TalkingCarlton
http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

The definition of a 'hater'
http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24051		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  SparkyBlue [ Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:25 pm ]
Post subject:  The definition of a 'hater'
First off, I believe that this thread deserves to stay in Talking Carlton (and not Talking Players) - if only for the reason that the thread for player I'm referring to (JR), is not a very welcome place for 'haters' - and the topic of this thread could be applied to any one of our players...

Let me begin with saying that I am not a 'hater', particularly in Russell's case. I have been know to critique aspects of his game on which he can improve - as I do with other Carlton player's - but I refrain from the one line threads bagging ANY Carlton player because I believe them to be tasteless rubbish...

...but the reason for this thread, is that for every 'hater' on TC - there is a 'precious' poster who narks up at anything that remotely resembles a negative comment.

Shit, I'd probably get called a JR-hater just for the fact that I haven't yet produced a glowing reference of the lad.

The catalyst for writing this though, is the fact that these days a poster can't question a players confidence in front of goal without getting howled down as a hater... whilst the prose in such a post might suggest hating/trolling - there is a valid question amougst all that, that ends up being ignored because people find it acceptable to jump on their high horses.

I am of the belief that both the precious poster, and the hater - are as bad as each other.


One because they are obviously posting crap for the sake of shitcanning a player (with no constructive comments whatsoever).

And the other because they end up taking anything other that positive opinions as a hateful comment (and this applies to some players more than others - wheres the shooting down of negative comments against Nick Stevens, eh? ;) ) - and find it their duty to have a go at the poster for a comment that in fact others see as legitimate...


Just a thought - after all, it's a fine line and a grey area.
Author:  Jarusa [ Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The definition of a 'hater'
It's a fine grey area.
Author:  Donstuie [ Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The definition of a 'hater'
If there's something you don't like about a player, then you have an agenda. There's no other explanation.
Author:  TheBluesMuse [ Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The definition of a 'hater'
SparkyBlue wrote:
...but the reason for this thread, is that for every 'hater' on TC - there is a 'precious' poster who narks up at anything that remotely resembles a negative comment.


Absolutely.

It's the old saying "If you don't have anything positive to say then don't say anything at all". We shouldn't paint it as anything else. Basically if you are negative often you are painted differently to those who are positive often, regardless of how off the mark you are and regardless of it being nothing but your opinion.

When you are confronted with a holier than thou my opinion is better than yours because I am positive comment I suggest you don't get too uptight about it and continue to have your own opinion. We can all have our gut feelings in regards to a player whether it's such and such won't make it or such and such will be a gun....I don't see any difference really.

I'm not negative towards our players because I don't really understand objectivity when it comes to my blue boys :P and I don't particularly like blaming anyone when my knowledge is so limited. In regards to the negative comments that so often get posted I think "well they might have a point I suppose"......It's when they start throwing personal bullshit like "you're a hack" or "give it up you're shit" stuff..that I don't like.
Author:  mjonc [ Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The definition of a 'hater'
If people provided facts/detail in their arguments I would say most posters wouldn't be labelled as "precious" or a "hater". For example posters making comments like "Fisher is a shit kick", or "JR is soft", or "Houlihan wears a skirt" will obviously have the "precious" types ark up and deservedly so.

It comes down to posters expressing a valid opinion on a player, that way an opinion is justified and legitimate discussion can take place.
Author:  Cazzesman [ Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The definition of a 'hater'
You forget to mention that many haters never let the facts get in the way of a good hate session.

Players aren't perfect but at least if you are going to trash them, the trashing deserves to be based on facts and not just plain BS. If a player misses a set shot lets hear about all the others that missed a set shot the same day. When a player hits an opponent lace out lets hear about all the other players who did the same.

That's not getting up on a high horse or being precious that's just asking posters to show abit of fairness instead of being a bias, short sighted supporter who has a set against a certain player.

There are almost 40 players on a list. 15 aren't in our best 22. That doesn't mean they are a bad player or not worthy of being supported by the members. Some posters actually take perverse pleasure and joy in seeing a player muck up just so you can say....'he's shit and will never be in our best 22'. That's just poor form from someone hiding behind a keyboard.

Regards Cazzesman
Author:  Gilly34 [ Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The definition of a 'hater'
:clap: :clap:

Perhaps they should go see some TAC games and the 95% that don't make the top grade before trashing the ones making a go of it.
Author:  SparkyBlue [ Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The definition of a 'hater'
I am of the belief that shitcanning a player with no substance to your comments, and criticizing a player for some flaws in their game, constructively - are two completely different things.

I also believe that 'precious' posters on TC can't differentiate between the two.


So what do you end up with?

People making marginal comments, sometimes in my opinion with good reason - only to get berated by those that appear
to only allow positive, sugar-coated comments about our players.


I mean - I don't trash the boys full stop. I'm quick to point out a flaw in someones game and suggest room for improvement, but
I've seen others do the same... and heaven help them if it concerns JR - any constructive criticism regarding the fella is going to be
met with some major flamage from some posters on this forum.



On the flipside, those that create meaningless stupid threads with no motive but to drop a one-liner about how crap player X is - should
find themselves with a week long ban...
Author:  TheBluesMuse [ Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The definition of a 'hater'
Well, Russell did more good things last week than bad. I think he missed a sideways pass trying to center it and that's all, everything else was clean. BUT for those of us who have a pre-concieved notion that he's not good enough will look at the error as even more proof. I wouldn't call them haters though. The closest i've seen to a hater was Deano on Ackland, but I don't think he was entirely serious he dramatised it a bit in the name of fun.....I hope :yikes:

However, Ackland was fair game but JR is not....why is that? :roll:
Author:  Gilly34 [ Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The definition of a 'hater'
TheBluesMuse wrote:
Well, Russell did more good things last week than bad. I think he missed a sideways pass trying to center it and that's all, everything else was clean. BUT for those of us who have a pre-concieved notion that he's not good enough will look at the error as even more proof. I wouldn't call them haters though. The closest i've seen to a hater was Deano on Ackland, but I don't think he was entirely serious he dramatised it a bit in the name of fun.....I hope :yikes:

However, Ackland was fair game but JR is not....why is that? :roll:


You bring up a good point TBM....in decision-making parlance it is referred to as a confirmation bias....in other words if we have developed a hypothesis about a situation we will pay more credence to information that confirms our theory and tend to ignore evidence that disconfirms the theory.

In other words the knockers will jump all over one mistake but tend to discount the positives....I have a strong suspicion this bias is in effect with JR.
Author:  mjonc [ Sun Mar 01, 2009 4:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The definition of a 'hater'
Hmm some players aren't doing themselves any favours today.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/