The following is a duplicated (and very slightly modified) comment from another thread, one of a number of posts referencing the new posting limit that was imposed recently on comment threads.

I see no mention of [the alleged 5 post limit] in TW's Conditions of Use page – Link – so the editors might think to update those details. It is not a rule I have fallen foul of and I don't know why or when it was implemented.

I do wonder if it is flawed policy.

Whilst not a serial poster myself (I go days – even weeks – without posting at times), I post a mix a short pithy posts and far more detailed posts. The latter in response to issues that particularly interest me.

As someone who enjoys more serious and deeper debate and as someone who challenges what I consider false premises and presumptions sometimes made on here, the very nature of my counter opinions expressed by others naturally draws responses.

I am well aware I am resented by some on these pages. Usually, because they don't like their own opinions being challenged and because they struggle to effectively counter my own point of view. I exasperate them.

I know I can be brusque at times, but that is usually only when someone starts getting personally abusive. Even then, I do not resort to the gratuitous insults a very small number of posters apply in almost all of their posts straight off the bat.

I am guessing that the 5-post rule, if it genuinely does exist, was introduced for a couple of reasons:

1) to stop a particular poster (or various...) dominating and posting multiple posts on a thread, possibly discouraging others from contributing due to the sheer tedium of too many posts from one poster.

In recent weeks, a particular poster given to deep tactical analysis has been guilty of this. Now some of his posts have merit, but it reached a point (certainly for me) that, if and when I saw the name, I simply skipped over his contribution.

2) to stop the more incendiary posts when 'debate' degenerates into petty and deeply abusive personal insults, driven by infantile gainsay and an inability to accept perfectly legitimate alternative views to their own.

Long-term TWers have all seen this. But as I said at the outset, I do wonder if it the 5-post limit is a flawed policy.

Only an exceedingly small number of the TW community indulge in the practices I mention, and even then, not constantly. It strikes me the majority are potentially being punished for the few.

As mentioned, I enjoy getting into serious debate on here. I also enjoy the pithy one-liners that help 'lubricate' many a thread on TW.

I believe a person should be entitled to respond to challenges made to their posts.

I believe a person shouldn't have to pause and think twice between posting – be it a pithy one liner or a more in-depth contribution v for fear of 'wasting' or 'breaching' their post limit on a thread.

It is a rule that could potentially undermine a great deal of the spontaneity in which people post on TW.

Perhaps Lyndon and/or Michael might care to enlighten us as to if and why such a policy is now in effect.

Jay Wood


Jay is not the first person to question the new comment limit but I've decided to use his submission as a starting point for an open discussion here on its merits.

First off, the new limit is a trial initiative based on the posting patterns from certain members that Jay alludes to above. The cap was initially set at five but has been upped to six (although it seems as though some member accounts have been able to submit more for some reason).

The rationale was as many have suspected – to try and prevent discussion threads from being dominated by certain individuals or back-and-forth arguments between a small number of contributors. I'll speak for myself but I'm sure there are others who agree that it can be pretty frustrating logging on to the site to read yet another argument between the same few people re-hashing tired arguments ad nauseam.

You can almost guarantee that if a thread stays up long enough, it will devolve into these sort of arguments between just a couple of people. Not only is it tiresome to read but it's a chore as a moderator to have to weed through them and either remove whole swathes of comments or simply shut threads down because they have devolved into this sort of endless bickering.

The logistics – not to mention the day-to-day overhead – of keeping specific threads open to more comments are more challenging than imposing an arbitrary, blanket limit.

Nevertheless, I am open to feedback, ideas and debate on how to address the issue I lay out above. If it's to block certain members from threads once they've become disruptive or repetitive then that is an option. And if an overwhelming majority feel that any limits should be removed again then I'd have to consider that, too.

Discuss...


Reader Comments (105)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Brent Stephens
1 Posted 06/12/2017 at 09:22:38
Lyndon, I appreciate the issues that gave rise to the 5-a-thread (now 6) limit.

I've seen a suggestion (John Mc?) that the author of an article should not be limited. Sounds sensible if possible. As author of this article, you're safe!

"...yet another argument between the same few people re-hashing tired arguments ad nauseam". In such cases would it be feasible to put a poster on notice that if such posting continues, then posting privileges will be reviewed? This wouldn't then impact on most posters.

Phil Walling
2 Posted 06/12/2017 at 09:37:15
I can see this limit being used by the more verbose amongst us to become even more boring than they are at present. Huge chunks of the coaching manuals already appear on the site so, without a limit also imposed on the length of posts, we can be prepared to receive further dissertations!
Colin Glassar
3 Posted 06/12/2017 at 09:48:52
A forum (of any sort) is like a conversation. Do you limit yourself to five comments in a conversation? Can you imagine being in the pub and being told you can no longer join in the banter as you’ve already spoken five times? I’d like to limit my missus to five comments a day but it’s impossible in a free and open society.

I know there are people who just love to listen to themselves and post endlessly boring and pointless drivel but surely a mechanism can be found to limit (like twitter) the amount of characters used in any one post.

I’m sure a happy balance can be found which doesn’t alienate people from this site.

Jay Wood
4 Posted 06/12/2017 at 11:19:42
A very important point of order Lyndon.

It was pure fluke I accessed this thread, clicking on a link in the 'Recent Comments' listing.

Unless I am completely missing it, there is NO LINK to this thread on the Home Page.

If you genuinely want open feedback on your recently implemented post limitation ruling, surely you need to highlight and sign post this thread to ensure you receive a broad church of members' opinions?

As it was, only a couple of paras in did I realise the opening post I was reading was my own from another thread!

To add to the few comments posted so far, personally I am opposed to any limit being placed on a poster in any single thread, be it the number of times they post or the brevity or length of their post.

Threads invariably take on a life of their own, oft times a secondary or third theme developing which proves more interesting than the theme of the original post!

A ceiling of the number of times a poster may post in a thread potentially denies them the right to continue to engage on that thread as sub-themes develop. That is simply unjust, all the more so when that particular poster has not breached any site protocols.

Similarly, I am totally opposed to any sort of word/character content limit. The TW community is hugely diverse. We are not all cut from the same cloth. There is not a 'one size fits all.'

There are those who enjoy the pithy one liners. There are others who enjoy the deeper, lengthier contributions. There are 'in-betweeners' that enjoy both.

It is not the brevity or verbosity of a post that determines it's validity. It is the quality and relevance of the content.

I am sure what Lyndon is trying to achieve in his initiative is to ensure the 'integrity' of threads and the site.

But surely TW already has in place the tools to achieve that?

Every single post on TW, anyone and everyone has the option to 'Flag this comment'. Personally, it is a facility I have never, ever used.

On this I am probably far more liberal than many. I take the position that, rather than attempt to censor someone in this way, leave their offending/absurd post up for all to see. We are mostly world-wisely adults on here, capable of reasonably assessing an individual post and its poster.

But if enough do feel strongly enough about a particular post or poster, TW already offers you an anonymous mechanism to flag them up to the editors.

Similarly, if anyone feels offended, weary, outraged, whatever by a particular poster who constantly and almost exclusively posts in the same vein with little or no change in his or her content, you as an individual also have a choice: ignore 'em! Don't give them oxygen to be even more incendiary than they already are!

I do this myself. There is one particular bellicose poster on this site that I no longer directly engage with because it is an exercise in futility.

The individual clearly considers his opinion vastly superior to all others; is incapable of genuine debate; is given to gratuitous insults; when his position is exposed or completely dismantled, he lies, distorts or completely misrepresents his own words and those of his challenger.

Secondly, you the editors also have the most powerful tool of all: you can block a member's ability to post to the site.

My position remains unchanged. There is no need to introduce any sort of posting restriction on members, as the overwhelming majority do not constantly 'hijack' or 'abuse' the spirit and integrity of TW.

As I point out, both we the members and Lyndon and Michael the editors already have the tools to hand to protect the integrity of the site.

Please, remove this arbitrary post limitation rule Lyndon.

Brian Williams
5 Posted 06/12/2017 at 11:40:59
I can see both sides.

There IS a need to stop certain people going on ad nauseam whether they do it in the form of an argument with other Twebbers or whether it's a number of self-indulgent posts highlighting their skills as a manger/coach/whatever.

However, as Jay alludes to, there are times when you may have used your 6 posts and then read one to which there's a really funny or relevant reply you'd love to make, and can't.

On the other hand using the tools in place puts the emphasis on the editorial team to "police" the site and I'd guess that, as much as they undoubtedly love Everton, they have a life too!

It's a difficult one and in an ideal world I wouldn't see the need for a 6 post limit. If there's a better way to handle the "situation" then ideally the 6 and out rule could be withdrawn but, if not, I'm not going to castigate the editorial team for taking the steps they feel are needed.

Having just reread my post I am now going to ask my Mrs to help remove the splinters from my arse!

Lyndon. Just remembered a site I used to go on, a virtual pub if you like (someone actually likened Toffeeweb to a VP recently and I thought it was a good point, think it was Darren Hind).

There was a facility there where if a certain amount of people "voted" or "flagged" a comment it was automatically removed. I don't know the ins and outs of how it was done (not smart enough) but if it was actually "automatic" rather than relying on the editorial teams intervention, could that address the problem?

People in the VP soon learned that if they posted crap and gave people an unfair hard time their posts just disappeared and they very quickly learned what was and wasn't acceptable.

Paul Kelly
6 Posted 06/12/2017 at 12:05:43
Though I really never post anywhere near the 6 post limit, ever, it would be really annoying engaging in debate only to find you’ve hit your limit and no longer counter argument.

This in turn will just make posters use multiple accounts and carry on the debate under a different name, I’m sure many do already!

Brian- in response to your VP, the offside forum already satisfies those needs, open 24/7, not everyone’s cup of tea but a good laugh about all things, mainly not football, but that’s what it’s there for!

Ernie Baywood
7 Posted 06/12/2017 at 12:12:43
Not even slightly interested in "flame wars" as I think the kids are calling it...

...but I have hit the limit on Matchday threads. Maybe that's the place where the limit can be removed? For general news and articles 6 posts seems plenty.

Otherwise I might need to venture into the Live Forum *shudder*.

Ray Robinson
8 Posted 06/12/2017 at 12:52:52
Lyndon / Michael, I am not what you would call a prolific poster on ToffeeWeb although there are times when I might have neared / exceeded the limit, this being due to a) reminiscing on a nostalgia thread b) once as the author of a thread replying to other contributors and c) most recently while trying vainly to reason with a particularly bellicose individual who always wants to have the last word. I have no problem with people who hold a different opinion to my own or any other Evertonian as long as they do not attempt to patronise or ridicule that other person. I know this has put two of my mates off from participating in ToffeeWeb threads.

However, I don't believe a 6-post limit is the answer. As you pointed out, there is a "Flag" option available (which I have only just noticed). If this were to be more prominently highlighted, enough people might use it to curb the excesses of some posters without the need for you to constantly monitor the thread. If the Flag count were to be made visible, then I'm sure the individual(s) would desist and modify their future behaviour. Failing that, as a last resort (and not something that I actually want), they could just be banned. I'm sure that self-policing is the answer with you holding the ultimate sanction.

Amit Vithlani
9 Posted 06/12/2017 at 13:07:26
I don't agree with the cap. I think it is unfair to criticise posters who make multiple submissions in a thread. I happen to enjoy the tactical analysis and I enjoy the back and forth banter.

Imposing a cap is arbitrary and open to abuse. People who care passionately about the club come on here to express their views.

Some need multiple posts, engagment and debate to get their message across. Not everyone has the time to craft a post and get their points across in 1 submission; they may need more room to post replies and repostes.

Don't limit posts. Those who find repetitive posts boring have the easy option of posting that something is boring and tuning out.

Those who want to keep reading, keep posting, keep debating don't have an easy option with a cap - they might have to start new threads and for an avid reader like my self it will make the site much worse than reading a long, occassionally funny, sometimes infuriating, sometimes emotional thread which may contain repetitive posts.

David Graves
10 Posted 06/12/2017 at 13:17:56
I would agree with Phil's comment above - that sometimes it is not the frequency of the posts so much as the length.

We had what appeared to be a 4,000 word GCSE PE assignment (based on 20 minutes highlights of the Leicester game) submitted recently!!

Anthony Flack
11 Posted 06/12/2017 at 13:51:25
Generally good practice in this sort of digital space would not be to impose this sort of constraint.

However, it is easy to see why it is tempting as we do not want to drive people away by an over concentration of posts by certain persons.

Though not directly connected, where the threads get very long can, I suggest the addition of a ‘jump to top' or a home button at the end of the thread – sort of opposite to the existing jump to last already in place?

Most of all keep up the great work.

Liam Reilly
12 Posted 06/12/2017 at 13:52:43
Agree with David at #10.

If I see a lengthy post myself, I just avoid it, so for me – limit the number of characters is the better option; else you'll find that posts just get longer as folk know they won't get many chances (especially when they are in an argument).

John McFarlane [Snr]
13 Posted 06/12/2017 at 14:00:10
Hi Lyndon, just two points if I may, regarding Brent's comment. I think some people may get the impression that I requested more posts than others – I would never do that. I believe that someone suggested that authors of articles should be given some leeway, I'm sure that Brent didn't wish to imply that the wish to receive extended limits came from me.

The other point I would like clarification on, concerning the 6 points rule is, does this last for the duration of the thread's lifetime, which I think can be quite lengthy, as witness some of the posts dealing with the appointment of Sam Allardyce?

In closing, I would like repeat, that at no time did I request an extended limit, I'm no angel and I expect only what I'm entitled to.

Chris Gould
14 Posted 06/12/2017 at 14:00:23
I agree with Amit.

It doesn't bother me at all if there's a tit-for-tat battle raging throughout the thread, or if there are a few lengthy analytical posts. We all have the option of simply scrolling past any such posts.

Sometimes the arguments/debates are highly entertaining. I personally think that John Mcfarlane has got it spot on. The issue should be about showing respect when addressing one another, and not how often we post on a thread.

Jim Bailey
15 Posted 06/12/2017 at 14:07:19
Big fuss over nothing for me. Either ignore or switch off.
Christine Foster
16 Posted 06/12/2017 at 14:14:07
Well, the general thrust is rather against putting a limit in place, and there is very good reason for that, on some of the large response articles 300+ type thing, the article may run over the course of a couple of weeks and the situation the article may allude to, changes (Sam Allardyce for example) and so do the context of the comments in response. In short, an article can develop over a short period of time, not just on the responses but also on the content. Effectively stifling any further comment on a changing position / situation.

Secondly, as stated above, many articles are not confrontational and may be reflections on our history with valuable responses by the author or contributors adding value to a memory. Surely there is no need to limit this? I have rarely ever seen anything that became a problem on such articles.

If technically possible may I suggest that the editorial team decide if an article is a red-liner, ie, you get 6 max... and you can tell by some indication in the title as such so people know? If the article content progresses / develops then you can remove the limit accordingly? Just a thought...

Tommy Coleman
17 Posted 06/12/2017 at 14:21:23
How about a comment within comment structure?
People can reply to a comment or add a new one.

Boxing site The Ring uses this structure. You can also vote up or down each comment.
www.ringtv.com/news/

Don Alexander
18 Posted 06/12/2017 at 14:51:29
I totally respect the significant amount or work and responsibility undertaken by Lyndon and Michael in providing this platform. Personally, I once transgressed (in anger I described Martinez in a certain unacceptable way if anyone's interested) and was therefore disallowed the privilege of unappraised input until I undertook to mend my ways. I have done so, I hope!

I believe one or two other transgressors have also been rightly dealt with in this way. Some have said so, but then some of them have then gone on to transgress again in pretty much the same way as got them rightly taken to task in the first place. That disrespects Lyndon and Michael by further burdening them in my opinion, and it disrespects the rest of us too.

Even where we disagree on the club or the match I suggest we all need to respect each other and the very tolerant "rules" expected of us by our two enablers, and the vast majority of members, as has been said by more than a few in recent threads. Denigration and insult to fellow fans is not the way forward.

Steve Ferns
19 Posted 06/12/2017 at 15:05:06
David Graves, that was one of my posts. It was on a thread where a certain individual who I will not name who was criticising David Unsworth with clichés and I challenged him to watch the highlights and substantiate his criticisms. In order to counter any such arguments by him, I posted a lengthy detailed analysis of said game, clearly marked it as such. Therefore, it would have been very obvious to anyone reading the thread why it was done and easy to skip over.

As someone who this rule seeks out to target, I decided to peruse the site far less and to post rarely. I fully respect Lyndon and Michael for all of their hard work in both their content, opinions, and for producing an excellent site that has been my go to website for over 20 years.

Geoff Lambert
20 Posted 06/12/2017 at 15:27:02
Steve! as you say if someone does not want to read a post they can just skip it.

I like most others I expect do this on a regular basis. I read what I want to read and reply if I think it is worth a reply.

Mike Allison
21 Posted 06/12/2017 at 15:44:41
“As it was, only a couple of paras in did I realise the opening post I was reading was my own from another thread!“

Good job he realised as he was about to argue with it...

Thank you.

Brent Stephens
22 Posted 06/12/2017 at 16:03:17
I think we should not lose sight of the fact that long posts and repetitive posts take time for the moderators to read.
Gordon Crawford
23 Posted 06/12/2017 at 16:04:26
I can see the logic and so I understand why it's been trialled. The problem is that it prevents free-flowing conversation from taking place. There are always people who will ruin and abuse forums, but other measures can be taken privately.

You could even incorporate a yellow and red card system, where you could give the chosen offender two yellows then a red or a straight red for discriminatory, abusive posts etc. The coloured card could be displayed against their name as in FiFa 18.

I'm on a few top forums and this is the only one with a posts limit.

Dennis Stevens
24 Posted 06/12/2017 at 16:15:45
I'll bow to whatever decision is made. After all, it's not my site - although it is one of my very favourite sites to visit. However, I'm opposed to the limit & don't feel it's really necessary.

I find some of the longer posts very interesting, even if I don't completely agree with them. The scroll facility is also well used at times!

Most issues here could be resolved by a little more agreeing to disagree at times (sometimes there is no resolution, just an exchange of views), & a lot more restraint on personal abuse & unnecessarily patronising comments (it doesn't move the debate on, merely inflames the situation).

Mike Gaynes
25 Posted 06/12/2017 at 16:30:30
Lyndon, you do a brilliant job of administering this site, and I appreciate how quickly you react to remove posts – and posters – crossing the line into abuse.

However, I believe this new limit takes the wrong tack.

First, no-one is required to read a lengthy post. When I see a long 'un from someone who tends toward the verbose, I generally just scroll past it. (And Jay, sorry mate, but much as I enjoy your enthusiasm, you make me reach for that little wheel on my mouse more often than anyone. I know self-editing can be difficult, but please give it a try.)

And second, while it's true that while most of the back-and-forth debates that Lyndon describes do tend to spiral down the rabbit hole of tedium, once in a while a thread will take an unexpected detour into absolute magic – thoughtful debate, cherished memories, personal glimpses – that would be lost to this new rule. I remember some of these discussions for years. And I think the possibility of losing them is too high a price to pay.

I like Brian's idea (#5)... since TW is an open community, let the participants themselves "vote off" the posts that breach decorum or are just too damn long and repetitive. I'm not familiar with the technology either, but it seems worth looking into. Even if it didn't happen automatically, perhaps a post with a certain number of downvotes would trigger that alarm on Lyndon's desk.

David Barks
26 Posted 06/12/2017 at 16:41:06
I can only speak for myself, but the behavior of certain people hijacking posts has led me to ignore the site more and more. It became the personal battleground of a few people who seem to be hellbent on shouting about how right they are on every single subject, and everyone else is just clueless. Any challenge to that point would simply be dodged or redirected to something else. It seemed to be intentional.

I don't like limit, but I sort of agree with it, at least temporarily, to get things under control. To compare it to pub banter is simply incorrect. People speak freely from the safety of their keyboard in a way that they wouldn't dare when face to face in a pub. Banter is had in a pub, no doubt. But not in the way it often happens on these forums. I know from personal experience in the industry that comments sections are now having to be taken away because of idiotic people. If people start staying away from this site in increasing numbers, then we all lose the site.

There are some solutions which would require development, like allowing users to vote up or down certain posts or posters. So if a person keeps repeating the same BS attacks and claims of how they were right all along, and all the others are fools and continue to be fools, users could simply vote that person off. But again, that would require some site development which isn't the easiest thing.

Eugene Ruane
27 Posted 06/12/2017 at 17:09:35
-rubs chin -

I can see a big plus and a big minus.

Big plus: You 'get into one' with someone on a thread (eg: "Moyes, hopeless, inept, presbyterian ball-bag or decent manager?") and after a bit of tit-for-tat, you spot your adversary has used up his/her five.

Basically this will mean you can REALLY go town on your final post and with no comeback.

Big minus: Same thing but...in reverse, leaving you like a cowboy firing his gun, only to find the chamber's empty and he's left with nothing but a hollow 'click..click..click'

By the way, I go with 'hopeless, inept presbyterian ball bag' (counts - "One!")

Stan Schofield
28 Posted 06/12/2017 at 17:10:52
I don't agree with this rule, because I think it's unnecessary. I realise we get back-and-forth arguments between a limited number of posters, but, practically speaking, it's not difficult to gloss over them if you get fed up seeing them.

Imposing a rule like this essentially punishes the majority for the 'transgressions' of a minority, and to me seems to undermine the very reason for a site like ToffeeWeb. The latter is a great site partly because of often lengthy interchanges between folks on here, which at the end of the day are more interesting than irritating.

Regarding personal insults, I don't like seeing those, they're totally unnecessary (and totally futile, a complete waste of time). For these, many could either be edited out, or (this being a potentially big task for the editors) simply ignored by those to whom the personal comments are made. I know ignoring them can be hard, but it is effective.

Ray Roche
29 Posted 06/12/2017 at 17:34:41
Lyndon, I think the "6 goes and you're out" is a bad idea. Sometimes there are posts that go on, and on, and on but they are easily ignored. Don't like them or the guy writing the post? Skip it.

Yet some posters can continue an argument over several posts and not be boring or self important. Who would have the courage to come on here and say that dear old Harold Matthews should have been limited to 6 posts? Or Dave Abrahams? Or others who have a wisdom born of many years watching Everton?

Eugene Ruane and John Daley frequently make witty and succinct posts that may have been lost to us with the "6 post" rule.

ToffeeWeb threads, during a boring spell when sod all of interest is happening, can sometimes shoot off at a tangent and show many posters have a wit and sense of humour that is exceptional and have resulted in some trouser-wetting threads which would not have seen the light of day with this rule.

Maybe a "thumbs up or down" option would help... save us... from the lengthy, humourless, trainspotting drivel that some on here try to avoid.

Michael Lynch
30 Posted 06/12/2017 at 17:42:39
It's entirely up to the people who actually put the work into this forum to decide the format, but I'm with the contributors who suggest a character/word limit per post rather than a number of posts per thread. I scroll past those interminable posts without reading a word of them – if you've really got that much to say, write an article – whereas I don't mind a bit of cut and thrust between a handful of posters as long as they keep it short and sweet.

Brian Hennessy
31 Posted 06/12/2017 at 18:13:43
Evening all. Personally I don't think the problem is the number of posts that someone makes.

I do however have a problem with a very small minority who seem to want to turn each thread into a personal argument and in the tone they use towards fellow Evertonians. We don't all have to agree with each other but a bit of respect and good manners from the minority would help a great deal.

I think a better use of the "flag" option might be the way forward.

I think most of us only use the flag option when we see a post that is seriously offensive. Maybe we should also flag comments that we feel are disrespectful.

If an individual's posts seem to be regularly getting a large amount of "flags" from a number of different posters, that the editors consider a suspension period for that person.

Either way, I echo the thoughts of several who have already thanked Michael and Lyndon for the great job they do on this site.

Stan Schofield
34 Posted 06/12/2017 at 18:28:07
I think Brian's suggestion @31 for the flag option is a good way forward.

I also echo what others have said about the job that Michael and Lyndon do. Their editing helps it be the great site it is, and it would be a shame for any new rules to compromise that in any way.

Steve Pugh
35 Posted 06/12/2017 at 18:28:21
Can I assume that all those people proposing that Michael and Lyndon undertake more work are volunteering to help? Give up your Saturday evening watching the site in case somebody starts slagging off all and sundry?

You are complaining that people will leave the page if limits are put in place. Well here's a far worse idea, Michael and Lyndon leave and there is no more TW.

I for one get hugely fed up with arguments on here because a lot of the time you end up missing relevant posts hidden in amongst the dross and have to go searching through said dross to find something. You are probably losing as many people because of that as you would with the new rule.

I say do what you think is best, M & L – you made this site what it is and I trust you to keep it as the best place for serious Evertonians to meet online.

Stan Schofield
36 Posted 06/12/2017 at 18:31:28
Steve, what you say is right, but I think that Michael and Lyndon are asking for feedback from us, hence this thread.
Andy Crooks
37 Posted 06/12/2017 at 18:41:55
I have always seen ToffeeWeb, at it's best, as a bar to meet and debate with fellow blues. The five-post limit kills that dead. It is utterly ludicrous, will stifle debate and remove the heart and soul of the best fansite in the world.

I would ask any Evertonian to randomly check out the fansites of any other club. They are out of date, full of shite and filled with people using toe-curling, vomitous sign in names.

On this site, we make our point and put our name to it. Michael, Lyndon, don't fix what is not broken.

Mike Gaynes
38 Posted 06/12/2017 at 18:47:54
Steve (#35), I believe saw a post from Michael that indicated his disagreement with Lyndon on this issue. For that reason also I think this feedback will be valuable, as Stan (#36) points out.

Brian (#31), on most comment websites the "flag" is used to identify abusive posts. What's under discussion here is the problem of annoying posts more than abusive. I'm not sure lumping them together under one flag option is the best way to deal with this. Thus my preference for the "downvotes" idea mentioned by the other Brian at #5.

John G Davies
39 Posted 06/12/2017 at 18:51:48
Stan, I don't think the 5 post limit will add to the site if it is put in place for every poster. Most of the debate on TW is fine if it is allowed to go more than 5 posts. Dave A, John Mc etc could post 100 posts on a thread and not offend anyone.

I reckon the eds should do it on an individual basis for each thread. If it's going wrong, people start the personal attacks and others respond, it can be nipped in the bud. I have had arguments when it would be doing me a favour to be hit with a 5-post limit.

Steve Ferns
40 Posted 06/12/2017 at 18:52:56
I couldn't agree more Andy. Which is brings me to the potential of a like button or an up arrow or whatever. I could have liked Andy's post and not posted myself as he said it all. But if this is difficult to implement, then as Andy said, don't fix what is not broken.

I would also point out that ToffeeWeb posts went off the charts for a reason. Everton were in a state of crisis:
- No manager for 6 weeks
- Constant speculation over the manager
- The appointment of a divisive manager
- Heavy defeat after heavy defeat
- All set to the backdrop of supposedly our best season in years

It was a cauldron of emotion, anger and concern that led to excessive posting. We were all on ToffeeWeb by the hour, instead of by the day, seeing what was happening. As things settle down, the posts decline, and we've seen that already. After the middle of January as we have one game per week, things will become very sleepy.

I would ask you to bear this in mind.

Stan Schofield
41 Posted 06/12/2017 at 18:59:43
John, I think you're right, I basically said similar on John McFarlane's thread about favourite Everton players, because it would have been a shame to restrict his posts for example.

To be honest, once we get playing better and winning regularly, the problem will probably sort itself out to a large extent. A lot of the argument that goes on stems from frustration after poor performances, and we've had a lot of those.

Winston Williamson
42 Posted 06/12/2017 at 19:03:37
Firstly, many thanks to Michael and Lyndon for providing a platform such as ToffeeWeb and also considering our views in respect of this issue.

It comes down to respect, as already alluded to here.

I always go on the premise that, I wouldn't write anything on here that I wouldn't say to the recipient's face.

Hopefully, now that activities have calmed in Evertonland, the troublesome comments will also calm down too...

Dave Abrahams
43 Posted 06/12/2017 at 19:30:56
I am in complete agreement with Steve Pugh (35) who states that, if ToffeeWeb finishes, that would be the worse thing that could happen. Whatever happens to the 5/6 post entitlement, as long as ToffeeWeb remains, I'll be reading it.
Ciarán McGlone
44 Posted 06/12/2017 at 19:45:05
I'm not sure the impact of this limit would avoid tedious oneupmanship or stifle debate.

5 or 6 posts seems a rather small and arbitrary number of posts to be cut off from the debate. Some of the best threads on this site over the years have been lengthy debates, feisty or otherwise.

I think the work of the moderators in holding posters to account works fine... In fact I consider myself to be rehabilitated through Mr Kenrick's interventions.

Don't change a winning formula... this is passionate stuff... so what if posters get arsey occasionally – it's part of the price we pay for the pain.

Colin Glassar
45 Posted 06/12/2017 at 19:46:45
I've read all the posts, good and bad, and I still think mine (#3) is the best. So there!
Mark Tanton
46 Posted 06/12/2017 at 19:47:24
Not really relevant to this discussion, though I promise this is my only remark!

Has the possibility of ‘likes' and ‘dislikes' been mooted before? And what are the pros and cons?

Stephen Brown
47 Posted 06/12/2017 at 19:49:49
This is the best Everton site around. Hopefully the very fact that this has been raised as an issue will make all posters post with respect! Therefore rendering pointless the 5/6 post limit!

For what it's worth I think greater use of the flag feature will work better.

Thanks Michael & Lyndon, keep up the excellent work.

Brian Hennessy
48 Posted 06/12/2017 at 19:57:00
Colin (#45) – I would fear limiting the amount of characters in a post will mean people will just hit send then continue on in another post.

A bit like this...

Brian Hennessy
49 Posted 06/12/2017 at 19:57:15
And this...
Stan Schofield
50 Posted 06/12/2017 at 19:57:27
Stephen, surely you mean the best site around, not just Everton?!
Brian Hennessy
51 Posted 06/12/2017 at 19:57:30
And this...
Chris Watts
52 Posted 06/12/2017 at 20:00:04
Lyndon, for what it's worth, ToffeeWeb is one of the best sites on the internet in my opinion and, as Twitter found out there can be unforeseen effects from making changes to the format. I don't think a limit is a great idea.

Being able to rate the posts might be a good idea if it isn't hard to implement as people would soon get the message and you could like a post without having to comment.

I'd also think a test limit was better than a post limit as that would be frustrating. However, if the problem statement is the admin overhead, you guys need to do what you need to do. This is a cracking site though – please don't change too much!

Ernie Baywood
53 Posted 06/12/2017 at 20:06:37
I'm not a fan of the like/unlike idea. Some of our posters revel in notoriety – giving them a way to measure it will only encourage them!
Darren Hind
54 Posted 06/12/2017 at 20:22:51
I have to say a huge smile spread across my face when I read some of the names to the posts on here.

I wonder if some of the above have any idea of how they actually come across... Many offenders clearly have a belief that they are somehow above blame and seem all to willing to cast the first one.

Me? I'm guilty as fuck, but I'll get to that.

I quite literally laughed out loud as one guy claimed to be "I can be brusque but only when somebody gets personal and abusive" Simply not true. This guy has posted some of the most vindictive posts I've seen on these pages. I once described the guys on the Offside Forum as 'intellectuals' and he nearly flipped, launching into an nasty unprovoked attack on people who had not even posted on the thread. Out of character? ... read some of his posts.

Another guy who claims he has no problem with other peoples opinionnwould often come on Koeman threads with the opening line of "You will never be taken seriously if..."

Another... actually, forget it. We could be here all night listing the oft-repeated transgression of some (not all) of the people above. It's as if they are completely oblivious to their own little bits of nastiness. Until people are prepared to do a little soul-searching, this site will never be what Lyndon wants it to be. There are far too many people who think their transgressions are not really transgressions.

I upset a lot of people from very early on in Koeman's reign. I hated him being our boss and would get really frustrated by people claiming he was something he was not. I responded (wrongly) by picking up every single thing he did wrong. In the early days, that would draw responses like "negative bastard" "Koppite" and other childish names that you often see on here... but, as time went on, this abuse became deeply deeply personal, a bit like you see aimed at Tony Marsh today, some of it from people above. These insults were not one-offs, they would follow every post I made. I got myself a right little "fan club". Almost inevitably, Hostility escalated.

I believe that on any forum, just as in the work place, some people simply adopt the schoolyard behaviour of picking on the one who doesn't fit. I see it with a guy called Brody on the Live Forum; I saw it with Richard Dodd when I first arrived at TW... it's a common human behaviour pattern. There is a safety in being with the majority. I could name at least half-a-dozen people who sought such safety by labelling me "a minority of one". On this thread alone, I could point to a few people who levelled insults that have not bothered me, but have hurt members of my family.

Look, I'm not coming on here trying to act all innocent and blame anyone else for my situation; I played a big part in creating it. I'm no shrinking violet and would be more than happy to settle a score on a different thread (one of the points against the six-post rule).

Not only would I give as good / bad as I got, I was guilty (there's that word again) of often initiating it. I knew exactly what I was doing when I would label a certain group "Happy clappers". I knew I was taking a swipe by dubbing them "The baying handful" and when somebody posted the phrase "Grass-skirted kite-flyers" I latched onto it in a flash.

Some (not all) had gotten so personal, they felt they could say anything. I reacted by dismissing all of them out of hand – completely the wrong approach. I say I always knew, but it took a recent private bollocking from Lyndon to make me properly realise it.

The point I'm making is this: it's no good pointing the finger at others if you are not prepared to recognise your own part in these skirmishes, your own transgressions. Unless you have never criticised another poster, you are not any less guilty than those you point the finger at. It's no good trying to lessen your aggression by admitting you have been a tad "brusque"... If you have been a twat, everyone will know you have been a twat.

I think Lyndon is kinda on the right track, some people (not all) need the number of their posts to be capped (I'm one of them), but the only real way to clean up Dodge City is to marshall your own posts . . There are very few paragons of virtue on here and you can be very certain it won't be any of the self-proclaimed ones.

For my part, I impose my own limit – and it will always be less than Lyndon's.

Stephen Brown
55 Posted 06/12/2017 at 20:29:39
Surely posters should be looking at what is posted then comment rather than who has posted something then comment?

It shouldn't be about the person but should be about the comment??

Brian Williams
56 Posted 06/12/2017 at 20:31:30
I'm not going to attempt to pick the bones out of your post, Darren, but one bit made me laugh.

I just pictured someone in court when the judge asks:

"To the charge of blah blah blah, how do you plead?"

"Errr... guilty as fuck."

You were right about Koeman, btw. ;-)

John Pierce
57 Posted 06/12/2017 at 20:37:29
Against. Many of the reasons articulated well above.

Lyndon & Michael – you do a superb job of handling the emotional, crazy and occasional sublime postings we try to resonate with fellow blues.

If I may, you want the site to become self-policed, to take the edge away from your administration of the site?

Voting on a comment, there for people to see, can (over time) educate the poster that their views, or their posting style, needs modification. They can work it out and will get it in the end.

It's a valuable web tool. Which you can get data from too. Not sure how much work that creates for you but I believe it's a better way to change behaviour rather than imposing limits.

Love the forum and the craziness it generates! UTFT.

Ciarán McGlone
58 Posted 06/12/2017 at 20:44:40
I'm not a fan of "like" facilities.. It often becomes a weapon of populist gang warfare..
James Hopper
59 Posted 06/12/2017 at 20:51:35
I've read a few comments in this thread but apologise for not reading them all. I'm sure that my ideas are not unique.

I don't agree with the arbitrary posting limit. Most of the time, it's not going to be an issue but it seems unfair to limit posters who've done nothing wrong.

If a minority of posters cannot remain civil then, by all means, restrict their ability to post or even moderate their comments before they appear. Don't punish the rest of us for their actions, though.

Chris Watts
60 Posted 06/12/2017 at 20:57:56
One further point. I definitely noticed a slightly more tense atmosphere over the last 8 weeks but it has been pretty much full time misery this season.

Tensions were high and people did seem irritated. Koeman was very divisive. Maybe Lyndon, things will naturally settle down now?

Stan Schofield
61 Posted 06/12/2017 at 21:01:03
I suppose not showing respect for 'norms' of posting is a bit like showing contempt of Court. Like the bloke who was guilty, but refused even to plead, and kept insulting the Judge and even his defence barrister. He showed complete contempt of Court.

Anyway, he was found guilty, and the judge said to him, before I pass sentence, what have you got to say for yourself?

The bloke replied, with complete contempt, "Fuck all"!

The judge, shocked, turned to the Clerk of Court and asked, "What did the defendant say?!"

The Clerk of Court replied, "Fuck all, your worship".

The judge, looking puzzled, said, "How very odd, I was sure he said something!".

Andy Crooks
62 Posted 06/12/2017 at 21:06:45
In my view a "like" facility would utterly drag the site down.

Darren, I had a go at Tony Marsh today. I respect his views, whilst disagreeing with a lot of them. I admire his passion, but, I will not ignore it when he makes stuff up. Neither would you.

Kevin Tully
63 Posted 06/12/2017 at 21:10:46
Nice one, Stan. I don't agree with 'like' buttons or any of that Facebook / Twitter tripe. It would dumb down the site massively for me.

As with Twitter, it becomes a popularity contest for the righteous, without any thought or rational thinking applied to the actual subject matter. Posters would definitely change their styles, and stop to post anything remotely contentious or cynical.

As far as the post limit, yeah, I think it's about right. I may even get some work done now instead of arguing with you knob 'eads all day.

(Only kidding, guys. Peace 'n' love...)

Derek Thomas
64 Posted 06/12/2017 at 21:18:20
It's a forum for back-and-forth 'endless discussion'... the ad nauseam is only in the eye of any particular reader at the time.

If the arguments of the various tweedle-dumbs and tweedle-dohs are not to your taste... usually I find bits from both I can live with, but wouldn't vote for either as a whole (much like politics really).

Ignore them totally... If you have a problem with reading repetitive shite– Don't Read It!

Or, Michael & Lyndon.

Engage a couple of UK time-zoned Mods that can yellow-card or even sin-bin / thread ban...24 hours usually works. In bad cases, 1 week usually make sthe whole argument redundant as things have moved on.

Anonymous ones if it helps... you haven't got to struggle on your own.

Will Mabon
65 Posted 06/12/2017 at 21:23:44
Is this really necessary? There's a scroll function. How is a thread spoiled if someone can choose which parts to read or skip?

Is anyone really offended by words on a website – I mean, actually measurably harmed? If it's annoying or boring, then move along. The very worst that anyone's ever posted (whatever that is?) has never detracted from what is a great site, in my opinion.

Standardspeak is coming to a town near you...

Edit: though I'd agree re. Like buttons, upvote/downvote and similar. Harmless but unnecessary clutter.

Kris Boner
66 Posted 06/12/2017 at 21:26:20
As if perfectly encompassing the issue, I went right to comment after viewing maybe 30 comments to throw in my opinion, as I felt we are all saying the same thing.

Six post limits are probably a bad idea for all the stated points above. My choice would rather be a direct reply or threading comment system that hides all replies to a comment unless you wish to reply to them directly.

This would allow commenters to continue as they would now already, but allow for the in-depth arguments to rage below the immediate surface for those who wish to take part.

Obviously this would require quite a substantial undertaking in reformatting the entire comment section of the site but I feel like that would be the most elegant solution to the proposed problem.

TL DR – no limit to posts but a reply system that hides replies unless specifically clicked on to show.

James Marshall
67 Posted 06/12/2017 at 21:27:04
The same old arguments are tiring, but I just don't read them – I also try not to partake of them like I once did when a certain person (no names mentioned) used to rub me up the wrong way on a daily basis, and I'd bite.

Am I right in saying you can literally only post 5 times on any given thread now? I'm going to have to start an Excel spreadsheet, or make longer posts!

Michael Penley
68 Posted 06/12/2017 at 21:32:10
Why not introduce an "ignore" function? Then, if you're irritated by someone posting an excessive numbers of posts, you can read a thread without seeing what a certain member wrote.

I happen to find the lengthy debates rather endearing. Even if I disagree with some opinions, it's the passion with which they express them which makes Evertonians special. And it's unique to this site.

Chris Leyland
69 Posted 06/12/2017 at 21:32:20
I
Chris Leyland
70 Posted 06/12/2017 at 21:32:38
Diagree
Chris Leyland
71 Posted 06/12/2017 at 21:32:49
With
Chris Leyland
72 Posted 06/12/2017 at 21:33:01
The
Chris Leyland
73 Posted 06/12/2017 at 21:33:17
Posts
Chris Leyland
74 Posted 06/12/2017 at 21:33:29
Limits
Will Mabon
75 Posted 06/12/2017 at 21:33:32
Michael - I ignored your post.
Gavin Fennessy
76 Posted 06/12/2017 at 21:33:59
Hi Lyndon,

I can see the two sides of the argument but on balance I can't agree to the limit. Like many others I scroll happily by some of the posts and eagerly read others. We all have our opinions and some are more vocal than others. I understand that multiple verbose or tit-for-tat postings are tiresome (especially for a moderator).

I would support, as you do, bans for abusive behaviour or constant shit stirring. However, bores and boors do tend to get called out on TW. Perhaps by raising awareness and some additional signage would be enough to remind people not to abuse their commenting privilege.

Anthony Jones
77 Posted 06/12/2017 at 22:16:55
This approach kind of punishes arguments that help to clarify complex opinions that are not adequately captured in one or two short comments.

A word limit would make more sense as the longest posts are the most banal.

Lengthy monologues are allowed and the Socratic Method is discouraged.

Mike Gaynes
78 Posted 06/12/2017 at 23:07:04
Chris Leyland, good one, but that's six. Gonna miss you in the remainder of this thread.

Darren (#54), when you say "Unless you have never criticised another poster, you are not any less guilty than those you point the finger at"... I think you're illuminating something important. There's a big difference between criticizing the post and criticizing the poster, and it helps if people can be aware of that distinction and respect it. It'll never be perfect, because folks do take things personally, but it would go a long way towards taming our little Dodge City.

Peter Mills
79 Posted 06/12/2017 at 23:17:29
Every poster on here should have the first line of the disclaimer (below) at the forefront of their mind before pressing the “Submit Your Comment” button. That would sort it.
Dan Davies
80 Posted 06/12/2017 at 23:21:51
Okay I've read all the posts. I've considered them all.

Especially Darren Hind. You're some skin, Darren – I'll give you that. This thread could almost be about you alone.

Michael & Lyndon, for what my opinion is worth, I believe in freedom of speech and am personally against limiting posts. However, I do agree with some about the length of posts – maybe there could be some sort of cap?

TW could maybe take advantage of a thumbs-up/thumbs-down icon? Monitored by yourselves which would be a very good tool in weeding out poor posts and posters. It would be nigh-on self-policing.

I'm not sure of the numbers of members TW has but also is it possible that you pair could need a number 3 to help out?

Jay Wood
81 Posted 06/12/2017 at 23:25:35
Returning to this thread at the end of the day, a healthy range of opinions.

To look at a cross-section of differing ideas, starting with Steve Pugh @ 35.

I don't see anyone, as you suggest, proposing that Michael and Lyndon undertake more work in moderating the site. On the contrary, many are saying 'leave as is.'

However, your (mocking) suggestion that people volunteer their own time to moderate threads and post is something that many forum and membership sites already use, if the editors were so inclined to go down that route.

You may also not be aware that Lyndon (who introduced the post limit) and Michael are themselves not in agreement on this ruling, as Michael's comment on another thread indicates. In replying to me on the post Lyndon duplicates at the top of this thread Michael wrote:

"I've had concerns since I first learnt of the 5-post limit Lyndon imposed, and had been pondering the salient points of an alternative opinion I would put to him to challenge this arbitrary constraint.

I don't need to think about it any more... you did it for me!"

Steve Ferns @ 40 makes a valid point: there has been something of a hiatus at Everton in the absence of a full-time manager. Poor results and performances were not arrested, there was confusion and speculation as to who was being considered, and the final choice, to put it mildly, was not universally welcomed.

Emotions were (legitimately!) running high as colours were firmly nailed to any number of masts. An avalanche of posts across similar threads naturally resulted. That tsunami has now ebbed and 'normality' has returned.

As a number of posters point out, why get worked up about particular posters or their posting style? Each and every one of us have the individual control in our own hands.

As Will Mahon says at #65, see the name of a particular poster whose opinions and posting style only riles you? Scroll on by.

Turned off by longer posts? Keep on scrolling.

To insist on any sort of limitation – be it the number of posts an individual can post in a single thread, or to have a word limit – is to prejudice the vast majority who are not abusing the forum in the ways Lyndon believes, or to deny pleasure to those who do enjoy more detailed posts.

It also threatens the spontaneity and wackiness that TW regularly throws up.

As I originally said, TWers are not all cut from the same clothe. You can't insist on a 'one size fits all' template as some are trying to prescribe.

Each post and poster should be judged on its individual merits. That is, the quality and validity of the content, be that a pithy one liner or a 500-word submission.

I also agree with Ciaran @ 58 and Andy Crooks @ 62. A 'like' feature can also be abused and manipulated and is not something TW needs. It ain't Facebook here.

Finally, a comment to Darren Hind @ 54.

You claiming that after you described the guys on the Offside Forum as intellectuals that I flipped and launched into a "nasty unprovoked attack on people who had not even posted on the thread" is an out-and-out lie. A total fabrication on your part.

Why am I not surprised?

Your analogy that your posting style reflects the 'banter' you would use with mates down the pub is also a false one to make.

Yes, anyone who has talked football with mates down the pub joshes and ribs each other.

To extend your own analogy, Darren, what you consistently do is walk up to a complete stranger in the pub, spit in his beer, pour it over his head and with bristling menace tuck your thumbs in your waistband and sneer: "Worra-ya-gonna-do-about-it?"

Try that for real in any pub in Liverpool you are not 'known' and – when you get out of Casualty – let us know how it went.

Clive Mitchell
82 Posted 06/12/2017 at 23:34:19
Steve Pugh's post (#35) is about 150 words. That would do as a limit per post.
Dan Davies
83 Posted 06/12/2017 at 23:38:00
Okay after reading Jay@ 81, I agree on not limiting the amount if words in a post.

However a Like - No Like, option that is policed by the monitors alone – I still think is good idea.

Andy Crooks
84 Posted 06/12/2017 at 23:43:33
Clive, why have a limit of 150 words? Why have a limit at all. This site, due to the efforts of two great Evertonians, backed by some really talented columnists, has thrived for many years. Leave it as it is.

We may not have the best team but we have the best website. I know that. Look at the rest, this is the best.

Dennis Ng
85 Posted 06/12/2017 at 00:04:25
I have my fair share of run-ins with Lyndon and Michael when commenting on this site and I do see the difficulty of moderating any open-ended discussions. Between curbing out-of-line commenters vs boring repetitive arguments, it is tricky to use any form of website mechanism to exact proper intervention without it feeling too heavy handed.

May I suggest the following?

1) Allow a 3-minute span for a user to edit his post. I'm not sure how the time limit works as I usually comment once and spend time trying to catch up with other threads, so I never had to deal with the time limit. This time limit should go hand-in-hand with my next suggestion.

2) Posting cool-off period of 5 mins (choice of 5 min is arbitrary). Posting again too quickly might not leave enough time to digest the debate. That way, even the most persistent of debaters have to spend 5 mins on the sidelines waiting, thinking through and cool down. This should be slightly longer than the edit comment allowance to allow people to edit comments to add points or correct errors.

A lot of heated debate stems from perspective and if people are made to cool-down, the workload for the moderators might not be that excessive.

Again, 5 mins is arbitrary. It might be too long. These days, I post a few times, finish up reading and move to my other tasks outside TW. We all love this club and can be overeager to express what we feel is best for the club. I would love open debate but it doesn't work for all of us. Hopefully my suggestions will help both moderators and us users.

Steve Stobie
86 Posted 06/12/2017 at 00:10:35
Dear all,

I just wanted to write to say that limiting posts or capping characters; surely these are draconian measures, essentially using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, as the saying goes. I'm highly unlikely to post more than 6 times on any one thread, but we are all adults here and don't need rules like these on a website (and may I say – the best damn website on the internet, a site that I visit numerous times every day, so a huge Thank You has to go to Michael and Lyndon for creating and maintaining it as such) that is essentially an open forum to keep up with all things Everton and read comments and articles from like-minded Evertonians.

Yes, recently – as the club has gone through some exceptionally difficult times; when expectations were set so high after what we all thought had been a great summer, until no Striker, Left-Sided Centre-Back and Left-back were signed; some conversations between ToffeeWebbers have got heated; but isn't that what discussion and debate is all about?

Individual posters should really be able to self-regulate though, and resorting to name-calling and insults is childish behaviour of the lowest order. There's no need for it, and Michael and Lyndon are well within their rights to crack down on those people who engage in this, in whatever way they see fit; be it stopping posts from those individuals on the thread, or even banning posts from those individuals altogether for a certain period of time.

Having said that, though, it is a discussion forum; just because somebody posts a comment, it doesn't mean that you have to read it; if you want to read every comment then feel free to do so, but expect to see all sorts of comments, from all sorts of people; and unless there is an unprovoked insult that is directed at you personally, there really is no need to get upset about anything that is written.

There is also no need to whinge and moan about what some people want and feel the need to post, if it is not necessarily something that you are interested in reading.

Steve Ferns has been mentioned a few times in this thread, and yes the Leicester tactical analysis post was long, but you can see how long a post is before you read it; if you want to read it, then read it, but if you don't want to read it (perhaps because it is so long for example), then don't read it; but don't read it and then complain that it was boring, that's just childish. I actually thought it was a really good read, and am always up for reading a good tactical analysis of a game, but if you're not up for that sort of read, then just don't read it, simple really!!

Please don't censor people un-necessarily though, to solve what is essentially quite a minor problem. Everybody who posts, reads and comments on ToffeeWeb, we're all different, with different thoughts, comments and writing styles. It is an amazing website and I actually don't want it to change in any way at all.

I enjoy the majority of posters' thoughts and comments, but if people in general could just be a little more mindful before they post, then issues like this won't arise in the future.

We all love Everton FC; and we all obviously love ToffeeWeb; if we didn't, we wouldn't be here in the first place; so let's not do anything to spoil, ruin or change this amazing site, which gives us our weekly/daily/hourly fix of all things Everton. Nil Satis Nisi Optimum!

Derek Thomas
87 Posted 07/12/2017 at 00:25:22
Or... now we have a manager, there's not much to talk about. Enjoy it while it lasts because 5 posts will not cover the topic when we win the derby and if we throw it away/shoot our selves in the foot/turn in our usual abject bottling performance, we'll need a thread each!!
Kieran Kinsella
89 Posted 07/12/2017 at 01:11:49
Lyndon

Here is the issue with the five post limit

Colin: I found a treasure map.
Dick: For what?
Colin: John Moore’s buried a time capsule with a billion dollars in it for Everton to use if ever needed.
Dick: Are you serious?
Colin: Deadly.
Dick: Where is it?
Colin: In Maidenhead but I need to borrow a shovel to get it.
Dick: I have one
Colin: Ace, meet me at my house.
Dick: Where do you live?

Sorry Colin you have reached your post limit.

Bill Gienapp
90 Posted 07/12/2017 at 01:46:53
I'm a relative newbie to the site and don't post all that frequently... but ultimately I feel like you have to take the good and the bad together.

Whatever benefits might be yielded by a posting cap would be more than offset by what would inevitably be lost in terms of analysis and debate.

Don Alexander
91 Posted 07/12/2017 at 02:01:42
Darren (#54), once again, you seem to really miss the point, as far as I'm concerned. You've come up with terms such as "zombie football" (and others) which you repeat ad nauseam but, in fairness, you're describing YOUR take on events on the pitch and in the boardroom – as per the whole point of this site.

I actually agree with a number of your points and have said so despite my distaste for what I consider to be your odious pronouncements on the intelligence of those who take an alternative opinion to yours.

We're all fellow fans, Darren, not "straw-men", "hypocrites", "stupid" or however else you routinely describe us. We just have a different opinion.

I for one do respect your opinion on some things but the denigration of those you deem not to be in total agreement with you really needs to stop as far as I'm concerned. It damages the site, and you (as many have explicitly made clear), and for all we know some other genuine fans, and as fans we really should be sticking together.

David Israel
92 Posted 07/12/2017 at 02:20:56
Difficult one, as I always try to be on the side of free speech, but understand the cumbersome nature of having to read/moderate constant, and sometimes repetitive, posts from the same person(s).

Why not try self-restraint for a while, and if it doesn't work, other measures can than be looked at?

Still, blessed are the brief, for they shall have no writer's cramp.

Jay Harris
93 Posted 07/12/2017 at 04:11:11
Lyndon & Michael,

I have enjoyed this site for so long and that is a credit to you both and all the fellow Blues that take the time to consider and post.

As a believer in freedom of speech, I do NOT feel a limit has to be imposed.

As other posters have said, we can skip through any belligerent or unwieldy posts and any real abusive posts can be objected to.

It has worked so well up to now – don't fix whatever isn't broken.

Darren Hind
94 Posted 07/12/2017 at 06:17:32
Don Alexander

I think it is you my friend who is missing the point.

Having pleaded guilty to all charges, I can hardly come back and now plead my innocence... but I feel even in a thread which is essentially about gratuitous point scoring, the virtuous are looking for an opportunity to, err, score points.

I have often (and I mean often) logged on to threads that I haven't been involved in and found members of a certain group having a go at me. There are some who have done it several times, but throughout this last year, nobody has come close to doing it as often as you. I swear, I once walked into a pub to be told by amused friends and family "He's at it again".

Now I know other posters are bound to come up in conversation from time to time, but you were pretty prolific, You went through a spell when you could barley post without mentioning my name.

I can only see two reasons for this: One would be to gain gravitas by showing you are always prepared to take on the local Pantomime Villain – even when he wasn't there. The other is that you were calling me out, actively seeking confrontation. Me being me couldn't resist... but honestly, you are now coming across like the arsonist who blames the flames when the building has burned down.

Dan Davies

You are another one. Only recently you who came on this very site to demand Darren Hind come on and admit he was "100% wrong about David Unsworth - FACT" ... You posted that shortly before the West Ham game. I get back from the match delighted with the best performance of the season which resulted in Unsworth's charges winning 4-0 and this is one of the first things I see.

Regarding Koeman. I was nowhere near right about him. Never in my wildest did I see the disastrous run of results coming. My beef was always about the awful fayre his teams served up. However, there were some on here who were 100% wrong about him and now won't let it go.

The notion that me and Tony Marsh are responsible for all the trouble on this site is beyond simplistic. As somebody said on another thread, most of the real insults (calling people kopites, gobshites's etc) occur on a part of the site either of us seldom visit. The "party" stays in full swing with or without us.

That's me had my say on this. Sorry for singling a couple of people out, but sometimes you need examples... I think the mods have a very difficult task on their hands and until the pots recognise they are every bit as black as this season's kettle, they will continue to have their work cut out.

Yours sincerely

The former pantomime villain


John G Davies
95 Posted 07/12/2017 at 06:46:01
"The FORMER pantomime villain"

Oh no your not. 😁

Darryl Ritchie
96 Posted 07/12/2017 at 07:01:16
No limits on the number of posts or the size of posts.

If you don't want to follow an argument because it's a bit too repetitive and seems to be between just a few posters; skip over it.

If you think a post is too lengthy; skim through it. Pick out the points that interest you, and move on.

If a ToffeeWebber cares enough to take the time to make his thoughts known, this is the place to do it.

Lyndon and Michael; don't fix what ain't broken.

Laurie Hartley
97 Posted 07/12/2017 at 07:27:30
I don't think there should be a limit on length or number of posts - we can sort it out between ourselves.

I think it would spoil the site.

One thing that I don't like is when the personal insults start flying.

Some words of wisdom from Winston Williamson at #42

I always go on the premise that I wouldn't write anything on here that I wouldn't say to the recipient's face.

I'll use that as my self-check when posting.

Paul Tran
98 Posted 07/12/2017 at 07:53:26
I haven't read the whole thread, so I'll apologise for any repetition. I don't agree with the post limit. We could police ourselves by simply asking whether we'd say what we posted to a person's face. The other thing is that before you press submit, ask yourself how you'd feel reading your post later that day.

Let's keep the banter flowing while making Michael & Lyndon's lives deservedly easier.

Tony Abrahams
99 Posted 07/12/2017 at 08:01:58
You're so vain you probably think this thread is about you!?

I have to agree with this decision because if you can't get your point across after 3-4 posts, it usually means you're never gonna get it across when the arguements really begin to start?

In saying that, some threads change direction that quick, that if the rules carry on applying to the new subject, I do feel ToffeeWeb is going to lose a bit of what makes it so entertaining at times.

Laurie, I never got back to you yesterday, but thanks for that piece on “The Haka” mate. New Zealand playing France in the rugby is something I'd travel a long way for, just to see the introductions, and I'd happily vacate my seat for a real rugby fan once I'd heard the La Marseillaise,and watched the Haka!

I took my little twins to school, and was asking the teacher to learn them the Hakka, "Cracker!" he said, pulling out his tongue – Brilliant! Well It put a smile on my face anyway.

Laurie Hartley
100 Posted 07/12/2017 at 08:27:55
No worries, Tony. I actually thought the schoolboys' welcome Haka to their new year 9 chums was even better than the All Blacks v France!

I thought it was really inspiring – but then again I'm as mad as a March hare.

Will Mabon
101 Posted 07/12/2017 at 08:44:43
Though I rarely go really big on posting volume, I recall times that I've made above five posts in a thread. Not in an "Argument" or rehashing the same point, but in discussion or asking/answering questions raised. Many good threads develop in this way, involving different posters. That will be lost with the posting limit.
Dave Wilson
102 Posted 07/12/2017 at 09:14:49
I'm finding these threads fascinating.

Jay Wood

I'm sorry but I'm going to join the growing number of posters who on this thread alone, want to pull you up. You clearly have an image of yourself others don't recognize. Personally I think many of your posts epitomize everything being discussed.

You clearly see yourself as a harsh but fair troubleshooter who feels he has a duty to "put other posters straight", but It doesn't come across that way mate, your boorish lectures are often less informed than the person you are lecturing.

Sorry, Jay, but you tick all the boxes for me and clearly others. You legitimately challenge those who dismiss entire groups by playing the age old "if the cap fits" game. But if anything your abuse is worse, it's personal.

You can be quite obnoxious, You are overbearing and worst of all, your long winded posts are incredibly boring. The only real saving grace is that you don't post often.

Listen to what people are telling you. spend some time reading what you have posted.

If this site is to rid itself of the kind of posts Lyndon is talking about; People like you need to be taking advice, not giving it.

Chris Gould
103 Posted 07/12/2017 at 09:31:52
It is a little ironic that this thread is now starting to cause a few minor squabbles.

Personally, I wouldn't change anything. I'd also be a little sad to see 'The Pantomine Villain' change anything at all.

The last thing anyone wants is for this site to become stale. You don't want to remove people's personalities.

What I would suggest is that people pick their fights more carefully. Engage with other posters they know can handle it, and those who have addressed them personally. Try and hold back a little with others who may not enjoy confrontation.

As Darren suggested, self police, with a little reminder from others when necessary.

Stan Schofield
104 Posted 07/12/2017 at 10:43:18
To me, in a nutshell, no changes are needed, it's a brilliant site, and Michael and Lyndon do a great job. The only problem is the occasional appearance of personal comments that are probably unacceptable to the person on the receiving end. Phrases like 'don't be a knob head' and 'you're a closet Kopite' are pointless. They just take attention away from the substance of the discussion.

It's surely just a case of think before you leap, without taking away the spontaneity. Apart from that, long posts and complex discussions are fine, because they often produce insights that aren't obvious. I've certainly learned a lot about Everton this way, even though I've only been on ToffeeWeb for two years but been an Evertonian a lot longer than that.

Tony McNulty
105 Posted 07/12/2017 at 11:21:42
This is a pattern which I have seen repeated in organizations large and small.

A small percentage of people take liberties. So someone then introduces a rule affecting everyone.

Posters on TW are pretty good at regulating themselves, for the most part. Sometimes things get a little out of hand, but even on those occasions we sometimes see people apologising.

I would be in favour of leaving things as they are.

Eric Myles
106 Posted 08/12/2017 at 10:38:20
Don't restrict freedom of speech.

Don't add like buttons.

Couldn't this have been done in a poll??

Andy Osborne
107 Posted 10/12/2017 at 06:46:13
I've got a few ideas.

Don't limit the number of posts. Don't limit the length of posts, and don't moderate the posts. This makes the admin side of things easier.

1. Keep the "Flag this comment". That means the moderator can deal with issues by exception and not have to read every comment.

2. If a poster has three comments flagged AND removed, they are struck out and have to sit out for 24 hours. The second time they get three strike outs, it's a week, etc.

3. Introduce a "skip to comment" feature. When I read a thread, I don't read every comment because some are too long, too boring, repeating the same thing etc. But what I do like is when a poster replies to someone's previous post "Andy #13" etc. I find myself spending ages scrolling up and down the thread to follow the conversation. It would be nice to click the #13 and be returned to that post.

If you do these things, it makes it easier for the moderator, easier for the reader to skip through the thread and doesn't limit free speech.

There is a guy that posts regularly a very long piece about his view from New Brighton with lots of song lyrics. I know many readers really like his posts, I don't. But I wouldn't want him to not be able to post them any more. I just skip them!

If you end up doing nothing and TW stays exactly the way it is, great, and I love it. If you make these improvements, great. But don't put limits on, some of the best threads are the ones with banter going back and forth.
Thanks.

Frank Wade
109 Posted 12/12/2017 at 21:17:35
A bit late to the party on this one, but here goes my entry.

I think we should have no limit on the number of posts.

I really enjoy Steve Ferns's tactical analysis posts long and short and also those witty essays from John Daley. For those that don't, the scrolling button is the way to go.

I intensely dislike so-called Everton 'supporters' posting vile abuse of Everton players and the Everton Chairman, who can be at fault for everything from bad signings to bad results, from missed tackles to missed chances etc etc. I was very much against the appointment of the current manager, but he is now the manager, so I will support him. Hell, it could have been so much worse with Klopp or Mourinho. He already seems way better than our last £6M man.

There was a vile post about the 'alleged' personal habits of Cuco Martina, an Everton player playing and giving his absolute best in an unaccustomed role, on the Live Forum last Sunday before the game. I just switch off the Forum when I see this stuff and don't participate.

I did use the flag comment feature recently when a poster saw fit to make an outrageous disgusting comment on Wayne Rooney's wife. I think the flag comment feature can be used to object.

Thanks Lyndon and Michael for providing this site and the insights you and the posters give on all things Everton. If you are ever looking for volunteers to help in any way, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.


© ToffeeWeb