Feedback about Soccer

DeVore

Perhaps some *constructive* feedback about soccer might be helpful. Or do you all think things would be fine without this rule?

Perhaps we should ask the users of Soccer what they think? Or maybe we need a two-speed soccer approach with different approachs to this issue and let people vote with their browsers?

I dunno... I dont read soccer but there seems to be a lot of "complaint" without a lot of "constructive suggestion". Thats why I ruled his "not feedback" before.

DeV.

Xavi6

Just to add, I think that the suggestion of adding a link in the OP to the mod noted post is a great idea and some really good feedback. I'll be sure to do it in future anyway.

Ludo

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:)

SNIP

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

That is feedback...and good feedback as well. Banter should be allowed. Not every reported post needs action. If someone says Liverpoo or West Sham that does not need to be acted on. It is banter for god sake. Xavi pointed out the comment about him being a Man City fan is the kind of rubbish that starts trouble. Well it is crap if that sort of a comment gets reported and worse again it it results in a ban. Serial reporters should be spoken to and told to lighten up. If people cant take very light banter then they should not talk about soccer. However, personal abuse (of other posters) should result in an immediate and very lenghty ban.

I don't post on the soccer forum because of the rules but I read it regularly. I honestly believe that the moderators are now so entrenched in their views that they are not open to any form of new moderating styles. They have a siege mentality which is unfortunate but is also human nature. The only options taken seem to be to increase bans all the time and clamp down on the slightest remark.

I honestly believe if the rules were relaxed to allow discussion with banter then the soccer forum would be a lot better place for it. Of course there would be teething problems but it would work itself out quickly enough.

tbh

craiginireland wrote: »

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 .

really? Calling a player a donkey is "constructive criticism"? Do you actually know what "Constructive criticism" is?

therecklessone

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

I'd love to agree.

I'd like to think this post of yours counts as banter, it was reported as trolling...see the problem? One man's banter is another man's trolling on the forum, especially when it comes to Liverpool and Man Utd.

Everybody seems to want a bit of banter on Soccer, right up until it's banter about their team, and then they start wailing.

Another wonderful example of the nature of the forum is this: if an argument develops between fans of two clubs (club A and club , and they both say or do something in breach of the charter, we will get reported posts but we've found fans of club A will only report the fan of club B, and vice versa. I have challenged users on this and they've laughed it off, how is that contributing to a decent and vibrant forum?

I've said it countless times, if everyone was a little slower to give offence and a lot slower to take offence the forum would be a much better place.

nuxxx wrote: »

The older system was much better imo

What older system? It's clear that a good many users are not aware of the rules, so what system that people have no knowledge of do you think we should use? Cos if we revert to infractions accumulating to result in a long ban we'll have countless people on here claiming they've been banned unfairly, and half their infractions weren't deserved. At what point do people start to pay attention to the fact that a mod has provided them with warnings?

witnessmenow wrote: »

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?

We've taken that on board and will try to update the OP, but it is worth pointing out: warnings are just reminders that we provide to people of the forum rules, if people can't be arsed reading the rules and then give up on reading a warning because it's too hard to find, what else are they not prepared to do? It will be interesting to see how many people continue to ignore on-thread warnings in the future if we change that the way you've suggested.

At what point are users going to take responsibility for their own actions?

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:)

Stop aiming at your foot there...

nuxxx wrote: »

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.

So what your saying is rather than deal with people who cannot post on-topic we should close the thread to the detriment of those who wish to continue discussing an individual match? We maintain a strict line on off-topic discussion because in the past it was found that discussion of matches were creeping into team threads and because fans felt they "owned" their own thread they responded aggressively to any criticism of their players from a particular match. Match threads provide a neutral ground for discussion of an individual game, and we attempt to keep the discussion on-topic so that they can remain so.

Despite that, I'm not aware of many instances were posters have been infracted for off-topic posting (unless it was after warnings were issued), my usual response is to delete any off-topic posts, or move them to a new/existing thread.

It is interesting you suggest we should close threads when we know it is time to do so, when we actually do that we get criticised for closing them and allowing disruptive posters have their way. Can we win either way?

Kirnsy wrote: »

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.

We spent four weeks consulting users on the new charter, when we closed off that period we kept them updated on how we were progressing with it. We announced it's implementation at the start of August. How much more notice do people really need?

As for announcing the new punishment, we put it as a sticky which clearly asked users to read it. Every time I log into boards and there's a new thread it shows in a different colour to indicate new posts, I presume the same applies to you? So we have a sticky thread, titled "****PLEASE READ**** Forum update from the mod team 13/10/09", which would have shown up as a new thread, and somehow we're accused of sneaking something in? Do we really think that an Announcement would have made all the difference? The evidence to date suggests people don't read anything we post up.

We have not changed any rules, we have merely changed how we respond to breaches of the rule which has always been an option:

Policy on Bans and Infractions

1. Minor offence (See list) will result in a yellow card infraction and may incur a ban. Repeat offences may result in a red card infraction and/or a ban of increasing length.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61404706&postcount=7

Kirnsy wrote: »

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?

The most obvious example of it working is that we removed about 10 people who were causing various levels of trouble on the Liverpool-United match thread and as a result it is still open...most threads usually last about 12 hours after a game.

I also believe it has prompted a good few people to sit up and pay attention to the fact that there are rules and guidelines on which the forum operates.

Anyone who thinks we dream these rules up to throw our weight around is mistaken...I spent all day yesterday answering PMs, responding to Feedback and Help Desk, approving access requests (another rule that I'm challenged on regularly) and responding to reported posts...I could have been in work earning bank holiday pay, or I could have made use of my leave day to study. I don't enjoy banning anybody, and if people followed the advice I gave earlier the forum would be a much better place to post.

therecklessone

Ludo wrote: »

I honestly believe if the rules were relaxed to allow discussion with banter then the soccer forum would be a lot better place for it. Of course there would be teething problems but it would work itself out quickly enough.

The last time unrestricted banter was allowed on the forum it lead to this:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=153311

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=152971

Comments like Steven Gerrard is a scumbag and Alex Ferguson is a whisky-nosed cúnt rapidly escalate to "Ludo is a scumbag" and "therecklessone is a cúnt". Past experience tells us that.

tallaght01

It's a bizarre rule alright, and some good people have been/will be banned because of it.

I don't have access to the soccer forum, but I'm a big soccer fan and read it all the time

Major problem there is mods expect the users to act like kids, and come down on them very hard, even if they're decent users. This is a major problem in the so-called "contentious" forums on boards.

Troublemakers should be banned, and decent people should be left alone to have a bit of banter.

I think sherifu was right when he said the GY modding style days need to be let go. IN general if, you treat people like adults, they'll behave that way. There will be exceptions. So get rid of them.

If you need more mods, get them. But there has to be common sense.

Ludo

therecklessone wrote: »

The last time unrestricted banter was allowed on the forum it lead to this:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=153311

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=152971

Comments like Steven Gerrard is a scumbag and Alex Ferguson is a whisky-nosed cúnt rapidly escalate to "Ludo is a scumbag" and "therecklessone is a cúnt". Past experience tells us that.

I'm sorry but to me that is simple to solve. Ban them immediately and permanently. Pretty soon people will stop the personal insults as the people who are doing it will be banned and others will know better. Anyway...Tallaght01s reply above covers what I think about the forum.

Also recklessone...your avatar shows the attitude that seems to have taken hold of the soccer mods. The fact you have that under your name shows me that there is a problem.

Sherifu

DeVore wrote: »

Perhaps some *constructive* feedback about soccer might be helpful. Or do you all think things would be fine without this rule?

Things were fine in my opinion. But I am only one. If only we could have gotten more peoples opinions somehow.

If this new rule was the best idea they could come up with then i'm afraid for the future of the forum. There have been many fine suggestions in this thread already, possibly soccers best feedback thread ever? One suggestion even already taken onboard by a mod. This is what happens when you ask the posters. The soccer forum exists for its users and not to be bent to the will of the mods. Des has made a valid point about some silly rules in the charter. When you take a warning for them it's one thing, when you turn that into a 7 day ban it becomes something so far over the top it's not funny. If the punishment fits the crime usually people fall in line.

When you have a case like this the soccer posters are one of the best to jump up and object and are to be commended for it. Even if the waters were muddied in the past with personal attacks and seething resentment. This time it's not the case. I think the mods are doing a fine job for the most part but how they got together and decided this was a good idea is beyond me.

As I have said to TRO in private there are ways of doing things, ways to work with the forum but this isn't it. Perhaps it's a siege mentality, I don't know. I'm on the outside. Only the mod team know their reasons for this rule.

I'm sure it was done with good intentions but i've no sympathy for the plight of Xavi6 & Iago above if this is the way things are going. You may talk about the behaviour of some users but this behaviour from mods isn't much better.

You took a shortcut to bring in the rule and you took a shortcut in making the rule. If I may borrow Zaph's analogy "taking a sledgehammer to crack a peanut".

DeVore wrote: »

Perhaps we should ask the users of Soccer what they think? Or maybe we need a two-speed soccer approach with different approachs to this issue and let people vote with their browsers?

Of course this is what should have been done. When I asked TRO about this the answer was "we did not think it appropriate to look for validation from the members" which is galling.

DeVore wrote: »

I dunno... I dont read soccer but there seems to be a lot of "complaint" without a lot of "constructive suggestion". Thats why I ruled his "not feedback" before.
DeV.

I think I covered "constructive suggestion" above in my ramblings. Suggestions in this thread include:

1. Tweaking the yellow card numbers before getting a red
2. Putting major rule changes to the forum before throwing them in mid-season
3. Using an announcement instead of a buried sticky & a discussion thread would be good.
4. Linking to mod warnings in the first post, please yes. The current system of hunting for the post yourself is not too good.
5. Scrap this new rule, it's not a very bright one.

Thanks for leaving this thread open. I should have framed my one better. Guess I was still bitter. I thought I wasn't when I started typing. :mad:

therecklessone

Ludo wrote: »

Also recklessone...your avatar shows the attitude that seems to have taken hold of the soccer mods. The fact you have that under your name shows me that there is a problem.

Hang on, you argue for more banter on the forum yet jump on my tagline? It's a joke ffs.

Goes along way towards showing why the forum doesn't need more banter.

tallaght01

therecklessone wrote: »

Hang on, you argue for more banter on the forum yet jump on my tagline? It's a joke ffs.

Goes along way towards showing why the forum doesn't need more banter.

Well, to turn that around on you...why are you allowed some banter that the people who are banned too easily might think is in poor taste. BUt the users aren't allowed any banter?

therecklessone

Sherifu wrote: »

Putting major rule changes to the forum before throwing them in mid-season

For the last time:

This is not a rule change. The rules are exactly the same, all that has changed is the response to a breach of the rules

Ludo

therecklessone wrote: »

Hang on, you argue for more banter on the forum yet jump on my tagline? It's a joke ffs.

Goes along way towards showing why the forum doesn't need more banter.

I'm sorry, but you as a moderator are a voice of authority on the forum which hands out lenghty bans for the most trivial stuff. As a moderator there should be responsibility and not a tagline which seems to delight in the banning side of moderating which should only be a minor part ot if. Maybe you see it as light hearted but to me it does actually show the siege mentality that has taken hold. We will agree to disagree I guess.

therecklessone

tallaght01 wrote: »

Well, to turn that around on you...why are you allowed some banter that the people who are banned too easily might think is in poor taste. BUt the users aren't allowed any banter?

Jesus H...

I will alter the tagline if it pleases the masses.

The Recliner

Most of the problems in the Soccer forum are with the users not the Mods as far as I can see

People are too quick to take offense

People confuse abuse with banter, one is acceptable the other isn't

The simple fact is that the rules are there and the Mods are just enforcing them, if people are still getting banned after they have been made aware of the rules then they only have themseleves to blame

You could argue that the rule is the problem but personally I don't think it is, if people can't respect the rules of the forum and obey them then they deserve to be banned

tallaght01

therecklessone wrote: »

Jesus H...

I will alter the tagline if it pleases the masses.

I don';t give a flying mickey what you do with, or say in, your tagline.

But I just think it's hypocritical because you would rarely accept

therecklessone wrote: »

It's a joke ffs.

.

as an excuse from a user if they offended someone.

therecklessone

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don';t give a flying mickey what you do with, or say in, your tagline.

But I just think it's hypocritical because you would rarely accept

as an excuse from a user if they offended someone.

There is nothing hypocritical at all.

There is a difference between a persons behaviour on-forum and off it, and while we do take action against anyone who deliberately uses signatures (as an example) to rile up other soccer users we accept that people have a profile on boards outside of the soccer forum, and allow them to express themselves as they see fit, off forum.

This is the first complaint I have received about the tag, it is now gone.

craiginireland

tbh wrote: »

really? Calling a player a donkey is "constructive criticism"? Do you actually know what "Constructive criticism" is?

If you read my post correctly you will have noticed that not in any way shape or form was I referring to Distan in a constructive way ( I doubt he uses boards tbh) The criticism was my statement after that

BuffyBot

Enough about tag lines - people read way too much into that kind of stuff.

DeV's already made it clear: let's have some constructive, useful feedback and suggestions about alternative ways of moderating soccer. Who knows, someone might even crack the magic formula..

Handsome Bob

I have a new thing now where I ignore those who I know are nothing more than trolls. It took me a while to realise it but seriously, engaging these posters is utterly futile. I think if everyone did the same thing then the Soccer Forum would be fine. There's nothing wrong with it, it just has a slight infestation of baitors who are the best at what they do.

Sherifu

therecklessone wrote: »

For the last time:

This is not a rule change. The rules are exactly the same, all that has changed is the response to a breach of the rules

This is the only thing you choose to pick out of my post? Not too bad so.

How about a major change in the implementation of the rules. We can split hairs all day long.

ShooterSF

I would support a system where the bans progress from say 24 hours for your first infraction to say 3 days to a week and so on cumulating in the big ban after 6.

As for banter it would be great if it were possible but I don't see it happening and I agree with the mods as to why. To often I have seen a funny remark about a team (mine or another's) taken the wrong way and ever so slightly escalated. What results is a ban (rightly so) for the person that escalates past the line and moaning from them as to why this person or that person before them wasn't banned for "abuse". Oh and god forbid the mod that bans them supports the team they were taking the piss out of. It's too messy online where tone and such are missing

tbh

BuffyBot wrote: »

Enough about tag lines - people read way too much into that kind of stuff.

DeV's already made it clear: let's have some constructive, useful feedback and suggestions about alternative ways of moderating soccer. Who knows, someone might even crack the magic formula..

instead of making it an offense to post an offensive message, make it an offense to take offense at an offensive message.

therecklessone

Sherifu wrote: »

This is the only thing you choose to pick out of my post? Not too bad so.

Your own words to me yesterday after you drew a line under our PM exchange:

I don't think we'll be agreeing on this issue.

I don't see a hell of a lot different in the points you raised on here today from what we had to say to each other yesterday.

I'll get back to the post later today and respond to anything that strikes me as new, but I was merely respecting what I thought were your wishes.

_blank_

We had a four week "discussion" about a new charter, but then this was slipped in at a later date, with not an ounce of consultation.

You mods "pretend" to consult, make a big song and dance about it, but then just ride roughshod anyway.

It's real "take it or leave it" kind of stuff.

I've reduced my posting time on the forum because, frankly, it's not obvious when someone is going to take offence to something, and then the mods lash out an infraction and resulting ban.

It's getting ridiculous at this stage.

And it's not helpful when a moderator is one of the people contributing to this "tit for tat" posting on threads, and dragging a perfectly good match thread into the semantics of betting.

Gambling forum ftw.

Sherifu

therecklessone wrote: »

Your own words to me yesterday after you drew a line under our PM exchange:



I don't see a hell of a lot different in the points you raised on here today from what we had to say to each other yesterday.

I'll get back to the post later today and respond to anything that strikes me as new, but I was merely respecting what I thought were your wishes.

The PM discussion was going nowhere and I was happy enough to end it where it was. Once again I genuinely thank you for your time there. It's appreciated. There were some good pieces of feedback raised above that weren't in the PMs. If you want to take them and talk them out with the mod team before commenting here then that's fair enough. If you want to go over any issues that we covered in the PM here in public feel free to do that too.

If what Des says above is true, he generally knows more than most about these things, then it's a shocking indictment of the whole consultation process. It's just not good enough lads.

I would like to see this rule put to the forum as Dev has suggested.

Xavi6

Des wrote: »

We had a four week "discussion" about a new charter, but then this was slipped in at a later date, with not an ounce of consultation.

You mods "pretend" to consult, make a big song and dance about it, but then just ride roughshod anyway.

It's real "take it or leave it" kind of stuff.

Hold on a second, we did take everything on board and implemented the rule changes that were agreed. However people couldn't stick to that. On thread warnings were ignored and breaches of the charter still existed (a charter which was agreed on).

You do realise that if no one broke the rules then there would never be any bans whatsover whether one day or one year?

I've reduced my posting time on the forum because, frankly, it's not obvious when someone is going to take offence to something, and then the mods lash out an infraction and resulting ban.

And there you have our problem in a nutshell.

And it's not helpful when a moderator is one of the people contributing to this "tit for tat" posting on threads, and dragging a perfectly good match thread into the semantics of betting.

And it's not helpful when potshots are fired at a mod. I'm sure you know the proper channels for a complaint.

Gambling forum ftw.

If that's how you feel then by all means do your posting there, you don't need to point it out here. We all knowing running away solves everything.

Daysha

DeV and BuffyBot, if you look past some of the "tit for tats" in this thread you'll realise that there are actually some very valid suggestions being posted here.

I myself made a suggestion back in the previous page yet so far the soccer mods have only cared for responding to be same people all the time while ignoring others. Same thing occurs in many of the soccer threads too, it can get very annoying from time to time.

I'll post my suggestion again - split the yellow card offense catagory into 2, a revamped yellow card and a new "black card" catagory. A black card catagory (otherwise seen as the new infraction) would be for the smallest of breaches in charter, like very light forms of back seat modding. Abuse of footballers etc would stay as a yellow card offense and would continue to carry a ban.

Like I said before, the number of rules now implemented in the charter has meant it has, imo, overgrown the current system where only 2 different types of offenses occur. Bring in a 3rd catagory and we would surely see much fairer bans in the future, while still implementing a certain strictness that the soccer forum needs at this stage.

Now, soccer mods, what do you think of this? I don't care if you don't like it, just show us you will actually respond to the type of posts you've been looking for.

It is annoying that you don't know whether or not to make a post involving a bit of banter in some threads. By now most people know me on there and I am not trying to be offensive when I post the odd sarcastic comment. I feel that a majority of the mods are doing a good job. When I've stepped out of line I have been giving a deserved yellow card & I have apologised. There have been a few instances that I should of been given a ban if this is what Sherifu was banned for along with a few other posters I won't name..... I'll be the first to admit that.

I don't think it is fair to threat some people different from others. Saying that the Soccer forum is just carnage at times so it's hard to know what to do in every instance.

therecklessone

Daysha wrote: »

Now, soccer mods, what do you think of this? I don't care if you don't like it, just show us you will actually respond to the type of posts you've been looking for.

You'll need to expand on the suggestion.

What does the "black card" achieve? Does it count towards the accumulated infraction system? Do 2 black cards = one yellow [or whatever ratio you're thinking]

To implement such a system would require more work, and more importantly would require users to pay attention to their own infraction record. the site-wide infraction system has yellows and reds. We would now have to issue blacks cards as well, keep a record of them ourselves and hope that users remember them as well. Previous experience suggests that many users do not pay attention to their own record and have to be reminded that they are on the verge of a long term ban.

I'm open to further suggestion, but at the moment it would seem easier and more user-friendly to remove the infraction=ban element and operate:

Yellow card [for minor offence]
Yellow card + ban [for slightly more serious offence, or repeated minor offences]
Red card + ban [for serious offence]

And all leading to 6 yellows=long term ban.

No?