The word "scum" in the soccer forum

20 Times 20 Times

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Ironic given that you seemed to indicate that the reason you dont visit the Soccer forum is that the mods are too harsh.

Im not going to search years back to find the "WWM had a bad day" bans. Im not even sure I personally got one, but I do recall some of it being rather petty.

Go make your own i hate WWM thread.

Tha Gopher

No.

Ill just troll the We Love WWMan thread, its more craic.....;)

MrJoeSoap

To be honest, this seems to have escalated way above what I intended in the thread. All this talk of moderators being removed, replaced, hanged, drawn and quartered is a bit too over the top.

All I wanted to know is that given the clampdown on the word scum that seemed to come about in the middle to end of last year, when I was banned for using that word in what I thought was a very acceptable situation (if there ever is an acceptable situation to use the term, but that depends on your view of the English language), is the word now acceptable again and should the charter perhaps be amended to reflect this.

I don't really come onto the feedback forum too often so I'm not aware of any threads there might have been discussing whether or not the moderators should be more lenient or not. I moved to Australia earlier in the year, which meant I didn't really post much between February and August, but I did notice that the word had become very much part of the forum again when I returned to posting more regularly.

I'm not looking for a reprieve or anything of the sort, just a bit of clarification on the issue that might even help to clear up any sort of future misunderstandings.

Boston

Ibid wrote: »

you not liking WWM's modding (which most people do; I think he can be a gimpy troll on Feedback

You shut your mouth, WWM is a fcuk god!

WhiteWashMan

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Ironic given that you seemed to indicate that the reason you dont visit the Soccer forum is that the mods are too harsh.
.

ive never said that. i said i dont visit there anymore because of the inconsistancy of moderating decisions.

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Im not going to search years back to find the "WWM had a bad day" bans. Im not even sure I personally got one, but I do recall some of it being rather petty.

then dont go throwing around accusations youre not going to back up.

i reckon youd be pretty lucky to find one anyway. even back in the day when i was a twat of a user, i never banned anyone for any reason other than abuse.

i may have been petty in my arguments, but not as a moderator.

but the discussion is not about me.

i dont even want to take KdjaCL place as a moderator. i have given enough to this site without having to have some sort of moderator pissing contest.


its funny how the whole reason for this thread seems to have gone off the rails somewhere. its gone from a query about the inconsistencies of moderation on a forum to people throwing around ideas and vague accusations and insults.

id rather people discussed the topic at hand, and stopped using me as some sort of catalyst for a flame war. im not up for it.

personally, i can see where KdjaCL is coming from. last year, the soccer forum was one way. im sure its another way. bringin up something that happened a year ago, and referencing it to now really serves nothing better than to air some old grievences on the part of the OP.

on the other hand, im rather surprised that KdjaCL has responded as he has.

Tha Gopher

As said, the mods use it, why cant the commoners?

The strike on the 3 strikes should be lifted tbh.

MrJoeSoap

This thread is now becoming a bitchfest like many of the soccer forum threads recently. I give up.

WhiteWashMan

Tha Gopher wrote: »

He is complaining about a forum which is moderated more lightly and fairly than AH when he modded it. It is a valid point in a thread discussing the harshness of Soccer modding.

i mod AH now. ive modded it for the last couple of years.

no one is disucssing the harshness of the forum.


feel free to step back any time now, and come back when you actually read the thread.

i dont know what your personal issue is with me, but why dont you actually make a thread about it, post up some proof or stop throwing crap about the place.
seriously, youre a bad troll, and i can do it waaaay better than you if i have to.

nesf

Ibid wrote: »

"Do you like us?" approach to AH is refreshing on a site all-too-often dictated by the Feb 98s)

Um, most mods, smods etc aren't Feb 98 people to be fair.

mike65

Boston wrote: »

kdjac: What ever about wwm no one pays attention to Mike.

Boston had someone of value opined that I'd be cut to the quick.

Mike.

Mr. Presentable

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

Late last year I was banned from the soccer forum for using the word "scum" to describe a fan of Shelbourne, a club which I support, who had thrown a firework into a group of Drogheda fans. It was my second ban, I can't honestly remember what the first one was for, but now if I were to receive another ban (which I don't intend on doing, but then I didn't intend on the second one either) I would be out for good afaik.

I was banned within 12 hours, and from what I can see it was purely for the use of the word "scum".

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055011328&highlight=scum

The post has been edited and I can't remember the exact wording of my post, but it certainly wasn't overly aggressive or abusive, especially considering I was at the game and was deeply disappointed and shocked at what a "fan" of my own club would do.

Maybe a mod is able to access the original post, I'm not too sure if thats possible?

Anyway, the thing I'm asking about here is whether or not the term has been accepted recently?

According to the charter, abuse of other fans and/or sports personalities will result in a ban and a specific aspect of the charter states that "scum" is a form of abuse.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054846039

Why, therefore, are people still allowed to post calling people scum? I don't want to look for widespread bannings or anything of the sort, I just want clarification of the rules regarding the word itself. I haven't reported any posts including the word because I don't find it offensive, but what does annoy me is that I can be banned for calling someone who clearly endangers other people that word but others aren't.

A bit of clarification would be welcome.

Thanks,
JoeSoap.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54149522&postcount=25

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53890181&postcount=11

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53663825&postcount=22

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54397127&postcount=7

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52665709&postcount=25

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54397156&postcount=9

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54397248&postcount=21

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53474546&postcount=29

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53362455&postcount=15

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53173501&postcount=10

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53117260&postcount=5

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53107525&postcount=10

Plenty more if you search for it.

TBH it just looks like the soccer mods have taken their eye off the ball, so to speak. The use of that word in the past was quite rightly forbidden and that was enforced. If we are now allowed to use the word, I've got a list of targets. A solution is to start enforcing again, or remove from the record those banned in the past for its use and add scum to the swear filter.

MrJoeSoap

nipplenuts wrote: »

TBH it just looks like the soccer mods have taken their eye off the ball, so to speak. The use of that word in the past was quite rightly forbidden and that was enforced. If we are now allowed to use the word, I've got a list of targets. A solution is to start enforcing again, or remove from the record those banned in the past for its use and add scum to the swear filter.

Very good idea. Is this practical to implement does anyone know?

Boston

Lets not go mad here. Think of the implications of that, no more "Foreign scum", "Taxi driver scum", "knacker scum" threads on after hours. The cure is worse then the sickness.

MrJoeSoap

Is it possible to limit it to the soccer forum then?

GuanYin

A year ago, soccer was modded alot more stringently than it is now. I can't speak for the other mods, but the charter is in place as a guideline to behavior and intent is a big issue when deciding on a ban. Generally I ban for intent, so if you look like you intend to abuse, even without using nasty words, you'll most likely get a sanction.

Just recently, someone complained about a ban because they said they thought they worded their abuse without breaking the rules, the fact is, abuse is againts the rules.

As far as I can tell the problems with soccer are cyclical. We relax, forum gets trolly, people complain, we get tough, trouble dies down, people ask us to relax, we relax, forum gets trolly..... repeat to infinity.

randylonghorn

Boston wrote: »

Lets not go mad here. Think of the implications of that, no more "Foreign scum", "Taxi driver scum", "knacker scum" threads on after hours. The cure is worse then the sickness.

Why would that be a bad thing, Joe? ...


... in the very unlikely event that you're not just catching up on your ironing, ofc!

padser

psi wrote: »

A year ago, soccer was modded alot more stringently than it is now. I can't speak for the other mods, but the charter is in place as a guideline to behavior and intent is a big issue when deciding on a ban. Generally I ban for intent, so if you look like you intend to abuse, even without using nasty words, you'll most likely get a sanction.
.

One of the mods (it wasnt you although I can't remember which one it was) called John Delaney a wanker a while ago. I remember reporting the post but nothing was ever done - the post was never edited.

While I agreed with the sentiment it seems like pretty outragous abuse on a public forum (albeit it could be argued that its warrented).

Whats the point of the report post function if its ignored?/??

Terry

padser wrote: »

One of the mods (it wasnt you although I can't remember which one it was) called John Delaney a wanker a while ago. I remember reporting the post but nothing was ever done - the post was never edited.

While I agreed with the sentiment it seems like pretty outragous abuse on a public forum (albeit it could be argued that its warrented).

Whats the point of the report post function if its ignored?/??

He didn't call Delaney a wanker.

He asked a hypothetical question.

KdjaCL wrote:

PDN wrote:

Does the FAI actually have the authority to censor banners inside a club's ground? I guess they do at Drogheda because the FAI owns United Park, but surely not at other grounds?

They asked the clubs to do it for them, can just see Kerr asking pats fans to take down the Delaney out banner and add YOU WANKER to it.


kdjac

GuanYin

padser wrote: »

One of the mods (it wasnt you although I can't remember which one it was) called John Delaney a wanker a while ago. I remember reporting the post but nothing was ever done - the post was never edited.

While I agreed with the sentiment it seems like pretty outragous abuse on a public forum (albeit it could be argued that its warrented).

Whats the point of the report post function if its ignored?/??

And again, this is the problem with modding the soccer forum.

The amount of chinese whisper-style back and forth on soccer is hard to keep track of. Here we have a prime example, padser completely skewed the facts of the event to make it look like a heinous case of mod abuse when in fact there was no such issue.

Take this event, multiply it by a thousand and you have the soccer forum on any given week. Users trying to get users banned or moaning about rules that they quite obviously don't quite grasp.

For instance, there is a misconception on soccer that calling someone a name is bannable. It isn't. Calling someone a name for the sake of abuse is bannable. We all like to use exclamations when we're making a passionate case, If someone said, "I think Delaney has acted like a dick for doing X, Y and Z", then personally I woudn't ban the person. If on the other hand they posted "Delaney is just a dick" I'd probably warn if not ban them.

The difference is, one case the poster is giving an opinion on the actions of Delaney, the other is outright namecalling. We have a place for one and not the other. In the same we say attack the post and not the poster for boards users, attack the actions and not the person for non-boards users.

I personally read all reported posts. Some we act on, some we don't. It's a judgement call which I guess is why we're paid the big bucks to mod soccer. The users of the forum never seem to grasp the differences between attacking actions and people and thats why reported posts go unacted upon. Of course, then weeks later in feedback, like above, we get a totally skewed version of what actually happened with demands for actions.

MrJoeSoap

psi wrote: »

For instance, there is a misconception on soccer that calling someone a name is bannable. It isn't. Calling someone a name for the sake of abuse is bannable. We all like to use exclamations when we're making a passionate case, If someone said, "I think Delaney has acted like a dick for doing X, Y and Z", then personally I woudn't ban the person. If on the other hand they posted "Delaney is just a dick" I'd probably warn if not ban them.

And yet somehow calling someone who throws a lit firework into a packed group of people a "scumbag" is bannable? Surely there is a major inconsistency there, I wasn't picking a fight, the scumbag was a "fan" of my own club.

GuanYin

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

And yet somehow calling someone who throws a lit firework into a packed group of people a "scumbag" is bannable? Surely there is a major inconsistency there, I wasn't picking a fight, the scumbag was a "fan" of my own club.

This incident was a while back?

As I said earlier, soccer goes through periods of strictness and not so strictness which is usually dictated by how much complaining, bitching and in-fighting we get.

Did you explain this to the mod at the time or not? It seems a long time to bring this up?

MrJoeSoap

psi wrote: »

This incident was a while back?

As I said earlier, soccer goes through periods of strictness and not so strictness which is usually dictated by how much complaining, bitching and in-fighting we get.

Did you explain this to the mod at the time or not? It seems a long time to bring this up?

To be honest, I was quite busy at the time with moving country and working hard (think it was in the run-in to Christmas, can't really remember) so I didn't even bother pursuing it. As well as that, I pretty much accepted that it was a justified ban purely because of the s-word being used.

Since then though I have noticed the word being used a lot more and being apparently accepted, which is what brought me back to my old ban. As I think I mentioned earlier in the thread, I haven't had internet access for quite a large portion of this year so haven't been using boards regularly until a couple of months back when I returned to Ireland. I guess it mightn't have been too obvious that the word was accepted if it was creeping back in slowly, but when you don't post for ages then come back it sticks out a little bit, especially when you've been banned for it!

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm not looking to be excused from my ban or anything of the sort, just purely looking for clarification on the term. I don't really think that the forum should go through phases of strictness-leniency-strictness because it will almost certainly result in people who fall victim of the harsher period feeling more aggrieved when they see people being pardoned in the lenient stage of the cycle!

GuanYin

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

I don't really think that the forum should go through phases of strictness-leniency-strictness because it will almost certainly result in people who fall victim of the harsher period feeling more aggrieved when they see people being pardoned in the lenient stage of the cycle!

Neither do I, but despite common opinion, we do bow to user opinions to some degree. We get complaints of over strictness and over leniency and it's incredibly hard to strike a balance.

The big problem is how we enforce rules. We can do it in two ways, we can enforce intent, which is generally more easygoing and makes for a more enjoyable forum, but bannings generally follow the trend of the forums mood, if people are acting up, there are more bannings. We also probably make more mistakes.

The other option is to go totalitarian and set the rules in stone and enforce them. This means that we blanket out the use of phrases and words and it really leads to a more restrictive less enjoyable forum.

The irony is, most people think we moderate in the style of the latter, when really it is the former


I dunno what else I can give you but that. I'd like to think that had you contacted us at the time, we'd have at least entered into dialogue about your ban, it may not have been overturned, but who knows. Looking back retrospectively when you did nothing at the time, there really isn't any satisfactory outcome to this discussion for you now. I know it's frustrating for you though.

MrJoeSoap

psi wrote: »

Neither do I, but despite common opinion, we do bow to user opinions to some degree. We get complaints of over strictness and over leniency and it's incredibly hard to strike a balance.

The big problem is how we enforce rules. We can do it in two ways, we can enforce intent, which is generally more easygoing and makes for a more enjoyable forum, but bannings generally follow the trend of the forums mood, if people are acting up, there are more bannings. We also probably make more mistakes.

The other option is to go totalitarian and set the rules in stone and enforce them. This means that we blanket out the use of phrases and words and it really leads to a more restrictive less enjoyable forum.

The irony is, most people think we moderate in the style of the latter, when really it is the former


I dunno what else I can give you but that. I'd like to think that had you contacted us at the time, we'd have at least entered into dialogue about your ban, it may not have been overturned, but who knows. Looking back retrospectively when you did nothing at the time, there really isn't any satisfactory outcome to this discussion for you now. I know it's frustrating for you though.

Ah no, that clears it up a little bit anyway. I've grown up (a little bit) in the few years I've been on boards and don't intend even coming close to that third strike anyway. Cheers PSI.

PHB

I think if you took a poll of the soccer forum posters who actually use the forum on a regular basis, you'd find most people happy with the current modding. It was more strict about a year ago but it has gotten much lighter since then. That said, that's because the forum has gotten a lot 'cleaner' since then.

While I think that the harsh periods have stifled some of the fun parts of talking about soccer, I think that's beginning to return. I really wouldn't want to see a non-soccer fan mod the boards, simply because they don't really understand what it's all about.
Trolling in the classic sense of the word, i.e. saying something as a jibe, even for a response, or for a laugh, is part and parcel of being a soccer fan. Once it's in good spirits, I think that should be ok. It's just a bit of banter.

For example, Mr. Alan recently recently was talking about whether or not Ronaldo should be captain of United, and listed off people who he thought would be better captains, Ferdinand, Rooney, etc. etc. and then listed Dong. Now he did that as a tongue in cheek remark, which I think many could see as trolling. But it really isn't. It's just what being a soccer fan is all about. Hence why I have in my signature, 'you can't win the premiership on penalties'. Obviously i'm mocking liverpool fans here, but it's just a bit of banter.

For a while, I think stuff like that in general (not those specific examples, but that sort of general attitude) wouldn't have been tolerated, but because the mods were harsh then people know they can't really step over the line anymore.
Scum used to be almost instantly bannable but now it's gotten a bit more lax. The reason it was initially bannable wasn't because every single use of it really deserved a banning, it's because it had to be that way in order to get the forum in some sort of order.
Now you'd normally get a warning or get away with if it it's not just a random insult, but part of a larger point, which is fair enough.

Those initial periods of harshness were needed to get the forum in order. But now that it is, it's been laxed a little, which is great. As such, we're beginning to get the right balance between a forum which actually talks about things without descending into mindless insults, and between of a bit of banter that would go on with mates if you were talking about soccer.

As I said at the start, if you took a poll among the regular posters on the soccer forum of how well people thought the mods were doing, I'd say it would end up in the positive.