It's wrong to 'troll' or criticise people on here

Should it be be called twofacebook then?

 

Can you explain the context or are you just making a general comment.

 

I'm not sure what trolling means, so I don't know if it is or it isn't.

What it is, is a humorous piece taking the piss out of one of our players, and our manager, with a sprinkling of self deprecation thrown in. Nothing harsh, all very jovial, but critical all the same and not particularly constructive. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, I do it myself, but I know from past experience when I do, there are some on here who can't wait to tell me to "get behind 'em". There were plenty of people who came back from Rochdale and called a spade a spade (we were **** and they said so) who are being lambasted in a number of threads on this board. If I started writing about Mr Cryne's role at Barnsley, and I personally think there's a hell of a lot that needs challenging and/or ripping the piss out of, then being confronted about it on here could be the very least of my worries. I've past experience in that too and I'm not someone who starts or repeats monstrous lies.

Supertyke has intimated there is some hypocrisy here. I'm inclined to agree with him. However, that's not because I believe Mr Cryne should not write what he has. He has the right and I don't think he should be criticised for what he's written. But I don't think people on here should have the finger pointed at them, be labelled trouble causers or have their Barnsley fan credentials questioned when they are critical and/or take the piss.

 

Good post and I can't comment on the Patrick Cryne page because I don't know what he said about whom. However I don't think people were lambasted for saying we were crap on Saturday. In fact all I saw were people agreeing that we were very poor. However generally there was a lot of healthy debate about our direction and who supports it, which again seemed to be the majority. If I look at the discussions they seemed on here to be on the basis of supporting by backing the plan and identifying positives or by criticising our weakness. Both opinions should be respected. Maybe other than Thereev's who's comments are just for effect, carry no substance and target the internet comedy genre.

 

What's it say?

 

I believe he's asked for it not to be re-published so I'm not going to defy that, even if I think that's daft. I'll give a synopsis though: It's an anecdote of a fictitious conversation between Mr Cryne and Mr Johnson involving a dog, a Frisbee and Schrödinger's cat that questions how Wilkinson can be tired when he's not done much. I reckon the same thought occurred to many people who went to Rochdale. It's not an attack on anyone though, it's just a joke, but like all decent jokes it's got some semblance of truth.

 

So nothing different that's been said on this forum then.

 

No. Written in a different way, but Mr Cryne watches the same game as the rest of us and I would imagine he sees similar strengths and weaknesses in the team as many others. Like many others, he comments on them.

I think Supertyke's point was that being critical of the team or an individual player does not mean you're a poor fan or don't want what is best for the club. It's a natural reaction when you witness something that you believe should be better. We all do it, even the owner of the club. I don't believe there's anything wrong with that, but I'm led to believe people who have been critical on this forum were singled out in the meeting last week and Supertyke was reacting to that. I think that's a fair point.

 

Thanks for the comments Jay. Crynes main point last week was that "destructive comments" don't help the team. He also said that social media is good but should be channeled positively. I think he also accepted people make comments through passion and emotion which then stick, himself included. I think critique and comment in the right way is positive and challenging the club can only be good. It's a pity that more of the dissenters didn't go last week I would have liked to have heard more in the open debate. Having said that there was challenge just not from serial posters here.

 

This is a rather sensible and intellectual thread so I'm going to attempt to ruin it ..... t1ts, ar5e, ****

 

The one thing I've never got on here is that after a bad performance some folk don't like you saying so, as Jay says you get lambasted with 'get behind em', if you've been to a match and the team or certain players have been crap, or tactics haven't been to your liking you should be able to say so. Equally I can see how its annoying when we put in good performances and notable individuals don't have the good grace to say so.
In essence my point is that you should be able to say it as you see it and then debate it not get attacked, which is probably what ST was getting at to start with

 

that's mostly fair I agree. criticism is valued and valid if its constructive. if its just calling them all nobheads etc then that's when PC and no doubt all at the club (as they read this board) despair.

 

Sausage Dog

Just that

 

I remember learning about the Schrödingers cat theory many years ago and back then I thought it was all a load of hypothetical ****** however had Wilkinson been used as a means of explaining the theory I would have taken it a lot more seriously.

 

Agreed, they were. But I don't believe we have any contributors to the forum who are anything like that either. We have some serial moaners, plenty of glass half full types, but nothing like you've described. We've had a few nutters like that over the years, but site admin has banned them. I don't think it's acceptable calling the users of this forum trolls any more than it's acceptable calling what Mr Cryne has written as trolling. Or if it is, it swings both ways.

First time I've used the words and I already hate it. Trolls live under bridges and are butted up the arse by billy goats gruff.