Soccer Forum Annual Review Thread

super_furry

I think it's a good lively forum that's well modded and has a solid and mature community that usually knows where to draw the line.

It's roughly 100000 times better than it was a couple of years ago.

gandalf

K-9 wrote: »

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.

Maybe so but given a mod had been overruled I and you would have pursued it. The mistake he made was to leave it be at the time.

gandalf

eagle eye wrote: »

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.

The fact that some one posts more doesn't mean they automatically post good quality or interesting posts. Some of the best contributors on boards.ie are people with relatively low post counts for the time they have been on the site.

And again weighting the infraction system in this way would again lead to accusations of double standards and cliques.

eagle eye

gandalf wrote: »

The fact that some one posts more doesn't mean they automatically post good quality or interesting posts. Some of the best contributors on boards.ie are people with relatively low post counts for the time they have been on the site.

And again weighting the infraction system in this way would again lead to accusations of double standards and cliques.

But something has to be done.

Surely you can understand that a person who spends a lot of time on the forum can rack up infractions a lot quicker than somebody who spends very little time here. Its very easy for somebody who posts here on a very regular basis to unintentionally break a rule and end up with an infraction for it.

Basically what I'm saying is that regular posters are more likely to get a 6 month ban than people who spend little time here.

Surely there has to be some way that regular posters are protected. Maybe all the rules should be set to accommodate the regulars but that doesn't seem like a good idea either.

Just to clarify I was talking about posts in the soccer forum not on boards.ie.

And obviously if somebody is a very good poster but doesn't spend much time here they are not going to be punished for that.

Xavi6

Eagleeye, I do understand what you're saying but it is a form of favoritism and would be very difficult for mods to implement.

One could also argue that those with a lot of posts should be treated with less leniancy given that they post here more often and should be more aware of how things run.

Also, for every harmless infraction it will still take five more to get a six month ban.

The Volt

eagle eye wrote: »

But something has to be done.

Surely you can understand that a person who spends a lot of time on the forum can rack up infractions a lot quicker than somebody who spends very little time here. Its very easy for somebody who posts here on a very regular basis to unintentionally break a rule and end up with an infraction for it.

Basically what I'm saying is that regular posters are more likely to get a 6 month ban than people who spend little time here.

Surely there has to be some way that regular posters are protected. Maybe all the rules should be set to accommodate the regulars but that doesn't seem like a good idea either.

Just to clarify I was talking about posts in the soccer forum not on boards.ie.

And obviously if somebody is a very good poster but doesn't spend much time here they are not going to be punished for that.

I think in circumstances where the infractions are wiped at the end of the season, it's an ok system.

GLaDOS

Skimmed through the thread (computer problems so only getting to it now)

My opinions are:

6 infractions = 6 month ban is fine for me. It's 6 seperate infractions, once you get to 3 or 4 you should probably look at how you're posting. I know the "lazy bum" infraction example has been wheeled out a million times, but it's only one infraction, there's another 5 chances there that were blown. (No offence to HS, top poster)

Sub forum for super threads: I was originally against this, but in retrospect I think it has some merit.

Sub forum for seperate clubs: Not a chance in hell for me.

I echo the statements of people needing to toughen up and not react to trolls.

I also agree consistency is needed in some modding decisions, but for the most part the modding is bang on.

OPENROAD

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I echo the statements of people needing to toughen up and not react to trolls.

.

Its not just necessary reacting to trolls, I've seen valid posts that people have taken exception to cause its something negative against their club or their players and you have a situation where people play the troll card. I have even see cases where people get upset in match threads cause the "big grin" icon is used when a particular team concedes a goal or is beaten.

lordgoat

gandalf wrote: »

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.

Is there not a review of all 6 cards before the ban kicks in? And i'm yet to hear anyone that thinks this card should still stand. Tbf the post was not said in an ignorant fashion if it was then i would have no problem with a card being given. I think there was even a smilie in it ( i hate smilies but apparently they are used to show lack of seriousness). I think the only way it could have been interpreted that way was to twist how headshot posted and give a card.

I do think he should have appealed it sooner but that does not make it correct.

Again the fact that the card still stands and a good poster is out for 6 months is just not fair. I know there was a feedback thread but i'd love to hear what some of the mods have to say about this now in hindsight. If they don't feel hear is the appropriate place to post, that's fine. But i think the discussion in this thread is much more constructive than in the feedback one.

In a time where fair play is top of the list in relation to soccer/football i think we'd all like to see some in here.

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Skimmed through the thread (computer problems so only getting to it now)

My opinions are:

6 infractions = 6 month ban is fine for me. It's 6 seperate infractions, once you get to 3 or 4 you should probably look at how you're posting. I know the "lazy bum" infraction example has been wheeled out a million times, but it's only one infraction, there's another 5 chances there that were blown. (No offence to HS, top poster)

Sub forum for super threads: I was originally against this, but in retrospect I think it has some merit.

Sub forum for seperate clubs: Not a chance in hell for me.

I echo the statements of people needing to toughen up and not react to trolls.

I also agree consistency is needed in some modding decisions, but for the most part the modding is bang on.

I think i agree with all these points. I'm not sure about the superthreads anymore they do get unsightly

Xavi6

lordgoat - headshot actually had 7 infractions due to an oversight I believe so even if the contentious one was overturned he would still be subject to the ban.

pickarooney

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.

This occured to me afterwards and I concede the point. From your point of view it would look like you weren't being even-handed. I'd like to think that posters could be adult enough to do a virtual handshake if one member pointed out that another's comment was out of line and that it could all pass off without incident but I think that's far too optimistic.

ilovelamp2000

Xavi6 wrote: »

Eagleeye, I do understand what you're saying but it is a form of favoritism and would be very difficult for mods to implement.

One could also argue that those with a lot of posts should be treated with less leniancy given that they post here more often and should be more aware of how things run.

Also, for every harmless infraction it will still take five more to get a six month ban.

How do you currently deal with favourtism / bias ?

Is there any mechanism in place to reduce the possibility of it occurring ?

Xavi6

Rosco1982 wrote: »

How do you currently deal with favourtism / bias ?

Is there any mechanism in place to reduce the possibility of it occurring ?

Well I don't deal with anything so probably best for a mod to answer that

Handsome Bob

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:

Depends really on what kind of trolling we're talking about. Simple one line sentences with no other purpose than to rile people up is something no-one should ever reply to and I have no problem hitting the report problem. To be honest I think very few people would indulge this kind of troll.

The problem is with clever trolls (bit of an oxymoron eh? ), to the untrained eye their posts on the surface look reasonable. However, if you read between the lines you can see when someone is out on the wind up. It's very hard not to respond to these posts because for one, there's no point in reporting the post because as I said, they are clever trolls, they they know that they are on right side of the line. They can't be punished. Secondly, because their post has the illusion of seeming reasonable, if no-one responds to it, it's kind of like saying "Yeah, you know what? You're right, us plebs have no possible reasonable response to your post."

The Muppet

gandalf wrote: »

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 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.

Yeah I hadn't though it through to that degree, I can see the flaw in the suggestion.

K-9 wrote: »

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.

In my experience the appeal process works, I don't think anyone should think the way you suggest.

lordgoat

Xavi6 wrote: »

lordgoat - headshot actually had 7 infractions due to an oversight I believe so even if the contentious one was overturned he would still be subject to the ban.

Cheers i knew i was forgetting something.

Still though i don't think it's fair and it is still on his profile. Will it count as infraction 1 for his next 6?

<not aiming this question at you Xav, i know you got out of Dodge!>

The Recliner

OPENROAD wrote: »

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.

I think what you are probbaly missing in some of those yellows is context

Much like when a ref give a card for something innocous it is generally because of persistant fouling and he has just had enough of it I would guess that some of the yellow cards here that don't seem to be for much are for someone who was persistantly skating on thin ice and it was a final straw type of thing so the yellow may not have been for a specific incident but more for continous behaviour

Personally I am happy with the Modding in the forum, sure there are some incidents where there are inconsistancies or things may not be handled ideally but for such a large high traffic forum I think these incidents are bound to happen and it is a credit to the Mods that they are so few and far between

Iago

lordgoat wrote: »

Cheers i knew i was forgetting something.

Still though i don't think it's fair and it is still on his profile. Will it count as infraction 1 for his next 6?

<not aiming this question at you Xav, i know you got out of Dodge!>

To answer this first and provide some clarity. The infractions that are counted towards a 6 month ban reset every season. In HS's case the infractions he's already picked up will not count towards subsequent bans in and of themselves.


On some other points raised, and these are just my thoughts at the moment as opposed to any official position;

1. More leeway for higher postcount posters: In theory this is a good idea, in practice I'm not sure it works. We have had a number of posters, even in recent times, whose postcount was very high without them actually adding a great deal to the forum. Although they didn't fall foul of the 6 month ban rule I'm not a great believer in quantity over quality in anything in life. Also I think there is already some judgement shown for the most part when it comes to dealing with posters who have been around a long time and are having a bad day/match etc.

The problem with something like this is that the judgement calls in a posters favour are never highlighted, only when it goes against them. So we'll get a feedback thread from someone who has received a ban screaming blue murder, but they don't mention the 2-3 offences that we could have infracted previously but just deleted and let slide before anyone else saw them. That's human nature unfortunately and it does happen.

A prime example is this thread itself, there are some posts in here already that should be infracted going by the forum charter, but as it's a feedback thread I've made a conscious decision to leave them lie.

2. 6 Month ban for 6 infractions: If you pick up 6 warnings in the space of 12 months then you're doing something wrong. 1/2 infractions, sure that's possible for anybody. Feeling a bit hard done by because one of them was a red card and you got a 2 week ban when you were just frustrated at a result? Yeah I can get that too, but 6 incidents over 12 months goes beyond that. I think that some posters are divorced from the forum rules to be honest, we've had people complaining about infractions they received that they shouldn't have and in some of those cases the infraction was for outright abuse. Calling someone a pr!ck etc is always going to result in a yellow card, and yet these are some of the infractions that people think should be overturned or not applied.

3. Banter between posters: I think the best way to put this is "things aren't always as they seem" just because I think I have a good relationship with Xavi and decide to call him a b0ll0x on thread doesn't mean that he'll take it the right way. Most of the reported posts we get in relation to people abusing/attacking a poster are from the poster in question. Maybe they don't want to be called out in the forum and told to "grow a pair" maybe they aren't willing to accept ribbing from strangers on the internet, maybe they're having a bad day or are sick of a constant deluge of crap. Either way most people take offence on their own behalf, and allowing people to attack posters is not something I'd ever like to see happen, even if the person throwing the slur believes "we're mates and they understand where I'm coming from"

IRL I have a few close mates (and teams I play for) where a bit of banter and name calling is all part of the fun, but I wouldn't appreciate others who I didn't know taking liberties as a result of seeing the interaction between me and my mates.

4. Banter regarding teams & players: If this was my site and my forum, I would like to see this relaxed. Fat Sam, Whiskeynose, Shrek, Fat Frank, Cheat, LolPool, Manure, Man ****ty etc are all part of the game imo. I think the forum is too sanitized but the big issue here is simple. I as an individual only give what I can take. I'll slag players/clubs/officials with my mates, I'll laugh at the misfortune of my teams rivals and woop with glee when one of their players makes a pigs ear of something, I'll rib my mates incessantly and I may even question their teams parentage from time to time

but I do all that in the sure knowledge that at every opportunity they will do exactly the same to me regarding my team. That's part of the fun of supporting a football team and having mates that support someone else. Sure it's great being at the games with 70+k fans all screaming for your side but when you're down the pub or in the office or at training etc you want a bit of banter with opposition fans in both the good times and the bad.

To me the biggest issue on this forum is that there are too many people who are ready to gloat at every opportunity but want to be ring-fenced whenever something goes wrong with their club. You can't have it both ways I'm afraid, and because people won't stop at ribbing and banter, and instead descend into outright abuse or engage in banter when their team is on the up but report every post when their team is on a downer, the rules being more and more strict. Id prefer a more free flowing forum, but everyone needs to be on the same page.

5. General Moderation & Bans: I'll be honest, I'm hugely in favour of 1 Yellow Card = 1 Week ban. You step out of line (of the agreed charter that everyone states they will follow) you get banned. I believe that when you fall foul of an instant punishment you'll think twice on your return before doing the same thing. When this was brought in last year we had a small number of posters complaining about it on feedback and following discussions within the forum we overturned it. Personally I'd like to see it brought back in because I believe it's only trolls and users that are trying to disrupt the forum that should have anything to fear from it.


Anyway, they are my high level personal thoughts at this point. I'll obviously be following the thread and if I feel I have anything worthwhile to add or can answer a question I'll pop back on.

gandalf

Iago wrote: »

5. General Moderation & Bans: I'll be honest, I'm hugely in favour of 1 Yellow Card = 1 Week ban. You step out of line (of the agreed charter that everyone states they will follow) you get banned. I believe that when you fall foul of an instant punishment you'll think twice on your return before doing the same thing. When this was brought in last year we had a small number of posters complaining about it on feedback and following discussions within the forum we overturned it. Personally I'd like to see it brought back in because I believe it's only trolls and users that are trying to disrupt the forum that should have anything to fear from it.


Anyway, they are my high level personal thoughts at this point. I'll obviously be following the thread and if I feel I have anything worthwhile to add or can answer a question I'll pop back on.

Excellent post Iago on point 5 I agree. There is no point in having a system like 6 yellows and your out if you don't have some sort of escalating prohibition as the cards rack up. If someone is finding that they are being excluded from the forum for longer periods it might be the signal they need to amend their posting style and to stay within the accepted norms on the forum.

One question for you Iago and the other current soccers mods. How many people were given 6 month bans over the last season? Am curious about the numbers because I believe there is a lot of hand wringing going on for a very small number of posters.

Iago

gandalf wrote: »

Excellent post Iago on point 5 I agree. There is no point in having a system like 6 yellows and your out if you don't have some sort of escalating prohibition as the cards rack up. If someone is finding that they are being excluded from the forum for longer periods it might be the signal they need to amend their posting style and to stay within the accepted norms on the forum.

One question for you Iago and the other current soccers mods. How many people were given 6 month bans over the last season? Am curious about the numbers because I believe there is a lot of hand wringing going on for a very small number of posters.

I count 14, of which 3-4 may actually be missed in terms of contribution to the forum. The reality is, as I'm sure most are aware, that if you pick up that many infractions in such a short period of time then you are generally not contributing to the forum at all. There are always exceptions to every rule obviously, but the vast majority of posters who are given 6 month bans aren't really missed at all.

gandalf

14 isn't a large number over a whole season on one of the busiest forums on boards.

Mr. Presentable

Iago wrote: »

long post.

Point 1. The rules have to be the same for everyone. The only way it would make sense were they not, would be to increase the punishment for high count posters. After all, they ought to know better

2. I pretty much agree. To garner 6 infractions in 6 months means you really need to consider your position.

3/4. "Banter", the excuse of the abuser, in many cases. "I called him a tw4t, certainly, but sure it's only banter" I agree the forum is over sanitised, but only in the charter. When first it became a punishable offence to say Chelski, Manure etc, people got infracted - now they only get infracted for saying manure. Consistency is gone and I expect it is down to the type of people who report posts.

The real problem with allowing banter is agreeing and policing the line, and I don't think it can be done.

5. I agree with this. My own experience of a week ban for a single "Banter" post gave me sufficient opportunity to consider what might be deemed appropriate and how that might differ from what the rest of the forum thought.

The Muppet

Iago wrote: »

I count 14, of which 3-4 may actually be missed in terms of contribution to the forum. The reality is, as I'm sure most are aware, that if you pick up that many infractions in such a short period of time then you are generally not contributing to the forum at all. There are always exceptions to every rule obviously, but the vast majority of posters who are given 6 month bans aren't really missed at all.

Could we have a breakdown of which club these users support?

In the feedback thread there was an allagation of bias against United supporters. A comment on this would would throw some light on the validity of that allegation.

Mr. Presentable

The Muppet wrote: »

Could we have a breakdown of which club these users support?

In the feedback thread there was an allagation of bias against United supporters. A comment on this would would throw some light on the validity of that allegation.

No it wouldn't. It would either show who was best represented or most troublesome.

gandalf

eagle eye wrote: »

But something has to be done.

But does it. Iago has said that a massive total of 14 users breached the 6 yellows barrier to get banned in the season just gone. All this hand wringing for a relatively small number of users is futile.

Surely you can understand that a person who spends a lot of time on the forum can rack up infractions a lot quicker than somebody who spends very little time here. Its very easy for somebody who posts here on a very regular basis to unintentionally break a rule and end up with an infraction for it.

But it can be argued that its not unintentional if they rack up 6 yellows. At that stage they should have an idea what is permitted and what isn't. Maybe as highlighted the fact that they don't seem to have any kind of real reminder that they are racking up the cards is the problem. It would be solved by the escalating ban period as they near the threshold of 6 offences.

Basically what I'm saying is that regular posters are more likely to get a 6 month ban than people who spend little time here.

Surely there has to be some way that regular posters are protected. Maybe all the rules should be set to accommodate the regulars but that doesn't seem like a good idea either.

Yes but how do you quantify that? At the moment you are giving people an incentive to spam because they know the higher their SF postcount then the better infraction ratio they get. I certainly wouldn't consider someone who posts "lol" or "+1" to be a good regular poster now would you?

Why protect the regular posters anyway, if they are regular posters they should know the limits on the forum and be able to post within those limits. If anything they should be held to more stringent standards than someone who has just joined the forum because they are only learning the ropes.

Just to clarify I was talking about posts in the soccer forum not on boards.ie.

And obviously if somebody is a very good poster but doesn't spend much time here they are not going to be punished for that.

Oh I am aware you were talking about the Soccer Forum and posts on it but again I feel that this is wrong for a lot of different reasons.

The first is ambiguity, when you are moderating a forum you need rules that are clear, are understood and show no bias towards one group of the other. This is too fluffy (for want of a better word) and it leaves too much open to interpretation.

The second is bias. You are proposing that we actively weight the forum in favour of regular users at the expense of newer users. That is wrong and should never happen. The forum as it stands is quite a daunting place for someone who is new to boards and has to content with quite a few heavyweight posters than have the additional handicap of being discriminated against because they are not a "regular".

I believe it would actively encourage spamming or posts of low quality increasing the noise to discussion ratio unnecessarily.

Dub13

I find about 50% of the lads who do the 6 month stretch come back as better posters and add significantly more to the forum on their return.So the other 50% are maybe just not suited to posting on a mixed fans site.

The Muppet

nipplenuts wrote: »

No it wouldn't. It would either show who was best represented or most troublesome.

The 3 I'm aware of are all united supporters, Headshot, Archie and Des:D Granted Des is an undercover supporter..

lordgoat

Xavi6 wrote: »

post.

Thanks for that great post Iago. I like how you think in general and would agree with pretty much everything said. Especially the banter part. It is part of the game.


The only thing that has come out of this for me is i will probably challenge yellow cards i receive more voraciously in future if i feel a bit hard one by. I've gotten 3 and the only one i accept is the most recent one. The other two were ridiculous and from now on i prob wouldn't let it go as easily.

Iago

The Muppet wrote: »

Could we have a breakdown of which club these users support?

In the feedback thread there was an allagation of bias against United supporters. A comment on this would would throw some light on the validity of that allegation.

Being honest I don't think it really makes a difference but....

There are fans of 8 different clubs currently serving 6 month bans. As far as I'm concerned there is no bias against United supporters.

The important thing to remember about banning is that just because one moderator enforces the ban that doesn't mean there's bias. In the example you're thinking of (sorry HS but you're the topical subject right now) there were 7 yellow cards over a 12 month period. 5 different moderators gave a yellow card at one point or another during the season so I can't see any bias there.

Dub13

The Muppet wrote: »

The 3 I'm aware of are all united supporters, Headshot, Archie and Des:D Granted Des is an undercover supporter..

If there really was a bias against United supporters Headshot would not have got to 7 cards.

LOL at Des been a Utd fan,thats the worst kept secret on the soccer forum.

L'prof

Iago wrote: »

To answer this first and provide some clarity. The infractions that are counted towards a 6 month ban reset every season. In HS's case the infractions he's already picked up will not count towards subsequent bans in and of themselves.

I didn't realise they were reset every season, that's more than fair. I got two myself last year and with a bit more care, that should easily be reduced.

Mr. Presentable

The Muppet wrote: »

The 3 I'm aware of are all united supporters, Headshot, Archie and Des:D Granted Des is an embarrassed supporter..

Heh!

Dub13

Another point on the alleged bias against United supporters,recently as in the last few days a well known Utd fan who was permanently banned from the forum was allowed back in.This was voted on by all soccer mods.

lordgoat

Dub13 wrote: »

Another point on the alleged bias against United supporters,recently as in the last few days a well known Utd fan who was permanently banned from the forum was allowed back in.This was voted on by all soccer mods.

As i united fan i don't think there is a bias against us. I think the vast majority of mods are fair but at times i do think this is called into question.

If you take the recent HS case as it's the most fresh in the mind. I think had the mod explained why they over ruled a co mod and issued an infraction it would have cleared up the matter (Apologies if this did happen in the helpdesk/feedback thread, as i missed it).

invinciblePRSTV

Bringing back a weeks ban for a yellow card goes completely against the grain of what has made the SF a better forum over the past 12 months, namely less by the book moderation and, for the most part, more common sense in user - mod interactions (as desired by a clear majority of SF users.)

If you re-introduce a weeks ban per yellow card you are guaranteed more feedback & helpdesk threads, far more aggrieved users and a more poisonous atmosphere on the forum between problem users and problem mods arguing over what and what doesn't constitute a yellow card, just like the old days.

In short, why revert back to the way things were a year or two ago where the forum was drowning under a more finicky, pedantic management style which alienated users when the incremental improvements over the past 12 months have made the forum a far more pleasant place to post in.

gandalf

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Bringing back a weeks ban for a yellow card goes completely against the grain of what has made the SF a better forum over the past 12 months, namely less by the book moderation and, for the most part, more common sense in user - mod interactions (as desired by a clear majority of SF users.)

If you re-introduce a weeks ban per yellow card you are guaranteed more feedback & helpdesk threads, far more aggrieved users and a more poisonous atmosphere on the forum between problem users and problem mods arguing over what and what doesn't constitute a yellow card, just like the old days.

In short, why revert back to the way things were a year or two ago where the forum was drowning under a more finicky, pedantic management style which alienated users when the incremental improvements over the past 12 months have made the forum a far more pleasant place to post in.

Maybe for the first two there is no ban as the majority of users of the forum either will get no infractions or might clock up one or two in the heat of the moment. The 3rd Yellow card is a 1 week ban, the 4th Yellow card is a 2 week ban, The 5th Yellow card is a 1 month ban followed by the 6th Yellow card Out for the rest of the season or 6 months if its close to season end.

That would be fairer and would have the desired effect of reminding those of the more rebellious persuasions that they were getting close to losing their ability to post for the rest of the season.

flahavaj

Sow what exactly is the date that yellow cards are reset?

gandalf

flahavaj wrote: »

Sow what exactly is the date that yellow cards are reset?

I think they said earlier in the thread at the start of the EPL season.

gandalf

gandalf wrote: »

Maybe for the first two there is no ban as the majority of users of the forum either will get no infractions or might clock up one or two in the heat of the moment. The 3rd Yellow card is a 1 week ban, the 4th Yellow card is a 2 week ban, The 5th Yellow card is a 1 month ban followed by the 6th Yellow card Out for the rest of the season or 6 months if its close to season end.

That would be fairer and would have the desired effect of reminding those of the more rebellious persuasions that they were getting close to losing their ability to post for the rest of the season.

Seems a good idea alright :pac:

gandalf

Papa Smut wrote: »

Seems a good idea alright :pac:

LOL I did mention your contribution in my first post

Great minds and all !!!!!

Dub13

flahavaj wrote: »

Sow what exactly is the date that yellow cards are reset?

Thats one of the issues that has come from this thread,at the moment we don't have a stone wall date.This could cause a bit of hassle so we are going to put a date on it,most likely July 1st or 31st.

The Muppet

lordgoat wrote: »

As i united fan i don't think there is a bias against us. I think the vast majority of mods are fair but at times i do think this is called into question.

If you take the recent HS case as it's the most fresh in the mind. I think had the mod explained why they over ruled a co mod and issued an infraction it would have cleared up the matter (Apologies if this did happen in the helpdesk/feedback thread, as i missed it).

Archie raised the issue in the feedback thread so I though I'd mention it here as he's not here to do so himself .

Personally I don't think there is bias against any group of supporters as a whole. I do believe there can be inconisistancies with the treatment of certain users over others.

Xavi6

The Muppet wrote: »

I do believe there can be inconisistancies with the treatment of certain users over others.

And these inconsistencies are a problem, correct?

Yet we have people in this thread calling for preferential treatment for long time posters.

Interesting clash right there.

flahavaj

Dub13 wrote: »

Thats one of the issues that has come from this thread,at the moment we don't have a stone wall date.This could cause a bit of hassle so we are going to put a date on it,most likely July 1st or 31st.

Surely this is one of the things that should've been nailed down right from the start and if not, sorted out ASAP.

Its all very well bringing in a "six strikes and you out for 6 months rule" (which for what its worth I think is a very good idea and seems to be working) but to implment the rule and to have run with it for so long without actually deciding when the yellow cards are to be rescinded is a bit of a glaring omission.

What if someone gets their 6th infraction between July 1st and 31st? More hassle for ye and more unhappy users banging on about conspiracies etc etc. These things should be set in stone from day 1.

pickarooney

Iago wrote: »

I count 14, of which 3-4 may actually be missed in terms of contribution to the forum. The reality is, as I'm sure most are aware, that if you pick up that many infractions in such a short period of time then you are generally not contributing to the forum at all. There are always exceptions to every rule obviously, but the vast majority of posters who are given 6 month bans aren't really missed at all.

Based on the few examples that I know of (and I suppose this is self-fulfilling in a way, the ones I've never heard of are the ones who aren't missed) this is not really true at all. There are a couple of recently evicted posters whose contributions I always found interesting and entertaining and hundreds who have never been carded who I wouldn't care less about. There is a high ratio of Shearers to Dunphys on the forum and by kicking out the controversial, highly-visible posters the place becomes more sterile and dull.

astrofool

This thread has really become all about moderation, yellow cards and infractions, these should really go into a thread of it's own.

Superthread/structure issues are getting drowned out.

The Muppet

Xavi6 wrote: »

And these inconsistencies are a problem, correct?

Yet we have people in this thread calling for preferential treatment for long time posters.

Interesting clash right there.

I didn't call for that, or did I? it certainly wasn't my intenetion If I did.

I think the six strike and you out is lenient if the six infractions are merited. This is where problem lies.

SantryRed

pickarooney wrote: »

Based on the few examples that I know of (and I suppose this is self-fulfilling in a way, the ones I've never heard of are the ones who aren't missed) this is not really true at all. There are a couple of recently evicted posters whose contributions I always found interesting and entertaining and hundreds who have never been carded who I wouldn't care less about. There is a high ratio of Shearers to Dunphys on the forum and by kicking out the controversial, highly-visible posters the place becomes more sterile and dull.

It's their fault for being kicked out though!! Jesus christ.

flahavaj

astrofool wrote: »

This thread has really become all about moderation, yellow cards and infractions, these should really go into a thread of it's own.

Superthread/structure issues are getting drowned out.

I was inder the impression that it was a thread for users to air their opinions on how to make the forum better - it just seems that most people who have posted feel moderation etc is a more pressing issue than the superthreads.

Xavi6

The Muppet wrote: »

I didn't call for that, or did I? it certainly wasn't my intenetion If I did.

I think the six strike and you out is lenient if the six infractions are merited. This is where problem lies.

No, no I didn't mean you.

I meant that you put forward one side and there are other people campaigning for the opposite.