Trolling in the Soccer Forum and other problems.

Super-Rush

bamboozling wrote: »

I know it's a bit off the wall but is there anything to be said for having a sub committee of sorts who don't have moderation power but the moderators consult them to gauge opinions and the direction of the forum.

These would have to excellent posters and well respected.

It would be a handy base to choose future moderators from as well.

They could warn moderators as to trolls and if a thread is about to go south.

It could work as like a shop steward to give feedback to the mods and to give feed forward to the users.

I would think people like Kess73 (Liverpool), MitchConner(United), L'Prof (Arsenal), Everdead.ie (Other English Club), Redout (Europe) and Des (LOI).

Maybe it's a daft idea and it might not achieve much, but it is feedback so I'm putting it out there. Rubbish as you wish.

They are called cmods.

Bobeagleburger

Singling out Mods for abuse here isn't going to help imo.

Infact I'd imagine it will derail the thread.

SlickRic

rarnes1 wrote: »

It's probably being asked already but can a poster be banned from a specific thread in a forum on Boards?

it wouldn't solve the problem.

these people will find another way, and other threads, as i'm sure people will testify to.

believe it or not, we want a resolution. and we don't want troublemakers disrupting the forum. with all due respect, it's very easy for those with no mod, CMod, admin duties to come in and tell us the easy way to go about things. very easy. but while we take all the suggestions on board, gratefully, and many make excellent points, you're still talking about taking away someone's access to the forum/site. it's not a small deal.

now i know some of these people 'deserve it' in people's eyes, i get that, but it can't be taken lightly, and when it's done, it's better to be done right, and it's better to be done through the right channels so that a protocol is in place for the future.

feedback is always welcome, as are suggestions for running things better, but don't take lightly the taking away of someone's forum privileges, whether you or I deem them a troll or not.

K-9

rarnes1 wrote: »

Singling out Mods for abuse here isn't going to help imo.

Infact I'd imagine it will derail the thread.

True, though everyone should be subject to the same rules. Dragging up threads from 08 isn't that helpful though.

Super-Rush

SlickRic wrote: »

it wouldn't solve the problem.

these people will find another way, and other threads, as i'm sure people will testify to.

believe it or not, we want a resolution. and we don't want troublemakers disrupting the forum. with all due respect, it's very easy for those with no mod, CMod, admin duties to come in and tell us the easy way to go about things. very easy. but while we take all the suggestions on board, gratefully, and many make excellent points, you're still talking about taking away someone's access to the forum/site. it's not a small deal.

now i know some of these people 'deserve it' in people's eyes, i get that, but it can't be taken lightly, and when it's done, it's better to be done right, and it's better to be done through the right channels so that a protocol is in place for the future.

feedback is always welcome, as are suggestions for running things better, but don't take lightly the taking away of someone's forum privileges, whether you or I deem them a troll or not.

I'm sorry Slick but if someone is trolling and disrupting the forum on a regular basis you have to take action on it.

Mr Alan

SlickRic wrote: »

it wouldn't solve the problem.

these people will find another way, and other threads, as i'm sure people will testify to.

I disagree. So say someone is banned from posting about Chelsea due to the flame wars they start, ban them from the match threads/Superthreads....how can they get around that? By posting about Chelsea is different threads? They'd be off topic & therefore in breach of the charter, be reported & then the mods would see that the culprit is trying to get around his ban & take action, easy.

Or people could be banned from discussing clubs in general, any posts they make on the subject would most likely be reported & then mods could take action.

Khannie

There's a lot of "just ban them" going on. It's not that straightforward unfortunately.

I say "you're being a dick", you say "I'm engaging in debate". It is difficult to distinguish a genuine debater with an opposing view from a troll. Determining intent and upholding it at DRP level is a difficult business and not everyone necessarily agrees with everyone elses perception of who's trolling and who's debating.

Low level trolls are currently free to appeal a ban to the mods, then the cmods, then the admins. This takes up a huge amount of investigation time. Low level trolling generally only presents itself over a period of time and pattern of posting. That's a lot of reading right there.

keane2097

SlickRic wrote: »

it wouldn't solve the problem.

these people will find another way, and other threads, as i'm sure people will testify to.

believe it or not, we want a resolution. and we don't want troublemakers disrupting the forum. with all due respect, it's very easy for those with no mod, CMod, admin duties to come in and tell us the easy way to go about things. very easy. but while we take all the suggestions on board, gratefully, and many make excellent points, you're still talking about taking away someone's access to the forum/site. it's not a small deal.

now i know some of these people 'deserve it' in people's eyes, i get that, but it can't be taken lightly, and when it's done, it's better to be done right, and it's better to be done through the right channels so that a protocol is in place for the future.

feedback is always welcome, as are suggestions for running things better, but don't take lightly the taking away of someone's forum privileges, whether you or I deem them a troll or not.

I think this outrageously melodramatic post is indicative of why we have one of these threads once a year.

DOC09UNAM

Bit rich coming from certain people in here aswell, wasn't there an organised trolling of the United superthread from some of the lfc superthread regulars recently?

If I had access to a laptop, I would search for the Link, but i'm certain someone will remember it.

Super-Rush

Khannie wrote: »

There's a lot of "just ban them" going on. It's not that straightforward unfortunately.

I say "you're being a dick", you say "I'm engaging in debate". It is difficult to distinguish a genuine debater with an opposing view from a troll. Determining intent and upholding it at DRP level is a difficult business and not everyone necessarily agrees with everyone elses perception of who's trolling and who's debating.

Low level trolls are currently free to appeal a ban to the mods, then the cmods, then the admins. This takes up a huge amount of investigation time. Low level trolling generally only presents itself over a period of time and pattern of posting. That's a lot of reading right there.

You warn people to quit trolling. If the warning is ignored you infract. If the trolling continues then you ban. Banning should always be a last resort but if you've given a poster sufficient warning to stop doing what they're doing then they have no one to blame but themselves. I'm not trying to be a dick about this but it really is that simple.

Mr Alan

Khannie wrote: »

There's a lot of "just ban them" going on. It's not that straightforward unfortunately.

I say "you're being a dick", you say "I'm engaging in debate". It is difficult to distinguish a genuine debater with an opposing view from a troll. Determining intent and upholding it at DRP level is a difficult business and not everyone necessarily agrees with everyone elses perception of who's trolling and who's debating.

Low level trolls are currently free to appeal a ban to the mods, then the cmods, then the admins. This takes up a huge amount of investigation time. Low level trolling generally only presents itself over a period of time and pattern of posting. That's a lot of reading right there.

CMods-Admins etc would then need to show faith in their mod team.

The mods would presumably have compiled details of users stats/posting history ready to review before issuing the ban.

And the kind of cases we're talking about would be very very rare, as long as I've used the forum there has been maybe 5-10 people who would have been deserving of such a ban. That's 1 or 2 a year.

K-9

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Bit rich coming from certain people in here aswell, wasn't there an organised trolling of the United superthread from some of the lfc superthread regulars recently?

If I had access to a laptop, I would search for the Link, but i'm certain someone will remember it.

It'll apply forum wide, so it would cut out stuff like that too.

It isn't an us vs. them thing though I know that is very hard to grasp for some posters.

DOC09UNAM

A good example of what shouldn't be allowed happen is, and i'm not going to use his real Username, for fear of singling him out.

Lets call him, blister ben.

Blister ben, was trolling Spurs, arsenal, man United, and several other champions league match threads for nearly a month, numerous posts reported, lots of posts calling him on it, but he continued, because he was getting away with it.

One month to stop him was a bit long in fairness.

DOC09UNAM

K-9 wrote: »

It'll apply forum wide, so it would cut out stuff like that too.

It isn't an us vs. them thing though I know that is very hard to grasp for some posters.

Don't get me wrong, I know it's not anyone vs anyone, I just think it's a bit hypocritical of a few people in here.

I have no problem admitting there is United trolls aswell, that need to be removed.

Khannie

super-rush wrote: »

it really is that simple.

It's just not that simple at all. Clear as day troll to me = Spirited debater to you. (I'm generalising here, rather than referring to a specific incident or person)

Bobeagleburger

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

A good example of what shouldn't be allowed happen is, and i'm not going to use his real Username, for fear of singling him out.

Lets call him, blister ben.

Blister ben, was trolling Spurs, arsenal, man United, and several other champions league match threads for nearly a month, numerous posts reported, lots of posts calling him on it, but he continued, because he was getting away with it.

One month to stop him was a bit long in fairness.

Were the posts reported?

Mods won't warn/infract a person unless a post is reported afaik.

(I have no idea how you are talking about btw, so can't recall it)

SlickRic

i haven't once said these people shouldn't be banned.

we just can't go down the road of "just ban them".

we say now that 'it's rare', but you wait, people will be insisting certain posters get banned for what they perceive as trolling in no time if we don't get it right.

i'm just saying we have to be more careful than "just ban them".

if posters want to give mods more power to interpret the charter as they see fit, then if we don't get that right, i can simply see a lot of issues arising in the future. that's all we're saying.

_blank_

Deleted User wrote: »

"big dog"

Mod note:
Despite Des' assertions, this matter was looked into by the cmod at the time it was reported (January). when asked for links Des responded that he did not have time. After this post, I also looked into it. When asked for an example of posts I was told that Des didnt have time, when I asked for a timeframe I was informed that it was "when guanyin was mod". From my own searches I have read posts that were possibly contentious but these were addresse by the mods co-mods already.Since then I cannot see any posts that woudl qualify as trolling nor have any posts been brought to my attention (on request), the cmods attention (as requested after his own investigation in january) or the moderators of the Soccer forum. If a user is not too busy to make an accusation, then the user should not be too busy to back it up.

There is a long standing and obvious bias agaisnt the mod in question from Des and any further offensive remarks by Des against the mod will be treated as abuse of a poster and will be dealt with accordingly.

As for anyone being "protected" from punishment because of who they know or how long they have been here. bollox. thats a conspiracy theory and a childish attempt at manipulation "do what I say or youre one of them".

Additionally, no evidence has been provided of Des ever being told not to report a post. In fact the opposite is true. from a PM provided by Des, he was asked to report any future occurrances. The fact that a reported post is reported by a mod as "not trolling" could be because the post is in fact not trolling. Certainly more likely than a huge mod conspiracy involving mods, cmods and admins all to protect one person and which ALL of us would have to be involved in as no actions have been taken in secret or behind closed doors. This review of the issue by me was fully logged in the admin forum and all parties were kept updated and all were included on teh PM that reported my findings on the issue.

LoLth


not allowed to call him that, it offends the sensibilities of the Cmod.

Neil, that drum has been banged so much it's worn out, and nothing, ever, will be done about it. He's too friendly with the "right people", you know it, I know it, the other mods know it (and one or two of them, past and present have said as much to me, in person). I know that counts for nothing here, but still, it's true.

the last time I tried I was told to basically compile a dossier of his posts and come back to the Cmod with it, fúck that, as if I've nothing better to do.

Reporting his posts is pointless, because all we are ever told is that the particular reported posts are not trolling, ignoring the fact that he is probably the most subtle low-level the SF has ever seen.

Wouldn't be surprised if this is deleted or whatever, but the situation exists, and has existed for years, and not one other Soccer Mod, Sports CMod, SMod when they existed or Admin has ever even acknowledged that it might be happening.

As I said, the only thing that I ever saw that even slightly leaned towards someone in a higher position even deigning to take a look at it was the most recent interaction I had with a CMod, but he basically told me to go and do the detective work myself, keep on reporting posts, and he would then investigate, but I don't have the time to do that, I'd love to, but I don't.

If you report too many posts, you get a warning that you are abusing the report post tool, so it's a catch 22 really.

Don't report it, and nothing's done. Report it every time, and you are told to stop.

Nice one, he has it sewn up.

And it will never change.

DOC09UNAM

SlickRic wrote: »

i haven't once said these people shouldn't be banned.

we just can't go down the road of "just ban them".

we say now that 'it's rare', but you wait, people will be insisting certain posters get banned for what they perceive as trolling in no time if we don't get it right.

i'm just saying we have to be more careful than "just ban them".

if posters want to give mods more power to interpret the charter as they see fit, then if we don't get that right, i can simply see a lot of issues arising in the future. that's all we're saying.

Do you agree that posts quoted in these two posts are obvious trolling?


boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70676593&postcount=579


boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71065663&postcount=1224


If so, how come it took so long for him to be banned?

That, imo, is blatant trolling, with only one intention, getting a reaction from the fans.

Bobeagleburger

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Do you agree that posts quoted in these two posts are obvious trolling?


boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70676593&postcount=579


boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71065663&postcount=1224


If so, how come it took so long for him to be banned?

That, imo, is blatant trolling, with only one intention, getting a reaction from the fans.

Blister ben indeed :pac:

Look who was replying in the 2nd one, you couldn't make it up

DOC09UNAM

rarnes1 wrote: »

Blister ben indeed :pac:

Look who was replying in the 2nd one, you couldn't make it up

I thought blister was a suitable name for him :pac:

Yeah, and he was defending Arsenal of all teams , I was flabbergasted, god I love that word.

_blank_

...and another thing.

I love the way the mods have basically found new ways of saying "we'll get back to you", it's been the catchphrase of Soccer Mods since I joined this site. Must have a thread in their private forum dedicated to thinking up new ways to phrase it.

murpho999

SlickRic wrote: »

it wouldn't solve the problem.

these people will find another way, and other threads, as i'm sure people will testify to.

believe it or not, we want a resolution. and we don't want troublemakers disrupting the forum. with all due respect, it's very easy for those with no mod, CMod, admin duties to come in and tell us the easy way to go about things. very easy. but while we take all the suggestions on board, gratefully, and many make excellent points, you're still talking about taking away someone's access to the forum/site. it's not a small deal.

now i know some of these people 'deserve it' in people's eyes, i get that, but it can't be taken lightly, and when it's done, it's better to be done right, and it's better to be done through the right channels so that a protocol is in place for the future.

feedback is always welcome, as are suggestions for running things better, but don't take lightly the taking away of someone's forum privileges, whether you or I deem them a troll or not.

To be honest I don't get this bit.
Why are mods so sensitive to people's privileges. I'm not a mod, don't think like a mod but in my eyes if you abuse it you should lose it.

Just like in soccer where people look for levels of consistency from referees regarding decisions and cards, I think that's what people are looking for here.
Sometimes infractions are given out for relatively harmless things, like slagging a player (I think Boards is terrified of libel: so understandable) but when posts are made that cause a furore nothing is done about it.

I appreciate it's a very difficult task but surely someone's postings can be viewed as cleverly staying with in the rules but for being unsportsmanlike and therefore should not be acceptable.

Also just a suggestion regarding Hillsbourough, which is a very sensitive issue: maybe it should be barred from discussion on LFC thread as when it is brought up there is always someone bring up the Sun.
Maybe a separate thread should be brought up for it around Anniversary time for people to pay their respects, but general discussion of it in various threads and debating of validity of The Sun allegations should not be allowed?

Paul Tergat

I've read the whole thread and some really good points being made.

I think the only one thing I want to say is in reply to any stance that 'its not that simple' and 'debater v troller'.

ANY REGULAR reader of the SF can easily identify the posters who come on at certain times and post certain things to try get a reaction but do so in a way thats so obviously trolling but technically isnt against the rules.

The mods have a tough job and IMO they mod the forum very well and according to the rules set. IMO these rules ought to give them a lot more leeway to jump in and say you are being a twat, banned.

therecklessone

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Well I'd be willing to bet money on why they would / do.

When I was on the mod team for the soccer forum the issue of trolls like The Muppet was well discussed. Therecklessone and I were in favour of a more strong armed approach, but the team as a whole reckoned nothing can really be done about them.

And to complete the record somewhat I'll add that I was the moderator most in favour of The Muppet's re-admittance to the Soccer Forum as I believed he was honest in his statement that he was prepared to respect the rules of the forum.

PHB wrote: »

And as for the specific thread, I don't know why anyone would feel the need to bring up the disaster. Frankly, and I genuinely mean this, I literally can't understand why anyone would need to post up that it's possible that some of the crap the sun made up happened, even though they didn't think it was probable. Even if that occured to me, I'd never think to post it. I doubt it would add anything. I doubt I'd have an interesting debate.

And that is why despite my total absence from the SF of late I have no problem coming to the conclusion that The Muppet was not interested in honest debate but rather riling opoosition fans. I cannot believe that an intelligent person would think it possible to pop in and and "just ask" questions of that nature: an intelligent poster would know that the emotive subject matter would only result in offence. And The Muppet is an intelligent person.

PHB wrote: »

I think a lot of us would disagree on who the four or five people are

Indeed, at least one person arguing vociferously here for a ban on trolls was on my own troll list when I was a mod.

Khannie wrote: »

There's a lot of "just ban them" going on. It's not that straightforward unfortunately.

I say "you're being a dick", you say "I'm engaging in debate". It is difficult to distinguish a genuine debater with an opposing view from a troll. Determining intent and upholding it at DRP level is a difficult business and not everyone necessarily agrees with everyone elses perception of who's trolling and who's debating.

I think the initial stage would be quite straight forward, and the removal of 5 or 6 persons from the forum would meet with almost universal approval.

Dr Galen

SlickRic wrote: »

it wouldn't solve the problem.

these people will find another way, and other threads, as i'm sure people will testify to.

believe it or not, we want a resolution. and we don't want troublemakers disrupting the forum. with all due respect, it's very easy for those with no mod, CMod, admin duties to come in and tell us the easy way to go about things. very easy. but while we take all the suggestions on board, gratefully, and many make excellent points, you're still talking about taking away someone's access to the forum/site. it's not a small deal.

now i know some of these people 'deserve it' in people's eyes, i get that, but
can't be taken lightly, and when it's done, it's better to be done right, and it's better to be done through the right channels so that a protocol is in place for
the future.

feedback is always welcome, as are suggestions for running things better, but don't take lightly the taking away of someone's forum privileges, whether you or I deem them a troll or not.

Khannie wrote: »

There's a lot of "just ban them" going on. It's not that straightforward unfortunately.

I say "you're being a dick", you say "I'm engaging in debate". It is difficult to distinguish a genuine debater with an opposing view from a troll. Determining intent and upholding it at DRP level is a difficult business and not everyone necessarily agrees with everyone elses perception of who's trolling and who's debating.

Low level trolls are currently free to appeal a ban to the mods, then the cmods, then the admins. This takes up a huge amount of investigation time. Low level trolling generally only presents itself over a period of time and pattern of posting. That's a lot of reading right there.

So yet again, it appears this DRP gets in the way of the good mods of a pretty contentious forum. I said this before in the thread regarding changes in the politics forum, which is having very similar issues ATM.

I've had to deal with pretty similar low level trolling in forums I've looked after before, and there is a tipping point, where a line has to be drawn in the sand. Trying to find a "nice" way to deal with people who are acting the bollix is futile, as is this Modding by committee lark that seems to have become prevalent across fora. I'm all for communicating with your fellow mods of course, but building all these consensuses is madness. Just make a call, for the right reasons and then stick to it.

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Bit rich coming from certain people in here aswell, wasn't there an organised trolling of the United superthread from some of the lfc superthread regulars recently?

If I had access to a laptop, I would search for the Link, but i'm certain someone will remember it.

We shouldn't be talking about who supports what team. If you are acting the dick then this applies to you. No matter who you are, who you support or what thread you are doing it in.

Des wrote: »

...and another thing.

I love the way the mods have basically found new ways of saying "we'll get back to you", it's been the catchphrase of Soccer Mods since I joined this site. Must have a thread in their private forum dedicated to thinking up new ways to phrase it.

Unfortunately, this seems to be something that has slipped into lots of places here, from the top down. I'm sure it's not from laziness, maybe it's the decision by committee thing, maybe it's fear of the DRP, maybe there is something else that I haven't thought of. I dunno, but for some reason(s) its around. I don't think it's fair just to call the soccer Mods on it.

LuckyLloyd

The Recliner wrote: »

If you (as a group of Mods) feel that a user/users are causing too much unrest or work for Mods then you can ban them for that, it doesn't have to be covered in the charter

You just need the balls to do it and to stand over the decision in the DRP process

Don't be a dick covers a lot of things and it is perfectly acceptable to ban someone from a forum under that rule and the type of thing that is being discussed in this thread definitely falls under the heading of being a dick

IMO there is too much hand wringing and worrying about upsetting people these days before someone is banned, the greater good of the forum should be taken into consideration over the rights of the individual particularly if an individual is abusing their posting rights

Ban people who act up (even if it is constant low level trolling rather than out and out charter breaches) and deal with the consequences later, if the decision is over turned no big deal, it might teach them to value their access more

Oh man, I so 100% agree with this post.

101001

Everyone can spot a Troll but a "low level" troll isnt that clear cut. Some just have no tact... some folks have just no social skills and cant gauge a mood or tone of a thread or their posts. Its fine to say "dont be a dick" but what if someone is in fact just a "dick", boorish, obnoxious etc. Do they get banned for a personality trait. In the real world, if youre a dick Id just not deal with you but can you do that within a larger community or society.

"low level" trolling to an extent is tollerated until someone gets upset about a comment. Often you will notice posters dismiss trolls in an off handed 'sure aren't you only on the wind, you scamp' kind of way. In a way that reinforces "low level" trolls, they get interaction and their behaviour is approved... it could be seen by them as this is my posting style.

Im still not sure what "low level" trolling is. For me its the obvious contrary opinion with inferred abuse/ridicule... is this correct? And for example what about a poster who always seems to have the contrary opinion. An example would be eagle eye... who I wouldnt consider a Troll he just has conflicting opinions to the general consensus.

If you were to constantly go against the grain and argue the opposing to the general opinion does this make you a "low level" troll?

It might also be helpful if you do ban people for this "low level" trolling let it be known who they are. It would help to understand the examples of how not to interact on the SF

LuckyLloyd

Khannie wrote: »

There's a lot of "just ban them" going on. It's not that straightforward unfortunately.

I say "you're being a dick", you say "I'm engaging in debate". It is difficult to distinguish a genuine debater with an opposing view from a troll. Determining intent and upholding it at DRP level is a difficult business and not everyone necessarily agrees with everyone elses perception of who's trolling and who's debating.

Low level trolls are currently free to appeal a ban to the mods, then the cmods, then the admins. This takes up a huge amount of investigation time. Low level trolling generally only presents itself over a period of time and pattern of posting. That's a lot of reading right there.

I really apologise, but with all due respect for this particular case that is utter bollocks. What went on in the thread that sparked this, and what is crystal clear in the body of work built up by the most prominent of these low level trolls just cannot be explained away anymore as "engaging in debate".

Super-Rush

Khannie wrote: »

It's just not that simple at all. Clear as day troll to me = Spirited debater to you. (I'm generalising here, rather than referring to a specific incident or person)

I'm sorry Khannie but it is. If someone can't tell the difference between an out and out troll then they shouldn't be a mod.