Another Soccer Banning

RoundyMooney

Faith wrote: »

The point of moderators is that they DO read every single post in their fora. Otherwise, why bother with them? If only reported posts are to be dealt with, them I'm sure the admins and Smods could deal with them. Most fora have several moderators, to ensure that everything gets read. Reported posts are helpful if the moderator is busy, but we all know the vast majority of problem posts aren't reported.

I wouldn't subscribe to that tbh, although I fully agree with the aspiration. It's nigh on impossible to read every post on a busy forum. I can't stress enough how important it is to report something objectionable, even if you're not sure.

If it were left to SMods to make judgement calls on every reported post (admins aside for the purposes of this discussion, as their role has, for the most part moved beyond the day to day running of the site, banning spammers etc. is what I mean here), we'd need a lot more than ten of them.

Bottom line is, a mod cannot read everything, although I hope, (and know for the most part) that where possible, they'd do more than simply respond to the reported stuff.

Faith wrote: »

I'm not just talking about the soccer mods, but all mods. If you agree to moderate a forum, you agree to read all the posts whereever possible. If you can't do that, a co-mod is added to help. I know on the busier forums like soccer, politics, PI, AH etc this is difficult, but it's still part of the job description. A couple of threads down, Terry posted how he reads every single post on AH, so it's clearly not impossible. I read all the posts on the forums I moderate.

Some mods (very few) have the time to do this, the vast majority do not. It's easy for me to read every post on, say Hobby Radio, as that's a small community, but I freely admit that it's impossible to read every contribution on FS Electronics (on adverts), just as an example.

Like I say, I agree with the theory of vetting every post, but the execution is extremely difficult on busier fora.

Faith wrote: »

Anyway, this has very little to do with the topic at hand, but I don't think it's fair to blame a user for not reporting every single problem post they see when it's not their problem.

Agree++

This is a stick that I've seen used to beat people here before, and although encouraging users to report things is a positive mindset, blanket criticism of them for not reporting something is a negative one.

Xavi6 wrote: »

Ok valid point and I retract. My frustration got the better there.

Fair play, it's more than many do

Xavi6 wrote: »

Reinstate me and admit an error! Problem solved.

Joking aside, on the post in question, it seems to me that there's a gaping discrepancy afoot. I don't regularly read the forum any more, so freely admit that I may be missing some subtlety, however, although I doubt it.

Xavi6 wrote: »

Ah no seriously, the modding needs a serious look. Still no one had been installed to replace the inactive Talla. This needs to be done asap and I also think additional mods should be installed.

There was a recent mod cleanup (still ongoing to a degree), and I don't recall it being raised there.

My own view from a moderating perspective, is that it's very hard to apply hard and fast rules, firstly because every situation is different, and secondly, because a hard and fast set of rules (as laid down in what would necessarily become a very large charter) removes discretion from the moderating team, and is at odds with mod policy on boards up to now.

Look at AH, for example. That has the capability (and the legacy) of being a bag of cats. It is moderated by an eclectic and slightly lunatic( ) bunch of guys who in my view act with impartiality, common sense, and discretion.

It doesn't have a massive charter, or an inordinately long set of commandments either. It doesn't need to.

As a result, criticise it all you want, it is a well organised, orderly microcosm of society at large, without the public urination, punishment beatings, and gangland killings.

I can't for the life of me see why Soccer cannot follow a similiar path.

Chinafoot

Faith wrote: »

The point of moderators is that they DO read every single post in their fora. Otherwise, why bother with them? If only reported posts are to be dealt with, them I'm sure the admins and Smods could deal with them. Most fora have several moderators, to ensure that everything gets read. Reported posts are helpful if the moderator is busy, but we all know the vast majority of problem posts aren't reported.

I'm not just talking about the soccer mods, but all mods. If you agree to moderate a forum, you agree to read all the posts whereever possible. If you can't do that, a co-mod is added to help. I know on the busier forums like soccer, politics, PI, AH etc this is difficult, but it's still part of the job description. A couple of threads down, Terry posted how he reads every single post on AH, so it's clearly not impossible. I read all the posts on the forums I moderate.

Well good for you and good for Terry. Not everyone will have the time though and posts will slip through the cracks if they are not reported. In theory reading every post is a lovely idea, in practice it may not be possible on very busy forums.

Faith wrote: »

Anyway, this has very little to do with the topic at hand, but I don't think it's fair to blame a user for not reporting every single problem post they see when it's not their problem.

I agree and thats not what I was doing. However when users who do get nabbed for breaking the rules instantly say "oh well 'so and so' said this too why weren't they banned?!" all of a sudden its the mods fault for missing the post. Thats hardly fair either. The user obviously noticed that the other persons post broke the rules so they should report it in case the mod doesn't see it. If they're not prepared to do that then they shouldn't be bringing it up.

Anyway, like you said this is all slightly off-topic.

Xavi6

Chinafoot wrote: »

I agree and thats not what I was doing. However when users who do get nabbed for breaking the rules instantly say "oh well 'so and so' said this too why weren't they banned?!" all of a sudden its the mods fault for missing the post. Thats hardly fair either. The user obviously noticed that the other persons post broke the rules so they should report it in case the mod doesn't see it. If they're not prepared to do that then they shouldn't be bringing it up.

What if I didn't deem the other posts to be negative? The ones I quoted weren't offensive to me in any way shape or form so why would I report them? My point is that why should I be banned and not them if a mod sees it as a bannable offence?

Jules

Maybe it's an idea that the mods that mod soccer, just mod that forum and no others. I understand that it is a very difficult place to mod as it gets so much traffic.

How many times can i get mod in one sentence?

Chinafoot

Xavi6 wrote: »

What if I didn't deem the other posts to be negative? The ones I quoted weren't offensive to me in any way shape or form so why would I report them? My point is that why should I be banned and not them if a mod sees it as a bannable offence?

Again, what if the mod didn't see it?

In the last thread Psi said

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.

He also said

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.

Xavi6

Chinafoot wrote: »

Again, what if the mod didn't see it?

Then there should be a sufficient amount of mods so it is seen. Everyone knows the problems with soccer so therefore it should be the most heavily modded forum, yet it's not.

Look the issue here is that there were two examples in the exact same thread that fall into that mods category of 'abuse' (Keane called a wanker, Hunt called a scumbag). He banned one poster, did nothing to the other. Now if he saw my post then he must have seen the other cause it was a page or so later. Your argument about them not being able to read every post holds no water in this instance.

godtabh

Xavi6 wrote: »

No I don't report posts like that because they don't offend me.

You give out about double standards. But how can the double standards be delt with if no one reports the post

RoundyMooney

This is what I mean.

If the OP didn't feel his own post was in breach of the charter, why would he report a similiar post prior to his banning?

Throwing out a blanket condemnation if someone doesn't report something is not the answer.

We all agree that people should report posts, but we can't hide behind that mantra if there is a problem.

Xavi6, just because a mod didn't catch something doesn't mean a forum is undermoderated.

Mr. Presentable

kearnsr wrote: »

You give out about double standards. But how can the double standards be delt with if no one reports the post

Posts get reported and nothing done. Why should the poster be obliged to report a post to have an offensive remark noted? The mods are either on the job or not. As I posted before, there was a mod active in the thread in question who in fact replied to and quoted one of the other "offensive" posts the OP refers.

Was the RK remark reported by someone, I don't recall?

copacetic

nipplenuts wrote: »

Posts get reported and nothing done. Why should the poster be obliged to report a post to have an offensive remark noted? The mods are either on the job or not. As I posted before, there was a mod active in the thread in question who in fact replied to and quoted one of the other "offensive" posts the OP refers.

Was the RK remark reported by someone, I don't recall?

not as far as I could tell...

leninbenjamin

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

.

what an insightful contribution to the topic at hand. could you elaborate further?

Thanx 4 The Fish

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.

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.

What part of that do you not understand ? You called roy keane what you called him for absolutely no reason at all, just threw it in there as if it was part of a normal conversation and was to be expected. The other occasion of abuse that you highlight was used to express how much disgust somebody felt for an action that somebody took where he almost took somebodies leg off at the knee for no other reason than he felt like it, an action that could have ended a career.

If you cannot see a difference between your actions and his then perhaps you should go somewhere and find out before you come back.

And lenin, it was as insightful a comment as alot made on this thread TBH.

therecklessone

Given that quote from psi above the decision seems pretty consistent IMO.

Xavi wrote:

We nick a last minute winner, the other lot lose miserably and that w*nker Keane is made a mockery of. It's a great Saturday!"

Understand you're excited, or overly emotional, but calling Keane a w*nker is just abuse for the sake of it.

TheBigLebowski wrote:

How in the name of bejaysus was Hunt not sent off/arrested today. Scumbag.

Key word, context. That said, it's borderline IMO, not without fault but not deserving of a ban. I think that's why KdjaCL posted "TheBigLebowski scumbag ? charter?"

estebancambias

He contributes well, let him back in.

AlmightyCushion

estebancambias wrote: »

He contributes well, let him back in.

It doesn't matter how much he contributes if he breaks the rules he must face the consequences.

Xavi6

kearnsr wrote: »

You give out about double standards. But how can the double standards be delt with if no one reports the post

How many times do I have to say it? How could I have report a post that I hadn't found offensive? I didn't realise other people on the forum would be so touchy over a comment about 'Sir Roy'.

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Xavi6, just because a mod didn't catch something doesn't mean a forum is undermoderated.

Of course it does. If something is missed then it's clearly not being moderated to the necessary.

therecklessone wrote: »

Key word, context. That said, it's borderline IMO, not without fault but not deserving of a ban. I think that's why KdjaCL posted "TheBigLebowski scumbag ? charter?"

A similar posting with regard to my comment would have been sufficient. The post wasn't edited so couldn't have been that bad. It's one extreme to another i.e. some posts ignored, others warranting bans for the same thing. As I said, nothing was done to the poster who labelled Almunia a 'tard' after he conceded against United. Where's the consistency? I have every right to feel aggrieved when **** like that is happening.

cson

Reminds me of one of my law lectures; The old court system followed legislation to the hilt and eventually it became unworkable which is why nowadays courts adopt the approach of the reasonable man looking on. But can we define reasonable? What's reasonable to me and what's reasonable to you could be miles apart. It's a curious one indeed. How do you apply it to the soccer forum?

On the subject of the ban, imo it was a bit harsh due to the fact that there's some shocking inconsistency in the thread with regard to name calling. In all and anyways...

Thanx 4 The Fish

Xavi, you understand why you were banned (at least I hope you do, it is there in pretty plain english) and the difference between what you did and what the other poster did, now apply that when you get back in and you will be alright.

BTW, just because we do not take action on a thread does not mean it is being ignored, just that we do not feel it is actionable.

RoundyMooney

A few more ramblings...

As I said before, here and elsewhere, a reasoned approach applies to AH and is proven to work well. I say reasoned because the consensus among those who have had time to form an opinion is almost universally positive (quibbles about content aside, which none of us can really control).

The interested reader, who like me hasn't been here since the turn of the century (almost), and who has a few hours to kill, would do well to do a search here for past threads on this issue. Soccer has proven to be a very problematic part of this site in the past.

On that basis, I feel that Soccer should remain a forum that requires access to be granted by the mods there. I don't feel however that posting in a boiler plate fashion on the access forum in order to contribute there achieves much in the grand scheme of things, certainly not long term.

I still can't see why it cannot follow the AH model (albeit as I say, with approved access, as otherwise the one topic posters who sign up to flame will be rampant). This will obviously need greater mod coverage, so appoint some more based on their conduct therein to date, or whatever...

Is suggesting a new approach such a bad idea?

Thanx 4 The Fish

Not at all, but change for changes sake is never good either. The reason that they have to do as they do to get into soccer is so that after a week, when they start calling each other all sorts of stupid names they can not use the I did not read the charter excuse.

And just so you do not feel that the sentiment expressed is the norm in the soccer forum and that because there has been two threads in the last two weeks it is a hole, hated by all that come here is the last post in the other thread.

PHB wrote: »

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.

Now that is not exactly a ringing endorsement but the point he is making is, I think, a good one and that is that if you are there to talk about footy and not throw around random insults for no reason then you will get along fine, but if you just turn up to p1ss off people by calling others (be they players or posters) names for no other reason than you are not a fan of theirs then you should probably head off elsewhere.

copacetic

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Not at all, but change for changes sake is never good either. The reason that they have to do as they do to get into soccer is so that after a week, when they start calling each other all sorts of stupid names they can not use the I did not read the charter excuse.

And just so you do not feel that the sentiment expressed is the norm in the soccer forum and that because there has been two threads in the last two weeks it is a hole, hated by all that come here is the last post in the other thread.



Now that is not exactly a ringing endorsement but the point he is making is, I think, a good one and that is that if you are there to talk about footy and not throw around random insults for no reason then you will get along fine, but if you just turn up to p1ss off people by calling others (be they players or posters) names for no other reason than you are not a fan of theirs then you should probably head off elsewhere.

if you are going to throw out psi's post from that thread you should probably actually have the poll rather than just let him state how it would turn out. Maybe it will turn out as he said, since ye are confident in that there would surely be no harm in actually having the poll?

WhiteWashMan

im not sure how banning someone for the use of the word scumbag or wanker helps oil the wheels of discussion.
the mods are there to facilitate discussion. wanker and scumbag hardly bring it to its knees. moderating people for the sake of moderating is not good, leads to inconsistancies and makes people unhappy.

personally, i think the mods need to take a look at what moderating mean to them, becuase what happens in the soccer forum isnt moderating.

GuanYin

If I missed something and didn't ban, I hold my hand up.

Despite Faith's guru-like knowledge on how moderating should be done, the fact of the matter is, reading every single post on a forum like soccer is pretty much a full time job. It might work well on a less busy forum, I used to read ever post in sci when I was cat mod there, but soccer gets the same posts in a day that sci got in a month.

As such, I rely on reported posts to find and deal with troublespots, along with my own general reading of the forum.

On the direct example given by Xavi6 in this thread, I think T4TF pretty much pointed out exactly why the outcomes differed as per incident.

In addition, your entire anti-Roy Keane/Sunderland attitude on the thread was bodering on the far edge of supporter rivalry and heading towards trolling imo, but I may have misjudged that, which is why I didn't act.

When I did go further back in the thread and read your bannable post, I didn't see any good reason not to ban you. What ever your personal opinons on Roy Keane, Whitewashman was right when he stated that there is no good reason to allow abuse of him (well he was talking about Chris Kaimara at the time, but the sentiment still holds) for the sake of it.

You read the charter, or should have. If you read the charter, you broke it, you broke the agreement you made when you got into soccer, so you deserve your ban. If you didn't read the charter, you shouldn't be posting in soccer so you deserve a ban.

Finally, the fact of the matter is, you broke the rules you deserved your own ban, whatever about what anyone else did. Nobody on boards seriously believes that the rules to be followed are the actions of others, everyone knows the charters are there.

While it is frustrating that others may seems to have gotten away with similar incidents, this is due to fundamental differences in the incident, or the fact we have missed the incident. Thus, while some criminals get jailed, others get off and others never get caught. It doesn't mean the jailed criminal should get off too.

So again, if I missed posts that deserved actions, I hold up my hand and can only try harder and hope people report posts.

GuanYin

copacetic wrote: »

if you are going to throw out psi's post from that thread you should probably actually have the poll rather than just let him state how it would turn out. Maybe it will turn out as he said, since ye are confident in that there would surely be no harm in actually having the poll?

I assume you mean PHB's post?

WhiteWashMan

psi wrote: »

I
Despite Faith's guru-like knowledge on how moderating should be done,.

idealistic you mean

Xavi6

psi wrote: »

If I missed something and didn't ban, I hold my hand up.

Despite Faith's guru-like knowledge on how moderating should be done, the fact of the matter is, reading every single post on a forum like soccer is pretty much a full time job. It might work well on a less busy forum, I used to read ever post in sci when I was cat mod there, but soccer gets the same posts in a day that sci got in a month.

As such, I rely on reported posts to find and deal with troublespots, along with my own general reading of the forum.

I understand there is a lot of traffic on the soccer forum and it is hard to moderate. However no one is asking you specifically to read every post, that's why there is a team of mods. I have pointed out two seperate incidents that slipped through the net (one my own and another where Almunia was labelled a retard). Now they were both in threads on the Premiership weekend action and had lots of traffic so I find it hard to believe that not a single moderator viewed either post. Calling someone a retard is as bad as calling them a wanker if not worse. I wasn't banned for calling Keane a scumbag so how was I to think it was wrong? You guys f*cked up by missing the post and therefore led to my misconception.

Also I expressed an opinion when I ladelled Keane a wanker, in the same way people express an opinion when they dub him 'King Roy' or 'Sir Roy'. Now I don't agree with these opinions so can I report them as abuse? Of course not. It's double standards really. You can praise someone but not criticise, especially not Our Roy.

psi wrote: »

In addition, your entire anti-Roy Keane/Sunderland attitude on the thread was bodering on the far edge of supporter rivalry and heading towards trolling imo, but I may have misjudged that, which is why I didn't act.

Now this has pissed me off. Because I don't conform to the common view that the sun shines out of Roy Keane's arse I'm considered for a banning as a troll? That is ridiculous. I made valid points in that thread and backed them up.

psi wrote: »

When I did go further back in the thread and read your bannable post, I didn't see any good reason not to ban you. What ever your personal opinons on Roy Keane, Whitewashman was right when he stated that there is no good reason to allow abuse of him (well he was talking about Chris Kaimara at the time, but the sentiment still holds) for the sake of it.

Well I've just given you one. I wasn't banned for doing it previously so I didn't think I had done anything wrong, hence doing it again. A warning would have been common ground seeing as both mods and poster made a mistake.

psi wrote: »

While it is frustrating that others may seems to have gotten away with similar incidents, this is due to fundamental differences in the incident, or the fact we have missed the incident. Thus, while some criminals get jailed, others get off and others never get caught. It doesn't mean the jailed criminal should get off too.

I'm sorry but a team of moderators should not be missing numerous posts. The excuse of "oh we didn't see it" is just a cover up for selective banning imo.

GuanYin

Xavi6 wrote: »

I'm sorry but a team of moderators should not be missing numerous posts. The excuse of "oh we didn't see it" is just a cover up for selective banning imo.

Why would anyone be selectively moderating your posts? By and large I've had no problem with you.

That said, just because I've never seen a problem with you before, doesn't mean you don't have to follow the rules. You broke em, you got banned. If we missed others, we'll get to them.

Xavi6

psi wrote: »

By and large I've had no problem with you.

Likewise. I'd have started this thread no matter which mod banned me. Having said that I do find your trolling accusation highly insult and take it as a personal attack. Would I be within the charter to report you?

psi wrote: »

That said, just because I've never seen a problem with you before, doesn't mean you don't have to follow the rules. You broke em, you got banned. If we missed others, we'll get to them.

No you won't. You've said that you can't keep up with the current traffic on the forum. How the hell then do you plan to go back to week or month old threads and ban people there?

togster

Xavi6 i don't know much about the soccer forum and i probaby shouldn't comment but i feel that the inconsistency you highlight is a reflection on boards in general. This inconsistency is seen in alot of fora. However thats the way it is. we can not expect mods to read all posts, they do this on their own time. There is bound to be some level of inconsistency but as already pointed out this does not mean that we should get pardoned because they missed someone elses or your previous posts.

By the way it does seem pretty extreme to get banned for callin him a wanker. Then again as i said i don't know how that forum operates. Maybe you should have got an infraction? Isn't that what they are for? I mean if ehat you said warrants a ban , what warrants an infraction? That for sure is an inconsitency.

leninbenjamin

psi wrote: »

Despite Faith's guru-like knowledge on how moderating should be done, the fact of the matter is, reading every single post on a forum like soccer is pretty much a full time job. It might work well on a less busy forum, I used to read ever post in sci when I was cat mod there, but soccer gets the same posts in a day that sci got in a month.

psi i think pretty much everything you've said in this thread has backed up the argument that there perhaps should be more soccer mods. I've never seen talla on it myself, and that leaves 3 mods effectively for one of the busiest, and arguably the forum with the most potential to be problematic. the nature of most football fans effectively means you can't rely on the community to assist with the moderation for the forum, i've often seen some of the more reasonable posters (occasionally including the mods themselves) become highly unreasonable and agressive and trollish at a perceived slight to their team/league/whatnot...