Adam Goodes and Hall of Fame

[liz]

I can't see how anyone can discuss the situation with Adam and his declining admission into the HOF without talking about non-football
stuff. It's not like he said no because he didn't like the push-in-the back rule or the 15M rule.

If you keep sweeping racism under the carpet, don't be surprised what you end up with.

The posts moved to their own thread in Open Chat had almost nothing to do with the Goodes situation or any tangible link to football. Anything even remotely linked to what Goodes experienced has been left in this thread.

You are all very welcome to continue the discussion in Open Chat. Absolutely nothing or nobody is preventing or dissuading you from doing so. However, since the discussion has nothing to do with football, please leave the football forum for those that want to talk about football, and/or don't want each and every thread venturing into people discussing their social and political ideas (not just related to racism, but any and all social and political views).

Asking people to discuss their world views in a forum set aside for non-football discussion is hardly "sweeping racism under the carpet". Strawman argument.

[stevoswan]

I would have thought that discussing a subject that is directly related to a football matter, whether it be social or political.....is still discussing football. I would have thought discussing Adam Goodes on an Adam Goodes thread was actually relevant to the same thread.....and therefore, free from 'censorship' or being moved. I just don't get this 'fear of debate' in an adult world......but I guess that's why I'm not involved in the strange and frankly confusing world of moderating.

My post yesterday was highly considered, well written and not offensive. It was directly related to Adam Goodes and so was relevant to THIS thread........now it's gone (or has been 'moved') as have a lot of posts that people spent time considering and writing.

Moderating (my def.): Attempting to calm a situation ie: lessening anger and confrontation....and setting standards of maturity....but actually inflaming anger and confrontation due to underestimating the maturity of the participants in said debate and disrespecting and censoring their opinion. Sounds a tad hypocritical to me.

A quicker definition could be: Playing God.

As I said, I'm not a mod so I am not privy to or have been schooled in the vagaries of 'moderation' but it must be a very strange world. I'm sure it's 'a tough job' but is your job actually to make it tougher for everyone to truly enjoy this site and stifle debate? Maybe just move this entire thread to the Open Chat if the subject of Adam Goodes, a footballer, is strangely not considered football related?

The title of the thread is "Adam Goodes and Hall of Fame". Adam refused the hall of fame offer so it is inevitable that the reasons he refused are going to be discussed and that will obviously involve discussions on politics and racism. Why the fear of what is actually relevant discussion?

[KTigers]

I agree with Stevo. The thread is called "Adam Goodes and Hall of Fame". It wasn't the actual game of football itself that caused him to
knock back the HOF invite and quit playing, it was what took place on the other side of the fence and in the media. The Hall of Fame is
on the other side of the fence.

[liz]

I would have thought that discussing a subject that is directly related to a football matter, whether it be social or political.....is still discussing football. I would have thought discussing Adam Goodes on an Adam Goodes thread was actually relevant to the same thread.....and therefore, free from 'censorship' or being moved. I just don't get this 'fear of debate' in an adult world......but I guess that's why I'm not involved in the strange and frankly confusing world of moderating.

My post yesterday was highly considered, well written and not offensive. It was directly related to Adam Goodes and so was relevant to THIS thread........now it's gone (or has been 'moved') as have a lot of posts that people spent time considering and writing.

Moderating (my def.): Attempting to calm a situation ie: lessening anger and confrontation....and setting standards of maturity....but actually inflaming anger and confrontation due to underestimating the maturity of the participants in said debate and disrespecting and censoring their opinion. Sounds a tad hypocritical to me.

A quicker definition could be: Playing God.

As I said, I'm not a mod so I am not privy to or have been schooled in the vagaries of 'moderation' but it must be a very strange world. I'm sure it's 'a tough job' but is your job actually to make it tougher for everyone to truly enjoy this site and stifle debate? Maybe just move this entire thread to the Open Chat if the subject of Adam Goodes, a footballer, is strangely not considered football related?

The title of the thread is "Adam Goodes and Hall of Fame". Adam refused the hall of fame offer so it is inevitable that the reasons he refused are going to be discussed and that will obviously involve discussions on politics and racism. Why the fear of what is actually relevant discussion?

The post I think you are referring to was moved in error. It was surrounded by posts that had strayed well beyond Goodes or football. I have moved it back to this thread.

I agree with Stevo. The thread is called "Adam Goodes and Hall of Fame". It wasn't the actual game of football itself that caused him to
knock back the HOF invite and quit playing, it was what took place on the other side of the fence and in the media. The Hall of Fame is
on the other side of the fence.

Go and look at the posts sitting in the OC thread. They have zero to do with footy or Goodes. It's a fine discussion, and I encourage people to continue it, but, as I've said, it has moved well beyond anything footy related. If you (or anyone else) thinks any of the remaining moved posts was moved in error, let me know via PM.

One of the objectives of moderating this site is to apply the posting guidelines. One of those is that the football forum is for football matters. Many of our members choose not to discuss their political or social perspectives on this site and don't want footy discussions taken off track by others imposing their political or social views that are unrelated to footy. It really is veryy easy to go and discuss these on a forum provided to you for that purpose.

This isn't a new posting rule. It's been around for a decade or two. I'm not entering into any further discussion on the merits or purpose of retaining the footy board for discussion of footy matters.

[Blood Fever]

The posts moved to their own thread in Open Chat had almost nothing to do with the Goodes situation or any tangible link to football. Anything even remotely linked to what Goodes experienced has been left in this thread.

You are all very welcome to continue the discussion in Open Chat. Absolutely nothing or nobody is preventing or dissuading you from doing so. However, since the discussion has nothing to do with football, please leave the football forum for those that want to talk about football, and/or don't want each and every thread venturing into people discussing their social and political ideas (not just related to racism, but any and all social and political views).

Asking people to discuss their world views in a forum set aside for non-football discussion is hardly "sweeping racism under the carpet". Strawman argument.

+1. Open chat just a click away.

[stevoswan]

The post I think you are referring to was moved in error. It was surrounded by posts that had strayed well beyond Goodes or football. I have moved it back to this thread.

Thank you for that......I am now calmer.....and happier.

[Ludwig]

The posts moved to their own thread in Open Chat had almost nothing to do with the Goodes situation or any tangible link to football. Anything even remotely linked to what Goodes experienced has been left in this thread.

You are all very welcome to continue the discussion in Open Chat. Absolutely nothing or nobody is preventing or dissuading you from doing so. However, since the discussion has nothing to do with football, please leave the football forum for those that want to talk about football, and/or don't want each and every thread venturing into people discussing their social and political ideas (not just related to racism, but any and all social and political views).

Asking people to discuss their world views in a forum set aside for non-football discussion is hardly "sweeping racism under the carpet". Strawman argument.

Of course, whenever the subject of racism is brought up there is going to be a lot of polarizing viewpoints. And the discussion is going to wander off into many non-football areas. But racism is a major concern in football and is a place where the football community and the community at large will intersect. Then it becomes too hot an issue to discuss in a football forum, so it's shuttled off to a remote corner of the website and quickly dies off.

It's too hot to handle, so let's not talk about it. This is exactly what the racism-promoting advocates are banking on. People get upset, so we just shut down the discussion. Wingard gets racially vilified. Eddie Betts gets racially vilified. Paddy Ryder gets racially vilified. Everything back to normal. Mission accomplished.

Is it any wonder why racism continues to flourish when everyone denies there's a problem. In the Chad Wingard podcast, Wingard requests that we confront racism head on. I think he needs our help.

[Blood Fever]

Of course, whenever the subject of racism is brought up there is going to be a lot of polarizing viewpoints. And the discussion is going to wander off into many non-football areas. But racism is a major concern in football and is a place where the football community and the community at large will intersect. Then it becomes too hot an issue to discuss in a football forum, so it's shuttled off to a remote corner of the website and quickly dies off.

It's too hot to handle, so let's not talk about it. This is exactly what the racism-promoting advocates are banking on. People get upset, so we just shut down the discussion. Wingard gets racially vilified. Eddie Betts gets racially vilified. Paddy Ryder gets racially vilified. Everything back to normal. Mission accomplished.

Is it any wonder why racism continues to flourish when everyone denies there's a problem. In the Chad Wingard podcast, Wingard requests that we confront racism head on. I think he needs our help.

Open Chat is not remote and is open to everybody who wishes to use it. Goodes thread not removed. Discussion of racism not removed.

[Ludwig]

+1. Open chat just a click away.

I'm on board with you and liz. Thanks for showing me the light. I'm kind of enjoying the freedom around there. Now lets see how long it takes me to dirty up the clean air.

[Blood Fever]

I'm on board with you and liz. Thanks for showing me the light. I'm kind of enjoying the freedom around there. Now lets see how long it takes me to dirty up the clean air.

It could get out of control!

[Markwebbos]

The AFL apologised to Adam Goodes at the HOF last night. (Apologies I only found this in the Herald Sun)

No Cookies | Herald Sun

AFL commission chairman Richard Goyder has described the league’s failure to stand with Adam Goodes during the 2015 booing of the Sydney Swans champion as a “stain for our game”.

“Our failure to stand with him at the time it was happening and call out what was happening was a stain for our game.

[Sandridge]

The AFL apologised to Adam Goodes at the HOF last night. (Apologies I only found this in the Herald Sun)

No Cookies | Herald Sun

AFL commission chairman Richard Goyder has described the league’s failure to stand with Adam Goodes during the 2015 booing of the Sydney Swans champion as a “stain for our game”.

“Our failure to stand with him at the time it was happening and call out what was happening was a stain for our game.

Well, that's something I suppose. Way, way, way too late but it's something.

[Velour&Ruffles]

The AFL apologised to Adam Goodes at the HOF last night. (Apologies I only found this in the Herald Sun)

No Cookies | Herald Sun

AFL commission chairman Richard Goyder has described the league’s failure to stand with Adam Goodes during the 2015 booing of the Sydney Swans champion as a “stain for our game”.

“Our failure to stand with him at the time it was happening and call out what was happening was a stain for our game.

It was certainly a stain on the game, but it is also an indelible stain on both Gillon McLachlan and Mike Fitzpatrick. Their abysmal performance during that period should never be forgotten, or forgiven.

[i'm-uninformed2]

It was certainly a stain on the game, but it is also an indelible stain on both Gillon McLachlan and Mike Fitzpatrick. Their abysmal performance during that period should never be forgotten, or forgiven.

Correct. What's worse about Fitzpatrick is the version I hear is others like Gil froze in the moment - which is unforgivable and bad enough. But Fitzpatrick actively argued it was all nonsense and had nothing to do with race.

And to top it off, he was then dragged kicking and screaming to a statement, which is one of the most 'me-me-me' things I have ever seen.

Mike Fitzpatrick statement on Adam Goodes

Turd.

[Aaron]

Only a brief and sanitized mentioning in a Report on the AFL Site:
"Hall of Fame selection chair Richard Goyder, in his opening address for the broadcast, also stated that, as previously advised earlier this year, Adam Goodes had declined induction to the Hall of Fame, after the game had failed to adequately support him in the closing years of his playing career."