Media

[madhatter]

Are Hibs able to put complaints in about journalists or ask for a different journalist to be sent? It's getting to the point we need to ban them from ER tbh.

Tom English tweeted without watching the interview, he knew none of the context but decided to tweet blindly about the owner and the situation at the club. His backtrack does not show any remorse either. If anything it just says, deleted because there was context I didn't know but situation at Hibs is still bad (no context needed). Clearest attempt to stir I think I've ever seen.

Brian McLaughlin? Terrible reporter asking questions and getting an angry tongue-in-cheek response about Ron Gordon being open to offers, what does he do? Report it as if Ron Gordon wants to sell the club.

This will be in papers tomorrow, there are Hibs fans out there that aren't online very often and believe what they read in papers. This is hugely damaging to the club, it is disengenious and is far from reporting the stories; it is making up and embellishing stories.

[Carheenlea]

As annoying as they are, they don’t have a lot of influence out there now. Majority of fans able to source their own content about their club without relying on tabloid hacks and washed up pundits.

[Lago]

Are Hibs able to put complaints in about journalists or ask for a different journalist to be sent? It's getting to the point we need to ban them from ER tbh.

Tom English tweeted without watching the interview, he knew none of the context but decided to tweet blindly about the owner and the situation at the club. His backtrack does not show any remorse either. If anything it just says, deleted because there was context I didn't know but situation at Hibs is still bad (no context needed). Clearest attempt to stir I think I've ever seen.

Brian McLaughlin? Terrible reporter asking questions and getting an angry tongue-in-cheek response about Ron Gordon being open to offers, what does he do? Report it as if Ron Gordon wants to sell the club.

This will be in papers tomorrow, there are Hibs fans out there that aren't online very often and believe what they read in papers. This is hugely damaging to the club, it is disengenious and is far from reporting the stories; it is making up and embellishing stories.
The abridged version of Brian McLauglin's interview, as reported on BBC reporting Scotland, was a disgrace spun to make out Ron was trying to sell the club, a down right lie.

[Smartie]

As annoying as they are, they don’t have a lot of influence out there now. Majority of fans able to source their own content about their club without relying on tabloid hacks and washed up pundits.

I thought it was really interesting the way Ron Gordon presented himself today - and also the way I subconsciously consumed it all.

Would I f ever waste my time listening to the trumpets on Sportsound covering something like this. Professional journalists and broadcasters who I pay via my license fee.

Would you call the podcast guys amateurs? Whatever they are, they are now the go to people to get opinion and commentary on what is happening at our club. I thought it was brilliant tbh and their approach drew the right answers out of Ron Gordon. No manipulative pish designed to get a headline - proper questioning, getting right to the stuff the fans want and need to hear.

Well done to all of them and as per usual, shame on the BBC.

[madhatter]

The abridged version of Brian McLauglin's interview, as reported on BBC reporting Scotland, was a disgrace spun to make out Ron was trying to sell the club, a down right lie.

Hibs should be complaining and asking that to be taken down from the BBC website. As you say, he has taken a large chunk out of the interview (aka the context) and glued two sentences together that essentially say - I'm open to offers, if you can find someone to make an offer bring them on.

Ron Gordon did not say it like that. There was a lot between, including he doubted anybody could be as dedicated to making the club a success as he is. Also including asking if Brian McLaughlin had enough money to make an offer.

As you say, this is manipulating the spoken word into a clickbait story; embellishing is the kind way of putting it. I think you are right with "down right lie" though.

Scandalous reporting. Could we save the VAR money and get good, honest, journalists that report the truth?

Hibs fan podcasts and fan led media in general is light years ahead of this lot. People just want hard questions asked with genuine answers on the other end. They don't need it spun, they don't need a song and a dance, they don't need clickbait. Just genuine stuff.

[JoeT_WasTheBest]

I was one of the ones who jumped on English’s tweet and he deleted it after me and others told him to watch the press conference. Of course he didn’t admit that McLaughlin misrepresented the comments, and ignored my remarks about him needing to do his research, as he’s the Big Chief Sports Writer after all….

[#2 Double Tap]

unreal how different the bbc article is to the actual interview.

the bit "'If we don't get the football right, it really doesn't matter'", had me proper concerned, totally presented in an out of context way. Shocking journalism.

[Onceinawhile]

Richard Foster "hibs only made three signings"

The Internet "try 6 or 7"

Richard Foster "aww aye, but he's not the only person in charge of signing players".

No bother pal. Cause no other team has recruitment departments. Pep and Jurgen do it all themselves.

[sunshinejim]

Ever since Allan Preston became a fixed regular across the Scots BBC football output it has become packed full of jambo trolls. It never used to be anywhere near as bad as it is now before Preston's involvement. Anyone involved with Scots BBC football output has to I suspect be prepared to always praise Hearts and always be critical of Hibernian fc. Its doesn't even attempt to hide its bias now in any way shape or form. i don't listen to it or watch it anymore but it sticks in my throat that I have to pay a license fee that pays these b stards wages. Its mental.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Should players’ agents’ be allowed to have a platform on a national broadcaster - as a pundit? Surely a con life of interest? You saw it with Gordon Smith and you see it with “biscuits”

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Richie Forster is like that soldier in Vietnam in Paul Hardcastles 19 that says “I wasn’t really sure what was going on” - one for the older guns.

Hes like scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz - “if he only had a brain”

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Said it many times before seems like way before lockdown tone changed towards Hibs and it’s almost an editorial stance now with Biscuits, English, Gordon and misc Jambo former players and managers wading in on Hibs. Expect better from a publicly funded broadcaster

that was before English’s love in with Hearts in what appeared to be an on air nightly open interview for the Head of comms post at Hearts.

[Waxy]

They bend over backwards to paint Hibs in as bad a light as possible.
They bend over backwards to paint Heart7 in as good a light as possible.
Seems to have always been like this.

[Aldo]

They bend over backwards to paint Hibs in as bad a light as possible.
They bend over backwards to paint Heart7 in as good a light as possible.
Seems to have always been like this.

I posted yesterday that this would get twisted and headlined by the BBC crew and they havent disappointed have they!

I get they tae **** and ban them from ER


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[buktapurple79]

I posted yesterday that this would get twisted and headlined by the BBC crew and they havent disappointed have they!

I get they tae **** and ban them from ER


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They need banned, something a bit sinister they’ve totally misrepresented RG, the Yams already gieing it laldy with their ‘Agent Ron’ crapchat. The reverence shown to Budge and the FOH happy clapping good news machine by contrast is even more in focus now.

[Aldo]

They need banned, something a bit sinister they’ve totally misrepresented RG, the Yams already gieing it laldy with their ‘Agent Ron’ crapchat. The reverence shown to Budge and the FOH happy clapping good news machine by contrast is even more in focus now.

Tom English, who was shot down, was at it and it’s an article in BBC Scotland section.

Always looking to twist anything to show us in a negative light.

I don’t and haven’t listened to Sportsound etc for years due to this!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Waxy]

Ban them. Time we grew a spine.

[Since452]

I was going to start a similar thread. Nothing would please me more than if we banned the likes of the Daily Record and certain journalists like McLaughlin. Say what you want about Rangers but they don't **** about. We need to create a bit of siege mentality.

[Oscar T Grouch]

We shouldn’t ban any journalists, let them (BBC) come along and sit and listen but if they ask any questions simply ignore them. It’s a much better and more frustrating way (for them) to operate. They’re not banned but they’ll only ever have other journalists questions to work from. If we ban them that’s the angle they’ll always use against us, if we ignore them they’ll just sound like petulant toddlers screaming but but but they won’t talk to us!!

I watched the English debacle unravel on twitter last night. He posts erroneous pish because like usual he’s not actually seen the content he’s commenting on, deletes the tweet but doubles down on it (very weird, I’ve deleted it but I still think it and have said so in this new tweet). Then when asked to point out the worrying parts of RGs presser he avoids and repeats his accusations. The man’s a first class idiot at best, a malicious troll at worst.

[Since452]

We shouldn’t ban any journalists, let them (BBC) come along and sit and listen but if they ask any questions simply ignore them. It’s a much better and more frustrating way (for them) to operate. They’re not banned but they’ll only ever have other journalists questions to work from. If we ban them that’s the angle they’ll always use against us, if we ignore them they’ll just sound like petulant toddlers screaming but but but they won’t talk to us!!

I watched the English debacle unravel on twitter last night. He posts erroneous pish because like usual he’s not actually seen the content he’s commenting on, deletes the tweet but doubles down on it (very weird, I’ve deleted it but I still think it and have said so in this new tweet). Then when asked to point out the worrying parts of RGs presser he avoids and repeats his accusations. The man’s a first class idiot at best, a malicious troll at worst.

So glad I binned Twitter. The last few days would have tipped me over the edge with these pricks.

[hibbyfraelibby]

Chill. They are just journos trying to sell papers or get clicks.

It's not as if they're going to score goals against.

[Not In The Know]

As annoying as they are, they don’t have a lot of influence out there now. Majority of fans able to source their own content about their club without relying on tabloid hacks and washed up pundits.

They probably have more than we care to think. It’s the ***** they peddle and how it permeates through other folks minds in Scottish football to paint a picture of hibs in general. It could affect say a parents choice when picking what team their son signs for. Players weighing up a choice between two clubs etc. Sponsors looking to invest…

[ahibby]

They probably have more than we care to think. It’s the ***** they peddle and how it permeates through other folks minds in Scottish football to paint a picture of hibs in general. It could affect say a parents choice when picking what team their son signs for. Players weighing up a choice between two clubs etc. Sponsors looking to invest…

BBC should be banned from ER, their bias reporting against our club is well known and documented. It is now time that we take an eye for an eye, we have turned the other cheek for long enough.

[the_ginger_hibee]

They are part of a dying media. It's all going to be fan & social media led soon. No point worrying.

Don't watch, don't click, don't listen. Simple. BBC has been horrid for so many years that no fan should really pay it any notice. Plenty good alternatives; read a forum, listen to a fan podcast, chat in a Facebook page etc. The old-school media can't keep up or compete.

[Lago]

Chill. They are just journos trying to sell papers or get clicks.

It's not as if they're going to score goals against.
But the perception of the club that they paint is damaging, it could effect player recruitment, the next managerial appointment etc. It's slanted to twist facts.

[Andymac85]

I tend to get overly annoyed when listening to the likes of sportsound with their anti-Hibs nonsense, but I always come back to the fact that there is one way we can shut them up, and that’s winning on the park.

[Scotty Leither]

"The BBC understands"...

I understand that BBC Scotland gives jobs to its mates like Derek Ferguson and Billy Dodds, although I "understand" they were on the programme on alternate weeks, as they had to share the one brain cell they've got between them.

[Alex Trager]

I tend to get overly annoyed when listening to the likes of sportsound with their anti-Hibs nonsense, but I always come back to the fact that there is one way we can shut them up, and that’s winning on the park.

Also just not listen to them chief. Don’t give them that

[1875Sean]

BBC should be banned from ER, their bias reporting against our club is well known and documented. It is now time that we take an eye for an eye, we have turned the other cheek for long enough.

Don’t want our club to act like rangers, throw the toys out of the pram and don’t get radio coverage at Easter road

[percy veer]

Don’t want our club to act like rangers, throw the toys out of the pram and don’t get radio coverage at Easter road

The coverage we get of the radio seems to be ex yams slating the club at every opportunity, when that survey came out I suggested banning the media and doing do all radio TV ourselves.

[worcesterhibby]

They are part of a dying media. It's all going to be fan & social media led soon. No point worrying.

Don't watch, don't click, don't listen. Simple.

As A TV licence holder it's hard not to feel bitter about intentionally not watching/listening to something I have paid for. BBC Scotland Sports reporting is a national disgrace.

[grunt]

As A TV licence holder it's hard not to feel bitter about intentionally not watching/listening to something I have paid for. BBC Scotland Sports reporting is a national disgrace.
Not just their Sports reporting. BBC Scotland News reporting is dreadful as well.

[A Hi-Bee]

As A TV licence holder it's hard not to feel bitter about intentionally not watching/listening to something I have paid for. BBC Scotland Sports reporting is a national disgrace.

They are a disgrace and at the end of the day it is just another tax, avoid it if at all possible.

[PatHead]

They are a disgrace and at the end of the day it is just another tax, avoid it if at all possible.

The problem is that the BBC has a massive influence over society as a whole. Simply not watching or listening to their twisted reports doesn't solve anything. Too many people believe what they read or hear on the good old Beeb and other biased outlets.

[matty_f]

Appreciating the fact that there’s some skin in the game here, fan-created content is definitely the way forward.

MSM is always either looking for the sensational angle (see yesterday’s crap about Gordon wanting to sell) or focused around two clubs with any other coverage to other sides being tokenism at best.

There are excellent podcasts out there (and a bang average one :greengrin ) some fantastic written content and even some great tactical analysis videos out there on twitter and youtube.

Sportsound and BBC sport is archaic to the point of being virtually irrelevant.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Appreciating the fact that there’s some skin in the game here, fan-created content is definitely the way forward.

MSM is always either looking for the sensational angle (see yesterday’s crap about Gordon wanting to sell) or focused around two clubs with any other coverage to other sides being tokenism at best.

There are excellent podcasts out there (and a bang average one :greengrin ) some fantastic written content and even some great tactical analysis videos out there on twitter and youtube.

Sportsound and BBC sport is archaic to the point of being virtually irrelevant.

It’s a unfortunate option for live radio coverage for those that can’t make it to the match.

Here I’m thinking of the folks on the wrong side of digital divide that often get forgotten. Maybe they can’t afford a subscription or have the means / know how to access stuff many take for granted.

We should expect a fairer crack of the whip from a national public broadcaster - not an easy ride but a fairer crack of the whip…

[GRA]

They are part of a dying media. It's all going to be fan & social media led soon. No point worrying.

Don't watch, don't click, don't listen. Simple. BBC has been horrid for so many years that no fan should really pay it any notice. Plenty good alternatives; read a forum, listen to a fan podcast, chat in a Facebook page etc. The old-school media can't keep up or compete.

Exactly this. An underlying bias has always been there but we don't need to waste our time paying attention to what these hacks say or, if we come across it accidentally, we use it to create a siege mentality.

[Sioux]

Appreciating the fact that there’s some skin in the game here, fan-created content is definitely the way forward.

MSM is always either looking for the sensational angle (see yesterday’s crap about Gordon wanting to sell) or focused around two clubs with any other coverage to other sides being tokenism at best.

There are excellent podcasts out there (and a bang average one :greengrin ) some fantastic written content and even some great tactical analysis videos out there on twitter and youtube.

Sportsound and BBC sport is archaic to the point of being virtually irrelevant.

And you think such output will not be biased?

As far as tactical analysis goes, there's some absolute nonsense posted there by amateurs.

This doesn't mean that the popular should press should be held on any pedestal, but be careful you don't start believing any old tom dick or harry that just happen to pretend they have expertise in a particular field. Its that scenario that renders social media content (99%) of it) as being dangerously ill informed.

The bottom line is; check the reliability of the source.

[Alex Trager]

And you think such output will not be biased?

As far as tactical analysis goes, there's some absolute nonsense posted there by amateurs.

This doesn't mean that the popular should press should be held on any pedestal, but be careful you don't start believing any old tom dick or harry that just happen to pretend they have expertise in a particular field. Its that scenario that renders social media content (99%) of it) as being dangerously ill informed.

The bottom line is; check the reliability of the source.
The fan content holds the club and team to account, absolutely it does.

It is made by Hibs fans but as you probably know we are extremely critical of the club.

It’s made by people who support the club, but I don’t think it is bias at all.

It doesn’t pretend to represent the whole country’s footballing landscape but only really talk about x amount of clubs and talk about some in a good or bad light.

[hibstag]

[QUOTE=Scotty Leither;6933199]"The BBC understands"...

I understand that BBC Scotland gives jobs to its mates like Derek Ferguson and Billy Dodds, although I "understand" they were on the programme on alternate weeks, as they had to share the one brain cell they've got

Derek Ferguson shouldn’t have a job in media after his ‘he got raped there’ comment in commentary at a Hamilton game several years ago . Billy Dodds now single handly avoiding promotion with caley thistle has very little to add to football debates , Tom English breaks out in a sweat at the mention of Donald Findlay

[Daily Hibs]

Appreciating the fact that there’s some skin in the game here, fan-created content is definitely the way forward.

MSM is always either looking for the sensational angle (see yesterday’s crap about Gordon wanting to sell) or focused around two clubs with any other coverage to other sides being tokenism at best.

There are excellent podcasts out there (and a bang average one :greengrin ) some fantastic written content and even some great tactical analysis videos out there on twitter and youtube. 5

Sportsound and BBC sport is archaic to the point of being virtually irrelevant.
Saying fan created content is the way forward is all very well provided the views from all corners are respected and treated equally. Would the owner of Hibs.net confirm what the mission of the forum is? Is it to facilitate discussion on all things Hibs or is the narrative controlled to an extent? Taking a look at other forums of other clubs fans, this forum is very heavily policed by admins which can hinder debate to an extent. It appears that certain subjects are off limits and when the debate gets heated which are often the best threads they get closed. There have been a number closed in recent weeks where debate should have been allowed to continue given the remarks Ron made this week, particularly changing the mentality of the club and being averge for most of our history.

Given the owner of the site who has as he says 'skin in the game' through multiple podcasts and appearances on Hibs Pass TV, is Hibs.net a truly open forum or are there protected characteristics that can't be discussed so that the site remains favourable in the eyes of the club? For more robust opinion I often head over to Hibees Bounce where the debate is allowed to flow a bit more.

I think these are important points for Hibs fans posting to know if there is an agenda or not given the view taken on Brian McLoughlin whose remit it is to cover the Edinburgh teams and the fact that he one of the few journalists who will stand up against Glasgow and the outcry on here of his coverage.

Open all mics on a Saturday is a brilliant listen and was very innovative when brought out.

[marinello59]

Saying fan created content is the way forward is all very well provided the views from all corners are respected and treated equally. Would the owner of Hibs.net confirm what the mission of the forum is? Is it to facilitate discussion on all things Hibs or is the narrative controlled to an extent? Taking a look at other forums of other clubs fans, this forum is very heavily policed by admins which can hinder debate to an extent. It appears that certain subjects are off limits and when the debate gets heated which are often the best threads they get closed. There have been a number closed in recent weeks where debate should have been allowed to continue given the remarks Ron made this week, particularly changing the mentality of the club and being averge for most of our history.

Given the owner of the site who has as he says 'skin in the game' through multiple podcasts and appearances on Hibs Pass TV, is Hibs.net a truly open forum or are there protected characteristics that can't be discussed so that the site remains favourable in the eyes of the club? For more robust opinion I often head over to Hibees Bounce where the debate is allowed to flow a bit more.

I think these are important points for Hibs fans posting to know if there is an agenda or not given the view taken on Brian McLoughlin whose remit it is to cover the Edinburgh teams and the fact that he one of the few journalists who will stand up against Glasgow and the outcry on here of his coverage.

Open all mics on a Saturday is a brilliant listen and was very innovative when brought out.

Given that the Admin team here holds widely differing opinions on all things Hibs it would be odd if we had any sort of editorial control on here, we would never be able to agree on one. :greengrin
The only thing we insist on is keeping it respectful and family friendly. Otherwise all opinions are welcome. Threads are never closed or posts removed for being critical of the club, if they were several posts by Admins on here over the past few days would have been removed. I'll also add that posts are not removed for going against popular opinion, without debate this place would have become an internet backwater years ago.
I hope that answers your question.

[mjhibby]

I've stopped reading the papers or listening to the radio regards Scottish football otherwise I'll explode. Every excuse to write negative stuff regards hibs and most utterly made up as if heard in the greggs queue. Never negative stories of the bigot bros or our neighbours. Sick of reading or hearing it so just ignore it now. Its amazing how many so called fans of other clubs are experts on how we are run without a shred of knowledge of the reality. Maybe it's always been this way and I've only just noticed but articles by Bill leckie and others really were utter garbage mainly to appeal to their readers core base. They whole lot of them can get to falkirk.

[Fuzzywuzzy]

The coverage we get of the radio seems to be ex yams slating the club at every opportunity, when that survey came out I suggested banning the media and doing do all radio TV ourselves.

Was there ever any outcomes from that survey? Seems ages ago that it happened!!

[Victor]

Saying fan created content is the way forward is all very well provided the views from all corners are respected and treated equally. Would the owner of Hibs.net confirm what the mission of the forum is? Is it to facilitate discussion on all things Hibs or is the narrative controlled to an extent? Taking a look at other forums of other clubs fans, this forum is very heavily policed by admins which can hinder debate to an extent. It appears that certain subjects are off limits and when the debate gets heated which are often the best threads they get closed. There have been a number closed in recent weeks where debate should have been allowed to continue given the remarks Ron made this week, particularly changing the mentality of the club and being averge for most of our history.

Given the owner of the site who has as he says 'skin in the game' through multiple podcasts and appearances on Hibs Pass TV, is Hibs.net a truly open forum or are there protected characteristics that can't be discussed so that the site remains favourable in the eyes of the club? For more robust opinion I often head over to Hibees Bounce where the debate is allowed to flow a bit more.

I think these are important points for Hibs fans posting to know if there is an agenda or not given the view taken on Brian McLoughlin whose remit it is to cover the Edinburgh teams and the fact that he one of the few journalists who will stand up against Glasgow and the outcry on here of his coverage.

Open all mics on a Saturday is a brilliant listen and was very innovative when brought out.

Are you employed by the BBC? As a user of Hibs.net I don’t think it is ‘heavily policed’. The only admin intervention I am aware of is when posters become abusive, or are obviously ‘trolling’. In my opinion ‘Open All Mics’ may have been innovative, but due to the personalities involved, it is no longer fit for purpose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ahibby]

Don’t want our club to act like rangers, throw the toys out of the pram and don’t get radio coverage at Easter road

I doubt Rangers have had to endure half as much BBC bias. Mud sticks so best to let everyone know of our grievance with them and the best way would be to ban them

[matty_f]

Saying fan created content is the way forward is all very well provided the views from all corners are respected and treated equally. Would the owner of Hibs.net confirm what the mission of the forum is? Is it to facilitate discussion on all things Hibs or is the narrative controlled to an extent? Taking a look at other forums of other clubs fans, this forum is very heavily policed by admins which can hinder debate to an extent. It appears that certain subjects are off limits and when the debate gets heated which are often the best threads they get closed. There have been a number closed in recent weeks where debate should have been allowed to continue given the remarks Ron made this week, particularly changing the mentality of the club and being averge for most of our history.

Given the owner of the site who has as he says 'skin in the game' through multiple podcasts and appearances on Hibs Pass TV, is Hibs.net a truly open forum or are there protected characteristics that can't be discussed so that the site remains favourable in the eyes of the club? For more robust opinion I often head over to Hibees Bounce where the debate is allowed to flow a bit more.

I think these are important points for Hibs fans posting to know if there is an agenda or not given the view taken on Brian McLoughlin whose remit it is to cover the Edinburgh teams and the fact that he one of the few journalists who will stand up against Glasgow and the outcry on here of his coverage.

Open all mics on a Saturday is a brilliant listen and was very innovative when brought out.

Hibs.net is absolutely open so long as the rules are followed - there are tons of different opinions on here, some opinions go against the view of the majority and, as is the nature of a forum, they tend to be the ones that get disagreed with the most.


We do not, and never have, close a thread because an admin (or admins) disagree with the opinions expressed. There is no editorial stance from an admin team who all hold different opinions on things that are discussed on here.

To address your point about the podcast, that’s entirely independent from hibs.net, for an official hibs.net podcast we have the excellent hibs.pod. Some of us, as hard as it may be to believe, lead a life outside of hibs.net. I even have a day job.

Which protected characteristics are you referring to? i’m not sure i understand your question, so it would be good to understand it better to address it.

Can you give any examples of threads that’s have been closed or posts deleted on the grounds that we didn’t want them discussed?

[Kato]

Open all mics on a Saturday is a brilliant listen and was very innovative when brought out.

Farty, auld has-beens and never will be's competing to edge each other off the air. Give us a break. The format would be good if the egos of the idiots involved weren't so huge.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Daily Hibs]

Hibs.net is absolutely open so long as the rules are followed - there are tons of different opinions on here, some opinions go against the view of the majority and, as is the nature of a forum, they tend to be the ones that get disagreed with the most.


We do not, and never have, close a thread because an admin (or admins) disagree with the opinions expressed. There is no editorial stance from an admin team who all hold different opinions on things that are discussed on here.

To address your point about the podcast, that’s entirely independent from hibs.net, for an official hibs.net podcast we have the excellent hibs.pod. Some of us, as hard as it may be to believe, lead a life outside of hibs.net. I even have a day job.

Which protected characteristics are you referring to? i’m not sure i understand your question, so it would be good to understand it better to address it.

Can you give any examples of threads that’s have been closed or posts deleted on the grounds that we didn’t want them discussed?

Any Paul Hanlon, Lewis Stevenson, or any thread regarding ambition of the club seem to get shut down pretty quickly.

There was a Paul Hanlon thread last week shut down and I used the search facility to find another thread rather than start a new one and then got dogs abuse for daring yo post on it.

Lewy and Hanlon divide opinion ando it's as if posters are not allowed to discuss them in relation to having a better team. Also when the success post 2016 in terms of success at Hampden is commented on its the same old argument relative to our historic success which Ron called average this week which was refreshing to hear but many a poster has received dogs abuse for simply saying the same.

[Allant1981]

Any Paul Hanlon, Lewis Stevenson, or any thread regarding ambition of the club seem to get shut down pretty quickly.

There was a Paul Hanlon thread last week shut down and I used the search facility to find another thread rather than start a new one and then got dogs abuse for daring yo post on it.

Lewy and Hanlon divide opinion ando it's as if posters are not allowed to discuss them in relation to having a better team. Also when the success post 2016 in terms of success at Hampden is commented on its the same old argument relative to our historic success which Ron called average this week which was refreshing to hear but many a poster has received dogs abuse for simply saying the same.

Surely this post is 2 different points?

[Smartie]

Any Paul Hanlon, Lewis Stevenson, or any thread regarding ambition of the club seem to get shut down pretty quickly.

There was a Paul Hanlon thread last week shut down and I used the search facility to find another thread rather than start a new one and then got dogs abuse for daring yo post on it.

Lewy and Hanlon divide opinion ando it's as if posters are not allowed to discuss them in relation to having a better team. Also when the success post 2016 in terms of success at Hampden is commented on its the same old argument relative to our historic success which Ron called average this week which was refreshing to hear but many a poster has received dogs abuse for simply saying the same.

There have been countless Hanlon/ Stevenson threads over the years that have been allowed to run their course. They'll exist for as long as they play for us, and probably long beyond.

If any thread has been shut down, I suspect it was because somebody suggested they be chopped up with machetes and fed to the seagulls or such like, as there are lines of acceptability that shouldn't be crossed.

I'll defend these players every time the subject comes up and don't particularly enjoying it when they take criticism - however I accept that football is a funny business where players are fair game to have their performances at work heavily scrutinised and criticised in public, therefore criticism within the boundaries of reasonableness are fair game.

There's a big difference between not liking what the other side of an argument has to say and claiming that argument is being shut down.

FWIW I think the moderators do a good job on here, and you only need to see a few forums of other clubs to see what it looks like when it's allowed to get out of hand.

[matty_f]

Any Paul Hanlon, Lewis Stevenson, or any thread regarding ambition of the club seem to get shut down pretty quickly.

There was a Paul Hanlon thread last week shut down and I used the search facility to find another thread rather than start a new one and then got dogs abuse for daring yo post on it.

Lewy and Hanlon divide opinion ando it's as if posters are not allowed to discuss them in relation to having a better team. Also when the success post 2016 in terms of success at Hampden is commented on its the same old argument relative to our historic success which Ron called average this week which was refreshing to hear but many a poster has received dogs abuse for simply saying the same.

Those threads weren’t shut down because of the opinions given on the players, but rather how some posters behaved in those threads, taking them off topic or carrying them on long after the initial points had been discussed, from memory.

I wholeheartedly reject the claim that threads are closed because “we” don’t want a topic discussed or negative opinions to be expressed, it’s a complete fallacy.

[Jay]

Any Paul Hanlon, Lewis Stevenson, or any thread regarding ambition of the club seem to get shut down pretty quickly.

Not true. whoever starts the thread can also close it so it may not be the admins.

There was a Paul Hanlon thread last week shut down and I used the search facility to find another thread rather than start a new one and then got dogs abuse for daring yo post on it.

It was closed because there was already a thread . Dogs abuse from the admins?


Lewy and Hanlon divide opinion ando it's as if posters are not allowed to discuss them in relation to having a better team. Also when the success post 2016 in terms of success at Hampden is commented on its the same old argument relative to our historic success which Ron called average this week which was refreshing to hear but many a poster has received dogs abuse for simply saying the same.


Again dogs abuse from the admins? Or posters being allowed to post opposing opinions?

.

[BroxburnHibee]

Any Paul Hanlon, Lewis Stevenson, or any thread regarding ambition of the club seem to get shut down pretty quickly.

There was a Paul Hanlon thread last week shut down and I used the search facility to find another thread rather than start a new one and then got dogs abuse for daring yo post on it.

Lewy and Hanlon divide opinion ando it's as if posters are not allowed to discuss them in relation to having a better team. Also when the success post 2016 in terms of success at Hampden is commented on its the same old argument relative to our historic success which Ron called average this week which was refreshing to hear but many a poster has received dogs abuse for simply saying the same.

That statement is blatantly not true. The last Paul Hanlon thread that got closed was purely because debate had gone out the window and certain posters had went beyond the standards we ask for in here ie. Family friendly - that might seem a bit old fashioned regarding a football forum but its a mantra we have tried to stick to for over 20 years now in here and in my personal opinion is it is why this site has continued to flourish.

As a couple of other admins have said we do not have an editorial line - we'd never agree to one :greengrin

[Daily Hibs]

Those threads weren’t shut down because of the opinions given on the players, but rather how some posters behaved in those threads, taking them off topic or carrying them on long after the initial points had been discussed, from memory.

I wholeheartedly reject the claim that threads are closed because “we” don’t want a topic discussed or negative opinions to be expressed, it’s a complete fallacy.
So shouldn't the thread stay open and the daft posts removed rather than shut the thread down hic gives people the impression the discussion is over?

[Daily Hibs]

.
I'm not allowed to mention posters by name but if you take a look at the threads I mention you will see what I mean when an opinion that is different from the everything is great at the club and Lewy and Hanlon can do no wrong. There can be no doubt these points divide opinion but debate should be allowed equally on these points.

Without sounding negative I just think, the debate should be allowed to flow at times.

Thanks for replying as an admin.

[Gordy M]

So shouldn't the thread stay open and the daft posts removed rather than shut the thread down hic gives people the impression the discussion is over?

If folk are reverting to personal insults or swearing or blatant trolling then the discission is over imo. That goes for any thread. Its boring and irrelevant when it gets to that stage.

[matty_f]

So shouldn't the thread stay open and the daft posts removed rather than shut the thread down hic gives people the impression the discussion is over?

We all do this in our spare time, when a thread appears to have run its course it’s easier to close it than to continually trim posts out of it.

You’ll see from the sheer volume of threads on here that are on topics that have been discussed already that closing one thread on the topic doesn’t stop it being discussed again if people are of a mind to do so.

There’s certainly not any consideration given to stifling debate on any topics, you only have to read the threads on the forum to see how many different views are reflected.

I would suggest that the evidence backs us up - the threads and posts are there for folk to see, unless they’ve broken rules and been deleted, so you can literally go back and see the disagreements and different views as they happened.

There will be a ton of threads on Stevenson and Hanlon that are still open but way down the pages because folk moved on to something else for a bit.

[Daily Hibs]

We all do this in our spare time, when a thread appears to have run its course it’s easier to close it than to continually trim posts out of it.

You’ll see from the sheer volume of threads on here that are on topics that have been discussed already that closing one thread on the topic doesn’t stop it being discussed again if people are of a mind to do so.

There’s certainly not any consideration given to stifling debate on any topics, you only have to read the threads on the forum to see how many different views are reflected.

I would suggest that the evidence backs us up - the threads and posts are there for folk to see, unless they’ve broken rules and been deleted, so you can literally go back and see the disagreements and different views as they happened.

There will be a ton of threads on Stevenson and Hanlon that are still open but way down the pages because folk moved on to something else for a bit.

So then a poster who makes use of an existing thread shouldn't receive derogatory comments for doing so? See the Paul Hanlon thread this week where you get the usual type of remarks where the opinion is not liked.

[matty_f]

So then a poster who makes use of an existing thread shouldn't receive derogatory comments for doing so? See the Paul Hanlon thread this week where you get the usual type of remarks where the opinion is not liked.

they shouldn’t, no - and if that happens we have a “report post” function where it can be flagged to the admin team.

It’s worth remembering though that unpopular opinions tend to attract the biggest response because more people disagree with them than agree. ideally that disagreement is handled respectfully but that’s down to the posters involved.

If someone says they don’t rate Hanlon, fair enough, if they say they don’t rate Hanlon and anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot (for example) then that’s not going to stay on the forum.

[1875Sean]

I doubt Rangers have had to endure half as much BBC bias. Mud sticks so best to let everyone know of our grievance with them and the best way would be to ban them

I think that’s a bit far fetched, when we were 3rd and doing well we had plenty of praise!

I agree the panel is Jambo heavy and they will have opinions on Hibs but even places like Hibs.net and twitter etc is a horrible place at times with the negativity sometimes after a few poor games

[Fuzzywuzzy]

Another hearts love-in on radio Scotland this morning. Still going with the 'demotion' instead of 'relegation' party line

[green day]

Richard Gordon is retiring from Sportsound.

Good, he is just a hearts apologist.