Banned from Soccer forum for "thanks"

Overheal

Xavi6 wrote: »

Ah now I've seen some far fetched defences in my time but that is up there with the best!

You're not a lawyer by any chance?

Ahm, I do that a lot. I browse using anywhere between 4 and 12 tabs on average, all open threads, or replies, etc. So 3 minutes is definitely plausible.

Anyway the rule is stupid, but its there for a reason. Maybe removing thanks is the way to go?

Xavi6

nuxxx wrote: »

im not going to post any examples, any time iv done a similar thing there has been excuses layered upon excuses made and the moderator is always right.

Im not going to waste my time.

I like you xavi think your a good bloke and have a positive input into the soccer forum so im not going to argue with you.

However i have my own opinion about it and ill stick by it. Im post on my own behalf and i dont believe i need to prove anything to anyone if i believe it.

Going to bed now, sleep tight down under

I only asked for examples so that if what you are saying is in fact happening then I would take it upon myself to correct it.

If you don't want to post examples then that's your decision but the feedback would be appreciated.

Xavi6

Overheal wrote: »

Ahm, I do that a lot. I browse using anywhere between 4 and 12 tabs on average, all open threads, or replies, etc. So 3 minutes is definitely plausible.

Not being smart but that really is tough shit on your part. If that defence was made acceptable then it would be weeded out every time someone ignored a mod warning.

Imagine what PI would become.

themont85

The Recliner wrote: »

Straws

Clutching

At

I actually honestly don't think i am. I'm rigidtly looking at practical ways in which the 'Kaka intrested in City Thread 6' have been treated! I mean look at the ways the punishments were dealt out and explained of the people who thanked the post, fairly rigidtly with a lack of common sense imo of course;)

telemachus

Xavi6 wrote: »

Not being smart but that really is tough shit on your part. If that defence was made acceptable then it would be weeded out every time someone ignored a mod warning.

Imagine what PI would become.

In fairness though it's a problem particular to the whole thanks system, if a warning was meted out and you then went and posted after it's fairly safe to assume you read the rest of the thread up until that point (and if you didn't you really shouldn't be making comments blindly without having read half the thread), with the thanks system you get a situation where you're banned for doing something in the thread well before the warning.

redout

Xavi6 wrote: »

Not being smart but that really is tough shit on your part. If that defence was made acceptable then it would be weeded out every time someone ignored a mod warning.

Imagine what PI would become.

Why doesnt the mod not take the original six who thanked and check them for previous infractions, bannings, warning etc and see if anyone has a record of abusing. Now as far as I know having a previous record is something a court takes into consideration when passing sentence. (yes I am aware that this is not a court but you see my point)

javaboy

redout wrote: »

Why doesnt the mod not take the original six who thanked and check them for previous infractions, bannings, warning etc and see if anyone has a record of abusing. Now as far as I know having a previous record is something a court takes into consideration when passing sentence. (yes I am aware that this is not a court but you see my point)

As you said yourself it's not a court. From a purely practical point of view, checking people's previous ban record is a bit too much hassle. And why should they do it? The posters are the ones who broke the rules. Why should the mods go out of their way to check their history?

The other thing is I can absolutely guarantee you that if some of the people who thanked it (e.g. normally well behaved regulars) weren't banned and some newer forum members were banned, there would be a thread in here complaining about how some people were punished differently for the same offence.

You just can't win.

Chucky the tree

The Recliner wrote: »

In fairness they discussed it in this thread and knew what they were doing

They knew they would be banned and did it anyway

And they didn't do it to make a point or a protest, the did it for a laugh

Deleted User wrote: »

Rubbish tbh. Stupid rule. I have thanked posts for their stupidity (because they make me laugh) as much as I have for their quality.

Hardly seems like Neil did it just for the laugh.

The Recliner wrote: »

I am quite happy with the forum as is, there are some trolls who I try and ignore but there is nothing excessive in it

If people want to go back to what I consider the bad old days there are forums out there that will facilitate them, I see no reason why Boards should host a forum (when it has the Thunderdome) which will exist so that people can abuse one another and the various clubs they support

You might be quite happy, but plenty of people arent. No said they want to go to the old way it was, they'd just like it to be less strict. There's a huge difference.


Just wondering to the soccer mods, if this post was to be considered abuse would ntlbell of been banned yea?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58543064&postcount=300

Overheal

redout wrote: »

Why doesnt the mod not take the original six who thanked and check them for previous infractions, bannings, warning etc and see if anyone has a record of abusing. Now as far as I know having a previous record is something a court takes into consideration when passing sentence. (yes I am aware that this is not a court but you see my point)

For the same reason it seems better to infract them. Bans dont show up on the record do they? Only infractions - so unless the infraction in his/her history mentions it was tied to a ban, then banning the posters in this case wont be remembered a month from now.

themont85

javaboy wrote: »

As you said yourself it's not a court. From a purely practical point of view, checking people's previous ban record is a bit too much hassle. And why should they do it? The posters are the ones who broke the rules. Why should the mods go out of their way to check their history?

Ah but did they know they broke the rules.

redout

javaboy wrote: »

As you said yourself it's not a court. From a purely practical point of view, checking people's previous ban record is a bit too much hassle. And why should they do it? The posters are the ones who broke the rules. Why should the mods go out of their way to check their history?


You just can't win.

How long would it take to check the 6 members history ? All but 5mins I reckon in fairness. Anyway its already been admitted on here by the mods that there system of banning as regards this issue is flawed and get innocent members on occasion banned. I suggest that they go back to the drawing table and come up with a better way of dealing with this and let common sense prevail.

javaboy

themont85 wrote: »

Ah but did they know they broke the rules.

Ignorance of the rules is no excuse in most forums here.

Overheal

javaboy wrote: »

Ignorance of the rules is no excuse in most forums here.

All, actually.

AlmightyCushion

Overheal wrote: »

For the same reason it seems better to infract them. Bans dont show up on the record do they? Only infractions - so unless the infraction in his/her history mentions it was tied to a ban, then banning the posters in this case wont be remembered a month from now.

Bans do show up in history now.

Overheal

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Bans do show up in history now.

I checked - maybe for mods it does, not for me. Or, it only shows new bannings since whenever that was in place - I cant find record of my sitebanning for example. It was about 3 months ago iirc.

AlmightyCushion

Overheal wrote: »

I checked - maybe for mods it does, not for me. Or, it only shows new bannings since whenever that was in place - I cant find record of my sitebanning for example.

It's completely different to the infraction history thingey, it's a part of a new banning system that cult made a few months back which is obviously only open to mods. This system is also responsible for the automatic unbanning that is now in place.

javaboy

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Bans do show up in history now.

What about bans on a whim that were quickly revoked? Do they stay on your permanent record? :mad:

The Recliner

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Hardly seems like Neil did it just for the laugh.

Maybe not but he knew he would be banned for it so i have no sympathy

You might be quite happy, but plenty of people arent. No said they want to go to the old way it was, they'd just like it to be less strict. There's a huge difference.

The problem being that it is a very fine line between the two
There is already trolling and muppetry aplenty in the forum

If it wasn't for strict moderating it would be anarchy in there

Some people trot out the line about allowing the posters to have a bit of leeway and use their own cop on and judgement unfortunately this isn't possible in Soccer as it seems to bring out the worst in people and we ahve been down this road before

themont85

javaboy wrote: »

Ignorance of the rules is no excuse in most forums here.

Its not ignorance of the rules if you didn't know that the particular post was abusive. I have pointed out already instances(they might be far fetched) in which a poster would be unaware even if they knew that the rule was in place with regards to thanking of such posts.

keane2097

Just read through the entire thread - can't believe I didn't see it earlier, I almost feel famous...

Just to point out that I was the subject of Pigman's jibe.

I didn't initially pick up the Roy Keane reference but I was, funnily enough, the first person to thank the post. I thanked it ironically - sort of a slow clap to what I assumed was a ridiculous rant.

When someone else pointed out the Roy Keane reference I píssed in my pants and revised my reason for thanking the post to because it was fookin hilarious.

A while later I got a PM from GuanYin teeling me I was banned from soccer for thanking an abusive post, even though the abuse was directed at me...this proved to be a clerical error and I wasn't in fact banned. This is no doubt where the confusion arose as to whether five people or six were initially banned. The PM I received was sent to six people (including myself), but I haven't been banned.

Just to point out that I sent the following to GuanYin:

keane2097 wrote:

Re: Banned from Soccer
Oh great thanks... That was a scary couple of seconds...

I'll remove my thanks alright. Just to point out though, I don't really think the post by Pigman was malicious and it sure was hilarious - probably doesn't matter much, but there it is.

Cheers anyway
keane2097

I've also had the following correspondance (which I hope he won't mind me posting here) with Pigman, (who I don't believe meant the post abusively whatever anyone says):-

keane2097 wrote:

Dude, I'm absolutely gutted you got banned from Soccer there - that post was absolutely genius!

Pigman wrote:

Ah tis only for a week. Glad you weren't offended and that you realised it was only a joke!

Now, just one quick point.

I edited my post where I had initially responded unfavorably to what I did think was abuse to include the following:-

keane2097 wrote:

EDIT: Apologies for making it seem like I didn't think you should post in soccer, and massive respect for the Roy Keane reference...

EDIT2: Is it too early to suggest a "Post of the Year"?

Now I think, from this, someone acting in the interests of fair and sensible moderating could have fairly easily deduced that what the few users had thanked was some very witty "abuse" (with the inverted commas being very important here) that was seen as funny even by the person to whom it was directed.

Now rules are rules and all that, but surely common sense could have been applied here. Ok, if Pigman has to be banned for bad language, even for the inverted commas "abuse" itself then fair enough. But I contend that it was entirely unneccessary to ban the other users who thanked the post in what was, in all fairness, a clearly ironic fashion.

It can't be seen as a "sneaky form of abuse" in this instance, since not even the initial abuse was viewed as such by the "target".

imo

Overheal

javaboy wrote: »

What about bans on a whim that were quickly revoked? Do they stay on your permanent record? :mad:

Yes. Probably. I have a revoked infraction on my record.

Sherifu

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It's not simple for a mod to remove the ability to thank a certain post, in fact it's impossible.

I'm not really a fan of reprimanding posters who thank a post. In most cases the thanks system is far too ambiguous to ascertain the thankers motives. They may agree with the post and the abuse or maybe it just made them laugh. Stupidity makes me laugh and on occasion I have thanked stupid posts simply because they made me laugh.

With regards to pighead's post, the sheer over the topness of it had me in tears so I can see why people thanked it with out meaning any malicious intent towards the poster pighead was referring to.

Common sense. Promote this man!

I thanked it cause it was funny. Don't even remember who pighead was replying to. Had no reason to take a snipe at them.

themont85

The Recliner wrote: »

Some people trot out the line about allowing the posters to have a bit of leeway and use their own cop on and judgement unfortunately this isn't possible in Soccer as it seems to bring out the worst in people and we ahve been down this road before

Indeed stict moderating is essential for the running of a smooth forum. However, common sense with regards to some of the bannings was needed in this instance. The Gards don't pull people up for every little law broken, however, our soceity works fairly well.

javaboy

themont85 wrote: »

Its not ignorance of the rules if you didn't know that the particular post was abusive. I have pointed out already instances(they might be far fetched) in which a poster would be unaware even if they knew that the rule was in place with regards to thanking of such posts.

Are you talking about the situation where someone opens the thread but doesn't get around to reading and thanking it for a few minutes? All I can say is that you shouldn't need a red card beside a post like that to tell you it's abusive or that it's at least going to be seen as abusive by some mod.

I got the reference and the joke straight away but it was obvious the mods would have to treat it as abuse. How could they not? You'd have people pointing to it and complaining about regulars getting away with posting abuse and the inconsistent modding the next time someone gets a ban.

keane2097

themont85 wrote: »

Indeed stict moderating is essential for the running of a smooth forum. However, common sense with regards to some of the bannings was needed in this instance. The Gards don't pull people up for every little law broken, however, our soceity works fairly well.

Well I think the case here is that the rules have been applied to their strongest degree (as pointed out by Mitch Connor who showed that these posters could have been punished by a simple infration based on the rules as they are) for something that was, in effect, fairly innocent.

When this is compared some of the reckless trolling that went on in, for example, the Liverpool vs. Stoke thread Xavi6 mentioned that went unpunished by users clearly trying to get Liverpool fans to react, that's when it becomes tough to accept.

Imo, the level of malice in some of the posts in that thread that went entirely unpunished isn't even in the same ballpark as people ironically thanking an ironic post.

redout

keane2097 wrote: »

Now I think, from this, someone acting in the interests of fair and sensible moderating could have fairly easily deduced that what the few users had thanked was some very witty "abuse" (with the inverted commas being very important here) that was seen as funny even by the person to whom it was directed.

Now rules are rules and all that, but surely common sense could have been applied here. Ok, if Pigman has to be banned for bad language, even for the inverted commas "abuse" itself then fair enough. But I contend that it was entirely unneccessary to ban the other users who thanked the post in what was, in all fairness, a clearly ironic fashion.

It can't be seen as a "sneaky form of abuse" in this instance, since not even the initial abuse was viewed as such by the "target".

imo

Thank you Keane2097. I want to add that your thoughts are appreciated on the matter. Its nice to see that even the "victim" saw the comedic side of it and thinks that common sense should have prevailed.

The Recliner

themont85 wrote: »

Indeed stict moderating is essential for the running of a smooth forum. However, common sense with regards to some of the bannings was needed in this instance. The Gards don't pull people up for every little law broken, however, our soceity works fairly well.

True

However common sense and Soccer do not go hand in hand

People seem to lose the ability to be grounded and level headed in there, hence the heavy handed moderating

themont85

javaboy wrote: »

Are you talking about the situation where someone opens the thread but doesn't get around to reading and thanking it for a few minutes? All I can say is that you shouldn't need a red card beside a post like that to tell you it's abusive or that it's at least going to be seen as abusive by some mod.

I got the reference and the joke straight away but it was obvious the mods would have to treat it as abuse. How could they not? You'd have people pointing to it and complaining about regulars getting away with posting abuse and the inconsistent modding the next time someone gets a ban.

Why? It seemed like a joke to me and the vast vast majority. To be honest i didn't he would get banned at all because i thought it was clearly in jest and given the spirit of the poster. It was a cultural reference to something that is very relevant to football fans and has been used to take the piss for years by people. I would have thanked it but i had none left.

6 people thanked the post ffs, i mean even the one at the butt of the joke did at 3am in the morning, how many would it have got at say 11am this morning? Its very rare that we see an 'abusive' post get such a level of thanks, i mean come on a bit of sense here.

And if people started complaining about their bans ect i highly doubt that regular soccer posters would back them up like the vast majority of soccer posters have here. Such a feedback thread would die fairly quickly for being completely ridiculous, as is some of those bannings in this case.

keane2097

javaboy wrote: »

Are you talking about the situation where someone opens the thread but doesn't get around to reading and thanking it for a few minutes? All I can say is that you shouldn't need a red card beside a post like that to tell you it's abusive or that it's at least going to be seen as abusive by some mod.

I got the reference and the joke straight away but it was obvious the mods would have to treat it as abuse. How could they not? You'd have people pointing to it and complaining about regulars getting away with posting abuse and the inconsistent modding the next time someone gets a ban.

You see I think a major problem here comes from this sort of generalised view of a type of situation, rather than by looking at the particular situation on its own merits or demerits.

I don't know if you read my post above, but it was fairly obvious in the thread itself that I didn't feel abused, that I found the post funny - I even thanked it myself.

By looking at the thread the mods could have seen this and acted accordingly, not banning users for some "sneaky abuse" offense when clearly no such offence had been committed.

Basically, in this particular case the mods could have looked at what was happening in front of them and taken a more sensible course of action. As they should do in all instances. Otherwise we could just get a bot to trawl through the forum looking for suspect phrases and auto-banning people who use them.

I simply fail to see why the mods decided to take such heavyhanded action in this case.

Xavi6

redout wrote: »

Thank you Keane2097. I want to add that your thoughts are appreciated on the matter. Its nice to see that even the "victim" saw the comedic side of it and thinks that common sense should have prevailed.

I found it bloody hilarious. It was a cracking post and a nice parody.

However....

As Javaboy points out, if a casual user saw such a post without knowing then they would be quite right to presume that the mods have ignored such an outburst of abuse. I took it upon myself to issue the ban in order to be consistent with the charter. I don't see how anyone can question such a decision.

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.