Club social media code

[Daniel_Smith]

The club have implemented a set social media code. What are people's thoughts on this?

I'm all for trying to stop people being abusive to one another.

But is this a thinly veiled attempt to class any angry messages about team performance or ownership concerns as abuse too?

I hope the club aren't trying to censor discourse beyond stopping outright vile abuse - which of course shouldn't be tolerated.

https://www.doncasterroversfc.co.uk/news/2022/may/doncaster-rovers-social-media-code/

[roversdude]

No it’s just the way of the world as it is. The club would get criticised if they didn’t have this in place. Why look for hidden agendas in everything

[Daniel_Smith]

No it’s just the way of the world as it is. The club would get criticised if they didn’t have this in place. Why look for hidden agendas in everything

Not looking for hidden agendas at all. Simply posing a topic for discussion.

I suppose I'm curious to understand what they interpret as abuse going forward.

Is putting Baldwin's face on a Netto logo abuse?

Is sending a tweet directly to a player saying, you played sh*t today abuse?

Where does the line get drawn...

[Filo]

Damned if they do Damned if they don’t, some people just delight in pulling down the club, we must have the biggest set of moaners in the EFL

[selby]

  Not if you look at the Wendies site we haven't, most clubs are the same. and have a small somewhat brainless section that make a noise, but that is all it is a noise in the background.
  That is the part they don't understand, so just shout louder in a locked room.
  Any difference they make is actually negligible.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

No it’s just the way of the world as it is. The club would get criticised if they didn’t have this in place. Why look for hidden agendas in everything

Not looking for hidden agendas at all. Simply posing a topic for discussion.

I suppose I'm curious to understand what they interpret as abuse going forward.

Is putting Baldwin's face on a Netto logo abuse?

Is sending a tweet directly to a player saying, you played sh*t today abuse?

Where does the line get drawn...

Yes frankly they are.  Would you like it if someone tweeted you after a shit day at work at 19 years old telling you how shit you are?

[roversdude]

No it’s just the way of the world as it is. The club would get criticised if they didn’t have this in place. Why look for hidden agendas in everything

Not looking for hidden agendas at all. Simply posing a topic for discussion.

I suppose I'm curious to understand what they interpret as abuse going forward.

Is putting Baldwin's face on a Netto logo abuse?

Is sending a tweet directly to a player saying, you played sh*t today abuse?

Where does the line get drawn...

Daniel how would you answer the questions you posed

[pib]

All for this sort of thing being put in place. I suppose the tricky part, which is difficult to avoid, is that a lot of this supposed "clear guidance" will be open to a broad church of interpretation, depending on who is tasked with dealing with the comments/posts.

A comment that is water off a duck's back to one person might completely destroy somebody else.

[Daniel_Smith]

No it’s just the way of the world as it is. The club would get criticised if they didn’t have this in place. Why look for hidden agendas in everything

Not looking for hidden agendas at all. Simply posing a topic for discussion.

I suppose I'm curious to understand what they interpret as abuse going forward.

Is putting Baldwin's face on a Netto logo abuse?

Is sending a tweet directly to a player saying, you played sh*t today abuse?

Where does the line get drawn...

Daniel how would you answer the questions you posed

Example 1: Satire should be allowed regarding the Baldwin/Netto logo. He is in the public eye whether he likes it or not, and holds a lot of influence at the club.

Example 2: Direct comments to a player I'd personally never do. I.e. sending a message directly to their Facebook or Twitter account. I might talk about a player's performance in a negative light on a forum though. If particularly annoyed, I might even swear. If the player trawls the forum to see this - have I upset and abused him? Bit trickier to say.

[Ldr]

Satire should be at least mildly amusing though?

[Daniel_Smith]

Satire should be at least mildly amusing though?

Whether you find it funny or not doesn't discount the fact it exists as a satirical statement though.

Google's definition on satire: "the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticise people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."

I know some will say Baldwin doesn't deserve said ridicule, but again - others say he does.

[VivaRovers]

Not wanting to derail the thread, so do treat this as an aside, but what is the Baldwin/Netto thing all about? Because I'd presumed it was based on the idea that some felt the club weren't willing to invest money (Don't agree, but fair enough, I get it). But then was told on here by someone involved that it had nothing to do with investment, so it's really perplexed me ever since.


Anyway, on the social media code; it's good, it makes sense. Remove it from a football context and think of it as a business putting something in place to protect their staff from abuse, and you just can't disagree with its implication. I've worked in social media for national organisations, and having something like this in place is just good practice,

I saw a lot of comments on Twitter about 'censorship' and the club trying to stop criticism, but if you read through it then there's nothing in there at all that says that. It's possible to be critical without being personal or abusive; the latest edition of the fanzine contains about 30 pages of exactly that.

[Chris Black come back]

The very valid criticism is that our healthy budget for League One has been consistently wasted for a number of seasons now, with money pissed away on loans, the injury prone, panic signings and clearly inappropriate players for this level.

The budget itself is not the issue. It is how this has been misused that is the problem.

[roversdude]

Satire should be at least mildly amusing though?

Whether you find it funny or not doesn't discount the fact it exists as a satirical statement though.

Google's definition on satire: "the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticise people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."

I know some will say Baldwin doesn't deserve said ridicule, but again - others say he does.

 Agree with satire and (never agreed with it) but the Netto thing was mildly amusing for about 5 minutes. However the comments spouted by the Harry Potter brigade are then tantamount to bullying - I mean the ones about get out of the f img club

[jmt23]

I think the very fact people do not realise what is deemed right or wrong, and feel they can post what they want about people because they pay £5-£25 for a game,  might have been a reason
I don’t thinks it’s a closed shop, just a need to protect the club as a whole. There will and should always be a professional way to talk with the club through fan funnels like the VSC

[roversontheup]

I think the very fact people do not realise what is deemed right or wrong, and feel they can post what they want about people because they pay £5-£25 for a game,  might have been a reason
I don’t thinks it’s a closed shop, just a need to protect the club as a whole. There will and should always be a professional way to talk with the club through fan funnels like the VSC

Totally agree JMT. And it’s not just about protecting the club and its staff and players. It is also protecting each and everyone of us who might find ourselves at the receiving end of some of this vitriol. There is a line beyond which none of us should tread. If you are not sure where the line is then have a look at the Citizen’s Advice link or look up Harassment on Google.

[VivaRovers]

The very valid criticism is that our healthy budget for League One has been consistently wasted for a number of seasons now, with money pissed away on loans, the injury prone, panic signings and clearly inappropriate players for this level.

The budget itself is not the issue. It is how this has been misused that is the problem.

Ta, this makes sense. But wouldn't be what I'd instantly draw from the 'Netto' sloganing... hence me not understanding it.

[Daniel_Smith]

A lot of valid points raised. I don't think anyone deserves unwarranted, vile abuse - whether you're a fan, player or club employee.

Criticism of the club should be protected from being classed as abuse, as long as it is done in a non abusive way though. Some have different opinions on what is abusive criticism though. That's the issue I guess.

I'd also add - those who are quite happy with how the club is being run, are as guilty as those who don't at being abusive to other supporters who don't share their viewpoint.

I've read some very disappointing comments from fans of Balwin / McSheffrey / the board directed at the aforementioned's critics.

[roversdude]

Fair points DS and I agree there has been abuse both ways, can’t condone either

[VivaRovers]

I'd also add - those who are quite happy with how the club is being run, are as guilty as those who don't at being abusive to other supporters who don't share their viewpoint.

I've read some very disappointing comments from fans of Balwin / McSheffrey / the board directed at the aforementioned's critics.

This sort of thing though, whilst very much a problem, isn't and can't be covered by a club issued social media code – something I think a few people on twitter yesterday commenting on this announcement weren't quite understanding. A club introduced social media code can only act on comments directed at (tagging in) the club or its personnel.

If one fan is abusive to another on social media, there is nothing a club social media code can do at that point. That comes down to individuals and their (mis)use of the social media channel.

[DonnyNoel]

A lot of valid points raised. I don't think anyone deserves unwarranted, vile abuse - whether you're a fan, player or club employee.

Criticism of the club should be protected from being classed as abuse, as long as it is done in a non abusive way though. Some have different opinions on what is abusive criticism though. That's the issue I guess.

I'd also add - those who are quite happy with how the club is being run, are as guilty as those who don't at being abusive to other supporters who don't share their viewpoint.

I've read some very disappointing comments from fans of Balwin / McSheffrey / the board directed at the aforementioned's critics.

I think it's a tough one like you say. To me "the club" can be mentioned in lot's of ways without it being personal as you're referrring to an entity. Once individuals are singled out with no constructive point made ("player x is shit", "staff member y is an arrogant t**t", "poster z is clueless") then I think you're straying into abuse and also spoiling debate as it's gets polarised too quickly.

(I still think the Baldwin/Netto thing makes no sense though, to me Netto implies no budget and that Baldwin is the money man but I see where the explanation is coming from...)

[roversdude]

Plus Netto has not existed for years

[Chris Black come back]

The very valid criticism is that our healthy budget for League One has been consistently wasted for a number of seasons now, with money pissed away on loans, the injury prone, panic signings and clearly inappropriate players for this level.

The budget itself is not the issue. It is how this has been misused that is the problem.

Ta, this makes sense. But wouldn't be what I'd instantly draw from the 'Netto' sloganing... hence me not understanding it.

My point was rather that the Netto squad have totally missed the point. It is not tight-fistedness that is the issue, it is amateur hour recruitment that was / is the issue. They’ve totally missed the target.

[roversdude]

The very valid criticism is that our healthy budget for League One has been consistently wasted for a number of seasons now, with money pissed away on loans, the injury prone, panic signings and clearly inappropriate players for this level.

The budget itself is not the issue. It is how this has been misused that is the problem.

Ta, this makes sense. But wouldn't be what I'd instantly draw from the 'Netto' sloganing... hence me not understanding it.

My point was rather that the Netto squad have totally missed the point. It is not tight-fistedness that is the issue, it is amateur hour recruitment that was / is the issues. They’ve totally missed the target.

Difficult to raise an argument against that

[Chris Black come back]

The proof point is this. I don’t see us for a minute being in the top tier of League One clubs in terms of resources - Sunderland, Owls, Ipswich, Portsmouth, etc. We are just about holding on at bottom of that second tier - MK Dons, Oxford, Lincoln. Would any of these have ended up with Kwame or Bogle? We’ve made some shocking decisions the last few years. Money has been absolutely thrown away and given this all ultimately comes back to Terry, I am amazed he is not asking more questions. 

[roversdude]

The proof point is this. I don’t see us for a minute being in the top tier of League One clubs in terms of resources - Sunderland, Owls, Ipswich, Portsmouth, etc. We are just about holding on at bottom of that second tier - MK Dons, Oxford, Lincoln. Would any of these have ended up with Kwame or Bogle? We’ve made some shocking decisions the last few years. Money has been absolutely thrown away and given this all ultimately comes back to Terry, I am amazed he is not asking more questions. 

Maybe he has CBCB hence the new structure

[Daniel_Smith]

I'd also add - those who are quite happy with how the club is being run, are as guilty as those who don't at being abusive to other supporters who don't share their viewpoint.

I've read some very disappointing comments from fans of Balwin / McSheffrey / the board directed at the aforementioned's critics.

This sort of thing though, whilst very much a problem, isn't and can't be covered by a club issued social media code – something I think a few people on twitter yesterday commenting on this announcement weren't quite understanding. A club introduced social media code can only act on comments directed at (tagging in) the club or its personnel.

If one fan is abusive to another on social media, there is nothing a club social media code can do at that point. That comes down to individuals and their (mis)use of the social media channel.

Maybe I've misread what Rover's posted. But I think they are trying to protect any Rovers supporter from abuse from other Rovers supporters too. We all represent the club in a way through our allegiance to them by being fans. How you police that though is another matter.

[redwine]

Plus Netto has not existed for years

Thanks for that. I wasn't sure if they were still in business as I use Waitrose.

[roversdude]

If it comes together next season wonder if it will change to Baldwin shops at Waitrose??

[silent majority]

No it’s just the way of the world as it is. The club would get criticised if they didn’t have this in place. Why look for hidden agendas in everything

Not looking for hidden agendas at all. Simply posing a topic for discussion.

I suppose I'm curious to understand what they interpret as abuse going forward.

Is putting Baldwin's face on a Netto logo abuse?

Is sending a tweet directly to a player saying, you played sh*t today abuse?

Where does the line get drawn...

Yes I believe it is. And its certainly a part of a wider attack on an individual in an attempt to force him out of the club.

Interesting point though, if it is about football and not a personal attack why is David Blunts picture not on that flag?