Soccer forum. Re: Economist thread.

Dudess

orestes wrote: »

Because I think that the abuse towards a user of this site who volunteers their time to it and the way in which the abuse was done was a complete disgrace and certain users of the soccer forum constantly giving out about GuanYin sickens me

It's possible to do that without being snide and borderline abusive... and coming across as a Boards sycophant - something I never thought you'd be capable of coming across as.

lordgoat

orestes wrote: »

If you or anyone else has an issue with any post I make on this site feel free to report them.

i know this. But should i report them on any other sites too, bebo maybe?

That_Guy wrote:

What would the outcome be like if it wasn't a mod involved. What if Helix had said stuff about me on this other site and I reported it here to a mod requesting a ban for him.

Interesting question and i think how you answered it is what would have and should have happened.

Sully

smashey wrote: »

We will intervene when someone who is openly associated with these forums, using a nickname from these forums, in a game that affiliates with these forums, starts an attack on one of our moderators. The abuse came from an external group, and we have no problems in acknowledging that it is an external group but, this group was using the boards name to garner members and we will do our utmost to protect the boards.ie name and our moderators/users.

Am I to assume then, if any mod or user is abused on another website and those who abused them are members - they will be banned?

As for protecting Boards.ie name... I think a simple note asking them to remove the site name was suitable, rather then issuing bans. Seems to be more about protecting GY then Boards.ie tbh.

orestes

That_Guy wrote: »

Ah it's only because you made fun of my bebo.

Not yours, everyones, singling someone out and making fun of them is bold remember

Dudess wrote: »

It's possible to do that without being snide and borderline abusive... and coming across as a Boards sycophant - something I never thought you'd be capable of coming across as.

I'm not being abusive towards anyone and apologise if I have come across that way, and I'm not a boards sycophant, I just really hate bullies

lordgoat

smashey wrote: »

We have discussed this issue at length and it was quite heated. In the end, the decision could probably be best summed up as follows...

We will intervene when someone who is openly associated with these forums, using a nickname from these forums, in a game that affiliates with these forums, starts an attack on one of our moderators. The abuse came from an external group, and we have no problems in acknowledging that it is an external group but, this group was using the boards name to garner members and we will do our utmost to protect the boards.ie name and our moderators/users.

The above isn't about setting precedent, it's about us doing what we unanimously agreed to be the right thing in this particular instance.

Cheers for that Smashey and i understand the massive headache this is causing for you all. Can i ask one question: Is interevention only going to occur if a mod is attacked/whatever on another site or will it be for all users?

Again feel free to leave this one til tomorrow if you like, and thanks for clarifying.

That_Guy

orestes wrote: »

Not yours, everyones, singling someone out and making fun of them is bold remember

Too late.... Reported.

hullaballoo

mayordenis wrote: »

For sure, here are you options

- Start vetting anyone who wants to use the Boards.ie name for community events.

- Warn people that off-forum squabbles are not the responsibility of the Boards.ie

- Stop allowing people to use the Boards.ie name because if you are worried that the name could be dragged into disripute then it could be much much more serious next time - Boards.ie Child Porn Site?

Set a rule - don't move the goal posts.

That's a reasonable post too.


I'm sorry if this looks like we've moved the goal posts. We really weren't trying to. We were trying to deal with a specific (and, I think, irreplicable) issue and, honestly, we didn't expect these ramifications. That is because at all times we had been wary that this could be an unwanted precedent. However, we had agreed that it wasn't going to be a precedent. In fact, we were emphatic on that aspect.


What we were looking at was a series of serious abuse against a member - something that had migrated onto another site because the involved people knew that they couldn't possibly get away with it on this site. Because of the massive overlap between that site and boards.ie, it was deemed prudent to act.


In hindsight, a permanent ban seems to have been over the top. I'll admit that I was in favour of a permanent ban before the issue fermented in my mind and before the rationales I've seen in this thread were addressed. However, we were simply dealing with a sensitive issue as best we could at the time.



Now, opposing views have been expressed over myriad issues in this thread and I'm not going to try to address each argument and each post in relation to that argument because I don't have the time. However, in general, I will say that this is categorically up for review by the admins collectively. I don't wish to state what I expect to be the outcome because that would be foolish of me. I have no idea what it will be.


I would like to thank those who have inputted to this thread thus far and, despite my disagreement with some of you, state that it has all been taken on board. I will sleep on this, consult with everyone I can, and hopefully have a resolution soon.

Kirnsy

smashey wrote: »

We have discussed this issue at length and it was quite heated. In the end, the decision could probably be best summed up as follows...

We will intervene when someone who is openly associated with these forums, using a nickname from these forums, in a game that affiliates with these forums, starts an attack on one of our moderators. The abuse came from an external group, and we have no problems in acknowledging that it is an external group but, this group was using the boards name to garner members and we will do our utmost to protect the boards.ie name and our moderators/users.

The above isn't about setting precedent, it's about us doing what we unanimously agreed to be the right thing in this particular instance.

what about on one of the normal users like me? just because i amn't a mod does that mean they get special treatment?

"using a nickname from these forums"???? The nicknames aren't copyright. What if another 'kirnsy' abused someone from boards on another site ?? Do I get banned?

I sense this is a very bad move.

Bounty Hunter

this is such a backwards arguement, with peoples almost talking about two topics.

1: people saying GY or any other mod/poster should not have to deal wth personal abuse as this seemed to be...

this i something i one hundred percent agree with but as regards to this site i think the other half of the people here's arguement kinda makes it a moot point.

2: This has nothing to do with boards and should have been dealt with and left with the site it happened on.

Its not right but it happened and has nothing to do with boards.ie so should have no impact on this site.

if the site does inforce a ban or whatever here then it i iable to have to inforce many more awkward rulings in the future,i am in the boards.ie fantasy lions rugby league, how many admin even know that exists? think about it how many such leagues/affiliates may there be.

Add to the charter that unless a league/ site is on an official list of agreed affiliates (which you will post somewhere) then it isnt affiliaed with boards and anyhing that happens there isnt your fault just to cover your own asses lads.

smashey

Sully wrote: »

Am I to assume then, if any mod or user is abused on another website and those who abused them are members - they will be banned?

Not at all.

We acted here because of the direct link with boards.ie

Sully wrote: »

As for protecting Boards.ie name... I think a simple note asking them to remove the site name was suitable, rather then issuing bans. Seems to be more about protecting GY then Boards.ie tbh.

As I said in my previous post, we will act to protect any of our mods in the same situation. GuanYin is only involved in this because she had the misfortune to be the victim. I'd be happy enough to leave GY out of the discussion from here on and use the term 'mod'.

ShooterSF

Surely a ban on "affiliated" sites is the way to go then. Or atleast for posters own protection not to use the words boards.ie in the title of anything outside of boards.
If boards is so protective of it's name surely un-official affiliation is just an obvious no-no and should have been spotted sooner.
I still don't understand why the user was not asked to settle the issue where it began and I do worry about an admin outlining specific protection for boards mods rather than users.
"We will intervene when someone who is openly associated with these forums, using a nickname from these forums, in a game that affiliates with these forums, starts an attack on one of our moderators."

smashey

lordgoat wrote: »

Cheers for that Smashey and i understand the massive headache this is causing for you all. Can i ask one question: Is interevention only going to occur if a mod is attacked/whatever on another site or will it be for all users?

Again feel free to leave this one til tomorrow if you like, and thanks for clarifying.

Kirnsy wrote: »

what about on one of the normal users like me? just because i amn't a mod does that mean they get special treatment?

I did say mods/users.

Actually, the term 'members' would probably work better.

kaimera

No mod should have to put up with abuse, end of.

"No user/member..." it's not just mods on boards.

javaboy

smashey wrote: »

We have discussed this issue at length and it was quite heated. In the end, the decision could probably be best summed up as follows...

We will intervene when someone who is openly associated with these forums, using a nickname from these forums, in a game that affiliates with these forums, starts an attack on one of our moderators. The abuse came from an external group, and we have no problems in acknowledging that it is an external group but, this group was using the boards name to garner members and we will do our utmost to protect the boards.ie name and our moderators/users.

The above isn't about setting precedent, it's about us doing what we unanimously agreed to be the right thing in this particular instance.

smashey wrote: »

I did say mods/users.

Actually, the term 'members' would probably work better.

You said moderators the first time and moderators/users the second time. That's where the confusion is arising. I think the benefit of the doubt is in order that smashey meant both.

Kirnsy

javaboy wrote: »

You said moderators the first time and moderators/users the second time. That's where the confusion is arising. I think the benefit of the doubt is in order that smashey meant both.

fair enough point taken

Bounty Hunter

*btw my keyboards is effd atm and sometime letters dont come up when i hit my keys so i apologise if any of my messages are poorly written and therefore hard to read.



has any admin commentated on if the site is actually affiliated in anyway with boards.ie? because that is the real issue here not if what Helix did to GY was right (as it seems most prob dont agree with his actions). if a site is not officially affiliated with boards surely no action can be taken against anyone due to anything posted on that site.

ShooterSF

'Tis late and I need sleep. It's nice to see a feedback thread run 20 pages on a hot issue with a good noise to signal ratio.
What I have taken from it is I feel the issue was resolved in the wrong place. I am glad to see the admins are looking to discuss it further. Ultimately the direction I hope boards take, considering the protection issue and with the lesser of evils in mind, is to end any affiliation without clearance and clear rules for said affiliation set in place.

Sully

smashey wrote: »

Not at all.

We acted here because of the direct link with boards.ie

But the only connection is that Boards.ie is in the title.. Its got no other connection and is completely off site. Boards is not responsible for what happens to members off site, nor should it be.

As I said in my previous post, we will act to protect any of our mods in the same situation. GuanYin is only involved in this because she had the misfortune to be the victim. I'd be happy enough to leave GY out of the discussion from here on and use the term 'mod'.

Well.. GY being the first example. Hopefully, if this does come into play, it will be a fair game that any mod will be supported like GY. I assume we are opening the playing field to protect other members (non-mods) also?

I still dont agree with this, and feel that the only protection Boards needed to do was make sure there name was not associated with the group. Thats the only issue that Boards should involve itself in. Boards is not the Internet Police "To protect and to server Boards members from the scary world outside Boards.ie"!

(I hope I am not coming across as a prick btw. I see why you guys acted the way you did, but I am trying to paint the bigger picture and explain why I dont agree but understand why - I felt the same initially, but had to agree with the others as it made more sense).

smashey

Sully wrote: »

But the only connection is that Boards.ie is in the title.. Its got no other connection and is completely off site. Boards is not responsible for what happens to members off site, nor should it be.

It was off site but the fact remains that boards.ie was used. As I said, we aren't about setting precedents here, we're protecting our name.

Sully wrote: »

Well.. GY being the first example. Hopefully, if this does come into play, it will be a fair game that any mod will be supported like GY. I assume we are opening the playing field to protect other members (non-mods) also?

We will look after all our members.

Sully wrote: »

I still dont agree with this, and feel that the only protection Boards needed to do was make sure there name was not associated with the group. Thats the only issue that Boards should involve itself in. Boards is not the Internet Police "To protect and to server Boards members from the scary world outside Boards.ie"!

We weren't/aren't trying to police the interent. This was (hopefully) a one-off situation and something we have never faced before. We acted in what we believe to be the correct manner. Maybe time will prove us wrong but we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

Sully wrote: »

(I hope I am not coming across as a prick btw. I see why you guys acted the way you did, but I am trying to paint the bigger picture and explain why I dont agree but understand why - I felt the same initially, but had to agree with the others as it made more sense).

Certainly not Sully. One thing that has happened here is healthy debate and we are discussing the points raised on this thread now.

Fromvert

After reading the whole thread and agreeing and disagreeing with arguments from both sides I have to say I think the perma ban is completely over the top.

IMO Simple solution, Perma ban should be lifted with the Admins noticing that they overeacted and Helix should probably of known that posting the article would cause offence and see how it did cause offence.

hullaballoo

Fromvert wrote: »

After reading the whole thread and agreeing and disagreeing with arguments from both sides I have to say I think the perma ban is completely over the top.

IMO Simple solution, Perma ban should be lifted with the Admins noticing that they overeacted and Helix should probably of known that posting the article would cause offence and see how it did cause offence.

Well, that's precisely the point I've been eeking out. It does look like an overreaction. Either (a) we can defend our position implacably without any effect, or (b) we can revise it. As a member of boards.ie in general, what would you think the answer would be?


Personally, I think that revision is the key. That's why we didn't close this thread. Mentioning the original thread - it was simply too early. We had accepted that some action was required but we hadn't eeked it out properly. We have had some chance of looking at it, but not as much as I'd like (because there are other things that admin have to deal with) so we will remain to talk about this issue as much as we can afford (as volunteers) for the next while until this is resolved to the satisfaction of as many people as possible. Not everyone will be happy but that's the nature of these things. I'd be happy enough to suggest that with the entire site-wide network brain, something good is going to come of this.

The Sweeper

I re-read the thread the admins had last night from the beginning, and from what I can see, Helix's behaviour since he was temporarily banned from soccer until we decided what to do with him has contributed far more to his current standing than his 'poison press release'.

dfx-

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

has any admin commentated on if the site is actually affiliated in anyway with boards.ie? because that is the real issue here not if what Helix did to GY was right (as it seems most prob dont agree with his actions). if a site is not officially affiliated with boards surely no action can be taken against anyone due to anything posted on that site.

It isn't. It's an independent Swedish worldwide site running since 2003 and public since 2005. It is a private league made of not necessarily boards members...the boards league is identical to that of thousands worldwide.

eagle eye

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

I re-read the thread the admins had last night from the beginning, and from what I can see, Helix's behaviour since he was temporarily banned from soccer until we decided what to do with him has contributed far more to his current standing than his 'poison press release'.

This all seems to be going one way, you want to break Helix and make him apologise to Guan Yin.

My advice to Helix, don't ever do that, you will be losing a lot more that you will gain. Pride vs soccer forum access.

The best thing you can do here is set rules for the future. Making up a rule now for something that was never the case in the past in unfair to Helix.

And while you are at it, maybe you might save yourselves hassle and all the rest of us from having to detest somebody and remove GY from the soccer forum. Its what the majority of regular posters there want, I'm certain of that. We just want peace and common sense by the way.

Cue all the moderators defending her.

Jazzy

eagle eye wrote: »

This all seems to be going one way, you want to break Helix and make him apologise to Guan Yin.

My advice to Helix, don't ever do that, you will be losing a lot more that you will gain. Pride vs soccer forum access.

The best thing you can do here is set rules for the future. Making up a rule now for something that was never the case in the past in unfair to Helix.

i tend to agree. if you have conviction in your opinion dont back down just appease the weight from above

EagleEye wrote:

And while you are at it, maybe you might save yourselves hassle and all the rest of us from having to detest somebody and remove GY from the soccer forum. Its what the majority of regular posters there want, I'm certain of that. We just want peace and common sense by the way.

this will get a lot of stick of course, but what i think the mods should be asking is 'what if hes right?'
perhaps the whole forum needs an overhaul at admin level with the current mods involved too of course

The Sweeper

eagle eye wrote: »

This all seems to be going one way, you want to break Helix and make him apologise to Guan Yin.

?

Are you kidding?

I couldn't care less if Helix takes an ad out in the Irish Times begging GuanYin's forgiveness.

He did something mean spirited, and when called out on it, kicked, screamed, denied all responsibility, created a huge fuss and acted like a dickhead.

What I just said was his behaviour SINCE HIS TEMP BAN is far more of a reason for his current status than the press release he issued.

eagle eye wrote: »

My advice to Helix, don't ever do that, you will be losing a lot more that you will gain. Pride vs soccer forum access.

Versus taking responsibility for what you write and not creating a storm when you're caught red handed at it.

eagle eye wrote: »

The best thing you can do here is set rules for the future. Making up a rule now for something that was never the case in the past in unfair to Helix.

The best thing we can do here is set no rules whatsoever, over and above the basic rule: "Don't act the dick". Setting rules just means people start to argue over the minutae of whether or not they've actually broken those rules.

"Don't act the dick" is really far more effective - especially paired with the secondary rule "And when you're called out on it, take a step back and try to consider your own actions, and their consequences, with some level of maturity before screaming that you've done nothing wrong".

eagle eye wrote: »

And while you are at it, maybe you might save yourselves hassle and all the rest of us from having to detest somebody and remove GY from the soccer forum.

I don't think that should really be up for election, if we're talking about not setting precedents, eh?

tallaght01

I thought he said he'd gotten a permanent ban?

I am easily confused, though.

Time Magazine

hullaballoo wrote: »

Personally, I think that revision is the key. That's why we didn't close this thread.

Glad to hear it.

Mentioning the original thread - it was simply too early. We had accepted that some action was required but we hadn't eeked it out properly.

A very, very foolish approach to take to governance imho. It's imperative to listen to cogent opposing arguments before making your mind up, not five days after. Yours is a typical shoot-first approach that, at a minimum, will lose you good-will. You should have people like wwm telling it as it is from the outset. Please bear this in mind when the next dodgy decision comes a-knockin' and you decide to lock down discussion.

The Sweeper

The Economist wrote: »

It's imperative to listen to cogent opposing arguments before making your mind up, not five days after.

What, cogent opposing arguments delivered at lightning speed within a specific window of opportunity that allows us to react both instantly and in a well considered fashion?

This is not a black and white issue. Subsequently debate takes time. It's still ongoing, if you haven't noticed. Temporary measures were put in place initially, and Helix's reaction to those measures did more to make them worse than anything else.

Beruthiel

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

What I just said was his behaviour SINCE HIS TEMP BAN is far more of a reason for his current status than the press release he issued.

Helix was given a TEMP ban from Soccer while we discussed this.
He was given every opportunity, via PM and Help Desk to dig himself back out of the hole he was in.
If he had, we would not be here now.

Instead, he did as MAJD said above.
He allowed something nasty to continue on that site.
Nobody was called on it.
It seemed perfectly ok to use the brand name of Boards.ie to slag and be totally nasty to a Mod on this site.
I'm not buying the 'technicalities' of this not happening on Boards itself.
It was done under this sites name by members of this site.
It was underhanded bullying.
Nobody seems to want to acknowledge that.

Since then, Helix did nothing whatsoever to call a halt to this.
He seems to think that there has been no wrong doing at all.
A blind man could see that there was.

This is not a precedent.
We have no intention of making this a rule.
If and when this should ever happen again, it will be treated on it's own merit.