Soccer Forum Annual Review Thread

Lamper.sffc

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.

Well said DES

Couldnt have put it better myself. This is one of the biggest problems in here. I know it can be hard for mods to pick up on this but if you read and post in here often then it becomes quite clear who these people are. So, it should be obvious to some of the mods who these people are aswell.
It can get quite frustrating when certain posters consistently thread spoil and nothing is done about them because they stayed (just about) within the rules.

L'prof

Xavi6 wrote: »

So someone can run up six infractions, head off for a month then come back and do the same again.

Why are people asking for leniency here? These people have obviously disrupted the forum in some shape or form. Don't do the crime and all that.

There's enough hand holding that goes on and posters need to be accountable for breaching the charter. It's there for a reason.

Can somebody give me a link to the rules on infractions.

Is it the case that if you build up 6, no matter how long the gap between the first and the sixth, you get a 6 month ban?

Agree 100% with Des here

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.

We've a load of it going on the LFC thread constantly and next to nothing being done about it.

Also, when are yellow cards wiped? At the beginning of the season or the beginning of the year?

Or are they wiped at all?

Handsome Bob

Dub13 wrote: »

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

Response to Des:

I don't think anyone has a problem with criticism of their own team along as it's backed up. If people do get indignant it's more likely down to either what you identified as low level trolling or an antagonising attitude. Some people can have very good points but have an awful way of wording their posts (or they are purposely wording it in a way to piss people off).

I don't know, maybe that makes me someone who has to "man up", however I don't think I'm too sensitive when it comes to the club I support. I've never been afraid to voice my opinion in our superthread and going against some popular opinions.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

rarnes1 wrote: »

Also, when are yellow cards wiped? At the beginning of the season or the beginning of the year?

Or are they wiped at all?

End/Beginning of Premiership season.

CR 7

I think there's a potential problem with action only being taken if the 'victim' reports a post.The person reported will know who reported them. It might mean people are less reluctant to report posts.

The Muppet

Park Ji Sung wrote: »

I think there's a potential problem with action only being taken if the 'victim' reports a post.The person reported will know who reported them. It might mean people are less reluctant to report posts.

I don't see any problem with someone knowing I reported one of their posts, particulaly if it contains personal abuse aimed at me. Likewise If I posted something at someone thinking it would be taken in good spirit and it wasn't I'd like to know so I wouldn't do it again.

KittyeeTrix

Park Ji Sung wrote: »

I think there's a potential problem with action only being taken if the 'victim' reports a post.The person reported will know who reported them. It might mean people are less reluctant to report posts.

Good point here:)

Boskowski

I think people should just man up a bit.

The subject here is football and we are football supporters and what football team we support is more or less arbitrary. It's whatever team your older brother supported when you were five or whatever team you were watching on telly first or whatever player you liked when you were a kid.
And really we're doing it for a bit fun, to get that feeling we're belonging to some group, to distinguish ourselves, to measure ourselves against others - even if only through representatives-, to be part of something that is not as boring as your employer.
But it's not real, it's got nothing to with 9 to 5, it's staged, it's a fantasy world, a bit of an escape, it doesn't really mean anything in the real world. And what we're discussing has no real significance either. Nobody gives a sh1t who we think they should buy in the transfer window or what we believe of the 4-2-1-2-1 system.
With all that in mind we should just man up a bit and don't take it so fkn seriously. We're grown ups, we're not 10 anymore and we should be able to take it all with a pinch of salt. And if someone calls your favourite player a useless prick or your team a shower of cvnts then have a smile and maybe a bit of a (civilized) retort, but you shouldn't be running to mammy telling him and scream murder and in general act as if someone called your grandma a whore in front of the mayor.

Mars Bar

The Muppet wrote: »

I don't see any problem with someone knowing I reported one of their posts, particulaly if it contains personal abuse aimed at me. Likewise If I posted something at someone thinking it would be taken in good spirit and it wasn't I'd like to know so I wouldn't do it again.

Agree with this and the whole of Des' post.

It takes something special to make my blood boil and I rarely get proper pissed off on the 'net but trolling with pure ignorance is one that really gets me going.

As for someone getting an infraction for calling someone "a lazy bum", well it's silly.

Anyway, I don't need to go into a long rigmarole about it coz ye lads are doing it well enough as it is! Really interesting read this whole thread is...

3hn2givr7mx1sc

mars bar wrote: »

Agree with this and the whole of Des' post.

It takes something special to make my blood boil and I rarely get proper pissed off on the 'net but trolling with pure ignorance is one that really gets me going.

As for someone getting an infraction for calling someone "a lazy bum", well it's silly.

Anyway, I don't need to go into a long rigmarole about it coz ye lads are doing it well enough as it is! Really interesting read this whole thread is...

We'd have never guessed.:P

Diabhal Beag

I think there are some great suggestions in here. Especially from MNG. But for all the grief they get I think the mods do a great job.

A user can make a passionate argument without racking up 6 yellow cards. Just my 2 cents .

astrofool

Agree with Des on the low level trolling, there's a few people around who do this, and it's really obvious when they do it, and it always gets a few people to respond and get themselves banned.

On the modding

Seems to be mostly grand. I'd be concerned over the frivolous bannings over the last couple of weeks, they should have been rescinded and apologised for. T4TF seems to be letting things get a bit too personal, whether that's the amount of time he's been modding for, or another reason, I don't know. It's worse when the other mods circle around to protect each other when calling someone a "lazy bum" is not an infraction offence.

On the structure

I really don't like the idea of club forums, but the superthreads are an abomination. Instead of going down the club route, we should go down the league route. A World Cup/International forum would have been fantastic over the last month, and kept the day to day ruminatings from whiskeynose and Woy from taking centre stage over Klose getting close to the all time record, Brazil/Argie/Italy/France going out early etc.

We should have an LOI forum. It stops arguments over "Football this weekend" and lets the non barstoolers have their own forum to grow and attract new members. It also allows for discussion on the footballers of this division, in the same way C. Ronalodo, or Leiva might get their own threads.

Just doing this should free up more space in the Soccer forum front page, and maybe less content will need to go into "superthreads" as a result.

On the Spurs forum

It should either be made fully private, or be brought under the same rules and regulations as the rest of Soccer, it's existance is a slap in the face to all pool and manu supporters who want their own forum, and is an existing double standard on boards.ie.

Dav promised he'd look into this a few months ago, but I've seen/heard nothing.

eagle eye

I posted something today at 5.20pm and asked the mods to have a look at it and give their replies. Not one of them has answered some 4 1/2 hours later. I'd be shocked of none of them were on and haven't seen the post.

I need an answer to this please.

missingtime

I myself would love a soccer forum ranting and raving section but it would be nigh on impossible to mod.

Sigh.....

EDIT: Keep up the good work Mods

SlickRic

eagle eye wrote: »

I posted something today at 5.20pm and asked the mods to have a look at it and give their replies. Not one of them has answered some 4 1/2 hours later. I'd be shocked of none of them were on and haven't seen the post.

I need an answer to this please.

why would you be shocked? even if we have boards on in the background, we could miss it, or just be busy with other things meaning we don't have the time to answer you properly.

now, i'm still learning the ropes you'll understand.

but my instinct on those two posts is that the poster who posted them should be infracted for back-seat modding and/or taking the thread off-topic. that poster is doing nobody any favours by publically calling someone a troll.

i would expect those posts to be reported, and then we'd deal with them, and the poster accordingly, probably with an infraction; as i say, for back seat modding, and taking the thread off topic.

the poster could even PM one of us telling us your suspicions on a poster instead of doing it publically on-forum.

i'm guessing the purpose of your post is to illustrate the problem that Des pointed out in his post, in terms of 'low level trolling'...??

ilovelamp2000

Des is spot on.

He should be a mod here.

eagle eye

SlickRic wrote: »

why would you be shocked? even if we have boards on in the background, we could miss it, or just be busy with other things meaning we don't have the time to answer you properly.

now, i'm still learning the ropes you'll understand.

but my instinct on those two posts is that the poster who posted them should be infracted for back-seat modding and/or taking the thread off-topic. that poster is doing nobody any favours by publically calling someone a troll.

i would expect those posts to be reported, and then we'd deal with them, and the poster accordingly, probably with an infraction; as i say, for back seat modding, and taking the thread off topic.

the poster could even PM one of us telling us your suspicions on a poster instead of doing it publically on-forum.

i'm guessing the purpose of your post is to illustrate the problem that Des pointed out in his post, in terms of 'low level trolling'...??

Thanks for the reply. There are two reasons I pointed this out. The first part is the low level trolling where a guy comes on giving out yards about a manager calling him useless and a waste of space but not actually giving any good reasons.
The second reason is that one of those posts received an infraction and the other one didn't. I got infracted for the text post but the image post which was just two posts above mine got no infraction. This shows a lack of consistency and will lead to people thinking they are being treated unfairly. It was T4TF that infracted me and it might be the reason he is getting such a hard time from a certain section on here. Is it possible that he is infracting some and missing others in the same thread? Would you accept that this would lead people to believe that they are being singled out for special attention?

On the incident in question I actually never called any specific person a troll, I never mentioned anybodys name in fact. And really my only intention was to show others that ignore is an option if they feel agrieved.

I personally don't hold any grudge over this but its important to point it out. I was unwilling to point it out at the time because I don't want to get others in bother.

OPENROAD

eagle eye wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. There are two reasons I pointed this out. The first part is the low level trolling where a guy comes on giving out yards about a manager calling him useless and a waste of space but not actually giving any good reasons.
The second reason is that one of those posts received an infraction and the other one didn't. I got infracted for the text post but the image post which was just two posts above mine got no infraction. This shows a lack of consistency and will lead to people thinking they are being treated unfairly. It was T4TF that infracted me and it might be the reason he is getting such a hard time from a certain section on here. Is it possible that he is infracting some and missing others in the same thread? Would you accept that this would lead people to believe that they are being singled out for special attention?

On the incident in question I actually never called any specific person a troll, I never mentioned anybodys name in fact. And really my only intention was to show others that ignore is an option if they feel agrieved.

I personally don't hold any grudge over this but its important to point it out. I was unwilling to point it out at the time because I don't want to get others in bother.

I think you raise a good point here, with regards consistency of rules and what actually defines trolling, as one persons trolling is another persons banter etc.. So what exactly is the difference between trolling and banter?

Also after the French match people had signatures with Henry is a cheat etc.... this seemed to be acceptable and didn't seem to carry any infractions, it seemed to be accepted as feelings were running high, yet I'm not too sure this would be acceptable by the mods during a premiership match. Whats the difference?

SlickRic

eagle eye wrote: »

I personally don't hold any grudge over this but its important to point it out. I was unwilling to point it out at the time because I don't want to get others in bother.

no worries.

all i can say is, i would have probably argued to infract both.

maybe it was just a mistake? i honestly can't answer that at all.

you'll understand i don't want to comment further on other mods' decisions, especially for posts made at a time when i wasn't a mod.

flahavaj

What always makes me laugh about threads such as these are the dozens of posters that complain about trolling and how awful it is.

And then the next time an obvious troll posts in a thread, what do they do? React to the obvious bait, get into a 2-3 page debate with said troll and ultimately give the troll exactly what their looking for: attention and a platform to further annoy people.

There's f*ck all the mods can do about a clever troll who can quite easily wind people up but stay within the rules. Its up to posters to have the self control to simply not rise to the bait and not feed them.

No one taking the bait = No one to troll => Troll gets bored and ultimately stops/goes back under his bridge.

Simples.

I should know: I have no bother admitting that for quite some time back in my earlier days on this board my sole reason for posting was to get a rise out of people.:pac:

eagle eye

SlickRic wrote: »

no worries.

all i can say is, i would have probably argued to infract both.

maybe it was just a mistake? i honestly can't answer that at all.

you'll understand i don't want to comment further on other mods' decisions, especially for posts made at a time when i wasn't a mod.

Yep thats fair enough. I'm only pointing it out in the interests of maybe improving things.

Columbia

The application of yellow cards on the forum is a little inconsistent. I received one three months ago for using an abusive term in relation to another club, it was the correct decision and I was definitely in the wrong. However, I've seen the same term being thrown around a number of times in relation to different clubs and individual players, with no action being taken.

How can we expect the referees to show consistency when even our own mods can't do it!?? :pac:

pickarooney

flahavaj wrote: »

What always makes me laugh about threads such as these are the dozens of posters that complain about trolling and how awful it is.

And then the next time an obvious troll posts in a thread, what do they do? React to the obvious bait, get into a 2-3 page debate with said troll and ultimately give the troll exactly what their looking for: attention and a platform to further annoy people.

There's f*ck all the mods can do about a clever troll who can quite easily wind people up but stay within the rules. Its up to posters to have the self control to simply not rise to the bait and not feed them.

No one taking the bait = No one to troll => Troll gets bored and ultimately stops/goes back under his bridge.

Simples.

I should know: I have no bother admitting that for quite some time back in my earlier days on this board my sole reason for posting was to get a rise out of people.:pac:

Dead on. Anyone that both recognises and responds to a troll is a clinical idiot, IMO and should be banned from the forum for his own safety. It's like jumping in a bear-trap and then complaining that there was a bear-trap.
Oh, except nobody gets hurt.

RasTa

Columbia wrote: »

How can we expect the referees to show consistency when even our own mods can't do it!?? :pac:

Em, video technology?

OPENROAD

flahavaj wrote: »

What always makes me laugh about threads such as these are the dozens of posters that complain about trolling and how awful it is.

And then the next time an obvious troll posts in a thread, what do they do? React to the obvious bait, get into a 2-3 page debate with said troll and ultimately give the troll exactly what their looking for: attention and a platform to further annoy people.

There's f*ck all the mods can do about a clever troll who can quite easily wind people up but stay within the rules. Its up to posters to have the self control to simply not rise to the bait and not feed them.

No one taking the bait = No one to troll => Troll gets bored and ultimately stops/goes back under his bridge.

Simples.

I think people are too sensitive when it comes to trolling imo, being a football supporter includes enjoying banter, feelings can run high during a match and you might say something about a manager/player/team, this is then viewed by some as trolling and could well be reported which is foolish imo, I dread to think what the mods are faced with, posters have posted many a comment on here against my team which at the time can make you :mad: but I have never nor would I ever report a post unless it was racially offensive.

OPENROAD

Columbia wrote: »

The application of yellow cards on the forum is a little inconsistent. I received one three months ago for using an abusive term in relation to another club, it was the correct decision and I was definitely in the wrong. However, I've seen the same term being thrown around a number of times in relation to different clubs and individual players, with no action being taken.

How can we expect the referees to show consistency when even our own mods can't do it!?? :pac:

+1

eagle eye

pickarooney wrote: »

Dead on. Anyone that both recognises and responds to a troll is a clinical idiot, IMO and should be banned from the forum for his own safety. It's like jumping in a bear-trap and then complaining that there was a bear-trap.
Oh, except nobody gets hurt.

Problem is that in match threads the fans can be a little heated especially in a close game with a bitter rival team. A troll coming in and setting things off there is likely to have success as some guys are just a bit hyper at the time and react without thinking.

You have to remember that with the bigger clubs there will be a lot of people online when they are watching a game. Its only takes one or two that are a bit off colour on the day to start a mess. The troll is ultimately responsible for this and we all know who those guys are.

missingtime

flahavaj wrote: »

What always makes me laugh about threads such as these are the dozens of posters that complain about trolling and how awful it is.

And then the next time an obvious troll posts in a thread, what do they do? React to the obvious bait, get into a 2-3 page debate with said troll and ultimately give the troll exactly what their looking for: attention and a platform to further annoy people.

This is an extremely valid point. I see it happening day in day out and I cannot for the life of me understand the logic of getting into an argument with someone who is just trying to wind you up. Everyone and their dog can see whats happening!

Just. Dont. Reply.

EDIT: And , as we are in the spirit of improving things, should said poster, who got themselves in a debate with an obvious troll, run of to a mod to complain, then I feel the mod should be given the opportunity to warn the poster about starting stuff they cannot finish.

OPENROAD

eagle eye wrote: »

Problem is that in match threads the fans can be a little heated especially in a close game with a bitter rival team. A troll coming in and setting things off there is likely to have success as some guys are just a bit hyper at the time and react without thinking.

You have to remember that with the bigger clubs there will be a lot of people online when they are watching a game. Its only takes one or two that are a bit off colour on the day to start a mess. The troll is ultimately responsible for this and we all know who those guys are.

But what do you define as trolling in that situation, as you said feelings can run very high in match threads, I have seen people accusing others of trolling but as you say feelings run high particularly if we have a controversial decision.

gandalf

The Muppet wrote: »

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.

But you are ignoring one important point here. People have mentioned inconsistency in moderating decisions. Are you saying that mods shouldn't bother moderating something because its not reported. Then something similar is posted the person its aimed at (or the group of supporters) take offence report it and that person is infracted/banned. They then see that similar post and start a thread about the inconsistencies in the Soccer Forum moderation. I wonder would you then jump into that thread and cry fowl about the cruel Soccer mods then eh

Dub13

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.

This would be great but I think it would cause way more problem's than it would solve.

Its not consistent enough,say you call me a bollocks in a thread and I am fine with it.Some new user thinks this is grand and thinks he has the vibe of the forum and off he goes to call a rival fan a bollocks on a match thread and all hell breaks out,the new user is banned and left feeling short changed as he seen someone else get away with the same comment.

Mr Alan

true, wouldn't work at all-like it real life, its ok for some people (mates etc) to call ya a bollox or some such, however some randomer says it and its abusive, best to just not allow it.

K-9

Dub13 wrote: »

This would be great but I think it would cause way more problem's than it would solve.

Its not consistent enough,say you call me a bollocks in a thread and I am fine with it.Some new user thinks this is grand and thinks he has the vibe of the forum and off he goes to call a rival fan a bollocks on a match thread and all hell breaks out,the new user is banned and left feeling short changed as he seen someone else get away with the same comment.

That's the problem with the point Des and a few others raised. Calling for a recognition of long term posters and banter they may have with other posters, is inconsistent modding.

Long term posters get away with more but as Dub13 pointed out, a Newbie will see the interaction and think it's ok. Then he gets a yellow card basically saying "you aren't allowed call a poster a bo**ix, that's only for regulars that we know were slagging.

In one hand, posters are complaining about inconsistent modding, but arguing for it "because we are regulars".

The problem over abuse is getting a general guideline for what it is.

Personally, calling somebody a lazy bum because they wont google something is fair enough to me.

Mr Alan

the lazy bum thing should never have resulted in an infraction. i wouldn't even class that as abuse, genuinely.

eagle eye

OPENROAD wrote: »

But what do you define as trolling in that situation, as you said feelings can run very high in match threads, I have seen people accusing others of trolling but as you say feelings run high particularly if we have a controversial decision.

Well it can be something simple like lets say Rooney/Gerard/Lampard/Fabregas gets hacked down and the commentators even say its a horrific challenge.

Some guy comes on and says great challenge, or its about time that lad go his comeuppance with all the diving he does.

You have guys who have just watched one of their icons at the butt end of a horrible challenge and are worried if he will be alright and somebody has just insulted the player and lauded the tackler. This can easily set things off and the guy who has raved about the tackle is just lighting the flame 99 times out of 100. Similarly stating that a manager is not fit for the job in a match thread is just not on.

There should be a specific set of rules for match threads imo.

OPENROAD

K-9 wrote: »

That's the problem with the point Des and a few others raised. Calling for a recognition of long term posters and banter they may have with other posters, is inconsistent modding.

Long term posters get away with more but as Dub13 pointed out, a Newbie will see the interaction and think it's ok. Then he gets a yellow card basically saying "you aren't allowed call a poster a bo**ix, that's only for regulars that we know were slagging.

In one hand, posters are complaining about inconsistent modding, but arguing for it "because we are regulars".

The problem over abuse is getting a general guideline for what it is.

Personally, calling somebody a lazy bum because they wont google something is fair enough to me.

Wouldn't use that argument myself as you say new posters would assume it is ok. With regards inconsistent modding it is not just in relation to personal abuse, actually from what I can see its pretty much consistent but from my point of view in terms of trolling, and this is not an attack on mods, as I have said its a job I certainly would not take on, but the whole area of trolling is far too grey at the moment imo.

Dub13

K-9 wrote: »

That's the problem with the point Des and a few others raised. Calling for a recognition of long term posters and banter they may have with other posters, is inconsistent modding.

Thats it,lads try and think of the bigger picture some suggestions here are super but unworkable as this is not a utopia.As the old saying goes 'for every action there is a reaction' and we as mods have to think of this.

eagle eye

K-9 wrote: »

That's the problem with the point Des and a few others raised. Calling for a recognition of long term posters and banter they may have with other posters, is inconsistent modding.

Long term posters get away with more but as Dub13 pointed out, a Newbie will see the interaction and think it's ok. Then he gets a yellow card basically saying "you aren't allowed call a poster a bo**ix, that's only for regulars that we know were slagging.

Is there any way we could have a soccer forum posting count somewhere?

Reason I ask is that you could then tie the infraction system to post counts.

For example a guy with 200 posts in the soccer forum with x amount of infractions will receive a ban while a guy with 1000 posts will have to have a bigger number of infractions to receive the same ban.

This way you can have consistent moderation whilst acknowledging those who post more.

Dub13

eagle eye wrote: »

Is there any way we could have a soccer forum posting count somewhere?

Reason I ask is that you could then tie the infraction system to post counts.

For example a guy with 200 posts in the soccer forum with x amount of infractions will receive a ban while a guy with 1000 posts will have to have a bigger number of infractions to receive the same ban.

This way you can have consistent moderation whilst acknowledging those who post more.

Any system like that would just encourage users to post more crap to get onto the more favorable terms.Which would not be good for the forum.

LuckyLloyd

redout wrote: »

The people that are suggesting reducing the six month ban to one month are delusional in my opinion. I can speak from experience as I had a six month ban. One month is not so much a deterrent - I would say the vast majority could easily take a one month ban and wont come back any the wiser in all honesty. I viewed my 6 month ban as a form of rehab - I could either choose to ignore it and come back the same as before or else I could look at my mistakes, see what I was doing wrong and decide to try and rectify them.

I chose the latter and came back a better member in my opinion. Back on the forum about 9 months and in that time I have not picked up a single warning nor infraction - now compared to my style before the ban were the longest I went without picking one up was only two months that is a massive change to be honest. The difference is I usually think before I post now whereas before I just done it without considering the consequences. I took the forum and my membership for granted and ended up paying the price for that. Now after suffering the consequences of my actions I can appreciate the forum so much more and understand that posting here is a privilege and not something you can just constantly take the piss out of without considering the charter and other users.

There are times on here were I really want to write to another user and tell them exactly what I think of them and comments they made but I dont now fire off the first thing into my head - I have to try be calm, keep a level head and think about it first. This is a massive problem with users of this forum - no thinking before they act. If you cant do the time then dont do the crime - one month is not sufficient in my opinion. The easiest thing in the world is to not hit the submit button. Think first. That is my two cents.

SantryRed wrote: »

6 month ban should stay. Was a great idea and it'll deter people from doing things again which result in infractions.

These two posts from posters that fell foul of the six strikes = six month break system should end the debate on it right there. You have two guys who were extremely tiresome pre ban (sorry lads, but I was modding at the time and ye were work! ) who have come back model users. The system works.

5starpool

I think I said what I needed to say in the recent feedback thread. Here is my main post from that:

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.

OPENROAD

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

These two posts from posters that fell foul of the six strikes = six month break system should end the debate on it right there. You have two guys who were extremely tiresome pre ban (sorry lads, but I was modding at the time and ye were work! ) who have come back model users. The system works.

I don't know and thats speaking as someone with zero yellow cards, without going into specific cases I have seen some yellows given and have to think, what! a yellow for that??? it shouldn't matter if it is the persons 6th yellow or the first. OK maybe keep the six month ban, but it does seem sometimes that getting a yellow and trying to appeal it is like a player trying to convince the ref to overturn a decision in a match. Just a bit of common sense sometimes would help.

eagle eye

Dub13 wrote: »

Any system like that would just encourage users to post more crap to get onto the more favorable terms.Which would not be good for the forum.

They won't make it if they are posting crap.

lordgoat

First off i'd like to say thanks to the mods for doing probably the most thanksless job on boards. And extra thanks to those that actually participated in this thread. It is great to get instant feedback.

A few things have pissed me off over the last few months. Mainly the headshot banning. To me it looked like T4TF took an opportunity to hand out a 6 month ban even though Xavi had dealt with the matter. The fact that the "lazy bum" yellow card still stands is one of the biggest jokes in the soccer forum.

Also could mods clarify is lazy bum still a yellow card offence?

Secondly i think there needs to be more leeway with the general banter in superthreads. This is not directed towards the mods, if people report the posts then by all means act on it, but i think general posters need to ask themselves to be a bit more light hearted some of the time. As someone said earlier, we're grown ups (well mostly) and should be able to take the rough with the smooth.

All in all, keep up the good work.

OPENROAD

lordgoat wrote: »

but i think general posters need to ask themselves to be a bit more light hearted.

Spot on imo

gandalf

lordgoat wrote: »

Also could mods clarify is lazy bum still a yellow card offence?

To be honest "lazy bum" by itself wouldn't warrant any action from me if I was modding still. Being a smart ass and using it to tell someone in an ignorant fashion to go and google something on the other hand would have in the more serious forums I modded. In Politics for example that would have resulted in a warning.

I think the on thread warning should have been enough and it looks like the mods tripped over each other when the infraction happened. I did wonder what sort of interaction happened after the infraction was raise. Did the mod raise it in the Soccer Mods forum or not, if so what was the discussion between all the mods like about the decision. I also recall that this wasn't infraction number 6 and the user in question didn't bother to appeal it properly at the time it was issued. If it was me I would have screamed blue murder but then again I am a stubborn git.

K-9

eagle eye wrote: »

Well it can be something simple like lets say Rooney/Gerard/Lampard/Fabregas gets hacked down and the commentators even say its a horrific challenge.

Some guy comes on and says great challenge, or its about time that lad go his comeuppance with all the diving he does.

You have guys who have just watched one of their icons at the butt end of a horrible challenge and are worried if he will be alright and somebody has just insulted the player and lauded the tackler. This can easily set things off and the guy who has raved about the tackle is just lighting the flame 99 times out of 100. Similarly stating that a manager is not fit for the job in a match thread is just not on.

There should be a specific set of rules for match threads imo.

Saying a manager isn't good enough is annoying but again it goes back to Des's point. If he can back it up reasonably well, it mightn't necessarily be trolling. IMO, the problem is when you get the same discussion every fecking couple of weeks on super threads. Yes, you can ignore it, but it ruins the thread after a while, going over and over and over the exact same stuff.

As for match threads. I remember one thread were Gerrard did do something. The pool fans had no problem admitting it, but a couple of others just kept getting a dig in over and over......................... Very annoying when the point has actually been conceded anyway. There a comes a point when a poster is just arguing with themselves and it gets annoying and could spark a rise.

eagle eye wrote: »

Is there any way we could have a soccer forum posting count somewhere?

Reason I ask is that you could then tie the infraction system to post counts.

For example a guy with 200 posts in the soccer forum with x amount of infractions will receive a ban while a guy with 1000 posts will have to have a bigger number of infractions to receive the same ban.

This way you can have consistent moderation whilst acknowledging those who post more.

I can see your point, less crap per post ratio so a less disruptive poster over all. Maybe a nightmare to implement, cliques and all that stuff.

K-9

gandalf wrote: »

I also recall that this wasn't infraction number 6 and the user in question didn't bother to appeal it properly at the time it was issued. If it was me I would have screamed blue murder but then again I am a stubborn git.

I would have too but the poster may have thought, what is the point, they'll just back each other up anyway, correctly or incorrectly. The "past history" would get thrown at him as an excuse.