Another Soccer Banning

KdjaCL

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

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

One was "alleged" other was "fact", poor attempt joesoap very poor.


kdjac

MrJoeSoap

KdjaCL wrote: »

One was "alleged" other was "fact", poor attempt joesoap very poor.


kdjac

Worst. Explanation. Ever.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

copacetic

KdjaCL wrote: »

One was "alleged" other was "fact", poor attempt joesoap very poor.


kdjac

rubbish, they were both "facts"..

RoundyMooney

Thanks to T4FT for the response, to which all I want to say is, I don't think that seeking change for changes sake is whats afoot here.

If I thought everything was rosy in the garden, I wouldn't be offering spurious feedback, or trying to get some reasoned opinion from the masses on this.

A nitpicking argument has now developed over what constitutes an insult, and what doesn't.

There is no need for this (IMO ridiculous) semanticism on either side.

It comes down, (again a la AH) to two very simple criteria:

1. Does the comment pose a legal risk to boards.ie?

2. Does the comment pose trolling or a personal attack on another user?

If not, why does it merit action by a moderator? I don't mean in respect of the current soccer moderation, I mean in general, as in what is generally agreed sitewide.

As one or two of the mods have noted, (and as I suggested yesterday) more moderation is being looked at, and would be welcome. I'd suggest that they come from within the ranks of the existing users, as has been demonstrated here, a knowledge of the forum topic is more necessary on Soccer than perhaps elsewhere on boards.

The Muppet

super_furry wrote: »

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.

Stupid ban and unfortunatly it is not a sole incidence. A perfect example of what is wrong with the modding of the soccer forum. Some report happy twat getting a good contributor banned for nothing.

MrJoeSoap

RoundyMooney wrote: »

2. Does the comment pose trolling or a personal attack on another user?

If not, why does it merit action by a moderator? I don't mean in respect of the current soccer moderation, I mean in general, as in what is generally agreed sitewide.

Because of the nature of football supporters, unfortunately, an insult of a player or manager of a certain team can be seen as trolling. It's a difficult obstacle to side-step and takes a certain degree of guessing and assuming on the part of the moderator.

RoundyMooney

It's not a matter of life or death etc...

I agree with what you're saying, which is why the rules need relaxation IMO, in order to grant the mods that discretion, and remove any accusations of inconsistency.

Xavi6

This is all great but no one as yet to answer the question posed by Togster earlier - What is the point of an infraction and why was it not applicable to my case?

AlmightyCushion

Xavi6 wrote: »

This is all great but no one as yet to answer the question posed by Togster earlier - What is the point of an infraction and why was it not applicable to my case?

Mods can use an infraction if they feel something doesn't warrant a ban. It is up to the mod in question to decide whether a ban or an infraction is warranted or not.

Xavi6

psi wrote: »

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.

Of course it does. I hardly expect a soccer mind to admit an error, see KdjaCl above.

psi wrote: »

Everyone happy now?

Eh no. A ban for a first offence is ridiculous, especially considering the circumstances I've explained. Learn how to use an infraction.

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Mods can use an infraction if they feel something doesn't warrant a ban. It is up to the mod in question to decide whether a ban or an infraction is warranted or not.

So if a first offence for something minor doesn't warrant one then there's no real point to them.

leninbenjamin

Xavi, about the infractions, this is from another thread here in feedback.

Vexorg wrote:

The purpose of the infraction system is really to penalise a nuisance poster, so if someone is making a frequent nuisance across a number of forums, the combined infractions will limit his ability until such time as cmods, smods or admins can make a category or site wide decision about the nuisance.

I think there is a bit of a learning process here, a) infractions are not that serious, do not take them personally, they can be and are part of learning the etiquette of boards.ie b) infractions should only be given to nuisance posters.

I personally feel Xavi's offense was a relatively minor one, and that an infraction would have been a better alternative. i dont know to what extent to mods of the soccer forum have a policy for issuing infractions in place, but i think in light of this thread (and others) they should reconsider it.

GuanYin

I've used infractions once so far.

To be perfectly honest, soccer doesn't require infractions because we are, to all intents and purposes, a private forum - that is, we don't suffer issues with spam, porn, advertising, etc etc, because we screen access.

Once you are in soccer, you've pre-agreed in writing, to abide by the rules. As such, regarding charter violations, we expect no need to warn anyone. You should have read the rules, you should know what they are and you should know how to follow them - if you broke a rule, you did it knowingly.

Xavi6, Roundymoody (and others), if you don't like the soccer charter rules, why did you agree to abide by them? Certainly, if anyone feels they no longer agree to abide by them, please inform me and I'll remove access.

On another note, I'm appending the charter with my post outlining the moderation of abuse. Hopefully that will clarify the issue in some people's heads.

copacetic

psi wrote: »

Xavi6, Roundymoody (and others), if you don't like the soccer charter rules, why did you agree to abide by them? Certainly, if anyone feels they no longer agree to them, please inform me and I'll remove access.

You don't have to agree with them, you have to agree to act according to them. There is a massive difference.

So you are basically threatening to take aways peoples access for not agreeing with the rules? What next, anyone who posts on a feedback thread will have their access removed?

leninbenjamin

psi wrote: »

Xavi6, Roundymoody (and others), if you don't like the soccer charter rules, why did you agree to abide by them? Certainly, if anyone feels they no longer agree to them, please inform me and I'll remove access.

now that's just utterly condescending and totally unnecessary psi. we agreed to abide by them because we like to soccer. and well i myself have always done my utmost to abide by them. yet i think it's perfectly reasonable that we should be allowed question elements of the charter we feel we disagree with. let me put this another way... psi, do you agree with everything Ireland's legislative system has put in place over the past decade? do you think it would be fair to remove the citizenship of those who disagree?

Xavi6

psi wrote: »

I've used infractions once so far.

Well maybe it's time you used more.

psi wrote: »

Once you are in soccer, you've pre-agreed in writing, to abide by the rules. As such, regarding charter violations, we expect no need to warn anyone. You should have read the rules, you should know what they are and you should know how to follow them - if you broke a rule, you did it knowingly.

Now hold on a second, you mods are the ones in the 'scumbag' thread that said things were going to be more lenient yet you then go throw out a ban for a minor first offence. Make up your bloody mind. You're either strict or not.

psi wrote: »

Xavi6, Roundymoody (and others), if you don't like the soccer charter rules, why did you agree to abide by them? Certainly, if anyone feels they no longer agree to them, please inform me and I'll remove access.

Oooh a threat. Conform or get out? What next? Only blonde hair and blue eyes allowed?

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

GuanYin

copacetic wrote: »

You don't have to agree with them, you have to agree to act according to them. There is a massive difference.

So you are basically threatening to take aways peoples access for not agreeing with the rules? What next, anyone who posts on a feedback thread will have their access removed?

You're right, my poor english.

I'm "offering" to reverse the agreement made by any users who no longer wish to abide by the rules. If you feel you no longer wish to comply with the rules, we can revoke access. It wasn't a threat it was an offer.

I can only assume that in people thinking you shouldn't be banned for breaking the rules, that they no longer wish to comply with them? Which is why I make the offer.

Your axe still isn't ground yet?

Incidently Xavi6? "First minor offence"???????

This is your second ban for abuse. You were banned for calling someone scum before, if you remember correctly, so why should we infract you for repeating an offence?

Also, if you'll remember this?

Xavi6 wrote: »

I have read the charter and will fully comply. lookin forward to some good debates inside.

Xavi6

psi wrote: »

Also, if you'll remember this?

Yep I remember. I, like everyone else, agreed to a charter we believed would be enforced fully. It isn't so maybe look a little closer to home. The charter is there for mods to follow, not just regualr posters. If you don't enforce it's rules on every occassion then you are as much in violation of it as any of us.

You were the ones who said things would be more lenient so how did you not expect people to start using words such as 'wanker' and 'scumbag'?

GuanYin

leninbenjamin wrote: »

now that's just utterly condescending and totally unnecessary psi. we agreed to abide by them because we like to soccer. and well i myself have always done my utmost to abide by them. yet i think it's perfectly reasonable that we should be allowed question elements of the charter we feel we disagree with. let me put this another way... psi, do you agree with everything Ireland's legislative system has put in place over the past decade? do you think it would be fair to remove the citizenship of those who disagree?

There was a typo there - apologies, it is worse than I intended it.

What I meant was if people no longer wish to abide by them.

I'm happy for anyone to question the rules. I've no problem with that, I've gone so far as to do the same myself, I've appended the charter and posted clarifying the rules many times.

However, my gripe, and why I posted that. Is that banned users complain about being banned AFTER they break a rule and get banned. If users question rules I'm happy to listen.

If someone breaks a rule, gets banned and then says, well it's a stupid rule, I shouldn't be banned. I take issue with that. It may be a stupid rule or a great rule, but the fact of the matter is, the time to question it, isn't after you ignore it and get banned.

I don't agree with lots of rules on boards, I frequently give my opinions on the matter, but I don't go breaking them. I respect that the rules are in place, and whether I like them or not, they must be followed while they are there.

Xavi6

psi wrote: »

If someone breaks a rule, gets banned and then says, well it's a stupid rule, I shouldn't be banned. I take issue with that. It may be a stupid rule or a great rule, but the fact of the matter is, the time to question it, isn't after you ignore it and get banned.

Ok look my gripe is not with the rules as such. Fine I broke the charter. However , more recently than the charter you (plural) said there would be a more relaxed approach to modding on the forum. Please explain to me how you adopted a relazxed approach in this situation.

RoundyMooney

What's with the name calling?

psi wrote:

Roundymoody

I fail to see for the life of me why every attempt to offer Feedback on the Soccer forum is seen as some kind of witch hunt.

ziggy wrote:

I disagree, mods using discretion can only lead to more inconsistency. Rules are rules, they should be applied the same to everyone.

Where I'm coming from with this train of thought is a more discretionary approach to the moderation of this forum (again, I'm holding up After Hours as a model of what can be achieved without a charter the size of a university thesis, sufficient numbers of moderators in place, and a commonsense, rather than a rigid adherence to rules, which must be difficult, at best.)

GuanYin

Xavi6 wrote: »

Yep I remember. I, like everyone else, agreed to a charter we believed would be enforced fully. It isn't so maybe look a little closer to home. The charter is there for mods to follow, not just regualr posters. If you don't enforce it's rules on every occassion then you are as much in violation of it as any of us.

You were the ones who said things would be more lenient so how did you not expect people to start using words such as 'wanker' and 'scumbag'?

No your just retreading old ground.

As I said, I don't get to every post. If we miss something, I apologise, but wonder if someone is so put out, why they didn't report the post.

If I do come across a rule violation, I'll enforce the charter. In this case, you fully intended to spout mindless abuse about someone you didn't like so you got banned.

Xavi6 wrote:

Ok look my gripe is not with the rules as such. Fine I broke the charter. However , more recently than the charter you (plural) said there would be a more relaxed approach to modding on the forum. Please explain to me how you adopted a relazxed approach in this situation.

You have been falsely claiming here that you've never been banned before and should have been treated with leniency because of that.

The fact is, you were banned before for a breach of the same charter rule. This happened during the stricter phase of soccer and you got an outright ban. This time we may be lenient, but you still knowingly broke a rule you'd broken before. So you hadn't learned from you previous ban, why should I think a warning would be effective?

GuanYin

RoundyMooney wrote: »

What's with the name calling?



I fail to see for the life of me why every attempt to offer Feedback on the Soccer forum is seen as some kind of witch hunt.

Again, apologies for the numerous typos in my posts

Seriously though, we have taken feedback - from this thread and others.

As of this time we have:
1. Updated the charter thread to reflect our position on abuse.
2. Initiated discussions on considering a new mod.

We can't do much about missing things straight off, if we could we wouldn't miss things to begin with - we'll have to look at that issue and hope for more co-operation from users.

Otherwise, Xavi6's ban was still deserved - which is what is mainly being argued here.

PHB

Of course it does. I hardly expect a soccer mind to admit an error, see KdjaCl above.

I was banned, then was unbanned when I made my case. That said, I made a case and responded to the arguments against it.
You have just refused to see a distinction that everybody else seems to see. Also the whole first offense defense I found quite amusing considering what psi just posted. Yes there has been inconsistancies in the sense that sometimes the mods don't see stuff, but to then say you don't report the posts yourself is stupid. Maybe they don't offend you, fair enough, I don't report posts normally unless they are particuarly offensive, but then again, to not report posts and then complain about mods not seeing everything is particuarly hilarious.

I don't buy this whole conspiracy against people. I reguarly post in the Liverpool thread, completely and utterly against the run of opinion, often very critical of Liverpool and Arsenal, which apparently there is a bias towards. I'm pretty critical against the eL which is apparently something people get banned for. Hell even my opinions on United are often against the majority yet I don't get banned for it.

leninbenjamin

psi wrote: »

There was a typo there - apologies, it is worse than I intended it.

What I meant was if people no longer wish to abide by them.

ok, no worries.

psi wrote: »

I'm happy for anyone to question the rules. I've no problem with that, I've gone so far as to do the same myself, I've appended the charter and posted clarifying the rules many times.

However, my gripe, and why I posted that. Is that banned users complain about being banned AFTER they break a rule and get banned. If users question rules I'm happy to listen.

unfortunately such are the nature of rules that complexities, inconsistencies or flaws with them tend only to arise after a person has infringed upon them. I personally would not have been made aware about the subtle complexities with regards to the enforcement of the personal abuse rules as it was not mentioned in the charter. in fact had this thread not occurred it's quite conceivable i may have fallen afoul of it myself someday, and in that case were I banned I think I would have a certain justification to feel aggrieved as it was never explicitly mentioned anywhere.

psi wrote: »

If someone breaks a rule, gets banned and then says, well it's a stupid rule, I shouldn't be banned. I take issue with that. It may be a stupid rule or a great rule, but the fact of the matter is, the time to question it, isn't after you ignore it and get banned.

in fairness it was never said that this was a stupid rule. I personally agree wholeheartedly with the abuse rule, in fact I'd have no arguments myself if you wished to enforce it even if it occurred in context. what was raised in this thread (among other issues) was the "perceived" inconsistencies in it's enforcement.

psi wrote: »

I don't agree with lots of rules on boards, I frequently give my opinions on the matter, but I don't go breaking them. I respect that the rules are in place, and whether I like them or not, they must be followed while they are there.

and that's a sentiment i can wholeheartedly agree with.

Terry

My team is better than your team.

Xavi6

If you read one of my earlier posts you will see that I have mentioned my first ban. I didnt hide it. My problem is that rules were relaxed, I used a word other people have used to describe players yet I got banned. When I say first offence I mean since things were supposedly relaxed. No new charter was drawn up so how are we meant to know what falls into the relaxed category?

GuanYin

Xavi6 wrote: »

If you read one of my earlier posts you will see that I have mentioned my first ban. I didnt hide it. My problem is that rules were relaxed, I used a word other people have used to describe players yet I got banned. When I say first offence I mean since things were supposedly relaxed. No new charter was drawn up so how are we meant to know what falls into the relaxed category?

You seem to be confusing your arguements.

OK, so we're agreed it's not your first ban, its a second ban for the same offence - so no leniency deserving for good behavior. Right.

Where exactly does it say the rules were relaxed to allow you to abuse people?

Seeing as you obviously read my post regarding relaxed rules - you've suggested you have done so -, which has been quoted twice in this thread you know that it also said that contextual versus uncontextual abuse carries
different outcomes.

So correct the following if anything is amiss:

1. So you read a post that says we are more lenient.
2. The thread also specifically stated that we ban for non-contextual outright abuse.
3. You posted non contextual outright abuse.
4. You've decided to focus on the lenient comment and ignore the post that says we ban for outright abuse.
5. You think we should be lenient even though you're a repeat offender.

Have I got that right??

The charter rules still stand - all that feedback thread had was clarification. The clarification should have highlighted to you that your post would get you banned - the post had an exact example of what you posted and showed that it wasn't acceptable.

If you misread it, I'm sorry, but that isn't an excuse to allow you off a ban - if it was, anyone could claim they misread teh charter.

Xavi6

I'm sorry psi but I dont agree with the argument of context. You say there was no need to use the adjective to describe him. Well there is also no need to refer to someone as a scumbag over one tackle as in the Hunt case. This sentence...

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

....could have functioned the same without the word 'scumbag'. In fact it was an additional comment after the point was made. No need for it and it's name calling, same as calling Keane a wanker.

No need also for the word retard in the same sentence as the Arsenal keeper.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54339576&highlight=almunia%2C+tard#post54339576

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

That point could have been made without abusing Almunia.

And also I found this -

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54427860&highlight=almunia%2C+tard#post54427860

Good, he's been pure $hite since he went to Newcastle. Lazy ba$tard.

Fair enough he has been ****e but where is the need to refer to him as a 'bastard'? Again the point could have been made without the name calling, just as you say mine could have been.

Name calling is name calling no matter what spin you put on it. To try and differentiate between the cases is opening a can of worms.