Banned from Soccer forum for "thanks"

mike65

I suggested that about 5 pages back or something like that.

Boggles

Pighead wrote: »

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.


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?

Tis a strange day when Pighead is one of the few making sense. :eek:

Hobart

Dub13 wrote: »

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 believe it is the way that these issues are approached/dealt with is the actual problem. 99% of people who post on soccer are resonable people. It is a little like a pub sometimes, with bantger and of course somebody is going to tell another person to cop on or f-off sometimes, but that's part and parcel of the game tbh, you know thios aswell as I do.

The issue is really about the points you raise above, moseso it is about the way these issues are handleed. IMO and experience, the handleing of these issues leave a lot to be desired. And the fallout (is usually) all about saving face for some people, instead of just saying " We/I got it wrong" .

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.

Again, you are looking at this from the incorrect perspective. Your opening gambit could have read "I think everybody agrees that shooting somebody is wrong", because, as you, I and 99% of people know who have posted on this thread, PH post was not abusive. I can understand Xavi initially thinking it was abusive, but I think even he realises that the post was not abusive. It was actually hilarious (imo) and obvioulsy those who thanked it, found it funny aswell. I think even the poster at whom it was directed at, got it.

So Xavi did not realise that it was a parody on a (very) famous footballing incident, and bans PH. No biggie tbh, he just consults with the fellow mods, and either rolls back or does not.

What has caused this sh!tstorm is the follow on action of banning people who actually got the parody, and the attempts at justification by the mods etc... of this action.

Guy's, it's way way over the top. Now, I'll still have my pint tonight, and watch Match of the Day, and this decision will not ruin my weekend in any way shape or form, but some of ye need to loosen strings a little, and get over yourselves.

Daithi McGee

This soccer lark is very serious.

's PigHead

sceptre

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.

I could be totally wrong here but I suspect that either way that would cause a fair bit of extra work on the database:

Option 1: (disallow the thanks): Each time a post is thanked the database would have to check whether a post has been locked or not.

Option 2: (allow the thanks but make it invisible): The thanks go through but each time a post is displayed the database has to check to see whether it's been locked or not.

Either way that's a lot of extra work on the database as opposed to displaying everything and something coming up if it has a value or nothing coming up if it's null (which I presume is the current case with thanks). Then again, my assumptions could be assways.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Spud83

alanmurphy83 wrote: »

No the charter says in a minor offence and can result in an infraction or MAYBE a ban. That's what was agreed by the mods. Who banned killem0 was my question as that has seemed to change the rule to automatic ban

Can Dub13, TFTF, or GY answer this when they get a chance please?

Dub13

alanmurphy83 wrote: »

Can Dub13, TFTF, or GY answer this when they get a chance please?

I banned him for a week,he thanked this post...

get f*cking in there take it f*cking out c*nts

As said before on this thread each case is judged on a case by case bases.He has already got the ban reviewed in help desk you can read that here...

Banned from Soccer for thanking a post

leninbenjamin

GuanYin wrote:

1. Minor offence (See list) will result in a yellow card infraction and may incur a ban. A second minor offence by those who have already received a yellow card infraction will result in a red card infraction.

...

Minor Offences (including but not limited to):

...

Abusing through the thanks system (thanking posts that break the rules)

that's the charter. GY an co. were well within their rights to ban over this, nobody can argue otherwise (although to my mind it does seem a bit harsh).

Spud83

Dub13 wrote: »

I banned him for a week,he thanked this post...



As said before on this thread each case is judged on a case by case bases.He has already got the ban reviewed in help desk you can read that here...

Banned from Soccer for thanking a post

That's fine for his ban but what I read on this thread was that his case created a precedent that forced GY to ban the users that originally thanked pigheads post, instead of infracting them. Therefore it wasn't taken on a case by case bases.

Pighead

leninbenjamin wrote: »

that's the charter. GY an co. were well within their rights to ban over this, nobody can argue otherwise (although to my mind it does seem a bit harsh).

You're wrong leninbenjamin. You're missing a crucial point here. Here it is: THE POST IN QUESTION THAT WAS THANKED WAS NOT ABUSIVE. EVERYBODY (INCLUDING THE MODS) REALISES THIS NOW. THANKING NON ABUSIVE POSTS IS NOT A BANNABLE OFFENCE!

Daysha

mike65 wrote: »

I suggested that about 5 pages back or something like that.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Apologies. Haven't had time to read through all the replies yet.

Sherifu wrote: »

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

Now that kind of stuff really pisses me off.

If you read back on ANY of my posts in this topic you'll see that I'm 100% behind the people who were banned for originally thanking the post.

I've suggested alternative solutions for the mods, given feedback in a reasonable manner (more than what can be said for other posters here) and generally trying my best to get this mess sorted out.

I've also been exchanging PM's back and forth with some of the mods given how heated exchanges can get here.

But if thats the way you're going to be why should I bother helping you at all?

javaboy

Pighead wrote: »

You're wrong leninbenjamin. You're missing a crucial point here. Here it is: THE POST IN QUESTION THAT WAS THANKED WAS NOT ABUSIVE. EVERYBODY (INCLUDING THE MODS) REALISES THIS NOW. THANKING NON ABUSIVE POSTS IS NOT A BANNABLE OFFENCE!

Let off the caps lock man.
You say that everybody accepts it wasn't abusive now so.... why aren't you contesting your ban? Why have a few people in this thread who are against the thanks bans said that your banning was legit?

Since you don't protest your own banning, what rule do you think you broke to earn it? Was it the bad language?

Dub13

Pighead wrote: »

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.


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?

Yes it was a funny post,but a funny post that broke the rules you have even agreed with that.This is not an area we (the soccer mods) want to go into if a post is funny or not and which set of rules apply.

You have a way with words that I have to admire,a lot of your posts are beautifully crafted.

Sherifu

deise59 wrote: »

But if thats the way you're going to be why should I bother helping you at all?

You've helped enough.

Daysha

Sherifu wrote: »

You've helped enough.

Well I feel you haven't been done yourself any favours with regards some of your posts, but you don't see me dragging that into the topic do you?

I'll finish posting and contributing when I feel like it.

Pighead

javaboy wrote: »

Let off the caps lock man.
You say that everybody accepts it wasn't abusive now so.... why aren't you contesting your ban? Why have a few people in this thread who are against the thanks bans said that your banning was legit?

Since you don't protest your own banning, what rule do you think you broke to earn it? Was it the bad language?

No more caps lock, honest!

To be honest when Pighead posted that he thought that there was a good chance that a ban would be forthcoming because of the language involved and because of the strictness of the soccer forum. But it's only for a week, so there's no problems with regards that.

javaboy you're a clever bloke. Surely you can see that the mods banned all those people because they thought they were thanking an abusive post. That situation has changed now and they now know this wasn't a case. The goalposts have moved and the bannings are no longer applicable in this case. As Hobart has already said, refusal to overturn the bans would seem to be about saving face at this stage.

Mitch Connor

leninbenjamin wrote: »

that's the charter. GY an co. were well within their rights to ban over this, nobody can argue otherwise (although to my mind it does seem a bit harsh).

I love the way you left out the bit that says a minor offence MAY be a bannable offence.

Selective quoting for the win!!

AckwelFoley

While i acknowledge rules are rules, this rule as was outlined by the OP seems absolutely daft.

I have access to the soccer forum, but i think the hoops i had to jump through to get into it alone turned me off posting in it.

I understand why the entry "test" is there, i suppose the mods nerves are more than tested by "Pool" and "united" fanboys

Dub13

Hobart wrote: »

I believe it is the way that these issues are approached/dealt with is the actual problem. 99% of people who post on soccer are resonable people. It is a little like a pub sometimes, with bantger and of course somebody is going to tell another person to cop on or f-off sometimes, but that's part and parcel of the game tbh, you know thios aswell as I do.

The issue is really about the points you raise above, moseso it is about the way these issues are handleed. IMO and experience, the handleing of these issues leave a lot to be desired. And the fallout (is usually) all about saving face for some people, instead of just saying " We/I got it wrong" .

Again, you are looking at this from the incorrect perspective. Your opening gambit could have read "I think everybody agrees that shooting somebody is wrong", because, as you, I and 99% of people know who have posted on this thread, PH post was not abusive. I can understand Xavi initially thinking it was abusive, but I think even he realises that the post was not abusive. It was actually hilarious (imo) and obvioulsy those who thanked it, found it funny aswell. I think even the poster at whom it was directed at, got it.

So Xavi did not realise that it was a parody on a (very) famous footballing incident, and bans PH. No biggie tbh, he just consults with the fellow mods, and either rolls back or does not.

What has caused this sh!tstorm is the follow on action of banning people who actually got the parody, and the attempts at justification by the mods etc... of this action.

Guy's, it's way way over the top. Now, I'll still have my pint tonight, and watch Match of the Day, and this decision will not ruin my weekend in any way shape or form, but some of ye need to loosen strings a little, and get over yourselves.

Good post.

Even if Xavi got the joke the first time around he would still have to issue Pighead with a warrning as the post was out of line and breached the charter.The post been funny does not change this.

As I said on this thread it was a beautifully-crafted funny post but was against the rules of the forum and could have set a precedent for more of the same but from less articulated people than Pighead.Lets say people start trawling the net for other quotes and using them to attack other users.

The famous Mike Newell one comes to mind.."She shouldn't be here. I know that sounds sexist but I am sexist. This is not park football, so what are women doing here?
''It is tokenism - for the politically-correct idiots.’’Now if I posted that on a female dominated forum I am sure I would get a ban.The point been even if its someone else's words,if you post them you have to stand by them.

Spud83

I don't think Pigheads ban is the problem. Pighead himself is happy to accept it and IMO the ban was correct.

The main problem is the banning of people thanking the post and not infracting. If the abuse was considered that bad the post should have been edited or deleted in the beginning.

5starpool

Dub13 wrote: »

The famous Mike Newell one comes to mind.."She shouldn't be here. I know that sounds sexist but I am sexist. This is not park football, so what are women doing here?
''It is tokenism - for the politically-correct idiots.’’Now if I posted that on a female dominated forum I am sure I would get a ban.The point been even if its someone else's words,if you post them you have to stand by them.

I could think of somewhere else it could be used too.

Easy target, sorry. Couldn't resist.

telemachus

It's the complete removal of access that bothers me personally, I can see how there's an argument to be made about wether the post itself was abusive, even if it clearly wasn't made with that intent, but having access removed and then finger waggingly being told that even in the unlikely event I am gratiously reinstated, I will probably require a probationery leash in case I go about committing more heinous crimes left and right.

I was previously to be honest completely oblivious to Guanyin other than being aware she was a soccer mod, and didn't have a clue about all these accumulated grievances others have thrown up, but i'm not overly enamoured with the way she dealt with me and others over this. I'd be happy to take a one week ban for my failure to acknowledge one of the new rules, but i don't like being chided like an errant child.

leninbenjamin

Pighead wrote: »

You're wrong leninbenjamin. You're missing a crucial point here. Here it is: THE POST IN QUESTION THAT WAS THANKED WAS NOT ABUSIVE. EVERYBODY (INCLUDING THE MODS) REALISES THIS NOW. THANKING NON ABUSIVE POSTS IS NOT A BANNABLE OFFENCE!

LOUD NOISES!

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I love the way you left out the bit that says a minor offence MAY be a bannable offence.

Selective quoting for the win!!

i love the bit where you didn't read my post. you do know what 'incur' means right?

Pighead

Abuse=to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way

Was the target of Pigheads words keane0209 harmed, injured or offended in any way? No. So it's clear at this point that Pigheads post wasn't abusive. We're all agreed on that at this stage I think?

javaboy wrote: »

You don't have a case unless the original post you thanked wasn't abusive I reckon.

It wasn't abusive. So he has a case now right?

stevenmu wrote: »

Stupidity is one thing, but posters have thanked posts which were clearly abuse against another user as a sneaky way of getting a dig in, which is every bit as bad as making the post originally.

It wasn't abuse. This isn't applicable in this case then is it?

GuanYin wrote: »

At that point, as far as I know, Pighead had admitted that he meant the post as abuse towards the user. So we had abuse + intent = ban.

Pighead DIDN'T admit he meant the post to be abusive. So we have eh nothing actually.

GuanYin wrote: »

They thanked an abusive post.

They didn't

GuanYin wrote: »

Just because it was comical doesn't mean it wasn't intended. The poster in question admitted intent.

He didn't

Xavi6 wrote: »

I banned Pighead because his albeit clever parody was an attempt to gloss over what was personal abuse.

As I said on the thread, I couldn't give a flying fuck who he was quoting or what sort of disguise he was putting on it. It was abuse and warrants a ban. That's a fact.

It wasn't personal abuse. Pighead knows that, you know that, the "victim" knows that. Pretty much everybody knows that at this stage.

GuanYin wrote: »

It had been decided (not be me, I've been away) that thanking abuse is the same as abuse and merits a ban because in our opinon, abuse of another poster is the worst offence in soccer. People ask that we be consistant, Xavi and I PM'd and it was decided that consistancy be applied.

This wasn't abuse. None of those rules apply in this case

GuanYin wrote: »

Can I ask why do you wantto thank abusive posts anyway?

He didn't God damn it!

GuanYin wrote: »

Erm its in the forum rules so you knew that thanking abusive posts was not allowed or at least should have to be allowed post in soccer.

As I said, just because it is funny, doesn't mean it isn't abusive.

He didn't thank an abusive post. It wasn't abusive.

So basically all of the above reasons which the mods and other users have given for the ban are absolutely irrerevant in this case.
Pighead appreciates the mods genuinely thought it was abuse at the time but finds it very hard to believe that they still do.

keane2097

Can I just reiterate my views on the whole thing since the rest of the mods arrived:-

As Pighead has said above neither the original poster nor the "target" (me) considered the post abusive - we've both said as much publicly multiple times at this stage. Because of this, the people who thanked the post (including myself by the way) haven't thanked an abusive post, therefore their bans shouldn't stand. Except maybe for those who seemingly "contravened an order" and went and thanked even in light of this thread, but even then that's a matter of opinion.

Now my main beef here is as follows:

All the mods are going on about consistantly enforcing the rules, as if this is what they should be striving for.

It is not.

The assumption is that you four have been chosen as best suited to do the job (true or not I don't know but I think in general the modding on the forum is quite good so whatever). Now surely what makes you suited to the job is the ability to follow along a thread, see the tone of it and decide, on a case by case basis, whether rules need to be applied or not.

If the rules were simply to be followed rigidly in every single case regardless of intent, context or anything else we wouldn't need to bother with picking good mods - we could just train a monkey.

If this case was taken in isolation, as I believe all cases should be in the absense of a trained monkey, then it is VERY obvious that no abuse has occurred. Thanks were given to a post that was considered funny by all and sundry and no bannings needed to take place at all.

Now the argument of "what if it was like this" or "what if this happened" is simply not applicable, because we have all the "evidence" for this case, we can all see what actually happened so we don't need to add hypothetical ifs and buts to decide what action needed to be taken...

Now, can someone tell me if I've made any sense there at all?

keane2097

Pighead wrote: »

Abuse=to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way

Was the target of Pigheads words keane0209 harmed, injured or offended in any way? No. So it's clear at this point that Pigheads post wasn't abusive. We're all agreed on that at this stage I think?

It wasn't abusive. So he has a case now right?

It wasn't abuse. This isn't applicable in this case then is it?

Pighead DIDN'T admit he meant the post to be abusive. So we have eh nothing actually.

They didn't

He didn't

It wasn't personal abuse. Pighead knows that, you know that, the "victim" knows that. Pretty much everybody knows that at this stage.

This wasn't abuse. None of those rules apply in this case

He didn't God damn it!

He didn't thank an abusive post. It wasn't abusive.

So basically all of the above reasons which the mods and other users have given for the ban are absolutely irrerevant in this case.
Pighead appreciates the mods genuinely thought it was abuse at the time but finds it very hard to believe that they still do.

QFT

redout

Goal...............

Berbatov

47 seconds remaining !

Summit here we come.

Well considering I am banned from the soccer forum I thought I would put this here.

Xavi6

As far as I'm concerned this thread has just gotten to the stage where people are on repeat. The point has been well made.

Any chance it can be left for us to sort out between ourselves before we get back to you?

Cheers.

GuanYin

Mitch Connor, to answer you question. When I came upon the issue, it was with a PM from a user claiming that we were being incosistant by not banning the users who thanked the abusive post after killmee0 was banned.

I'll admit I don't know the joke being referenced but the ban was made and I erred on the side of consistancy (a user had already complained). I will admit, I did question this with the other soccer mods at the time, however, despite his protestations now, Pighead was asked at the time why he posted the abuse.

He DID NOT claim it wasn't abuse. He sent a PM quoting Roy Keane's reasoning for tackling Haaland and said he accepted the ban. Hilarous again I'm sure, but not in any way helpful and clearly not contesting the charge of abuse. With that in mind, I upheld the bans. As others have said, we're not mind readers, anyone can come along later and say "ahh but it was only a joke" about any ban.

Pighead, I see now you are claiming it was all a joke and not abusive. Well I'm sorry, but it's a bit late. You could easily have said that to Xavi when he PM'd you at the time. You went the funny option instead and your PM gives no indication that you didn't intend the abuse. Which is all very well to say now that all the trouble has manifested.