked me to prove it, which is not possible online. The people who are spreading the BS here are those who cant handle the truth.

The file wont work, to think you can judge fairly in this manner is complete BS. Do I need to add some abuse directed at you folk to get this straight in your mind? :D

I agree many points will not be able to be proven, hence I suggested these be labelled 'undecided' or unresolved.

If we had a RL and AFL mod we could confer to make a final decision. If the decision was split the result would be undecided. If they both agreed you would get either a failed claim, and therefore a BS point, or a sustained claim and a 'best and smartest' point.

These are suggestions man. Why such negativity? Your glass isn't half empty, it's broken!

Because they are foolish suggestions with little chance of proving effective or as some suggest, reducing BS. They're going to cause much more BS I'd say and work for yourself with little actual outcomes. People wont believe something is BS simply because a mod and a few reference happy gullible naive clowns believe it to be. My AFL playing point is one example and there are numerous others where references wont cut the mustard so to speak.

So why the need to change what we have? Its simply to flatter yourselves isnt it?

King-Eliagh wrote:

Because they are foolish suggestions with little chance of proving effective or as some suggest, reducing BS. They're going to cause much more BS I'd say and work for yourself with little actual outcomes. People wont believe something is BS simply because a mod and a few reference happy gullible naive clowns believe it to be. My AFL playing point is one example and there are numerous others where references wont cut the mustard so to speak.

So why the need to change what we have? Its simply to flatter yourselves isnt it?

Your AFL playing point is ridiculous and would never be referred for proof because it can't be!

But claims like Beaussie about the NRL fudging numbers can.

The part about me trying to flatter myself is ridiculous. All I want to do is help this place function and make it fun. There were clearly many unhappy members here when I arrived.

Absolutely.

King-Eliagh wrote:

Because they are foolish suggestions with little chance of proving effective or as some suggest, reducing BS. They're going to cause much more BS I'd say and work for yourself with little actual outcomes. People wont believe something is BS simply because a mod and a few reference happy gullible naive clowns believe it to be. My AFL playing point is one example and there are numerous others where references wont cut the mustard so to speak.

So why the need to change what we have? Its simply to flatter yourselves isnt it?

All you want to do is continue to post absolute crap as fact unabated.

There's no point being part of that. It becomes tedious very quickly!

Smell the fear from the boggerballers, you guys are going to do everything you can to kill off the forum and drive all other footy code fans away just so you can say you won something.

Pathetic and cowardly.

No, you are the forum murderer!

Been ticking along nicely since I got here, ask bea.

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

Smell the fear from the boggerballers, you guys are going to do everything you can to kill off the forum and drive all other footy code fans away just so you can say you won something.

Pathetic and cowardly.

So that's a no?

Hardly surprising you don't want to head towards any sort of proof accountability! You'd be lucky to prove your own existence!

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

Been ticking along nicely since I got here, ask bea.

Why did he ask for a mod then?