Lack of common sense in the soccer forum.

Blatter

I'm starting this thread to highlight what I feel to be a distinct lack of common sense in moderating on the SF. While this is undoubtedly a difficult forum to moderate, there are decisions being made that appear to be adding to the problems rather than taking them away. There have been numerous poster who have become disillusioned with the forum in recent times and I have a feeling that the lack of common sense in the moderation is a contributing factor to this.

There was a case a few weeks ago involving myself when I was infracted for abuse despite the fact I was clearly joking(The guy who I 'abused' thanked my post along with around another 15 people) Anyway the mod that handed me the infraction, acknowledged it was a joke but refused to overturn the infraction. I then contacted another mod(who I won't name) and he agreed that the infraction was unfair. Eventually a compromise was reached whereas if I delete the post, the infraction will be removed. That inferred I shouldn't have posted what I did in the first place which left me disillusioned, and I was annoyed that I had to challenge such a ridiculous infraction in the first place.( I will go into detail about the infraction if requested, but I won't now as it's not my intention to make this about me, it's just an example that I'm using)

This is another example from a few months ago, where I feel common sense should have clearly have been used.

I was also very surprised at this infraction also a few weeks ago.

And again, on Sunday, 7 or 8 posters were banned for a month because a mod used the charted to the letter of the law, when it could have been handled much, much better. See the various threads in dispute resolution for back round.



My intention is not to single out moderators or start some kind of witch hunt but only to start a conversation about more common sense ways in which certain issue coud be dealt with which could lead to less disillusionment amongst posters, less work for moderators and less threads clogging up DR.

A few of those bans handed out were ridiculous imo. The charter is not set in stone, that's why we talk about "the people factor" in modding. Bad call.

What to do? I don't know. I would issue 1 day bans for breaking that particular rule, a month is way too long.

El Weirdo

Blatter wrote: »

This is another example from a few months ago, where I feel common sense should have clearly have been used.

This example was absolutely ridiculous. I remember that thread and amiable had only answered another poster who had asked why Neil Warnock was nicknamed Colin.

IIRC there were several previous posts on that thread that had called him worse and could be considered actual abuse as per the charter but nothing was done about them until I saw the DRP thread and decided to report them myself. I think amiable also reported them. Even then, the posts were only deleted and it seems that there were no other warnings handed out.

flahavaj

I'm involved in one of the cases Blatter quoted in DR at the moment so it would be unfair to the mod and CMod in question to comment on that until its fully resolved.

As a general comment though, the OP has a very good point. Obviously rules are rules but at the same time commone sense could easily have been apkied in the other cases mentioned. Amiable in particular was very harshly treated and I've yet to see anyone except the mod who infracted him who thinks this was fair and just infraction. The fact that amiable dealt with the matter in such a,well, amiable manner is a testament to him and furthers the impression that he's not the type of lad to make a maliciously abusive post. It all goes back to common sense and the lack if it being used in certain cases.

Anothe general observation would be that we are losing so many good posters at the moment on the forum. Mods not using a small bit of common sense is only accelerating this. We have good posters getting punished on needless technicalities and others seemingly allowed to post any kind of bullsh*t they please.

K-9

flahavaj wrote: »

Mods not using a small bit of common sense is only accelerating this. We have good posters getting punished on needless technicalities and others seemingly allowed to post any kind of bullsh*t they please.

I think a slap on the wrist and a mod warning would have sufficed on the superthread, just don't do this again, or next poster to post about the match, gets a month ban type warning.

On the other hand, there's 3/4 posters acting the mick on match threads that should know better.

The don't be a dick rule doesn't seem to be enforced, particularly on match threads.

tbh

I've said this before in another thread, but the problem is that the mods hands are tied by the 5% of posters who believe that their right of expression is greater than any rules or charter.

You will have threads - could be a liverpool thread say, but it applies to any other club, and indeed, any other topic.

95% of the posters are chatting away and can have a bit of banter back and forth - nothing major. Then you get some clown who'll think it's hilarious to post something about bin-dippers, or Whiskey-nose, or how tubridy is a piece of sh1t or whatever.

This annoys everybody else, and they either report the post (25%) or take it on themselves to address the post (75%) and the thread moves from the original topic and now becomes a competition to see who can shout the loudest.

Mods step in, and people start saying "where in the charter does it say that I can't call <player> a scumbag?"

Mods then have to add this to the charter to prevent further carnage.

two months later a poster makes a gentle jibe about a player, and the mods see that no malice was intended, and do nothing. On the same day, someone calls another player a fat prick, and the mods infract him. The second poster goes to the DRP and says "why was I infracted for this, and poster 1 wasn't infracted for his post?"

Mods now have no choice - they can either address every case of abuse, even when they don't have a problem with it themselves, or none.

It's part and parcel of posting in an internet forum chaps.

One of the examples in the OP where the OP says common sense should have been used:

I never stated that Mr Warnock was a wanker i merely stated that was his nickname.

I mean - come on. As someone with experience of modding a forum, common sense tells me that if you allow that, you'll never be taken seriously again.

"I didn't say that Suarez was a racist piece of sh1t [he's not by the way ], I merely said that some people think that]

"I didn't say that tbh constantly talks through his arse, I just said that I can see why people would say that"


Most regular posters of the soccer forum never get infracted or banned. Every single one that does can be pointed to a specific rule in the charter that they broke - it's not up to the mods to decide the intentions of a poster who breaks the charter, it's up to the users not to break the charter in the first place.

Otis Driftwood

The bed has been made but now people are complaining about having to lie in it.

Id put the SF as the hardest one to mod on boards,even ahead of AH at this stage.

The addition of various things to the charter is because some posters on there act like children.

Football should be about banter.Stuff like Sir Whiskey Nose,Fat Sam,Fat Frank etc is harmless slagging in my estimation but some posters get up on/have gotten up on their high horse about it so anything like that results in an infraction.

If certain posters didnt act so bloody precious this wouldnt be an issue I feel.

Of course when its stuff like using Hillsborough or Munich in a derogatory manner then the book should be thrown at the guilty party but calling someone fat,stupid etc is,in my humble opinion is a non issue.

The soccer forum mods are damned if they do and damned if they dont.
:rolleyes:

pickarooney

What a bunch of bull**** to ban someone for a month for saying 'nice goal'. Have a bit of cop-on. Do you not realise that this sort of petty, needly rubbish is just going to turn good posters against the mods and the forum and generate loads of needless dispute resolution and bad feeling? If I were in the CMods' position, I'd be very pissed off with having to deal with a half-dozen DRP threads because mods are throwing around insane bans on a whim. Please, have some respect for the people who have to clean up your mess - I'm sure they've better things to do with their time than to mediate on these non-issues.

Handsome Bob

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

If certain posters didnt act so bloody precious this wouldnt be an issue I feel.

That's not the problem in my humble opinion. Look at the forum and you'll find that there are still plenty of posters who manage to walk the line in their banter and winding up of other posters. And that's grand, I think we all engage in a little bit of that, but we use our common sense and don't overstep things.

Chances are that for those infracted, they probably know that their post is risky. If in doubt don't post. I have sympathy with the likes of amiable, but he left himself open with that post about Warnock.

El Weirdo

Handsome Bob wrote: »

I have sympathy with the likes of amiable, but he left himself open with that post about Warnock.

As open as those who actually abused him in the same thread? Did any of those get warned?

I got the feeling that the mods just deleted all the posts just to get it out of the way after they had been reported. A bit of consistency would've been nice on that occasion.

Handsome Bob

El Weirdo wrote: »

As open as those who actually abused him in the same thread? Did any of those get warned?

Well I didn't know about that. To answer your question, I'd hope so.

adox

I too am one of the posters banned for one month for posting in the Superthread when the match thread was locked at the weekend. My post was in reply to Flahs " nice goal by Fletch, surely too late" and my reply was " it is, and dont call me Shirley".

Now for that exchange myself and Flah recieved one month bans under the new rule. I`m fully aware of the new rule but really my interpretation of it was that it was brought in to try and stop any muppetry exchanges that had taken place in match threads, forcing the match threads to be closed, to be continued on elsewhere. Neither myself or Flah(and others who got the same ban) were involved in any of the crap that went on that day that led to the thread being closed. I personally think it was a ridiculous decision to ban myself and others for our posts and is taking the letter of the law to the extreme, so much so that I`m going to take an extended leave from posting in the soccer forum(not just the one month ban I am serving).

With regard to the infraction that Blatter received for his joke post, it was in reply to another poster who initiated it and was a piss take on an exchange that myself and Mr Alan had on the same thread. I took it in the spirit it was meant, taking the piss out of both myself and Mr Alan. It was practically a carbon copy of what Mr Alan posted(but wasn’t joking). If someones going to get infracted for that, or it cant be seen in the context that it was meant then I really do wonder about the standard of modding overall in the soccer forum.

I can only begin to imagine how difficult the modding job is and I realize it’s a voluntary thing. Ive had little or no dealing with mods in my time on boards over the years, as I tend not to get involved in anything that can lead to infractions but the combination of my ban(which I have had a couple of days to digest and not give a knee jerk reaction to)and similar bans to others, along with some other seemingly petty infractions to other posters, while a lot of **** storms seem to go unpunished in the Super threads/match threads has left me disillusioned with the forum as a whole and Ive completely lost my appetite to take part in the forum.

I hope something can be done to bring both sides closer together in the long term and a lot of these issues can be sorted to both parties benefit. Its something that probably has been brewing over the last few weeks and I applaud the OP for bringing the subject up.

mike65

tbh

that was very nearly a excellent post, you fell down on the Colin Wanker bit though. Some people may not know that Neil Warnock can be re-arranged into that nickname and so wondered about the reference to "Colin", clarifying that little mystery should not incur any sort of sanction.

amiable

tbh wrote: »

I've said this before in another thread, but the problem is that the mods hands are tied by the 5% of posters who believe that their right of expression is greater than any rules or charter.

You will have threads - could be a liverpool thread say, but it applies to any other club, and indeed, any other topic.

95% of the posters are chatting away and can have a bit of banter back and forth - nothing major. Then you get some clown who'll think it's hilarious to post something about bin-dippers, or Whiskey-nose, or how tubridy is a piece of sh1t or whatever.

This annoys everybody else, and they either report the post (25%) or take it on themselves to address the post (75%) and the thread moves from the original topic and now becomes a competition to see who can shout the loudest.

Mods step in, and people start saying "where in the charter does it say that I can't call <player> a scumbag?"

Mods then have to add this to the charter to prevent further carnage.

two months later a poster makes a gentle jibe about a player, and the mods see that no malice was intended, and do nothing. On the same day, someone calls another player a fat prick, and the mods infract him. The second poster goes to the DRP and says "why was I infracted for this, and poster 1 wasn't infracted for his post?"

Mods now have no choice - they can either address every case of abuse, even when they don't have a problem with it themselves, or none.

It's part and parcel of posting in an internet forum chaps.

One of the examples in the OP where the OP says common sense should have been used:



I mean - come on. As someone with experience of modding a forum, common sense tells me that if you allow that, you'll never be taken seriously again.

"I didn't say that Suarez was a racist piece of sh1t [he's not by the way ], I merely said that some people think that]

"I didn't say that tbh constantly talks through his arse, I just said that I can see why people would say that"


Most regular posters of the soccer forum never get infracted or banned. Every single one that does can be pointed to a specific rule in the charter that they broke - it's not up to the mods to decide the intentions of a poster who breaks the charter, it's up to the users not to break the charter in the first place.

You took one line from all my posts.
Selective quoting there on your part i feel.

There were several grossly worse posts than mine on the thread that went unpunished.

Somebody asked a direct question why Neil Warnock has a certain nickname.
I merely explained why.
It's not that difficult to understand.

IMO the mod just dug their heels in and refused to budge even though i had the support of other mods(which the mod in question said if i got support from other mods he would reverse the infraction but when i got the support changed his mind)

Blatter

tbh wrote: »

I've said this before in another thread, but the problem is that the mods hands are tied by the 5% of posters who believe that their right of expression is greater than any rules or charter.

You will have threads - could be a liverpool thread say, but it applies to any other club, and indeed, any other topic.

95% of the posters are chatting away and can have a bit of banter back and forth - nothing major. Then you get some clown who'll think it's hilarious to post something about bin-dippers, or Whiskey-nose, or how tubridy is a piece of sh1t or whatever.

This annoys everybody else, and they either report the post (25%) or take it on themselves to address the post (75%) and the thread moves from the original topic and now becomes a competition to see who can shout the loudest.

Mods step in, and people start saying "where in the charter does it say that I can't call <player> a scumbag?"

Mods then have to add this to the charter to prevent further carnage.

two months later a poster makes a gentle jibe about a player, and the mods see that no malice was intended, and do nothing. On the same day, someone calls another player a fat prick, and the mods infract him. The second poster goes to the DRP and says "why was I infracted for this, and poster 1 wasn't infracted for his post?"

Mods now have no choice - they can either address every case of abuse, even when they don't have a problem with it themselves, or none.

It's part and parcel of posting in an internet forum chaps.

Thanks for taking your time to post your 2c, much appreciated.

But I have to say, I disagree with the part I have bolded above. I think abuse can be addressed in individual cases.

For me, it would be very simple. A mod could ask themselves two questions when they see something that could be construed as abuse;

1 - Was it the posters intention to incite a negative reaction/annoy other members of the forum with said abuse?

2 - Did the said abuse actually cause trouble or did it have the potential to?

If the answer is yes to either of those questions, infract the post.

If the answer is no to both of those questions(which it often is), use some common sense and don't hand out the infraction.

You mention that certain posters will appeal their infraction(that they were rightfully given) and point to another post that contains abuse and ask 'why wasn't that infracted?'

Tell them that it was judged that the answer to either(or both) question number 1 or question number 2 above was yes, and the case they cited, the answers were no, hence no infraction.

I'll use the example from the OP;

dahat wrote: »

My dad always said.......what would you expect from a pig only a grunt.........

That was in reference to the 'Tevez refuses to play' thread.

Now, did dahat intend to incite trouble in that thread? No

Did dahat actually cause trouble or could he have potentially have caused trouble in that thread? No

Therefore, don't give an infraction.


Those who use the terms whiskey nose, fat Spanish waiter etc. are going to incite some members of the forum(I personally wouldn't be offended), so then infract them.

---

It's just really infuriating to see people getting infracted on such technicalities when it could be avoided.

People will be afraid and won't engage in light hearted, cutting edge banter when they see people getting infracted for such ridiculous things, and the forum suffers as a result.


Aside from that issue, I just found the one month ban for saying 'nice goal' etc. in the super thread (after the match thread was closed) incredible.

The rule was obviously brought in to stop whatever nonsense that caused the match thread to close in the first place, filtering into the superthreads.

I don't see why the rule isn't something along the lines of 'those who were contributing to the nonsense in the match thread and continue to do so in the superthread after the match thread is locked, get a 1 month ban.'

Again, it just boils down to introducing a bit of common sense.

tbh wrote: »

One of the examples in the OP where the OP says common sense should have been used:



I mean - come on. As someone with experience of modding a forum, common sense tells me that if you allow that, you'll never be taken seriously again.

"I didn't say that Suarez was a racist piece of sh1t [he's not by the way ], I merely said that some people think that]

"I didn't say that tbh constantly talks through his arse, I just said that I can see why people would say that"


Most regular posters of the soccer forum never get infracted or banned. Every single one that does can be pointed to a specific rule in the charter that they broke - it's not up to the mods to decide the intentions of a poster who breaks the charter, it's up to the users not to break the charter in the first place.

The analogies you gave for amiable's infraction are wide of the mark as already explained by Mike and amiable himself.

It was another nonsense infraction where a bit of common sense could have been introduced.

The most disappointing aspect of that infraction was the fact the mod dug his heels in despite clearly being wrong.

The Muppet

Users and Mods who can't tell the difference between banter and abuse have no place in the soccer forum, there is a huge difference.

Admins/Mods should cop on and stop pandering to the complainers , Rivalry/Banter is very much part of being a soccer supporter and can not be modded out of it.

It's a pity the forum has slipped back to this position because it had moved away from it for a few years and was much the better for it IMO.

Being banned for posting "Good Goal" in a team thread is surely not in keeping with the spirit of the rule it broke and the very fact that such a post did break a rule in the soccer forum at all tells you that there is something seriously wrong with the rules.

There are other examples of some seriously flawed Modding/admin decisions made on the soccer forum , No warning Perm bans for users with no recent infractions being an obvious one which smacks of censorship and favouitism IMO but that's for another day perhaps.

Xavi6

Banning posters for finding an alternative to a locked match thread (for an ongoing game) is a joke.

I've received a PM from another poster who fell foul of the same poxy rule and I had a good chuckle at the stupidity of it.

That thread should never have been temporarily locked anyway, as I said in a reported post at the time.

amiable

I just noticed that the 1 month bans handed out at the weekend have been reduced to 2 week bans.

Future bans for the same offence will be 1 week bans.

I still believe personally that is unfair

tbh

amiable wrote: »

You took one line from all my posts.
Selective quoting there on your part i feel.

unintentional - I can see how, given the context, it was a bad example to use on my part.

baddebt

Blatter wrote: »

I'm starting this thread to highlight what I feel to be a distinct lack of common sense in moderating on the SF. While this is undoubtedly a difficult forum to moderate, there are decisions being made that appear to be adding to the problems rather than taking them away. There have been numerous poster who have become disillusioned with the forum in recent times and I have a feeling that the lack of common sense in the moderation is a contributing factor to this.

There was a case a few weeks ago involving myself when I was infracted for abuse despite the fact I was clearly joking(The guy who I 'abused' thanked my post along with around another 15 people) Anyway the mod that handed me the infraction, acknowledged it was a joke but refused to overturn the infraction. I then contacted another mod(who I won't name) and he agreed that the infraction was unfair. Eventually a compromise was reached whereas if I delete the post, the infraction will be removed. That inferred I shouldn't have posted what I did in the first place which left me disillusioned, and I was annoyed that I had to challenge such a ridiculous infraction in the first place.( I will go into detail about the infraction if requested, but I won't now as it's not my intention to make this about me, it's just an example that I'm using)

This is another example from a few months ago, where I feel common sense should have clearly have been used.

I was also very surprised at this infraction also a few weeks ago.

And again, on Sunday, 7 or 8 posters were banned for a month because a mod used the charted to the letter of the law, when it could have been handled much, much better. See the various threads in dispute resolution for back round.



My intention is not to single out moderators or start some kind of witch hunt but only to start a conversation about more common sense ways in which certain issue coud be dealt with which could lead to less disillusionment amongst posters, less work for moderators and less threads clogging up DR.

I got ban for a month before even getting in , I'm at work I don't really have time to read the charter .....................I think we should get in with a charter , and if we then break the charter rules we can be banned , i think its fair ,
since the ban I just have not bothered to even try

LoLth

baddebt wrote: »

I got ban for a month before even getting in , I'm at work I don't really have time to read the charter .....................I think we should get in with a charter , and if we then break the charter rules we can be banned , i think its fair ,
since the ban I just have not bothered to even try

and yet, many users can manage to get access without any issue.

How did you get banned? I cant see any posts made by you in the access request forum or any reference to a ban anywhere...

---

tbh's post is quite accurate in its description of how things progress for moderators. When you have to account, precisely, for every action and any leeway is pointed at as "lack of consistency" the mods hands can end up tied and common sense has to take a back seat. The letter of the charter is forced to take precedence over the spirit of what it was put in place to protect.

@theMuppet :

There are other examples of some seriously flawed Modding/admin decisions made on the soccer forum , No warning Perm bans for users with no recent infractions being an obvious one which smacks of censorship and favouitism IMO but that's for another day perhaps

and if the permabans werent given the admins would be accused of pandering to the troublemakers and making life impossible for the mods by letting consistent low level trolling slide by unpunished. This is currently being discussed in another feedback thread. your opinion and any further discussion would be welcome there.

@blatter:

For me, it would be very simple. A mod could ask themselves two questions when they see something that could be construed as abuse;

1 - Was it the posters intention to incite a negative reaction/annoy other members of the forum with said abuse?

2 - Did the said abuse actually cause trouble or did it have the potential to?

problem with this is you now have infractions/bans based on mod opinion alone and that makes each decision more subject to discussion which means a mod has to spend longer justifying their actions and explaining every step of their thought process for each and every decision. If users accepted a mods decision and trusted that the reason they give is the truth and not some vendetta then the mods could use common sense without needing a charter to back them up 100%. Mods are stuck in the middle, make a judgement call and they have to explain it to the user, then they have to explain it to the cmod/admins - thats the price of transparency and DRP etc etc - and unfortunately this is a lot easier and more efficient to do if the mod sometimes has to put aside their own opinion in favour of the charter.

The Muppet

LoLth wrote: »

@theMuppet :


and if the permabans werent given the admins would be accused of pandering to the troublemakers and making life impossible for the mods by letting consistent low level trolling slide by unpunished. This is currently being discussed in another feedback thread. your opinion and any further discussion would be welcome there.

Low level Trolling ? what exactly is that?

What is the point in putting in place a process of warning, infracting and then banning users if it not applicable to all users? Who choses which users are subject to which set of rules?

amacachi

I fell foul of the ridiculous rule a while back and the mod who banned me stopped replying after a couple of perfectly civil PMs. I'm sure now that certain posters have been affected that there's a much better chance of something changing though.

Mickeroo

I found the rules about not talking about a match on the team thread quite odd, I found myself doing it once or twice without realising, thankfully i think that was before the rule change where it became a bannable offence.

In all honesty the match threads are too fast moving for a proper discussion, I don't see why the fans of a particular team shouldn't be able to talk about the match on the team thread where they can have a proper discussion about tactics, team selection,who's playing well etc. all in addition to the actual match thread. The match threads are rubbish for actual discussion, you have to trawl through pages of "LOL @ United" etc to find a meaningful post, more often than not you miss replies to your own posts and things like that. I don't see why supporters can't hop back and over between match threads and team threads on match day. Just my 2cents.

Now I'm not the most regular poster on there so maybe its just me but just thought I'd say.

amacachi

Mickeroo wrote: »

I found the rules about not talking about a match on the team thread quite odd, I found myself doing it once or twice without realising, thankfully i think that was before the rule change where it became a bannable offence.

In all honesty the match threads are too fast moving for a proper discussion, I don't see why the fans of a particular team shouldn't be able to talk about the match on the team thread where they can have a proper discussion about tactics, team selection,who's playing well etc. all in addition to the actual match thread. The match threads are rubbish for actual discussion, you have to trawl through pages of "LOL @ United" etc to find a meaningful post, more often than not you miss replies to your own posts and things like that. I don't see why supporters can't hop back and over between match threads and team threads on match day. Just my 2cents.

Now I'm not the most regular poster on there so maybe its just me but just thought I'd say.

The one month ban applied only when the match thread has been locked.

amiable

amiable wrote: »

I just noticed that the 1 month bans handed out at the weekend have been reduced to 2 week bans.

Future bans for the same offence will be 1 week bans.

I still believe personally that is unfair

Even a week is too long. 1 day to 3 days for repeated behaviour.

---

We don't want automatic mods, but human mods in pretty much all the forums for this reason and it's pretty well site-wide that Forum Charters are there for guidelines. Why does soccer seem to be different?

Frisbee

You guys crack me up.

Pleading for common sense and that the letter of the law doesn't always have to be strictly adhered to.

Yet I count three seperate posters on this thread who in the past few months have PM'd me after reporting a post to make sure the post was actioned because the poster in question was annoying them with what they were saying and by the letter of the law should be infracted.

The same people here who are crying out for common sense etc are the same people who in 6 months will be saying that people aren't being infracted despite the fact they are breaking rules.

So we apply common sense and keep the rules loose - Moanfest
We apply the rules to the letter of the law with no leniency - Moanfest

I often try and use common sense and apply as much leeway as I can without just letting people off scott free with doing what they want. Usually I'll try give a yellow card instead of a red whenever I can. But then you do that and you have people PMing you asking why this person was treated this way when 18 months ago (I shít you not someone actually trawled back through 18 months of posts a few weeks back to find a similair case that was acted upon differently) someone else got off with a lighter punishment.

I even said to flah when I was PMing him about that month ban that it was a lot considering he wasn't one of the original protagonists to having the thread closed. But someone reported all those posts that clearly broke the rules. Since, I've agreed with the CMods to cut everyones ban in half and reduce the rule from a month to two weeks from here on out. But I suppose that isn't common sense....

Deleted User wrote: »

Why does soccer seem to be different?

Because of the four forums I(ve) Mod(ded) Soccer has the most petulant and quick to anger users.

The Muppet

Frisbee wrote: »

You guys crack me up.

Pleading for common sense and that the letter of the law doesn't always have to be strictly adhered to.

.......


Because of the four forums I(ve) Mod(ded) Soccer has the most petulant and quick to anger users.

Tell them to grow up and stop wasting your time with their petty complaints, you do know it's mostly a point scoring exercise? This sort of nonsense has happened before and had lagely been eradicated, weak moderation is the cause of the problem , pandering to the few who feign indignation at the slightest thing. Mods should know better than to play into their hands.

flahavaj

The number of mods from other fora as well as former soccer mods who agree about the ridiculousness of Sunday's svents is interesting and quite telling.

flahavaj

LoLth wrote: »

problem with this is you now have infractions/bans based on mod opinion alone and that makes each decision more subject to discussion which means a mod has to spend longer justifying their actions and explaining every step of their thought process for each and every decision. If users accepted a mods decision and trusted that the reason they give is the truth and not some vendetta then the mods could use common sense without needing a charter to back them up 100%. Mods are stuck in the middle, make a judgement call and they have to explain it to the user, then they have to explain it to the cmod/admins - thats the price of transparency and DRP etc etc - and unfortunately this is a lot easier and more efficient to do if the mod sometimes has to put aside their own opinion in favour of the charter.

As opposed to the ludicrous situation on the DR forum at the moment when you have rigid adherence to the ruls by a mod leading to both a mod and CMod having to discuss and defend a decision several times over in the one place? There are times when common sense is clearly the easiest option all round - for both users and authority figures. I'm sure Dub13 will never admit it but the current situation that exists there must be a right pain in his hole and one that could easily have been avoided.

DOC09UNAM

flahavaj wrote: »

The number of mods from other fora as well as former soccer mods who agree about the ridiculousness of Sunday's svents is interesting and quite telling.

What are they to do though, they made the rule to stop people being dicks in the match thread, the fact the thread was locked should have been enough to stop people posting but it wasn't...

That said, the fact someone went and reported all those harmless comments is the most ridiculous part of it.