Merry Go Round Grounded

Okay, can someone please clarify for me.........

If, on these boards, we talk about legal problems faced by Jason Armstead, or Ramonce Taylor in Winnipeg, it is allowed to be discussed.

But, if someone has the temerity to post an article about the legal problems facing a certain league GM, it gets locked down pretty quickly.

Why the inconsistency?

Its called a double standard, duuuuur. :stuck_out_tongue:

I know what it's question wasn't "what is it called" question was more why is there this double standard?

I'd like to see an answer; I know one US poster who might chime in and say it's all racism, that the GM is white whereas Armstead and Taylor are black, and I would truly hope that is NOT the reason.........but I'd like to know what the reason IS.

If one of the mods happen to like that GM, who will remain nameless, then they will lock it down. No different than locking down a thread knocking a certain QB. Its all about the mods and their almighty power.

But a good question!

Hey don't make this a mod-bashing thread..................i've had enough grief already being falsely accused of mod-bashing and don't care to have it repeated.

I'm not interested in bashing anyone, I just want the double-standard/inconsistency explained.

Nothing more nothing less.

Who do you think locks down these threads????, not bashing, just stating a fact. You asked why the double standard did you not? well someone makes that decision and that someone happens to be a mod.

Well regardless if it was a mod or an administrator, I don't really care which, I just want the inconsistency explained. If it's not allowed to discuss a certain GM's legal situation, why is it fair game to discuss Jason Armstead's legal situation, Ramonce Taylor's legal situation................??

That's all I want, some sort of coherent explanation, if there is one.

They should have a button like on TSN when someone agrees or disagrees for a thumbs up and a thumbs down thumbs up on the mod thing stampeder67

Please start another thread if you want about general complaints about mods, if you have them. I don't want to go there; I just want a straight answer to what I thought was a pretty straight question.....................

The people that use this site (including unnamed board posters with certain responsibilities) should realize that this site is 3rd party. phpBB Group is responsible for everything that goes on here. Technically the unnamed board posters with certain responsibilities are not volunteering for the CFL, just the official CFL website.

So we ask ourselves why would the CFL or the Riders organizations, have any say in this censorship? While they might suggest certain things, they don't in the end.

Madjack... what I think you are looking for is that unnamed board poster with certain responsibilities to step forward and admit it, and then cease to continue the double standard in the future. Right?

Not quite.

What I want from him or her is an explanation for the double standard.

Why is it legitimate, in his/her mind, for us to post about the legal problems of Armstead, Taylor, Vick, et al, but simultaneously illegitimate to discuss the legal problems of you-know-who.

It's not rocket science...........just explain why, that's all.

Wow, this has to be some sort of record, the most consecutive posts without a mod participating or threatening.. perhaps MJ they have NO legitimate answer to your excellent question!
It's all i can think of

Well, tonight is game 7 of the hockey finals, so I expect lots of folks who might normally be here are not here this evening.

Maybe the mods are on holidays cause someone started a thread in the Lions forum about weed.

Well first.... here is the "official website position":

We have closed the discussion topic regarding Mr.Tillman while it is in the hands of the authorities. We hope you understand the need to be respectful of the legal process.

CFL Communications

You'll note how I feel about that in my signature "quote".

It is clearly a double standard with zero credibility. Nobody has ever been able, or for that matter even tried, to justify it, but most/many of the mods actually do not support this ban.
Personally, I was banned temporarily for making a post--nobody else that I am aware of has ever been--more double standard. And was told in no uncertain terms that future such posts would immediately be deleted and further disciplinary actions taken.
My response was do your worst.....

There have actually been a few threads/posts deleted that really were not about ET. Apparently, it is also forbidden to discuss the Rider code of ethics.


You raise a totally legitimate question and one that I'm sure there wil be no good answer to as there is no truly defendable position the mods or anyone involved with the can come up with. It is indeed a double standard. Unfortunately it's these types of issues that will hold these boards back from ever becoming what they could be.

...unknown MJ...initially, like in the first day or two of the news breaking, it made sense as the league wanted to stop any wild speculation on the event as facts about it were scarce...but later, once the situation became clearer and news was available in the media a few of us mods, at the request of many posters, challenged the admins to have Mr. Dykstra explain why the gag order remained and no answer was provided....we were told the ban remained in place and we should remove all posts regarding this topic...some of us have chosen to disregard that request, some of us have chosen to honour it...

...from the above, you can see it is clearly not so....

....actually, phpBB Group is under contract with the communications department of the CFL and answers directly to John Dykstra of the CFL, and as the mods volunteer for phpBB they do in fact volunteer for the CFL...

.....still under this delusion that the mods have nothing better to do than hover around here 24/7 huh?...

...give that man a cigar....

...a thread about weed in the BC forum?...what's so unusual about that?... all seriousness though, the global moderators do not moderate the BC Forum, a staff member of the BC Lions communications department does and has sole duties there...

...hope that helps shed some light on the issue, sorry it doesn't provide an actual answer to your question MJ....

It's called innocent until proven guilty. Romance is a convicted felon who did hard time in a U.S. pen. Tillman has been charged, but not convicted. There is a difference...duh.

And when people like Mike Vick, Barrry Bonds, Jason Armstead, Trevis Smith, etc., etc., have been discussed, how does that fit your theory? What does innocent until proven guilty have to do with whether or not an issue can be discussed or not? And especially, why is a thread that merely updates the legal situation locked? At least there is some improvement because previously that thread would have been deleted.

And thanks Red & White!!