Banned from Soccer forum for "thanks"

themont85

The Recliner wrote: »

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

I more into rugby tbh but i'll admit the rugby forum is far worse than soccer with its Leinster/Munster bashing, that must be a nightmare to mod. Soccer is well modded and runs smoothly but their are some rules and applications of them which are quite frankly ridiculous.

keane2097

Xavi6 wrote: »

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.

Xavi, I really do have the utmost respect for you as a poster and moderator in the soccer forum and indeed beyond, but this is nonsense.

How is what a casual user might or might not think about a post more important than what the post is actually about?

This makes it sound as though you're more worried about a casual user thinking you haven't done your job than you are about actually doing it...

The Recliner

themont85 wrote: »

I more into rugby tbh but i'll admit the rugby forum is far worse than soccer with its Leinster/Munster bashing, that must be a nightmare to mod. Soccer is well modded and runs smoothly but their are some rules and applications of them which are quite frankly ridiculous.

Those rules ridiculous as they may seem are there for a reason

Transgressions in the past have made them necessary

Whilst we may disagree with their application some of the time the soccer forum requires a no nonsense approach to moderation

Xavi6

keane2097 wrote: »

Xavi, I really do have the utmost respect for you as a poster and moderator in the soccer forum and indeed beyond, but this is nonsense.

How is what a casual user might or might not think about a post more important than what the post is actually about?

This makes it sound as though you're more worried about a casual user thinking you haven't done your job than you are about actually doing it...

Look, I spoke to Pighead about the issue and he had no complaints about the ban or how I treated his post. It could be perceived to be abusive, and indeed was initially by your good self (as you admitted in this thread), hence the action.

redout

themont85 wrote: »

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.

Excellent point.

keane2097

Xavi6 wrote: »

Look, I spoke to Pighead about the issue and he had no complaints about the ban or how I treated his post. It could be perceived to be abusive, and indeed was initially by your good self (as you admitted in this thread), hence the action.

Banning the thankers is the bit I've more of an issue with - I can see why it was necessary to ban Pigman, but banning the rest should never have happened in this instance.

themont85

Xavi6 wrote: »

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.

I think this is a bit ridiculous. On the soccer forum in general banter people often describe things or people as 'ghey' or whatever, its clearly in jest but could be construed as abuse if you look at it from that POV you make above.

GuanYin

keane2097 wrote: »

Banning the thankers is the bit I've more of an issue with - I can see why it was necessary to ban Pigman, but banning the rest should never have happened in this instance.

It happened for the same reason Pighead was banned.

You're suggesting we pick and choose where we apply the rules. This just leads to accusations of inconsistancy.

Instead and easier option is to expect the posters to follow the rules and then they don't get banned.

Was Pigheads post funny, yes, very likely.

Was it abusive and against the rules? Yes.

Does the charter say that thanking abusive posts or posts against the rules isn't allowed? yes. twice in fact.

Simple answer Don't thank abusive posts, ever.

Xavi6

I don't think anything is going to be resolved right now.

However, I want to make it clear that everything said here will be discussed between myself, GuanYin, Dub13 and Thanx 4 The Fish. The latter two haven't been online for this so in order to talk about it properly we will obviously need their input.

I don't think we can offer much more right now but please be assured that this matter and the rule in question will not be just swept under the carpet.

Thanks.

keane2097

GuanYin wrote: »

It happened for the same reason Pighead was banned.

You're suggesting we pick and choose where we apply the rules. This just leads to accusations of inconsistancy.

Instead and easier option is to expect the posters to follow the rules and then they don't get banned.

Was Pigheads post funny, yes, very likely.

Was it abusive and against the rules? Yes.

Does the charter say that thanking abusive posts or posts against the rules isn't allowed? yes. twice in fact.

Simple answer Don't thank abusive posts, ever.

Imo, accusations of inconsistancy are something you'll always have to deal with. You can still either moderate well or poorly. Moderating well imo involves taking the rules and applying their spirit where necessary, and using common sense to see that in certain cases, like this one, certain actions are not necessary.

The other option is the one you've outlined - simply follow the rules without fail, apply them rigidly regardless of the context a rule is "broken" in.

Of the two approachs I simply can't see why you think your one is better...

I doubt there would have been a feedback thread of this magnitude if you'd taken my suggested approach in this instance tbh.

themont85

GuanYin wrote: »

It happened for the same reason Pighead was banned.

You're suggesting we pick and choose where we apply the rules. This just leads to accusations of inconsistancy.

Instead and easier option is to expect the posters to follow the rules and then they don't get banned.

I can put up posts in the soccer forum that could be seen as 'abusive' by that logic and could point to you being 'inconsistant'. I won't put them up though because you'll probably just get the threads locked in order to maintain the consistancy you clearly crave.

GuanYin wrote: »

Was Pigheads post funny, yes, very likely.

I agree it was hilarious wasn't it!

GuanYin wrote: »

Was it abusive and against the rules? Yes.

I could copy and paste numerous posts on the soccer forum that could be seen as 'abusive' by your logic. The poster didn't feel abused by the post therefore in my eyes its not abusive and they saw it as a joke.

GuanYin wrote: »

Does the charter say that thanking abusive posts or posts against the rules isn't allowed? yes. twice in fact.

Person may not know post was abbusive as outlined by myself earlier on, thus thanking the post not knowing it could be construed as abusive.

GuanYin wrote: »

Simple answer Don't thank abusive posts, ever.

Person may not know the post was abbusive as outlined by myself earlier on.

Villain

Jesus just read this thread what a train wreck.

TBH I think these bannings are a joke not because of what they did but because of the sh1t that has been allowed to be posted on the soccer forum recently without any action, I mean look at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58637109&postcount=168

I also told a poster who asked who was breaking rules to "find a mirror" and a soccer mod replied to my post saying "QFT" yet nothing was done.

The forum is going down the drain lately that Liverpool-Stoke thread was a complete joke and I have to laugh if people have been banned for thanking a post that the abused poster even thanked and thinks the bans were a joke.

The new rules about Match threads have created far worse threads than team threads would have allowed. If this is the first act in a crack down to clean up the soccer forum then fair enough I commend the mods but if this banning was done on a technical rule break and threads like the pool-stoke one are going to be allowed again then you might as well forget about modding it at all.

I would warn posters though the last time this kind of thread happened the soccer forum was closed altogether and I would really hate to see that happen again, strict modding is fine imo as long its consistent, bit like soccer ref's hey?

Overheal

Villain wrote: »

bit like soccer ref's hey?

And Soccer fans who will always scream and shout and crush beer cans on their face for every ruling :pac: "AH REF ARE YA BLIND?"

Daysha

After reading everyone's thoughts yet again, mind if I suggest a way this whole thing can be fixed with minimal fuss yet still suits both parties? Here's what I have in mind:

Keep Pigheads ban. He deserved to be punished, he accepted the ban, so that one's a no brainer.

Due to exceptional circumstances like this thread: those 5/6 people who originally thanked the post get their ban changed to infraction, while those who thanked the post AFTER this topic get a one weeks ban, with no need to reapply for access.

In return:

The posters of the soccer forum accept from this moment on that the thanking of any abusive post, funny or otherwise, results in a weeks ban.

Why do I think this is the way forward?:

It pleases those like Neil, Mick or any other that thanked the post after this thread because they don't have to reapply for access.

It pleases the six who originally thanked the post because they can continue posting in the soccer forum for the next week.

It pleases the mods because they are now fully aware that any confusion regarding what is and what isn't deemed thank-worthy has been gotten rid of thanks to this thead.

Their position also remains strong on the issue because they still deservedly ban Pighead and the group who purposefully thanked the post due to this thread.

It pleases Pighead because Pighead is easily pleased

In all seriousness lads, this thread has caused such a fuss and attention, there won't be any regular soccer poster that won't be aware of the rules regarding thanked post. If you're still not 100% certain, post another notice on the board.

In the future, if a similar topic occurs and someone gives out about being banned for a similar offense, show him/her this topic, show him the charter he signed up to, and there will be no hassle.

Like I said above, given Pigheads usual humour posts, given the numbers of people involved, and given the confusion over thanked posts (aka, whats funny and whats not) this really is an exceptional circumstance thats solely a once off event. Thats why I feel the suggestions above helps everyone.

Just a thought.

5starpool

Banning people because a rule that should not exist (imo) does exist for some reason is silly. You could have all sorts of daft rules poping up in different forums that are ridiculous and annoy loads of users just because the mod who put it there had a bee in their bonnet.

Treating people like 10 year olds only increases the likelyhood that they will act like 10 year olds. This isn't anywhere as bad as the last soccer forum bruhaha, but speaking personally, if lots of people who post in the forums I mod wished I stopped moderating due to perceived over the top or otherwise bad moderating I would ceratinly not keep on doing it.

Rabies

Banned for thanks? WTF!

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

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

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

Its heavy handed and over the top.

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

Sherifu

5starpool wrote: »

Treating people like 10 year olds only increases the likelyhood that they will act like 10 year olds. This isn't anywhere as bad as the last soccer forum bruhaha, but speaking personally, if lots of people who post in the forums I mod wished I stopped moderating due to perceived over the top or otherwise bad moderating I would ceratinly not keep on doing it.

Rabies wrote: »

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

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

Its heavy handed and over the top.

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

It's a petty and childish rule. The forum woud be better served with modding in other areas, as has been said some of the match threads have descended into farce since the new rules came in.

redout

deise59 wrote: »

After reading everyone's thoughts yet again, mind if I suggest a way this whole thing can be fixed with minimal fuss yet still suits both parties? Here's what I have in mind:

Keep Pigheads ban. He deserved to be punished, he accepted the ban, so that one's a no brainer.

Due to exceptional circumstances like this thread: those 5/6 people who originally thanked the post get their ban changed to infraction, while those who thanked the post AFTER this topic get a one weeks ban, with no need to reapply for access.

In return:

The posters of the soccer forum accept from this moment on that the thanking of any abusive post, funny or otherwise, results in a weeks ban.

Why do I think this is the way forward?:

It pleases those like Neil, Mick or any other that thanked the post after this thread because they don't have to reapply for access.

It pleases the six who originally thanked the post because they can continue posting in the soccer forum for the next week.

It pleases the mods because they are now fully aware that any confusion regarding what is and what isn't deemed thank-worthy has been gotten rid of thanks to this thead.

Their position also remains strong on the issue because they still deservedly ban Pighead and the group who purposefully thanked the post due to this thread.

It pleases Pighead because Pighead is easily pleased

In all seriousness lads, this thread has caused such a fuss and attention, there won't be any regular soccer poster that won't be aware of the rules regarding thanked post. If you're still not 100% certain, post another notice on the board.

In the future, if a similar topic occurs and someone gives out about being banned for a similar offense, show him/her this topic, show him the charter he signed up to, and there will be no hassle.

Like I said above, given Pigheads usual humour posts, given the numbers of people involved, and given the confusion over thanked posts (aka, whats funny and whats not) this really is an exceptional circumstance thats solely a once off event. Thats why I feel the suggestions above helps everyone.

Just a thought.

Good post desie59. Now I will acknowledge that maybe some will not feel 100% satisfied but your post is by far the best solution brought forward thus far. No bans full stop would be a good idea also. The other users were showing solidarity and were punished. Stinks of Communisim, Socialistic thinking. Xavi6 add desie59 post to your notes to discuss with the other mods brother.

Overheal

redout wrote: »

Stinks of Communisim, Socialistic thinking.

Put the thread down, and stay away from the keyboard... I'm pretty sure boards might implode if soccer and politics are discussed in the same thread.

redout

Overheal wrote: »

Put the thread down, and stay away from the keyboard... I'm pretty sure boards might implode if soccer and politics are discussed in the same thread.

Well excuse me for thinking the punish all route is an undemocratic one and not a reflection of the society in which we live.

Overheal

redout wrote: »

Well excuse me for thinking the punish all route is an undemocratic one and not a reflection of the society in which we live.

Excused: Boards.ie is not democratic

Xavi6

Sherifu wrote: »

It's a petty and childish rule. The forum woud be better served with modding in other areas, as has been said some of the match threads have descended into farce since the new rules came in.

Just a quick point on this.

There have been a few complaints made about the match threads and the behaviour in them. If people are so unhappy can I ask why there are not more reported posts from the threads?

The Liverpool/Stoke thread which has been used as an example by both myself and posters has ONE reported post. Out of 464 total posts.

It would be beneficial to both the mods and the forum as a whole if the regular posters could help us out a little in that regard.

Villain

Mods were posting in it Xavi6, we hardly need to report posts when mods are posting the thread and even reply to the crap?

Xavi6

Villain wrote: »

Mods were posting in it Xavi6, we hardly need to report posts when mods are posting the thread and even reply to the crap?

Why not?

Speaking for myself, I went to bed at half time in the game and woke up to car crash that had about 200 posts since I last logged on. Is it really fair for me to trawl through countless "Oooooh off the post" and "FFS Benayoun" posts to find the problems? Especially when I have better things to be doing than reading about a crap 0-0 draw.

Reporting a post doesn't take much to do and it sure as hell makes my life easier.

Spud83

Pigheads ban was justified.

The original 'thankers' should been infracted. When mods noticed the number of thanks it was getting pigheads post should have been edited. I mean what is the point in banning a user for posting abuse yet leaving the abuse sitting in the forum.

If the above action was taken we wouldn't be here and the charter would have been followed.

Mods speak of respect being a two way street I think it clear that a lot of posters don't and won't ever respect GY. If you want all the mods to be respected then IMO GY can't be one of those mods.

Villain

Xavi6 wrote: »

Why not?

Speaking for myself, I went to bed at half time in the game and woke up to car crash that had about 200 posts since I last logged on. Is it really fair for me to trawl through countless "Oooooh off the post" and "FFS Benayoun" posts to find the problems? Especially when I have better things to be doing than reading about a crap 0-0 draw.

Reporting a post doesn't take much to do and it sure as hell makes my life easier.

But you are not the only mod on the soccer forum is T4FT not a mod, I mean look at http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58546559#post58546559

He seemed to agree with me yet he's a mod and nothing happened why the hell would I report a post when a mod is seeing the crap agreeing with me but nothung is happening?

Sherifu

Xavi6 wrote: »

Just a quick point on this.

There have been a few complaints made about the match threads and the behaviour in them. If people are so unhappy can I ask why there are not more reported posts from the threads?

The Liverpool/Stoke thread which has been used as an example by both myself and posters has ONE reported post. Out of 464 total posts.

It would be beneficial to both the mods and the forum as a whole if the regular posters could help us out a little in that regard.

Xavi6 wrote: »

Why not?

Speaking for myself, I went to bed at half time in the game and woke up to car crash that had about 200 posts since I last logged on. Is it really fair for me to trawl through countless "Oooooh off the post" and "FFS Benayoun" posts to find the problems? Especially when I have better things to be doing than reading about a crap 0-0 draw.

Reporting a post doesn't take much to do and it sure as hell makes my life easier.

I went to bed much like yourself but I saw where the thread was heading. I couldn't be arsed feeding the likes of ntl.

Xavi6

alanmurphy83 wrote: »

Mods speak of respect being a two way street I think it clear that a lot of posters don't and won't ever respect GY. If you want all the mods to be respected then IMO GY can't be one of those mods.

Can I just ask, what happens if a number of posters decide they don't like me down the road? Or Dub13? Should we also be forced to step aside?

Or can we draw up a list of posters we don't respect and ban them for that reason?

Tbh a group of users ganging up to try overthrow a mod is a bit ridiculous and juvenile.

Xavi6

Sherifu wrote: »

I went to bed much like yourself but I saw where the thread was heading. I couldn't be arsed feeding the likes of ntl.

The difference is though I HAVE to read the crap the next day. You don't.

All I'm saying that reporting posts makes it a lot easier. That's why the system is there.

keane2097

Excellent post keane2097



Bit this:

keane2097 wrote: »

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.

sums up what I'm saying. Thanks doesn't always imply agreement FFS. Anyone who gets offended by a thanks need, frankly, to get some therapy because they're not gonna last long in the big bad world being that sensitive.