Posting general statements about posters

K-9

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Really im blue in the face taking it to the various mods, c mods. Its an ongoing problem and not just with me as was illustrated in previous posts.
Would be great if something was done about it in the long term. Dont see what the big problem in what I am bringing up here.
Maybe the rules need to be stricter on this. Like i said no reason to bring up a posters past posting history.
The post is being debated not the poster. Its straight forward enough but some just dont seem to be able to grasp with what is a simple enought concept

SOS, you have to expect an element of banter on the soccer board. It's part of being a supporter of a club.

I made a comment on the Liverpool game thread tonight at a poster who has history on Liverpool threads. It could have been construed as a personal attack on a poster, it wasn't, it was firmly tongue in cheek. Ironically, you thanked it.

The soccer board has posters from different clubs who often never see eye to eye on topics, hell, even posters from the same clubs don't see eye to see. You need a "thick skin" to post on it in that respect.

Overheal

Soccer Forum Charter:

ABUSE: Prejudice will not be tolerated, in any form. Outbursts of personal abuse be it directed at other board members or at non-boards persons, famous or otherwise, is strictly prohibited. We reserve the right to edit/move/delete such posts as we see fit and issue bans and/or infractions to the poster of such. The basic rule is keeping it civil; you can have friendly banter without resorting to personal abuse. For more detail on mod policy on abuse, see below.

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 neccesary.

Backseat Modding: If you believe a post is in breach of the charter then you should report it, and move on. If you engage the poster on his/her breach of the charter you risk infraction for back-seat modding.

Examples of back-seat modding include:

* Calling someone a troll
* Telling a poster not to post in a thread, or they should post elsewhere
* Telling a poster you have reported their post (effectively accusing them of a breach of the charter)
* Commenting on a breach of charter


This list is not exhaustive, and mod discretion may be applied in cases where the intent is judged to be helpful (for example, telling another user they should use spoiler tags for score updates, and showing them how to do so).

The rule of thumb should always be to leave moderation to the mods.

It seems like Backseat modding, imho, if other users are declaring your posts to be windups, or comment on your posts being wind-ups.

But most especially something sticks out at me policy-wise that I would not mind asking the Soccer Mods to have a deliberation on, and thats that the Personal Abuse Policy feels... incomplete. It focuses on name-calling and doesnt really get into any other forms of abuse. Namely, and particularly to Spiritoftheseventies (just to nip the issue in the bud), Ad Hominem Attacks.

Just some food for thought: the politics charter

3. Reporting & Moderation

If you have a problem with a post, USE THE REPORT POST FUNCTION. Do not respond to the post in question.

If they agree with the complaint, moderators may edit/delete any reported post. Moderators will review all complaints and act at their discretion.

Moderators may also edit/delete any post/thread which in their opinion breaks the rules, whether it was reported or not.

When an argument breaks out, we will not care who started it. It takes at least two people to have an argument, and both sides will be dealt with appropriately.

Moderators may warn individuals of unacceptable behaviour, but not on a repetitive basis and if the situation warrants, users may be banned without warning. Repeated infractions will result in bans.

The moderators will not discuss their moderating in the Politics threads. If you wish to discuss moderation, there is one specific thread to do so here. This is the only thread in this forum where moderation may be discussed. If you wish to discuss an issue with a moderator privately or directly, either PM the moderators, or take it to the Helpdesk forum.


4. Civility

Every poster is entitled to their opinion - whether it is ill-informed or not.

NEVER attack a poster. Attack the content of their post. (You can tell someone that their opinion is based on incomplete or incorrect information, but do not call them an idiot.)

Humour is not unreasonable, but please bear in mind that the written word conveys less information than the spoken. What you mean in jest may be taken seriously.

Also, bear in mind that this is not a comedy forum - so keep it to a reasonable and relevant amount.

Putting a smiley at the end of an insult does not make it ok.

Keep your language civil, particularly when referring to other posters.

While good-natured abuse will be tolerated to a certain level, it is ultimately the moderator's decision as to when abuse steps over the line. Please bear this in mind.

If you are going to level allegations of lying at another poster, please be willing to prove that they are lying - that they deliberately intend to deceive. Simply calling someone a liar is not acceptable.

Allegations of trollery will not be accepted in-thread - they will be viewed as simply another form of personal attack, and dealt with accordingly. If you believe someone is trolling, and object, then report them as per "Reporting & Moderation above.

This forum is for discussion and debate, so again, we will not tolerate soapboxing. If you are here to "shout everyone down" with your opinions, we will see you as a negative contributor to the forum and may ban you.

Theres certain policies that need to be made uniform throughout the site in both practice and language. And, The Trustees are going to work on that, in due course.

K-9

Overheal wrote: »

Soccer Forum Charter:

It seems like Backseat modding, imho, if other users are declaring your posts to be windups, or comment on your posts being wind-ups.

But most especially something sticks out at me policy-wise that I would not mind asking the Soccer Mods to have a deliberation on, and thats that the Personal Abuse Policy feels... incomplete. It focuses on name-calling and doesnt really get into any other forms of abuse. Namely, and particularly to Spiritoftheseventies (just to nip the issue in the bud), Ad Hominem Attacks.

Just some food for thought: the politics charter



Theres certain policies that need to be made uniform throughout the site in both practice and language. And, The Trustees are going to work on that, in due course.

Yes, but you can't expect the same rules regarding civility eg. in Soccer as in Politics.

Overheal

No, obviously its a different atmosphere. But I think things like personally abuse can be universally defined, once you allow for Common Sense and Context.

tbh

Overheal wrote: »

No, obviously its a different atmosphere. But I think things like personally abuse can be universally defined, once you allow for Common Sense and Context.

once you define what abuse is, you remove the ability to apply common sense and context

K-9

tbh wrote: »

once you define what abuse is, you remove the ability to apply common sense and context

I can see where Overheal is coming from, with an homogeneous policy, the problem is, different categories aren't homogeneous and never will be, Thank God.

Overheal

Hmm.. all good points.

Well at any rate, I think personally, speaking as Joe User, the Soccer Forum's abuse policy looks like its due for a lookaround.

tbh

K-9 wrote: »

I can see where Overheal is coming from,
.

oh for sure, but otoh, all the charter does is tell people what they can get away with. for 90% of the users of the site, no charter is necessary - it's written for the 10% who don't care about it anyway.

Overheal

tbh wrote: »

oh for sure, but otoh, all the charter does is tell people what they can get away with. for 90% of the users of the site, no charter is necessary - it's written for the 10% who don't care about it anyway.

But currently one of those things that 10% of people can get away with is Ad Hominems

tbh

Overheal wrote: »

But currently one of those things that 10% of people can get away with is Ad Hominems

ok, fair point - but the mods can deal with that if they think it's a problem. However if we make it a site-wide rule that it's not allowed, they have to deal with it, even if dealing with it would be disproportionate.

K-9

Overheal wrote: »

But currently one of those things that 10% of people can get away with is Ad Hominems

Again, depends on the board.

Soccer, if its slagging, why not? I'd be liberal on it as it is the Soccer board. Posters have to give and take and give the benefit of the doubt. Part of the fun of the Soccer board is interaction between different club supporters so overall, it ads to the board.

Politics, Nope, you shouldn't get away with it. I'd be very hard line on it. Far too much ranting and raving IMO!

Both require judgement calls, but of a different variety.

In summary, leave each board with its own charter, barring the obvious.

K-9

Overheal wrote: »

Hmm.. all good points.

Well at any rate, I think personally, speaking as Joe User, the Soccer Forum's abuse policy looks like its due for a lookaround.

It seems to be working well though. Very few feedback or Help desk threads compared to a year or even 6 months ago.

That speaks volumes.

The soccer community has been over this on numerous occassions before, causing many a 30 page thread. It seems to be getting a long grand now, all things considered. No point fixing what isn't broken.

Xavi6

Ok Overheal, you asked for input from a Soccer mod so I'l give my opinion (and it's mine alone. I don't speak for the others).

SOTS imo does not 'get' the forum. We wind each other up, we have a laugh, but it still boils down to Football = Serious Business.

If someone posts something outlandish (i.e. SOTS latest effort about Mourinho taking over at Newcastle) then they will be called on it, and rightly so. Like it or not, your posts form your persona. If you constantly post crap then that's just unfortunate.

I will happily admit to being someone who has told SOTS to grow a thicker skin, for his own sake as much as anything else. You have to be able to take a bit of a ribbing from other fans, it's part of the tribalism of the game.

Btw SOTS, you can fire accusations all you want but I have examples of you thanking posts that were just as 'bad' as the ones you are giving out about here. It works both ways.

We deal with straight up personal abuse when it happens. No one calls another posts a dickhead or a wanker or whatever and gets away with it. If someone says "All you do is talk shit" then that is not imo personal abuse. You made the noose for yourself through your posting history.

In an ideal world each post would be taken at face value but, unfortunately for you, it doesn't work like that.

These are the parameters we have operated within since I've been a mod on the forum, and I don't see any reason to change them, so maybe it's not just the place for you.

Spiritoftheseventies

Xavi6 wrote: »

Ok Overheal, you asked for input from a Soccer mod so I'l give my opinion (and it's mine alone. I don't speak for the others).

SOTS imo does not 'get' the forum. We wind each other up, we have a laugh, but it still boils down to Football = Serious Business.

If someone posts something outlandish (i.e. SOTS latest effort about Mourinho taking over at Newcastle) then they will be called on it, and rightly so. Like it or not, your posts form your persona. If you constantly post crap then that's just unfortunate.

I will happily admit to being someone who has told SOTS to grow a thicker skin, for his own sake as much as anything else. You have to be able to take a bit of a ribbing from other fans, it's part of the tribalism of the game.

Btw SOTS, you can fire accusations all you want but I have examples of you thanking posts that were just as 'bad' as the ones you are giving out about here. It works both ways.

We deal with straight up personal abuse when it happens. No one calls another posts a dickhead or a wanker or whatever and gets away with it. If someone says "All you do is talk shit" then that is not imo personal abuse. You made the noose for yourself through your posting history.

In an ideal world each post would be taken at face value but, unfortunately for you, it doesn't work like that.

These are the parameters we have operated within since I've been a mod on the forum, and I don't see any reason to change them, so maybe it's not just the place for you.

To clear this up. For the most part I enjoy posting on SF. Its a great information tool and it keeps me in touch with the going ons of my club. And there have been some great debates within pool thread which I have contributed to along with other posters there.
But even as we speak getting stuff like "If you constantly post crap".
Xavi you admitted on another thread you dont read all the pages on threads so how can you say that.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64732140&postcount=202
It seems as if there is the a dogged resistance to improving the situation on SF.
Will agree with another poster that for most part situation has improved.
But for mods to put up a thread on How are we driving and yet to be adverse to any real criticism doesnt add up.

Nevyn

Can this be moved to feedback please as it's not feedforward material.

Spiritoftheseventies

Thaedydal wrote: »

Can this be moved to feedback please as it's not feedforward material.

No problem with that. But maybe consider tightening the enforcement on "debating the post not the poster". Its a fairly important part of the charter IMO>

Overheal

Thaedydal wrote: »

Can this be moved to feedback please as it's not feedforward material.

Done. This is less about the policy of the site but the policy of one forum: Soccer.

Frisbee

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Xavi you admitted on another thread you dont read all the pages on threads so how can you say that.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64732140&postcount=202
It seems as if there is the a dogged resistance to improving the situation on SF.

SOTS you don't have to read every page of every thread to get an idea on a poster etc. Do you really expect Mods to read every single post that happens in their forum? That's more than a full time job.

I know I don't I read threads in AF and Non-Drinkers as much as I can, but there will always posts that slip under then gaze of the Mods.

If you have a problem report it. But just because you have a problem with a post doesn't mean that the Mod views it as such, so action won't always be taken.

5starpool

It is often best to just call a spade a spade.

SOTS, half the time I just think your account is a deliberate attempt to wind everyone else up, and your recent posts on Mourinho for Newcastle, and thinking those Lucas tweets were actually him are just two of the latest reasons for thinking that. You are also increasing the likelyhood of people not valuing your opinions by starting a thread in feedback every few days about being victimised, when it could mostly be sorted out by just engaging more in the banter, appreciating when your opinion may be seens as left field, and realising that the soccer forum works the way it does and all posters that want to post there should, for their own good, try to fit in with the soccer forum, not make it fit into what you want it to be.

The Recliner

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

No problem with that. But maybe consider tightening the enforcement on "debating the post not the poster". Its a fairly important part of the charter IMO>

This has been bugging me for ages

The phrase is "Attack the post not the poster" if you want a rule/guideline changed you can't just put your own spin on it

However it is a site guideline and an important one I agree, it generally doesn't form part of charters as it is assumed in most forums but some forums like The Thunderdome and others can and do ignore it

As has been indicated by Xavi the soccer forum allows some leeway in this regard, I don't see this changing and don't think it needs to change so you are just going to have to get used to it

Spud83

Kept an eye on this thread, but didn't feel my comments would apply to any site wide feedback so held off on the feedforward thread.

Regarding the topic which seems to be about posting things like "If you constantly post crap", and "1,224 of those posts are complete bollocks, to be exact", things basically commenting on a user.

No matter if you like it or not people form a general impression or opinion about posters, especially posters with a high activity rate on a forum you visit often. You will end up thinking a poster is either a good one, bad one, or someone you don't know because they haven't been that visible or noticeable to you.

I would openly admit that I don't find the quality of SOTS posts, or his/her ability to present and argument and back it up very good. I would happily post that here or in the soccer forum, as I don't think that is really abusive. That is just what I think. I have said it to SOTS before in other feedback threads too.

Even if we base this thread from the helpdesk call it was originally spawned from. It started out as asking for abusive posts to be removed or edited, if action has been deemed appropriate against them. Now it has moved off to what is in fact is deemed appropriate, and has now moved to specifically talking about one forum.

I would openly admit things about other posters as well, Mike65 moans about the quality of threads a lot while not adding much quality himself, Mitch Connor is extremely negative yet extremely informed, Mr Alan can be blinded by loyalty. None of these can be proved factually correct, they are all opinions I have of posters, which I would voice when debating a topic with them. None of them to me constitute personal abuse, personal abuse would be XXXX you posting nothing but stupid ****, XXX is a negative bastard etc.

If you are willing to discuss a subject then are you are putting yourself out there to have an opinion formed about yourself. I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed voice that opinion. You would do it in real life so why not here? As long as you do it in a civil manner.

Now SOTS before you come back with the "debate the post not the poster argument". I would just come out with statements like the above unless I was discussing something with the poster, or they had just posted a post that fits in with my opinion of them. Also as has been pointed out to you, there are examples of you thanking posts, that you would seem to deem offensive if they were pointed at you. Thanking abusive posts is also against the charter I believe, so if you deem the post offensive why do you thank them when directed at others, yet report them when directed at you?

I can also find other examples where you have expressed your general opinion of other posters. You have posted things like I don't think posters should be allowed to post on a thread when the constantly focus on the negative. You have posted something like the above in direct relation to another poster, effective accusing him of being constantly negative. Is this not the same?

Once again I fear that you will not get much support here. The soccer forum has to allow for a bit of joking between supporters, otherwise it would become sterile and die. If rules like debate the post and not the poster, and no personal abuse were directly enforced to the exact letter we would have no posters left. Including you.

Think of it like a ref in the game, if the ref receives any abuse by the letter of the law he should give a yellow card every time. Yet we know this does not happen. Why? As every player on the field would get sent off. It would ruin the game. So the ref applies some common sense and let players off with some stuff, and then deal with the stuff they deem to cross the line. The mods do the same, and they do a good job of it too IMO.

Spiritoftheseventies

Spud83 wrote: »

Now SOTS before you come back with the "debate the post not the poster argument". I would just come out with statements like the above unless I was discussing something with the poster, or they had just posted a post that fits in with my opinion of them. Also as has been pointed out to you, there are examples of you thanking posts, that you would seem to deem offensive if they were pointed at you. Thanking abusive posts is also against the charter I believe, so if you deem the post offensive why do you thank them when directed at others, yet report them when directed at you?

I can also find other examples where you have expressed your general opinion of other posters. You have posted things like I don't think posters should be allowed to post on a thread when the constantly focus on the negative. You have posted something like the above in direct relation to another poster, effective accusing him of being constantly negative. Is this not the same?

Generally speaking I dont thank posts for the sake of it. Im basically very fair that way.
Even with posters who I have disagreements with I tend to thank their posts on the merit of the posts which Im trying to push here.
I could have a profound disagreement with a poster but If they make a good point I tend to thank it. But I have seen examples of same posters thanking posts with alarming predictability.
And re the banter I get that. I know what is banter and what is not.
What Im arguing for the most part and especially with Xavi is that because he admits to not reading every thread he cant then come out with phrases like constant crap.
If the rep system doesnt work than accordingly posters cant come out with statements like one above. There is just no evidence for it.
Thats pretty much it.

Frisbee

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Generally speaking I dont thank posts for the sake of it. Im basically very fair that way.
Even with posters who I have disagreements with I tend to thank their posts on the merit of the posts which Im trying to push here.
I could have a profound disagreement with a poster but If they make a good point I tend to thank it. But I have seen examples of same posters thanking posts with alarming predictability.

You've not answered his question.

Why do you thank posts that if they were directed at you would get a report/feedback thread?

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

What Im arguing for the most part and especially with Xavi is that because he admits to not reading every thread he cant then come out with phrases like constant crap.

Could you explain to me how a single person would be able to read every single post in every single thread in a forum as busy as the Soccer Forum?

Spud83

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Generally speaking I dont thank posts for the sake of it. Im basically very fair that way.
Even with posters who I have disagreements with I tend to thank their posts on the merit of the posts which Im trying to push here.
I could have a profound disagreement with a poster but If they make a good point I tend to thank it. But I have seen examples of same posters thanking posts with alarming predictability.
And re the banter I get that. I know what is banter and what is not.
What Im arguing for the most part and especially with Xavi is that because he admits to not reading every thread he cant then come out with phrases like constant crap.
If the rep system doesnt work than accordingly posters cant come out with statements like one above. There is just no evidence for it.
Thats pretty much it.

I go to all that effort and you pick out one bit. I hope you took some of the rest on board.

I don't care which posts, or posters you thank, and which you don't. However Xavi has said that there is examples of you thanking posts, that are "abusive", or that at least by your definitions in here you would deem abusive. Can see how you can't have it both ways? You can't be OK with it, like it, and agree with it when its going one way but get offended when it comes back to you.

I'm not going into the rep system, all I know about it is it was tried before and failed. I don't see the use of it, people shouldn't need a rep system to be able to form opinions. Personally I'd still form my own opinions, and no rep system is going to change that, I presume its the same with most adults.

Now regarding the "posting constant crap", that is an opinion. Its not a opinion of you, its an opinion on your posts. He doesn't need to read every single post you ever made. He doesn't need to read every thread, to make that a valid opinion, he just needs to be an active user. That is his opinion of your posts. Its not abusive, its not targeting you personally, its targeting what he has seen you post.

I haven't read every thread you made, every post you made, I doubt anyone has. However I have seen enough to form an opinion, and expressing that opinion in the context of a discussion in a civil manner is fine IMO.

I don't need evidence, to back up, I don't need to give you a percentage of your posts that I think are crap. Its an opinion I have, you can call me on it, discuss it, and argue it, once it doesn't derail the thread.

I'm sure if you retorted with I don't believe my posts are crap that statement would be allowed stay. Off course if it blew up into a full blown up argument then it would be derailing a thread, and should be taken to PM.

I really would like if this at this stage you could give a clear statement of what you would like the outcome of this thread to be.

Zaph

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

What Im arguing for the most part and especially with Xavi is that because he admits to not reading every thread he cant then come out with phrases like constant crap.

I think it's worth pointing out here that no mod, not just Xavi is either expected, or likely to have the time, to read every thread on the forum(s) they moderate. To use this as an argument against Xavi's statement is ridiculous and constantly dragging it up is not winning your argument for you. It's very easy to form an opinion of a poster without having read all their posts, provided you've seen enough of them to begin with. There are posters on this site with whom I'm familiar enough with to know that they do churn out constant crap. Similarly I know others who I know who will constantly post in a well thought out and reasoned manner. I don't need to see all of their posts to form those opinions. That's not to say that the crap merchants can't post something worthwhile or that the good posters can't post gibberish, but generally they are consistent and therefore the word constant can legitimately be applied to their output.

Spiritoftheseventies

Spud83 wrote: »

I really would like if this at this stage you could give a clear statement of what you would like the outcome of this thread to be.

quite simple. Debate the post. If Posters chose to debate a series of posts on a thread fine.
But back it up.

This is an example of how posters conduct themselves on other forums. In a mannerly way.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65548129&postcount=90

Spud83

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

quite simple. Debate the post. If Posters chose to debate a series of posts on a thread fine.
But back it up.

Thats already the case, surely people can use there opinions of posters when debating a post?

Frisbee

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

quite simple. Debate the post. If Posters chose to debate a series of posts on a thread fine.
But back it up.

This is an example of how posters conduct themselves on other forums. In a mannerly way.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65548129&postcount=90

It honestly looks like you've just pulled a random post off the GAA forum there. It isn't actually proving anything or backing up your points.

I could do the same with the majority of posts from the SF so I'm not entirely sure what point you were trying to make there?

Spiritoftheseventies

Frisbee wrote: »

It honestly looks like you've just pulled a random post off the GAA forum there. It isn't actually proving anything or backing up your points.

I could do the same with the majority of posts from the SF so I'm not entirely sure what point you were trying to make there?

I could pull out twenty more on twenty other forum Frisbee. Yes I agree with Xavi6 that there is a bit of tribalism that goes with SF. No problem with that. But there doesnt seem to be any sort of line drawn in how far a poster can go.
To be fair Frisbee you conduct yourself well on SF as do most posters. But occassionallly it gets out of hand.

Spud83

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

I could pull out twenty more on twenty other forum Frisbee. Yes I agree with Xavi6 that there is a bit of tribalism that goes with SF. No problem with that. But there doesnt seem to be any sort of line drawn in how far a poster can go.
To be fair Frisbee you conduct yourself well on SF as do most posters. But occassionallly it gets out of hand.

The point being that for every post you pull up from any other forum we could pull up the same from the soccer forum.

The soccer forum hasn't gotten out of hand in a long time. I've seen meltdowns in other forums that would beat anything I have seen in soccer. The rugby forum after the Scotland game is one that jumps to mind (though the mod handled it well).

Honestly now when is the last time something has gotten out of hand in the soccer forum in your opinion? No general terms please, a link would be nice.

Also there most definitely is a line drawn I've crossed it a few times