Soccer Forum Ban - Has a precedent been set?

flahavaj

nipplenuts wrote: »

To be fair, I am responding in a thread where a group are suggesting there is a bias against them without any real substantiation.

In respect of your "sly dig" comment, mine was a proposition, not a statement. I'm disappointed you'd take it as a dig. You don't think it's likely?

Maybe I've got more of a victim mentality than I realise.:pac:

Amongst the United fans on the boad at the moment I can think of maybe one who acts like he is obviously very young. Otherwise they're a good bunch IMO.

Sorry if I took the comment up the wrong way.

eagle eye

At the end of the day the loss of Archimedes and Headshot from the forum is the loss of two very good contributors. Its the rest of us that spend a lot of time in the soccer forum that are losing out here with this ridiculous six month ban.

Somebody needs to cop on and sort things out. Give somebody a 24 hour ban if they are popping up with silly stuff all too often. If that doesn't work make it 3 days next time then a week then a month and ban them altogether if that doesn't work.

K-9

Sparks wrote: »

Before Gordon closes the thread, I have one, and only one, point which I wish to make as one of the Sports Cmods, and it is this:

We have a dispute resolution procedure. It lays down how we handle complaints like this. It's widely known of. It's in nearly every forum's charter. It goes like this:

1. PM the mod (or any mod in the forum) to discuss the dispute. If this fails then:
2. PM the cmod of the category (any of them if there's more than one) to discuss the dispute. If this fails then:
3. Start a thread in HelpDesk to discuss the dispute with the admins.

Now some don't like that procedure, and that's fine. There'll be a feedforward review of it, and that's cool too.

Until it is changed, however, it is the procedure and I'm frankly getting tired of people ignoring the "If this fails" bit and jumping straight to step three. I'm getting equally tired of people claiming the system's broken as they break it.

Threads like this do not help your case. They make it harder to do any sort of unbiased review, because the complainant is claiming unfair treatment while seeking preferential treatment.

So please, until (or if, to be fair about it) the DRP is changed, follow it.

The criticism of it is, it is slow. I don't think it stands in this case because it was a 6 month ban, though the OP obviously wanted to post on the for the SF. If it's a 3 day ban, it's a fair point. Users may decide the ban is just worth serving.

Considering history can be held against a user, not wise, but that is the perception.

Considering the OP has had no replies to his Helpdesk thread 2 days later .................................................

I appreciate it was sorted through this thread, but that kind of proves the point!

therecklessone

eagle eye wrote: »

At the end of the day the loss of Archimedes and Headshot from the forum is the loss of two very good contributors. Its the rest of us that spend a lot of time in the soccer forum that are losing out here with this ridiculous six month ban.

Somebody needs to cop on and sort things out. Give somebody a 24 hour ban if they are popping up with silly stuff all too often. If that doesn't work make it 3 days next time then a week then a month and ban them altogether if that doesn't work.

Hang on, what you're suggesting is the following:

24hr ban
3 day ban
1 week ban
1 month ban
Permanent ban

How is that better than a combination of infractions adding up to 6 yellows equalling a 6 month ban? If your suggestion was adopted wouldn't users be banned for longer periods in the run up to culmination, and then be gone for good?

I'm not judging either lads' specific case, but it seems people are getting hung up on the nature of the censure dished out after reaching six yellows, when the issue should be the nature of individual infractions.

eagle eye

therecklessone wrote: »

Hang on, what you're suggesting is the following:

24hr ban
3 day ban
1 week ban
1 month ban
Permanent ban

How is that better than a combination of infractions adding up to 6 yellows equalling a 6 month ban? If your suggestion was adopted wouldn't users be banned for longer periods in the run up to culmination, and then be gone for good?

I'm not judging either lads' specific case, but it seems people are getting hung up on the nature of the censure dished out after reaching six yellows, when the issue should be the nature of individual infractions.

I don't think you should get a 24hr ban for what is now an infraction. I think if you start to accumulate infractions maybe like 4 then a 24hr ban kicks in. If you pick up another two then you get a 3 day ban and so on. That way members get to understand what they are missing and might just fall into line.

therecklessone

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think you should get a 24hr ban for what is now an infraction. I think if you start to accumulate infractions maybe like 4 then a 24hr ban kicks in. If you pick up another two then you get a 3 day ban and so on. That way members get to understand what they are missing and might just fall into line.

So in theory you'd give somewhere in the region of double the number of infractions before permanently banning somebody?

To be honest, I don't think anyone deserves that number of chances in a calendar year.

If the forum is losing decent posters through accumulated infractions then it's far better to examine the reason for issuing them, rather than having a charter that is repeatedly breached with little or no repercussions.

In fairness, I don't think any other forum on boards would allow users that much leeway in disregarding the charter, perhaps other mods would care to comment on that...

5starpool

therecklessone wrote: »

Hang on, what you're suggesting is the following:

24hr ban
3 day ban
1 week ban
1 month ban
Permanent ban

How is that better than a combination of infractions adding up to 6 yellows equalling a 6 month ban? If your suggestion was adopted wouldn't users be banned for longer periods in the run up to culmination, and then be gone for good?

I'm not judging either lads' specific case, but it seems people are getting hung up on the nature of the censure dished out after reaching six yellows, when the issue should be the nature of individual infractions.

I don't think it would be much of an issue if infractions weren't handed out for stupid things. Headshots one for calling Mr alan a lazy bum for not googling something himself being a case in point, and I'm sure there are plenty of other nothing ones handed out as well.

LuckyLloyd

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think you should get a 24hr ban for what is now an infraction. I think if you start to accumulate infractions maybe like 4 then a 24hr ban kicks in. If you pick up another two then you get a 3 day ban and so on. That way members get to understand what they are missing and might just fall into line.

They are already getting six chances as it is!! The posters falling foul of the current system will fall foul of whatever system you put in place.

K-9

therecklessone wrote: »

Hang on, what you're suggesting is the following:

24hr ban
3 day ban
1 week ban
1 month ban
Permanent ban

How is that better than a combination of infractions adding up to 6 yellows equalling a 6 month ban? If your suggestion was adopted wouldn't users be banned for longer periods in the run up to culmination, and then be gone for good?

I'm not judging either lads' specific case, but it seems people are getting hung up on the nature of the censure dished out after reaching six yellows, when the issue should be the nature of individual infractions.

Personally I prefer that system than an accumulated system and a 6 month ban. Posters can troll away for a time and then if they get a few infractions, stop.

AFAIK, the SF system is different to the rest of Boards and I really don't know why. A stricter system was brought in last year and it was over turned. IMO, it's abused by a few usual suspects.

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think you should get a 24hr ban for what is now an infraction. I think if you start to accumulate infractions maybe like 4 then a 24hr ban kicks in. If you pick up another two then you get a 3 day ban and so on. That way members get to understand what they are missing and might just fall into line.

The problem is, it takes 4 infractions to get a 24 hour ban? Seriously. IMO, that system is too lenient as the ban lets you pick up infractions.

therecklessone

p.s. I should add that when I modded soccer I tried to issue bans of increasing length as each new infraction was issued to reinforce the fact that the user was approaching a significant point. In theory, it is possible to reach six yellows without having been banned at any stage in the run up, which doesn't help.

Anyway, I think most of this belongs in the forum review which should start shortly, so I'll leave it there.

Chucky the tree

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think you should get a 24hr ban for what is now an infraction. I think if you start to accumulate infractions maybe like 4 then a 24hr ban kicks in. If you pick up another two then you get a 3 day ban and so on. That way members get to understand what they are missing and might just fall into line.

If there to retarded to figure out what they're missing before that then the forums better off without them.

therecklessone

5starpool wrote: »

I don't think it would be much of an issue if infractions weren't handed out for stupid things. Headshots one for calling Mr alan a lazy bum for not googling something himself being a case in point, and I'm sure there are plenty of other nothing ones handed out as well.

Hence my final point in the 1st post Dom:

but it seems people are getting hung up on the nature of the censure dished out after reaching six yellows, when the issue should be the nature of individual infractions.

eagle eye

therecklessone wrote: »

So in theory you'd give somewhere in the region of double the number of infractions before permanently banning somebody?

To be honest, I don't think anyone deserves that number of chances in a calendar year.

If the forum is losing decent posters through accumulated infractions then it's far better to examine the reason for issuing them, rather than having a charter that is repeatedly breached with little or no repercussions.

In fairness, I don't think any other forum on boards would allow users that much leeway in disregarding the charter, perhaps other mods would care to comment on that...

Oh I agree the charter has to be looked at but the six month is crazy too. Its far too long.

therecklessone

K-9 wrote: »

AFAIK, the SF system is different to the rest of Boards and I really don't know why. A stricter system was brought in last year and it was over turned.

If you want different then contribute to the forum review when it starts, the decision to row back on infraction=one week ban was as a result of user feedback.

GLaDOS

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

They are already getting six chances as it is!! The posters falling foul of the current system will fall foul of whatever system you put in place.

Have to agree with this tbh. It's not that difficult to avoid being infracted, personally I've never been

therecklessone

eagle eye wrote: »

Oh I agree the charter has to be looked at but the six month is crazy too. Its far too long.

Eh, so is a permanent ban?

Sparks

K-9 wrote: »

The criticism of it is, it is slow.

Though I'd point out that expecting consistently short response times is unreasonable when mods, cmods and admins are all unpaid volunteers with jobs and family lives, the DRP is up for review in feedforward, as I said earlier.

But ignoring it because it might be changed in the future is not on.

Considering history can be held against a user, not wise, but that is the perception.

This entire thread has been holding history against a mod (or at least trying to). The entire ban policy of the SF depends on holding history against a poster (how else would a six-yellows-and-you're-banned policy work?). Saying that a poster is a "very good contributor" is holding their history against them (just favorably this time, but if you can do so positively, you have to equally be able to do so negatively). I'm not seeing how, as a general principle, it's wrong to examine a poster's history.

Considering the OP has had no replies to his Helpdesk thread 2 days later .................................................
I appreciate it was sorted through this thread, but that kind of proves the point!

No, it doesn't, because you have no idea of what was sent by PM, to whom, by whom, when, or what was being discussed, or what background reading was being done. The first two parts of the DRP are private. And NO OP should be getting any reply to any Helpdesk thread when they try an end run on the DRP except to point them to the correct step in the DRP, which is what happened here as well.

I mean, I could just flip a coin, or I could see which way people who aren't involved in the disagreement think; but I rather think reading over the threads and posts and talking to all parties privately before making a judgement call is the better way to go. And if you disagree, change the DRP. But until then, that's our rulebook.

eagle eye

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

They are already getting six chances as it is!! The posters falling foul of the current system will fall foul of whatever system you put in place.

I don't agree. Its very easy to make a mistake like advising somebody that they should not post something . Even if they are wrong to post it, the person that told them this has just broken the back door modding rule and is liable to an infraction. And that person might just have been trying to be helpful and respectful to others.

The lazy bum one that Headshot is appealing. I looked at that and you can tell its just a bit of harmless banter and there is no malice in it. He got an infraction for that.

I'm sure there are many cases of this in the soccer forum.

Some of the rules are draconian and as a result people pick up yellow cards for harmless behaviour. So while you say that six is enough I say its not nearly enough because if you make 2000 posts in 12 months is likely that you will backdoor mod, make some harmless comment that is considered an infraction on a couple of occasions.

K-9

therecklessone wrote: »

If you want different then contribute to the forum review when it starts, the decision to row back on infraction=one week ban was as a result of user feedback.

I did at the time and supported the 3 day ban etc. position for exactly reasons like this thread.

Completely agree, we are veering into SF feedback territory. To me, a few vociferous users were given far too much credence in that particular feedback thread.

SF is working pretty good barring a few small changes.

K-9

Sparks wrote: »

Though I'd point out that expecting consistently short response times is unreasonable when mods, cmods and admins are all unpaid volunteers with jobs and family lives, the DRP is up for review in feedforward, as I said earlier.

But ignoring it because it might be changed in the future is not on.


This entire thread has been holding history against a mod (or at least trying to). The entire ban policy of the SF depends on holding history against a poster (how else would a six-yellows-and-you're-banned policy work?). Saying that a poster is a "very good contributor" is holding their history against them (just favorably this time, but if you can do so positively, you have to equally be able to do so negatively). I'm not seeing how, as a general principle, it's wrong to examine a poster's history.



No, it doesn't, because you have no idea of what was sent by PM, to whom, by whom, when, or what was being discussed, or what background reading was being done. The first two parts of the DRP are private. And NO OP should be getting any reply to any Helpdesk thread when they try an end run on the DRP except to point them to the correct step in the DRP, which is what happened here as well.

I mean, I could just flip a coin, or I could see which way people who aren't involved in the disagreement think; but I rather think reading over the threads and posts and talking to all parties privately before making a judgement call is the better way to go. And if you disagree, change the DRP. But until then, that's our rulebook.

Completely agreed. Was just responding to your post. Getting the balance between getting a reasonable response in a timely fashion and the fact mods and admins aren't paid and are volunteers, is very important. Being discussed on FF AFIAK and good luck to them.

48 hours is pretty long though, especially if it is a 24 hour ban. Anyway.......................

eagle eye

Also being banned while you appeal is a joke and thats the problem with waiting for a cmod to respond.

curry-muff

The two instances recently are a disgrace, I might sound like a conspiracy theorist in saying this but it is of my own opinion that tftf made a obvious attempt to destroy the United thread on the last day that it was possible to dish out a 6 month ban. Coincidence? I for one think not.

Ill go make myself a new tftf proof tin foil hat now, bye :rolleyes:

5starpool

therecklessone wrote: »

Hence my final point in the 1st post Dom:

Agreed (obv).

I'm sure there is no easy solution to this. It is a problem in part with the charter, and in part with hyper sensitive interpretation. Obviously there is never going to be consistency across mods as this is not possible, but it should be something that more common sense is applied to.

I see contentious threads where posts are deleted before a warning or two are issued, and this works well in the majority of cases. For some of the more minor issues, if a mod has a problem with it, delete it and send a PM saying politely why you think it is out of line. This will either result in the user accepting it or just wondering why they think it is out of line. It should not take any longer really than issuing an infraction, and if it is reposted then there can be no excuse for the poster if they complain about being infracted for it. I'm not talking about someone calling another poster a wánker on thread or some such, as that is a clear breach, but there are instances when the above approach would be better served I think.

Obviously things are not very broken, and have improved considerably in the last couple of years, and credit goes to the mods during this time for overseeing that process, but it can improve imo.

I'm not saying this as I have been affected by it, as I have no axes to grind in the SF, but it is in everyones interests if the place has even less friction that the relatively minor amount it suffers from at the minute, and would hopefully head off threads like this more and more.

Jazzy

eagle eye wrote: »

The lazy bum one that Headshot shows is appealing. I looked at that and you can tell its just a bit of harmless banter and there is no malice in it. He got an infraction for that.

but he was targetting mr. alan because he supports liverpool. he was using that old stereotype of the jobless scousers to have a go at alan and then was insulting his person by saying he was 'lazy'. mr alan didnt have to take that sorta weird abuse, he was just posting away minding his own business and headshot said that to him on purpose to wind him up and provoke a reaction.

over dramatising for other peoples benefit is fun... its easy too!

eagle eye

Jazzy wrote: »

but he was targetting mr. alan because he supports liverpool. he was using that old stereotype of the jobless scousers to have a go at alan and then was insulting his person by saying he was 'lazy'. mr alan didnt have to take that sorta weird abuse, he was just posting away minding his own business and headshot said that to him on purpose to wind him up and provoke a reaction.

over dramatising for other peoples benefit is fun... its easy too!

Your indepth analysis of the post is wonderful, you would make a great mod. You would fit right in.:pac:

K-9

curry-muff wrote: »

The two instances recently are a disgrace, I might sound like a conspiracy theorist in saying this but it is of my own opinion that tftf made a obvious attempt to destroy the United thread on the last day that it was possible to dish out a 6 month ban. Coincidence? I for one think not.

Ill go make myself a new tftf proof tin foil hat now, bye :rolleyes:

This case is hardly a disgrace now!

Can't comment on the other cases, like Des. Always thought he was a Shels and United supporter, though he seems to deny the latter. Thought it was a running joke at this stage.

5starpool

K-9 wrote: »

This case is hardly a disgrace now!

Can't comment on the other cases, like Des. Always thought he was a Shels and United supporter, though he seems to deny the latter. Thought it was a running joke at this stage.

There really can be no denying of it in fairness.

Headshot

its a very sad day in the sf when a poster gets an infraction for calling someone a lazy bum

Jazzy

Headshot wrote: »

its a very sad day in the sf when a poster gets an infraction for calling someone a lazy bum

i got one once because i said that Frank Lampard deserved a happy meal after he scored in a match thread. its all dependant on the mood of the mod tbh

Headshot

Jazzy wrote: »

i got one once because i said that Frank Lampard deserved a happy meal after he scored in a match thread. its all dependant on the mood of the mod tbh

that's shameful infraction