Is there a clique on here?
Or more to the point .... Is there a double standard where some posters criticism of the club or certain players will be tolerated only up until the point where they start to disagree on the matter with certain long established contributors to the site at which point they get punted by the admins?
This is not my experience personally ... but I have read more than once, the latest being this morning, on other social media sites complaints from folk saying that all they were doing was disagreeing about the merits of a particular player or managers performance and they have ended up being banned, in many cases according to them before any accusations of personal abuse could be levelled against them.
In practically every case the complainants cited their own low post counts and the fact that the cut off point came when they started disagreeing with long established posters as giving credence to their theory that there is a certain amount of cronyism on the site between the folk running it and some site members who if not admins themselves are known to the admins personally.
As a long standing poster but one who doesn't know anybody running Hibs.Net or any of the other long established site members I have no axe to grind with anybody, but I have to say that there does appear to be a certain disdain for Hibs.Net amongst a fair proportion of Hibs fans who feel that it is over sensitive in its approach, too quick to ban folk and very much a forum where who you know or who you are makes a big difference when it comes to how the admins treat you.
I don't have to be in MENSA to know how the admins are going to react to this thread, but I would be interested to see if folk with low to moderate post counts agree with the perception of it which seems to be prevalent elsewhere.
:tin hat: