Freechat

Tringy wrote:

I use it a lot. ATD will no doubt be needed in the future but at present Free Chat offers an opportunity to preach to the unconverted.  

There's always a well meaning missionary around every corner plugging away.
Always a danger of being mocked as the "god squad"

tigertony wrote:

KelShacks wrote:

I agree. Free chat is definitely not what it says on the tin anymore. If Newell see or hears something he doesn't like he throws his toys out the pram about it, which in turn leads to JL messaging whoever wrote the comment asking them to remove it. I have had it happen to me a few time and I know for a fact it happens a lot more than people think

Give us some examples then .. or even facts .. bet you can't!

Sorry you must have missed this in another thread but I'm really interested in your comment that Sonny is moving away to "further his career" why would he need to do that when Argyle is so well run?

Earwegoagain wrote:

tigertony wrote:

KelShacks wrote:

I agree. Free chat is definitely not what it says on the tin anymore. If Newell see or hears something he doesn't like he throws his toys out the pram about it, which in turn leads to JL messaging whoever wrote the comment asking them to remove it. I have had it happen to me a few time and I know for a fact it happens a lot more than people think

Give us some examples then .. or even facts .. bet you can't!

Sorry you must have missed this in another thread but I'm really interested in your comment that Sonny is moving away to "further his career" why would he need to do that when Argyle is so well run?

Come on Tone, I'm really looking forward to your Banterific response.

Or Oscar for that matter, has he got family in Belgium.

Hugh Watt wrote:

Earwegoagain wrote:

tigertony wrote:

KelShacks wrote:

I agree. Free chat is definitely not what it says on the tin anymore. If Newell see or hears something he doesn't like he throws his toys out the pram about it, which in turn leads to JL messaging whoever wrote the comment asking them to remove it. I have had it happen to me a few time and I know for a fact it happens a lot more than people think

Give us some examples then .. or even facts .. bet you can't!

Sorry you must have missed this in another thread but I'm really interested in your comment that Sonny is moving away to "further his career" why would he need to do that when Argyle is so well run?

Come on Tone, I'm really looking forward to your Banterific response.

Tone has given his notice in to ATD and will in future be posting on a new forum called Freetwat.

Tone is a lost soul that's for shore. I did think I was being harsh on him so stopped the abuse (although it wasn't all one way traffic) and decided to purely engage him in debate. It seems he doesn't really have an opinion other than trust in Brent.

Just heard Nool has had yet another person banned from Free chat today on IJN's say so. How many is this now? Got more chance of Nooly busting a string on his guitar before JL stops dancing too it.

Post sponsored by Pasoti umbrellas.

What reason would JL have to do that? Seems unlikely given the nature of many posts and posters which are allowed to remain.

TJOA wrote:

What reason would JL have to do that? Seems unlikely given the nature of many posts and posters which are allowed to remain.

Somebody was banned for confirming Captain Wankspam is a Liverpool fan.

I think those of you who think John Lloyd is moving posts or banning users to massage opinion into line with some sort of pro-Pasoti of Nooly-friendly agenda are about as wrong as you could possibly be.

One thing that I would be critical of is the employment of such a relaxed line in general. As an example there is very little attention given to multi accounts. I have questioned this and the response was "So what? An opinion is an opinion whether it is expressed by a genuine person or not - and all opinions are welcome here."

That's not a line that I would take but it isn't my baby.

Bob Crow wrote:

TJOA wrote:

What reason would JL have to do that? Seems unlikely given the nature of many posts and posters which are allowed to remain.

Somebody was banned for confirming Captain Wankspam is a Liverpool fan.

Seems unlikely that someone was banned for pointing out person X supports another team. I've seen people comment Harve supports Tottenham and not be banned.
I'm sure John will clear it up if needs be, but I agree with SFD, I think people are just overly paranoid these days and jumping to very wrong conclusions. You can see demons in every shadow if you try hard enough.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I think those of you who think John Lloyd is moving posts or banning users to massage opinion into line with some sort of pro-Pasoti of Nooly-friendly agenda are about as wrong as you could possibly be.

One thing that I would be critical of is the employment of such a relaxed line in general. As an example there is very little attention given to multi accounts. I have questioned this and the response was "So what? An opinion is an opinion whether it is expressed by a genuine person or not - and all opinions are welcome here."

That's not a line that I would take but it isn't my baby.

I take it you mean the hundreds of Pasoti multis on there? Their last effort got 2 out of 10 for creativity, really making an account in the name of Mark Newell?

Sorry it was last night, not today. Just pulled the comment from the Ian Rush thread on Free chat that got the ban.

Captain Wankspam already has it in his batcave

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I think those of you who think John Lloyd is moving posts or banning users to massage opinion into line with some sort of pro-Pasoti of Nooly-friendly agenda are about as wrong as you could possibly be.

One thing that I would be critical of is the employment of such a relaxed line in general. As an example there is very little attention given to multi accounts. I have questioned this and the response was "So what? An opinion is an opinion whether it is expressed by a genuine person or not - and all opinions are welcome here."

That's not a line that I would take but it isn't my baby.

Bob Crow wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I think those of you who think John Lloyd is moving posts or banning users to massage opinion into line with some sort of pro-Pasoti of Nooly-friendly agenda are about as wrong as you could possibly be.

One thing that I would be critical of is the employment of such a relaxed line in general. As an example there is very little attention given to multi accounts. I have questioned this and the response was "So what? An opinion is an opinion whether it is expressed by a genuine person or not - and all opinions are welcome here."

That's not a line that I would take but it isn't my baby.

I take it you mean the hundreds of Pasoti multis on there? Their last effort got 2 out of 10 for creativity, really making an account in the name of Mark Newell?

I think the line here is that it is a FB rule that accounts are based on a person's real name. Freechat sees no requirement to further verify than to accept FB's application of its own rules.

After all FB has far better resources and expertise with which to check such things than Freechat could ever hope to possess.

Again not a line I would take but it is what it is.

Facebook has never insisted on REAL names being used on it's social media, and nor should they. There's enough crap regarding breaking privacy laws already. I know of many government workers who deal with problematic clients that are advised by their employers not to use their full names on social media for all manner of long known issues, particularly health and social workers.

While I would question JL's tactics in some matters, particularly raising the HHP shortage of parking issue that did nothing but add torque to Brent's argument of  acquiring more of Central Park for cars, he certainly is one of the most libertarian characters on social media. Seems an amiable articulate soul, which of course is why the attack dog doesn't like him. Probably sees him as a competitor.

With the amount of people that register with Free Chat it was ineviitable at some point John would feel some heat from the usual goons.

Who knows what kind of leverage has been going on behind the scenes.

beesrus wrote:

Facebook has never insisted on REAL names being used on it's social media, and nor should they. There's enough crap regarding breaking privacy laws already. I know of many government workers who deal with problematic clients that are advised by their employers not to use their full names on social media for all manner of long known issues, particularly health and social workers.

"Facebook is a community where everyone uses the name they go by in everyday life. This makes it so that you always know who you're connecting with."

How's it going Victoria? Cross dressing today are we?

You're as bad as Newell, with your real names thing. ATD is social media too, just like facebook. You don't use your real name here You're talking nonsense as usual. Have you any idea of the things that happen to social workers and their friends when they get tracked down on social media by the wrong sort ?
By the way, I've never crossed dressed, not my scene, but one of my brothers did from the age of twelve. Got a problem with that, dinosaur ? I haven't.

This is genuinely quite funny to read.
On one hand, I see Free Chat being angrily castigated elsewhere by a certain person for its alternative posting policy, while on the other I see that it’s suggested that the very same person is actually secretly controlling who is allowed to post there.

Obviously, both suggestions are mutually exclusive.
I’ll leave you all to judge which one has less foundation in truth.
It’s getting to be a bit like being the BBC at times - taking fulminating criticism from both sides, but having to resist the pressure to do things differently.
We’ll continue as we have.
Ta.

John_Lloyd wrote:

This is genuinely quite funny to read.
On one hand, I see Free Chat being angrily castigated elsewhere by a certain person for its alternative posting policy, while on the other I see that it’s suggested that the very same person is actually secretly controlling who is allowed to post there.

Obviously, both suggestions are mutually exclusive.
I’ll leave you all to judge which one has less foundation in truth.
It’s getting to be a bit like being the BBC at times - taking fulminating criticism from both sides, but having to resist the pressure to do things differently.
We’ll continue as we have.
Ta.

I imagine accurately policing fake accounts would be difficult, especially with privacy settings. People accuse everyone on there who opposes their view of being a troll or a multi.

Facebook does ask you to use a real name which can be verified by ID under its "Names on Facebook" help section, this, of course, doesn't happen in practice. Sometimes for legitimate reasons, others for less so. It'll be interesting to see how this develops on their side with recent news.

Given some of the content that is left on that page, you must have done something to merit any action.

I should also point out that there has been no leverage applied by anyone, besides the odd splutter here and there, which are generally ignored.
Occasionally, we will quite rightly act in response to posts reported as being in breach of Free Chat’s minimal set of rules.
In the interest of transparency, one member has been muted for a few days, having ignored warnings regarding both the content and tone of their posts.
One other post with sectarian connotations was also deleted over the weekend.
Other than that, we generally let things play out as they should.

This is proberly more like the senairo
Brent’s secretary been on the phone again to him
Giving him grief more likely if anythink Can’t see JL taking orders from porky some how .but I do see porky slinging /pointing crap out to Brent though every 5 minutes so he complains instead can see that one happening all day long...devious creature that oaf in fact a very devious creature indeed

Rickler wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Facebook has never insisted on REAL names being used on it's social media, and nor should they. There's enough crap regarding breaking privacy laws already. I know of many government workers who deal with problematic clients that are advised by their employers not to use their full names on social media for all manner of long known issues, particularly health and social workers.

"Facebook is a community where everyone uses the name they go by in everyday life. This makes it so that you always know who you're connecting with."

How's it going Victoria?  Cross dressing today are we?