Soccer Forum Ban - Has a precedent been set?

Daemos

Gordon wrote: »

How am I condoning it?

Because these situations are what the Mod and Admin forums are for. You're an Admin, this has been brought to your attention, you've said you don't agree with it, so why are you allowing it? Surely it warrants discussion at a higher level if several users plus yourself disagree with it?

So why are you saying you don't agree with it but aren't going to do anything about it?

Dohnny Jepp

Personally I would have taken what was said in the PM as jest. . but then I am extremely easy going:).

I see some people are questioning the OP in regards to posting the PM's, In my opinion posting pm's in dispute cases is a must. Especially since it's already been stated that the pm's were reported, so they arent exactly private anymore anyway.
Also on this point, The OP is looking for a definitive answer before the world cup ends, so i see why posting the PM's and not waiting for the cmods response is neccesary to quicken the procedures.
However, Although it is neccesary it doesn't make it right. It might be worthwhile looking into ways to shorten the route in the DRP process.

Something else I'm taking out of this thread is IMO if a user says "posting that up makes you look like a dickhead". This should be taken as attacking the poster, not the post. Just because someone works their words around nicely shouldn't absolve them from what they insinuate.

Lastly, This thread shows why a free for all help desk won't work. Too many oars are making our lil boat go in circles instead of reaching the finish line.

To give my opinion on what I think should happen, the op was banned not just for this incident, so a review of all six infractions should be conducted to see if he deserves a 6 month ban. I think the indepth review is needed because the ban lenght is so severe.

Best move OP would prob be to make a helpdesk thread to get rid of all the excess noise which will quiten your appeal on this thread.

Well, thats what I take out of this mess!

Gordon

DaPoolRulz wrote: »

So why are you saying you don't agree with it but aren't going to do anything about it?

I appreciate you, and Des, want immediate action post-haste, but I'd prefer if you let me have a chat in the Soccer Mods forum about Mods infracting profiles first, ta.

Peyton Manning

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

Personally I would have taken what was said in the PM as jest. . but then I am extremely easy going:).

I see some people are questioning the OP in regards to posting the PM's, In my opinion posting pm's in dispute cases is a must. Especially since it's already been stated that the pm's were reported, so they arent exactly private anymore anyway.
Also on this point, The OP is looking for a definitive answer before the world cup ends, so i see why posting the PM's and not waiting for the cmods response is neccesary to quicken the procedures.
However, Although it is neccesary it doesn't make it right. It might be worthwhile looking into ways to shorten the route in the DRP process.

Something else I'm taking out of this thread is IMO if a user says "posting that up makes you look like a dickhead". This should be taken as attacking the poster, not the post. Just because someone works their words around nicely shouldn't absolve them from what they insinuate.

Lastly, This thread shows why a free for all help desk won't work. Too many oars are making our lil boat go in circles instead of reaching the finish line.

To give my opinion on what I think should happen, the op was banned not just for this incident, so a review of all six infractions should be conducted to see if he deserves a 6 month ban. I think the indepth review is needed because the ban lenght is so severe.

Best move OP would prob be to make a helpdesk thread to get rid of all the excess noise which will quiten your appeal on this thread.

Well, thats what I take out of this mess!

Great post. I've made a Help Desk thread to discuss my situation specificically with Gordon, but a lot of people remain unhappy with what's going on in general (I'm not narcissistic enough to think all this hubbub is over me ) so hopefully some sort of discussion/debate can be facilitated here, especially with the Soccer Forum Charter Review so soon around the corner.

tbh

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

Something else I'm taking out of this thread is IMO if a user says "posting that up makes you look like a dickhead". This should be taken as attacking the poster, not the post. Just because someone works their words around nicely shouldn't absolve them from what they insinuate.

I'm not insinuating anything donny, I'm straight out saying it OP could be the nicest guy in the world, and obviously has his supporters, but my feedback on the messages posted in this feedback thread is that those messages look like the work of....well you can guess the rest.

nothing personal against the op, never met the chap before, don't know the mod, don't know the forum.

Peyton Manning

tbh wrote: »

I'm not insinuating anything donny, I'm straight out saying it OP could be the nicest guy in the world, and obviously has his supporters, but my feedback on the messages posted in this feedback thread is that those messages look like the work of....well you can guess the rest.

nothing personal against the op, never met the chap before, don't know the mod, don't know the forum.

To be honest, the remarks you've made about me in here makes me realise why you have the signature that you do in the first place.

therecklessone

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

Lastly, This thread shows why a free for all help desk won't work. Too many oars are making our lil boat go in circles instead of reaching the finish line.

Help Desk is available, and Archi has availed of it now.

If you try close off Feedback there's be uproar, and accusations that Mods/CMods/Admins are ganging up on ordinary users.

Or circling the wagons as some like to put it.

tbh

Archimedes wrote: »

To be honest, the remarks you've made about me in here makes me realise why you have the signature that you do in the first place.

I haven't made any remarks about you. Like I said, I don't know you. I've made remarks about your messages - the messages you invited feedback on. I have been at pains to point out that you could be the nicest person in the world normally. I even said you could be Stephen Fry for all I know. You said yourself in the HD thread that you probably shouldn't have posted the messages. I can only assume that's because you realise that they are not a fair an accurate reflection of you as a poster, taken out of context.

I can't help if you take that personally. I'm not taking anything you're saying about me personally, because you don't know me. If you knew me, you'd probably like me. Most people do

Peyton Manning

tbh wrote: »

I haven't made any remarks about you. Like I said, I don't know you. I've made remarks about your messages - the messages you invited feedback on. I can't help if you take that personally. I'm not taking anything you're saying about me personally, because you don't know me. If you knew me, you'd probably like me. Most people do

Neither of us are happy with the way the other person has handled themself in this thread. Let's tie a ribbon around it and leave it at that.

tbh

Archimedes wrote: »

Neither of us are happy with the way the other person has handled themself in this thread. Let's tie a ribbon around it and leave it at that.

I have no problem with the way you've handled yourself in this thread.

therecklessone

Since I can't contribute to Archi's Help Desk thread, can I suggest that if the Admins see his appeal dragging on for a while that they reinstate his access so that he can continue contributing to World Cup related chat, as he has been an integral part of that in the forum?

Once your decision is made either way, be it before the tournament runs its course or after, then obviously permanent action would be appropriate.

Thanks.

Peyton Manning

tbh wrote: »

I have no problem with the way you've handled yourself in this thread.

You said I shouldn't have posted the PM's, and that it was the actions of a ****head.

Iago

Des wrote: »

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?

C'mon Des, however pissed off you might be at the moment you know me better than that. All I'm saying is that the end of season review thread is the best place to get a full understanding of the wants of the soccer forum as a whole.

and if there is anyone who cannot take part in that process for any reason I'm always open to a discussion over PM where I will ensure that those thoughts get included in the process.

KevIRL wrote: »

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.

6 months was the term given to be a real deterrent to people to ensure that they didn't repeatedly break the forum charter.

I personally prefer the yellow card = 1 week ban system as I think it provides an immediate punishment for breaking the charter and will deter users from doing it over and over again.

However both of these will still be subject to your (4) above. I think what qualifies as an infraction is clear, but the interpretation of that can vary from situation to situation depending on context. For example personal abuse is a infractable offence and is policed accordingly, but if the context is two people that actually get on very well and it's meant in good humour then it might not receive one.

I think it's fair to say that it's unrealistic to expect all mods to review every infraction given and that ultimately we all exercise our own discretion taking the context into mind. It may not always have the same end result, but that in and of itself doesn't make any of us wrong. Contrary to popular belief I don't believe any of us go looking for work for ourselves, there is plenty to keep us going though the reported posts function without going looking for infractable offences that may have slipped through the cracks.

Headshot wrote: »

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

Without meaning to sound smart; the bolded part is consistent with everybody that's ever been banned and I'm sure you realise that yourself.

I'm loath to do so, but if you compare it to the 3 strike system in American law where in certain jurisdictions the committal of a 3rd offence carries with it a mandatory sentence regardless of whether that 3rd offence is for stealing candy or committing murder. Now I know that doesn't apply to all jurisdictions and I also know it's a bit out there to compare it to infractions on a soccer forum but the premise is the same.

If you know that committing certain number of offences will lead to a certain duration of ban, it should come as no surprise that you get that ban when you've committed that number of offences.

Arguing that one breach of the charter should carry a lesser punishment than another is reasonable in theory, but difficult in terms of implementation and practice. However I would welcome that discussion as part of the overall review as well.

tbh

Archimedes wrote: »

You said I shouldn't have posted the PM's, and that it was the actions of a ****head.

ok to clarify - I'm on record in feedforward as saying all mod pms should be publishable. I was making a weak joke that obviously was misinterpreted - that's my bad. I wasn't saying that publishing those messages was the work of a dickhead - apologies. I was actually saying that writing them made you look like one.

That doesn't mean that I think you are a dickhead. It means that if someone handed me a printout of those messages and asked me "what kind of person do you think would write messages like these?" - my - honest - answer would be " a dickhead". That doesn't mean I think you're a dickhead - as I already said - I don't know you - but you were acting the dick when you wrote those messages. You said yourself in the hd thread that you shouldn't have sent them. I can only assume that's because you realise they make you look like...well, a bit of a dickhead. Much like my posts in here do for me, apparantly. But I'm not a dickhead really, only the odd time.

eagle eye

tbh wrote: »

I'm not insinuating anything donny, I'm straight out saying it OP could be the nicest guy in the world, and obviously has his supporters, but my feedback on the messages posted in this feedback thread is that those messages look like the work of....well you can guess the rest.

nothing personal against the op, never met the chap before, don't know the mod, don't know the forum.

Some of what you have said is this thread is way worse than anything in the pms.

If things were done fairly here and Archimedes gets a six month ban, then you should get a 10 year ban.

AckwelFoley

tbh wrote: »

I'm not insinuating anything donny, I'm straight out saying it OP could be the nicest guy in the world, and obviously has his supporters, but my feedback on the messages posted in this feedback thread is that those messages look like the work of....well you can guess the rest.

nothing personal against the op, never met the chap before, don't know the mod, don't know the forum.

To be honest you're using an excuse that ive seen members use to appeal bans and infractions before - i wasnt calling them an asshole.. it just made them look like one.. you're a smart chap tbh, if i said to you that your last few posts made you look like an abnoxious arrogant prick would you accept the excuse from me that i didnt call you an abnoxious prick but said your posts made you look that way? No i doubt you would, and i dont need to elabourate further because you know im right.. Its wordplay..

Again im making it clear im completely unbiased here but both "sides" are doing themselves little favours on what happened and how it was delt with and then subsequent comments

tbh

eagle eye wrote: »

Some of what you have said is this thread is way worse than anything in the pms.

If things were done fairly here and Archimedes gets a six month ban, then you should get a 10 year ban.

The difference between my posts on here and Archis messages to T4TF is that my opinions were invited.

You should definitely report any of my posts you have a problem with tho.

KevIRL

Iago wrote: »

6 months was the term given to be a real deterrent to people to ensure that they didn't repeatedly break the forum charter.

I personally prefer the yellow card = 1 week ban system as I think it provides an immediate punishment for breaking the charter and will deter users from doing it over and over again.

However both of these will still be subject to your (4) above. I think what qualifies as an infraction is clear, but the interpretation of that can vary from situation to situation depending on context. For example personal abuse is a infractable offence and is policed accordingly, but if the context is two people that actually get on very well and it's meant in good humour then it might not receive one.

I think it's fair to say that it's unrealistic to expect all mods to review every infraction given and that ultimately we all exercise our own discretion taking the context into mind. It may not always have the same end result, but that in and of itself doesn't make any of us wrong. Contrary to popular belief I don't believe any of us go looking for work for ourselves, there is plenty to keep us going though the reported posts function without going looking for infractable offences that may have slipped through the cracks.



.

I appreciate you taking the time to reply Iago. Also I know its a tough workload you guys have, I tend to agree with the 1 week ban (altho I'd personally start with 3 days). It probably makes a mod consider acting that little bit more cause bans come under more immediate scrutiny, and this would help lessen the inconsistencies.

The thing is, and this is the tricky bit to implement, is that mods should also be allowed to use some discretion and not be tied to a hard and fast rulebook. eg - not kicking in a ban cause you know a normally sensible poster has had a heat of the moment reaction.

tbh

snyper wrote: »

if i said to you that your last few posts made you look like an abnoxious arrogant prick would you accept the excuse from em that i didnt call you an abnoxious prick but said your posts made you look that way? No i doubt you would, and i dont need to elabourate further because you know im right..

Maybe you are right. But maybe I'm right too. And if I get banned from feedback because of those comments, and start a thread about whether or not I should have received a ban for my comments, maybe you'll make that comment on that thread, and you'll understand the point I'm making in this thread.

eagle eye

Anyways

If Archimedes was aware that he would annoy T4TF with this then he was wrong.
As a moderator you would expect that T4TF would not react in such a fashion to a pm that seems funny if anything.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Both guys should admit that they were wrong. Archimedes for acting the maggot and T4TF for his kneejerk reaction to it.

Dump the yellow card and lets move on.

tomhappens

Gordon wrote: »

OP looks like he was intentionally trolling and flame-baiting to me in those PMs.

As an Admin having that opinion then a site ban of some term is the response?

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

eh yeah. Probably to much sap being involved.


Anyone thought of asking DeVore to voice an opinion? He is clever and his opinion tends to be carried well.

IvySlayer

Oh come on it was clearly in jest. I think an infraction was a bit harsh. I saw no abuse or any sign Archie was gonna cause trouble Archie is a well known joker.

Same goes for Headshot. He said 'lazy bum' as a joke. I think the SF structure/mods are generally good.

AckwelFoley

tbh wrote: »

Maybe you are right. But maybe I'm right too. And if I get banned from feedback because of those comments, and start a thread about whether or not I should have received a ban for my comments, maybe you'll make that comment on that thread, and you'll understand the point I'm making in this thread.

Understood, but i wouldnt use those words.. it gives joe soap the impression that you can get away with the "asshole" comments because of your status - which feeds the mod conspiracy..

To use the excuse that starting a feedback thread an inviting opinions is therefore a licence to make such comments is also not one that would protect me or most if i made them..

Thread: What do you think of my hair cut?

Poster 1 : Is fantastic, but you're a fat ugly cnut

Mod: Buh bye poster one

tbh

snyper wrote: »

Understood, but i wouldnt use those words.. it gives joe soap the impression that you can get away with the "asshole" comments because of your status - which feeds the mod conspiracy..

dude, I honestly don't have any status. I'm not looking for special treatment and I don't want it. I also don't want the fact that I'm a mod to prevent me from being able to say what I think - if that were the case, I'd rather jack the whole thing in altogether to be honest.

Archi, I'm sorry I've derailed your thread somewhat. I thought your messages to the mod were cheap and goading. It's not something you should be proud of, in my opinion. If you're honestly looking for feedback to try to gauge whether or not those messages were bad, then here's one vote in the "yeah, they were bad" camp. If I've personally offended you by the way in which I've expressed that, then my apologies. I'm sure you're a lovely guy.

goodnight everybody!

homerjay2005

is a vote of no confidence in mods allowed on this forum? what if a mod is abusing powers and the majority of posters think he/she is working in his/her best interest, is it possible to have the posters decided if he/she should be demodded. just interested to know if an admin or cmod could answer on this.

Mitch Connor

homerjay2005 wrote: »

is a vote of no confidence in mods allowed on this forum? what if a mod is abusing powers and the majority of posters think he/she is working in his/her best interest, is it possible to have the posters decided if he/she should be demodded. just interested to know if an admin or cmod could answer on this.

personally, I don't think that is a good way to go. It would be a popularity contest, basically, and an unpopular mod is not necessarily a bad mod.

Don't get me wrong, I am not happy with the way T4TF has acted in either these incidents (Des, Archie, Headshot) or in the past and I do not feel he should be a mod at this stage, but that is something that the Admins, CMods and other SF mods should look at and discuss (if they feel it is necessary) and not be left to a popularity contest. As an addition to this; I would say it could end up being a United vs Liverpool vote as well, which would really do no one any good, and another reason it should not come down to that.

homerjay2005

Mitch Connor wrote: »

personally, I don't think that is a good way to go. It would be a popularity contest, basically, and an unpopular mod is not necessarily a bad mod.

Don't get me wrong, I am not happy with the way T4TF has acted in either these incidents (Des, Archie, Headshot) or in the past and I do not feel he should be a mod at this stage, but that is something that the Admins, CMods and other SF mods should look at and discuss (if they feel it is necessary) and not be left to a popularity contest. As an addition to this; I would say it could end up being a United vs Liverpool vote as well, which would really do no one any good, and another reason it should not come down to that.

who said i am talking about a particular mod? im talking in general. please dont put words into my mouth or put 2 and 2 together and get 17. there are many sound mods affliated with rival clubs who would have 100% backing of most neutral people.

Mitch Connor

homerjay2005 wrote: »

who said i am talking about a particular mod? im talking in general. please dont put words into my mouth or put 2 and 2 together and get 17. there are many sound mods affliated with rival clubs who would have 100% backing of most neutral people.

sorry, i thought you were referring to the case being discussed in this thread.

Gordon

I've reversed your profile infraction placed by T4TF, Archimedes but, as I said before, I feel the content was trolling and flame-baiting, so I've placed an infraction myself on your profile.

I don't think Mods should be infracting profiles*, profiles should be outwith forums and relating to the site as a whole, but this raises other issues.. The soccer forum rules are that thanking a post that is abusive should receive an infraction. But if that's the case then how do they infract? Hence the profile infraction. Just like when a Mod bans a user and gets the response "go f*ck yourself h*tler!" - they get a ban. So I think we should get our heads together (maybe even in feedforward!) with the soccer mods and admins and cmods about this kind of thing - how to deal with behaviour outwith the charter via methods other than on-thread posting.

*I think. We don't afair have this rule set in stone, but we don't not have it set in stone, as historically we have prevented/reversed mods from infracting profiles.

copacetic

Gordon wrote: »

*I think. We don't afair have this rule set in stone, but we don't not have it set in stone, as historically we have prevented/reversed mods from infracting profiles.

I infracted a few profiles in my time Gordon (mostly to force a 10 infraction siteban on spammers with only a few posts), but also for the abusive PMs/ abusive posts that everyone has seen but later deleted by the user. I've seen it done a fair bit..