Blocking non-members

[Stuart]

Is there no way of blocking this absolute clown shoes bloke from the site? IP address?

 

[DE.]

Unfortunately an IP address ban isn't really a good solution (if you want an explanation on why feel free to PM me). 

I agree that Jim's behaviour is out of order but short of shutting the site down to viewing for anyone but members and disabling new registrations I don't think there's much that can be done about it. 

[Mike E]

It's annoying, but I say let him do it. It's exposure.

[Stuart]

3 hours ago, OnePhilT said:

Look on the bright side; it's exposure for this forum, and proves that it is still the go-to place to discuss Rovers. ?

Sadly he has a readership of about five people so I’m not sure how great a benefit it will be.

[Vinjay]

Wilkinson's accusing me of libel for saying he used to make up lies on premium phone lines. He's admitted this and I can gladly bring up screenshots. So let me ask do the mods on here consider that to be libel? 

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Vinjay

[DE.]

If he's publicly admitted it as per your screenshot then it seems strange that he can claim libel, but I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea how it works in law. 

Edited December 15, 2019 by DE.

[Stuart]

Seriously guys. Shutting down the site for a month to members only would be at least a poke in the eye for this absolute numpty.

He doesn’t credit the site so there is no exposure.

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by Stuart

[J*B]

Just now, Stuart said:

Seriously guys. Shutting down the site for a month to members only would be at least a poke in the eye for this absolute numpty.

He doesn’t credit the site so there is no exposure.

I’m very much against making BRFCS members only.
It feels a massive waste to stop Rovers fans coming across the forum or restricting access for fans that read but don’t comment, just because a lollipop man from Preston talks badly about it on Twitter. 

[Stuart]

Just now, J*B said:

I’m very much against making BRFCS members only.
It feels a massive waste to stop Rovers fans coming across the forum or restricting access for fans that read but don’t comment, just because a lollipop man from Preston talks badly about it on Twitter. 

What stops people signing up to read? People don’t post to provide comment to the great unknown of the internet, let alone pocket billiards champions from Penwortham.

From your response, it sounds like we posters have become a product for the good of internet clicks and advertising/partnerships for the site rather than a community and debating forum.

There is no debate when someone is screen shotting across the internet. Presumably in breach of copyright. How about BRFCS protecting the site contributors by reminding Mr “Wilkz” that his reproduction of posts is “not welcome”.

[J*B]

Just now, Stuart said:

What stops people signing up to read? People don’t post to provide comment to the great unknown of the internet, let alone pocket billiards champions from Penwortham.

From your response, it sounds like we posters have become a product for the good of internet clicks and advertising/partnerships for the site rather than a community and debating forum.

There is no debate when someone is screen shotting across the internet. Presumably in breach of copyright. How about BRFCS protecting the site contributors by reminding Mr “Wilkz” that his reproduction of posts is “not welcome”.

We’ve trialled members only before - it means that essentially we have to approve everyone that signs up (which isn’t instant) and we found a lot of people just don’t want to sign up, they want to read only. We lost circa 100 viewers a day and gained about 20 members - who carried on viewing and not posting. 
The site relies on viewership, not membership - it’s ran for free by volunteers and we don’t ask members to donate. If we lose viewers we would go under in about 4 months. That’s just the reality. 

As I understand it - off the top of my head, we (BRFCS) don’t own any copyright to our members posts, each poster retains the copyright to their own posts. This is because we can’t accept responsibility for what people post, but we can act on any rule breaks. Essentially, if someone was to say “XXX is a criminal”, we aren’t responsible legally - the poster is. We only are if it’s reported and not acted upon. So theoretically, if you are offended by Jim tweeting your posts - the responsibility is on you to chase him for copyright infringement, not us. 

[Stuart]

Without contributors (members), there would be nothing to view.

Bit of a brush off to say “nothing to do with us” but expecting people to carry on posting content. A polite request to Wilkinson from the site was all I was asking, not enforcing individuals’ copyright.

[J*B]

Just now, Stuart said:

Without contributors (members), there would be nothing to view.

Bit of a brush off to say “nothing to do with us” but expecting people to carry on posting content. A polite request to Wilkinson from the site was all I was asking, not enforcing individuals’ copyright.

Yes there would - if everyone stops posting tomorrow people will still listen to the podcasts, read the articles and look at the player archive. I’m only telling you the reality, if you individually stop posting tomorrow the site will stay up. If we lose viewers it will go down. 

It’s not intended as a brush off, you’re responsible for your own posts and hold IP because we cannot accept liability, after the site has had legal threats from agents, football club directors are even our own posters. Jim has been asked not to post screenshots, had his account banned and his IP blocked. He uses (I assume) private browsing to continue browsing anyway. We can’t stop that without risking the site financially. 

[Stuart]

Just now, J*B said:

It’s not intended as a brush off, you’re responsible for your own posts and hold IP because we cannot accept liability, after the site has had legal threats from agents, football club directors are even our own posters. Jim has been asked not to post screenshots, had his account banned and his IP blocked. He uses (I assume) private browsing to continue browsing anyway. We can’t stop that without risking the site financially. 

Fair dos. I understood that his IP hadn’t and wouldn’t be blocked.

The site isn’t about individuals though. Obviously if one poster stopped contributing then nothing would change but if the forum didn’t exist then it would become a niche news outlet not unlike 4,000 holes.

Cheers for taking the time to answer my questions though. Appreciated.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Stuart

[Vinjay]

33 minutes ago, J*B said:

Yes there would - if everyone stops posting tomorrow people will still listen to the podcasts, read the articles and look at the player archive. I’m only telling you the reality, if you individually stop posting tomorrow the site will stay up. If we lose viewers it will go down. 

It’s not intended as a brush off, you’re responsible for your own posts and hold IP because we cannot accept liability, after the site has had legal threats from agents, football club directors are even our own posters. Jim has been asked not to post screenshots, had his account banned and his IP blocked. He uses (I assume) private browsing to continue browsing anyway. We can’t stop that without risking the site financially. 

Yet BRFCS directly tags him on Twitter for the content Herbert posted.

[J*B]

8 hours ago, Vinjay said:

Yet BRFCS directly tags him on Twitter for the content Herbert posted.

...because he’s responsible for the content we are posting and owns the IP. Similar to the above.