Banned from Soccer forum for "thanks"

Spud83

So GY gave a ban to the users thanking the post for consitency. Logic follows that thanking a post now results in an immediate ban and there is an infraction is no longer an option. So now you should move abusing the thanks button from the minor offences to the major offences list, if it's not going to be dealt with case by case.

GuanYin

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree, it has nothing to do with it.

There are so many good reasons why she should not be a mod, why reduce yourself to those two rather pointless ones?

I really think that GY is too enamoured with the rules and their enforcement. Underlying every rule should be the idea that those rules should be interpreted and enforced through the lens of common sense.

However, much as I think one would be justified, this is not a referendum on GuanYin's modding. Frankly I have the greatest of respect for her. She does a thankless job in a forum where she admits her knowledge of the subject matter is limited and within which some of the most childish and raucous posting on boards is done.

The posters in this thread seem to react rather than act. If you have a problem with a mod's style or with the rules of a forum there are appropriate places to discuss them, such as feedback, rather than waiting for a situation to arise like this where the Mods are understandably always going to defend their actions rather than possibly engaging in a conversation on how the forum is modded.

GuanYin, much as I might disagree with your style I don't think you deserve the vitriol many have levelled at you in this thread. Thanks for modding an almost un-moddable forum and I hope you can sift through the nonsense in this thread and maybe take on board that a more relaxed approach to the rules may make your job easier in the long run.

Thanks, although I did play semi-pro for 3 years, I've had a season ticket to my local professional team for 10 years and I've followed the english and italian leagues since I was 6. But I guess that doesn't count for much if you're not an Irish guy


To those of you who posted non-confrontationally, I will repeat Xavi's comment that matters will be discussed. The fact of the matter is, posters in soccer try and goad each other. To a point that is ok, but some people take it too far and thats why the soccer forum is so strict.

I know there is a call for "case by case" but to be honest that isn't really feasible and as it is, as Villian pointed out, it isn't always easy to be consistant (it isn't intentional, we're discussing that too). It would be easy for us to draw conclusions that quoting something funny would not be abuse and thanking it would be ok. Until of course, someone uses a funny quote to actually abuse and upset someone. Then what? The thankees are either laughing or goading the abuse. We can't interview everyone so we cover our bases, we say "look guys, if it is abusive, don't thank it" we put it into the charter, we ask you read the charter so everyone should know. I'd love to be able to moderate soccer based on my personal opinons of people. But then there are people I'd be more or less likely to ban because I think some people are more trolly than others. So we don't. We keep it by the book, because that way there can be no accusations of unfairness. It's a small concession in my opinion. It's not to everyones liking, but it's the best current option we have. Moderation isn't easy at the best of times and not every forum is the same. By and large this works for soccer.

To those who are jumping at the chance to aim their dislike/hate/vitriol towards me. OK, I get it, fair enough. I didn't get in this to be liked and I can take the abuse that goes with it.

It is worth noting that a year ago a similar feedback thread cast T4TF as the bad guy and me as the hero and before that Gandalf was the bad guy and T4TF was the hero. Of the three threads I can remember, some of the phrases were almost word for word in their comparisons of mods "The other mods are great, I respect them, but X shouldn't be a mod". If you want to know what my sense of humor is like, know that I laughed at that.

Seriously though, I'm not in this to get at anyone and I'm not trying to be smart BUT we outlined rules and asked you to agree to them for a reason. It is so you have full knowledge of the rules and know better than break them. *IF* you're in any doubt, ask first and maybe then question the rules. But to break them and then come here and say, well the rule is stupid, unban me or you're a bad mod. Well what do you want me to say? Ok then?

I'm trying to be as reasonable as I can and when I am reasonable or I do change or overturn bans, I don't come running here to tell people how great I am. So yeah, like all mods in feedback, we only get the bad reviews. Much like referees, you only notice them when you're complaining

Anyway. Taken on board the comments. Won't promise we'll change things but if DeVore can tweak the system for us, yay! Regarding the abuse. Says more about their mindset than me, but then I would say that.

Peace out

roryc

stovelid wrote: »

If you're being serious here, you're just making a fool of yourself now, tbh.

The comment was a bit tongue in cheek, as Kayroo already said there are numerous actual reasons why I (and clearly many other people) think GY shouldn't be the moderator of an Irish soccer forum. However, (without being sexist or... American...ist) being a female voice in a mostly male forum and not being from the same country as the majority of the forum population would put her at somewhat of a disadvantage, as she may not understand when somebody is joking (as in this circumstance).

Daysha

deise59 wrote: »

:eek: Are those points about me?!?

If they are, then you've completely misinterpreted what I said in the PM.

GuanYin, please answer this which I posted an hour or two ago, because we really need to clear up what I said in my PM

You said I complained to the mods about the original 6 not being banned for the thanks.

That is simply not true.

GuanYin

roryc wrote: »

The comment was a bit tongue in cheek, as Kayroo already said there are numerous actual reasons why I (and clearly many other people) think GY shouldn't be the moderator of an Irish soccer forum. However, (without being sexist or... American...ist) being a female voice in a mostly male forum and not being from the same country as the majority of the forum population would put her at somewhat of a disadvantage, as she may not understand when somebody is joking (as in this circumstance).

I didn't ban Pighead. I also didn' make the call on banning the others alone. Sheesh!

desie59 wrote:

GuanYin, please answer this which I posted an hour or two ago, because we really need to clear up what I said in my PM

You said I complained to the mods about the original 6 not being banned for the thanks.

That is simply not true.

Hrmm, well I didn't get the original PM, so maybe I mistook the information within. However, it did mention consistancy

Dub13

roryc wrote: »

being a female voice in a mostly male forum and not being from the same country as the majority of the forum population would put her at somewhat of a disadvantage,

That can be flipped around and these attributes you talk about could well be a advantage in the soccer forum.

Spud83

When I say case by case I mean the type of punishment not the fact they should be punished or not.

Pigheads post could be seen as abusive and he didn't seem to put up to much of a fight when he got banned so IMO case closed serve your week ban. I also don't think many people care about Pigheads ban.

The argument I believe is regarding the users that Thanked the posts.

Now you said that they were banned because of a previous case where a user was banned. Now IMO this is where the case by case should come. Otherwise it shouldn't imply it in the charter. Saying "Minor offence (See list) will result in a yellow card infraction and may incur a ban" implies that the offense carries an automatic yellow card infraction and if the case is serious enough a ban.

Also why aren't posts that contain personal abuse edited by mods to have the abuse removed, or the post deleted. I see this done in PI all the time. Whats the point in banning a user for giving abuse, but leaving the abuse lying around.

The first decision was correct ever since then, every decision from banning the original thankers, to revoking access rights to the late thankers, and making them re-apply with a possible probationary period, to now saying that the four mods are going to discuss and get back to us, has been wrong.

I know what get back to us means, it means will you will change or clarify the rules to dig yourself out of this hole. Post an announcement about it. Tell everyone thems the rules deal with or don't post here. While never coming out and saying I handled this badly.

You made a good analogy with referees. You right you only ever here about them when people are complaining. Generally because they messed up. And one of the worst things about ref is that the won't just come and admit they messed up. They would get a much easier time if they did.

redout

redout wrote: »

So to sum up you did not get the joke and in so doing did not understand what it was everyone found so amusing and decided that everyone should be banned. Now if you did not understand why it was people were thanking the post do you not think that you should have asked another mod to explain it to you instead of just asking another mod should this be banned without knowing all the facts of the matter in fairness ? Because if you did then it could most certainly be argued that you would have let common sense prevail. I guess we will never know.

GuanYin wrote: »

I'm not Irish, but considering 70% of the soccer forum deals with English soccer, I assume it's not a job requirement

redout wrote: »

The above does not require being Irish.



So again I say why did you make decisions when you yourself did not know all the facts pertaining to the matter in question ?

I am still awaiting your reply ?

GuanYin wrote: »

*IF* you're in any doubt, ask first and maybe then question the rules.

Exactly what you should have done.



P.S. thankees is not a word. Not even in the land of the free and the home of the brave!

GuanYin

redout wrote: »

Exactly what you should have done.

Actually, as I've stated already, I did.

Daysha

GuanYin wrote: »

Hrmm, well I didn't get the original PM, so maybe I mistook the information within. However, it did mention consistancy

Wow. That's an absolutely horrible attitude to have, especially from a mod as experienced as you.

First of all, yes, as a matter of fact, you did get the original PM. I sent it to Xavi since he was online at the time. He then replied to me which was forwarded to every other soccer mod, including yourself. My original post was included in that forward.

Second of all, you've just "assumed" that I complained about the original 6 not being banned. And why? Just because I mentioned the word consistency?!?

I'll tell you what I said in the PM shall I?

I'm not going to post the full PM here, because I'll probably be attacked yet again by some posters, but I will post the most important part:

I really think that if the thanks rule only works for some posts and not for others, either Killme's ban should be overturned or else some work needs to be done on clearing up the rule, because at the moment it's extremely inconsistent.

I suggest one of two alternatives:

1) Overturn Killme's ban. This would bring the consistency I was hoping for.

2) Clear up the rule to highlight the difference between light hearted posts like Pigheads or serious abusive posts

Note: I DID NOT suggest you ban the 6 originals to bring more consistency. Something you've been telling every poster here that I have.

And why have you done that? Because you didn't take the time to read my original PM sent to you via Xavi and/or you assumed from what Xavi or someone else told you about the PM that I called for the 6 to be banned.

Either way, that's really disgraceful behaviour on your part.

Charlie

GuanYin wrote: »

Thanks, although I did play semi-pro for 3 years, I've had a season ticket to my local professional team for 10 years and I've followed the english and italian leagues since I was 6. But I guess that doesn't count for much if you're not an Irish guy


To those of you who posted non-confrontationally, I will repeat Xavi's comment that matters will be discussed. The fact of the matter is, posters in soccer try and goad each other. To a point that is ok, but some people take it too far and thats why the soccer forum is so strict.

I know there is a call for "case by case" but to be honest that isn't really feasible and as it is, as Villian pointed out, it isn't always easy to be consistant (it isn't intentional, we're discussing that too). It would be easy for us to draw conclusions that quoting something funny would not be abuse and thanking it would be ok. Until of course, someone uses a funny quote to actually abuse and upset someone. Then what? The thankees are either laughing or goading the abuse. We can't interview everyone so we cover our bases, we say "look guys, if it is abusive, don't thank it" we put it into the charter, we ask you read the charter so everyone should know. I'd love to be able to moderate soccer based on my personal opinons of people. But then there are people I'd be more or less likely to ban because I think some people are more trolly than others. So we don't. We keep it by the book, because that way there can be no accusations of unfairness. It's a small concession in my opinion. It's not to everyones liking, but it's the best current option we have. Moderation isn't easy at the best of times and not every forum is the same. By and large this works for soccer.

To those who are jumping at the chance to aim their dislike/hate/vitriol towards me. OK, I get it, fair enough. I didn't get in this to be liked and I can take the abuse that goes with it.

It is worth noting that a year ago a similar feedback thread cast T4TF as the bad guy and me as the hero and before that Gandalf was the bad guy and T4TF was the hero. Of the three threads I can remember, some of the phrases were almost word for word in their comparisons of mods "The other mods are great, I respect them, but X shouldn't be a mod". If you want to know what my sense of humor is like, know that I laughed at that.

Seriously though, I'm not in this to get at anyone and I'm not trying to be smart BUT we outlined rules and asked you to agree to them for a reason. It is so you have full knowledge of the rules and know better than break them. *IF* you're in any doubt, ask first and maybe then question the rules. But to break them and then come here and say, well the rule is stupid, unban me or you're a bad mod. Well what do you want me to say? Ok then?

I'm trying to be as reasonable as I can and when I am reasonable or I do change or overturn bans, I don't come running here to tell people how great I am. So yeah, like all mods in feedback, we only get the bad reviews. Much like referees, you only notice them when you're complaining

Anyway. Taken on board the comments. Won't promise we'll change things but if DeVore can tweak the system for us, yay! Regarding the abuse. Says more about their mindset than me, but then I would say that.

Peace out

I'm not trying get a dig in, or act the prick, but the above GY is an excellent post. You've explained things as best as you can, without being sharp or dismissive. More of the above, and I think these kind of threads wouldn't be popping up.

Just my 2 cents though.

GuanYin

alanmurphy83 wrote: »

When I say case by case I mean the type of punishment not the fact they should be punished or not.

Pigheads post could be seen as abusive and he didn't seem to put up to much of a fight when he got banned so IMO case closed serve your week ban. I also don't think many people care about Pigheads ban.

The argument I believe is regarding the users that Thanked the posts.

OK, well fair enough, I do see that Pigheads ban was a week and I believe traditionally thankers get a lesser ban so the initial posters who were banned may get their banning commuted, I'll review it and I'll discuss it with the other mods first.

Those "rebels" alas, will not.

Dub13

GuanYin wrote: »

OK, well fair enough, I do see that Pigheads ban was a week and I believe traditionally thankers get a lesser ban so the initial posters who were banned may get their banning commuted, I'll review it and I'll discuss it with the other mods first.

Those "rebels" alas, will not.

I would agree with GY here that the 'thanked offence' should be less than the original offeance.

You see we do listen,maybe we can have a group hug now.

Spud83

GuanYin wrote: »

OK, well fair enough, I do see that Pigheads ban was a week and I believe traditionally thankers get a lesser ban so the initial posters who were banned may get their banning commuted, I'll review it and I'll discuss it with the other mods first.

Those "rebels" alas, will not.

My point is still why a ban at all when the charter states a yellow card infraction, and a ban for serious cases. Do you believe the "abuse" in Pigheads post was serious enough to warrant a ban for people thanking a humorous post?

Also if you admit to being heavy handed with the original posters then you have to take some responsibility for this situation, as it has all stemmed from that heavy handiness.

GuanYin

Charlie wrote: »

I'm not trying get a dig in, or act the prick, but the above GY is an excellent post. You've explained things as best as you can, without being sharp or dismissive. More of the above, and I think these kind of threads wouldn't be popping up.

Just my 2 cents though.

Thanks although rereading now, I used "their" instead of "there" and thats really annoying me and now that you've quoted it there is no point in editing

See after all that, now you've gone and upset me

Dub13

Dub13 wrote: »

You see we do listen,maybe we can have a group hug now.

Please

Spud83

Dub13 wrote: »

I would agree with GY here that the 'thanked offence' should be less than the original offeance.

You see we do listen,maybe we can have a group hug now.

You mean agree with me, and the majority of posters in this thread. Its taken 21 pages to get that out of yas.

Charlie

GuanYin wrote: »

Thanks although rereading now, I used "their" instead of "there" and thats really annoying me and now that you've quoted it there is no point in editing

See after all that, now you've gone and upset me

It's what I do.

GuanYin

alanmurphy83 wrote: »

My point is still why a ban at all when the charter states a yellow card infraction, and a ban for serious cases. Do you believe the "abuse" in Pigheads post was serious enough to warrant a ban for people thanking a humorous post?

I explained it all above as best I can. Yellow card infractions can carry bans with them. I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not going to stay arguing the point until you get what you want. I've been as clear and honest as I can.

Also if you admit to being heavy handed with the original posters then you have to take some responsibility for this situation, as it has all stemmed from that heavy handiness.

They were banned for deliberately breaking the rules. Plenty of posters made a point without doing so.

GuanYin

Charlie wrote: »

It's what I do.

You could change if for me and then noone would know.

Daysha

GY, some comment on my post above if you will?

Thanks for reviewing the bans for original 6 posters btw

GuanYin

deise59 wrote: »

GY, some comment on my post above if you will?

Thanks for reviewing the bans for original 6 posters btw

I think I won't. If you wantto post something polite and reasonable, I'll happily entertain. If you're going to post something as confrontational as that, I'm going to ignore it.

For all the remarks on my attitude in posting, I never treat anyone with the abuse or vitriol that they treat me.

I think I'm drawing a line under this issue.

Charlie

GuanYin wrote: »

You could change if for me and then noone would know.

I've re-read it several times now, and can't spot the errors, but if you point them out, I will.

GuanYin

Charlie wrote: »

I've re-read it several times now, and can't spot the errors, but if you point them out, I will.

How do I know you won't just use that to highlight my errors to everyone and point and laugh?

Charlie

GuanYin wrote: »

How do I know you won't just use that to highlight my errors to everyone and point and laugh?

Because when I have a pop at someone, i'm usually not likely to go for grammer, you of all people should know that.

.gifs and sophmoric humour are more up my alley.

Chucky the tree

tbh bringing the fact that she's female and American into the arguement against her being mod is pathetic and it's overshadowing the legimate grievance about the situation.

redout

[/quote]

GuanYin wrote: »

*IF* you're in any doubt, ask first and maybe then question the rules.

redout wrote: »

Exactly what you should have done.

GuanYin wrote: »

Actually, as I've stated already, I did.

GuanYin wrote: »

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).

Well reading what I quoted you on above would lead one to believe otherwise.

Overheal

Chucky the tree wrote: »

tbh bringing the fact that she's female and American into the arguement against her being mod is pathetic and it's overshadowing the legimate grievance about the situation.

where

maybe we can have a group hug now.

Daysha

GuanYin wrote: »

I think I won't. If you wantto post something polite and reasonable, I'll happily entertain. If you're going to post something as confrontational as that, I'm going to ignore it.

For all the remarks on my attitude in posting, I never treat anyone with the abuse or vitriol that they treat me.

I think I'm drawing a line under this issue.

I'm not sure if that little dig about abuse or vitroil was intended for me or not, so I'll let that for others to decide.

I'll post my feelings again, because I do feel very strongly about this.

You said this a few hours ago

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.

Obviously I was very surprised to read of you saying something like that, because I thought it was pretty obvious that that was nowhere near what I had said in the PM. So I asked you to confirm whether it was actually me you were speaking about, and you said this:

Hrmm, well I didn't get the original PM, so maybe I mistook the information within. However, it did mention consistancy

I'm sorry if you feel I'm overly confrontational, but I honestly think thats a very poor excuse.

Here's the main body of the PM

I really think that if the thanks rule only works for some posts and not for others, either Killme's ban should be overturned or else some work needs to be done on clearing up the rule, because at the moment it's extremely inconsistent.

I suggest one of two alternatives:

1) Overturn Killme's ban. This would bring the consistency I was hoping for.

2) Clear up the rule to highlight the difference between light hearted posts like Pigheads or serious abusive posts

Note: I DID NOT suggest you ban the 6 originals to bring more consistency. Something you've been telling every poster here that I have.

When I asked you how you misinterpreted it in such way, you said a) you never got the original PM & b) you based your entire assumption that I called for everyone to be banned just because I mentioned the word consistency.

Regardless of whatever way you look at it GY, that's just wrong, especially since I was the only one to actually PM the mods regarding the issue before this thread started.

I'll say it again. Yes, you DID get my original PM. Xavi forwarded it to you once I sent it to him. I've got the proof in my inbox.

So, without being confrontational, do you think it was acceptable of you to make such an assumption about my standing on the matter, and then begin posting it here as fact?

I have been extremely careful this entire thread to make sure there is no confusion over why I sent you guys the PM, or what I felt should have been the right decision on the mods part.

So can you understand why I get so annoyed when I read comments like what you said to Mitch?

Hopefully this response was more to your liking

Chucky the tree

Overheal wrote: »

where

huh?