Another Soccer Banning

copacetic

psi wrote: »

I assume you mean PHB's post?

oops. well they both start with a p and it seemed like something you would say!

MrJoeSoap

Why is Talla still a soccer mod? I've never seen RuggieBear post either.

Surely moderators should be active in the forum they moderate, otherwise it's down to the members of the forum themselves and then things just get inconsistent.

Also, it would be helpful if the moderators who ban people could maybe post details of the ban in the charter (or a new thread), just to show who has been banned and for what reason.

PHB

I could be missing something here but, Xavi your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that the soccer mods are missing loads of insults, and hence are not doing their job properly. Where are these posts?

togster

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

Why is Talla still a soccer mod? I've never seen RuggieBear post either.

.

I think Ruggiebear is the Sports mod.

Xavi6

PHB wrote: »

I could be missing something here but, Xavi your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that the soccer mods are missing loads of insults, and hence are not doing their job properly. Where are these posts?

Read my OP. I have named two posts that weren't acted upon including one of my own. I can go find other examples if you want.

Lazers pew pew

the only wanker there is you Xavi
Show some respect to Roy Keane you reprobate

Xavi6

Lazers pew pew wrote: »

the only wanker there is you Xavi
Show some respect to Roy Keane you reprobate

Oh the irony. You shall be reported my friend. Personal abuse. Good day

PHB

But the mods specifically stated that the reason they didn't act when Hunt was called a scumbag was because it was of a different nature.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

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.

The other post you are referring to is this one I assume

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

Almunia's a f*cking tard. It was about the 4th time he did that

Well I would assume, and could well be wrong, that once again, it's an utterly different situation. He wasn't saying,
'Well Arsenal have two goalkeepers, Lehmann and that tard Almunia'.
He was using it as part of what he was talking about [after Almunia had impressively ****ed up numerous times]
Can you not see the distinction there?

As for the others, seriously go post them. The whole thing you are saying is that there are lots of examples of this. Might as well post them up so people can actually explore your argument. [Do keep in mind the mods have said that there has been a change in policy in the last while, so keeping them recent would be a decent idea]

Dub13

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

Why is Talla still a soccer mod? I've never seen RuggieBear post either.

RuggieBear is the Cat Mod for Sports.

Xavi6

PHB wrote: »

Well I would assume, and could well be wrong, that once again, it's an utterly different situation. He wasn't saying,
'Well Arsenal have two goalkeepers, Lehmann and that tard Almunia'.
He was using it as part of what he was talking about [after Almunia had impressively ****ed up numerous times]
Can you not see the distinction there?

No I don't see any distinction.

Referring to anyone as a 'scumbag' or a 'retard' is abuse no matter what context you say it in. Hunt made one bad tackle and he's insulted by being called a scumbag. Keane has done numerous things through the years and is a wanker in my opinion. You can't say one is different to the other. An insult is an insult no matter how you structure your sentence.

godtabh

Xavi6 wrote: »

No I don't see any distinction.

Referring to anyone as a 'scumbag' or a 'retard' is abuse no matter what context you say it in. Hunt made one bad tackle and he's insulted by being called a scumbag. Keane has done numerous things through the years and is a wanker in my opinion. You can't say one is different to the other. An insult is an insult no matter how you structure your sentence.

An insult is perosnal abuse. So you accept you should have been banned and now your argument is that others should have been as well?

togster

Why didn't he get an infraction?

Xavi6

kearnsr wrote: »

An insult is perosnal abuse. So you accept you should have been banned and now your argument is that others should have been as well?

My argument is that it should be all or nothing i.e. consistency. If I'm banned everyone should be banned. If everyone's not banned than neither should I be. Simple really

togster wrote: »

Why didn't he get an infraction?

I've been wondering the same thing but no mod has posted an answer to this. I would have accepted an infraction as it was a first offence.

Iago

what I don't get is nobody can definitively state that Roy Keane is not at this moment, or never has been a wanker. Technically speaking Xavi may well be correct and just stating a simple fact. Given that the vast majority of men are **** at one stage or another, you could argue that it isn't abuse, just a comment on a personal choice.

Personally I think the charter is wrong and that it stifles discussion in the soccer forum. I know why it was changed (I've been around long enough) but I seriously doubt that there's a single poster on that forum that hasn't called a referee, opposing player, opposing staff member or fan a wanker at some point or another. The great thing about football is the passion it drives in supporters and players alike, some of that passion, is by default, directed at slagging the opposition off. Sometimes that takes the form of name-calling, that will never change. The world is not black and white, and name-calling should not always be a bannable offence ( i know it currently is under charter rules) and while it would make the forum more difficult to moderate, it would also lead to more frank and interesting discussions.

Such as Xavis first hand experience regarding Roy Keanes bedroom habits

RuggieBear

i posted on soccer yesterday.

I don't actively mod soccer. If i did you would soon feel that psi and T4TF were very very lenient.

Iago, I disagree about allowing name calling making for more interesting discussions. It would simply descend into mindless flaming.

togster

Xavi6 wrote: »

I've been wondering the same thing but no mod has posted an answer to this. I would have accepted an infraction as it was a first offence.

And if it warranted a ban instead of an infraction, what warrants an infraction? I got an infraction on the Celebrity board for calling Perez Hilton a fat d!ck. Granted it warranted it as it was intended as a personal attack. IMO he is a fat d!ck! I didn't get banned though and i won't say anything like that again as i know it has intervened a rule. Isn't that what infractions are for? 9 and your out? It seems that the inconsistency Xavier6 speaks off is also true of this. What is boards but a collection of fora, the infractions rule should be used consistently throughout!;)

AlmightyCushion

togster wrote: »

And if it warranted a ban instead of an infraction, what warrants an infraction? I got an infraction on the Celebrity board for calling Perez Hilton a fat d!ck. Granted it warranted it as it was intended as a personal attack. IMO he is a fat d!ck! I didn't get banned though and i won't say anything like that again as i know it has intervened a rule. Isn't that what infractions are for? 9 and your out? It seems that the inconsistency Xavier6 speaks off is also true of this. What is boards but a collection of fora, the infractions rule should be used consistently throughout!;)

Yes but different forums have different rules. I would never post some of the stuff I post in After Hours in a forum like Personal Issues.

Xavi6

RuggieBear wrote: »

Iago, I disagree about allowing name calling making for more interesting discussions. It would simply descend into mindless flaming.

Now this is what I'm talking about. Fine don't allow name calling at all but it has to be a blanket ban. Not a half arsed attempt that has some people banned and others not and threads like this.

The word 'scumbag' has caused controversy. First you couldn't say it, then you could sometimes say it, but only at the discretion of the moderator. Now apparently we follow a charter (read, sign, all that) yet it is within the rights of the moderator to overlook the charter and decide to be lenient with rules. how the hell does that work? There lies your inconsistency in the forum.

togster

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Yes but different forums have different rules. I would never post some of the stuff I post in After Hours in a forum like Personal Issues.

No but thats not what i meant. Im trying to highlight the use of infractions. I was just wondering if they are used across boards or are limited to certain fora? Just a question because i can see his point about inconsistency.

PHB

But the problem you have Xavi isn't that you think the forum is inconsistant (changing a policy at a certain point isn't inconsistancy, it's just a chane) in it's modding, it's that you don't accept the distinction, which is a clear distinction to most people.

Roy Keane is a scumbag.

Roy Keane is a scumbag because of the Haaland tackle.

One is mindless abuse. One is a statement which uses 'bad language' to make its point'.
One recieves a banning. One recieves a warning/is let go [I think is the general rule, maybe a mod could clear this up]

You've yet to show an example of somebody who did something similar to you, within that distinction, not getting banned.

_blank_

OK, on the Roy Keane thing.

I think everyone agrees that he is a pretty divisive figure, especially on the Soccer Forum.

He has been since the whole Saipan, then his book came out and he said some pretty nasty things about a player who happens to play for the team Xavi6 supports.

Everyone and their mother has an opinion about him, and discussions, even among mates in the pub, can become heated pretty quickly. Stamping down (heh, pun intended) on Roy Keane debates is inevetible, to keep the peace, I think.

I can understand Xavi6 to a point.

He called Roy Keane a wanker. No context, no apparent reason, just abuse for the sake of it.

Someone else calls Hunt a scumbag. In context. BUT, the word "scum" is explicitly referenced in the forum charter, which is where the confusion lies.

# Outbursts of personal abuse/racism etc, be it directed at other board members or at groups of fans or sports personalities people will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to edit/move/delete such posts as we see fit and issue bans to the poster of such. The basic rule is keeping it civil; you can have friendly banter without resorting to personal abuse.
# Scum is an abusive term, just in case you may have thought otherwise.

Also, Xavi6 points out that he used to derogatory language about some other person, and this transgression went unpunished, so he thought it was "new policy" that he could continue this behaviour. Obviously he was mistaken.

One other thing.

The Soccer Mods seem to take every Feedback thread about the Soccer Forum as some kind of personal affront. It isn't like that, imo.

Xavi6 perceived some inconsistant modding, and took it to feedback, which is par for the course in boards, is it not?

kinaldo

Xavi, FWIW I was banned for this

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51655142&postcount=93

Just don't mention Roy Keane on the soccer forum and you'll be grand.

GuanYin

Personally I've no strong feelings about Keane either way.

Ok, so we missed your previous offence, as I said it happens. If it makes you feel better, had I seen it, I'd have banned you for that as well. I also specifically said, we don't police on an all or nothing basis, we police on intent. You intended to post abuse without context, you got banned. Thats pretty much all there is to it. The forum is heavily policed and has rules which pretty much everyone has agreed to follow in writing.

I take the points about extra mods. That may be something we will look at.

So there, I agree we may not catch all the posts and may need to come up with a system where we cast a wider net to catch all transgressions. Your transgression and ban still stands.

Everyone happy now?

MrJoeSoap

kinaldo wrote: »

Xavi, FWIW I was banned for this

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51655142&postcount=93

Just don't mention Roy Keane on the soccer forum and you'll be grand.

Jeez, thats harsh. I think my first ban was for calling Keane the w-word.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

MrJoeSoap

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

KdjacL is a mod maybe... who banned you?

The Muppet

Thats nothing , I was banned for calling Derick Derick.

As WWM said earlier there is no moderation on the soccer forum . If you express opinions that differ from the majority you are suspected of trolling and likely to be on the recieving end of harsh treatment.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

MrJoeSoap

Classic. If any mod can justify this they should be in government.

super_furry

Xavi6 wrote: »

I would but unfortunately it's a 'three strikes your out' policy and this is number 2 (I was also a victim of the inconsistent 'scum' bannings discussed in the other thread. I'm walking a fine line thanks to this trivial banning.

In fairness, it could be worse. My third was for this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055103011

Just take it on the chin, things aren't going to change there and you either adapt to the rules or you're gone.