A warning for keyboard warriors - Fans receive banning orders from club

[Nero]

So when Scott Parker pins a player against the wall and calls him a fing useless son of a b is he going to get banned from the ground?

[I Ronic]

So when Scott Parker pins a player against the wall and calls him a fing useless son of a b is he going to get banned from the ground?

No because it happened in the ground the Club will remove.all his social media privileges instead.

[FFC1987]

Having a zero tolerance policy of politics and abuse on my facebook and recently deleting my twitter, I can happily say, not only am I happier, but social media is in no way shape or form a reflection of society or a place worthy of any form of discussion. Someone else said they've no idea why people bother with them....whats becoming evident is, it's really not worth the time and largely, can only be used against you even in some of the softest terms which aren't being abusive related. If one would like an example, a friend in recruitment, refused to put forward applicants for a job role because the person recruiting asked directly, that no one from a certain London club be allowed through....

[Woolly Mammoth]

If an individual has to habitually use swear words and continue to do so without any respite.
Then apart from their undeniable ignorance, it shows their lack of command of the English Language, grammar and comprehension, and swearing is the last refuge for a person who cannot win their argument.
I can swear as much as the next trooper, but when you are having a debate and a conversation on a civilised level, there is no demand for it, and it is best for all concerned if the individual keeps quiet, and goes away and read the English Oxford Collins Dictionary, and cancel his delivery of the Daily Mirror, an unsavoury rag that has a lot to answer for.
Social Media has created its own Monster.

[Fulham Tup North]

I thought loads of people who use social media write under an asoynym. So how will the club ban people when they have no idea who they are? And these media companies do not have to disclose who is on their platforms. If people get a ban from say Twitter, they just create a new profile and can continue to be abusive.
Thing is, 99% of people would never say some of the things they do online, to the person's face.

[RaySmith]

People do get traced, and acted against, though.

[Woolly Mammoth]

I hope whoever answered this question was caught off guard abd hadn't had a chance to think about it, because that response is absolutely moronic. For a start, I've no idea what's acceptable in the FFC workplace. Standards will vary between offices and even moreso between offices, football forums and football stadiums. If this is going to be determinative of whether we're allowed in the stadium, surely the standard should be what's generally acceptable in football stadiums. Or the club could just rely on the criminal law, which is already extremely strict in this context, rather than having to make, explain and enforce their own silly standards.

For the record Statto, if someone put out a company policy statement in my workplace, & you publicly called a them moron, you would be up for disciplinary action immediately.

:005:

In fact as Statto would probably have a history of condescending and opinionated abuse, I would take it a step further and recommend he be charged with gross misconduct.

[love4ffc]

People do get traced, and acted against, though.

Agree with this.  You register with the social media website, example twitter.  You give Twitter your name and email address.  In today's world it would not be that hard to find out who a poster really is if an organization really wanted to. 

[The Rational Fan]

I hope whoever answered this question was caught off guard abd hadn't had a chance to think about it, because that response is absolutely moronic. For a start, I've no idea what's acceptable in the FFC workplace. Standards will vary between offices and even moreso between offices, football forums and football stadiums. If this is going to be determinative of whether we're allowed in the stadium, surely the standard should be what's generally acceptable in football stadiums. Or the club could just rely on the criminal law, which is already extremely strict in this context, rather than having to make, explain and enforce their own silly standards.

For the record Statto, if someone put out a company policy statement in my workplace, & you publicly called a them moron, you would be up for disciplinary action immediately.

:005:

In fact as Statto would probably have a history of condescending and opinionated abuse, I would take it a step further and recommend he be charged with gross misconduct.

Be warned, if we get too much "political correctness" people may react by voting for the most "politically incorrect" leaders imaginable for both #10 and the White House, afterwhich the free-world will be lead by people that exercise free speech by saying the first thing that enters their head without thinking. Liberals call these kind of warnings fear-mongering until it actually happens, or happened.

[Carborundum]

One or two of the contributions prompted me to google whether football forums are social media, expecting that to be the case. 

Turns out the answers are mixed between yes and no.  Naturally the internet being the internet, that means a mix between emphatically yes and emphatically no.  I'm actually a bit puzzled now.  But I do understand how people with post counts in the hundreds or thousands can claim not to use social media.  Live and learn.

I use Twitter but only in connection with work.  Have decided that Twitter is like booze.  Wonderful servant.  Horrible master.

[toshes mate]

People do get traced, and acted against, though.

Agree with this.  You register with the social media website, example twitter.  You give Twitter your name and email address.  In today's world it would not be that hard to find out who a poster really is if an organization really wanted to. 

It is why so much money is invested in Google, Facebook, et al, style algorithms which try to piecemeal information together so that a picture of the real identity of individuals comes to light.   But it isn't foolproof and it isn't always the anonymous person who is the offender.  People wish to retain anonymity for many reasons other than as a screen to hide behind.  When I first used the internet long before most people were not even aware of computers other than large mainframe terminals you'd perhaps find in an academic place or very large organisation, your identification didn't matter because nobody was snooping on you.  That changed when personal data had a priced put on it which wasn't paid to the data owner on order to push agenda's towards individuals demonstrating certain traits and that is when the whole thing went off the rails IMO.  It doesn't surprise me that there are many angry people.  It also doesn't surprise me that it has always been true that the person sitting next to you on a 'bus or tube could be a truly evil or heinous person but how would you ever know?  The answer is you wouldn't.

Social media is not the product of big business intervention but it was one helluva lot better before big business, governments and the law came along.  When did the rot start?  As soon as information was seen to be valuable enough to market; when it was free there was no problem and no interest in it from the big players.   Even Bill Gates saw it as a way to bring freedom to the masses.  Some nightmare that has turned into.

[MJG]

People do get traced, and acted against, though.

Agree with this.  You register with the social media website, example twitter.  You give Twitter your name and email address.  In today's world it would not be that hard to find out who a poster really is if an organization really wanted to. 

It is why so much money is invested in Google, Facebook, et al, style algorithms which try to piecemeal information together so that a picture of the real identity of individuals comes to light.   But it isn't foolproof and it isn't always the anonymous person who is the offender.  People wish to retain anonymity for many reasons other than as a screen to hide behind.  When I first used the internet long before most people were not even aware of computers other than large mainframe terminals you'd perhaps find in an academic place or very large organisation, your identification didn't matter because nobody was snooping on you.  That changed when personal data had a priced put on it which wasn't paid to the data owner on order to push agenda's towards individuals demonstrating certain traits and that is when the whole thing went off the rails IMO.  It doesn't surprise me that there are many angry people.  It also doesn't surprise me that it has always been true that the person sitting next to you on a 'bus or tube could be a truly evil or heinous person but how would you ever know?  The answer is you wouldn't.

Social media is not the product of big business intervention but it was one helluva lot better before big business, governments and the law came along.  When did the rot start?  As soon as information was seen to be valuable enough to market; when it was free there was no problem and no interest in it from the big players.   Even Bill Gates saw it as a way to bring freedom to the masses.  Some nightmare that has turned into.

the club (or anyone looking to match people up) can find out a lot from all postings made and link 'names' to actual people.

I for one am not hard to track down if the club wanted to know who MJG or @1966MJG was on twitter. There are others on here the club could do the same with.
I know a poster on here who uses one name for FOF another for Twitter and another on TIFF. If you have been on here long enough you get to see the same subjects and even same wording used and you can narrow it down.
TIFF for example shows IP addresss, yes they can be on a VPN or hidden...but if you use that to then answer a survey from Fulham or login into the website and buy tickets.....they can narrow the search down if looking for someone. All about simple cross referencing, we all leave our fingerprints when we are online.

Id prefer no anonymity on social media.I think if your not willing to stand up and say what you are putting down online then you shouldnt be there.

[Wolf]

And I was suggesting that is what the Club should do because a) it justifies an action; b) it sets and demonstrates acceptable standards; and c) it gives an innocent party the chance to defend themselves against abuse of private power in a licensed public entertainment environment (for which there has been a recent example). 

Would you be able to provide a link to the example for your point (c)? I'm interested rather than sceptical.

[Dr Quinzel]

People do get traced, and acted against, though.

Agree with this.  You register with the social media website, example twitter.  You give Twitter your name and email address.  In today's world it would not be that hard to find out who a poster really is if an organization really wanted to. 

It is why so much money is invested in Google, Facebook, et al, style algorithms which try to piecemeal information together so that a picture of the real identity of individuals comes to light.   But it isn't foolproof and it isn't always the anonymous person who is the offender.  People wish to retain anonymity for many reasons other than as a screen to hide behind.  When I first used the internet long before most people were not even aware of computers other than large mainframe terminals you'd perhaps find in an academic place or very large organisation, your identification didn't matter because nobody was snooping on you.  That changed when personal data had a priced put on it which wasn't paid to the data owner on order to push agenda's towards individuals demonstrating certain traits and that is when the whole thing went off the rails IMO.  It doesn't surprise me that there are many angry people.  It also doesn't surprise me that it has always been true that the person sitting next to you on a 'bus or tube could be a truly evil or heinous person but how would you ever know?  The answer is you wouldn't.

Social media is not the product of big business intervention but it was one helluva lot better before big business, governments and the law came along.  When did the rot start?  As soon as information was seen to be valuable enough to market; when it was free there was no problem and no interest in it from the big players.   Even Bill Gates saw it as a way to bring freedom to the masses.  Some nightmare that has turned into.

the club (or anyone looking to match people up) can find out a lot from all postings made and link 'names' to actual people.

I for one am not hard to track down if the club wanted to know who MJG or @1966MJG was on twitter. There are others on here the club could do the same with.
I know a poster on here who uses one name for FOF another for Twitter and another on TIFF. If you have been on here long enough you get to see the same subjects and even same wording used and you can narrow it down.
TIFF for example shows IP addresss, yes they can be on a VPN or hidden...but if you use that to then answer a survey from Fulham or login into the website and buy tickets.....they can narrow the search down if looking for someone. All about simple cross referencing, we all leave our fingerprints when we are online.

Id prefer no anonymity on social media.I think if your not willing to stand up and say what you are putting down online then you shouldnt be there.

This is all true. Not sure if you meant me here, but I do have my own name on Twitter and then different pseudonyms on here, TIFF, even Reddit and all the way down to Xbox live.

But I don't bother to hide my ip, so if someone wanted to connect the dots it would take very, very little effort. It would be a bit weird, and to some extent stalkerish and would make me question why records were kept in the first place unless I (in this example) were deemed 'high risk' of some sort.

It takes very little effort to find someone using the internet. Sometimes with as little as knowing someones name and a general area can lead you to their home, place of work, spouses etc and a full detail of information opens up. That's before you even think of the detail amazon, google, FB and your internet providers have on all of us.

I've made sure profile pictures of my personal FB page are never used anywhere else so they cannot be linked via a reverse image search for instance, but it's a fairly futile unless you want to live a fully undercover existence. I quite like to say hello to people from twitter in real life, so that wouldn't be for me, but at the same time I don't like being or the potential for being tracked by the club. I can be critical, but I wouldn't consider myself abusive although we're all susceptible to fits of rage and mistakes.

[toshes mate]

And I was suggesting that is what the Club should do because a) it justifies an action; b) it sets and demonstrates acceptable standards; and c) it gives an innocent party the chance to defend themselves against abuse of private power in a licensed public entertainment environment (for which there has been a recent example). 

Would you be able to provide a link to the example for your point (c)? I'm interested rather than sceptical.

It was related to the Charlton Athletic father and son who were incorrectly identified as having set off a flare and removed from Craven Cottage.  The father took it through an arbitration scheme and he and his son were awarded compensation that FFC was not even required to pay to them.  There was no mention of this on the FFC website or confirmation of payment of compensation.

It suggested to me football is an area of licensed public entertainment environment control situation that needs to be tightened up with legally enforceable action to restore balance to the process of managing crowds on match day when a wrong is done.   The whole episode shows how tenuous the link between action and reaction can be and it is why, IMO, the whole show needs to be tightened up.  When innocent people are ejected from grounds or banned then we need to worry.
     
There was a FOF thread about it but it was some time ago.     

[Dr Quinzel]

I follow FSA Fair Cop @FSA_FairCop on Twitter and am often dissapointed at the way many clubs treat their fans/away fans and the basic lack of any right of reply/appeals process procedure for things like bans/removals/what have you. Worth a follow if you are that way inclined - I know some of you aren't!

[toshes mate]

the club (or anyone looking to match people up) can find out a lot from all postings made and link 'names' to actual people.

I for one am not hard to track down if the club wanted to know who MJG or @1966MJG was on twitter. There are others on here the club could do the same with.
I know a poster on here who uses one name for FOF another for Twitter and another on TIFF. If you have been on here long enough you get to see the same subjects and even same wording used and you can narrow it down.
TIFF for example shows IP addresss, yes they can be on a VPN or hidden...but if you use that to then answer a survey from Fulham or login into the website and buy tickets.....they can narrow the search down if looking for someone. All about simple cross referencing, we all leave our fingerprints when we are online.

Id prefer no anonymity on social media.I think if your not willing to stand up and say what you are putting down online then you shouldnt be there.

No company can abuse data protection legislation and attempting to perform any joining up exercise is illegal in the UK.  The reason why computer algorithms are employed is to avoid the legislation since it i performed during the process of directing your browser wherever it is going and is said to be designed to make your internet experience better!!!  However, the algorithms can be easily fooled and tricked in any number of ways to avoid snoopers who are not legally entitled to be doing what they are trying to do.   Your data is your property unless you choose to freely share it.   

[Dr Quinzel]

the club (or anyone looking to match people up) can find out a lot from all postings made and link 'names' to actual people.

I for one am not hard to track down if the club wanted to know who MJG or @1966MJG was on twitter. There are others on here the club could do the same with.
I know a poster on here who uses one name for FOF another for Twitter and another on TIFF. If you have been on here long enough you get to see the same subjects and even same wording used and you can narrow it down.
TIFF for example shows IP addresss, yes they can be on a VPN or hidden...but if you use that to then answer a survey from Fulham or login into the website and buy tickets.....they can narrow the search down if looking for someone. All about simple cross referencing, we all leave our fingerprints when we are online.

Id prefer no anonymity on social media.I think if your not willing to stand up and say what you are putting down online then you shouldnt be there.

No company can abuse data protection legislation and attempting to perform any joining up exercise is illegal in the UK.  The reason why computer algorithms are employed is to avoid the legislation since it i performed during the process of directing your browser wherever it is going and is said to be designed to make your internet experience better!!!  However, the algorithms can be easily fooled and tricked in any number of ways to avoid snoopers who are not legally entitled to be doing what they are trying to do.   Your data is your property unless you choose to freely share it.

Craig Kline confirmed on Twitter (although I'm sure he's probably deleted it) that this was part of his job at FFC. He says it was in relation to EDF and FLA etc, but who knows the truth there.

A freedom of information act request from FFC would be interesting.

[King_Crud]

That's fine by me. Just act online as you would in person and you have nothing to worry about.

so now I have to take off my pants wave them around my head yelling WOOOO online as well?

[Woolly Mammoth]

I hope whoever answered this question was caught off guard abd hadn't had a chance to think about it, because that response is absolutely moronic. For a start, I've no idea what's acceptable in the FFC workplace. Standards will vary between offices and even moreso between offices, football forums and football stadiums. If this is going to be determinative of whether we're allowed in the stadium, surely the standard should be what's generally acceptable in football stadiums. Or the club could just rely on the criminal law, which is already extremely strict in this context, rather than having to make, explain and enforce their own silly standards.

For the record Statto, if someone put out a company policy statement in my workplace, & you publicly called a them moron, you would be up for disciplinary action immediately.

:005:

In fact as Statto would probably have a history of condescending and opinionated abuse, I would take it a step further and recommend he be charged with gross misconduct.

Be warned, if we get too much "political correctness" people may react by voting for the most "politically incorrect" leaders imaginable for both #10 and the White House, afterwhich the free-world will be lead by people that exercise free speech by saying the first thing that enters their head without thinking. Liberals call these kind of warnings fear-mongering until it actually happens, or happened.

Liberals and globalists are like a polar bear on a receding piece of ice.