Soccer Forum Annual Review Thread

Mitch Connor

SlickRic wrote: »

i think it needs to be made clear, that from what i understand, the 'regulars' weren't banned merely for banter.

it's 6 infractions. 6!

as has been stated, that's a lot for one forum.

Yeah - it is. an average of 1 infraction every 2 months or so. Massive.

Also, look at the infractions actually received.

The topical one is Headshot getting an infraction for telling Mr Alan to stop being a 'lazy bum' and google something himself.

To me there is no way that should be an infraction, no way at all.

I know there was another where one mod had spoken to headshot, warned him on thread and a second mod (same as the above infraction) went over the originals head and infracted Headshot for it. That is not on either.

6 infractions does seem like a lot, but you can get infracted from some very trivial things - not all are going to be obvious infractions when you are typing them.

Another example is I have seen people (and mods) type things like sh1t, sh!t, fcuk etc. No problems and no infraction. I was infracted for saying 'fu(k'. Inconsistency again. I have seen other people get away with it no problem, so why would I assume that me doing similar is going to lead to an infraction?

If the 6 infractions you get are for obvious abuse that is ment as a abuse, or trolling etc then I have no issue with the 6 month ban really, but the fact is this is not always the case and some punishments do, quite simply, not fit the supposed 'crime'.

Mitch Connor

gandalf wrote: »

Yes but if you start to discriminate between different users because of their post count you open a whole new can of worms.

The online world is different to real life.

rules should not be black and white. everything should be taken in context. Punishments should be based on what has actually happened and not simply what some outside observer with no knowledge of the people or context involved would apply based on a black and white interpretation of the rules.

There are liverpool fans I know i can jab at when in a more direct conversation (and they know they can jab at me) but we both know that similar jabs aimed at other users would be more likely to be taken the wrong way and cause offence. there are things I would say to Mr Alan or SlickRic that I wouldn't think of saying to other pool fans - and when I say them to Al or Slick I would expect them to be treated and understood in the context of that.

meditraitor

mike65 wrote: »

Its football! :mad:

meditraitor, only a few follow them? You really think that?

The following have over 200 posts in the last Liverpool thread

Mr Alan 1,672 Spiritoftheseventies 1,392
Kess73 	1,327 SlickRic 	1,296
whatawaster 1,122 mike65 1,015
jesus_thats_gre 	741 rarnes1 729
BastardPrince 661 Karmafaerie 632
~Rebel~ 622 MementoMori 605
Dublin_Gunner 580 The Muppet 580
Boggles 	577 Fink Goddie 	560
noodler 	559 flahavaj 540
mayordenis 537 K-9 530
daithijjj 	527 Rosco1982 	522
LZ5by5 	470 missingtime 	449
PaulieC 	413 BumbleBee123 348
wobblyknees 322 Headshot 313
Dub13  307 spockety 	306
stumpypeeps 283 Sir Gallagher 	278
Bandit12 278 Tusky 277
Melion 	272 LuckyLloyd 	259
NekkidBibleMan 	258 joe123 	256
5starpool 239 Mental Mickey 	230
monkey9 224 5ForKeeps 	202
Eire-Dearg 200

And because they reply they are actually following them? they are forced to post in there....... "Im closing this thread, use the super thread please" mod notes get the point across.
I could up my post count with a 100 one line replies in a week on them but its not really of any interest to me....


They are aweful and for the most part hated...........

Mitch Connor

meditraitor wrote: »

And because they reply they are actually following them? they are forced to post in there....... "Im closing this thread, use the super thread please" mod notes get the point across.
I could up my post count with a 100 one line replies in a week on them but its not really of any interest to me....


They are aweful and for the most part hated...........

for the most part hated? Care to back that up?

gandalf

Mitch Connor wrote: »

rules should not be black and white. everything should be taken in context. Punishments should be based on what has actually happened and not simply what some outside observer with no knowledge of the people or context involved would apply based on a black and white interpretation of the rules.

There are liverpool fans I know i can jab at when in a more direct conversation (and they know they can jab at me) but we both know that similar jabs aimed at other users would be more likely to be taken the wrong way and cause offence. there are things I would say to Mr Alan or SlickRic that I wouldn't think of saying to other pool fans - and when I say them to Al or Slick I would expect them to be treated and understood in the context of that.

Yes but to a new user if he gets infracted because he repeated the behaviour of another more established user said to one of his online mates it will look extremely unfair to them.

As someone has already said this forum is getting bigger and bigger all the time. Do you honestly expect the mods to know who has a personal relationship with whom on here and allow that to dictate how they moderate. Its unworkable and for some would stink of cliquishness and would generate far more whinging than its worth.

mike65

Suit yourself meditraitor. I'm not a mad fan as they are not "user freindly" but in the absence of a dedicated sub-forum its the best we'll get.

flahavaj

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Yeah - it is. an average of 1 infraction every 2 months or so. Massive.

Also, look at the infractions actually received.

The topical one is Headshot getting an infraction for telling Mr Alan to stop being a 'lazy bum' and google something himself.

To me there is no way that should be an infraction, no way at all.

I know there was another where one mod had spoken to headshot, warned him on thread and a second mod (same as the above infraction) went over the originals head and infracted Headshot for it. That is not on either.

6 infractions does seem like a lot, but you can get infracted from some very trivial things - not all are going to be obvious infractions when you are typing them.

Another example is I have seen people (and mods) type things like sh1t, sh!t, fcuk etc. No problems and no infraction. I was infracted for saying 'fu(k'. Inconsistency again. I have seen other people get away with it no problem, so why would I assume that me doing similar is going to lead to an infraction?

If the 6 infractions you get are for obvious abuse that is ment as a abuse, or trolling etc then I have no issue with the 6 month ban really, but the fact is this is not always the case and some punishments do, quite simply, not fit the supposed 'crime'.

A quite easy around the whole HS "lazy bum" situation and other such misunderstandings is to have a quiet word with the so-called "victim" in the banter. If they're OK with what wa said and can confirm that it was all harmless fun between people who are familiar with each other, then surely an infraction is totally unnecessay.

From the mods' POV, surely sending one simple PM to the person on the receeving end of the banter is an easier way to deal with it than having to explain yourself in the endless Helpdesk and feedback threads that inevitably follow by simply infracting based on blindly treating all rules as black and white cases with no room for flexibility?

Mitch Connor

gandalf wrote: »

Yes but to a new user if he gets infracted because he repeated the behaviour of another more established user said to one of his online mates it will look extremely unfair to them.

As someone has already said this forum is getting bigger and bigger all the time. Do you honestly expect the mods to know who has a personal relationship with whom on here and allow that to dictate how they moderate. Its unworkable and for some would stink of cliquishness and would generate far more whinging than its worth.

answered by this:

flahavaj wrote: »

A quite easy around the whole HS "lazy bum" situation and other such misunderstandings is to have a quiet word with the so-called "victim" in the banter. If they're OK with what wa said and can confirm that it was all harmless fun between people who are familiar with each other, then surely an infraction is totally unnecessay.

From the mods' POV, surely sending one simple PM to the person on the receeving end of the banter is an easier way to deal with it than having to explain yourself in the endless Helpdesk and feedback threads that inevitably follow by simply infracting based on blindly treating all rules as black and white cases with no room for flexibility?

Cheers Flah!;)

gandalf

flahavaj wrote: »

A quite easy around the whole HS "lazy bum" situation and other such misunderstandings is to have a quiet word with the so-called "victim" in the banter. If they're OK with what wa said and can confirm that it was all harmless fun between people who are familiar with each other, then surely an infraction is totally unnecessay.

From the mods' POV, surely sending one simple PM to the person on the receeving end of the banter is an easier way to deal with it than having to explain yourself in the endless Helpdesk and feedback threads that inevitably follow by simply infracting based on blindly treating all rules as black and white cases with no room for flexibility?

So basically you generate more work for the moderators? As I said already to some that will stink of a clique and to new users will give them the impression that they can do the same and when they get infracted will leave them with a bad taste in their mouths.

Moderating takes time and every moderator on this site gives that time off their own backs (or the backs of their employers!!!). Why should they be expected to hand hold adults like this. The rules are there, they are there so people can discuss the beautiful game in as an intelligent fashion as possible. Muddying the water like this will make the place more complex to moderate and will cause more friction in the long run especially with newer users.

meditraitor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

for the most part hated? Care to back that up?

Put up a poll?

Mitch Connor

meditraitor wrote: »

Put up a poll?

1. there has already been.
2. Came out in favour of the the superthreads (thats why we still have them 3/4/5 years later)
3. You have already stated they are 'mostly hated', so it is on you to back up what you have said with evidence already available.

Mitch Connor

gandalf wrote: »

So basically you generate more work for the moderators? As I said already to some that will stink of a clique and to new users will give them the impression that they can do the same and when they get infracted will leave them with a bad taste in their mouths.

Moderating takes time and every moderator on this site gives that time off their own backs (or the backs of their employers!!!). Why should they be expected to hand hold adults like this. The rules are there, they are there so people can discuss the beautiful game in as an intelligent fashion as possible. Muddying the water like this will make the place more complex to moderate and will cause more friction in the long run especially with newer users.

If you are going to infract people and push them towards a 6 month ban from the forum, the least you can do is check to see if there is actually a good reason for the infraction in the first place.

flahavaj

gandalf wrote: »

So basically you generate more work for the moderators? As I said already to some that will stink of a clique and to new users will give them the impression that they can do the same and when they get infracted will leave them with a bad taste in their mouths.

Moderating takes time and everyone on this site gives that time off their own backs (or the backs of their employers!!!). Why should they be expected to hand hold adults like this. The rules are there, they are there so people can discuss the beautiful game in as an intelligent fashion as possible. Muddying the water like this will make the place more complex to moderate and will cause more friction in the long run especially with newer users.

Surely sending one PM on the few occasions when such an event arises (and its not something that happens that often, surely) is less work and hassle than dealing with a sh*tstorm whipped up by an irate poster on Helpdesk?

IMO the best authority figures in real life and indeed on internet forums are the ones that employ a common sense approach to such matters and see rules not in black and white, but guidelines to be applied when justified, not ALWAYS full-stop.

meditraitor

mike65 wrote: »

Suit yourself meditraitor. I'm not a mad fan as they are not "user freindly" but in the absence of a dedicated sub-forum its the best we'll get.

What do you think of reasoning behind not having sub-forums?
*The loss of traffic from the main site
I dont think it would be that bad but then I would only be guessing.


I just think the soccer forum would be a lot better without those super threads, apart from that I think they are run well (mods do a great job for the most part) and I have always liked sniffing around.

meditraitor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

1. there has already been.
2. Came out in favour of the the superthreads (thats why we still have them 3/4/5 years later)
3. You have already stated they are 'mostly hated', so it is on you to back up what you have said with evidence already available.

Link?

daithijjj

meditraitor wrote: »

And because they reply they are actually following them? they are forced to post in there....... "Im closing this thread, use the super thread please" mod notes get the point across.
I could up my post count with a 100 one line replies in a week on them but its not really of any interest to me....


They are aweful and for the most part hated...........

Surely the reason that threads are closed and people are asked to post in superthreads is because they are trivial threads?.

I dont see the point in more stickies, perhaps for match threads yes because they have short life spans. I also dont want what would basically mean a page of stickies and an 'aertel page' of todays news.

I dont think you are correct in saying superthreads are mostly hated, forum users voted on it last year and it remained as is.

Iago

flahavaj wrote: »

A quite easy around the whole HS "lazy bum" situation and other such misunderstandings is to have a quiet word with the so-called "victim" in the banter. If they're OK with what wa said and can confirm that it was all harmless fun between people who are familiar with each other, then surely an infraction is totally unnecessay.

From the mods' POV, surely sending one simple PM to the person on the receeving end of the banter is an easier way to deal with it than having to explain yourself in the endless Helpdesk and feedback threads that inevitably follow by simply infracting based on blindly treating all rules as black and white cases with no room for flexibility?

There have been 50 reported posts from this forum over the course of the last week. If I was being generous I'd estimate that this number is around 50/60% of what we would get on any given week during the season.

While sending 1 simple PM would be an easier way, having to send 100+ simple PMs a week, every week would be far from easy to be honest.

I'm not against looking at banter and what is or isn't allowed, but I don't think sending PMs to work out if someone was offended or not is the way forward. Not to mention that in the majority of cases the offence is aimed at a club rather than a poster and just because that poster is ok with it doesn't mean the majority of that clubs supporters are ok with it.

gandalf

Mitch Connor wrote: »

If you are going to infract people and push them towards a 6 month ban from the forum, the least you can do is check to see if there is actually a good reason for the infraction in the first place.

Well if its written on your screen and its against the charter then you shouldn't need to hand hold people.

I mean how many people got the 6 month ban? 10, 20, 30 or was it just a handful. If its only a hand full then I have no idea why every one is getting worked up about them.

mike65

meditraitor wrote: »

What do you think of reasoning behind not having sub-forums?
*The loss of traffic from the main site
I dont think it would be that bad but then I would only be guessing.

The admins are dead set against, I've raised the issue in all seriousness twice
in the past and been firmly shot down. Cliquishness, loss of traffic the two main reasons put forward I think.

Ush1

flahavaj wrote: »

A quite easy around the whole HS "lazy bum" situation and other such misunderstandings is to have a quiet word with the so-called "victim" in the banter. If they're OK with what wa said and can confirm that it was all harmless fun between people who are familiar with each other, then surely an infraction is totally unnecessay.

From the mods' POV, surely sending one simple PM to the person on the receeving end of the banter is an easier way to deal with it than having to explain yourself in the endless Helpdesk and feedback threads that inevitably follow by simply infracting based on blindly treating all rules as black and white cases with no room for flexibility?

Surely down to the people involved, the infracted and the "victim". Not down to the moderator to know what's banter and what isn't.

I'd imagine they are busy enough without having to send more PM's for that kind of thing.

meditraitor

daithijjj wrote: »

I dont think you are correct in saying superthreads are mostly hated, forum users voted on it last year and it remained as is.

I never seen this vote, your the second person who has said this today, If there was and I'm wrong then so be it..... Can you link it for me?

pickarooney

How about a banterdome sub-forum where thicker-skinned posters can engage in friendly ribbing without the hypersensitive toy-chuckers and trigger-happy mods getting all pissy and ban-happy?

It could be on a separate access list so the cry-babies don't have to be subjected to their favourite superstar being called a bit of a pranny with automatic removal at the first sign of a hissry-fit?

Mitch Connor

gandalf wrote: »

Well if its written on your screen and its against the charter then you shouldn't need to hand hold people.

I mean how many people got the 6 month ban? 10, 20, 30 or was it just a handful. If its only a hand full then I have no idea why every one is getting worked up about them.

Because of the specifics involved.

One poster got warned by a mod (situation dealt with) and then infracted for the same thing by a different mod. That is not one.

Same poster got infracted for calling a guy he banters with regularly a 'LAZY BUM in terms of 'stop being a lazy bum and use google yourself!' or something very similar. That is not personal abuse in my book, and certainly not worthy of an infraction, which lead to a 6month ban.

The exact same could have happened to me because it would simply not have occured to me that 'lazy bum' could result in such a hefty punishment. If I call someone a silly billy will i get a yellow? If i call him a negitive nelly will I get a yellow? Who is to know with the way certain mods behave.

Mitch Connor

pickarooney wrote: »

How about a banterdome sub-forum where thicker-skinned posters can engage in friendly ribbing without the hypersensitive toy-chuckers and trigger-happy mods getting all pissy and ban-happy?

It could be on a separate access list so the cry-babies don't have to be subjected to their favourite superstar being called a bit of a pranny with automatic removal at the first sign of a hissry-fit?

That would take away from banter and lead to more personal insults disguised as banter.

Banter should (if it is indeed banter) occur naturally between posters in flowing conversation.

gandalf

flahavaj wrote: »

Surely sending one PM on the few occasions when such an event arises (and its not something that happens that often, surely) is less work and hassle than dealing with a sh*tstorm whipped up by an irate poster on Helpdesk?

On a high volume forum like Soccer it wouldn't be on occasion. If a contentious issue happens like lets say one that happened when I modded here, the infamous Roy Keane in Saipan issue then you could be flooded with reported posts and people stepping over the line. Now are you honestly suggesting that the moderators here investigate with everyone if they were slighted by every reported comment?

The Charter is there for a reason and people should be expected to stay within it. If they don't they get infracted or in my day banned.

IMO the best authority figures in real life and indeed on internet forums are the ones that employ a common sense approach to such matters and see rules not in black and white, but guidelines to be applied when justified, not ALWAYS full-stop.

Well that nice and fluffy but from my experience moderating on boards I know that things have to be kept as simple as possible. On a forum with less traffic then that is workable on one as big as soccer is and one that especially can attract quite emotive opinions its better to have a set of guidelines where people understand the boundries rather than one that is fluffy and depends on User A's relationship with User B for the response of the Moderator.

Ush1

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Because of the specifics involved.

One poster got warned by a mod (situation dealt with) and then infracted for the same thing by a different mod. That is not one.

Same poster got infracted for calling a guy he banters with regularly a 'LAZY BUM in terms of 'stop being a lazy bum and use google yourself!' or something very similar. That is not personal abuse in my book, and certainly not worthy of an infraction, which lead to a 6month ban.

The exact same could have happened to me because it would simply not have occured to me that 'lazy bum' could result in such a hefty punishment. If I call someone a silly billy will i get a yellow? If i call him a negitive nelly will I get a yellow? Who is to know with the way certain mods behave.

So you're talking about specifics. You're talking about a 6th infraction here, that's what led to a ban, not one about banter, 6.

Mitch Connor

gandalf wrote: »

On a high volume forum like Soccer it wouldn't be on occasion. If a contentious issue happens like lets say one that happened when I modded here, the infamous Roy Keane in Saipan issue then you could be flooded with reported posts and people stepping over the line. Now are you honestly suggesting that the moderators here investigate with everyone if they were slighted by every reported comment?

This is why you deal with things on a case by case basis and not a one size fits all rule book.

Roy Keane Saipan issue was a biggie and would have caused ruptions I am sure (I wasn't here at the time). In a similar situation now I would expect that there would be one thread to cover the issue and it would be strictly modded - and noted as such with a mod warning. Anyone stepping over the line then is an idiot and deserves their punishment.

However, in more light hearted debates and discussions that occur far more regularly that the above scenario, a more light handed and common sense approach can be used and should be used.

The charter should be there as a guide, but it should not be used as a stick to beat people with over trivial matters when people are getting on fine and just having a bit of fun.

K-9

Mitch Connor wrote: »

If you are going to infract people and push them towards a 6 month ban from the forum, the least you can do is check to see if there is actually a good reason for the infraction in the first place.

The time to bring it up is when the yellow card is issued, not months later.

Mitch Connor

Ush1 wrote: »

So you're talking about specifics. You're talking about a 6th infraction here, that's what led to a ban, not one about banter, 6.

That was one of the 6. Others were questionable too. Even if you just take this one instance, it is still an infraction that I feel should not have been handed out and shows that the system is flawed cast in stone state.

I know in other cases (not made as public as HS's so I won't do so now either) that it has been felt that a mod has been overly strict and harsh.

If you think infractions are consistent and completely predictable then so be it, i disagree. Just remember to be carefull about call people negative nellys, silly billys or anything like that, cause you could be taking a long break.

flahavaj

Iago wrote: »

There have been 50 reported posts from this forum over the course of the last week. If I was being generous I'd estimate that this number is around 50/60% of what we would get on any given week during the season.

While sending 1 simple PM would be an easier way, having to send 100+ simple PMs a week, every week would be far from easy to be honest.

I'm not against looking at banter and what is or isn't allowed, but I don't think sending PMs to work out if someone was offended or not is the way forward. Not to mention that in the majority of cases the offence is aimed at a club rather than a poster and just because that poster is ok with it doesn't mean the majority of that clubs supporters are ok with it.

Obviously you being a mod and someone who experiences this kinda stuff on a daily basis I bow to your first hand knowledge on the topic.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying people need be PM'd in every case of abuse that occurs. Stuff like "John Terry is a c*nt" or telling someone to f*ck off is pretty cut and dried. But in certain circumstances such as the HS case (which in fairness was very very harsh) when the banter is of a particularly trvial nature surely a bit of common sense could be applied?

daithijjj

meditraitor wrote: »

I never seen this vote, your the second person who has said this today, If there was and I'm wrong then so be it..... Can you link it for me?

I cant find a link to the thread, it was this time last year. Could very well have been deleted after the results, maybe a mod could pull it up, i dunno.

This thread right here is basically a mirror image of what was voted on last year regarding the superthreads.

Ush1

Mitch Connor wrote: »

That was one of the 6. Others were questionable too. Even if you just take this one instance, it is still an infraction that I feel should not have been handed out and shows that the system is flawed cast in stone state.

I know in other cases (not made as public as HS's so I won't do so now either) that it has been felt that a mod has been overly strict and harsh.

If you think infractions are consistent and completely predictable then so be it, i disagree. Just remember to be carefull about call people negative nellys, silly billys or anything like that, cause you could be taking a long break.

I think a 6 month ban for 6 infractions is fair yes. I think if I had 4 or 5, I wouldn't be calling people silly billys or anything else.

Iago

daithijjj wrote: »

I cant find a link to the thread, it was this time last year. Could very well have been deleted after the results, maybe a mod could pull it up, i dunno.

This thread right here is basically a mirror image of what was voted on last year regarding the superthreads.

2009 Review Thread [thread=2055609913]Click Here[/thread]


How's our driving Moderation Review thread 2009 [thread=2055732327]Click Here[/thread]

13% Moderation Should be harsher
34% Moderation Just Right
53% Moderation should be more relaxed

following the above the "Yellow Card = 1 Week Ban" was revoked


Superthreads Poll 2007 [thread=2055125684]Click Here[/thread]

87 for 75 against 4 No opinion


Subforums poll 2008 [thread=2055312015]Click Here[/thread]

98 No 44 yes

Subforums for superthreads Poll 2010 [thread=2055835310]Click Here[/thread]

113 No 102 Yes

Mr. Presentable

Mitch Connor wrote: »

If you are going to infract people and push them towards a 6 month ban from the forum, the least you can do is check to see if there is actually a good reason for the infraction in the first place.

In the case you mention, was it not his 7th infraction in a short period of time? The problem is not with the mod who applied the final infraction and ban, but with the poster, and, possibly you could argue, with the mod who applied the sixth and didn't ban him.

I've had infractions and warnings and bans from soccer, but I'd have to be a total mentalist to accrue 7 warnings in what, six months?

If I take on board my warnings I should be able to up my game and stay out of trouble. If I don't, then I deserve what I get.

ntlbell

Ush1 wrote: »

I think a 6 month ban for 6 infractions is fair yes. I think if I had 4 or 5, I wouldn't be calling people silly billys or anything else.

6 month ban for 6 infractions is pretty damn leniant imho.

The problem occurs when infractions start to be handed out willy nilly for things like calling someone a "silly billy" it's a non event.

It's all about consitencey and the extreme lack of it is causing a problem.

All in all I think the forum is being run very well now but there are always going to be issues no matter what is done. As has been mentioned modding needs to be more consistent, there have been so many incidents over this year and since I have posted here that show different mods treating situations differently along with some mods going over other's heads with an issue. That shouldn't happen.

In general though I don't think I've ever seen the forum running as well.

pickarooney

How about a very simple guideline - if a poster does not report a post it's taken as read that he is not offended by the banter therein and nothing is done about it.

Now, I know this is a bit like players card-waving and the ref reacting favourably to it, and Christ knows I'm no fan of that, but I can't see how it doesn't make sense once the analogy is looked past.

Mars Bar

meditraitor wrote: »

I never seen this vote, your the second person who has said this today, If there was and I'm wrong then so be it..... Can you link it for me?

The people spoke.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055835310&highlight=fora+super+threads

mike65

pickarooney wrote: »

How about a very simple guideline - if a poster does not report a post it's taken as read that he is not offended by the banter therein and nothing is done about it.

Have to agree with this, its one thing for a member to be offended, its quite another for a mod to take offence on their behalf. Some common sense and a concept of "natural justice" is required. If its not reported and is not willfully abusive leave it alone.

K-9

pickarooney wrote: »

How about a very simple guideline - if a poster does not report a post it's taken as read that he is not offended by the banter therein and nothing is done about it.

Now, I know this is a bit like players card-waving and the ref reacting favourably to it, and Christ knows I'm no fan of that, but I can't see how it doesn't make sense once the analogy is looked past.

Fair point. Sometimes things are said in the heat of the moment and if it's a decent poster, forgotten about the next day.

meditraitor

mars bar wrote: »

The people spoke.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055835310&highlight=fora+super+threads

I wasnt saying I wanted a subforum for the superthreads, i was saying get rid of them altogether, read the post.



The last poll was 3 years ago with 166 voters, the supethreads have gone dramatically downhill/clogged up since then.

Funnily enough I can remeber that poll,

meditraitor

pickarooney wrote: »

How about a very simple guideline - if a poster does not report a post it's taken as read that he is not offended by the banter therein and nothing is done about it.

Now, I know this is a bit like players card-waving and the ref reacting favourably to it, and Christ knows I'm no fan of that, but I can't see how it doesn't make sense once the analogy is looked past.

One of the best suggestions I've seen in a long time......

eZe^

Daysha wrote: »

On a side note, I'm also not a fan of the "mod warning #426, 683" etc in the thread title. No sane poster is going to specifically pick out one post out of thousands just to read a warning that may not even apply to them. It's just as easy for a mod to edit the warning into the OP but it makes it ten times easier for the rest of us to access them.

Why not say "mod note last edited "insert date here" in the title? That way when the warning or note is updated all people have to do is click on the thread and the most recent mod warning will be there waiting for them at the top of the page in the first post. I know most people have a tendency to click on "last page" instead but this mechanism means one extra click, not the 20+ needed for the warnings lost in a sea of superthread posts.

That's a fair enough criticism, and I think it's an avenue worth discussing with the mods.

Jazzy

force novelty trolls to not be able to post in the teams thread they enjoy trolling in

redout

pickarooney wrote: »

How about a very simple guideline - if a poster does not report a post it's taken as read that he is not offended by the banter therein and nothing is done about it.

Now, I know this is a bit like players card-waving and the ref reacting favourably to it, and Christ knows I'm no fan of that, but I can't see how it doesn't make sense once the analogy is looked past.

I cant agree with this - you are putting the onus solely on the victim.

No way that should ever be the case - it also takes away from a mods powers in some respect.

The Muppet

gandalf wrote: »

On a high volume forum like Soccer it wouldn't be on occasion. If a contentious issue happens like lets say one that happened when I modded here, the infamous Roy Keane in Saipan issue then you could be flooded with reported posts and people stepping over the line. Now are you honestly suggesting that the moderators here investigate with everyone if they were slighted by every reported comment?

The Charter is there for a reason and people should be expected to stay within it. If they don't they get infracted or in my day banned.



Well that nice and fluffy but from my experience moderating on boards I know that things have to be kept as simple as possible. On a forum with less traffic then that is workable on one as big as soccer is and one that especially can attract quite emotive opinions its better to have a set of guidelines where people understand the boundries rather than one that is fluffy and depends on User A's relationship with User B for the response of the Moderator.

A bit of common sense goes a long way. There is no need to make more work for the mods to handle incidents like the one we're discussing. If I call you a bum and you're not offended enough to report the post I don't understand why anyone else should be. Therfore such comments/reports need not be acted opon unless the target reports the post. Theres no extra work for anyone in that.

eagle eye

Can I ask the mods here what they would do with these two posts? A guy posted a couple of times in a match thread and fans of the team he said things about were responding to it. It was quite clear the guy was up to no good. These are two separate posts by separate individuals.

I don't understand for the life of me how there have been so many replies to such stupid comments. As soon as I read his first post, I immediately thought to myself this has to be a troll. I checked some more of his posts and immediately clicked his name and placed him on ignore.
If you feel you are going to be drawn into defending somebody whose record speaks for itself, then I advise you do the same. There is enough rubbish on this forum without this utter nonsense.

Dub13

Posting this from the train so not fully up to date i am only on post 100.Anyway I just got this from des.

Des wrote:

Here's my contribution to this thread.

Obviously enough, I can't post because I'm on a six-stretch. So thanks to the mods for allowing banned users the opportunity to actually contribute here.

Now, six months is a long time, but all of my infractions were warranted, and I'm not going to talk about other specific incidents.

I don't expect special treatment because of;

my post count
my sign-up date
I consider some of the mods to be mates of mine. And I'm sure they do me.



However, I do think that there is vast, vast inconsistency in the moderation of this forum. That means there isn't proper communication between the moderators, and as we have seen in recent events, that would definitely seem to be the case. I'm not privy to the Soccer Mod Forum, but I'd warrant that it works something like the Rugby Mods Forum, which I had access to when I was modding there. If a mod puts a warning in a thread, he should say that in the Mod Forum. If another mod comes along and then goes a step over a simple warning, then something needs to be asked. Does that mod think he's "better" or "senior" to the others? Do the others think he has more seniority? We are told time and again that this isn't the case, but it seems to be that it is, it needs to either stop, or everyone needs to be up front about it. Before an infraction is handed out, the mods should take a minute to check in the Mod Forum to see if any other Mod has taken any action previously. In some cases it seems there is a "infract now, think later" atmosphere, it shouldn't be like that, especially as a yellow card is 1/6 of a six month ban.

I think that "Mod Warning Post#XXXX" in the thread is not a good way to carry out that particular aspect either. In Rugby we'd edit the warning into the first post with a link to the actual post with the warning, so everyone can see it with just one click. It's not extra work, and it makes things clearer, especially in fast moving/high post count threads. There's no way I'm trawling back through a thread with hundreds of posts just to read a warning.

I don't agree with splitting the forum up, in any form. People who are complaining about threads falling off the main page, well, it's not really an effort to click onto Page 2 or 3, especially with tabbed browsers, I don't understand the problem there.

Low-level trolling. The 6 Yellow Card system was meant to put a stop to this, but it hasn't, so it's not working. There are people who troll within the rules, and nothing is ever done. I've seen many, many reported posts, and I know that the mods can't do anything about them. Believe me, we've the same problem in Rugby. It's the sneaky feckers who rile people up, but stick within the rules are the actual problem, and not people who lose the rag from time to time and tell someone to fúck off. A troll is someone who posts for a reaction, but won't back up their position. We can't force people to post, but we can stop them from posting in this manner.

Now, certain people hold opinions that go against popular opinion. That's fine, and it's why we love football. It doesn't make them a troll though, not if they consistently post their opinion, and at least try to back it up with facts and figures.

"Manager X is crap" is different to "Manager X is crap because of A, B, C" and some people need to understand that, the mods also need to understand that in the first example it makes people angry. Especially if that same poster also posts "Player Y is crap" "Player Z is crap" and then just fecks off and laughs at everyone. Stop being so "nicey nice" to these trolls. Get rid of them. It's obvious they are on the wind up. No six-yellows, no second warning. Just tell them to change their posting style, and if they don't then they are gone. It's easy. If someone posts against the grain, that's life, but if they are making the effort to show how their opinion is a valid one, then fair enough.

People who can't take criticism of "their" team/players/manager. Seriously, they are worse than trolls, in my opinion. There should be no cotton wool around here. If you can't take a bit of criticism then you probably shouldn't be on the internet. If a player has a bad game, then it should be pointed out. Instead, people get all wah-wah-wah, troll-troll-troll. Grow a pair. Players have bad games, bad patches, get into a bad run of form, it doesn't make you less of a fan to recognise that, it doesn't make you some kind of super-fan to blindly dismiss anyone who points it out either. It makes you a sad fan-boi actually.

People gloating. OH NOES! My team lost, someone is gloating. Again, it's football. It's about the gloating sometimes. sore winners are worse than sore losers, absolutely, but still, it's funny when "them over there" lose/get a man sent off/manager loses it. It's great when a loss for the rivals puts them into the shít. Of course it is. People need to man-up and realise that too and stop running to the mods, card in hand, screaming for "justice".

There seems to be no "common sense" among the moderators, everything is either against the charter, or not. It shouldn't be that way. I hate the word "banter", but it exists. Do I expect the mods to know every personal relationship among the users? Nope, but the ones they do know about, they should make allowances for. If they DON'T know about it, but are later informed about it, then that should be good enough.

Melion

pickarooney wrote: »

How about a very simple guideline - if a poster does not report a post it's taken as read that he is not offended by the banter therein and nothing is done about it.

Now, I know this is a bit like players card-waving and the ref reacting favourably to it, and Christ knows I'm no fan of that, but I can't see how it doesn't make sense once the analogy is looked past.

Absolutely great idea. I have no problem with someone calling me a prick etc, i dont want mods taking offence for me. Its a football forum, things get heated, just like they do when discussing football in the real world.

Some of the moderation here is a joke tbh, i got 2 warnings in the Uruguay - Ghana thread last week, neither warrented it IMO.

eagle eye

Excellent post from Des, fully agree with everything he says there.