Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Soccer Forum Ban - Has a precedent been set?

Options
12467…10

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Peyton Manning
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,658 ✭✭✭✭Peyton Manning


    I don't even want my access back anymore, I just want to know why - no matter how often it comes up - nothing is done about T4TF. Is not odd that so many moderators have come and go in the soccer forum, most stepping down by their own accord, that he stays on board? Have you even considered my suggestion to review the bans/infractions he hands out to uncover how biased he is?

    No, of course not. Just sweep it under the carpet. It won't be an issue until the soccer forum is a ghost town just like the poker forum.


  • Options
    #93
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Des wrote: »
    How unusual. :rolleyes:

    ffs, can the people "in charge" not do better than one liners?

    Crap.

    How unusual des, that you react like a toddler having a tantrum when you see something you don't agree with


  • Options
    #94
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    Iago wrote: »
    Damned if you do, and damned if you don't really, but as I said earlier I think we should discuss this as part of the end of season review and see if we can come up with something that both moderators and users feel is workable and fair.

    It's funny that you are telling someone on a 6 month ban to discuss issues in the review thread. Which will be in the SF.

    Are you doing that on purpose?


  • Options
    #95
    Peyton Manning
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,658 ✭✭✭✭Peyton Manning


    Anyone with a hint of common sense can look at what's happened in the soccer forum over the last year or two, what's happened in the last 24 hours specifically, who's been banned, what team they support and who they were banned by and come up with the obvious answer.

    It actually boggles the mind.


  • Options
    #96
    Jazzy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,315 ✭✭✭Jazzy


    copacetic wrote: »
    petty grudges held for a long long time you say?

    i dont have a grudge against t4tf, stop trying to make it out like i do to try and weaken our point.. or are you gordon and overheals apprentice? in fact, i said i had completely forgotten about it. did you not read that or did you just ignore it? if you did read it, then why did you post what i have quoted as it is completely false? surely you should have realised that if you read it properly


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    KevIRL
    Registered Users Posts: 39,566 ✭✭✭✭KevIRL


    Iago wrote: »
    If the rules state that 6 warnings on behaviour over the course of a year will lead to a 6 month ban then why would there be anything wrong with the process when users who have received at least 6 warnings on their behaviour in that time frame get a ban?

    If you think the process is flawed, which part in particular do you have issue with

    1. The number of warnings given before action is taken?
    2. The length of the banning following repeated warnings being ignored?
    3. The implementation of this process on users that are popular?

    When we apply discretion we are often accused of being inconsistent or showing favouritism.

    When we consistently apply the rules we're told that we should allow for individuality.

    Damned if you do, and damned if you don't really, but as I said earlier I think we should discuss this as part of the end of season review and see if we can come up with something that both moderators and users feel is workable and fair.

    I would say

    2. The length of the banning following repeated warnings being ignored?

    especially considering

    4. What is deemed suitable for an infraction and the inconsistencies there appears to be applying them.


    6 months seems extremely excessive to me apart from all but the most dedicated of trolls. These should be just permbanned.


  • Options
    #98
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    This thread will be locked and the whole thing swept under the carpet.

    Well done tbh, overheal, well done.


  • Options
    #99
    Jazzy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,315 ✭✭✭Jazzy


    snyper wrote: »
    Every opinion on this thread seems to be loaded with an agenda

    Its becoming increasingly difficult to see the wood from the trees

    nah, ive painted( :pac: ) quite a clear picture of exactly what is happening and what did happen. its now the mods/admins turn to turn the spin up to 11 and make this all go away under a sea of a calm, smooth white :)
    Des wrote: »
    This thread will be locked and the whole thing swept under the carpet.

    Well done tbh, overheal, well done.


    dont mean to sound antagonistic here, but your a mod. kick up a fuss on the mod forum about this bullsh1t if this all gets swept under the carpet. take it all the way to the president! :p but you know what i mean, this is shocking stuff and it shouldnt be allowed to pass


  • Options
    #100
    therecklessone
    Registered Users Posts: 17,213 ✭✭✭✭therecklessone


    tbh wrote: »
    You posted in feedback looking for feedback on the pms you posted. Here's my feedback. Those messages make you look like an asshole and I wouldn't put up with it. Was there anything else?

    Its worth pointing out that your delivery of said feedback makes you look like an asshole tbh (pardon the pun).


  • Options
    #101
    Peyton Manning
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,658 ✭✭✭✭Peyton Manning


    I don't want this locked, I want a proper answer.

    Why has there been so much trouble with this one mod's decisions? If you looked at the soccer forum, whenever he posts there is no flaming or criticising him. If it was a personal vendetta, it would happen there too. But it's not, its only over his abuse of power.

    Look at all the soccer mods that have come and gone in the past few years. There has never been even a fraction of the trouble as there has with this one in particular.=


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 16,587 ✭✭✭✭copacetic


    Archimedes wrote: »
    Is not odd that so many moderators have come and go in the soccer forum, most stepping down by their own accord, that he stays on board?.

    It's certainly odd that anyone is willing to put up with the crap being a soccer mod shovels on you day to day for so long.

    People generally step down because they can't put up with this crap from users any longer.


  • Options
    #103
    Mr. Presentable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,496 ✭✭✭Mr. Presentable


    As an uninvolved party......

    The OP did something dumb and the mod overreacted.

    What Archimedes did was wrong, but harmless. I'd have ignored it.

    But, if there was previous, and it would seem there was, then it was suicide by cop. T4TF was given an opportunity to take care of business by the rules and took it. Petty, perhaps, but by the book.

    Other posters like Headshot, Jazzy, while your support for a fellow poster is admirable, don't help by throwing their Man U bias into the ring, and Des, a well respected poster tossing in 2c should know better. If you chaps have a grievence open your own threads.

    You are not helping the OP. You are diluting his point, muddying the water and deflecting from the issue.

    I believe there should be an expiry on infractions like there is on Penalty Points in the real world, and maybe if the six were in 12 months, OK, ban his ass, but over his posting history GTFO!

    In summation, down with this sort of thing!


  • Options
    #104
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    I can't wait for the usual "anti-soccer forum" brigade to turn up. Should be fun.


  • Options
    #105
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Des wrote: »
    This thread will be locked and the whole thing swept under the carpet.

    Well done tbh, overheal, well done.

    Oh sorry, should I make sure that what I post doesn't conflict with what you think in future? Dude posted messages, asked what we thought. I told him what I thought. End of story afaic


  • Options
    #106
    Peyton Manning
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,658 ✭✭✭✭Peyton Manning


    tbh wrote: »
    You posted in feedback looking for feedback on the pms you posted. Here's my feedback. Those messages make you look like an asshole and I wouldn't put up with it. Was there anything else?

    Here's my feedback then.

    You've far eclipsed anything I could have managed with your resort to personal abuse. And to think you're the one with an authoritative position here. You've made perfectly clear that "you couldn't care less", yet you're glued to this thread. Go figure.


  • Options
    #107
    Headshot
    Registered Users Posts: 54,357 ✭✭✭✭Headshot


    Iago wrote: »
    If the rules state that 6 warnings on behaviour over the course of a year will lead to a 6 month ban then why would there be anything wrong with the process when users who have received at least 6 warnings on their behaviour in that time frame get a ban?

    If you think the process is flawed, which part in particular do you have issue with

    1. The number of warnings given before action is taken?
    2. The length of the banning following repeated warnings being ignored?
    3. The implementation of this process on users that are popular?

    When we apply discretion we are often accused of being inconsistent or showing favouritism.

    When we consistently apply the rules we're told that we should allow for individuality.

    Damned if you do, and damned if you don't really, but as I said earlier I think we should discuss this as part of the end of season review and see if we can come up with something that both moderators and users feel is workable and fair.

    Iago you know i got 7 cards right, If I that 6 card of mine was going to get me banned i would of kick up a fuss, but it went to 7 before I got banned and that's total unfair. My 6th card was pile of bs and mercilessly given but i dont like the hassel of pmming other mods, cmods or feedback thread so i took it on the chin.

    I think the 6 warnings are grand only if implemented right.(not in my case)

    the length of banning should be looked at, if your a troll wum etc get the 6 months but my cards i got were ****ing nothing


  • Options
    #108
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    therecklessone wrote: »
    Its worth pointing out that your delivery of said feedback makes you look like an asshole tbh (pardon the pun).

    Your opinion of me has no cash value.


  • Options
    #109
    GLaDOS
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,223 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    Des wrote: »
    I can't wait for the usual "anti-soccer forum" brigade to turn up. Should be fun.
    And it had been awhile since we had a good scandal, sigh...

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • Options
    #110
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 16,587 ✭✭✭✭copacetic


    Jazzy wrote: »
    i dont have a grudge against t4tf, stop trying to make it out like i do to try and weaken our point.. or are you gordon and overheals apprentice? in fact, i said i had completely forgotten about it. did you not read that or did you just ignore it? if you did read it, then why did you post what i have quoted as it is completely false? surely you should have realised that if you read it properly

    I was quoting des's post about petty long held grudges, a line before he posts a petty long held grudge. To point out how ridiculous the post was.

    Apologies if it wasn't clear, I only quoted your post as you illustrated how long ago whatever incident he was talking about occured.


  • Options
    #111
    therecklessone
    Registered Users Posts: 17,213 ✭✭✭✭therecklessone


    nipplenuts wrote: »
    I believe there should be an expiry on infractions like there is on Penalty Points in the real world, and maybe if the six were in 12 months, OK, ban his ass, but over his posting history GTFO!

    There is, and it's roughly 12 months.

    :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    Don't get me wrong, I wasn't commenting on the infraction/precedent as has been discussed also, this should really be taken to the Helpdesk via the DRP.

    Personally I don't think Archimedes should have had a profile infraction from a Mod because of the PMs, but he also shouldn't be trolling/flame-baiting via PM, it's just not cricket.


  • Options
    #113
    Peyton Manning
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,658 ✭✭✭✭Peyton Manning


    nipplenuts wrote: »
    As an uninvolved party......

    The OP did something dumb and the mod overreacted.

    What Archimedes did was wrong, but harmless. I'd have ignored it.

    But, if there was previous, and it would seem there was, then it was suicide by cop. T4TF was given an opportunity to take care of business by the rules and took it. Petty, perhaps, but by the book.

    Other posters like Headshot, Jazzy, while your support for a fellow poster is admirable, don't help by throwing their Man U bias into the ring, and Des, a well respected poster tossing in 2c should know better. If you chaps have a grievence open your own threads.

    You are not helping the OP. You are diluting his point, muddying the water and deflecting from the issue.

    I believe there should be an expiry on infractions like there is on Penalty Points in the real world, and maybe if the six were in 12 months, OK, ban his ass, but over his posting history GTFO!

    In summation, down with this sort of thing!

    I appreciate your input nipplenuts, but the part I have in bold does play a very big part of this and a lot of people are aware of this.


  • Options
    #114
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Archimedes wrote: »
    Here's my feedback then.

    You've far eclipsed anything I could have managed with your resort to personal abuse. And to think you're the one with an authoritative position here. You've made perfectly clear that "you couldn't care less", yet you're glued to this thread. Go figure.

    You're free to ignore my opinion as much as you want. I have no authority here and I already have enough friends. You asked for feedback, you got it


  • Options
    #115
    Daemos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,645 ✭✭✭Daemos


    nipplenuts wrote: »
    I believe there should be an expiry on infractions like there is on Penalty Points in the real world, and maybe if the six were in 12 months, OK, ban his ass, but over his posting history
    I thought the current system was 12 months :confused:


  • Options
    #116
    Peyton Manning
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,658 ✭✭✭✭Peyton Manning


    Gordon wrote: »
    Personally I don't think Archimedes should have had a profile infraction from a Mod because of the PMs, but he also shouldn't be trolling/flame-baiting via PM, it's just not cricket.

    I appreciate your responding to that. I'll create a thread in HD to address my specific issue, but I still feel a lot needs to be cleared up here and an internal soccer forum review just wont do it.


  • Options
    #117
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    Gordon wrote: »
    this should really be taken to the Helpdesk via the DRP.

    What about the wider issue though?

    Getting that carpet sweeper ready?


  • Options
    #118
    Daemos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,645 ✭✭✭Daemos


    Gordon wrote: »
    Personally I don't think Archimedes should have had a profile infraction from a Mod because of the PMs
    So why are you condoning it then?


  • Options
    #119
    Mr. Presentable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,496 ✭✭✭Mr. Presentable


    DaPoolRulz wrote: »
    I thought the current system was 12 months :confused:

    Maybe it is, I couldn't see it......


  • Options
    #120
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    DaPoolRulz wrote: »
    So why are you condoning it then?
    How am I condoning it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    Gordon wrote: »
    How am I condoning it?

    by not removing it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement