RST - Let it sink without trace

[JR 1,480]

As I don't use the Site, can someone actually confirm or deny that posters get banned over there for disagreeing with the "accepted views" of the Admin?

I got banned briefly for saying one on the Admin were on a power trip

Yes, they probably do get banned for disagreeing with Suck on certain subjects. Especially when they are obviously out to create mischief.

Too many good bears get banned there I'd have to agree, but at the same time they are more stringent when dealing with lurkers.

It's only the internet people

Can you then see the obvious parallels that some posters may draw between the running of FF and the RST? I'm not saying Mr Dingwall has that ability, it's been reported enough on here that he may not hold that type of influence - but surely you can see why some members may be reserved in their support for the "new look RST" if that is part of his/their track record?

Again, I'm looking in on this debate from the outside and it's just an observation I've made.

[JR 1,480]

As I don't use the Site, can someone actually confirm or deny that posters get banned over there for disagreeing with the "accepted views" of the Admin?

Lets be honest, you won't get a satisfactory answer to that. Some will say yes, some will say no. And no facts can be presented.

But think about this......how many times over the months and years have posters on here that you deem to be decent, honest posters stated that they have personally, or had a friend for example, been banned from the site for no more than having an opposing viewpoint on an issue.

A large number of times I'd bet.

Yeah I have.

It just seems that no-one seems to answer it even tho this is the third time I've asked and there has been a fair few FF'ers online.

You see, alot of the concern shown around here over the last few day regarding Mr Dingwall and his perceived influence on the RST, is based on what people have experienced on Follow Follow. So I find it a little strange that no-one has rebuffed the claims that posters are banned for not toeing the party line, as it were.

It's only an observation mind.

I'll talk about anything you want JR

Thank you, you answered my initial question previously Jim, I was typing and missed it

[Jimenez 1]

As I don't use the Site, can someone actually confirm or deny that posters get banned over there for disagreeing with the "accepted views" of the Admin?

I got banned briefly for saying one on the Admin were on a power trip

Yes, they probably do get banned for disagreeing with Suck on certain subjects. Especially when they are obviously out to create mischief.

Too many good bears get banned there I'd have to agree, but at the same time they are more stringent when dealing with lurkers.

It's only the internet people

Can you then see the obvious parallels that some posters may draw between the running of FF and the RST? I'm not saying Mr Dingwall has that ability, it's been reported enough on here that he may not hold that type of influence - but surely you can see why some members may be reserved in their support for the "new look RST" if that is part of his/their track record?

Again, I'm looking in on this debate from the outside and it's just an observation I've made.

I can understand that certainly but when the 'new look' RST is continuing in its path regardless of Dingwall remaining then I'd suggest that the claims that he is trying to influence the RST is wide off the mark.

Whatever his site policy is, whatever his political beliefs may be the Trust will soldier on maintaining their members beliefs and needs

[JR 1,480]

As I don't use the Site, can someone actually confirm or deny that posters get banned over there for disagreeing with the "accepted views" of the Admin?

I got banned briefly for saying one on the Admin were on a power trip

Yes, they probably do get banned for disagreeing with Suck on certain subjects. Especially when they are obviously out to create mischief.

Too many good bears get banned there I'd have to agree, but at the same time they are more stringent when dealing with lurkers.

It's only the internet people

Can you then see the obvious parallels that some posters may draw between the running of FF and the RST? I'm not saying Mr Dingwall has that ability, it's been reported enough on here that he may not hold that type of influence - but surely you can see why some members may be reserved in their support for the "new look RST" if that is part of his/their track record?

Again, I'm looking in on this debate from the outside and it's just an observation I've made.

I can understand that certainly but when the 'new look' RST is continuing in its path regardless of Dingwall remaining then I'd suggest that the claims that he is trying to influence the RST is wide off the mark.

Whatever his site policy is, whatever his political beliefs may be the Trust will soldier on maintaining their members beliefs and needs

What would you say to those that are still to be convinced that the RST will continue on the path it was previously on given that some feel (and I mean no personal insult to any of those concerned) that the new recruits to the RST Board are like-minded, as has been levelled against them previously?

Playing Devil's advocate here I know, but if a topic is put to the vote and a significant amount of the Board are sympathetic to any particular train of thought - that surely breeds concern?

[Jimenez 1]

What would you say to those that are still to be convinced that the RST will continue on the path it was previously on given that some feel (and I mean no personal insult to any of those concerned) that the new recruits to the RST Board are like-minded, as has been levelled against them previously?

Playing Devil's advocate here I know, but if a topic is put to the vote and a significant amount of the Board are sympathetic to any particular train of thought - that surely breeds concern?

Attend the AGM and see for themselves that their main aims haven't changed.

Give the new members a chance to show what they can deliver to the Trust. Whatever people may believe there are some extremely intelligent men who have joined recently who will have just as much to say in the direction in the RST as MD.

[JR 1,480]

What would you say to those that are still to be convinced that the RST will continue on the path it was previously on given that some feel (and I mean no personal insult to any of those concerned) that the new recruits to the RST Board are like-minded, as has been levelled against them previously?

Playing Devil's advocate here I know, but if a topic is put to the vote and a significant amount of the Board are sympathetic to any particular train of thought - that surely breeds concern?

Attend the AGM and see for themselves that their main aims haven't changed.

Give the new members a chance to show what they can deliver to the Trust. Whatever people may believe there are some extremely intelligent men who have joined recently who will have just as much to say in the direction in the RST as MD.

I have no doubts at all about the intelligence of the members, nor their conviction in the performance of their duties. As for giving them a chance, that's the bit that seems to be the sticking point for some - I feel the Trust has to embark on a major PR push if it is to not only recover from this whole episode, but convince the unconvinced.

Of which, there appears to be many at present.

Would you agree with that?

[Jimenez 1]

I have no doubts at all about the intelligence of the members, nor their conviction in the performance of their duties. As for giving them a chance, that's the bit that seems to be the sticking point for some - I feel the Trust has to embark on a major PR push if it is to not only recover from this whole episode, but convince the unconvinced.

Of which, there appears to be many at present.

Would you agree with that?

Absolutely, cooperonthewing and Edgar have both touched on the communication points here and FF. It is something they are hoping to address a.s.a.p.

[Guest Andypendek]

This is an area I was thinking about as well, JR and Jim...I admit I was a bit peeved when David Edgar came out with his views on Miller, as they were put out in the papers as the voice of the fans. I know he didn't say he was, but we all know that's how they will report it. Now we know we're talking about a body with 1K members, do you think Mr Edgar will get the same exposure from the radio and papers, or will they lose interest a bit? And if so, how are they going to drive up membership without wider exposure?

[Jimenez 1]

This is an area I was thinking about as well, JR and Jim...I admit I was a bit peeved when David Edgar came out with his views on Miller, as they were put out in the papers as the voice of the fans. I know he didn't say he was, but we all know that's how they will report it. Now we know we're talking about a body with 1K members, do you think Mr Edgar will get the same exposure from the radio and papers, or will they lose interest a bit? And if so, how are they going to drive up membership without wider exposure?

I believe so, the actual membership is still a sizeable proportion compared to any other representative.

[JR 1,480]

This is an area I was thinking about as well, JR and Jim...I admit I was a bit peeved when David Edgar came out with his views on Miller, as they were put out in the papers as the voice of the fans. I know he didn't say he was, but we all know that's how they will report it. Now we know we're talking about a body with 1K members, do you think Mr Edgar will get the same exposure from the radio and papers, or will they lose interest a bit? And if so, how are they going to drive up membership without wider exposure?

Fair questions, and perhaps best answered by those on the Board as obviously I have no idea in which direction they are going to go in terms of a PR campaign. I will be very interested in the manner of their approach.

[Jimenez 1]

Got to say that relevation was surprising one. I knew there were inactive members but not on such a scale.

No one said anything previously to suggest that was the case!

Perhaps a refreshed RST will rejuvinate its members

[Paintbox 0]

This thread sums up perfectly why we're so screwed as a support these days. We would rather fight with each other than just put differences aside for the good of Rangers.

[Jimenez 1]

This thread sums up perfectly why we're so screwed as a support these days. We would rather fight with each other than just put differences aside for the good of Rangers.

Shut it ya prick! :2g:

Yes, have to agree it's upsetting that we can't all get along, but being free minded spirits that should never stop us from disagreeing and debating the points, in fact it would be unhealthy if we all thought the same. What has happened has happened, I hope we can move on from it and evolve

[Paintbox 0]

Yes, have to agree it's upsetting that we can't all get along, but being free minded spirits that should never stop us from disagreeing and debating the points, in fact it would be unhealthy if we all thought the same. What has happened has happened, I hope we can move on from it and evolve

Don't get me wrong here, I love a good argument! And challenging people, playing devil's advocate or whatever you want to call it, that's great.

From the two threads I've ploughed through, there isn't much debating going on. It's handbags, petty squabbling and seriously embarrassing stuff for the people concerned - on both sides. All it does is drive another wedge between sections of our support.

I would say the solution is quite simple. Either...

1. You don't like the RST and the direction it's taking. Join it and look to force change or ignore it and find your own way to do your bit for the Gers rather than sitting arguing with Rangers supporters on the internet.

or

2. You love the RST. In which case, renew your membership, get up off your backside and help it rather than sitting arguing with Rangers supporters on the internet.

[Jimenez 1]

Yes, have to agree it's upsetting that we can't all get along, but being free minded spirits that should never stop us from disagreeing and debating the points, in fact it would be unhealthy if we all thought the same. What has happened has happened, I hope we can move on from it and evolve

Don't get me wrong here, I love a good argument! And challenging people, playing devil's advocate or whatever you want to call it, that's great.

From the two threads I've ploughed through, there isn't much debating going on. It's handbags, petty squabbling and seriously embarrassing stuff for the people concerned - on both sides. All it does is drive another wedge between sections of our support.

I would say the solution is quite simple. Either...

1. You don't like the RST and the direction it's taking. Join it and look to force change or ignore it and find your own way to do your bit for the Ger rather than sitting arguing with Rangers supporters on the internet.

or

2. You love the RST. In which case, renew your membership, get up off your backside and help it rather than sitting arguing with Rangers supporters on the internet.

Cap doffed mate.

Couldn't have said it better myself

[Jimenez 1]

Can I just add that the notion of giving up on something that for years has brought us together is absurd.

Think about what the Trust has done in a media sense. We are going through a change, nothing unusual about that but let's not allow it to deteriorate the founding reasons why we joined.

That hostile mhedia happy to portray us as Nazis and Neanderthals is still there and still as venomous.

That thief of a chairman who is happy to stand back while you and me are bastardized beyond all recognition is still free to asset strip.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

It just seems that no-one seems to answer it even tho this is the third time I've asked and there has been a fair few FF'ers online.

You see, alot of the concern shown around here over the last few day regarding Mr Dingwall and his perceived influence on the RST, is based on what people have experienced on Follow Follow. So I find it a little strange that no-one has rebuffed the claims that posters are banned for not toeing the party line, as it were.

It's only an observation mind.

It's a difficult question JR.

People come on here and say 'I was banned from FF for nothing'.

Well let's face it, they were banned for something.

Something insignificant to them, maybe, but something nonetheless.

I've posted on FF for years, long before RM was a twinkle in CR's eye, over the years I know loads of folk who have been banned. Some of the mods have attitudes.

Thing is, all the ones I know have been reinstated - maybe after a ban - by appealing to, well you know who

And they all knew the reason for the ban.

In one case I intervened on behalf of somebody who I had invited to join, but was banned after one post, simply because he didn't understand the ground rules. But when explained, he was reinstated (I now regret that but that's another story )

So surely you can forgive me when folk come on here, moan about FF and complain they don't know why they were banned, and I'm a bit cynical?

As for the notion that everyone has to toe the party line, it's just bollox. Simply not true.

The other fact to bear in mind that is that while RM and FF both get attacked by imposters, so far as I know no RMer has been trapped and attacked by a trap set by one. This has happened to FFers.

Things like that lead to a certain mindset.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

Anything I read involves Rangers F.C. Celebration of our past and fears for our future. Must have missed the subliminal messages to eat an imigrant

Right wingers eat immigrants these days? FF is even deadlier than I thought :harhar:

[Jimenez 1]

Anything I read involves Rangers F.C. Celebration of our past and fears for our future. Must have missed the subliminal messages to eat an imigrant

Right wingers eat immigrants these days? FF is even deadlier than I thought :harhar:

You're God damn right it is. That interloper Maradona is going to get spit roasted if she isn't careful and there's nothing 'wan ghuy' can do about it.

[yellowcross 5]

It's a difficult question JR.

People come on here and say 'I was banned from FF for nothing'.

Well let's face it, they were banned for something.

Something insignificant to them, maybe, but something nonetheless.

I've posted on FF for years, long before RM was a twinkle in CR's eye, over the years I know loads of folk who have been banned. Some of the mods have attitudes.

Thing is, all the ones I know have been reinstated - maybe after a ban - by appealing to, well you know who

And they all knew the reason for the ban.

In one case I intervened on behalf of somebody who I had invited to join, but was banned after one post, simply because he didn't understand the ground rules. But when explained, he was reinstated (I now regret that but that's another story )

So surely you can forgive me when folk come on here, moan about FF and complain they don't know why they were banned, and I'm a bit cynical?

As for the notion that everyone has to toe the party line, it's just bollox. Simply not true.

The other fact to bear in mind that is that while RM and FF both get attacked by imposters, so far as I know no RMer has been trapped and attacked by a trap set by one. This has happened to FFers.

Things like that lead to a certain mindset.

Manti, that is a good post.

I've decided to try and not post about FF - they banned me and I was bitter about it - but best to move on etc - live and let live etc - RM suits me - FF suits others etc - I've let it go tho at the time I swore enmity against them for the treatment etc.

But in the interest of fairness I have to point out one thing - in relation to this - "Thing is, all the ones I know have been reinstated - maybe after a ban - by appealing to, well you know who... And they all knew the reason for the ban."

I was banned for misplaced humour (or so I deduced) - it was obvious humour and I'd been on there long enough - and I was pretty shocked at the perceived injustice of it - I had been reacting to humour against hand-wringers with a little humour of my own etc.

But, though I was banned and unable to log back on - I NEVER was told why I was banned - I sent a couple of emails myself to suck that were reasonable not angry or whatever - and I was BLANKED, totally blanked.

I was never told why I was banned - therefore strictly speaking I still don't know - there was no contact and no reinstatement even though I emailed suck personally etc - I was just banned with no explanation at all.

So, in my experience, it isn't true that those of us who were banned ALL know the reason for the ban. I personally know nothing because they banned and blanked me at the same time.

Of course I may be the exception, though I doubt it.

And I have to say I was very bitter that a Rangers site would treat other Rangers fans like that. I was bitter and I carried forth a serious grudge against them - and I usually hold my grudges as long as I draw breath.

Anyway, I've tried now to just let it go (and not post about FF anymore either).

Perhaps I have failed on both counts...!

[Coopermania 1]

I joined FF about 3 years ago and got instantly banned for posting a picture of a sexy girl with the Rangermedia.com link on it. My first and only post.

I lasted about 30 seconds

[Briton 394]

It certainly looks like it needs a name change at the moment.....

Yes, how about...The Proddy Fuck The Pope There Ain't No BLack In The Union Jack Big Jock Knew No One Likes Us We Don't Care Supporters Trust?

Surely you jest?

You think?

[Briton 394]

It's a difficult question JR.

People come on here and say 'I was banned from FF for nothing'.

Well let's face it, they were banned for something.

Something insignificant to them, maybe, but something nonetheless.

I've posted on FF for years, long before RM was a twinkle in CR's eye, over the years I know loads of folk who have been banned. Some of the mods have attitudes.

Thing is, all the ones I know have been reinstated - maybe after a ban - by appealing to, well you know who

And they all knew the reason for the ban.

In one case I intervened on behalf of somebody who I had invited to join, but was banned after one post, simply because he didn't understand the ground rules. But when explained, he was reinstated (I now regret that but that's another story )

So surely you can forgive me when folk come on here, moan about FF and complain they don't know why they were banned, and I'm a bit cynical?

As for the notion that everyone has to toe the party line, it's just bollox. Simply not true.

The other fact to bear in mind that is that while RM and FF both get attacked by imposters, so far as I know no RMer has been trapped and attacked by a trap set by one. This has happened to FFers.

Things like that lead to a certain mindset.

Manti, that is a good post.

I've decided to try and not post about FF - they banned me and I was bitter about it - but best to move on etc - live and let live etc - RM suits me - FF suits others etc - I've let it go tho at the time I swore enmity against them for the treatment etc.

But in the interest of fairness I have to point out one thing - in relation to this - "Thing is, all the ones I know have been reinstated - maybe after a ban - by appealing to, well you know who... And they all knew the reason for the ban."

I was banned for misplaced humour (or so I deduced) - it was obvious humour and I'd been on there long enough - and I was pretty shocked at the perceived injustice of it - I had been reacting to humour against hand-wringers with a little humour of my own etc.

But, though I was banned and unable to log back on - I NEVER was told why I was banned - I sent a couple of emails myself to suck that were reasonable not angry or whatever - and I was BLANKED, totally blanked.

I was never told why I was banned - therefore strictly speaking I still don't know - there was no contact and no reinstatement even though I emailed suck personally etc - I was just banned with no explanation at all.

So, in my experience, it isn't true that those of us who were banned ALL know the reason for the ban. I personally know nothing because they banned and blanked me at the same time.

Of course I may be the exception, though I doubt it.

And I have to say I was very bitter that a Rangers site would treat other Rangers fans like that. I was bitter and I carried forth a serious grudge against them - and I usually hold my grudges as long as I draw breath.

Anyway, I've tried now to just let it go (and not post about FF anymore either).

Perhaps I have failed on both counts...!

Good post. I know what I was banned for and Manticore is technically right when he hides behind semantics...I was not banned for 'nothing'. The first time was for saying that the Leeds team that Celtic played in 1970 were better than the Leeds side we beat in '92. At the time I had over a 1000 posts. The second was for saying I didn't like the songs RB and GSTQ, musically not politically, not that that should matter by any decent standard. Yes you can grovel and get re-instated and the second time I did that and Dingwall sent me a new password. It didn't work (nice Rangers postcard though )

[JR 1,480]

The reason I asked the question if there was any truth in the allegations of "groundless banning" from FF was to highlight a link (if any) that may be drawn to the running of Follow Follow and the new look RST.

By that I don't mean that there is a link, only that some posters expressed a concern that they would have little faith in the new RST if it was perceived to be run in the same manner as the Follow Follow website.

I know that claim has been refuted by the Members of the RST Board which have been good enough to come on here and say their piece - but I wanted to know what the regular posters thought.

I would also like to know what Mr Dingwall would do to try and change that perception of both Follow Follow and the RST.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

Good post. I know what I was banned for and Manticore is technically right when he hides behind semantics

Facts = semantics.

Great stuff.