The Flux 2018 Daft Report: Saint’s need to build up – <edited by mods> So chow down!

[rodgerfox]

Ok, so for clarity...the supposed 'offensive nature' of the nickname is completely irrelevant and a total load of frog shyt?

The issue that two people are of the opinion that some posters are being mean Richardson?

[desertsaint]

and hickledick? where was the outrage.
i think you've taken the easy way out and totally ignored a post that according to the rules should have got a poster a ban.
now i'm not one to support banning personally, especially on long term posters. we're all adults in here, or choosing to converse with adults, but some time ago you insisted on cleaning up the main forum. it seems some animals are more equal than others.
so you've banned the use of an innocuous word that is a typical australian nickname for the coach, based on your interpretation of what the original user meant by it, which you find offensive, altho never did or said a thing about it until another user posted a very subcultural american meaning - a post that clearly contravened the rules. and you did nothing about that post, but suddenly allowed the majority australian meaning to be subverted by something an immature kid posted on a community website in a different country - a site designed as a parody of official dictionaries.
very poor form.
by the way i googled as you said 'meaning of 'the cho'' and again that particular reference did not come up.
as for saying 'richo, is the nickname for richardson - so what? is that it? one per person?

this all could have been averted if you'd either insisted the meaning of the word as used by all and sundry here was nothing more than a nickname (given you'd banned the original offender) and leniently warned saynta for posting filth. or you could have banned the word and saynta for his post. instead you've gone this route and left people confused and angry.
i'm not wanting to appear to lambast you simon - i understand its not an easy path to navigate and generally you've done a good and thankless job - but to many of us on here, you've set a poor precedent with this.

[BackFromUSA]

1. The user that used the term hickledick received warnings and PM'sfor doing so when the posts were reported.
2. It is NOT a typical Australian nickname for Richardson OR for the word coach! Richo is his nickname.
3. This post by Saynta was NEVER reported nor seen by me in my casual reading of the site - so no warning was issued.
4. I acted only when I stumbled across the argument surrounding it and looked at the hard evidence available to me.

[dragit]

Earlier this year a poster was given a permanent ban for making extremely lewd sexual commentary regarding the coach and his associations with players and club officials. It was by far the most disgusting commentary posted on this OPEN forum and despite warnings and previous bans the poster continued this practice.

It was during this period the nickname "The Cho" was born. Yes 99% of people had no idea what this referenced but it was a DELIBERATE term used to try to circumvent the rules and continue making lewd sexual commentary against the coach.

This is absolute garbage mate, cho was being used well before Con started using it and I have not read one single usage anywhere that would qualify for your accusation of deliberate lewd sexual connotation. Not one.

More bizarre knee jerk stuff from you pushing your own agenda instead of listening and equally representing the views of the majority of this forum.

Banning a word because of an obscure double meaning that no-one has appeared to have insinuated, have a think about how stupid that is for a minute.

If you are not going to listen to the posters who this site is designed for then you should hand it back to them.

[Scollop]

Let me propose a story for you all...

You have a friend that smokes cigarettes. You come up with a nickname for them, "Fag". Neither of you thinks a thing of it, assuming it refers to the cigarettes.

Later, a gay person tells you that when you use the word referring to someone they find it offensive and hurtful.

Do you...

A) continue to use the nickname in front of them, stating you didnt mean it that way anyway

B) apologise, stating you didn't mean it to be offensive, and stop using the nickname?

By ceasing to use the nickname, do you really stand to lose that much?

(A) Continue to use the nickname

You can't continue to use the nickname in a public sense or any way which may be deemed offensive to ANYONE who may be directly or indirectly affected or may find it offensive.

Do any of you understand the laws of this country?

[takeaway]

Earlier this year a poster was given a permanent ban for making extremely lewd sexual commentary regarding the coach and his associations with players and club officials. It was by far the most disgusting commentary posted on this OPEN forum and despite warnings and previous bans the poster continued this practice.

It was during this period the nickname "The Cho" was born. Yes 99% of people had no idea what this referenced but it was a DELIBERATE term used to try to circumvent the rules and continue making lewd sexual commentary against the coach.

This is absolute garbage mate, cho was being used well before Con started using it and I have not read one single usage anywhere that would qualify for your accusation of deliberate lewd sexual connotation. Not one.

More bizarre knee jerk stuff from you pushing your own agenda instead of listening and equally representing the views of the majority of this forum.

Banning a word because of an obscure double meaning that no-one has appeared to have insinuated, have a think about how stupid that is for a minute.

If you are not going to listen to the posters who this site is designed for then you should hand it back to them.

So who are the posters the site was designed for?

[Myron Gaines]

Earlier this year a poster was given a permanent ban for making extremely lewd sexual commentary regarding the coach and his associations with players and club officials. It was by far the most disgusting commentary posted on this OPEN forum and despite warnings and previous bans the poster continued this practice.

It was during this period the nickname "The Cho" was born. Yes 99% of people had no idea what this referenced but it was a DELIBERATE term used to try to circumvent the rules and continue making lewd sexual commentary against the coach.

This is absolute garbage mate, cho was being used well before Con started using it and I have not read one single usage anywhere that would qualify for your accusation of deliberate lewd sexual connotation. Not one.

More bizarre knee jerk stuff from you pushing your own agenda instead of listening and equally representing the views of the majority of this forum.

Banning a word because of an obscure double meaning that no-one has appeared to have insinuated, have a think about how stupid that is for a minute.

If you are not going to listen to the posters who this site is designed for then you should hand it back to them.

So who are the posters the site was designed for?

If we are following the general rules of democracy then the site was designed for the majority, yea? Unfortunately this site has become more autocratic.

[dragit]

Earlier this year a poster was given a permanent ban for making extremely lewd sexual commentary regarding the coach and his associations with players and club officials. It was by far the most disgusting commentary posted on this OPEN forum and despite warnings and previous bans the poster continued this practice.

It was during this period the nickname "The Cho" was born. Yes 99% of people had no idea what this referenced but it was a DELIBERATE term used to try to circumvent the rules and continue making lewd sexual commentary against the coach.

This is absolute garbage mate, cho was being used well before Con started using it and I have not read one single usage anywhere that would qualify for your accusation of deliberate lewd sexual connotation. Not one.

More bizarre knee jerk stuff from you pushing your own agenda instead of listening and equally representing the views of the majority of this forum.

Banning a word because of an obscure double meaning that no-one has appeared to have insinuated, have a think about how stupid that is for a minute.

If you are not going to listen to the posters who this site is designed for then you should hand it back to them.

So who are the posters the site was designed for?

If we are following the general rules of democracy then the site was designed for the majority, yea? Unfortunately this site has become more autocratic.

Well I think Simon is making it clear that this isn't a democracy, it's a privately funded and maintained website… if you don't share his personal values then you should leave.

[desertsaint]

care to share this law with us scollop?

the only law i could possibly think you are misguidely referring to is s 471.12
This referred specifically to postal services as applied in monis vs the queen, where monis directly sent letters to family of deceased soldiers asserting that they were murderers and in one case a pig. the case eventually went to the high court who were divided 3-3 on as to whether or not it constituted a crime.

elsewhere the law is aimed at racial, sexual, religious, political vilification or influence.

if you are trying to tie it to defamation law then you are well off, and any criticism of our staff and players could be argued as defamatory, and like this, be laughed out of court.

[saynta]

Earlier this year a poster was given a permanent ban for making extremely lewd sexual commentary regarding the coach and his associations with players and club officials. It was by far the most disgusting commentary posted on this OPEN forum and despite warnings and previous bans the poster continued this practice.

It was during this period the nickname "The Cho" was born. Yes 99% of people had no idea what this referenced but it was a DELIBERATE term used to try to circumvent the rules and continue making lewd sexual commentary against the coach.

This is absolute garbage mate, cho was being used well before Con started using it and I have not read one single usage anywhere that would qualify for your accusation of deliberate lewd sexual connotation. Not one.

More bizarre knee jerk stuff from you pushing your own agenda instead of listening and equally representing the views of the majority of this forum.

Banning a word because of an obscure double meaning that no-one has appeared to have insinuated, have a think about how stupid that is for a minute.

If you are not going to listen to the posters who this site is designed for then you should hand it back to them.

I think that you should actually read what simon said before mouthing off at him.

Not an obscure meaning at all.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=96662

[saynta]

and hickledick? where was the outrage.
i think you've taken the easy way out and totally ignored a post that according to the rules should have got a poster a ban.
now i'm not one to support banning personally, especially on long term posters. we're all adults in here, or choosing to converse with adults, but some time ago you insisted on cleaning up the main forum. it seems some animals are more equal than others.
so you've banned the use of an innocuous word that is a typical australian nickname for the coach, based on your interpretation of what the original user meant by it, which you find offensive, altho never did or said a thing about it until another user posted a very subcultural american meaning - a post that clearly contravened the rules. and you did nothing about that post, but suddenly allowed the majority australian meaning to be subverted by something an immature kid posted on a community website in a different country - a site designed as a parody of official dictionaries.
very poor form.
by the way i googled as you said 'meaning of 'the cho'' and again that particular reference did not come up.
as for saying 'richo, is the nickname for richardson - so what? is that it? one per person?

this all could have been averted if you'd either insisted the meaning of the word as used by all and sundry here was nothing more than a nickname (given you'd banned the original offender) and leniently warned saynta for posting filth. or you could have banned the word and saynta for his post. instead you've gone this route and left people confused and angry.
i'm not wanting to appear to lambast you simon - i understand its not an easy path to navigate and generally you've done a good and thankless job - but to many of us on here, you've set a poor precedent with this.

I set out to stop posters using a fairly perverted and obscene expression to describe our coach, an objective that has now been achieved.

I have already apologized to those i genuinely offended.. Those expression a false sense of outrage can whistle in the wind.

But to my way of thinking you have missed the point completely. If anyone should be banned it is those posters who continually used the expression despite being asked to stop.

Anyway, the subject is closed afaic and I won't be posting in this thread again. Simon owns the forum, not you and he has made his decision.

[HitTheBoundary]

Let me propose a story for you all...

You have a friend that smokes cigarettes. You come up with a nickname for them, "Fag". Neither of you thinks a thing of it, assuming it refers to the cigarettes.

Later, a gay person tells you that when you use the word referring to someone they find it offensive and hurtful.

Do you...

A) continue to use the nickname in front of them, stating you didnt mean it that way anyway

B) apologise, stating you didn't mean it to be offensive, and stop using the nickname?

By ceasing to use the nickname, do you really stand to lose that much?

(A) Continue to use the nickname

You can't continue to use the nickname in a public sense or any way which may be deemed offensive to ANYONE who may be directly or indirectly affected or may find it offensive.

Do any of you understand the laws of this country?

Which country are you in?
Obviously not Australia.....

[Joffa Burns]

and hickledick? where was the outrage.
i think you've taken the easy way out and totally ignored a post that according to the rules should have got a poster a ban.
now i'm not one to support banning personally, especially on long term posters. we're all adults in here, or choosing to converse with adults, but some time ago you insisted on cleaning up the main forum. it seems some animals are more equal than others.
so you've banned the use of an innocuous word that is a typical australian nickname for the coach, based on your interpretation of what the original user meant by it, which you find offensive, altho never did or said a thing about it until another user posted a very subcultural american meaning - a post that clearly contravened the rules. and you did nothing about that post, but suddenly allowed the majority australian meaning to be subverted by something an immature kid posted on a community website in a different country - a site designed as a parody of official dictionaries.
very poor form.
by the way i googled as you said 'meaning of 'the cho'' and again that particular reference did not come up.
as for saying 'richo, is the nickname for richardson - so what? is that it? one per person?

this all could have been averted if you'd either insisted the meaning of the word as used by all and sundry here was nothing more than a nickname (given you'd banned the original offender) and leniently warned saynta for posting filth. or you could have banned the word and saynta for his post. instead you've gone this route and left people confused and angry.
i'm not wanting to appear to lambast you simon - i understand its not an easy path to navigate and generally you've done a good and thankless job - but to many of us on here, you've set a poor precedent with this.

I set out to stop posters using a fairly perverted and obscene expression to describe our coach, an objective that has now been achieved.

I have already apologized to those i genuinely offended.. Those expression a false sense of outrage can whistle in the wind.

But to my way of thinking you have missed the point completely. If anyone should be banned it is those posters who continually used the expression despite being asked to stop.

Anyway, the subject is closed afaic and I won't be posting in this thread again. Simon owns the forum, not you and he has made his decision.

Nice brown nosing saynta.

Now makes sense why you didn’t get banned for your disgusting post.

https://goo.gl/images/oAVQsr

[Dis Believer]

I set out to stop posters using a fairly perverted and obscene expression to describe our coach, an objective that has now been achieved.

I have already apologized to those i genuinely offended.. Those expression a false sense of outrage can whistle in the wind.

But to my way of thinking you have missed the point completely. If anyone should be banned it is those posters who continually used the expression despite being asked to stop.

Anyway, the subject is closed afaic and I won't be posting in this thread again. Simon owns the forum, not you and he has made his decision.

Even the many years ago that I was in school, it was still universally true that the spineless kid who picked a fight then ran to hide behind the teahcer's skirts (a position from which he proceeded to kiss her arse), was roundly despised.

It is good to see some constants in life, and it is gratifying to see that this universal truth still continues today.......

[dragit]

I think that you should actually read what simon said before mouthing off at him.

Not an obscure meaning at all.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=96662

Thanks mate, that thread is exactly what I am responding to, but since it is locked there can be no discussion there.

It reads like a personal rant disguised as a justification thread for an absurd knee jerk rule change.

We've seen absolutely no evidence of any poster using the name in any way which would relate to that urban dictionary reference, yet all of a sudden we are assuming Con was using it as a lewd sexual comment? Pretty low suggestion of someone who has no right of reply.

Simon I worry about your nieces and nephews if they know about that urban dictionary term, 13 year olds I know wouldn't even understand what that disgusting description even means and I am yet to meet anyone who has ever heard of it prior to saynta's infamous posts.

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

Just stop using the vulgar term as stipulated by the good moderator. Pretty simple f****** stuff. How hard is it and get over it. Its the rule now on here.

Don't like it, there is this joint called Bigfooty to post on.

[dragit]

Just stop using the vulgar term as stipulated by the good moderator. Pretty simple f****** stuff. How hard is it and get over it. Its the rule now on here.

Don't like it, there is this joint called Bigfooty to post on.

The chow

[sunsaint]

Just stop using the vulgar term as stipulated by the good moderator. Pretty simple f****** stuff. How hard is it and get over it. Its the rule now on here.

Don't like it, there is this joint called Bigfooty to post on.

I find using the f word in public where kiddies can read (or hear) offensive
How many times did you report SC for being offensive to a stk player?

[takeaway]

I think that you should actually read what simon said before mouthing off at him.

Not an obscure meaning at all.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=96662

Thanks mate, that thread is exactly what I am responding to, but since it is locked there can be no discussion there.

It reads like a personal rant disguised as a justification thread for an absurd knee jerk rule change.

We've seen absolutely no evidence of any poster using the name in any way which would relate to that urban dictionary reference, yet all of a sudden we are assuming Con was using it as a lewd sexual comment? Pretty low suggestion of someone who has no right of reply.

Simon I worry about your nieces and nephews if they know about that urban dictionary term, 13 year olds I know wouldn't even understand what that disgusting description even means and I am yet to meet anyone who has ever heard of it prior to saynta's infamous posts.

There's been no rule change.
You need to get out in the big wide world dragit. Not an ideal world I agree. The 6 or 8 20-somethings chanting it at the footy a couple of months ago certainly knew what it meant, and after that so did I. My son has heard of it and even one of my nieces. So it is out there, especially amongst the younger brigade, which is not good. Should be fairly easy to come up with an alternative nickname if you don't like "Richo".

[Joffa Burns]

I think that you should actually read what simon said before mouthing off at him.

Not an obscure meaning at all.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=96662

Thanks mate, that thread is exactly what I am responding to, but since it is locked there can be no discussion there.

It reads like a personal rant disguised as a justification thread for an absurd knee jerk rule change.

We've seen absolutely no evidence of any poster using the name in any way which would relate to that urban dictionary reference, yet all of a sudden we are assuming Con was using it as a lewd sexual comment? Pretty low suggestion of someone who has no right of reply.

Simon I worry about your nieces and nephews if they know about that urban dictionary term, 13 year olds I know wouldn't even understand what that disgusting description even means and I am yet to meet anyone who has ever heard of it prior to saynta's infamous posts.

There's been no rule change.
You need to get out in the big wide world dragit. Not an ideal world I agree. The 6 or 8 20-somethings chanting it at the footy a couple of months ago certainly knew what it meant, and after that so did I. My son has heard of it and even one of my nieces. So it is out there, especially amongst the younger brigade, which is not good. Should be fairly easy to come up with an alternative nickname if you don't like "Richo".

Perhaps you should have alerted security and had them removed.

What a lot of bulls*** is this whole cho business.

[brewski]

Let me propose a story for you all...

You have a friend that smokes cigarettes. You come up with a nickname for them, "Fag". Neither of you thinks a thing of it, assuming it refers to the cigarettes.

Later, a gay person tells you that when you use the word referring to someone they find it offensive and hurtful.

Do you...

A) continue to use the nickname in front of them, stating you didnt mean it that way anyway

B) apologise, stating you didn't mean it to be offensive, and stop using the nickname?

By ceasing to use the nickname, do you really stand to lose that much?

(A) Continue to use the nickname

You can't continue to use the nickname in a public sense or any way which may be deemed offensive to ANYONE who may be directly or indirectly affected or may find it offensive.

Do any of you understand the laws of this country?

That's not a law genius, where did you extract that doozy of info from hahaha......you know its all you overly sensitive flogs that are ruining this country, now we need to check with the political correctness nazis before we can post anything, seriously what is this joint becoming...next you will tell me i cant write here how moist my cake was because you will get offended
i will choose to continue using the word Cho because its not offensive, i grew up with 2 lads with Richardson as their last name and have called them Cho and lil Cho for more than 30 years, so yes BFUSA cho can be a nickname for Richardson...and guess what people i told them about this forum conversation and they are still not offended, they actually thought it was funny ....who would imagine that right??
So if the coach would like to jump on this forum and tell us all that we are offending him i will consider refraining from using it in future but i cant accept that people here are speaking on his behalf because they assume he is offended...go be a martyr somewhere else.
#itsoktobewhite

[vacuous space]

Perhaps you should have alerted security and had them removed.

That would be a fun conversation with Dome security.
-----
EDIT: I Just realised that I neglected to tell everybody how I forsaw that conversation going, so I just thought I'd get in there with a brief dramatisation of events.
-----
Marvel Stadium Security Guard: Good afternoon or evening, sir or madam! What would seem to be the cause of consternation?

Marvel Stadium Patron: I do beg your pardon, kind securityperson, but my sensibilities have been offended by the most hideous of phrasings by those boorish scoundrels over yonder.

Guard: Over yonder?

Patron: Indeed!

Guard: My word! Well, you did the right thing bringing it to my attention. If you don't mind me asking, sir or madam, what was the particular turn of phrase?

Patron: I shan't partake in such utterances in front of what, for all I know, might be small children.

Guard: Come closer. Whisper it my ear, softly.

Patron. If I must. You see, they were chanting-

[FOOTAGE MISSING]

Guard: Perhaps I have excessive wax buildup in my ears, owing to my lifetime of lacklustre hygiene, preventing suitable aural perception. Did you say-

[FOOTAGE MISSING]

Patron: Yes, securityperson, they were chanting-

[FOOTAGE MISSING]

Guard: My apologies, sir or madam. My lack of formal education betrays me. I do not understand the significance of such a chant.

Patron: Have you not heard the term before? It's all the rage on each socialising medium of the interfacing network!

Guard: I'm afraid I have not. I must insist on an explanation before I carry out my sworn duties!

Patron: I feel faint just thinking about it, securityperson, but I shall endure. The act to which they refer is when-

[FOOTAGE MISSING]

Guard: Egads! What sort of person would conceive of such a notion?

Patron: I know not, securityperson!

Guard: And you tell me this bawdy jape has gained widespread popularity among the delinquents of the interfacing network?

Patron: It has!

Guard: On the Reddition? The Twittererion? The SpeedyGramme? The VisageVolume?

Patron: Well, no. But you can find a poorly worded definition on the Urbane Dictionario!

Guard: Once again, sir or madam, I apologise. I have no idea what that is.

[FOOTAGE MISSING]

Guard: Hold on to that ledge, sir or madam! I'll run and get help!

Patron: No, securityperson! Do not leave me! It's too late for me. At any moment, I shall slip and fall to my inevitable doom. I would have you by my side.

Guard: Do not be speaking in such a manner, sir or madam! Though this storm is great, and your grasp to that ledge tenuous, there is always hope!

Patron: But do you not see, securityperson? I have lived a full and complete life! I am ready to meet my fate. For fate has been good to me, securityperson. Were it not for those crass teens all those years ago at the Colonial Colosseum of the docklands precinct, we would not have met. We would not have shared our love that has stood the test of the time. I feel my fingers slipping, securityperson!

Guard: Sir or madam, please, no!

Patron: Goodbye, securityperson! Treasure our moments together always! Wee!

{FIN}

[skeptic]

Can we ban use of the word troll?

If you google the word, the first thing that comes up is...
‘an ugly cave-dwelling creature depicted as either a giant or a dwarf’.

The term is mostly directed to people that are critical about an aspect of the football club.

I think it’s often confused with the term ‘internet troll’, however troll and internet troll mean 2 very different things. It’s pretty offensive. And rude...

Another term often used here... Turkish Roll should also be added to the list. I’m Turkish and find that quite offensive. Racist even. Why should Turkish roles be associated in a negative light opposed to other rolls of different nationalities... simple wordplays isn’t a good enough reason.

And finally I also think it’s quite offensive to call posters on this site opposition supporters. People take the time to create an account and post here... opinions aside deserve more respect then that

[desertsaint]

i'm wondering if the creator of bill and ted is offended by having an imposter who appears quite contrary to ted's own amiable character, taking his name in vain? as a fan of the movies i'm actually quite offended by it.

[saint6709]

I bumped into an old friend the other day - and when I say old friend - I mean old friend as in I hadn’t seen them in a while AND after the encounter I no longer consider them as a friend !!!

She has a new boyfriend and introduced him to me as John !!!! Well as you can imagine I lost it ! I had children with me ! I told her she should be ashamed of herself for talking like that in front of the children - she said she didn’t know what I was talking about yeah right - as if - convenient response - EVERYONE knows the urban dictionary definition - why was she bringing up prostitution and pimps in front of my children ???? Disgusting