How did we get to this?

Amz

Xavi6 wrote: »

Obviously I have one.

If you say so.

Adam

Van Zuylen wrote: »

I hear what your saying and I am not defending that post in any sort of way. Or I am condoning stupidity which results in banning for good reason.

I would also like to state I havent been banned from anywhere, spurring me on to create this thread.

This view I have is simply looking at the site on the whole over the past few years.

I understand from Cults reply there is a lot on here that is regulated in accordance to Libel laws, which I admit I did not know. One question I would have is , why are we so strictly bound by libel laws, when other sites may not be. Please excuse my ignorance/naivity.

Perhaps because we are the single largest message board, and come under the public eye more often than other similar sites?

It's easy for users to shake their fists at the admins/mods, but when it's the admins that would suffer through our actions, I don't blame them one bit for keeping a tight lid on it. I would, if it were me.

Sully

Xavi6 wrote: »

But that wasn't crap. It was a bit of comic humour, and it worked. As I said, some people need to lighten up.

At least wait til he breaks a rule before banning.

Yes, I think you are ignoring what we are saying. Come back to us when you feel like reading EXACTLY what happened and why.

Xavi6

Amz wrote: »

If you say so.

I do

Xavi6

Sully wrote: »

Yes, I think you are ignoring what we are saying. Come back to us when you feel like reading EXACTLY what happened and why.

I did. I've read his posts. And yeah fair enough some of it was crap but the one he was banned for was dealt with in an OTT manner imo.

Look, if it was in a forum I mod he wouldn't have a got a week ban for it. Different strokes or whatever.

Amz

Have you any idea how much crap is being posted in the sports category with the Olympics on? We have to be more strict at this point in time otherwise the level of rubbish becomes so much that decent, constructive posts are lost.

Sully

Van Zuylen wrote: »

I hear what your saying and I am not defending that post in any sort of way. Or I am condoning stupidity which results in banning for good reason.

I would also like to state I havent been banned from anywhere, spurring me on to create this thread.

You are fully entitled to express an opinion and I welcome anybody who does - like most of us here do im sure. Its the purpose of the forum. We will aim to resolve the matter fairly and quickly

You can see in the example provided the mods just got fed up of this user who is constantly wasting peoples time with stupid posts. It wasn't his first offense, so he was removed. Going off topic constantly is breaking a site rule - imagine what it would be like if people could drag every thread on Boards off topic with no limits!

This view I have is simply looking at the site on the whole over the past few years.

I understand from Cults reply there is a lot on here that is regulated in accordance to Libel laws, which I admit I did not know. One question I would have is , why are we so strictly bound by libel laws, when other sites may not be. Please excuse my ignorance/naivity.

I think the reason for it is the smaller sites couldn't care less. They don't understand the potential risks and think they are only shouting fact and **** em if they don't like it. They probably get away with it because it goes unnoticed due to it being such a small site or solicitors have bigger more damaging fish to fry. In this case, boards is a bigger fish. The volume of users (registered and guests) a post is open to is massive. That could potentially damage a business, or a persons character. Boards is held responsible - even though it wasn't Boards who made the comment. Google and all the other search engines play a close attention to this site so if you say "Company X is useless. That chap, Paddy Ryan the CEO, rips people off with dodgy equipment. Not to be trusted!!!" on Boards - it will be recorded on search engines (Google Company X and that post would potentially appear) and a larger volume of people will read and take note.

Where on a smaller site, search engines don't take as much notice and the volume of people is a lot smaller so it wont damage the company/character as much.

Sully

Xavi6 wrote: »

I did. I've read his posts. And yeah fair enough some of it was crap but the one he was banned for was dealt with in an OTT manner imo.

Okay let me break it down to make things simpler (not being sarcastic btw, im deadly serious) - I might not be explaining my point clearly.

This poster has been ranting away on the forum on a regular basis with dodgy posts (upsetting people) and off topic rambling nonsense. That destroys a forum where people wont bother posting if there thread wont be treated seriously. On this forum the volume of traffic and posting has increased massively so the chances of posts getting lost in rambling nonsense is even greater. Said poster has been warned to cop the feck on, or be thrown out - stick to the point, post constructively or don't post at all basically.

Poster received, noted but ignored. Picked a thread and made a witty reply but it was yet again, off topic and irrelevant. This person clearly has no interest in the forum and is only about to be a menace. Why keep him about? The post broke the "Off topic" guideline (where its pulled on a case by case basis - constantly going off topic, go away, once off topic - funny, but please don't do it again)

Look, if it was in a forum I mod he wouldn't have a got a week ban for it. Different strokes or whatever.

Thats your choice. But if you kept letting people post off topic with nonsense it wouldn't be long before people wouldn't bother posting in your forum at all.

Xavi6

Sully wrote: »

Okay let me break it down to make things simpler (not being sarcastic btw, im deadly serious) - I might not be explaining my point clearly.

Point taken, cheers for the explanation.

So if it had of been a once off comment from a poster with no priors then it wouldn't have warranted a banning?

Sully

Xavi6 wrote: »

So if it had of been a once off comment from a poster with no priors then it wouldn't have warranted a banning?

I would hope not. I think Amz already said that anyway. Iv banned people on the Waterford forum after giving several warnings on thread to stick on topic and they refused to listen. Sometimes it has to be done to keep a topic alive!

keane2097

Amz wrote: »

Some people get banned for stupid comments, following warnings about other posts/threads. If it's a continuation of a cycle of stupid "contributions" to the forum.

How do you quantify stupid?

That post above that the guy got banned for, for example. You might think it's stupid, but I thought it was funny and made my visit to this website today a bit more enjoyable.

What's the point in the site if it's no fun? People get banned for trying to make one another laugh? Lame imo.

seamus

keane2097 wrote: »

How do you quantify stupid?

That post above that the guy got banned for, for example. You might think it's stupid, but I thought it was funny and made my visit to this website today a bit more enjoyable.

What's the point in the site if it's no fun? People get banned for trying to make one another laugh? Lame imo.

Please read the rest of the thread before contributing. tks.

keane2097

seamus wrote: »

Please read the rest of the thread before contributing. tks.

I did - that's just the post I was at when I decided I was going to respond.

From what I gather from what the mods who banned him are saying, the guy got booted for his only decent post.

Daithi McGee

Stupid is a very hard thing to Quantify. I for one am stupid on many levels. Basically if people don't act the wag they will be grand. Different forums have different levels of seriousness. Not that hard an answer to figure out, even for a stupid person like me.

Adam

keane2097 wrote: »

I did - that's just the post I was at when I decided I was going to respond.

From what I gather from what the mods who banned him are saying, the guy got booted for his only decent post.

Stupid based on context. If he wants to be mr.funnyman he can take it to AH, tCN etc. or at the very least make an effort to contribute as well.

GuanYin

faceman wrote: »

So essentially it was the crap user input that caused it to evolve into what it is today. It wasnt like the mods decided to mod it so tight like that from day 1. While soccer is always the extreme example, its a pretty good one to demonstrate the importance of good controls and moderation that dont always seem like the best way.

Just so you know, the soccer forum is inhabited entirely by intelligent, mature and respectful posters who interact cordially and civilly with each other, who never whine or complain, who don't try and get each other banned and the forum certainly doesn't have a small contingent of posters who make me want to take take them down to a dark cellar with a baseball bat to whack some common sense into them.


Our posters are great

Chong

So then basically this thread has become " why ban poster for stupid post".

This is not what its meant to be about, I feel though there has been some great explanations made by Sully, Amz and Seamus about the inner workings of moderation.

At the heart of this its down to understanding moderation, and how its used on boards with regard to bannings, rules, and regulation pertaining to libel.

Something I have got a little bit of an insight to from the posts in this thread. I believe though there has to be some instances where mods can loosen the chains a little bit. I also believe many of our highly moderated forums, with a history of spamming, trolling, and in general crap, also need to understand there has to be some sort of happy medium. Where by the stricter a place becomes to more harder it becomes to post in , without the fear of being banned.

GuanYin

Van Zuylen wrote: »

Where by the stricter a place becomes to more harder it becomes to post in , without the fear of being banned.

Where specifically are you afraid of being banned from?

Chong

I am not that brave!

Sully

Van Zuylen wrote: »

So then basically this thread has become " why ban poster for stupid post".

It was an example provided, best to explain why mod action was taken there - as I was saying, some people refuse to look at the bigger picture and lay blame on the mod soley for that post alone.

This is not what its meant to be about, I feel though there has been some great explanations made by Sully, Amz and Seamus about the inner workings of moderation.

At the heart of this its down to understanding moderation, and how its used on boards with regard to bannings, rules, and regulation pertaining to libel.

Well hopefully our explanations (including the example) have given a bit more insight to how the site works. We welcome all types of feedback (though we ask you at least be civil and constructive when making your points) and are open to any suggestions to improve the site for the users - its what the forum is for

Something I have got a little bit of an insight to from the posts in this thread. I believe though there has to be some instances where mods can loosen the chains a little bit. I also believe many of our highly moderated forums, with a history of spamming, trolling, and in general crap, also need to understand there has to be some sort of happy medium. Where by the stricter a place becomes to more harder it becomes to post in , without the fear of being banned.

In some cases perhaps - but again its a case by case and often based also on the forums history. Some places certain types of discussion can be grand and other forums it can go mental!

I would actually ask that you put your fear aside and explain the issue that is behind your original post. A fair post will be treated with the respect it deserves.

GuanYin

Van Zuylen wrote: »

I am not that brave!

I think it far is more cowardly to come here, make innuendo about a forum and the moderators but not come out and say it.

Not just cowardly, but sly too.

That is of course, just my opinion.

pickarooney

I think the fact that everyone, including one of its moderators, assumes VZ is talking about the Soccer Forum, although he made no reference whatsoever to said forum proves to a large extent what he's not been saying all along.

Adam

GuanYin wrote: »

I think it far is more cowardly to come here, make innuendo about a forum and the moderators but not come out and say it.

Not just cowardly, but sly too.

That is of course, just my opinion.

+1

The thread is entirely pointless.

Sully

pickarooney wrote: »

I think the fact that everyone, including one of its moderators, assumes VZ is talking about the Soccer Forum, although he made no reference whatsoever to said forum proves to a large extent what he's not been saying all along.

Wasn't soccer only mentioned as an example, once? Bit of an exaggeration there rooney

tbh

Van Zuylen wrote: »

I also believe many of our highly moderated forums, with a history of spamming, trolling, and in general crap, also need to understand there has to be some sort of happy medium. Where by the stricter a place becomes to more harder it becomes to post in , without the fear of being banned.

the problem is that this whole argument centers on the question of whether a moderating decision is strict or not. To use the often-quoted example, what's acceptable in after hours would be bannable in PI and no-one has a problem with that (for the the most part) because we understand the context. If you don't give an example, then we cannot take your argument in context, and so we've no way of knowing whether or not we agree with you. I guess I'm using the royal we there

the only real alternative I could think of that would implement what would suit both sides would be a system where the thread is about a particular subject, and then users can either reply to the thread, making a substantive point on topic; or they can comment on an individual post, and with that mechanism if five people want to veer off-topic, they can, and they don't disturb anyone else (cause you'd have to click to read the comments).

but honestly, I think that would be horrible.

pickarooney

Sully wrote: »

Wasn't soccer only mentioned as an example, once? Bit of an exaggeration there rooney

Four times, five if you count my post, six if you count your response

GuanYin

I guess I should explain. This may be a yawnfest, so let me apologize in advance.

In soccer we have superthreads, where dicussion of a specific team takes place.

There is an entirely incorrect notion that these threads "belong" to their specific fans and rival fans who post a point of view that opposes the consensus of the fans of any superthread (but most notably Liverpool, United and for some unfathomable reason Villa) are told to "get out of the thread", accused of trolling and abused and have their rather innocuous posts reported. We have repeatedly reminded users that the purpose of these threads is not for such tribalism but it has largely fallen on deaf ears.

We, the moderators feel that this is restrictive to general posters wanting to dicuss matches and incidents as any group of fans is effectively trying to censor other opinions.

To compensate, we created match day threads, where everyone can discuss soccer matches, the threads are "neutral" so no group of fans can claim ownership and we banned discussion of matches in soccer thread. Matches being the large spark point for most of the abuse and bannings arising from the aforementioned tribalism.

It is rather simple:
Discuss match incidents in match thread.
Discuss teams in team superthreads.


Cue some of the posters most trigger happy with the accusations of trolling (ie. the ones who try censor the discussion) claiming that these are overly dictorial rules and that we are censoring discussion. Also cue long protracted pendantry on what constitutes match discussion or not (I think it is fairly much common sense) in order for certain posters to find where the line is, so that they may hover adjacent to it.

In the long run, we feel that our move will make the forum easier to negotiate in terms of keeping track of discussion and will remove any perceived ownership of discussion which tends to inflame and bias discussion.

Our esteemed OP is one of the posters complaining that by stopping him and his likeminded posters dictating who can discuss what in the superthreads for their teams, we are infact censoring the forum posters. Shortly after I said the issue wasn't open for debate until we see how the system works, this cloak and dagger thread appeared.

I'm no CSI miami detective, but given the OP's post history and the forum he usually frequents, I think we all know where he is going.

Chong

GuanYin wrote: »

I guess I should explain. This may be a yawnfest, so let me apologize in advance.

In soccer we have superthreads, where dicussion of a specific team takes place.

There is an entirely incorrect notion that these threads "belong" to their specific fans and rival fans who post a point of view that opposes the consensus of the fans of any superthread (but most notably Liverpool, United and for some unfathomable reason Villa) are told to "get out of the thread", accused of trolling and abused and have their rather innocuous posts reported. We have repeatedly reminded users that the purpose of these threads is not for such tribalism but it has largely fallen on deaf ears.

We, the moderators feel that this is restrictive to general posters wanting to dicuss matches and incidents as any group of fans is effectively trying to censor other opinions.

To compensate, we created match day threads, where everyone can discuss soccer matches, the threads are "neutral" so no group of fans can claim ownership and we banned discussion of matches in soccer thread. Matches being the large spark point for most of the abuse and bannings arising from the aforementioned tribalism.

It is rather simple:
Discuss match incidents in match thread.
Discuss teams in team superthreads.


Cue some of the posters most trigger happy with the accusations of trolling (ie. the ones who try censor the discussion) claiming that these are overly dictorial rules and that we are censoring discussion. Also cue long protracted pendantry on what constitutes match discussion or not (I think it is fairly much common sense) in order for certain posters to find where the line is, so that they may hover adjacent to it.

In the long run, we feel that our move will make the forum easier to negotiate in terms of keeping track of discussion and will remove any perceived ownership of discussion which tends to inflame and bias discussion.

Our esteemed OP is one of the posters complaining that by stopping him and his likeminded posters dictating who can discuss what in the superthreads for their teams, we are infact censoring the forum posters. Shortly after I said the issue wasn't open for debate until we see how the system works, this cloak and dagger thread appeared.

I'm no CSI miami detective, but given the OP's post history and the forum he usually frequents, I think we all know where he is going.

I am actually not getting at Soccer Forum, not once have I said it, I am talking on the whole, I dunno why your taken it for granted its the soccer forum.

There are number of forums which have issues with high moderation, but as it has been explained to me in the thread, moderation is a tough job and I accept. Not once did I have pop at you on this GuanYin.

Chong

I think it far is more cowardly to come here, make innuendo about a forum and the moderators but not come out and say it.

Not just cowardly, but sly too.

That is of course, just my opinion.

Your opinion indeed.

In fact maybe the subject of the thread should have been aimed in a different way, I dont know why your taking such a offense , its a bit of feedback.

Again you have your opinion and your most entitled to it.

GuanYin

Van Zuylen wrote: »

I am actually not getting at Soccer Forum, not once have I said it, I am talking on the whole, I dunno why your taken it for granted its the soccer forum.

If you say so.

There are number of forums which have issues with high moderation, but as it has been explained to me in the thread, moderation is a tough job and I accept. Not once did I have pop at you on this GuanYin.

Then you went about this thread in a very puzzling way and a very coincidental time. Your OP rather subtley suggests a forum and moderators are too strict.

I realize this is feedback, but if you're going to make an accusation, make it. You didn't need to have a "pop" at me. The sheer vagueness of your post and your post history made, what, 6 posters assume it was soccer.

Cloak and daggers, gossip and two faced talking behind people's back really annoys me. As I said, cowardly and sly, my estimation of you has plummeted.

In fact maybe the subject of the thread should have been aimed in a different way, I dont know why your taking such a offense , its a bit of feedback.

It should.