The Deadline Day ITK Discussion Thread - 1st September

[RJR1949]

Truth is that the poster in question doesn't disagree occasionally as I'm sure some people do, he does it continually to the extent that it sometimes appears to be a campaign, that he has taken it upon himself to neg rep people as though he's putting them in their place.
As I've said before I never intentionally give anyone a negative rating and I always assume when I get one I it's a fat finger but I do recognise a pattern.
Now, if that's what people want to do then I guess they're fully entitled to do it but it is fair that it is pointed out in case they don't realise it may annoy people particularly when there is no response by way of a post to reply to.
Spurs Community is a very amicable forum with thankfully a friendly atmosphere, I think thats worth making a bit of effort to maintain.
Come on guys make the effort.

I decided sometime ago not to give Negative ratings (and any given since then are fat finger problems). I found myself getting irrationally cross when I got a negative rating and presupposed that others must feel likewise. When I do get negative ratings I often put the rater on Ignore. (Now I stand back and await a wave of negatives).

 

[Thenewcat]

I don't know why he's taken to it recently but there you are, I've given 41k +ve and 282 -ve make what you want from that, best we end this conversation now.

And he’s only made 686 negatives (the rest were neutral) so his ratio is almost identical to yours. It probably is best to end this now, picking on individual posters when they aren’t doing anything unusual isn’t necessary

 

[only1waddle]

The truth is the poster in question has made 88k positive reactions and less than 4000 neutral and negative combined, so he’s hardly spamming negatives all over the place is he?

That's great an all, but what's his XG like?

 

[nicdic]

That's great an all, but what's his XG like?

Oi, take that sort of chat to the "what our opponents' fans say about us" thread please.

 

[worcestersauce]

And he’s only made 686 negatives (the rest were neutral) so his ratio is almost identical to yours. It probably is best to end this now, picking on individual posters when they aren’t doing anything unusual isn’t necessary

Like I said all mine were accidental I've never intentionally given a neg. No one is being picked on but yes it is best to end it.

 

[thecook]

Like I said all mine were accidental I've never intentionally given a neg. No one is being picked on but yes it is best to end it.

I love that you've negged the post directly above this

(edit - ignore me, its a neutral oops!)

 

[worcestersauce]

I love that you've negged the post directly above this

(edit - ignore me, its a neutral oops!)

There you go I genuinely didn't have a clue I'd done that
Sorry @nicdic I've removed it.

 

[jay2040]

Ok then, there's not much stifling of open, honest, and considered debate. Fucking hell, don't be such a digestive

A digestive would hold up to being dunked where as the poster comes across as a rich tea biscuit that has been dunked and recovered with the other half!

 

[SpursSince1980]

This thread took a really strange turn.

 

[dvdhopeful]

That's great an all, but what's his XG like?

Don't mention xG, the harder lads will be along to nick your lunch money.

 

[Rob]

It’s sad and a bit embarrassing that two of the admin team have recently jumped into the pile on about ratings received by a certain poster.
and then taken the piss out of their username.

surely it would be better to discreetly suggest a username change?

Or just agree to remove the negative ratings system if it’s that big an issue.

online bullying isn’t cool

People on here, despite what they post, are grown ups and I don't think need molly coddling to that extent.

 

[McFlash]

People on here, despite what they post, are grown ups and I don't think need molly coddling to that extent.

Oh Jesus, "online bullying"?!
There's a massive difference between bullying and taking the piss, or having a laugh.
You guys do well to run this place as it is and are quick to crack down on anyone that steps too far out of line.

Nobody wants to see this place become a woke kindergarten, it's a football site and if people don't like it, they are free to leave and try some of the other Spurs sites to see how they get on there.

 

[Yid-ol]

Oh Jesus, "online bullying"?!
There's a massive difference between bullying and taking the piss, or having a laugh.
You guys do well to run this place as it is and are quick to crack down on anyone that steps too far out of line.

Nobody wants to see this place become a woke kindergarten, it's a football site and if people don't like it, they are free to leave and try some of the other Spurs sites to see how they get on there.

I think most of us are banned from one of them

 

[Scott Spur]

I’ve seen a few messages like this recently. Is there really any need? Sure, you can say that you’re joking, but, just as you are perfectly entitled to make your views known on anything to do with Spurs without the need to justify yourself, John, or anyone else, is similarly entitled to disagree.
The world is a pretty unpleasant place at times, and this place can often feel like a microcosm of that. And that unpleasantness can affect people in wholly different ways.
Surely the one thing we can all agree on, though, is that we all want the best for this football club.
Now, you and John may fundamentally disagree on how this to be achieved, but none of us is viewing this from exactly the same position. Nor are we privy to the way we all feel, and the way that words, however, humourlessly meant, can impact on someone.
I despair at the fact that, try as we might, rational debate on this forum can often feel impossible. In essence, we want the same thing; a team to be proud of, and football that makes us forget about the travails of life. How much responsibility we put on Tottenham Hotspur or Daniel Levy for that to happen is up to us as individuals.
Just as with the Brexit debate (Brexiteers and Remoaners) the terms ‘bedwetters’ and ‘BSoDL’ are hugely reductive, and stifle open, honest, and considered debate.
As a moderator of this forum, I really don’t see that you should be ‘sticking it’ to a member who just happens to disagree with you. How about we all treat each other with respect and just see how we roll from there?

On a positive note mate, your post has earned a Ratings Full House, quite a rarity in these parts.

Just PM @Archibald&Crooks for your prize.

 

[CantSmileWithoutYou]

On a positive note mate, your post has earned a Ratings Full House, quite a rarity in these parts.

Just PM @Archibald&Crooks for your prize.

Biscuit the Mod.

 

[nicdic]

I've deleted my post, was only meant as a jovial quip, wasn't fussed by the disagree rating or anything else. Shall we get back to discussing Levy?

I mean ITK...

 

[cliff jones]

Isn’t a key tenet here playing a topic, not the man? Move on.

Looking back, I give the window a 7 mainly due to Maddison and VDV.

The loss of Kane and no second CB dragging the score down. Less bothered about those in their last year- although HL should have been let go without a fee.

There simply has to be good money in the kitty for January, although we all know there’s a further premium to pay then as good players are still involved in key competitions

 

[Nerine]

Fascinating last couple of pages.

 

[whitechina]

Fascinating last couple of pages.

For the first time in ages I really want to disagree~ they've been pants!

I don't understand Hugo L. and Eric D. staying with little or no hope of game time. Reports today stating E.D. has met Levy are understandable, but why not take a loan till January? It keeps him in the public eye and gets his pre contract for next season.
Each to their own I guess

 

[Rob]

Isn’t a key tenet here playing a topic, not the man? Move on.

You're thinking of COYS. In here we tend to go in studs up