Banned from Soccer forum for "thanks"

Thanx 4 The Fish

To stop people getting themselves banned on purpose so they can complain some more I would say.

They would be banned too as they are being bloody stupid, thanking purposely to get banned :rolleyes:

May not be an issue if we do remove thanks from the forum to stop this rubbish. May be considered an OTT decision but hey, as I said if people cannot play nice with the toys they are given then they will have the toys removed.

Ditto.

Sherifu

I could equally make the case that they were thanking a funny post as I did. I thanked it before I saw this thread or read about this issue in the spirit of a funny post.

Oh and one more question, when did it change from a yellow card to removing posting rights?

Thank you for your replies so far.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Sherifu wrote: »

Now it has turned into taking away access rights for a week and having us reapply for access. Some great consistancy there xavi6.

You are talking about two different things now though, the people who are having to re-apply are only having to do so because they purposely went to the soccer forum once they knew that this was an issue and thanked a post that they knew was going to get them in the brown stuff essentially as Xavi has so eloquently put it, "giving us a two fingered salute".

Thanx 4 The Fish

Sherifu wrote: »

I could equally make the case that they were thanking a funny post as I did. I thanked it before I saw this thread or read about this issue in the spirit of a funny post.

Oh and one more question, when did it change from a yellow card to removing posting rights?

Thank you for your replies so far.

That may have depended on the seriousness of the abuse or the reason for thanks. Each ban is taken on a case by case basis.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

That may have depended on the seriousness of the abuse or the reason for thanks. Each ban is taken on a case by case basis.

Am off to tescos to do me shopping after which I will be playing footy. I will try and post before travelling off. Please do not go whinging now about how I only dip in and out of threads etc. Rest assured I will be back.

If there are any liverpool fans about that know where I live, please do not rob my house

Pighead

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Well as far as I see it Pigheads ban was deserved, regardless of who he was parodying, he was abusive, even the subject of the abuse did not understand that he was only joking.

If that keane lad did not see the funny side of this he would probably be the first person on feedback claiming bias against Man U fans because all of those people basically abused him by thanking a post that attacked him.

That's the thing though T4TF. It wasn't abusive. Pighead can see how it was perceived to be abusive but within 10 minutes everybody realised that it wasn't abusive including the target of the "abuse". Long before the bans were handed out for "thanking an abusive post"

So the decsion to ban the thankers was based on them thanking an abusive post even though as far as Pighead can see nobody thought the post was abusive at the time of the bannings. It doesn't add up.

Pigheads not protesting his own ban by the way. There was some shocking language in that post. That Keano fella had a filthy mouth!

Sherifu

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

You are talking about two different things now though, the people who are having to re-apply are only having to do so because they purposely went to the soccer forum once they knew that this was an issue and thanked a post that they knew was going to get them in the brown stuff essentially as Xavi has so eloquently put it, "giving us a two fingered salute".

The people that did that didn't have posting rights anyway. As GY put it:

GuanYin wrote: »

Umm of the 9 Revolutionaries it appears that only 5 of them had access to soccer to begin with, the other four just enjoy street theatre.

Four people went out of their way, or are perhaps just lurkers. We may never know.


Don't forget your clubcard.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Sorry for getting involved in this so late. I do not check feedback all that often, particularly not of late as things have been running well.

So what seems to be the problem then ?

Glad you're here, we might get some sense since GY is doing her usual act of quoting the same rubbish about "privileges" etc and avoiding anything outside of this, and poor Xavi wasn't a mod when this started so he's unfairly getting all the flak.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

As I see it.

Somebody broke the rules.
Other people broke the rules and may or may not have done so ironically or in jest.
Other people broke the rules as an FU to the soccer mods/rules/something like that.

Now we are in feedback, and there is a thread that is almost twenty pages long that basically slags off GY

I broke the rules because I thought the post was funny, thought the bans for thanked users was ridiculous and think the rule is ridiculous. I'd rather do that than live under the Iron Fist of GY and post in soccer having to think to myself "will i get banned for this" every time |I post something tongue in cheek or hit the thanks button.

I'm not slagging her off. I just think she's responsible for the poor atmosphere in the soccer forum as of late which has festered since she got in a strop and closed the OT Thread because she wanted to have a bit of drama and flex her mod muscle. She doesn't in any way have the best interests of the soccer forum at heart. it's perceived by many many posters as a childish power trip and she's dragging the forum down with this and her general unfriendly approach to every issue on the forum.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

I agree with Xavi (surprised anyone ?). Why did nobody complain about the rules when they were put in place? Why is it that the only time that soimebody complains about the rules is when they break them? We had a thread on the discussion of the rules, there was not a huge lashback against the rule when it was implemented.

You have more chance of getting bin Laden to play guitar and dance in his tighty whiteys in Times Square New York than you do of getting any feedback/rule changes from GY.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

So how do we see ourselves clear of this?

Well as far as I see it Pigheads ban was deserved, regardless of who he was parodying, he was abusive, even the subject of the abuse did not understand that he was only joking.

Probably was deserved if it was intended as abuse but I took at as a clever and funny twist of Keanos rant. Now I take it as that, do we have to PM each user asking their real intentions before hitting thanks? Come on now. Had it not been for all the swearing it wouldn't have got much attention but the only reason the swearing was there was due to it being a paraphrase of exactly what Royo said.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

As for the thansk issue, well it is a rule and so is being applied, if we were to say it's okay because the thankers thought he was only joking then we would set a dangerous precedent as anybody could use that as a defence and quote this instance.

Did you find the post funny (before GY typically deleted it of course)? I laughed for ages at it and that warrants a thanks. Like I said, I've thanked some absolutely ludicrous posts more out of irony. For instance, in the forum I mod I recently had a guy tear into me with some venomous abuse and I thanked his post and then sent him a PM. Should I have banned myself even if the rule was in place? It was intended as an ironic "slow clap" kinda thing much like keane2097 intended it when he thanked Pinheads post. It's called having a thick skin.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

If this is going to kick off any time somebody thanks an abusive post then perhaps removing the thanks is the way to go. It would be a shame that such a tool, which I quite like, had to be removed from the forum because it was being abused but if people cannot play nice with the toys that are available (not meaning to sound like I am speaking down to people BTW, just dealing with my kids gives me lots of similar situations in real life to draw on) then the toys can be taken off them. I do not think that this solution would be one that most of the users would like but then most of the users are not the ones that have abused it and most of the users are not here on this thread calling people names and calling for heads to roll and whatnot.

Or maybe people need to relax and realise that the Thanks feature is a bit of fun and maybe try some Prozac and lighten up.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

As for those who thanked in protest. I think the bans were deserved, ye knew the decision that was taken and then decided to push it because you did not like it.

I knew I'd get banned as there's no common sense EVER applied from GY but like I said, I'd have thanked it anyway before seeing this thread so i stuck to my principles on it.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

BTW Neil, the rules of the soccer forum do not apply in other forums. If I thank an abusive post there and am banned for it then so be it, I agreed with the sentiment of the post and thanked it.

Ah yes but you since removed your thanks I notice. I don't think too many people agreed with the sentiment as much as they just found it hilarious.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

May not be an issue if we do remove thanks from the forum to stop this rubbish. May be considered an OTT decision but hey, as I said if people cannot play nice with the toys they are given then they will have the toys removed.

What if a mod uses their position as a toy to feel powerful and self important, if they can't play nice with his/her toy and treat other users with a bit of respect instead of acting like they are God, should they also have their toy removed or is it all a one way street?

Boggles

GuanYin wrote: »

Everyone who thanked the post has had their permissions form soccer removed.

They're not banned per se, they just no longer have posting rights.

You may re-apply for soccer access via soccer access requests in one week.

I'm not going to say you'll get your access restored. You've deliberately breached the rules so I may lay some special conditions on your access, maybe even a probationary period, because NORMALLY if someone deliberately broke the rules, they would be looking at at least a month ban.

The original 5 who were banned before this thread will have their access automatically restored in one week from yesterday.

I take no pleasure in banning anyone, but if you wanted to test to see what would happen if you rocked the boat, take this as the answer.

Jesus whether you mean it or not you really are an unlikeable person.

Hank Scorpio

agreed ^;)

telemachus

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

You are talking about two different things now though, the people who are having to re-apply are only having to do so because they purposely went to the soccer forum once they knew that this was an issue and thanked a post that they knew was going to get them in the brown stuff essentially as Xavi has so eloquently put it, "giving us a two fingered salute".

I can only speak for myself but that is not what happened in my case at all. to be honest I rarely if ever enter feedback having little interest in gigantic 50 page long diatribes that resolve absolutely nothing (there is a certain irony .. ) . I was skimming that thread the next day, sniggered at length at pigheads post and thanked it, being ignorant of the more recent rules (ignorance is not a defense etc..) and found my access rights revoked some eight hours later.

I had no idea this fuss had occurred or anyone else had done the same until after I was banned and entered the gloomy confines of Feedback to see what was going on. I apologise if someone like xavi takes my actions as some kind of personal "fight the power" show of pointless defiance, it was simply bemused ignorance. I don't have a problem with being infracted, or banned for a week, I really should have read the updated rules, i'm less thrilled with having my access revoked for unwittingly taking a revolutionary stand.

Mitch Connor

i'll post this again to see if i can get a response:

GuanYin wrote: »

No actually, I didn't. I was just the one left to deal with the situations that followed.

I do push some rules through as do we all but if a soccer mod disagrees, the rules don't get applied.

Just on a point of note, for those saying I like banning people. one of the rules I pushed through was the points system, which actually makes it twice as hard to get banned from soccer and then for only 6 - 9 months (as opposed to a 5 strikes you're out no matter how trivial the offence). Of course, the more desperate might argue that this just gives me more opportunities to ban people

Well, imo, this incident is simple proof that it is still way to easy to ban people.

I can understand the ban for Pighead.

I can also understand the reasons for banning/revoking the second lot of 'thankers'.

However, I think it is a very poor application of the rules to have banned the first few thankers based on the fact it had already been discussed people were thanking it becuase it was funny, and got the Roy Keane reference, not because they agree with any intended insult.

So as to back up my point, and try to continue this in the correct way. the charter does indeed state the following:

Minor Offences (including but not limited to):
Abusing through the thanks system (thanking posts that break the rules)

However, and importantly, it also state this:

Minor offence (See list) will result in a yellow card infraction and may incur a ban.

The important part of that is this: MAY.

You could have applied the rules perfectly fairly, and in keeping with the charter by issuing a yellow card for each 'thanks'. But you didn't. You DECIDED to ban people. It was a CHOICE you made, and imo, it lacked any application of common sense.

I would also argue the posters were not abusing through the thanking system - the two halves of that rule are not one and the same.

Again, I can understand the revoking of the rights of the second lot, don't agree with it, but can understand it, but the first lot of bannings (not including pigheads) is a joke, and completely unfair.

The Recliner

Deleted User wrote: »

How exactly do you know why I did it? Did I tell you? Cos I don't remember.


I did it because I found Pigheads post to be the funniest post I'd read on this site ALL WEEK. I would have thanked it earlier but had no thanks left (due to ironically thanking other posts that may or may not have been intelligent...) I then saw users getting banned for it which i don;t agree with so i went and thanked it anyway. It's called standing by your principles, not having a laugh, so you can nip that argument in the bud right there mate.

Well based on posts in this thread where you and others were egging each other on to thank the post it seemed as if it was being done for the laugh

If you did it as a point of principle then I applaud that (however i don't think everyone was a principled as you) but still don't see how people can argue with the ban, not that you are

The bannings were justified, the rule however which is the cause of the problem needs to be looked at as it doesn't seem to be workable

This is all very silly Billy.

Kinetic^

Rabies wrote: »

Banned for thanks? WTF!

If a posters makes a stupid comment against the normal run of the forum, then fair enough. Ban, infract, take their first born, whatever takes your fancy.

But banning posters for giving 'thanks' is bloody crazy.

I rarely stick my head in Soccer. Only have posted a handfull of times over the years (no I don't want my acces rights removed before someone asks), but something like this would make me post even less.

Its heavy handed and over the top.

I know Soccer has had its problems over the years, but to be honest this doesn't help.

I agree with Rabies. It's the most retarded rule I've ever seen implemented on this site and I really hope it doesn't get stuck into many other charters. Gotta love the soccer forum! :rolleyes:

DeVore

Deleted User wrote: »

This is all very silly Billy.

You know mate, I was just beginning to think the same thing myself. I can see a number of sides of the story here and need to give it a good bit more thought.

To be honest, I wouldnt have read all of Pigheads post before reaching for the ban stick. I don't get the joke but then I'm not much into "Soccer"

Thanking abusive posts is a sly way of reiterating the abuse and compounding it. I'm wondering if we dont need a more radical solution to this whole issue.... I'll talk to a few people and garner some opinions.

DeV.

Necronomicon

I'd like to join the couple of others that have appealed not to have the thanks system removed. There are a lot of decent posters in the forum and I think it encourages well thought-out posts and less "+1" posts.

Sherifu

DeVore wrote: »

Thanking abusive posts is a sly way of reiterating the abuse and compounding it.

In some cases that's exactly what it is, in this case it wasn't and it would have been nice if common sense was used by the mods. It wasn't.

Pighead

DeVore wrote: »

Thanking abusive posts is a sly way of reiterating the abuse and compounding it. I'm wondering if we dont need a more radical solution to this whole issue.... I'll talk to a few people and garner some opinions.

DeV.

That's the thing though. NOBODY at this stage thinks the post was abusive and therefore there was absolutely no question of any slyness being involved. Of that there is no doubt. It's Pigheads fault that Xavi took it as abuse originally as I wrongly assumed he'd "get it".

It's all been blown out of proportion and knowing what we all do now surely it's best to unban the thankers, move on from this sorry mess and have the best damn weekend we can possibly manage.

Necronomicon

Necronomicon wrote: »

I'd like to join the couple of others that have appealed not to have the thanks system removed. There are a lot of decent posters in the forum and I think it encourages well thought-out posts and less "+1" posts.

I'd agree with this but I also think that the Thanks system doesn't exclusively mean you agree with the post.

Sherifu wrote: »

In some cases that's exactly what it is, in this case it wasn't and it would have been nice if common sense was used by the mods. It wasn't.

Agree 100%.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

i'll post this again to see if i can get a response:

I wouldn't hold your breath. In my experience with the mod in question, anything that can't be answered with the copy and paste spiel of "privileges" followed by ban threats etc tends to get sidestepped.

DeVore

DeVore wrote: »

Thanking abusive posts is a sly way of reiterating the abuse and compounding it. I'm wondering if we dont need a more radical solution to this whole issue.... I'll talk to a few people and garner some opinions.

DeV.

Indeed DeV,
But options are limited. Like I could understand if someone said something bluntly racist then someone else thanked it & got banned. That's more then acceptable but in other instances..... I dunno. Tis hard DeV, but you're the boss so getz thinking

Thanx 4 The Fish

You really are doing yourself or your case no favours in the way that you continually attack GY Neil.

Anyway am off to play some real football, grassroots is where it's at. I will catch up on my return if there are any questions for me or is anmything that I feel needs adressing by me.

Dub13

roryc wrote: »

Lol I seem to have missed most of this... Open question to Dev... I presume you still read the poker forum a lot?

Its fairly clear that the forum is modded much, much better than the soccer forum in so many ways. As you probably know there are numerous posters over there that would have a strong interest in soccer but don't post in the soccer forum due to the absolutely abysmal modding which it is well known for. This is down to one person and one person only... GY. Whereas the other mods may agree with her decision in this, the fact of the matter is the rule shouldn't have been there in the first place

You only have to look in the BBV thread on matchdays to see how the conversation swings to the current matches. So you have people discussing soccer outside of the designated forum because a huge number of people just don't want to go near it. That is simply ridiculous... I'd say this is also apparent in other forums, the soccer forum doesn't exactly have a great reputation lately...

I've been posting in the soccer forum for the last few months but have started to cut back (again) because of the ridiculous rules put in place by GY. Its only a matter of time before something like this happens again.

Your compression between the Poker forum and the Soccer forum is not a good one,I have been posting on both forums for the last 5 years and they are completely different bests.

Charlie

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Why did nobody complain about the rules when they were put in place? Why is it that the only time that soimebody complains about the rules is when they break them?.

Because after the last couple of bruahahas I was under the impression that we were not allowed challenge the rules, that it was not a democracy, and that any challenge to them could see threads/the forum closed down as it was before. Was this not the impression others we're left with after the OTT was shut?

Seriously lads and lassies, is it not painstakingly clear that what the majority of users desire is a common sense appraoch, and not this 'consistent' one where everything has to be seen in black and white, irrespective of the consequences it brings.

Things will always be inconsistent, that's just the nature of the beast with the soccer forum. So why not drop the 'consistent' mandate, and start using a common sense one, one which wouldn't see ridiculous threads like this popping up.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

You really are doing yourself or your case no favours in the way that you continually attack GY Neil.

Anyway am off to play some real football, grassroots is where it's at. I will catch up on my return if there are any questions for me or is anmything that I feel needs adressing by me.

It wasn't an attack there, it was an observation. I've found her to be VERY difficult to get an answer out of in matters in the past. She cops out when the going gets tough. Read over the thread that got the OTT thread closed for numerous examples of this. Yourself, Dub 13 and Xavi will explain your position without using rhetoric or treating us like imbeciles.

I don't care for her and at this stage I feel there's no point in hiding it. There have been a large number of soccer regulars on this thread alone who have agreed with that sentiment. I know it's not a popularity contest but I feel her attitude stinks and sours the forum. GY does herself no favours either by talking to everyone as if we're pieces of dirt that she scraped off her shoe. Goodwill goes out the window when people speak to you like that and people tend to remember it. That whole "I'm better than you" attitude is something that I hate in all walks of life so I've no qualms about voicing my distaste for it here in Feedback.



Anyway, I've said my piece, if anyone raises a new point I'll reply but I'm gonna bow out at this stage. Enjoy your football. I'm off to watch grown men kick each others asses in the O2.

Dub13

I am not finished reading this thread yet but I will post my opinion so fair.

First could I say 200 odd posts on this on a Friday night is some going,I have a hangover today and this is not a great way to spend a Saturday morrning with a thumping head.

I think whats happening in the forum in the last few weeks is an indication that new rules are working they may need to be tweaked here and there but by and large the forum is working well.People know the score with yellow/red card warnings and we don't get as many feedback threads because everybody knows the score.

However over the last few weeks a couple of issues have come up with regards signature's,thanking posts and the tagging system.This indicates to me that a user who is inclined to abuse another member is trying find other ways of doing it,this proves the new system is working and once we tighten up on the 'non direct abuse' we should have a better forum.

I think everybody agrees that thanking an outright abusive post is wrong,some are saying that Pigheads post was funny and therefor should come into a different set of rules because of this.Well to be honest this is not workable from a modding point of view as it leaves it open to the individual mod and his/her sense of humor.I can assure you we are 4 very different people and I can only assume we have very different sense of humors.

Pighead

Dub13 wrote: »

I think everybody agrees that thanking an outright abusive post is wrong,some are saying that Pigheads post was funny and therefor should come into a different set of rules because of this.

Of course it should come under a different set of rules. It was a non abusive post. It shouldn't come under the same rules as an abusive post. Now that everybody knows it was a non abusive post the bannings should be struck off the record and treated the same as any other post which thanks a non abusive post.

Dub13 wrote: »

Well to be honest this is not workable from a modding point of view as it leaves it open to the individual mod and his/her sense of humor.I can assure you we are 4 very different people and I can only assume we have very different sense of humors.

No offence Dub but each and evry case has to be judged on an individual basis. These particular bannings were dished out on the understanding that the people involved were thanking abusive posts. Now that the dust has settled, the mods surely realise that this wasn't the case at all. Therefore the bans should be lifted.

Do you still think the post was intended as abuse?

Daysha

Just as a side note, is it possible for CuLT or the admins to remove the ability to thank posts that get a yellow or red card? That could be one way of going about avoiding a similar situation in the future.

Sherifu

deise59 wrote: »

Just as a side note, is it possible for CuLT or the admins to remove the ability to thank posts that get a yellow or red card? That could be one way of going about avoiding a similar situation in the future.

Didn't you get us banned? Thanks for that btw.