Feedback about Soccer

Kirnsy

Lads Im a big fan of the Soccer forum and while more of lurker than a poster (unless its about arsenal!), I would like to give a bit of feedback regarding the rule about infraction = ban.

I feel that it is unnecessary to have this as a stringent rule in Soccer and will only lead to the bannings of good posters (sherifu and magic marker being two cases in feedback and help desk) which will cause frustration and potentially an Us v Them feeling in Soccer which was the case at certain points in the past.

I understand that you feel that people aren't paying attention to mod warnings and infractions however to ban someone for saying "reported" about a post that offended them is quite harsh IMO.( I know it was technically just a yellow)

Why not have a lower number of infractions = ban. For example 2 infractions in a certain period leads to one day ban, 3 = 5 days, 4 =10 days and so on. Im sure you could come up with a better infraction rate- to - ban length ratio but you get the idea.

Thoughts?

AckwelFoley

imo it needs to be nipped in the bud.

Grown ups shouldnt need more than a warning, however from my expierence of the soccer forum the mods are driven around the twist so their patience is now limited and they come across as harsh to all.

At first i thought it was because they were arseholes.., however from keeping an eye on feedback and looking at most complaints it just seems to be a case of people not being able to discuss a sport without behaving like children

Kirnsy

snyper wrote: »

imo it needs to be nipped in the bud.

Grown ups shouldnt need more than a warning, however from my expierence of the soccer forum the mods are driven around the twist so their patience is now limited and they come across as harsh to all.

At first i thought it was because they were arseholes.., however from keeping an eye on feedback and looking at most complaints it just seems to be a case of people not being able to discuss a sport without behaving like children

well im definetely not saying they are arseholes and tbh i agree that sometimes it must be a pain to moderate soccer.

However I think the forum has got much better now to read and discuss soccer and the quality of discussion and posting has improved a lot.

is this because of this rule? if it is then fair enough.

but i think its more that posters have copped on and the mods are more approachable and there's not an Us v Them feeling in soccer.

The Hill Billy

In certain fora it is encouraged to note on-thread that a post has been reported. This potentially saves many other posters reporting the same post & the forum's mods being swamped with reported post messages.

Sounds a tad harsh to be infracted for it & damn harsh to be banned for it, unless of course it is specifically against the rules in the forum charter.

Then again, may it is a course of action that the Soccer mods need to have in place to keep you unruly lot in line.

therecklessone

Kirnsy wrote: »

I understand that you feel that people aren't paying attention to mod warnings and infractions however to ban someone for saying "reported" about a post that offended them is quite harsh IMO.( I know it was technically just a yellow)

Why not have a lower number of infractions = ban. For example 2 infractions in a certain period leads to one day ban, 3 = 5 days, 4 =10 days and so on. Im sure you could come up with a better infraction rate- to - ban length ratio but you get the idea.

Thoughts?

We already have an accumulated infraction system (6 yellows in 1 "season" = a 6 month/end of season ban, whichever is longer) but as somebody with access to the forum you know that, right? Or is it possible that you, like many of the people who were on the receiving end of that last season weren't aware of it, despite it being in the charter?

That in itself highlights one of the problems we currently face as mods of the forum. One of the people you mentioned admitted they last read the charter around two years ago, when they first joined...it has been updated twice in that time, including once after extensive consultation with the forum users. How can we be held responsible when users will not make themselves aware of the charter?

Hill Billy wrote: »

Sounds a tad harsh to be infracted for it & damn harsh to be banned for it, unless of course it is specifically against the rules in the forum charter.

It is spelled out clearly in the charter, and we went to great lengths to provide clarity where in the past the charter was less informative:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61404604&postcount=4

There is no reason why a user would need to alert others that they have reported a post on soccer, we specifically encourage people to report posts they believe to be in breach of the charter, and I personally believe if people do report posts they are less likely to respond to them, thus removing food from the trolls.

Kirnsy wrote: »

is this because of this rule? if it is then fair enough.

but i think its more that posters have copped on and the mods are more approachable and there's not an Us v Them feeling in soccer.

The policy is in place just over 2 weeks, we are paying close attention to it and will amend or remove it as and when we see fit.

As a general reply, the following was included in a PM I sent to another user this morning as an explanation of what prompted this change:

We have tried to be lenient, we have tried to provide general warnings on-thread before we start to act but we have found that users have started to treat these as the point at which they actually start abiding by the charter, and are deliberately acting the bollox up to that point. It is quite an eye-opener to see threads stop dead when a mod posts a warning on-thread, which supports the point I've made.

I shouldn't have to remind anyone of the forum rules, they are clear, much clearer now than they ever were (and we put enough work into them to ensure that) so why should I or any other mod show leniency to posters who are on the forum long enough to know better?

I also note a point Sherifu raised, and my reply, which suggests we might be on the right track:

Sherifu wrote:

And for the moment soccer posters beware when posting anything that may offend anyone, you run the risk of a weeks ban.

therecklessone wrote:

Posters should always be aware of the forum charter, and play close attention to announcements which we sticky. That way they avoid the risk of a ban.

I will acknowledge that both of the cases you mentioned would not have received bans in the past, and that both users were unlucky in the timing of their posts, but in our opinion this policy serves a greater good and the forum will be a better place for that.

The Hill Billy

therecklessone wrote: »

...It is spelled out clearly in the charter, and we went to great lengths to provide clarity where in the past the charter was less informative:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61404604&postcount=4

There is no reason why a user would need to alert others that they have reported a post on soccer, we specifically encourage people to report posts they believe to be in breach of the charter, and I personally believe if people do report posts they are less likely to respond to them, thus removing food from the trolls...

Well OP there's your answer plain & clear.

Really glad now that I put in my "unless of course..." rider to my statement.

Sherifu

Kirnsy wrote: »

Thoughts?

Thanks for starting this thread, I was going to start another one during the week but this will do fine. I wasn't aware magic marker had fallen foul too.

I have been in contact with TRO and we're not going to ever agree on this new rule. Though I thank him for engaging and explaining his views on it.

I think it's ridiculous and to the detriment of the forum that every minor indiscretion earns a 7 day ban. The mods felt something needed fixing here but I haven't read a good reason for this new rule yet. Yellow cards are meant to be yellow cards, counting towards your ban. I can go back to posting yes/no answers and mostly reading the forum but I shouldn't have to.

A change as big as this should really be put to the forum. The mod team was happy to engage with us before the season started so why now decide among yourselves to throw in a new rule. Next time(hopefully a more positive rule change) a visible forum wide announcement would be appreciated, something like with search... harder to miss.

The only thing this rule change will do is fester resentment and increase workload.

It's little consolation really that we were "unlucky in the timing of their posts". I take my infraction on the chin, remain bitter about the 7 day ban and will fight this new rule change as I believe it's bad for the forum.

Apologies to all offended by my earlier thread...such language :pac:
Now off to read magic marker's thread. Expecting good things...

Headshot

can a soccer mod tell me what offences does one get a yellow card for
I just want some clarification

therecklessone

Headshot wrote: »

can a soccer mod tell me what offences does one get a yellow card for
I just want some clarification

Read the charter in full.

Headshot

edit

I dont mind the new ban thing anyway, i keep my nose clean these days and learned from my mistakes too

Jazzy

tbh, the biggest problem with the soccer forum is the spam. there are far too many posters who spam all day and all night in their best efforts to prove an inane point that ultimately doesnt really have any relevance on the real world of football. there are individuals in there who simply put, dont shut up and they are what drag the forum with them into the state it is in now (yellow card = ban).
we all know who they are and if they are causing the forum to get into such a state perhaps they should be the ones that are nipped in the bud. im not saying ban them, im saying tell them to cop on.

there are threads in there that are beyond ridiculous and go on for 30+ pages which are filled with sniping, baiting and general trolling and not chit-chat and informed discussion.
if the spammers learn to shut up, i guarantee that there would be far more goodwill in the forum and we could all say how Frank Lampard deserves a happy meal without getting banned

Daysha

I've felt fairly sympathetic to the soccer mods in the past, it's a very tough job to do and with the exception of one or two minor incidents I've always thought they've been bang on the money with the mod decisions I've seen.

But this new rule is one step way too far. I can understand the reseasoning behind it, and making people more aware of the charter is always a good thing, but a blanket ban on all infractions, especially when the range of severity is so large, will undoubtedly lead to some grossly unfair bans being handed out.

According to my reading of the charter, an infraction can range from anything from telling someone you reported their post to a full on abusive post aimed at a particular player. Now even Keano's dog could tell you which of those two is the more serious charter breach, yet they both receive the same yellow card infraction.

The only way I could see all yellow card infractions = ban working would be if a 3rd, black card system were to be introduced. This would be given out for the minorest of minor breaches, such as telling someone you reported a post, threadspoiling or "commenting on a breach of charter" (quoted from the charter itself). These would not lead to bans, while the other yellow card offences like abusive posts or mild trolling would remain ban-worthy.

Given the number of revisions the charter has gone through to implement so many different types of possible charter breaches, I think this latest sequence of events has proved the yellow card system has outgrown itself tbh. There's too many offences that fall under the yellow card bracket, and more worryingly some offences in that bracket should be dealt with far more strictly (or leniently) than others. And that's where the change needs to occur imo.

_blank_

I think it's a very silly new "rule".

Just give the infractions as needed, and if someone reaches the threshold, ban them.

Perhaps people are ignoring certain aspects of the charter because they think they are stupid.

mike65

It does appear "banter" is now a total no-no.

Zaph

I agree with the soccer mods that the forum has been a breeding ground for all sorts of muppetry in the past, but this new rule seems to me to be like taking a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. Notwithstanding the fact that the update is buried among the stickies at the top of the forum, and that the charter itself hasn't been updated, a fundamental change such as this should have been highlighted in lights as a proper forum announcement. However, I do think that the punishment in this case does not fit the crime. The forum has gone from a situation where a minor offence that would have earned a yellow card, six of which were required to earn a ban, now gets an instant ban, and not an insignificant one either. I personally think that the forum should revert to the old system or, should the mods feel the need to hand out instant bans that they're either of a shorter duration, say 3 days. Either that or introduce a sliding scale, for example 2 days for the first yellow card, 4 for the second and so on, but certainly something less draconian than is currently in place.

Headshot

dont do the crime if you cant time

you get a ban for a week and you wont be causing trouble again, simple, yes its strict but if it's working, the sf will be better

I know its working for me because im being very careful since the new rule came in.

mike65

Someone just get done for refereing to Manchester United as Manure, I'm wondering at what point does a joke name become offensive.

Moneychester Utd? Manchester Bucaneers? Mna Utd? Then there is Liverpool. Is Liverpoo worth a ban? the fat Spanish Waiter (Rafa)? Slur Alex Fergurson?

Oh and Stan Collymore is not a wanker, not that I'd have said he was. I might say he was a dogger though.

Iago

mike65 wrote: »

Someone just get done for refereing to Manchester United as Manure, I'm wondering at what point does a joke name become offensive.

Moneychester Utd? Manchester Bucaneers? Mna Utd? Then there is Liverpool. Is Liverpoo worth a ban? the fat Spanish Waiter (Rafa)? Slur Alex Fergurson?

Oh and Stan Collymore is not a wanker, not that I'd have said he was. I might say he was a dogger though.

actually yes, they are..

Soccer Forum Charter wrote:

Policy on Abuse
The rules on abuse apply to more than just boards users, and cover players/managers/fans/clubs/sports personalities as well. You may consider certain terms to be a bit of banter, but any nickname or phrase that is even vaguely derogatory may be considered as abuse for the purpose of the charter.

Calling a team Manure, Liverpoo, redsh1te, bluesh1te, the Scum, the Hun or any other variant is abuse.

Nicknames like whisky nose, fat Spanish waiter, Fat Sam, Fat Frank and similar is abuse.

Calling Andy Gray or Pat Dolan names is abuse.

This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but it is common for users to misinterpret this rule and assume that language like the above is OK. Please think carefully before posting anything like the above.

However, emotional language is not in itself a problem. It is ok to deliver a point passionately, to swear if you so choose, though you can make a point solidly without having to call people / teams / etc names.

The mod team reserve the right to apply their judgement as to a users intent when posting, and issue bans and/or infractions for abuse as necessary.

The ins and outs of what constitutes abuse haven't changed. What has changed is the application of the final line in that statement.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have to infract anybody, and it would be possible to have threads that run in the same way as offline conversations with your mates do on the Monday after a match. There's a bit of friendly banter and one-upmanship, there's some mild abusive and slagging terms thrown out, and occasionally some not so mild abuse, and then everyone moves on.

It has been proven time and again that this approach doesn't work on the Soccer forum and as a result more and more rules have had to be layered on in order for the forum to continue to function in any meaningful way. Even with that we still have a number of posters who skate as close to the line as they can in almost every post they make, if we removed some of these rules where would we end up?

Ultimately the forum seemed to be heading in a direction where it was a free for all until any individual poster got to 4 yellow cards and/or a mod posted a warning on thread. That's not sustainable in the long-term and so harsher steps needed to be taken. It really isn't that difficult to post and discuss football without breaking the charter, the fact that only a minority do so is evidence of that fact.

Jazzy

its a crying shame the day frank lampard cant be ripped on for being fat (even though he clearly isnt*) without someone getting banned. if the forum was unworkable the former way then its certainly unworkable now. football causes passion. you are asking people to turn down said passion. that aint gonna work. its gonna become an unnatural place with a day-glo sort of feel about it where there will be no real discussion and it will ultimately lack the very depth that makes it work in the first place.

what to do then...
stop the spammers and you will solve the problem volume / noise is 90% of the real problem here. 'debates' drag and then blow up and then the sniping starts and the cards get handed out. liverpool fans dont care about the club being called 'liverpoo' by some utd fan on boards.ie and chelski fans dont care that lampard is the spokesperson for KFC, McDonalds and Spice Burgers. if ppl dont care, dont have it in the charter. if some retard appears and decides to take offence because they are bored and want to start a fight or try get someone banned then throw them to the wolves. survival of the fittest.
as it is you are just letting a lot of individuals spam away in vain attempts to rile up opposition fans. dont be afraid of targeting individuals and telling them to cop on. i think you'll find if you phrase it right they actually will and if they dont, well... throw them to the wolves


*but he obviously is

therecklessone

mike65 wrote: »

Someone just get done for refereing to Manchester United as Manure, I'm wondering at what point does a joke name become offensive.

Moneychester Utd? Manchester Bucaneers? Mna Utd? Then there is Liverpool. Is Liverpoo worth a ban? the fat Spanish Waiter (Rafa)? Slur Alex Fergurson?

Iago has pointed out the relevant part of the charter, but this reinforces my earlier point: soccer users are not aware of the forum charter. This is making people sit up and take notice. That is a good thing.

Jazzy wrote: »

liverpool fans dont care about the club being called 'liverpoo' by some utd fan on boards.ie and chelski fans dont care that lampard is the spokesperson for KFC, McDonalds and Spice Burgers. if ppl dont care, dont have it in the charter.

You are not in full possession of the facts. People do care about terms of abuse used to describe their team/players/managers and more, if they didn't the forum would be a much easier place to mod because there would be far fewer occurrences when posters took personal exception to criticism levelled at their favourites, and far less aggro. Remember, you don't have to read the reported posts...

leninbenjamin

I agree with many of the sentiments being expressed here.

The quality of discussion has really fallen in recent times, and, for the most part, it seems to maintain any coherent form of conversation one must wade through spades of sh*te and drivel from posters who just want to make their point and don't give a sh*t about the overall discussion. There was a time I had no problem posting in any of the super-threads, these days I just keep to the Arsenal one.

Now I fully understand the argument of the mods. Very few posters seem to give a sh*t about the rules or their fellow posters and will launch into a tirade at the slightest little criticism of their team. Though while In recent years the rules have become progressively more strict, it doesn't seem to have made a wh*t. I'm less likely to post now than I was before the new charter as discussions have become so incoherent. So I don't think this new change will make a difference.

Now the question is, what to do about it? Tbh the only thing i can think of is to introduce a mild form of elitism whereby some form of peer review system is introduced, and maybe restricting access to those users deemed not to be constructively contributing regardless of whether there was an explicit break of the rules?

therecklessone

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Now the question is, what to do about it? Tbh the only thing i can think of is to introduce a mild form of elitism whereby some form of peer review system is introduced, and maybe restricting access to those users deemed not to be constructively contributing regardless of whether there was an explicit break of the rules?

Gut reaction is that is a charter for bullies tbh, where sheer weight of numbers, and possibly team affiliation, will see users removed from the forum. I want no part of that.

However, suggest a structure for such a system and I'll examine it on its merits.

castie

This is ridiculous. Infractions are there for a reason and stand as warnings.
Since when is a 7 day cold shower considered a warning?

I realise the Soccer forum mods have had it tough but if this is the only way you can deal with the users of this forum (ruling with an iron fist) maybe its time you stepped down and let someone who isnt going to run around with only red cards.

Ironic that a discussion forum of a sport that itself has a warning system now does not.

Jazzy

therecklessone wrote: »

Remember, you don't have to read the reported posts...

reporting posts is for the weak

if someone has a problem with manure & liverpoo, cant the mods just ignore them?

Xavi6

castie wrote: »

This is ridiculous. Infractions are there for a reason and stand as warnings.
Since when is a 7 day cold shower considered a warning?

I realise the Soccer forum mods have had it tough but if this is the only way you can deal with the users of this forum (ruling with an iron fist) maybe its time you stepped down and let someone who isnt going to run around with only red cards.

Ironic that a discussion forum of a sport that itself has a warning system now does not.

What part of it do you not get? We tried the leniency route by posting on thread warnings and referring to them in the thread title. It didn't work because people didn't bother to read/acknowledge them. Do you think it's fun to ban people? Do you think we like abuse by PM? Maybe try and look at it from our perspective even just a little before you come waltzing in here looking for heads to roll.

Hank Scorpio

I think some people do over step the line sometimes in that forum, but ffs getting banned for saying manure or chuckling at fat frank is just ridiculous, thats what soccer is mainly about imo, the banter

Look at teamtalk for e.g. the discussion is intense and the banter is huge there but from what iv seen theres no racial abuse or personal insults or anything like that( been using that site for years )

Just soccer fans having abit of craic supporting their team

Heres some pretty harsh bans as of late, where surely a warning or a quick pm would have sorted the problem out

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055720487

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055716487

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055704775

The older system was much better imo

witnessmenow

I made a complaint about the warnings in thread titles before

Take for example the liverpool thread
8228 posts, title suggests i go look at post no 7748. No link to this warning on the first post of the thread.

Is there a secret way of getting to this post that i dont know about?

Hank Scorpio

Xavi6 wrote: »

What part of it do you not get? We tried the leniency route by posting on thread warnings and referring to them in the thread title. It didn't work because people didn't bother to read/acknowledge them. Do you think it's fun to ban people? Do you think we like abuse by PM? Maybe try and look at it from our perspective even just a little before you come waltzing in here looking for heads to roll.

Dont ban people for simple banter but do for personal abuse, thats the line i would take on it. And i dont mean personal abuse as in, Stephen Ireland is a backstabber, but personal abuse to other posters. Soccer is everything about opinion and you as much as everyone knows how money/greed etc runs the games(being a man city fan and all:rolleyes:)

In fairness i always seen those mod warning posts in the thread titles, but i couldnt click it? and i wasnt bothered going through 50 pages to try and find it ( if theres a faster way to do it please let me know ) maybe the majority of people had this problem also?

Another thing is where as people are getting card etc for talking about a player in a match discussion thread, but not regarding the game itself, but the player in general. I think rules like that are absolute nonsence tbh. You should know yourself when to lock those threads judging from the posts, and the respective posters would just go back to there own News/Supporters thread on there respective club

Anyway bottom line is you cant expect seasoned soccer fans to behave in such a way as the charter has outlined it, well you can, but expect every second or third poster to be banned

craiginireland

I have to agree fully with this. I got a ban for saying I thought a player on the team i support played so bad he deserves Donkey status.

This is just constructive criticism but It seems to me the mods are trying to (and doing a great job of) reduce the amount of people posting on the forum. No doubt that they are under a lot of pressure and deal with a lot of idiots but this is ripping the piss. The previous system worked fine IMO and also look at your definition of the word abuse.

nuxxx wrote: »

I think some people do over step the line sometimes in that forum, but ffs getting banned for saying manure or chuckling at fat frank is just ridiculous, thats what soccer is mainly about imo, the banter

Look at teamtalk for e.g. the discussion is intense and the banter is huge there but from what iv seen theres no racial abuse or personal insults or anything like that( been using that site for years )

Just soccer fans having abit of craic supporting their team

Heres some pretty harsh bans as of late, where surely a warning or a quick pm would have sorted the problem out

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055720487

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055716487

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055704775

The older system was much better imo

Kirnsy

therecklessone wrote: »

We already have an accumulated infraction system (6 yellows in 1 "season" = a 6 month/end of season ban, whichever is longer) but as somebody with access to the forum you know that, right? Or is it possible that you, like many of the people who were on the receiving end of that last season weren't aware of it, despite it being in the charter?

I am aware of that thanks, I merely said that if you are so keen to come down on people why not give 1 yellow = infraction and two = ban (1 day or whatever). this is as opposed to banning someone for A WEEK because they stated they reported a post.which is ridiculous.

therecklessone wrote: »

That in itself highlights one of the problems we currently face as mods of the forum. One of the people you mentioned admitted they last read the charter around two years ago, when they first joined...it has been updated twice in that time, including once after extensive consultation with the forum users. How can we be held responsible when users will not make themselves aware of the charter?




It is spelled out clearly in the charter, and we went to great lengths to provide clarity where in the past the charter was less informative

let's face it though very few people on any forum reads the charter more than once, it's not just a soccer thing. Why not have an announcement when implementing a rule change? it feels like it was sneaked in, in the hope of catching people out. which it has done.

therecklessone wrote: »

The policy is in place just over 2 weeks, we are paying close attention to it and will amend or remove it as and when we see fit.

what's your personal opinion on it at the moment? is it contributing to better discussion and a more enjoyable forum for all? have there been many people caught by it and has it had its desired effect?

nuxxx wrote: »

Dont ban people for simple banter but do for personal abuse, thats the line i would take on it. And i dont mean personal abuse as in, Stephen Ireland is a backstabber, but personal abuse to other posters. Soccer is everything about opinion and you as much as everyone knows how money/greed etc runs the games(being a man city fan and all:rolleyes:)

In fairness i always seen those mod warning posts in the thread titles, but i couldnt click it? and i wasnt bothered going through 50 pages to try and find it ( if theres a faster way to do it please let me know ) maybe the majority of people had this problem also?

Another thing is where as people are getting card etc for talking about a player in a match discussion thread, but not regarding the game itself, but the player in general. I think rules like that are absolute nonsence tbh. You should know yourself when to lock those threads judging from the posts, and the respective posters would just go back to there own News/Supporters thread on there respective club

Anyway bottom line is you cant expect seasoned soccer fans to behave in such a way as the charter has outlined it, well you can, but expect every second or third poster to be banned

i agree with all of this post but most especially the part in bold.
the idea of title warnings is great but in practice would it be possible to put them as a bold part of the OP or something that makes it more accessible to posters?

Xavi6

nuxxx wrote: »

Dont ban people for simple banter but do for personal abuse, thats the line i would take on it. And i dont mean personal abuse as in, Stephen Ireland is a backstabber, but personal abuse to other posters. Soccer is everything about opinion and you as much as everyone knows how money/greed etc runs the games(being a man city fan and all:rolleyes:)

See the little dig you put in brackets there? That's the sort of rubbish that causes problems in the forum and leads to the rules we have. It was unnecessary to add to your post but you did it anyway to fire in a cheap shot. Own worst enemy tbh, and it's unfortunate that the majority have to suffer because of it.