Bulls4Champs wrote:
I don't mind Bulls Banter. I think most are good intentioned. However like most places on social media it's like the new age Wild West. Gal that runs it deserves a bit of credit, like here it's a thankless task, and she's probably got 3000 people to moderate either single handed or with limited help. She's raised sponsorship for John Kear and players previously, which is a good thing.
If I was John Kear I'd have been smiling to myself that they failed to raise his sponsorship for the coming season, because I think "John Kear, sponsored by Bradford Bulls Banter" in every news article cheapens his image considerably.
With respect to "good intentioned" folk, well those with good intentions not the ones who get attention are they. The ones who get noticed are the ones who say stuff that people disagree with. People do it all the time online in politics, sport, music etc. It's a form of attention seeking - people are purposefully controversial and purposefully walk the line between what's acceptable and what's not in order to get comments and likes. This transcends into what can be described as an online snake pit. Try for yourself - go on there and post "Chisholm is crap" and see what happens.
I don't think the group serves much of a constructive purpose anymore (nice idea in principle) other than the sponsorship.
