Trolling in the Soccer Forum and other problems.

amiable

You are really earning your keep last few days LoLth:)

Dont be at yourself

LoLth wrote: »

I'd prefer 1 low level troll to last 1 month longer than have 10 users feel hard done by and not return because of overly harsh reaction to a posted opinion. <-- thats my opinion, its not policy as far as I am aware.

Two problems with that:

1. You're assuming that mods would have an accuracy of only 10% in spotting low-level trolls. In reality, the accuracy would be much closer to 100%.

2. 1 troll lasting 1 month longer will have a much greater impact than even 10 users being mistakenly banned. 1 troll for 1 month means hundreds of discussions derailed, it means potentially dozens of decent users baited into retaliating, and themselves getting banned.

and evidence takes time to collect. Calls of "ban the trolls as soon as they appear" only work for blatant trolls. low level trolling takes time to spot and confirm, as has been posted repeatedly in this thread but some posters are still thinking a troll is a troll is a troll and thats all there is too it.

Right, I accept that. With low level trolls, there's an obvious need to analyse them over time. But once it's clear - and it does become clear over time - that a user is a troll, just ban them. Don't freeze and worry about collecting a body of evidence and preparing a case. If they're being dicks, ban them.

yes I agree there is more red tape. Sometimes I see a post and think "ban him! ban him nooooow!" but I dont because once that happens once, then how can we object when it happens again. Do I get to just delete any posts I dont personally agree with and ban any user who objects or complains?

Yes, ban him! A mod should live and die on their judgements, and if they're making the right calls, people will defend them. If they're not, people will rightfully call for their heads. Mods are selected for their good judgement, but somehow their ability to use it got crippled, and now they're expected to be robots, applying black-and-white law and incapable of dealing with shades of grey.

that is your opinion. I dont share it. And I think the majority of the soccer forum users wouldnt share it either. However, the soccer forum mods would know better than you or I on that issue. I believe the soccer forum has an end of season round-up and forum discussion each year, perhaps this is something they could discuss then where they can get a better representation from the actual soccer forum userbase.

To many, the end-of-season review is just another mass of red-tape used to actually avoid dealing with problems.

the whole site was in better shape when that was the only rule but it was also much much smaller. it had less mods/cmods/admin to interpret exactly what "being a dick" entailed and even then there were disagreements over whether a post was or was not out of order.

The entire boards.ie site managed well with Devore and other old school mods handing out bans as they saw fit, and the site was bigger than the Soccer board is now.

To me, the Soccer board is primed and ready for a totalitarian approach. It already has restricted access, a managable community size-wise, a large amount of experienced, respected posters and a broad consensus of what's tolerable and what's not.

Amorphous rules leave too much room for interpretation and objection. Rigid rules leave too little room for personal expression or natural drift in fora and on threads. There needs to eb rigid framework to cover the big stuff and "dont be a dick" to allow wriggle room.

The problem is that the rigid rules have been whoelheartedly embraced, and the "don't be a dick" has been completely forgotten about. Mods aren't willing to exercise the "don't be a dick rule" because the rigid-rule approach has created a legalese culture where every ban and every infraction is picked over and compared to every line in the charter, and it's too much of a pain to justify what "being a dick" actually means.

SlickRic

101001 wrote: »

Correct me if Im wrong but are yellow cards really only handed out for posts?

Why not hand them out personally. Why not say to a user 'a lot of your posts are being reported, you are upsettng people in the forum' and hand out an infraction for that (after the mods have deemed that they are in fact up to divilment)... that could be easily added to the charter. And as behaviour can only be monitored over a length maybe infract 3 times instead of 6 before a ban. This essentially monitors low level trolling and allows you to modedrate for the spirit of the law

Its a way of bringing back don't be a dick but with fair warning, as opposed to just dropping the ban hammer

a decent suggestion.

but there have been been times where posters have been upset by posts that didn't warrant being that upset over. it could very easily breed a 'if we don't like you, you don't get to post' culture. not healthy.

if you stick something like that in the charter, you're potentially asking for trouble.

basically, what i'm getting, is that people want mods to essentially start acting on their whim. i don't mean that facetiously, i just mean that posters want to empower us to just make far more judgment calls than are being made right now. while i understand that, posters also have to realise that for that to work, the entire forum would have to show a huge level of maturity, because we, as mods, can foresee a fúckload of complaints from posters who think someone's being a díck, and a lot of reports.

and we don't get paid for modding, so we're not going to spend ages every time we log on trawling through shíte.

so for that idea to work, people within the SF have to not be so sensitive to every little thing...something which a huge amount do show, but a huge amount also don't.

having said all that, we are aware, as mods, that this is an opportunity to sort this issue out. we will. i just hope people are patient, and don't expect us to just blanket bomb immediately all the posters who the majority deem as 'trolls'. that's not saying people aren't going to be banned, not at all, but i just hope people don't expect, seen as we're in the middle of sorting it out, for it all to be solved immediately, by a simple culling without thinking it through.

boards is a certain structure, which we do work inside. for better or for worse. that means there are lines of appeal etc, which have been used by posters in the past successfully, even in the case of what we as mods in the past have deemed as low-level trolling. which means, among other things, we want to be careful before we act on this.

we just want to be sure that when we make the decision that it's easy to stand by, and the problem is actually rooted out when we act.

i hope that makes sense and doesn't come across as mumbo jumbo waffle

LoLth

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Two problems with that:

1. You're assuming that mods would have an accuracy of only 10% in spotting low-level trolls. In reality, the accuracy would be much closer to 100%.

given enough of a sample to make an informed decision. If mods were to ban on sight (eg within 5 potentially trollish posts) the ratio of correct bans to false positives would be much lower and it would get even lower the quick the mod makes a decision. This is referring to low level trolls only, obvious trolls would have a much higher accuracy rate of detection.

2. 1 troll lasting 1 month longer will have a much greater impact than even 10 users being mistakenly banned. 1 troll for 1 month means hundreds of discussions derailed, it means potentially dozens of decent users baited into retaliating, and themselves getting banned.

I see your point but I would argue that any troll, low level or not that posts enough in 1 month to derail 100s of threads is going to be picked up that much quicker. My comment was made with the troll post rate of approx 1 post per day or 1 per match day in mind. Then the damage done is considerably reduced in the 1 month period. I do admit though to using 1 month as an arbitrary measure.

Right, I accept that. With low level trolls, there's an obvious need to analyse them over time. But once it's clear - and it does become clear over time - that a user is a troll, just ban them. Don't freeze and worry about collecting a body of evidence and preparing a case. If they're being dicks, ban them.

I agree. Thats pretty much what I think everyone agrees with. I prefer though to pay more attention to the events leading up to the ban and that , for me, would include a warning where possible. For the feedback charter I ahve included the provision of a warning but I have also made it possible fo ra troll to be outright banned depending on the frequency and severity of the trolling. I think a suspected low level should get a warning. Once confirmed, they've had their chance to change their ways the ban is all their own fault and makes it much, mcuh harder to be appealed against or for the fairness of it to be argued.

Yes, ban him! A mod should live and die on their judgements, and if they're making the right calls, people will defend them. If they're not, people will rightfully call for their heads. Mods are selected for their good judgement, but somehow their ability to use it got crippled, and now they're expected to be robots, applying black-and-white law and incapable of dealing with shades of grey.

its actually very easy to make a black and white system. the reason we dont have one is because we want mods to make decisions and while we do trust mod decisions we (admins) also recognise that everyone makes a mistake sometime. including us (the admins) and the cmods when appointing a mod. We recognise that we could possible make a mistake and so we want to have a system in place where the impact of that mistake can be lessened as much as possible. I'm not sure what to think of your agreement that I should just be able to ban anyone I dont agree with and who disagrees with that action. On the one hand I'm flattered you trust my judgement that much, on the other I keep hearing the "absoltue power corrupts absolutely" phrase in the back of my head. No, I tell a lie, I was trying to look all learned and wise, I actually hear Uncle ben (not the sauce) saying "with great power comes great responsibility". yes. yes. I'z a nerd

To many, the end-of-season review is just another mass of red-tape used to actually avoid dealing with problems.

if that is what it is used for then yes I'd agree that its a waste of time. However, if it is used to listen to the users and try to take on their preferences for how the forum is run and find some middle ground between what users want and what isnt a nightmare for the mods then I think the review is a good thing. I'd need to see evidence of it being used as a distracting mechanism before I'd agree with your assessment.

The entire boards.ie site managed well with Devore and other old school mods handing out bans as they saw fit, and the site was bigger than the Soccer board is now.

rose coloured glasses perhaps? There were problems. if there werent, Cmods wouldnt have been needed, or Smods or admins.

To me, the Soccer board is primed and ready for a totalitarian approach. It already has restricted access, a managable community size-wise, a large amount of experienced, respected posters and a broad consensus of what's tolerable and what's not.

but the soccer forum is part of boards.ie and as such it follows the boards.ie model. No forum on boards is ruled in a totalitarian way (except maybe prison). Your suggestion would be setting the soccer forum up as a seperate entity. There are enough sites out there that are soccer focussed and not part of boards to choose from if thats what users want. if they want to post on boards then they have to post as part of the boards overall community as well as par tof their own sub-section. On another note: who would decide the dictator? what happens if someone objects? How would the dictators actions be monitored and judged? What happens if a leader, however he or she is chosen, messes up the forum beyond all recognition so that the next leader faces an almost impossible task of restorign the forum's reputation and userbase?

Thats a lot of faith to put in one person.

The problem is that the rigid rules have been whoelheartedly embraced, and the "don't be a dick" has been completely forgotten about. Mods aren't willing to exercise the "don't be a dick rule" because the rigid-rule approach has created a legalese culture where every ban and every infraction is picked over and compared to every line in the charter, and it's too much of a pain to justify what "being a dick" actually means.

I dont agree that it has been completely forgotten. it is still exercised. I've applied it several times in the last year and several users have received permanent forum bans as a result of disruptive posting or just not "getting it". However, it takes time and energy to ensure that the user is being posted for being detrimental and not just as a consequence of not being liked.

Dont be at yourself

LoLth wrote: »

given enough of a sample to make an informed decision. If mods were to ban on sight (eg within 5 potentially trollish posts) the ratio of correct bans to false positives would be much lower and it would get even lower the quick the mod makes a decision. This is referring to low level trolls only, obvious trolls would have a much higher accuracy rate of detection.

I think we have a lot of common ground, and I think you may have taken me up a little wrong. I'm not suggesting that users are banned after 5 low-level trolling posts. I'm not sure how often you dip into the Soccer forum, but there are posters who've been there for months and even years with literally hundreds of low-level trolling posts to their name. These posters are known to all as WUMs (wind-up merchants), but nothing is done because they're not explicitly breaking the charter. We both agree that 5 posts is too small a sample to judge someone as a troll, but there does come a point - in weeks, not months or years - when it becomes clear that a poster is only out to get people's backs up.

I see your point but I would argue that any troll, low level or not that posts enough in 1 month to derail 100s of threads is going to be picked up that much quicker. My comment was made with the troll post rate of approx 1 post per day or 1 per match day in mind. Then the damage done is considerably reduced in the 1 month period. I do admit though to using 1 month as an arbitrary measure.

Honestly, it doesn't take many posts to turn an otherwise decent thread into a car crash. There are certain arguments that have been done to death on the forum and that most people just avoid because we're sick of them. These are often just dropped into a thread by a troll, who then either stays to stoke the fire, or disappears once people bite, derailing the thread. This isn't something that happens every now and again; there are times when every other thread gets ruined in this manner.

I agree. Thats pretty much what I think everyone agrees with. I prefer though to pay more attention to the events leading up to the ban and that , for me, would include a warning where possible. For the feedback charter I ahve included the provision of a warning but I have also made it possible fo ra troll to be outright banned depending on the frequency and severity of the trolling. I think a suspected low level should get a warning. Once confirmed, they've had their chance to change their ways the ban is all their own fault and makes it much, mcuh harder to be appealed against or for the fairness of it to be argued.

That's fair enough. At least action is being taken. On the soccer forum, it comes across that the mods are hesitant to take action, because they're not necessarily backed up by the charter.

its actually very easy to make a black and white system. the reason we dont have one is because we want mods to make decisions and while we do trust mod decisions we (admins) also recognise that everyone makes a mistake sometime. including us (the admins) and the cmods when appointing a mod. We recognise that we could possible make a mistake and so we want to have a system in place where the impact of that mistake can be lessened as much as possible.

This comes back to a previous point: the mods [on the soccer forum] appear to be reluctant to make a decision that isn't backed up in black-and-white by the charter.

I'm not sure what to think of your agreement that I should just be able to ban anyone I dont agree with and who disagrees with that action. On the one hand I'm flattered you trust my judgement that much, on the other I keep hearing the "absoltue power corrupts absolutely" phrase in the back of my head. No, I tell a lie, I was trying to look all learned and wise, I actually hear Uncle ben (not the sauce) saying "with great power comes great responsibility". yes. yes. I'z a nerd

I don't inherintely trust or distrust any mod or admin - but I'd be willing to give them all a fair crack of weeding out the troublemakers on their own judgement. I was a mod for years, and found that so long as your decisions are reasonable and for the better of the community as a whole - even if some people disagree - you have very few problems. You live and die by your decisions. If a mod loses the run of himself, gets drunk on power and starts banning for every minor little thing, it wouldn't take very long for the problem to be solved. Mods are ultimately answerable to the community which they serve. At least, that's the ideal - it times, it seems they're only answerable to the users which they ban.

rose coloured glasses perhaps? There were problems. if there werent, Cmods wouldnt have been needed, or Smods or admins.

Yeah, there were problems. There will always be problems. The important thing is to have a mechanism in place to deal with the problems, with minimal impact on the community. Once, it was a man with a ban hammer. Now, it's a labyrinth of charters, yellow cards, red cards, appeals, interventions, escalations, etc etc.

but the soccer forum is part of boards.ie and as such it follows the boards.ie model. No forum on boards is ruled in a totalitarian way (except maybe prison). Your suggestion would be setting the soccer forum up as a seperate entity. There are enough sites out there that are soccer focussed and not part of boards to choose from if thats what users want. if they want to post on boards then they have to post as part of the boards overall community as well as par tof their own sub-section.

At the end of the day, the soccer forum is its own community, and already has its own rules (see: access requests, 2.3k word charter). Every board has its own informal policies, and it's not a massive leap to allow the mods more leeway on this particular board. I think everybody agrees that it's one of the toughest boards to mod, so why hamstring the mods?

On another note: who would decide the dictator? what happens if someone objects? How would the dictators actions be monitored and judged? What happens if a leader, however he or she is chosen, messes up the forum beyond all recognition so that the next leader faces an almost impossible task of restorign the forum's reputation and userbase?

Thats a lot of faith to put in one person.

I've already sort of addressed this, but ultimately the power-holders would be held responsible by the community. If the mods weren't up to it, there'd be instant calls for change. But we're lucky that the current mods are fairly level-headed and unlikely to lose the plot.

You also mention the risk of the reputation being damaged and the userbase dwindling. That's happening anyway. Actually, the constant low-level trolling is doing more damage than a power-drunk mod ever could. The links to the Hillsborough stuff were trending on Twitter, and posted on soccer forums across the web. We've also lost countless great posters (Memento_Mori, Bannor, Red Spider etc) who were fed up of the petty sniping and low level trolling.

I dont agree that it has been completely forgotten. it is still exercised. I've applied it several times in the last year and several users have received permanent forum bans as a result of disruptive posting or just not "getting it". However, it takes time and energy to ensure that the user is being posted for being detrimental and not just as a consequence of not being liked.

I'm open to correction, but I don't believe it has been exercised much on the Soccer forum in recent times.

LuckyLloyd

LoLth wrote: »

and evidence takes time to collect. Calls of "ban the trolls as soon as they appear" only work for blatant trolls. low level trolling takes time to spot and confirm, as has been posted repeatedly in this thread but some posters are still thinking a troll is a troll is a troll and thats all there is too it.

This is of course correct, but at this stage there is literally bundles of evidence available on a select bunch of users. On a very, very simple level, the type of users people are complaining about will have posting ratios built up over thousands of posts (i.e. where they post) completely out of line with who they profess to support.

Of course, this is a soccer board who's key strength is the multi fan base element. But nonetheless when a Utd fan spends the majority of their time posting in the Liverpool Superthread or in Liverpool specific match threads when they suffer bad results, it's a solid indicator that are not posting "honestly" with respect to the spirit of the forum. And by the way, I have no doubt that there are Liverpool fans who do the same thing and could be justly removed with a change of policy, or fans of other clubs / leagues also.

_blank_

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I have no doubt that there are Liverpool fans who do the same thing and could be justly removed with a change of policy,

One or two certainly spring to mind

Jazzy

ill collect the evidence if the mods want. i know exactly where to find it and it will be comprehensive

Le King

The OP himself has trolled in the United forum. I'm seen as a troll to some fans on the soccer forum. Yet, I only intend to give my opinion not to wind people up. Some hard truths on the forum is hard to accept for fans from every club. Hillsborough is Hillsborough. Let's just let these people rest in peace. From Heysel to Munich somebody is always going to tarnish a commemoration for the dead.

I agree with the closing of the Soccer Saturday thread. It was completely derailed. If people want to have an agenda about something, leave it off the forum. It was always going to stir something up. Maybe I'd feel different if I was a Liverpool fan. But the discussion of the program was completely derailed.

I know I'm in the minority with my opinion FWIW.

PHB

I'd wonder to be honest, if the mods would be able to reach consensus even on one poster who they thought should be banned. It would require reading an awful lot more of the forum than I'd imagine they'd be able to. Reading the Liverpool thread every day alone is a lot of work.

I wonder could the infraction system be altered to to allow moderators to add infractions that only they can see, but doesn't appear on the forum nor given notice to the users. That way, when a mod sees something that they kinda think if low-level trolling/somewhat out of line, but not necessarily worthy of an infraction, they could log it, so that over time, you could build it up to make the case for banning an awful lot easier.

It would allow the mods to tag things that they think are somewhat bad for the debate, but not necessarily infractions in and of themselves. Then should it keep happening, they'll start to see it.

I think the system people are talking about is really requiring an awful awful lot of time for the mods. They'd have to know the forum extremely well and read so much of the posts. I think that's unreasonable. And since you are requiring some sort of consensus between mods to do it, all the mods would need to be reviewing it. As such, I think you need some sort of easy technical solution for the mods to keep track of users. A lower level infraction system could work, also maybe a thread in the mod forum like "User Watch: PHB", so that you could keep track of users who are beginning to skirt the edges.

K-9

Le King wrote: »

I agree with the closing of the Soccer Saturday thread. It was completely derailed. If people want to have an agenda about something, leave it off the forum. It was always going to stir something up. Maybe I'd feel different if I was a Liverpool fan. But the discussion of the program was completely derailed.

Actually a poster or 2 asked what was the story with Liverpool and the Sun, posters provided information and links and it grew from there. Posters were being helpful and providing the background.

copacetic

Was wondering if any action was taken over that thread, cam looking for a feedback thread but was hoping it would be about the action taken, not the lack of it. Its easy to say that when you don't have to take the action though.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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".

Thats clear to most of us, but the way boards works puts the mods in a difficult position. The types of posters we are discussing here are the very ones who will send 100s of PMs and start loads of help desk and DRP threads taking up everyone's time and reducing their will to live. For certain they'll be entertained and maybe rightly so in case of a genuine grievance. We appear to have difficulty writing these people off early enough and just removing their forum rights and appeal rights.

However I wouldn't want that job myself, a lot of ex mods on this thread who know the different viewpoint you get when you are looking at removing the posting rights from someone when it isnt a clear cut black and white decision. Especially when these posting rights may be an important part of that persons life. You ponder whether the people do actually believe their own delusional posts or if they have other issues that make them post the way they do. As it can be very hard to find any rational reasons for their long term posting styel, just enjoying trolling doesn't seem valid.

For instance there are quite a few posters on this thread who have gone through apparent spells of more short termed deliberate bad behaviour when it was outside their usual style. Is that more of an offence as they knew exactly what they were doing, or less offensive?
It's good to here something might come of this, there was mention earlier that we may lose posters if something isn't done, but imo we've lost piles of posters over last few years because of the constant aggravation of having to sift through piles of crap to get to anything interesting.

copacetic

Excuse the spelling and formatting above, posting from mobile.

One last point on taking action. Personally I do think there are cases like this one where it shouldnt be at all difficult. I can see where the mods, cmods and admins are coming from, but when people who have been given chance after chance after chance still cross well over the line then they had their chances before. They shouldn't be given this 'building of the case' benefit of the doubt, they dont deserve it. They were allowed to continue posting after bad behaviour in the past, they should be walking on eggshells and when they break them, they're gone. Without the hand wringing.

How on earth someone with an incredibly bad history on the forum can go to the DRP and get a ban over turned for it being 'borderline' is beyond me. They aren't on any borderline anymore.

OhNoYouDidn't

It struck me the amount of posters who believe 'getting a reaction' should be a banable offence. There is nothing intrinsicly wrong with getting people to react - it is a chat forum after all.

There are too many Joe Duffy's on the SF who confuse disagreeing with them as trolling and then go looking to have the person banned for simply having the temerity to disagree with them. I'd say they are cracking fun down the pub.

There is trolling on the forum and the mods have to deal with that. My own opinion on their spectacular lack of action on certain threads because they neither understand them or want to understand them, specifically domestic football. I also think some clubs are protected - Liverpool in particular. The Premier Sunday / Heysel debate was a prime example. If it cannot be debated without people crying to mods, don't allow it as a topic on the forum.

Long and short of it, toughen up lads and stop blaming the mods because you are too easily 'offended' by other peoples opinions. If you disagree with someone, they aren't trolling by definition

flahavaj

Jesus Christ I have to laugh at some of the people that are taking a high and mighty stance on trolling and calling for people to be banned. The hypocrisy is stunning tbh. I can spot three blatant WUMs in this thread alone!

The forum is fine, its running much smoother these days than ever before. If you do think somone's on a wind up just ignore them FFS. Also the amount of people that throw out the trolling accusation based on an opposition supporter offering an alternative viewpoint is laughable. People need to develop a thick skin. The foum is imn danger of becoming a humourless place with every bith of craic and banter in danger of being drowned out by cries of trolling. people need to relax, use the ignore function if someone is really hindering their enjoyment of the place and most of all stop whinging.

pickarooney

It's easy to say "man up and ban the trollers."
It's just as easy to say "man up and ignore them."

It takes two to troll, Marge, one to post and one to react.

Aidric

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

There are too many Joe Duffy's on the SF who confuse disagreeing with them as trolling and then go looking to have the person banned for simply having the temerity to disagree with them. I'd say they are cracking fun down the pub.

This isn't just confined to the SF, it's site wide.

Handsome Bob

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

It struck me the amount of posters who believe 'getting a reaction' should be a banable offence. There is nothing intrinsicly wrong with getting people to react - it is a chat forum after all.

There are too many Joe Duffy's on the SF who confuse disagreeing with them as trolling and then go looking to have the person banned for simply having the temerity to disagree with them. I'd say they are cracking fun down the pub.

There is trolling on the forum and the mods have to deal with that. My own opinion on their spectacular lack of action on certain threads because they neither understand them or want to understand them, specifically domestic football. I also think some clubs are protected - Liverpool in particular. The Premier Sunday / Heysel debate was a prime example. If it cannot be debated without people crying to mods, don't allow it as a topic on the forum.

Long and short of it, toughen up lads and stop blaming the mods because you are too easily 'offended' by other peoples opinions. If you disagree with someone, they aren't trolling by definition

These are gross over-simplifications, did you even read the thread?

Otis Driftwood

LZ5by5 wrote: »

These are gross over-simplifications, did you even read the thread?

I think the above (the bolded sections of the post you quoted) are about the topic of trolling on the SF in general as LoLth has already stated that the whole Hillsborough thing is to be put to bed.

Trolling occurs on pretty much every forum on boards,tis the internet after all and it will never be stamped out as its just too damn easy for people hiding behind a keyboard to get their jollies by intentionally winding other users up.

There are few things that are as divisive and as unifying as soccer anywhere in the world with perhaps the only exceptions being politics and religon but with politics or religon there has to be a certain level of knowledge to be a "successful" troll,not so with soccer.Anyone can check soccer results and go and troll the forum giving digs to the losing teams supporters and they will invariably get a rise out of someone.

Older or more experienced posters know to ignore the obvious eegits and ime when they dont get the desired rise they toddle off and try and find someone else to piss off or they end up getting banned,either way,its win win.

I feel people need to stop being so precious about every perceived slight though.If you have a problem with posts,report them and ignore them.If the mods deem them actionable they will be actioned.

Its been said here a few times already that defining trolling,particularly in the SF is horribly difficult and it is.Look at the Roy Keane thread yesterday,certain users completly ignored well documented facts about a few things for the sole reason (I believe) to agitate other users.When they got called on it they trotted out the old "its not up to me to prove it,its up to you" line which again serves to piss people off.There was nothing too blatant about it however its pretty clear of the intentions imo.

Id love to see a break down of reported posts based on who supports which team (impossible,I know) cos Id bet dollars to donuts that the most posts reported by Man United fans were posted by Liverpool fans and most the posts reported by Liverpool fans were posted by Man United fans and that comes down to the age old rivalry between the two clubs.

There is always going to be banter when it comes to footy and I have to say the posting style on the SF by most people is very respectful of opposition in comparison to pretty much every other soccer forum Ive ever read so for that the posters and the mod team should be commended.

Take an average Saturday night after a big game and you are out for pints with yer mates that are rival fans.You reckon that they arent absolutely lambasting the opposition throwing out horrendous insults etc?Of course not,its part and parcel of the game and I personally love that aspect of it,getting one over on yer friends,slagging eachother etc.If you dont enjoy stuff like that then maybe you shouldnt be watching football at all.

Id hate to see the SF become any more sanitised than it is.I think there is a good balance of well argued and thought out stuff as well as the bit of craic.Its depressing to see posts being reported for the most frivilous of reasons.

tl;dr

People need to have a group unbunching of their panties and stop taking everything so bloody seriously cos the fun will end up being sucked out of the forum altogether.

OhNoYouDidn't

LZ5by5 wrote: »

These are gross over-simplifications, did you even read the thread?

Yes, and you clearly didn't if you are asking me did I.

Hillsboro is an emotive topic, that is understood. But like it or not, there isn't a consensus on some of the issues around the tragedy. If Liverpool fans cannot debate the topic without deciding that anyone who deviates from their narrative is trolling rather than just has a different opinion then one of the following should happen:

- anyone who disagrees with them is reported for trolling and the mods ban them on request (the current state)
- they grow up and deal with the fact its a multi fan forum and there will be opinions that differ from theirs, or even offends them on occasion(what should happen)
- the topic is taboo and the mods don't allow any discussion of it (which no-one really wants).

I stand by my statement that the line between trolling and genuine debate and disagreement has been blurred because a culture of rats has been allowed fester on parts the SF. Man U fans trying to get Liverpool fans banned and vice versa. Christ on a Honda, the Celtic and Rangers fans have a better relationship and engage each other in a more grown up fashion.

Dont be at yourself

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Yes, and you clearly didn't if you are asking me did I.

Hillsboro is an emotive topic, that is understood. But like it or not, there isn't a consensus on some of the issues around the tragedy. If Liverpool fans cannot debate the topic without deciding that anyone who deviates from their narrative is trolling rather than just has a different opinion then one of the following should happen:

- anyone who disagrees with them is reported for trolling and the mods ban them on request (the current state)
- they grow up and deal with the fact its a multi fan forum and there will be opinions that differ from theirs, or even offends them on occasion(what should happen)
- the topic is taboo and the mods don't allow any discussion of it (which no-one really wants).

I stand by my statement that the line between trolling and genuine debate and disagreement has been blurred because a culture of rats has been allowed fester on parts the SF. Man U fans trying to get Liverpool fans banned and vice versa. Christ on a Honda, the Celtic and Rangers fans have a better relationship and engage each other in a more grown up fashion.

Liverpool fans have no problem discussing Hillsborough. It has been discussed many times. But there's a line between debate and trolling. What happened at Hillsborough is a matter of record, accepted by the government, the police, the club, the fans, the victims' families, even the Sun newspaper.

To hash up disgusting and insulting proven lies is not debate and does a massive disservice to those who do like to engage in debate and discussion on the forum.

OhNoYouDidn't

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Liverpool fans have no problem discussing Hillsborough. It has been discussed many times. But there's a line between debate and trolling. What happened at Hillsborough is a matter of record, accepted by the government, the police, the club, the fans, the victims' families, even the Sun newspaper.

To hash up disgusting and insulting proven lies is not debate and does a massive disservice to those who do like to engage in debate and discussion on the forum.

So debate with them. Clarify these supposed 'lies'. Engage and educate.

Don't go crying troll and trying to get people banned every singe time someone makes a statement you disagree with.

mike65

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So debate with them. Clarify these supposed 'lies'. Engage and educate.

Don't go crying troll and trying to get people banned every singe time someone makes a statement you disagree with.

Why should anyone waste time with someone (like The Muppet in this case) who is not interested in education or enlightenment and is merely taking the piss to get a reaction?

K-9

Yeah, think we all know some posters are far too precious and report posts for silly reasons, the mods have told us that plenty of times.

That's a separate discussion which I'm sure will come up again on the general feedback thread in the Summer.

This one is about low level trolling. The "report it to the mods line" doesn't really work as the mods themselves, both past and present, have said their hands are tied to a degree. They'd like to act but can't for different reasons. So the "report the post" point is redundant, even admitted by the mods.

The "high level" trolls do get dealt with, don't think there is many issues with that. If anything they get too much leeway, I mean 6 yellow cards! though I think mods have said they can ban without 6 cards.

Anyway, wasn't really going to post as this will drag on with posters pleading the "free speech" line. It's with the mods, nearly everybody agrees they are doing a good job, so we'll see what they come up with.

Handsome Bob

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So debate with them. Clarify these supposed 'lies'. Engage and educate.

Don't go crying troll and trying to get people banned every singe time someone makes a statement you disagree with.

Because they're not interested in debate, thus there's no point trying to clarify their lies, because they sure as **** aren't interested in listening.

K-9

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So debate with them. Clarify these supposed 'lies'. Engage and educate.

Don't go crying troll and trying to get people banned every singe time someone makes a statement you disagree with.

Yes, but the burden of proof isn't with Liverpool fans, it's with people questioning what is now the accepted truth, the police lied and covered up, part of the reason the lies were printed. It isn't up to Liverpool fans to present their case. It's up to people like yourself to.

To take it away from Hillsborough, politics has the same rule. Obviously soccer is different and has to allow for opinions, even stupid ones, but in a case like this, the burden lies on you to provide proof.

flahavaj

The forum is like going down to your local for a few pints. There are sound people and there are d*ckheads. There are interesting people and people who bore you to death. There are people who enjoy a bit of craic and there are people who love to wind everyone up.

No matter how much we think banning these mystical "5 or 6 troublemakers" will suddenly solve all the forum's problems, IMo it most certainly won't. Even if these guys were banned tomorrow, we'll still be all in here in ayear's time with another 6 who should be banned. I can tink of 4 guys that everyone was crying to be banned last season who have left, yet here we are a year later with a list of names of more people who should get the door.

Its naive in the extreme to think that on a forum of this size you'd be able to weed out all the messers all of the time. Quite frankly, the mods would be run off their feet. Who decides where to draw the line anyway? If you took a poll of everyone whinging in this thread about who should be banned, they'd all have a different set if names.

Bottom line, you can't control how other people carry on, only yourself. Mass bannings wouldn't make a blind bit of diference, theres always someone else who'll be even better at trolling than the last fella to come along and take their place. Its the internet, there are always going to be pups who want to stir the pot. You can let them have their way and engage them or you can just ignore them and carry on regardless. Its not that hard really.

Also, IMO, throwing out accusations of trolling at everyone and anyone whenever they offer a contrary opinion is just as bad as someone trolling, you'll always have half a dozen sheep who'll join in because it suits them better than having to argue their point - this derails threads more than anything else tbh.

To be honest I'd miss the trolls if they were gone, they keep the place interesting and colourful. Sure look at this threads, what else would the moaners have to whinge about over 17+ pages if they didn't have someone to p*ss and moan about? Relax and see the foum for what it is, a place to chat a bit of chat about football and a bit of p*ss taking. You'll always have a few knobs in every big group of people, get over it. Way too much serious bizness ITT.

I can guarantee as well btw that if the mods really started to rule with an iron fist and infracted every little "discretion" in order to get rid of the bell ends you'd have a thread twice as long next year with everyone p*ssing and moaning about how the place had gotten too strict. Be careful of what ye wish for. We once had a mod on the PW forum who decided he was gonna "clamp down" on a set of posters and in the crossfire he p*ssed off nearly every decent poster in the place and most of them left. it took literally a year of decent moderation to get the place back to its former glory. Be happy with what ye have lads, for a forum of its type, with so many opposition fans interacting, the place runs remarkably smoothly.

OhNoYouDidn't

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Because they're not interested in debate, thus there's no point trying to clarify their lies, because they sure as **** aren't interested in listening.

Then ignore them. Thats life on the internet, fans of all clubs have some nonesense thats thrown at them from time to time. Granted this is a more extreme case, but the principal remains.

mike65 wrote: »

Why should anyone waste time with someone (like The Muppet in this case) who is not interested in education or enlightenment and is merely taking the piss to get a reaction?

I disagree with you on this. He may have been wrong, but, and this is the key point, you assume he was trying to get a reaction as opposed to just being wrong. Thats the core of my argument. Engage or ignore. Less of the running crying to the mods (not directed at you per say).

There is an immaturity on the SF that unfortunatly is ingrained because the mods have mollycoddled certain groups by allowing the report button to basically be used as a -1 and then infract on that basis.

PHB

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I disagree with you on this. He may have been wrong, but, and this is the key point, you assume he was trying to get a reaction as opposed to just being wrong. Thats the core of my argument. Engage or ignore. Less of the running crying to the mods (not directed at you per say).

Sorry, does trolling exist at all? If so, how do you distinguish it?

OhNoYouDidn't

PHB wrote: »

Sorry, does trolling exist at all? If so, how do you distinguish it?

Of course it does and I have stated it does. But not every single post contrary to your opinion is trolling, which some posters seem to think it is.

Distinguishing is the job of the mods, but the point I am making is there is a sense of entitlement with some posters that they are entitled to have posters clamped just for disagreeing with them. That has to stop too.