Edited by Mods contracted until end of 2020

[BackFromUSA]

Mods only edited the word “spud” from the title. The poster edited the words Paddy McCartin afterwards to make it look like they had been censored.

The editing of the word “spud” from the title (only)was done in preference to:

- issuing a warning for trolling
- issuing a warning for baiting
- issuing a warning for demeaning a Saints player

By editing the title it hopefully allowed the forum to debate the topic rationally rather than emotionally.

Instead of accepting the minor edit of the thread title, the poster has tried to inflame the community with the belief that the post has been over censored.

Nothing is further from the truth.

Moderation was lenient.

[saintspremiers]

Mods only edited the word “spud” from the title. The poster edited the words Paddy McCartin afterwards to make it look like they had been censored.

The editing of the word “spud” from the title (only)was done in preference to:

- issuing a warning for trolling
- issuing a warning for baiting
- issuing a warning for demeaning a Saints player

By editing the title it hopefully allowed the forum to debate the topic rationally rather than emotionally.

Instead of accepting the minor edit of the thread title, the poster has tried to inflame the community with the belief that the post has been over censored.

Nothing is further from the truth.

Moderation was lenient.

And you wonder why people are leaving this site Simon?

We can’t call a player a Spud? Seriously??

Go have a look at BigFooty - lots more activity there than ever before.

[BackFromUSA]

1. I only edited the word from the title. You edited the rest.

2. No concern about what is happening on Big Footy. From what I hear that the main posters there are those banned from here. And some of those still post here under new names but happily now within the forum rules. Which is all I ask.

[GRAMophone]

Mods only edited the word “spud” from the title. The poster edited the words Paddy McCartin afterwards to make it look like they had been censored.

The editing of the word “spud” from the title (only)was done in preference to:

- issuing a warning for trolling
- issuing a warning for baiting
- issuing a warning for demeaning a Saints player

By editing the title it hopefully allowed the forum to debate the topic rationally rather than emotionally.

Instead of accepting the minor edit of the thread title, the poster has tried to inflame the community with the belief that the post has been over censored.

Nothing is further from the truth.

Moderation was lenient.

And you wonder why people are leaving this site Simon?

We can’t call a player a Spud? Seriously??

Go have a look at BigFooty - lots more activity there than ever before.

Not true. You would also get shot down on BF with a weak title such as that

[parkeysainter]

A bit of decorum and class wouldn't go astray on this site sometimes.

[Jacks Back]

Who is this player Edited Bymods? We're crying out for good players so hopefully Edited can make a name for themselves.

No one

[Dave McNamara]

... Why would they give a contracted player the arse?

For me Rodge', a first round pick in exchange (whilst/if we still can) would be a reason.

(The reason actually.)

But if he's performing well enough to be worth a first round pick for someone - why would we get rid of him?

Cutting our losses (unfortunately), I reckon, Rodge'.

[Dave McNamara]

Who is this player Edited Bymods? We're crying out for good players so hopefully Edited can make a name for themselves.

Noone

Well, there's been some talk that we might rookie him. (Though no confirmation is possible till Parkey hears that whisper. )

Goes alright at Sandy though.

[ace]

Much like his No. 1 Draft Pick alumni, Jack Watts, the chance he comes good is worth more to us than anyone would pay in a trade.

Imagine we traded him to Geelong for a pick in the 40's, then he has a breakout year and plays the way we thought he could when we picked him. As bad a pick he is proving to be in hindsight, things would be so much worse if we let him go cheap and he comes good.

He's gonna be with us for a while yet.

List clogger
Don't waste any more "development" games on him.
Give them to Battle and Marshall.

[rodgerfox]

... Why would they give a contracted player the arse?

For me Rodge', a first round pick in exchange (whilst/if we still can) would be a reason.

(The reason actually.)

But if he's performing well enough to be worth a first round pick for someone - why would we get rid of him?

Cutting our losses (unfortunately), I reckon, Rodge'.

My point is, that unless he shows something freakish next year - no one would offer a first round pick for him.

And if he showed something freakish - then we'd probably want to keep him!