Feedback about Soccer

_blank_

Xavi6 wrote: »

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).

No, what happened was a summer consultation, with suggestions from everyone, then a new charter implemented. I don't remember rule changes being agreed. Agreed with who? There was no discussion allowed of the new charter, it was "Give us ideas and we'll decide which ones to implement, but we won't engage in discussion of them".

Then, when we had all this fanfare, it was given, what, two months, three max, when we got this draconian "interpretation" introduced. With no consultation.

I seem to remember a while back when people questioned the new, at the time, "Match Threads", they were basically told to stfu and stop being so silly as to question the new system after such a short space of time. Same goes. Well it would if it was a two way street, but it isn't.

Xavi6 wrote: »

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 know people break rules, that's why we have mods

But there's a way to implement them, and there's a way not to.

Xavi6 wrote: »

And there you have our problem in a nutshell.

So, because there is a problem, which there is, you think the solution is to get medieval on our asses. Kicking out long term posters, making other long term posters reduce, or completely stop posting?

Nice one.

Xavi6 wrote: »

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

TBH, reporting a mods posts, or even complaining about a mod brings a circle the wagons approach, always has done, always will as far as I can see.

Xavi6 wrote: »

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.

Wut?

_blank_

therecklessone wrote: »

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.

At the time this system was implemented it was clearly stated that the Soccer Mods would, at any time, be able to provide a user with their current record, and where they stand in the system.

Is that not the case any more?

Daysha

therecklessone wrote: »

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?

Yes actually

The reason I suggested the black card system was simply because a 7 day ban for such petty like incidents like the smallest of back seat modding was not good for the users or the forum in general. But if you think there should be some yellow card offences that shouldn't carry bans then we have no problem.

I can understand where you're coming from with regards the tracking accumulations and stuff. I'm not a mod so I'm looking at this as an outsider without any of the behind-the-scenes things you need to think of, so the black card thing was the first suggestion that came into my mind to ensure the smallest of charter breaches don't carry such heavy consequences.

I'd have no problem keeping a simple yellow/red card system as long as some yellow card offences are treated more leniently than others and aren't just brushed with the same stroke.

Thanks for the reply btw.

mike65

DeVore wrote: »

Or maybe we need a two-speed soccer approach with different approachs to this issue and let people vote with their browsers?

Xavi6 wrote: »

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.

Hmmm.

Slightly different point, is it time to change the entry requirments back to a poster needing a sponser (or two?).

_blank_

Actually, Daysha, Back Seat Modding should carry a much longer ban.

I don't see why anyone would want to post on a thread "reported".

Who gives a crap, apart from the mods. And they get automatic notification of reported posts anyway, so someone putting "reported" in a thread is wasting everyone's time, and they also look like a petty prick, tbh.

Also, "I have you on ignnore". Do I care?

"You are a troll" - yeah, in YOUR opinion.

If people see a troll, report it.

This "Reporting is for the weak" is , frankly, bullshít. If you aren't prepared to report posts, then stfu about the problem on the fúcking threads you 'tards.

And then we get people accused of being "serial reporters", as I was in the past. :rolleyes:

therecklessone

Des wrote: »

At the time this system was implemented it was clearly stated that the Soccer Mods would, at any time, be able to provide a user with their current record, and where they stand in the system.

Is that not the case any more?

I can count up yours or anyone else's infractions from looking at their user profile Des. It's simple enough, go back to 1st August 2009 and count the yellows and reds issued on the SF.

I'm told every user can see their own infraction record on their own profile, is that not correct?

Daysha is suggesting a 3rd infraction which cannot be tracked by the system, therefore requires mods to record amongst ourselves, however if the new infraction is intended to add up to something else then I believe users should be aware of the fact that they have one or more, and that X number will result in something else.

Like I said, previous experience has been that people ignored or forgot about infractions earned, and that is with a record maintained on the users public profile.

Daysha

Tbh Des, I was just looking through the list of yellow card infractions and that was the one that stood out for me. Here's the list taken from the charter.

Minor Offences (including but not limited to):
Abuse of players.
Threadspoiling
Flamebaiting in threads.
Debating moderation in threads.
Mild flaming or trolling.
Provocation.
Derailing or off topic posting in super threads.
Accusing a member of trolling/being a troll
Misuse of the Reported Post system
Back-seat moderation
Abusing through the thanks system (thanking abusive posts)

therecklessone

mike65 wrote: »

Slightly different point, is it time to change the entry requirments back to a poster needing a sponser (or two?).

Absolutely not. The forum should not be an exclusive club, it should be a place that posters agree to abide by the charter and are then granted access. Sponsorship will drive new blood away.

There is a probation period for new posters which allows us to weed out troublemakers early on, and it has already caught two users.

Des wrote: »

Actually, Daysha, Back Seat Modding should carry a much longer ban.

I don't see why anyone would want to post on a thread "reported".

Who gives a crap, apart from the mods. And they get automatic notification of reported posts anyway, so someone putting "reported" in a thread is wasting everyone's time, and they also look like a petty prick, tbh.

Also, "I have you on ignnore". Do I care?

"You are a troll" - yeah, in YOUR opinion.

If people see a troll, report it.

This "Reporting is for the weak" is , frankly, bullshít. If you aren't prepared to report posts, then stfu about the problem on the fúcking threads you 'tards.

And then we get people accused of being "serial reporters", as I was in the past. :rolleyes:

Des wrote: »

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

Can I ask you Des what aspects of the charter you think are stupid? What do we currently prohibit that you think should be let go?

therecklessone

mike65 wrote: »

<snip> should never have got through the door.

I don't really think this is the place for naming names tbh, but for every one poster who gets through when they shouldn't there are ten who get through and are a benefit to the forum.

The most contentious issue on the forum right now is being fought over by a number of experienced users on both sides of the divide.

It's time for people to stop blaming the n00bs for causing all the bother.

Oh, and it would help if people accepted that new posters are not familiar with every bloody argument that has happened on the SF since time began and cut them some slack once in a while.

_blank_

therecklessone wrote: »

Can I ask you Des what aspects of the charter you think are stupid? What do we currently prohibit that you think should be let go?

Nothing, I think everything in the Charter makes perfect sense, if it is implemented in the correct way.

Do I think people should be allowed abuse managers/players/refs/each other?

No, I certainly do not, and there DOES need to be a fairly harsh line drawn about that.

People take offence, can we help that? No we can't.

Calling someone "Whiskey Nose", well not only is it abuse, it's also fairly old, probably funny the first time someone typed it, twenty years ago, but imbeciles continually posting it should be over on F365 or some other bollix forum. Same goes for FSW, Fat Frank, Fat Dolan or whatever other childish moniker people choose to use for these people. Jaysis folks, act like adults. Name calling is for the playground.

The other reason it needs to be harshly treated is because, as noted above, "Whiskey Nose" soon becomes "Whiskey Nosed Cúnt". And that is not acceptable in any shape or form.

There is a sliding scale though, and it is only fans of certain clubs/leagues that take the most offence.

mike65 wrote: »

<snip> should never have got through the door.

No need to get personal, tbh.

Des

Des wrote: »

Actually, Daysha, Back Seat Modding should carry a much longer ban.

I don't see why anyone would want to post on a thread "reported".

Who gives a crap, apart from the mods. And they get automatic notification of reported posts anyway, so someone putting "reported" in a thread is wasting everyone's time, and they also look like a petty prick, tbh.

Also, "I have you on ignnore". Do I care?

"You are a troll" - yeah, in YOUR opinion.

If people see a troll, report it.

This "Reporting is for the weak" is , frankly, bullshít. If you aren't prepared to report posts, then stfu about the problem on the fúcking threads you 'tards.

And then we get people accused of being "serial reporters", as I was in the past. :rolleyes:

+1

The amount of over sensitive bullshít to be seen on the forum at times is laughable. A lot of the time too it is people who give it out but cant take it when thrown back at them so they resort to that.

Xavi6

Daysha wrote: »

just show us you will actually respond to the type of posts you've been looking for.

You make it sound like positive feedback is ignored so I'll refer you to exhibit A -

Xavi6 wrote: »

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.

_blank_

Deleted User wrote: »

The amount of over sensitive bullshít to be seen on the forum at times is laughable. A lot of the time too it is people who give it out but cant take it when thrown back at them so they resort to that.

But there is also the circular arguments. Pedantic arseholes, for the most part.

Rafa's Spending should be a banned topic on the forum at this stage.

mike65

Well I needed an example, and he/she was a perfect one in my book. (just for the record he/she was banned for persistent troublemaking)

Des

Des wrote: »

But there is also the circular arguments. Pedantic arseholes, for the most part.

Rafa's Spending should be a banned topic on the forum at this stage.

O I know only too well.

mike65 wrote: »

Well I needed an example, and he/she was a perfect one in my book. (just for the record he/she was banned for persistent troublemaking)

Fair enough but if you starting naming people this thread will be dragged into a slagging match. Not that wouldn't be a bit of fun

Spud83

Des wrote: »

But there is also the circular arguments. Pedantic arseholes, for the most part.

Rafa's Spending should be a banned topic on the forum at this stage.

No topic should be banned. If people are willing to go around in circles let them, just give them a place to do it such as the Liverpool spending thread that was created.

Asiaprod

mike65 wrote: »

Well I needed an example, and he/she was a perfect one in my book. (just for the record he/she was banned for persistent troublemaking)

Understood, still no names:)

Daysha

Xavi6 wrote: »

You make it sound like positive feedback is ignored

No, both Dev and BuffyBot had asked for people to spend more time suggesting and less time arguing, and I was making the point that I had made a suggestion near the start of the thread which had since gone ignored.

Sherifu

To give my side of the argument from our PMs:

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.

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:

therecklessone_PM(already posted in this thread) wrote:

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?

Sherifu_PM wrote:

There are two approaches to modding forums like rugby and soccer as I see it. There's Ruggie's more relaxed approach which I would be a fan of as i've said. And then there is the jackboot approach that seems to be in vogue again. One way works with the community and one works against it, one leaves a bitter taste for 'posters who are on the forum long enough to know better' and one doesn't.

therecklessone wrote: »

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.

Sherifu_PM wrote:

Just because everyone should be afraid of a rule doesn't make it a good idea. I can easily go back to posting yes/no replies in soccer or posting infrequently as I did a few months ago. I don't get involved in that tit for tat my team is better personally. There was great banter, then it was put down hard. Then the banter started to develop again, now it looks like you want it put down again. It's very hard to mod the low level team trolling, it will never be gotten rid of so instead we have rules like this. I have 0 problem with the infraction and if the punishment fits the crime I have no problem. In this case slapping 7 day bans on everything is just ridiculous.

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.

Kirnsy

ok so so far Xavi has approved of the suggestion to linking the mod notes to the OP. Thanks Xavi!

Where do we stand on the *rule update* on the yellow cards?

Do we:

1. Keep the same system as now in which one yellow equals a 7 day ban.

2. Implement a system that a lower ratio of yellows equals a 1 day ban and..the more yellows the more days off one gets.

3.The usual system of 6 yellows = long term etc.


Personally, I think option two could be a good implementation. It means that people would still be very wary of what they post and there would be still leeway for a heat of the moment comment.
Of course there would have to be tweakings to achieve a system that would suit most of the forum (it wont please everyone obviously in soccer!)
Common sense should also be a key part of the mods decisions, i dont think anyone would have imagined that MM and Sherifu would get a yellow for what they wrote.

That said the rule update has achieved something: don't think many users will be posting 'reported' after posts anymore. Credit where its due!

The mods make a good point too where some people obviously take offence far too easy. Personally Ive reported maybe two posts ever and they've been on AH AFAIR. But if people are pissed off after their team lost and actively seeking posts that piss them off just to report them then soccer will be in a bad way.

and cheers for leaving this open dev. hopefully constructive feedback will be displayed!:)

Jazzy

Des wrote: »

This "Reporting is for the weak" is , frankly, bullshít. If you aren't prepared to report posts, then stfu about the problem on the fúcking threads you 'tards.

i know what you mean, I just dont like ratting people out. Jonny Tightlips is the name. the way i was raised in school i suppose.

+1 to links to the warning post as they can be a bugger to find. I still think there should be a mini-witchunt on the forum to get the people who purposely skim the line to cop on. you know who they are, deal with them. 90% of the problems and what we are talking about here come from a small enough circle of people.

also noobies to the forum should be made to watch this instructional video before they are allowed to post -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y

Hank Scorpio

Xavi6 wrote: »

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.

I wasnt trying to have a dig at you, i was trying to light'en the mood of my post, but meh whatever, ya notice the little smiley thing after what i said?

Xavi6

nuxxx wrote: »

I wasnt trying to have a dig at you, i was trying to light'en the mood of my post, but meh whatever, ya notice the little smiley thing after what i said?

Yes it was a rolleyes. I have never seen that used to lighten a mood.

Hank Scorpio

Xavi6 wrote: »

Yes it was a rolleyes. I have never seen that used to lighten a mood.

Thats strange.

You posted a comment towards me before, which i believe was on the soccer forum, and i felt like it was serious, until of course you pointed out the smiley you included in your post and that you were only joking

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/converse.php?u=69985&u2=128280

I deleted the comment in which you explained the smiley face months ago

Mr. Presentable

Des wrote: »

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.

This reflects my own feelings on the forum. I was never prolific on it, but seldom post now since you can no longer tell where the line is if the criteria is "offensive". There are posters who seem to want to take offense at even the most innocuous gentle ribbing and then, when they report that they are offended, the mod has little option but to follow the rule as laid out.

I believe the soccer forum suffers from having too many immature, wagon-circling, precious minded posters - some of whom are long time posters with a large number of posts. I accept that this makes the job of the mods very difficult, and I have found my recent dealings with them (yes, even including being banned) to be very pleasant and dare-I-say professional, but to issue a ban for a warning is heavy-handed. Particularly where a "grow a pair" to the reporting poster would be a more appropriate response.

Lastly, and I am aware this has been done before, for me, soccer should be for the general discussion of association football, and not a place for flag-waving fanboys. Thay should have their own subs.

Xavi6

nuxxx wrote: »

Thats strange.

You posted a comment towards me before, which i believe was on the soccer forum, and i felt like it was serious, until of course you pointed out the smiley you included in your post and that you were only joking

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/converse.php?u=69985&u2=128280

I deleted the comment in which you explained the smiley face months ago

I don't want to split hairs over a smiley so apologies if I misinterpreted it the wrong way.

All it does though is reinforce the point about context and how it can be picked up to mean something completely different to its intention.

One man's joke is another man's personal abuse.

Hank Scorpio

Xavi6 wrote: »

I don't want to split hairs over a smiley so apologies if I misinterpreted it the wrong way.

All it does though is reinforce the point about context and how it can be picked up to mean something completely different to its intention.

One man's joke is another man's personal abuse.

In fairness telling someone to watch there back is alot different than saying your a man city fan.

Xavi6

nuxxx wrote: »

In fairness telling someone to watch there back is alot different than saying your a man city fan.

And calling Pat Dolan 'fat' is a lot different to referring to Man United fans as 'Munichs'.......or is it? Some people don't think so.

Finding a line is pretty much impossible.

Sherifu

Leave Pat Dolan alone lads. He's just big boned.

Mr. Presentable

Xavi6 wrote: »

And calling Pat Dolan 'fat' is a lot different to referring to Man United fans as 'Munichs'.......or is it? Some people don't think so.

Finding a line is pretty much impossible.

Man, you have a job on your hands

Calling Pat Dolan "Fat" should only be personal abuse if it is made to Pat Dolan. What right have I to take offense on his behalf?

Calling Man U fans "Munichs" (do people do that?) is not personal abuse in any context that I can imagine. This being taken as offensive is typical of the precious mindset I abhor.