A Discussion of the Rules

leninbenjamin

psi wrote: »

The funny thing about this, is that I see lots of people looking for ways around the rules we put in place rather than people just trying to post sensibly.

well that's the problem isn't it? going back that's pretty much why i was saying abuse is abuse regardless line. yeah you've got the whole intent thing but at the end of the day all we see is text, and as pointed out it can be really hard to decipher intent. i know myself i've made some posts in jest that could easily have been taken up the wrong way (and have).

on the whole judgement thing, normally you would rely on it. but football is football and the seemingly down to earth good guys can all of a sudden be at someone's throats because of a perceived slight to the team they love. it happens, and I've seen mods get involved in this kind of thing too. that's why myself I'd tend to lean to the side that you eliminate as much of the judgement calls as possible. but i can see the counter arguemnts...

edit:

cson wrote: »

In the game players who call for other players to be booked are booked themselves, imo this would be good idea to implement in the forum - A poster who calls for a ban should be banned themselves. Leave modding to the mods.

I really like this idea. if you have a problem with a post, or potential troll report it or PM a mod. so many threads have been destroyed by the whole "you're a troll", "no i'm not" sh*te.

Villain

psi wrote: »

I think you're assuming that the mods here are mindless robots who can't see X from Y.

You could say the above and I'd probably warn or ban you for it.

My point is, the guidelines are clear. We enforce them based on intent. If I reckon you intended to insult, there is a fairly good chance you did. I could be wrong, but no system is perfect.

We have two options on the table at present. A restrictive no tolerance approach or a less restrictive guideline where you trust the mods to make judgement calls.

The funny thing about this, is that I see lots of people looking for ways around the rules we put in place rather than people just trying to post sensibly.

Oh I think you can see tell the difference quite well PSI, the issue is you (and other mods who might not be as good) aren't always around when the big busy threads kick off and couldn't be expected to be around, so by the time you get in and see whether poster x had good enough reason to call player x a scumbag that post will have flamed the topic and instead of having a decent discussion it will most likely turn into a slagging match with people bringing up incidents from years ago to be able to call someone a scumbag.

Thats pathetic I agree but I've been around here long to know that is exactly what will happen and I think very few players haven't at some stage in their career done something that could lead them to be called scumbag.

The point I'm trying to make is if you say you will judge each post on a case by case basis it could be well too late by the time the mods make that call and then becasue the post wasn't caught in time people will have replied and you will have a load of tit for tat nonense.

Whereas if you ban posters from using terms like scumbags etc then they are less likely to use those terms so if a mod isn't around posters will know that the comment will result in a ban and not reply fearing ban and continue with the proper discussion

_blank_

Necromomicon wrote: »

What about a 'yellow card/red card' type system? First offence leads to a yellow card (ie, a warning via pm) and second offence leads to red card (instant ban).

cson wrote: »

In the game players who call for other players to be booked are booked themselves, imo this would be good idea to implement in the forum -

Neither of you lads are mods on any forum of Boards.ie.

I'll tell you something about Boards.ie since the upgrade, that you may or may not be aware of. You see down there beside the "Report Post" button beside everyone's post? Well, just beside that there is another little picture that only Mods, CMods, SMods, AMods and Admins can see. It's a picture of a Yellow and Red Card. A mod can click this and give what's called an "infraction" - a minor warning = yellow card, a bigger warning, but not quite a ban = red card. Red card = 1 point on your profile. 9 points = temporary siteban. If you get a yellow or red card, you also get a little automatically generated PM, to serve as your warning. This, it seems to me, is an excellent way to deal with muppetry on Soccer. The mods can keep track of the warnings given to users easily.

Yellow Card
Yellow Card
Next Warning is a Red Card and you get a suspension.

Just my €0.02 though.

cson wrote: »

A poster who calls for a ban should be banned themselves. Leave modding to the mods.

Anyone who accuses anyone of trolling, calls for a banning - all on thread - should, imo, be warned for "back seat modding" - or, in effect, brandishing an imaginary yellow card at the referee. We hate to see it on pitches, it shouldn't be tolerated here.

"You are a troll"
"You should be banned for that"
"I don't know how some people aren't banned"
etc etc - warnings for all. Keep doing, and take a holiday.

(The irony here is shocking to say the least, as I am currently engaging in said behaviour myself, how and ever...:p)

psi wrote: »

I think you're assuming that the mods here are mindless robots who can't see X from Y.

psi, this isn't the case. Actually, what is the problem is that some people perceive inconsistancy. Wether or not it exists is an entirely other story, but, you said on the recent feedback thread that rules had been relaxed somewhat. A certain poster had been banned for an offence that he perceived a.n. other poster had gotten away with.

When shown the difference, yet another poster claimed that he had been banned for the exact same offence some time ago. And yes, indeed he had.

It was then claimed that there had been a relaxing of the implementation, or interpretation, of the rules. However, if this had been discussed on the Soccer Mod forum, or was just a natural evolution is irrelvant. The USERS were never told. Are we expected to be clairvoyants? Mindreaders? To irregular posters it looks like inconsistant moderating. Which, to be fair, it actually is.

psi wrote: »

You could say the above and I'd probably warn or ban you for it.

This is the problem.

Probably.

Either you would or you wouldn't. IMO, there is no room for grey areas when we are discussing such obvioulsy emotional topics. It's unfair, and people don't know

a. What the rules are
b. What rules are being implemented
c. What mood the moderator is in, ans whether or not a certain comment is going to earn a banning today, a warning tomorrow or no action at all the next day.

That is inconsistency.

However, if we know that use of the word Scumbag, or other such emotive, flamey language is going to result in a ban then the rules are crystal clear, and can be adhered to.

psi wrote: »

My point is, the guidelines are clear. We enforce them based on intent.

Well, then they aren't clear.

If you ban someone for a certain post, and he then claims that "the intent wasn't there", will the ban be rescinded? Doubt it.

Are the mods Mindreaders? are you claiming to be able to infer what the intent was from plain text on a screen? That is highly dubious imo.

psi wrote: »

If I reckon you intended to insult, there is a fairly good chance you did. I could be wrong, but no system is perfect.

You could be VERY wrong, every time. Do you accept this?

What if someone insists that the intention was not to insult? Will you back down, just because "you reckon" the intent did exist?

Hardly fair is it? And I'd hate to find myself on the wrong side of a hungover mod or a mod with a grievance or a mod who has taken a dislike of me for whatever reason, and be banned from posting because of it.

This system stinks imo.

Hard and fast rules, no room for ambiguous interpretation, level playing field for all, mods and users alike.

psi wrote: »

The funny thing about this, is that I see lots of people looking for ways around the rules we put in place rather than people just trying to post sensibly.

The funny thing about this is that here we have a mod who wants to make decisions on how they interpret particular plain text comments depending on what they "reckon" the intent was. Seriously?

Villain wrote: »

The point I'm trying to make is if you say you will judge each post on a case by case basis it could be well too late by the time the mods make that call and then becasue the post wasn't caught in time people will have replied and you will have a load of tit for tat nonense.

Whereas if you ban posters from using terms like scumbags etc then they are less likely to use those terms so if a mod isn't around posters will know that the comment will result in a ban and not reply fearing ban and continue with the proper discussion

100% agree with this.

Necronomicon

DesF wrote: »

Neither of you lads are mods on any forum of Boards.ie.

I'll tell you something about Boards.ie since the upgrade, that you may or may not be aware of. You see down there beside the "Report Post" button beside everyone's post? Well, just beside that there is another little picture that only Mods, CMods, SMods, AMods and Admins can see. It's a picture of a Yellow and Red Card. A mod can click this and give what's called an "infraction" - a minor warning = yellow card, a bigger warning, but not quite a ban = red card. Red card = 1 point on your profile. 9 points = temporary siteban. If you get a yellow or red card, you also get a little automatically generated PM, to serve as your warning. This, it seems to me, is an excellent way to deal with muppetry on Soccer. The mods can keep track of the warnings given to users easily.

Yellow Card
Yellow Card
Next Warning is a Red Card and you get a suspension.

Just my €0.02 though.

I've seen posters talk about the infraction system, didn't know how it worked.

What would constitute an infraction in the soccer forum?

Either you would or you wouldn't. IMO, there is no room for grey areas

Agreed, as I said above, I do think the whole 'context' thing creates grey areas. There were always complaints about the forum being too strict, but everybody knew the rules and it beats ambiguity IMO.

_blank_

Necromomicon wrote: »

I've seen posters talk about the infraction system, didn't know how it worked.

What would constitute an infraction in the soccer forum?

Sorry, we had a match tonight, I'm only getting in now (we won 6-0 btw:))

What would constitute as infraction on the Soccer Forum?

That is entirely up to the Soccer Mods. All mods have the ability to infract site wide, but the agreement is that we don't infract outside our own forums.

GuanYin

DesF wrote: »

psi, this isn't the case. Actually, what is the problem is that some people perceive inconsistancy. Wether or not it exists is an entirely other story, but, you said on the recent feedback thread that rules had been relaxed somewhat. A certain poster had been banned for an offence that he perceived a.n. other poster had gotten away with.

When shown the difference, yet another poster claimed that he had been banned for the exact same offence some time ago. And yes, indeed he had.

It was then claimed that there had been a relaxing of the implementation, or interpretation, of the rules. However, if this had been discussed on the Soccer Mod forum, or was just a natural evolution is irrelvant. The USERS were never told. Are we expected to be clairvoyants? Mindreaders? To irregular posters it looks like inconsistant moderating. Which, to be fair, it actually is.

It wasn't discussed, it just evolved that way. As for the relaxation, the user assumed too much.

In any case, I've since clarified the rule changes on the charter. The fact of the matter is, being lenient, doesn't mean letting people away with abuse.

This is the problem.

Probably.

Either you would or you wouldn't. IMO, there is no room for grey areas when we are discussing such obvioulsy emotional topics. It's unfair, and people don't know

Well context of the thread and intent are important.

a. What the rules are
b. What rules are being implemented
c. What mood the moderator is in, ans whether or not a certain comment is going to earn a banning today, a warning tomorrow or no action at all the next day.

The rules are always implemented in the same way, but charters are only guidelines in any forum, what should be the ultimate charter for any user is common sense. If users can't read the charter and apply that, they shouldn't be posting.

If you ban someone for a certain post, and he then claims that "the intent wasn't there", will the ban be rescinded? Doubt it.

I've recinded bans before and I'll do so again. I'm not infallible nor do I think I am. I know I make mistakes, I'm human after all and if someone can convince me I made a mistake, I'll unban or change the ban.

Are the mods Mindreaders? are you claiming to be able to infer what the intent was from plain text on a screen? That is highly dubious imo.

Is it? All mods use judgement calls when banning. We're picked as mods because someone, somewhere deemed us to have good judgement calls.
I'm pretty happy that I haven't gotten too many bans wrong, or at least, if I have, noone has complained as much.

You could be VERY wrong, every time. Do you accept this?

I could, but then we have an appeal to me, the other mods, the cmods, the smods and the admins to set that right.

I've asked the admins for a general mod ban arbitration panel to be set up, but alas they don't think it's a good idea, but thats not really up for discussion here.

What if someone insists that the intention was not to insult? Will you back down, just because "you reckon" the intent did exist?

Only happened once that I've ever seen in soccer, however it was under the "zero tolerance" era of soccer and I wasn't mod. I think at the time, the mods accepted that there probably wasn't intent, but the rules at the time were strictly enforced. Now, that would have ended in an unbanning.

Hardly fair is it? And I'd hate to find myself on the wrong side of a hungover mod or a mod with a grievance or a mod who has taken a dislike of me for whatever reason, and be banned from posting because of it.

Never happened and never will in soccer.

This system stinks imo.

Hard and fast rules, no room for ambiguous interpretation, level playing field for all, mods and users alike.

And people will complain about that too.

The problem here is that you can't keep all of the people happy all of the time.

So we have to strike a balance. What gives us a good forum and cuts down on abuse.

We could go the Zero tolerance route again and then what we lose in feedback threads giving out about ambiguity, we gain in feedback threads about oppression...

The funny thing about this is that here we have a mod who wants to make decisions on how they interpret particular plain text comments depending on what they "reckon" the intent was. Seriously?

Rules + context + appearance of intent = ban decision. Same for any forum.

GuanYin

Although maybe you are right. At the moment there is a "hard as c*nts* thread that some people are using, quite obviously as a means to sidestep the rules and abuse.

Why are people that childish?

We could go zero tolerance and then threads like that, which is a fair thread, would never be allowed.

Or I could just ban those who overstep the mark... funny thing is, when I PM someone with a ban, 90% of the time, I get a PM back saying "yeah sorry, I know I stepped over the line but... X, Y, Z".

Which I respect, but also says the system is working. Its only the odd 1 in 10 that goes feedback.

Also, we do miss posts that require moderation, but thats down to you guys as much as us.

_blank_

psi wrote: »

No problem with saying someone is a hard as nails c*nt, as I'm assuming its a good thing, but "scumbag", thug, "judas c*nt* etc arent really the point of the thread.

But, is it not in context?

Poster X : Player A is hard as nailz.
Poster Y : Nah, I think he's just a thug.

Context is there, no?

Fair enough on the Judas thing. But it was Heinze being referred to. He asked for a move from United to Liverpool :eek: ASKED for it? That is being a Judas, surely?

psi wrote: »

Why are people that childish?

Why do people drink and drive? Why do people stick coke up their nostrils?

It's the way people are.

psi wrote: »

We could go zero tolerance and then threads like that, which is a fair thread, would never be allowed.

Why not? Why not just moderate the comments that shouldn't be there, and either warn or ban the users. As you have just done. Perfect.

psi wrote: »

Its only the odd 1 in 10 that goes feedback..

That many? Really?

psi wrote: »

Also, we do miss posts that require moderation, but thats down to you guys as much as us.

In feedback I saw an exchange between a mod and a user where the user was asked by PM to STOP reporting posts (granted, it wasn't soccer, but still).

PHB

Well that's the thing. Calling somebody is judas isn't a problem, calling somebody a judas **** is just pointless abuse.

The thing is there's two ways of doing it, don't use context and just ban for any abuse. Allow somethings but not all things. IMO I prefer the latter. The problem with that is that there will no doubt be inconsistencies, of that I have no doubt. Not only because there are four mods who will all act differently, but because people will see different things from different posts. It's gona happen, but I'm ok with it. If people make mistakes they can be fixed, which is fine. There will be inconsistancies though, and I'm ok with that, because I think it will make for a better forum. This would only really work if people accepted that though.

The thing is, and the real question is, if you give people an inch will they take a mile?

The other thing I'd be interested in knowing peoples opinions on is editing posts. If somebody posts an abusive term, are most people ok with the mod just editing it out in order to keep the discussion on track?
If somebody posts 'We're playing the scum next week' If I edit out the scum, warn/ban/yellow/whatever them, and then continue on are people ok with this sort of thing?

copacetic

personally i prefer to see what got them the ban, either by the post being still there and edited with a ban note added. or if it is something that really needs to be deleted, perhaps an edited version in the reason for editing? unless they have bypassed the filter or said something libel like just let it stand so people can see clearly why the ban happened. If only as evidence for feedback threads!

the post on that thread that is edited to just say 'banned' doesn't let anyone see why so no-one else can see justice in action..

PHB

Well in terms of keeping records, if you're going to edit something you just report it first, then you can change it.

copacetic

PHB wrote: »

Well in terms of keeping records, if you're going to edit something you just report it first, then you can change it.

I guess I meant really for users who aren't mods to see clearly what is going on and be able to track what happens. Just my opinion on it..

_blank_

PHB wrote: »

There will be inconsistancies though, and I'm ok with that, because I think it will make for a better forum. This would only really work if people accepted that though.

Make it part of the Charter then. If people are told, then they'll just have to accept it. That or stop using the Soccer Forum.

PHB wrote: »

The thing is, and the real question is, if you give people an inch will they take a mile?

I take it this is a rhetorical question.

PHB wrote: »

The other thing I'd be interested in knowing peoples opinions on is editing posts. If somebody posts an abusive term, are most people ok with the mod just editing it out in order to keep the discussion on track?
If somebody posts 'We're playing the scum next week' If I edit out the scum, warn/ban/yellow/whatever them, and then continue on are people ok with this sort of thing?

Edit away imo, I see no problem with editing offending material from posts, just be sure to edit the quotes too.

PHB

My issue is that if you leave things the conversation will be worse, because people will see things and then act as such.
Another way to do this however would be after every warned/banned post, the mods edit in,
*this person was banned/warned/whatevered for this post*

leninbenjamin

PHB wrote: »

My issue is that if you leave things the conversation will be worse, because people will see things and then act as such.
Another way to do this however would be after every warned/banned post, the mods edit in,
*this person was banned/warned/whatevered for this post*

I think if it's very severe you'd be obliged to edit it all right, particularly stuff that would incite others to kick off. just be sure to keep a record of the original post for the occasional feedback thread you'll have to deal with.

PHB

Well the thing is, imo just general abuse leads to a worse thread. Take for example juanveron a while ago (who has now been banned)
He started off by by calling Liverpool fans scum. I edited the post, but not quickly enough for it not to be noticed. But because it was edited lots of people didn't see the post and what he was saying. They then went onto have a normal conversation about how great John O'Shea is.

At the same time however, if the board was to implement a kind of yellow card/strikes system, there needs to be a way for people to know that somebody was punished for a particular post. AFAIK, Infractions are only visible to mods, not anybody else. As such, maybe not editing is a good idea in order for people to know whats allowed and whats not.

_blank_

PHB wrote: »

At the same time however, if the board was to implement a kind of yellow card/strikes system, there needs to be a way for people to know that somebody was punished for a particular post.

Why? Edit the offending text, otherwise we'll still get people calling troll etc, even after the action has been taken.

Also, you'll get people saying stuff like "he never deserved that" etc etc.

PHB wrote: »

AFAIK, Infractions are only visible to mods, not anybody else. .

Yeah, that's right.

PHB wrote: »

As such, maybe not editing is a good idea in order for people to know whats allowed and whats not.

The charter is there as a guide as to what's allowed and what's not, surely?

Villain

I think threads like http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54713473#post54713473 should be banned, they add nothing to this forum and only end up with silly trolling posts, tbh I'm surprised a mod started this one.

PHB

Why?

Villain

Well its more relevant to the legal forum imo and most of those threads usually end up full of trolls.

Mr Alan

is calling someone a troll constantly a bannable offence yet?

astrofool

This might be better off in feedback, but is it time to have a list of user's who are currently banned from this forum, or recently banned, with a small reason why, more so people know if their reported posts have been acted upon, or to know why someone suddenly disappeared.

It could be a simple post in the charter with:

This week's banned users (updated 20/02/2007):
astrofool - implied Shunsuke Nakamura was "less than good" at taking free kicks

If it's not maintained, then the date shows that, user's get dropped off, or not, if a full list of banned users is warranted, once a week is up. It would not indicate when a user is allowed back in.

Thanx 4 The Fish

I do not like the idea. do you also want a post on the same thread to say why a particular reported post was not acted on ? What about a moderators decision thread too where we check with all of the users of the forum before a banning is made etc etc...

GuanYin

I don't see that any other forum does such a thing (barring Islam, but ya know, those guys are very strict ) and I'm not quite sure why it is required.

Just because someone reports a post, it doesn't mean it requires action.

_blank_

Are you allowing the off topic thread?

GuanYin

DesF wrote: »

Are you allowing the off topic thread?

For now, yes. Why, what do you think of it.


On another note, how would people feel if we took the match discussions out of super threads and kept them for team and club discussion.

Necronomicon

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

For now, yes. Why, what do you think of it.

I think the off-topic thread should stay. Sure we have AH, but it's good to have a banter thread just for soccer regulars. Smaller community than AH, just like the bar thread on the BGRH forum.

On another note, how would people feel if we took the match discussions out of super threads and kept them for team and club discussion.

This idea I like. Coming into a superthread after a match means going back through pages of running commentary to see where you last read.

KdjaCL

I also agree with the off topic thread, most of us only on boards for the soccer forum and have to play by strict rules to stay in it the thread gives us all a little fun in an otherwise strictly moderated forum.

Since this thread was started i have not banned people for spur of the moment breaching of the charter ie scum wakner etc when posted as they watched. I Pm them to edit it quickly.

kdjac

Xavi6

Seeing as it's staying can the wrod 'possible' be removed from the thread title?

PHB

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

On another note, how would people feel if we took the match discussions out of super threads and kept them for team and club discussion.

Does anyone have a problem with this then? It'd be nice considering during the Grand Slam thread we have had 3 different places where the match is being discussed in great detail

Xavi6

Just a quick question regarding the 'three strikes you're out' rule. Is there ever a time when your strikes will wipe out? What I mean is if a poster makes a silly/naive comment in their early days on the forum, is banned, learns a lesson etc, is it still fair that the strike hangs over them say 3 or 4 years and a couple of thousand posts down the road?

I believe the mods when they say they don't like to perma-ban people so would it not be ok to stick an expiry date on the strikes? Like two years for example? I guess I'm comparing it to the points system in driving where your slate is wiped clean after a certain amount of time.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Sounds like a good idea Xavi. Would not really apply to todays case mind, was like three strikes in a couple of months but I can see some merit to it. Could be maintained using the infraction system to keep track of the scores. We will discuss it in the mod forum and update here.

Sherifu

It makes sense to wipe them after a certain amount of time I guess. Still, after the first one people should be learning the lesson.

Xavi6

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Sounds like a good idea Xavi. Would not really apply to todays case mind, was like three strikes in a couple of months but I can see some merit to it. Could be maintained using the infraction system to keep track of the scores. We will discuss it in the mod forum and update here.

Yeah I know, it just reminded me of the 'three strikes' rule. I just think it might be a good idea considering how well behaved in general the forum has become in comparison to when access was first required. It's a community now and it's a shame to lose anyone from it, especially if one of the factors in their banning is something that happened way back.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Agreed, as I said, we will discuss and update the rules with a change if we decide it is the way to go.

_blank_

Is there a way to see how many strikes we have?

Thanx 4 The Fish

We have not yet come up with a method for this Des and that is if we even decide to go that way. When we do we will announce it, until then we will investigate a bit. Infractions can't work as we cannot infract mods, will have to have a look see.

Peyton Manning

T4TF, just a couple of issues regarding homerjays ban. First off, Im aware of the PM in question - just wondering what was bannable about it? And secondly, and Im not being cheeky or anything here, but if it was the PM that led to the ban, why should it apply to the soccer forum if it was just a PM?

GuanYin

Archimedes wrote: »

T4TF, just a couple of issues regarding homerjays ban. First off, Im aware of the PM in question - just wondering what was bannable about it? And secondly, and Im not being cheeky or anything here, but if it was the PM that led to the ban, why should it apply to the soccer forum if it was just a PM?

I'll answer.

Every member of the forum is entitled to protection from unsolicited trolly PM.

Anyone who tries to take a rivalry or fued to PM and harasses or annoys a forum member, will be investigated and dealt with. That is not a soccer specific rule, you will find that rule across many fora.

As for the contesting of the ban. This is not the time or the place to discuss this. This thread is for forum rules, not whether someone merited a ban.

If T4TF wishes to reply, fine, otherwise "free homerjay" posts will be deleted. He has the means to go and contest his ban elsewhere, if he does, you may go support him there.

Peyton Manning

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

I'll answer.

Every member of the forum is entitled to protection from unsolicited trolly PM.

Anyone who tries to take a rivalry or fued to PM and harasses or annoys a forum member, will be investigated and dealt with. That is not a soccer specific rule, you will find that rule across many fora.

As for the contesting of the ban. This is not the time or the place to discuss this. This thread is for forum rules, not whether someone merited a ban.

If T4TF wishes to reply, fine, otherwise "free homerjay" posts will be deleted. He has the means to go and contest his ban elsewhere, if he does, you may go support him there.

Fair enough. I didnt say "free homerjay" though but no bother.

GuanYin

Archimedes wrote: »

Fair enough. I didnt say "free homerjay" though but no bother.

Apologies, my assumption, I'd rather we didn't discuss a current ban here though.

Mr. Presentable

If I call someone a gob***** I will get a week long ban for personal abuse. If I call several people t**** in one post, do I still get one week? Or am I getting a few free? Or just direct to permaban (which is what I'd expect)?

I'm really itching to call a couple of posters c**** atm - though one of them seems to be on a ban himself. I might have to start "ignoring" a few posters, to stay out of trouble, like.

Man, I need help

Sherifu

nipplenuts wrote: »

If I call someone a gob***** I will get a week long ban for personal abuse. If I call several people t**** in one post, do I still get one week? Or am I getting a few free? Or just direct to permaban (which is what I'd expect)?

I'm really itching to call a couple of posters c**** atm - though one of them seems to be on a ban himself. I might have to start "ignoring" a few posters, to stay out of trouble, like.

Man, I need help

I've seen a user get away with multi-insult but that was in a different forum and they intentionally did it that way to avoid any ban. By all means give it a try /joke

GuanYin

I think the most interesting thing will be if I decide that Sherifu also deserves a ban for encouraging you to break rules.

My advice, the whole soccer forum should not try me at the moment. I'm not in a forgiving mood after recent events.

Sherifu

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

I think the most interesting thing will be if I decide that Sherifu also deserves a ban for encouraging you to break rules.

/runs away

Xavi6

Xavi6 wrote: »

Just a quick question regarding the 'three strikes you're out' rule. Is there ever a time when your strikes will wipe out? What I mean is if a poster makes a silly/naive comment in their early days on the forum, is banned, learns a lesson etc, is it still fair that the strike hangs over them say 3 or 4 years and a couple of thousand posts down the road?

I believe the mods when they say they don't like to perma-ban people so would it not be ok to stick an expiry date on the strikes? Like two years for example? I guess I'm comparing it to the points system in driving where your slate is wiped clean after a certain amount of time.

Just wondering if there's been any discussion/decision regarding this. T4TF gave it his initial support but not sure if it's been mentioned since.

GuanYin

Being looked at and discussed. We've looked at many scenarios, including removing perm bans in favor of harsher initial bans to limiting the nature of the bans that count towards 3 strikes.

The end decision will come when all the mods are here and agree Things have been stretched of late...which reminds me....

Mr. Presentable

So, is it now OK to call someone "scumbag"?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56013949&postcount=631

GuanYin

No, but you have the report post function to use.

Jivin Turkey

I read through the charter and saw all enquiries on the rules and general state of the board should be directed to the thread titled "A discussion of the rules", however I can't see that on the front page of the board so I thought I'd put it in a new thread. I posted it here as opposed to Feedback as I think it will get more exposure here.

I've returned to regularly viewing the soccer board following an absence of about 18 months. I am absolutely shocked at the general standard of the board and how much it has deteriorated.

The amount of baiting, trolling, bitching and just plain idiocy on the board is ridiculous. Now there will always be an element of this, and some is part of the banter, but it's spoiling thread after thread, resulting in loads of nothing threads being opened to get away from it and hence clogging the board.

The general bad language and name calling is also shocking. Why does someone need to label someone a "dickhead" because they think they could have done something better? Do we need to label teams "the scum" etc? I'm by no means a prude and use more bad language that I care to admit when talking sometimes but there is no need to put it down in print.

I don't have a list on who has been banned before but I'm also pretty sure that I've seen people I thought had been banned previously posting, why have these people been re-granted access?

Finally the general standard of posting has certainly diminished. I see far fewer contributions from some of the more established posters than before. I'm sure some of them have similar feelings. I'm hardly calling for a closed shop or a cull one some of the newer posters but I just think it's hardly coincidental that established posters are contributing less.

I'm sure these points have probably been discussed before, so apologies. I'm sure there have been incidents that I've missed in my time away which has led to these changes, again apologies, but I'm hardly going back reading through 18 months of threads. I just think this is a worth while topic to discuss, because the current state of the board has certainly turned me off using it.

But then again maybe I wouldn't even be missed?