Posting general statements about posters

The Recliner

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

But there doesnt seem to be any sort of line drawn in how far a poster can go

I think the charter shows where the line is

But it seems to be a difference of interpretation between you and the Mods

The Mods have told you how they interpret it and they aren't changing that so you just have to accept that

No one else seems to have a problem with it but you

Spiritoftheseventies

Spud83 wrote: »

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

This one probably could have done with a bit of moderation I think.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055831871&page=19&highlight=wolves+carthy

GLaDOS

Sigh, this again. The soccer forum is grand, the mods do an amazing job of keeping order. People need to stop getting offended so easily.

Spud83

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

This one probably could have done with a bit of moderation I think.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055831871&page=19&highlight=wolves+carthy

No doubt because you feel you got some unwarranted abuse.

OK then, lets work on this thread.

Can you point out where you think people crossed the line. I'm gonna have a read through it and do the same.

Though I fear we may be going off tangent from the debate the post not the poster here.

Frisbee

Imo I think Xavi has basically stated the problem here in his first line:

Xavi6 wrote: »

SOTS imo does not 'get' the forum.

And 5starpool and The Recliner touch on it again.

5starpool wrote: »

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 wrote: »

I think the charter shows where the line is

But it seems to be a difference of interpretation between you and the Mods

The Mods have told you how they interpret it and they aren't changing that so you just have to accept that

No one else seems to have a problem with it but you

It seems SOTS has a major problem with how the forum is in his eyes and wants it to change. However very very few other people have the same problems as you, so why should the Modding/Charter of the SF change because one of the hundreds of regular posters has a problem/feedback thread every other week?

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

I could pull out twenty more on twenty other forum Frisbee.

Then what was the point of posting that link?

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

But there doesnt seem to be any sort of line drawn in how far a poster can go.

There is most certainly a line.

Call someone a <insert expletive> and you can be sure that you'll be taking an extended break from the SF.

tbh

couldn't agree more. There have been a number of examples of SOTS taking offense or issue with something that 99% of the boards population would be cool with. it's just a shame that he feels boards needs to be regulated to suit him, rather than deciding maybe another forum might suit him better.

Spiritoftheseventies

Spud83 wrote: »

No doubt because you feel you got some unwarranted abuse.

OK then, lets work on this thread.

Can you point out where you think people crossed the line. I'm gonna have a read through it and do the same.

Though I fear we may be going off tangent from the debate the post not the poster here.

To be fair you asked me to come up with a thread. So I have produced it. Re what I consider to be examples of debating the poster not the post I have already done that.

Frisbee

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

This one probably could have done with a bit of moderation I think.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055831871&page=19&highlight=wolves+carthy

You mean like in post #176?

Spud83

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

To be fair you asked me to come up with a thread. So I have produced it. Re what I consider to be examples of debating the poster not the post I have already done that.

Yes you did, however I am half throw the thread and failing to see an example of the poster being attacked and not the poster. If you don't want to help thats fine, I'm trying to help you put forward an argument here.

The Recliner

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

To be fair you asked me to come up with a thread. So I have produced it. Re what I consider to be examples of debating the poster not the post I have already done that.

OK here is the thing

No one agrees with you, no one sees it from your point of view

At what point do you accept that and move on

You can't keep creating helpdesk and feedback threads over every little thing because when you do have something to say no one will listen

Spiritoftheseventies

Frisbee wrote: »

You mean like in post #176?

Actually was just about to come to that. Think the mod who has been fairly good with me in fairness came in a bit late into that thread. A lot of stuff was happening before that.

Iago

Or the 13 deleted posts leading up to that post, including a couple from SOTS??

Nobody is online 24/7, when posts are reported and we are online we take action as required, which is exactly what happened in that thread.

Just for the clarity the rule isn't debate the post, not the poster the rule is Attack the post, not the poster pulling someone up by saying that you think their opinions are uninformed, idiotic, rambling, confused, not well thought out, incoherent, nonsensical etc is not personal abuse.

I haven't been involved in this thread to date because I don't agree that there's a widespread problem that needs to be rectified, however as always if posters have particular issues report the posts and we'll action them if they go against the charter.

Frisbee

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Actually was just about to come to that. Think the mod who has been fairly good with me in fairness came in a bit late into that thread. A lot of stuff was happening before that.

?

Are you insinuating that some Mods purposely don't take your problems seriously / not help you?

Spud83

OK I have read the whole thread and didn't see once instance of a poster being attacked. Seen plenty of posts being ripped apart, and that may have upset the poster, but everything seemed to be targeted at posts.

As Iago kindly pointed out to us there were numerous deleted posts on that thread. Now surely we can't start debating the deleted posts because A) We can't see them, and that means they were moderated so they can't be an issue.

Spiritoftheseventies

Iago wrote: »

Or the 13 deleted posts leading up to that post, including a couple from SOTS??

Nobody is online 24/7, when posts are reported and we are online we take action as required, which is exactly what happened in that thread.

Just for the clarity the rule isn't debate the post, not the poster the rule is Attack the post, not the poster pulling someone up by saying that you think their opinions are uninformed, idiotic, rambling, confused, not well thought out, incoherent, nonsensical etc is not personal abuse.

I haven't been involved in this thread to date because I don't agree that there's a widespread problem that needs to be rectified, however as always if posters have particular issues report the posts and we'll action them if they go against the charter.

Those posts were deleted afterwards if im right Iago after you intervened. I was on that thread so know exactly how long it took for a mod to get involved. We have different opinions on how that thread should have been handled but respect fact it was your call on when to intervene.
My spin on that is that one poster asked me did I think Liverpool case was different. He then chose not to engage me and simple walked away. I was then left to argue the case with twelve different posters.
Re attack the post, attack the poster. For arguments sake, You attack my post then I respond. I call that a debate. You attack me and I respond I call that a row.

Zaph

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Actually was just about to come to that. Think the mod who has been fairly good with me in fairness came in a bit late into that thread. A lot of stuff was happening before that.

People have lives outside of Boards. That may have been the earliest point at which any mod was able to intervene. It seems that nobody can win with you. When they do nothing you give out about being victimised, and when they do something they get accused of not acting fast enough. What is it exactly you expect from this site? Because honestly, judging by your posts here and in the Help Desk, I really don't think you're ever going to find it.

The Recliner

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Those posts were deleted afterwards if im right Iago after you intervened. I was on that thread so know exactly how long it took for a mod to get involved. We have different opinions on how that thread should have been handled but respect fact it was your call on when to intervene.

Mods can't be and aren't expected to be around 24/7 so can only deal with things when they come across them

As those posts were dealt with what is the issue here?

My spin on that is that one poster asked me did I think Liverpool case was different. He then chose not to engage me and simple walked away. I was then left to argue the case with twelve different posters.

So you felt ganged up on fair enough but that is not something for the moderators to intervene on, you held a minority opinion you would expect to be alone in defending it

Frisbee

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

I was on that thread so know exactly how long it took for a mod to get involved.

So you want 24/7 moderation?

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

My spin on that is that one poster asked me did I think Liverpool case was different. He then chose not to engage me and simple walked away. I was then left to argue the case with twelve different posters.

If you were getting attacked or your posts were getting attacked then maybe you should have just followed his example, no?

Spud83

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Those posts were deleted afterwards if im right Iago after you intervened. I was on that thread so know exactly how long it took for a mod to get involved. We have different opinions on how that thread should have been handled but respect fact it was your call on when to intervene.
My spin on that is that one poster asked me did I think Liverpool case was different. He then chose not to engage me and simple walked away. I was then left to argue the case with twelve different posters.
Re attack the post, attack the poster. For arguments sake, You attack my post then I respond. I call that a debate. You attack me and I respond I call that a row.

Everyone in that thread was attacking your posts???? Anyone who wasn't had their posts deleted. Are you now saying the issue is that there isn't a mod on line 24/7 available to read every post as it is made? Do you want the soccer forum to be pre moderated that no response can be posted until it is cleared by a mod?

Also if you post an opinion everyone is allowed to disagree with it. A post targeted at one user is called a PM. So no matter who you responded to in the thread 12/15/100 people are allowed disagree with you.

keane2097

Does anyone think SOTS would have a problem with people telling him his posts are "constantly brilliant"?

This all seems to boil down to the fact that lots of people think SOTS posts nonsense the vast majority of the time, and he wants people to be disallowed from saying so.

Grow up imo.

Spiritoftheseventies

Zaph wrote: »

People have lives outside of Boards. That may have been the earliest point at which any mod was able to intervene. It seems that nobody can win with you. When they do nothing you give out about being victimised, and when they do something they get accused of not acting fast enough. What is it exactly you expect from this site? Because honestly, judging by your posts here and in the Help Desk, I really don't think you're ever going to find it.

Zaph what I want from this thread is for the Attack the Post not the Poster to be implemented. Either that or get rid of it. Thats my view. Its part of the charter. How mods interpret it seems to be the problem.
Again going back to an earlier page I gave an example of a poster (mod on another forum) who made a ridiculous claim that 100 per cent of posts I had posted on my own club forum (and yes others are free to post there) were were in his word "complete bollocks, to be exact"
Now you can check back on how valid those claims are with forum mod who posts on that thread cause Im pretty sure I had some pretty good discussions with him on the whole Liverpool ownership debate.
Didnt get any sense during course of those discussions that I was talking complete bollocks. Im going to pin this debate on that one post so things dont get any messier. I had a problem with that post and another but the other was at least acted on.

The Recliner

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Zaph what I want from this thread is for the Attack the Post not the Poster to be implemented. Either that or get rid of it. Thats my view. Its part of the charter. How mods interpret it seems to be the problem.

It has been said before but I will say it again that it seems to be how you interpret the guldeline that is the issue

You seem to deal in absolutes, learn to relax a bit and not take things as personally and to allow some leeway and you will be fine

Again going back to an earlier page I gave an example of a poster (mod on another forum) who made a ridiculous claim that 100 per cent of posts I had posted on my own club forum (and yes others are free to post there) were were in his word "complete bollocks, to be exact"
Now you can check back on how valid those claims are with forum mod who posts on that thread cause Im pretty sure I had some pretty good discussions with him on the whole Liverpool ownership debate.
Didnt get any sense during course of those discussions that I was talking complete bollocks.

He was attacking your posts not you, I don't see how this fits with what you claim is the issue

Spud83

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Zaph what I want from this thread is for the Attack the Post not the Poster to be implemented. Either that or get rid of it. Thats my view. Its part of the charter. How mods interpret it seems to be the problem.
Again going back to an earlier page I gave an example of a poster (mod on another forum) who made a ridiculous claim that 100 per cent of posts I had posted on my own club forum (and yes others are free to post there) were were in his word "complete bollocks, to be exact"
Now you can check back on how valid those claims are with forum mod who posts on that thread cause Im pretty sure I had some pretty good discussions with him on the whole Liverpool ownership debate.
Didnt get any sense during course of those discussions that I was talking complete bollocks.

OK back to the original point now. Again just because you directed it at Zaph doesn't mean I can't have my say.

Why is the mods opinion of your posts more valid than the poster in question? At the end of the day its an opinion, a mods opinion is only more valid when enforcing the charter.

The poster in question must think that all your posts are bollox. He has not attacked the poster (you), he has attacked all your posts on that thread in one go. He didn't even give an opinion about you personally, he gave his opinion on your posts. If you think he is wrong then it is up to you to defend your posts, its not up to the mods to defend the perceived quality of your posts.

Spiritoftheseventies

Spud83 wrote: »

OK back to the original point now. Again just because you directed it at Zaph doesn't mean I can't have my say.

Why is the mods opinion of your posts more valid than the poster in question? At the end of the day its an opinion, a mods opinion is only more valid when enforcing the charter.

The poster in question must think that all your posts are bollox. He has not attacked the poster (you), he has attacked all your posts on that thread in one go. He didn't even give an opinion about you personally, he gave his opinion on your posts. If you think he is wrong then it is up to you to defend your posts, its not up to the mods to defend the perceived quality of your posts.

Exactly how do I defend that many posts. It was an absolute ridiculous claim. This just one page. Nothing wrong with them that I can see.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65494055#post65494055

Spud83

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Exactly how do I defend that many posts. It was an absolute ridiculous claim. This just one page. Nothing wrong with them that I can see.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65494055#post65494055

Is this like an open invitation to critic your posts?

I see three post there (I don't know what your post per page is set at).

Two one liners, and one that linked to an article. If you are asking my opinion then I would say more quantity of quality.


Now I'm not saying you go and defend every post all you would have to say is.

If you don't like the quality of my posts then put my on ignore. I'm free to post whatever I want here as long as its withing the rules, I'm not here to gain your acceptance or some kind of validation. I believe the majority of my posts are constructive, and informative, if you don't thats fine.

Spiritoftheseventies

In all honesty I would rather Zaph answer my last post directed at Zaph (sorry for repetitition not sure if Zaph is a He or a she so will refer to by name) because Zaph asked me what I wanted out of this. I gave Zaph a fairly detailed answer and would rather Zaph reply to post.
Ill reply to other posts in time.

Xavi6

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

Do you expect me to read every post on every thread? Will you pay me to do so so that I can quit my 40 hour a week job and all my other extra curricular activities?

I also don't read threads that hold no interest for me, i.e. the Liverpool one. Why would I? If there's a problem I get notified by the reported posts or by PM. Happy days.

Not everyone has all day to sit around with boards open.

But even as we speak getting stuff like "If you constantly post crap".

See, I never said 'everything' you post is crap. That would be disingenuous because I don't read all your posts, or even the majority of them.

I said 'constantly'. There is a difference.

Hank Scorpio

God this thread is ridiculous!

You lot should all get out more!












:rolleyes:

Xavi6

nuxxx wrote: »

God this thread is ridiculous!

You lot should all get out more!












:rolleyes:

We get out quite a lot actually. That appears to be the problem.

Zaph

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Zaph what I want from this thread is for the Attack the Post not the Poster to be implemented. Either that or get rid of it. Thats my view. Its part of the charter. How mods interpret it seems to be the problem.

To be honest, and as has been pointed out repeatedly, it appears to be the case that how you interpret it is the problem. From what I have seen in the Soccer forum, which I do frequent so I'm not just speculating here, the mods are quite fair in their implementation of the rule. You are viewing every attack on your posts as a personal attack. This simply is not the case. If posters instead of posts were being attacked on a widespread scale we'd have reported posts from just about every poster in the forum. The facts do not bear this out.

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Again going back to an earlier page I gave an example of a poster (mod on another forum) who made a ridiculous claim that 100 per cent of posts I had posted on my own club forum (and yes others are free to post there) were were in his word "complete bollocks, to be exact"

Now you can check back on how valid those claims are with forum mod who posts on that thread cause Im pretty sure I had some pretty good discussions with him on the whole Liverpool ownership debate.

Haven't you ever heard of hyperbole? If somebody told me to my face that everything I said was total bollocks, I wouldn't believe that they meant every single word. But it's easier to say that than 83% of what you come out with is bollocks. Anyway, so what if he did say that to me, it's only his opinion about what I said, it's not as if he's calling my parentage into question.

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Didnt get any sense during course of those discussions that I was talking complete bollocks. Im going to pin this debate on that one post so things dont get any messier. I had a problem with that post and another but the other was at least acted on.

Oddly enough, none of us ever would believe that we are capable of talking crap. We have an opinion and we wish to make it known. It doesn't mean we're right, we could be completely at odds with the prevailing opinion, but while we're arguing our point we will always feel that we're right and are talking sense. But if so many people kept telling me the same thing over and over I would start to take on board what they're saying. You have a huge postcount for such a relatively new poster, and I do think that there is an element of quantity over quality at play here. A little more judicious posting and a slightly thicker skin would give your critics less ammunition to fire at you, but as it stands I do think that you're possibly your own worst enemy.