Lack of common sense in the soccer forum.

keane2097

Just had a look at the Muppet's thread there and it completely proves my point, with him basically appealing for the minutiae of the SF charter to be applied to everybody in the exact same way, as he knows this is the best way to hamstring good mods from dealing with the sort of trolling and flamebaiting people like him love to indulge in.

That was the perfect example of what I'm talking about above, where the mods were given the mandate to deal with posters they knew well were just out to annoy everybody, and you ended up with a guy who had artfully only managed to pick up one infraction but who literally everybody on the forum hated being removed to the betterment of the entire forum.

KittyeeTrix

I did post in the City thread when I found that the Match thread was locked.....I'll hold my hands up and admit I had no idea that this was against the Forum Charter otherwise I would've never posted.

I was shocked tbh when I discovered that I'd been banned for a month as I've tried as hard as I can not to be an inflammatory poster in the SF (well, most of the time:D)

Tbh, I was well peeved when I'd discovered that Frisbee had banned me but once I'd calmed down a little I'd realised that a rule was there and as I'd broken it I indeed had to shoulder the punishment and essentially Frisbee was only doing their Mod job (maybe a little too well:p)

That said, I felt the banning was very harsh especially as I'm not one of the usual problem posters that crop up regularly in the SF and I feel that a post explaining that the thread was locked and also a warning that posting about the match in another thread would have certainly alerted me to the rule and prevented the situation which arose......


PS, No hard feelings Frisbee:)

PHB

I remember before the match threads, and what happened in the superthreads. There's a reason match discussion is not meant to occur here. It leads to way way way way way way way worse flame wars, because ultimately, people can stop reading the match threads if they want, but they want to read their superthreads every day. It's an important rule, and these bannings are somewhat a part of it.

Also taking a step back, if a mod has locked a thread on a match temporarily, do you not think it appropriate to perhaps pause for 2 seconds before you post on a superthread? Fair enough, a month is a bit long, but that's been rectified and made shortened.

What is exactly, people would like done differently?

Insect Overlord

PHB wrote: »

What is exactly, people would like done differently?

Speaking for myself again:

I want quicker, harsher bans for posters who troll club mega-threads.

Common sense should then be applied for things like what prompted this thread. The content of the posts that got 2 week long bans should have been considered, as what was actually posted was not troublesome at all.

The latter wouldn't have annoyed me if the former wasn't such a problem.

KittyeeTrix

I would have liked to have seen a warning that "posting about this match outside of this locked thread will result in a 1 month ban as it is stated in the rules".........

Simple enough, not particularly time consuming but would have been in my case terribly effective:)

lordgoat

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I've given up on the Soccer forum at this stage, apart from the odd match thread.

Why? Because so many obvious trolls are given total leeway to post total rubbish. They ruin the match threads by winding up one set of supporters or the other. They post inflammatory and inaccurate material in the club mega-threads. They wind good posters up until they snap, and then stand back and survey their damage with pride.

And it's the good posters who suffer. I can't mention specifics (rules is rules) but the patterns I get to see in the Reported Posts forum are very telling. A huge portion of the posts that get brought to attention in there are reported by the trolls, the WUMs and the bullies.

I've decided to give up reading my club's mega-thread. I used to read it a few times a week, catch up with all the news, gossip and educated opinion, but it's too much effort to read it now. The trolls get on-thread warnings. The decent, passionate fans get infractions and bans for telling the trolls where to go.

And then something like this happens, when totally disproportionate bans are handed out to long-term, regular posters. People who enjoy the forum because they get to talk about football/soccer. The posters who enjoy the forum because it's their out-let for trolling are (by and large) still posting there.

Month-long bans for chatting about a goal? Rubbish.
Personal abuse in PI wouldn't get a ban that long.
It's beyond draconian, especially when viewed in the light of pointless on-thread warnings for persistent wind-up merchants.
Cutting two weeks off the bans as some kind of token gesture, as if it's some great favour being done, is not the solution.

/rant

This +1.

Can't believe adox got banned for that. One of the most genuine posters in there.

I post so infrequently there now and it's for the above.

lordgoat

PHB wrote: »

What is exactly, people would like done differently?

Hard to implement but i'd like to see posters banned from Superthreads and match threads for lengthening time periods.

I dislike forum bans as, the point of the site is discussion.

That said quick harsh punishment for repeat offenders. With knowledge that they are very close to a forum ban.

I'd scrap the 6 yellows thing too.

5starpool

PHB wrote: »

I remember before the match threads, and what happened in the superthreads. There's a reason match discussion is not meant to occur here. It leads to way way way way way way way worse flame wars, because ultimately, people can stop reading the match threads if they want, but they want to read their superthreads every day. It's an important rule, and these bannings are somewhat a part of it.

Also taking a step back, if a mod has locked a thread on a match temporarily, do you not think it appropriate to perhaps pause for 2 seconds before you post on a superthread? Fair enough, a month is a bit long, but that's been rectified and made shortened.

What is exactly, people would like done differently?

If someone who was part of the reason the match thread was closed posted in a superthread about the same thing, then fair enough, but someone unconnected to the problem saying nice goal or similar being banned is just plain stupidity and a terrible, terrible rule.

fluffyorganic posted that she was wasn't aware of the rule, and tbh, neither was I. Yes, the old "ignorance isn't an excuse" card can be played there, but when it is a rule like this, it really should not be, when the poster has posted nothing inflammatory, or has no history of doing so either.

What I would like to see done differently, since you asked, is not just having a hard and fast rule like the one in question here where there can be clear gradients of the 'offense'. I don't care who it irritates, but generally when judgement calls are made on a case by case basis, the people who are bigger idiots will get bigger punishments.

Pro. F

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.

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....

Having posters moaning at your decisions I'm sure is very annoying, but I presume you have a mandate to decide contrary to the moaners when you make your decision. Whatever the possible moaning, there is a serious problem when people are getting a ban (however small) for posting non-controversial match discussion in the superthreads because the match thread has been locked.
Imo this is simply an error in judgement on your part. The rule is poorly worded, but I think you should have enforced the spirit of it rather than the letter.

The infraction for Blatter by T4TF for what was clearly a joke in the United thread was an absolute scandal. Saying that other forum users may not understand that it was a joke and so think abuse is being allowed is nonsense. If some poster is so thick as to not grasp an obvious joke and they go and abuse somebody because of that then the forum would be better off without them. Punishing Blatter's bit of humour in order to protect some possible future idiot who can't comprehend a simple joke is not a solution.

I haven't been able to find Amiable's yellow for the Neil Warnock thing, but as I understand it he only explained why some people call Warnock Colin. That sounds like another ridiculous infraction, but I can't say for sure without reading it myself.

I don't quite agree with Keane2097's suggestion of only having one rule, but I do agree with the sentiment that endless rules lawyering will not work. As Keane2097 says The Muppet is the prime example. He was finally dealt with when the letter of the law was replaced with common sense and mod discretion. I think it should follow that the principal rule of the charter is ''Don't be a dick.'' and the rest of the charter is only a guide for posters. Mod discretion should be the deciding factor imo rather than case histories and precedents, because the latter form of decision making will sooner or later become completely unworkable.

flahavaj

lordgoat wrote: »

This +1.

Can't believe adox got banned for that. One of the most genuine posters in there.

I post so infrequently there now and it's for the above.

The SF is slowly dying. Almost all the sound regulars or ones who's opinion is actually worth reading have gone or barely bother with the place. Its a shadow of what if was even 12 months ago. All the humour and insightfulnes I used to look forward to reading is gone. Mods are more concerned with pointlessly infracting things that have no need to be infracted when there are full on retards running riot. It took the admins to siteban Bamboozling and get rid of his nonsense when the soccer mods never once bothered taking the guy to task for the sh*te he filled the placed with. The longest serving mod is biased beyind the belief and has no more business handing out infractions than Sean Bateman has. BERBA woud run the place better. The United thread regulalrly slips off the front page as no one can be arsed hearing about how de Gea is the spawn of Hitler.

tl dr; BERBA for mod, lock the Utd Thread.

flahavaj

PHB wrote: »

What is exactly, people would like done differently?

Properly punish the retards who got the thread locked. Leave the posters who posted nothing worse than a comment on the quality of a goal in peace.

Simple bloody common sense.

_blank_

The "Colin Wanker"/amiable situation is a complete joke of a situation, and that infraction should definitely be removed from the posters history, although, given who the mod who issued it is, slim chance of it actually being removed.

I believe the mod in question even stated that if the other mods agreed to it being removed then he'd remove it. Not surprised that that turned out to be a lie.

And once again, Frisbee is left to post in Feedback herself, without the back up of

1. the other mods
2. the CMods
3. The Admins

Feedback is an absolute farce at this stage, with users allowed to post without impunity, anything they like about any moderator, and no-one cares until it becomes a shítstorm.

FWIW, I agree with the bannings, the rules are there, you break them, you deal with the consequences, and don't start crying like a baby when they affect you. No-one complained about the rule before it affected them, which is very telling.

Also, yes, over the last few months two posters in particular were given free reign over the forum by the mods. It was a disgrace that bamboozling and Sean Bateman were allowed to post for so long.

How many other posters have received cards/bans because of them two?

The modding of those two posters was absolutely ridiculous, and just plain bad modding.

Very inconsistant, on one hand applying the letter of the law to posters and handing out 1-month bans for single posts, on the other hand, not using the "muppet Rule" to get rid of bamboozling and Bateman.

Was the Muppet Rule only put in place to deal with one poster? Has it been used since his removal? If not, why not? Those two posters pissed off more people in a shorter space of time than that poster ever did.

Inconsistent lads, sort it.

tbh

Des wrote: »

The "Colin Wanker"/amiable situation is a complete joke of a situation, and that infraction should definitely be removed from the posters history, although, given who the mod who issued it is, slim chance of it actually being removed.

I believe the mod in question even stated that if the other mods agreed to it being removed then he'd remove it. Not surprised that that turned out to be a lie.

Feedback is an absolute farce at this stage, with users allowed to post without impunity, anything they like about any moderator, and no-one cares until it becomes a shítstorm.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, eh Des?

_blank_

tbh wrote: »

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, eh Des?

Yep

amiable

Pro. F wrote: »

I haven't been able to find Amiable's yellow for the Neil Warnock thing, but as I understand it he only explained why some people call Warnock Colin. That sounds like another ridiculous infraction, but I can't say for sure without reading it myself.

That whole thread had plenty of posts deleted i'm afraid.

I have no problem now with my infraction as long as the other posters who were directly calling Warnock a wanker get infracted.

For the record, I didn't call Warnock a wanker.
I just explained his nickname to another poster who couldn't get the nickname.

When i got infracted i reported every post in the thread that called warnock 'colin' as that is what the Cat mod told me to do.

Yet when the posts were reported they were just deleted and not infracted.

_blank_

amiable wrote: »

That whole thread had plenty of posts deleted i'm afraid.

I have no problem now with my infraction as long as the other posters who were directly calling Warnock a wanker get infracted.

For the record, I didn't call Warnock a wanker.
I just explained his nickname to another poster who couldn't get the nickname.

When i got infracted i reported every post in the thread that called warnock 'colin' as that is what the Cat mod told me to do.

Yet when the posts were reported they were just deleted and not infracted.

This is how things have always gone in the SF really.

- Mod makes ridiculous decision
- User points out ridiculous decision, everyone else agrees it was ridiculous
- apart from original mod and for some reason, the CMod/Admin
- even the other SF mods agree it was ridiculous, but won't say so in public for some reason
- user points out all other instances of same thing not being carded/infracted/banned
- all other instances are nor dealt with, but brushed under the carpet

The fact that the mod said he'd reverse the decision if there was agreement, is a farce.

There was absolutely zero abuse of Neil Warnock in your post amiable, no intent to abuse either. Only a simpleton would think or argue otherwise really. The fact that even the Cmods and Admins agree with the mods here is totally baffling.

How anyone can even think you meant abuse in that instance is beyond me, it is unbelievable, and I don't believe the people who think you meant abuse actually still believe you did, and are actually trying to save face here.

Your infraction in that instance is a farce, was always a farce and remains a farce until it is lifted.

The heels are dug in though, the SF Mod Wagons circled and the senior mod has had his say.

amiable

I had to find my post in my PM's but this is what i got infracted for

Originally Posted by eoin2nc
Colin Warnock? i dont get it? brain fried from exams

Originally Posted by amiable

If you rearrange Neil Warnock's letters in his name it spells out Colin Wanker.
He's been known as that for a long time AFAIK

_blank_

It's just totally weird.

Totally unjustifiable.

PHB

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

I would have liked to have seen a warning that "posting about this match outside of this locked thread will result in a 1 month ban as it is stated in the rules".........

Simple enough, not particularly time consuming but would have been in my case terribly effective:)

That seems fair enough.

lordgoat wrote: »

Hard to implement but i'd like to see posters banned from Superthreads and match threads for lengthening time periods.

I dislike forum bans as, the point of the site is discussion.

That said quick harsh punishment for repeat offenders. With knowledge that they are very close to a forum ban.

I'd scrap the 6 yellows thing too.

Banning people from threads is just impossible to enforce, really is. Especially if it's multiple people. That said, there's some posters who I thought were perfectly good posters in the United thread but complete trolls in the Liverpool thread. Maybe a thread ban could have worked there.

6 yellows by in large works for the majority of posters. It keeps people in line over a course of a season, and is a fairly transparent system.

flahavaj wrote: »

The SF is slowly dying. Almost all the sound regulars or ones who's opinion is actually worth reading have gone or barely bother with the place. Its a shadow of what if was even 12 months ago. All the humour and insightfulnes I used to look forward to reading is gone. Mods are more concerned with pointlessly infracting things that have no need to be infracted when there are full on retards running riot. It took the admins to siteban Bamboozling and get rid of his nonsense when the soccer mods never once bothered taking the guy to task for the sh*te he filled the placed with. The longest serving mod is biased beyind the belief and has no more business handing out infractions than Sean Bateman has. BERBA woud run the place better. The United thread regulalrly slips off the front page as no one can be arsed hearing about how de Gea is the spawn of Hitler.

tl dr; BERBA for mod, lock the Utd Thread.

Sean Bateman and BERBA have been banned. They broke the 6 yellows rule. But I also would have liked them banned sooner, see below for possible solution.

5starpool wrote: »

What I would like to see done differently, since you asked, is not just having a hard and fast rule like the one in question here where there can be clear gradients of the 'offense'. I don't care who it irritates, but generally when judgement calls are made on a case by case basis, the people who are bigger idiots will get bigger punishments.

Des wrote: »

Inconsistent lads, sort it.

This is the real thing and the real debate here. Rules vs. Inconsistancy. If I was simply acting on judgement, I would have banned Sean Bateman about one week into his posting about de Gea. I wasn't a mod at the time, but I wouldn't have hesitated for a moment. However, my decision would purely have been based on him being a really bad influence for the forum, and ruining one of my favorite threads. When you consider how much stuff goes to feedback etc, having a hard and fast rule like 6 yellows is very useful, because it means there's no real debate anymore, it's done and dusted. It's also open to massive abuses in power, which considering this thread, not many people are happy with. If you trust the mods to make the call, you have to trust the mods to make the call. That includes all the **** ups that come with them.

A lot of the problems seem to arise because of new posters doing this or that, and it takes 2-3 months into the season to ban them, at which point the forum gets better.

I'd be keen to keep the 6 yellows thing because I found it very as an overall guide, however perhaps we could make some sort of system whereby if a person gets three yellows in a one month period, which both Berba and Sean Bateman did, Bateman twice actually, they are banned for like 3 months, and then come back under probation [meaning any breaches result in season bans].

That might maintain the overall 6 yellows over a season rule while allowing mods to respond, with a hard and fast system, to people who are basically new trolls?

amiable

Des wrote: »

This is how things have always gone in the SF really.

- Mod makes ridiculous decision
- User points out ridiculous decision, everyone else agrees it was ridiculous
- apart from original mod and for some reason, the CMod/Admin
- even the other SF mods agree it was ridiculous, but won't say so in public for some reason
- user points out all other instances of same thing not being carded/infracted/banned
- all other instances are nor dealt with, but brushed under the carpet

The fact that the mod said he'd reverse the decision if there was agreement, is a farce.

There was absolutely zero abuse of Neil Warnock in your post amiable, no intent to abuse either. Only a simpleton would think or argue otherwise really. The fact that even the Cmods and Admins agree with the mods here is totally baffling.

How anyone can even think you meant abuse in that instance is beyond me, it is unbelievable, and I don't believe the people who think you meant abuse actually still believe you did, and are actually trying to save face here.

Your infraction in that instance is a farce, was always a farce and remains a farce until it is lifted.

The heels are dug in though, the SF Mod Wagons circled and the senior mod has had his say.

I was actually told by another mod that if i got enough infractions to come close to a ban then the Warnock infraction would get reversed then.
I didn't get nearly enough infractions so it didn't matter.

For the record i didn't bring it to the admins to review.
To be honest i just couldn't be arsed as i felt i was pissing into the wind

amiable

Des wrote: »

It's just totally weird.

Totally unjustifiable.

Also for the record i was told by PM that the post i was infracted for was abusive

_blank_

What about the Muppet Rule?

Has that been used to remove any other problem posters, or was it just implemented to remove one poster in particular.

I don't think that poster had built up the 6 cards needed for a ban, so stop hiding behind that please.

Bateman, BERBA and Bamboozling were making the forum unusable, and were prime targets for The Muppet Rule, but it looks like the mods were either afraid to use it, or only wanted it to be used for one instance.

It's actually disgraceful that the CMods are not commenting here lads.

_blank_

amiable wrote: »

I was actually told by another mod that if i got enough infractions to come close to a ban then the Warnock infraction would get reversed then.

Hilarious stuff!

:rolleyes:

amiable wrote: »

To be honest i just couldn't be arsed as i felt i was pissing into the wind

little chance of an Admin or even a CMod seeing it in here either, they don't care that much really.

Quazzie

Des wrote: »

Bateman, BERBA and Bamboozling were making the forum unusable, and were prime targets for The Muppet Rule, but it looks like the mods were either afraid to use it, or only wanted it to be used for one instance.

I got banned for a week for calling one of them users a troll and a second post explaining exactly why he was trolling/flaming. The user I pointed out received no punishment at all. When it comes to appealing a SF ban it really isn't worth the hassle as a combination of the DRP being so slow, and SF mods afraid to go against each other means that very few users are successful.

_blank_

Quazzie wrote: »

I got banned for a week for calling one of them users a troll and a second post explaining exactly why he was trolling/flaming. The user I pointed out received no punishment at all. When it comes to appealing a SF ban it really isn't worth the hassle as a combination of the DRP being so slow, and SF mods afraid to go against each other means that very few users are successful.

So, the ineptitude of the SF Mods in dealing with these trolls, to the extent where proper, normal users are getting frustrated and lashing out and getting banned for it.

This is not an acceptable situation, where the mods are leaving problems to fester and not dealing correctly with them, it's an absolute disgrace.

I think all and any cards/infractions given to people in relation to these trolls (bamboozling, BERBA and Bateman) should be rescinded (I can't remember if I got any, I don't think so, but to show that I'm not trying to get any of my own cards rescinded, I will say that if any of mine were in relation to thses trolls, then don't rescind them).

Simply because the mods were doing a bad job of it, and didn't control the forum in a correct manner, and people got justifiably frustrated.

Again I'll ask.

Why was the Muppet Rule not used?

Was it used for the instance it was wanted for, then left aside?

It is going to ever be used again?

Was it used for a witch hunt?

keane2097

PHB wrote: »

I'd be keen to keep the 6 yellows thing because I found it very as an overall guide, however perhaps we could make some sort of system whereby if a person gets three yellows in a one month period, which both Berba and Sean Bateman did, Bateman twice actually, they are banned for like 3 months, and then come back under probation [meaning any breaches result in season bans].

That might maintain the overall 6 yellows over a season rule while allowing mods to respond, with a hard and fast system, to people who are basically new trolls?

This is nonsense. You, me, Slickric, Frisbee, everybody who ever read a post by BERBA or Sean Bateman know 100% that they are trolls - if not immediately then certainly after no more than a week or two.

To tell me you need some sort of detailed framework from within which to take action against posters like this is bananas.

How much time do you spend on the United thread? You are 100% capable of assessing the trolls from the genuine posters with perfect accuracy. You're a smart and level-headed person, as are the other mods I know of. Just deal with the situation properly without needing to have an exact rule you can point to all the time.

If muppets moan about it, tell them to take it to DRP. You'll know you've done the right thing >>>>>>>>>95% of the time, so you'll know the admins and Cmods will back you up and you won't have to worry about it.

The mods we have are capable of dealing with the crap on the SF, they just have to be allowed to tackle it head on and they have to be self-assured enough to not care about the complaints of people they already know are trolls and droolers.

_blank_

keane2097 wrote: »

To tell me you need some sort of detailed framework from within which to take action against posters like this is bananas.

But the thing is, they don't need a framework

They have the Muppet Rule.

But they are afraid to use it.

keane2097

Des wrote: »

But the thing is, they don't need a framework

They have the Muppet Rule.

But they are afraid to use it.

That's what I'm saying.

Gelio

I gave up on the soccer forum a long time ago . .

SlickRic

ok, amiable...i dealt with you on the "Colin Wanker" post. i said it was unjust, and i think, after dealing with the mod in question, i said if you can't get anywhere with the mod, or a DRP, that i would 100% make sure it would be reviewed if it got to a banning stage.

i perhaps should've rather taken it to a CMod, but i think i was busy at the time, and didn't have the time to go through all those channels.

in terms of the "Muppet Rule", it seems to be claimed that that was created to get rid of one poster. that is simply not the case. now you all can balk at that as much as you like, but the fact is that those you're listing such as BERBA, Bateman, etc, are getting infracted, maybe not as much as some of you would like, but they are. not as quickly or as cut-throat as many of you would like, but they are. The Muppet had been skirting the rules for years through skill. that's why he was dealt with quickly.

do we just ban anyone whose not popular? do we put it to the forum who the wánkers are? do we have a system whereby we just kick out anyone who seems like they're being a wánker? whose to say those that do be condescending with their posts shouldn't be kicked out for making the place difficult to use for other users?

these people you're listing are very close to bans, so we are dealing with them. i still would also always be an advocate of only removing someone's access permanently if there is literally no budging on the poster in question, and that it should be a last resort for the betterment of the forum.

i still think as well, as much as Bateman's opinions can be controversial, and BERBA can be a pain in the hole, they're not half as bad as many make out. that doesn't excuse them, but people leaving over it is way OTT IMO.

so, do people want us to just hand out permanent/long temporary bans to posters the majority think are causing the trouble? i'm happy to do that at a whim, but IMO it's going to end in tears.

and just to remind you too...those who drag topics off thread calling out these people. you give them even more ammunition. think before you post, and maybe report or PM instead.

and this "infracting" people for calling others trolls is being made out that it happens all the time. i'm pretty sure it doesn't, and we are EXTREMELY lenient in that regard in general.