Banned from Soccer forum for "thanks"

Mitch Connor

I don't understand why the original 6 are STILL banned? Seems just another power play by GY, again.

Terrible modding. Again.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Pighead wrote: »

And if a bit of common sense had have been used we wouldn't have needed this overblown thread.

And if you had not posted in breach of the charter then we would not have had it.

And as for your second question, I agree with Des, that is a loaded question.

Villain

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

And if you had not posted in breach of the charter then we would not have had it.

And as for your second question, I agree with Des, that is a loaded question.

and if Roy Keane wasn't a ******.......

Pighead

Des wrote: »

that's a very loaded question.

How is it loaded? The mods have made mistakes here yet none of them have admitted doing so. Instead sticking to rigid rules and inflexible attitudes to talk their way out of them.

javaboy

Pighead wrote: »

Good God javaboy, every single one of your posts on this thread have come down on the side of the moderators arguments. Every one.

Now in most feedback threads that would be fine but in this thread the mods clearly have a case to answer with regards to some of the arguments being made yet you seem to be ignoring them and instead pulling up the non mods at various stages throughout the thread.

I've talked about three issues in this thread:

Acting the martyr: Yes I'm in agreement with the mods on this one. I don't think it's the way to get things done around here. It clouded the issue and only served to antagonise the mods further.

Reporting posts: I exchanged a few posts with redout about reporting posts. He reckons the mods should read and police every single post. I disagree and reckon users should do their bit. Oooh where do I get my gestapo uniform. :rolleyes:

Thanking abusive posts: Regarding the people who thanked the post before this thread I gave a possible reason in this post why some action had to be taken. It appears the mods decided to be consistent rather than use case-by-case judgement. A lack of consistency is something they seem to have taken some stick over in the past so I can kind of see where they were coming from. I also said in the same post that the rule is a bit harsh.

In this post about checking ban histories of the original thankers I said it was too much hassle for mods to do that. I stick by that but as I said already the rule is harsh. But if they're going to implement it, they can hardly apply it differently to different posters can they? If a regular got away with thanking a post while another user was infracted for the same thing, there would be murder.

In this post I even said they had a legitimate cause. I was just critical of the method they used to protest.


This post in reply to Des is probably the most mod-sided thing I've said in this thread and looking back at it, it does look a bit rabidly pro-mod. All I meant was that you can understand how the mods would think you had implicity admitted it was not abusive by not contesting the ban in the first place.


I've been critical of GY and T4TF in previous Feedback threads. I'm not a mod fanboy and I can certainly see why GY rubs some people up the wrong way. Imo a case-by-case approach to some of the more subtle rules like thanking possibly abusive posts would be better. But maybe there are good reasons why that hasn't worked in the past.

Slash/ED

lol

Mitch Connor

Pighead wrote: »

How is it loaded? The mods have made mistakes here yet none of them have admitted doing so. Instead sticking to rigid rules and inflexible attitudes to talk their way out of them.

My issue with this is that the rules are NOT rigid. GY had the choice to either infract or ban the users who thanked your post (first lot). Infraction would have been the decent choice given the humour of the post, but she DECIDED to ban the users then stick to the banning (and also ignore me twice when I argued this very point) The rules are not rigid, it is GY who is to rigid.

Spud83

So nothing changes. The original six will be unbanned tomorrow meaning they have served a four day ban, when infractions woild have sufficed. The other 'thankers' are left as they are. Mods don't admit that they handled the situation badly. All that comes out of it is the mods will look at things on a case by case which they should have been doing anyway.

Why not make it mandatory that abusive posts be edited or deleted when mod is banning them? If they have time to ban then they have time to edit away the abuse and replace with a warning to other users.

As I said before I knew what the meaning of get back to us was. A restatement of the rules and a like it or lump it attitude so they can save face.

The Muppet

javaboy wrote: »

I've talked about three issues in this thread:

Acting the martyr: Yes I'm in agreement with the mods on this one. I don't think it's the way to get things done around here. It clouded the issue and only served to antagonise the mods further.

..............................................................

My comment to you earlier was just off the cuff. I don't visit feedback all that often so I am not familar with your posting history here. It appeared to me that you were defending a wrong. I apologise if my comment offended you.

javaboy

The Muppet wrote: »

My comment to you earlier was just off the cuff. I don't visit feedback all that often so I am not familar with your posting history here. It appeared to me that you were defending a wrong. I apologise if my comment offended you.

No problem. Things got a little bit more heated than they should have and for what it's worth, I didn't mean to appear so one-sided on this.

5starpool

I think a new rule should just be added to the soccer forum charter:

"No humor (sic) allowed, 1 week ban for offenders"

Edit: How pigheads PM reply to xavi could be seen as admitting intent is so far beyond me I can't even comprehend it.

redout

javaboy wrote: »

Reporting posts: I exchanged a few posts with redout about reporting posts. He reckons the mods should read and police every single post. I disagree and reckon users should do their bit. Oooh where do I get my gestapo uniform. :rolleyes:

That is not entirely accurate. I said that if the mods could not deal with posts and the workload was more or less too much then they should add a couple more mods to the forum which in my opinion is a good idea if abusive breaches of the forum charter were being missed. That is what I was implying. One of the the mods I think it was actually posted somewhere in this thread that soccer is the 2nd busiest forum on boards. Now if that is true then it on only adds strength to my suggestion.

We have one mod in Oz, one on the eastern seaboard of the US and two from western Europe. Now Javaboy I am not sure if you post in soccer but if you do I can say that you are not a regular as I am the past four months solid and your name would not be one which I would see often if at all. If you dont post there regularly then I dont think you understand just how fast the posts can come in especially on a matchday.

I am sure Xavi could well tell you that sometimes you could see up to a 100 posts in the forum inside maybe 15-20 mins on occasions. That kicks off before the matches, during the matches and then after the matches. Thats multiple hundreds of posts in a short timeframe. Now that is obviously too much for a single mod to peruse on top of whatever else it is that they are doing. Another important point is that on a lot of but not all occasions there is only one of the the four mods ever present and thats usually Xavi and take nothing away from the chap he does a bang-up job in my opinion, joins in the banter and applies common sense.

(you must also take in account about what you said about posters doing there part and reporting posts. Quite a few posters are in the forum to **** stir and troll. Now these people cannot be depended on to report posts to the mods on a lot of occasions. One cannot always presume that ordinary decent posters are always there to report. So having more (sensible) eyes patrolling the forum would only be a positive thing.)

_blank_

I agree with redout here, and I've been saying it for nigh on 2 years now.

That forum needs more mods.

That is in no way taking away from the job the current mods do, so they shouldn't take it as an affront.

javaboy

redout wrote: »

That is not entirely accurate. I said that if the mods could not deal with posts and the workload was more or less too much then they should add a couple more mods to the forum which in my opinion is a good idea if abusive breaches of the forum charter were being missed. That is what I was implying. One of the the mods I think it was actually posted somewhere in this thread that soccer is the 2nd busiest forum on boards. Now if that is true then it on only adds strength to my suggestion.

Yes you said that you think a couple of mods should be added but the main thing I got from your posts was that posters shouldn't need to report posts. My point was that if people are going to complain about some breaches being missed by mods, they should be doing their bit and reporting them.

Adding more mods helps of course (and 4 is probably too little for that busy a forum) but users have to play their part if they expect all the rules to be enforced.

We have one mod in Oz, one on the eastern seaboard of the US and two from western Europe. Now Javaboy I am not sure if you post in soccer but if you do I can say that you are not a regular as I am the past four months solid and your name would not be one which I would see often if at all. If you dont post there regularly then I dont think you understand just how fast the posts can come in especially on a matchday.

No I don't post there. I do lurk a lot though so I know how busy it can be.

I am sure Xavi could well tell you that sometimes you could see up to a 100 posts in the forum inside maybe 15-20 mins on occasions. That kicks off before the matches, during the matches and then after the matches. Thats multiple hundreds of posts in a short timeframe. Now that is obviously too much for a single mod to peruse on top of whatever else it is that they are doing. Another important point is that on a lot of but not all occasions there is only one of the the four mods ever present and thats usually Xavi and take nothing away from the chap he does a bang-up job in my opinion, joins in the banter and applies common sense.

(you must also take in account about what you said about posters doing there part and reporting posts. Quite a few posters are in the forum to **** stir and troll. Now these people cannot be depended on to report posts to the mods on a lot of occasions. One cannot always presume that ordinary decent posters are always there to report. So having more (sensible) eyes patrolling the forum would only be a positive thing.)

All those points seem like more of a reason to be reporting posts. That was my main issue with you earlier. You're posts gave me the impression that you expected mods to read every post and catch every charter breach with little or no help from users. Imo that's not practical.

Daysha

Thanks for that post Pighead, glad I'm not the only one who was annoyed at how she handled it.

I've posted a complaint on the help desk so it's up to them now.

keane2097

GuanYin wrote: »

I've outlined it already, we're going to try case-by-case. That means calls for consistancy are out the window, because we'll be making "judgement calls" on the incidents.

This, I think, makes this whole thread worthwhile. This is self-evidently the approach that should be taken and I hope moderators and users can work together to make it effective.

GuanYin wrote: »

DeVore has agreed with our view of thanking abusive posts so I think that ends the debate on whether it stays or goes.

Can I just make a suggestion regarding this:

The idea of banning thanking abusive posts is basically to protect the abused person from further abuse, with the thankers seen to be "echoing" the words of the abuser, correct?

I think, in a very many cases, people who thank abusive posts do so ironically or because a post was so off-the-wall it gave them a laugh. I did so to Pighead's post even when I actually thought he was being abusive and I certainly wasn't offended by other people thanking it also even when I actually thought he was being abusive.

Some of the best laughs I've had while reading the soccer forum have been from things like Boggles thanking a Mr Alan post disingenuously and things like that so to stop people thanking things out of irony would be very much to the detriment of the humour of the forum.

Essentially, I think if someone is offended by someone else thanking a post they should have to report it for there to be action taken. In this instance a mod can assess the situation and decide on action that needs to be taken.

This entire issue would have been avoided if this system was already implemented as I certainly wouldn't have complained about people thanking the post.

Actually, if a mod had just asked me if I felt action needed to be taken to "protect" me from the thankers it would have been sorted as well...

Frisbee

Des wrote: »

I agree with redout here, and I've been saying it for nigh on 2 years now.

That forum needs more mods.

That is in no way taking away from the job the current mods do, so they shouldn't take it as an affront.

Aye that could be an idea alright.

Xavi6

5starpool wrote: »

Edit: How pigheads PM reply to xavi could be seen as admitting intent is so far beyond me I can't even comprehend it.

Ok I didn't 'get' the initial joke in the post (and I wasn't the only one). I also didn't 'get' Pighead's follow up joke in the PM. I'm not going to apologise for not having the Saipan 101 manuscript learnt off by heart. I exchanged 6 PMs with Pighead and not once did he mention anything to do with his post being a joke. All he had to say was "Sorry it was a parody on the Keane/McCarthy incident" and the penny would have dropped in my head like it eventually did when others pointed it out.

If someone isn't going to help themselves then there's not much I can do in that regard.

copacetic

Xavi6 wrote: »

Ok I didn't 'get' the initial joke in the post (and I wasn't the only one). I also didn't 'get' Pighead's follow up joke in the PM. I'm not going to apologise for not having the Saipan 101 manuscript learnt off by heart. I exchanged 6 PMs with Pighead and not once did he mention anything to do with his post being a joke. All he had to say was "Sorry it was a parody on the Keane/McCarthy incident" and the penny would have dropped in my head like it eventually did when others pointed it out.

If someone isn't going to help themselves then there's not much I can do in that regard.

I really can't understand how anyone wouldn't read that as a joke? Especially when it is one of the most quoted passages in football history and has been quoted in court cases no less!

However not getting it is one thing, hard to believe but no biggie. However GY constantly posting on here than Pighead admitted the abuse based on that PM is laughable at best, flat out lying at worst. Combine that with what also appears to be bald faced lies about what was in Deise59s PM and it appears to me there is a serious case to answer.

I have had little to do with soccer outside of liverpool topics in a couple of years due to a similar experience at the hands of soccer mods; flat out lies in a feedback thread followed by mealy mouthed denials and further lying on the feedback thread.

It's one of the toughest jobs on boards, doesn't mean it can't be done with a modicum of grace and honesty.


edit : Should not that quoted Xavi above as just happened to have posted above me.

Pighead

Xavi6 wrote: »

Ok I didn't 'get' the initial joke in the post (and I wasn't the only one). I also didn't 'get' Pighead's follow up joke in the PM. I'm not going to apologise for not having the Saipan 101 manuscript learnt off by heart. I exchanged 6 PMs with Pighead and not once did he mention anything to do with his post being a joke. All he had to say was "Sorry it was a parody on the Keane/McCarthy incident" and the penny would have dropped in my head like it eventually did when others pointed it out.

If someone isn't going to help themselves then there's not much I can do in that regard.

Ah c'mon Xavi you're being a bit Guan Yinish with your statements now. Out of those six PM's, two were official PM's issuing an infraction and a banning and two were you asking Pighead if he'd be posting again next week and a reply saying he would. Pighead sent you two PM's in total.


I'm shocked you didn't get either joke to be honest Xavi. Especially the second one which was Keano talking about a Man City player (your team). You have spoke often about Keano in the forum and like most things soccer related you seemed very knowledgeable as to his career highlights and lowlights.

Obviously I wouldn't have sent that post to Guan Yin as I wouldn't be
sure if she would get it but I thought you would in a flash.

Daysha

Pighead wrote: »

Ah c'mon Xavi you're being a bit Guan Yinish with your statements now. Out of those six PM's, two were official PM's issuing an infraction and a banning and two were you asking Pighead if he'd be posting again next week and a reply saying he would. Pighead sent you two PM's in total.

I'm shocked you didn't get either joke to be honest Xavi. Especially the second one which was Keano talking about a Man City player (your team). You have spoke often about Keano in the forum and like most things soccer related you seemed very knowledgeable as to his career highlights and lowlights.

Obviously I wouldn't have sent that post to Guan Yin as I wouldn't be
sure if she would get it but I thought you would in a flash.

:eek: Pighead referring to himself in the 1st person?!?

Things must be serious

GuanYin

copacetic wrote: »

However not getting it is one thing, hard to believe but no biggie. However GY constantly posting on here than Pighead admitted the abuse based on that PM is laughable at best, flat out lying at worst.

Hold on a second, I stated that I didn't have the PM conversation and I was relaying what I understoof based on what Pighead said. He NEVER said it was a joke and his response as shown has no remorse, no apology and no clarification. If anything it suggests he intended the insult. Thats what I was informed and that is what I'll go on. Not what he says a day later after it caused trouble.

Combine that with what also appears to be bald faced lies about what was in Deise59s PM and it appears to me there is a serious case to answer.

I have told Deise that I received only a forward of his PM and not the initial PM. I didn't respond to him. I merely discussed the issue with the mod. Deise didn't ask for anyone to be banned. Fair enough, if I suggested he did I was wrong.


Copacetic, you have an axe to grind and thats fair enough. This thread is now just stupid.

We've reduced the ban of those affected out of fairness.
The rule is still in place.
Those who decided to break the rules after discussing it here have had their Access request agreement voided.
The admins have agreed with us about the misuse of thanks.

If anyone has anything to state that is mature, constuctive and without agenda and related to this issue, I'll engage. Otherwise I'm gonna do something more productive, like read PI.

GuanYin

Pighead wrote: »

Obviously I wouldn't have sent that post to Guan Yin as I wouldn't be
sure if she would get it but I thought you would in a flash.

So a mod bans you and asks you why you broke the rule. You respond with a joke, the mod doesn't get it and its now all our fault.

Sorry, if you want to be a joker and make fun fun, then by all means. We're not going to give you special treatment because you want to be funny.

Xavi6

Pighead wrote: »

Ah c'mon Xavi you're being a bit Guan Yinish with your statements now. Out of those six PM's, two were official PM's issuing an infraction and a banning and two were you asking Pighead if he'd be posting again next week and a reply saying he would. Pighead sent you two PM's in total.


I'm shocked you didn't get either joke to be honest Xavi. Especially the second one which was Keano talking about a Man City player (your team). You have spoke often about Keano in the forum and like most things soccer related you seemed very knowledgeable as to his career highlights and lowlights.

Obviously I wouldn't have sent that post to Guan Yin as I wouldn't be
sure if she would get it but I thought you would in a flash.

But I didn't get it 'in a flash' and it was fairly obvious from my replies to you. I just don't see why you didn't have the decency to point that out.

Pighead

GuanYin wrote: »

So a mod bans you and asks you why you broke the rule. You respond with a joke, the mod doesn't get it and its now all our fault.

Sorry, if you want to be a joker and make fun fun, then by all means. We're not going to give you special treatment because you want to be funny.

It's the soccer forum Guan Yin! Pighead made a soccer related joke that 99%of the people who read it got. It wasn't an obscure quote from a 1950's Ukrainian B-Movie.

It wasn't abuse. You and your fellow mods have known this for quite some time now yet only recently you have come back with an, imo, pretty poor resolution to the whole situation.

GuanYin

Pighead wrote: »

It's the soccer forum Guan Yin! Pighead made a soccer related joke that 99%of the people who read it got. It wasn't an obscure quote from a 1950's Ukrainian B-Movie.

It wasn't abuse. You and your fellow mods have known this for quite some time now yet only recently you have come back with an, imo, pretty poor resolution to the whole situation.

You were asked a straight out question at the time. Why didn't you answer straight out?

Daysha

I don't know what it is with you copacetic. I post numerous PMs and posts asking for an explanation with no given, then you come along, mention it once and you get more out of her than I ever did!

Glad to read you've admitted you were in the wrong GY. Now all I ask is you read over my helpdesk thread and clear it up with the powers that be over there.

Pighead

Xavi6 wrote: »

But I didn't get it 'in a flash' and it was fairly obvious from my replies to you. I just don't see why you didn't have the decency to point that out.

It wasn't obvious to Pighead. Was full sure you got the reference. It was pointed out to you less than half an hour after the original post that it was a pisstake on the Saipan incident. You KNEW that it was a pisstake at 2.38am yet you let all the thankers get banned afterwards. You posted less than an hour after Pigheads post indicating that you now realised it was a parody.

Xavi6 wrote: »

Did people miss the part about not discussing the ban further?

I couldn't give a flying **** who he was paraphrasing or quoting. It does not justify personal abuse.

Seriously, the next person to reference it will be infracted.

So armed with this knowledge how on earth did you let Guan Yin make the decision to ban the thankers??? Surely your conversation with Guan Yin should have went something like this

Xavi: Hey Guan Yin, I've got a bit of a problem in Soccer about a banning.
Guan Yin: Hit me Xavi
Xavi: Pighead posted an abusive message towards a user and there's lots of people thanking it. Whats the procedure here?
Guan Yin: Was there intent? Did he definitely mean it?
Xavi: No, it was a parody
Guan Yin: That's grand so. Let it be. Nothing to see here.

At what point did it turn into everybody deserving bannings?

GuanYin

Fair is fair Pighead. Why not answer my question.

You were asked straight out by a moderator who had just banned you to clarify why you posted what you did.

You didn't give a straight answer. Why not? Why couldn't you have just said.. look sorry it was a joke instead of referencing some quote where Keane states he intended to hurt someone because he didn't like them. To me that reads as: "I saw a chance, so I took it. If you' hadn't acted like a joker would we be here now? No. So you are the last person in this thread who should be point fingers.

It was more important to you to be funny and keep up the Pighead act than deal with a moderator who asked you a straight moderation question. And here we are.

keane2097

GuanYin wrote: »

Fair is fair Pighead. Why not answer my question.

You were asked straight out by a moderator who had just banned you to clarify why you posted what you did.

You didn't give a straight answer. Why not? Why couldn't you have just said.. look sorry it was a joke instead of referencing some quote where Keane states he intended to hurt someone because he didn't like them. To me that reads as: "I saw a chance, so I took it. If you' hadn't acted like a joker would we be here now? No. So you are the last person in this thread who should be point fingers.

...

In fairness it was the funniest post I've read in a long time - I for one hope he continues to act the joker.