Lack of common sense in the soccer forum.

_blank_

The Colin Wanker infraction should be removed. End Of. There is absolutely no sane justification for it not being removed.

Just bloody remove it.

Why has it not been done yet?

The mod was wrong, wrong, wrong. He won't admit to it, the CMods will have his back as before, and the Admins will back it up.

But it was wrong to infract it. It was bad modding then, and it's bad modding to leave it there now.

We have a mod of the forum even saying it was unjust in this thread now.

Where is the mod in question - why are others taking up his slack?

DOC09UNAM

Didn't sean bateman get six yellows in one month and wasn't banned?

amiable

To be fair to Slick, I do believe he did as much as he could at the time and i thanked him at the time for the effort he made.

K-9

PHB's 3 yellows in a month idea seems reasonable to me. It's the problem with the 6 yellow card rule, a few posters see it as a target and once they get 4/5 cards, tone back the posts.

I'd agree that posters should ignore troublesome posters, it's pretty obvious who's acting the Muppet or just damn annoying, but somebody always replies and pages of crap ensue. That's what the mods are for, to step in because on a board the size of soccer, saying ignore it isn't always going to work.

_blank_

Saying "ignore it" hasn't worked. It hasn't worked for years and years, so therefore it has to be time to try a new approach.

Someone's buttons are always going to be pushed out of sheer frustration. Could be me today, you tomorrow, him the day after and someone else the day after that. Asking EVERYONE to ignore the obvious trolls ALL THE TIME is idiotic, especially when those that DO use the ignore feature are thwarted by others quoting the ignored posters anyway, and the comments are there for all to see again.

The ignore feature is not fit for task in the SF really.

A better solution is for the mods to moderate properly, deal with the trolls and get rid of them.

The three mentioned at length in this thread were given free reign of the Soccer forum, pretty much since the Summer (July, August time), until the middle of October, which is three months, give or take.

Decent posters were driven away by them. Decent posters picked up infractions and bans because of them, and because of the mods failure to mod them correctly.

The Soccer Forum got into a horrible state in the past few months, and it's going to take a job to get it back correctly on track.

PHB

keane2097 wrote: »

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.

Sorry, let's step back a second here. This system I proposed here would have the following effects/benefits:

The people who you seem annoyed by would have been banned.
They would have been banned significantly quicker than they were.
There would be an easy to explain reason to everyone as to why they were banned.
Other users would be working within that system and know that they are skirting the limits and be incentivised to fix their behaviour.

There are quite a few very regular posters on the forum who when they first started posting were considered trolls. Everyone was in uproar about them. My contributions to the Liverpool thread in many cases got reported and complained and I was being called a troll.

I fully understand that the Sean Bateman/Berba style posting wasn't dealt with as quickly as we would like, but I'm only focused on fairness/transparency that leads to a good overall feeling in the forum.

There's a balance to be had, and simply saying the mods should ban people who they agree are not a good influence on the forum is not the way to go. The Muppet Rule is to deal with specific types of posters who skirt the rules and flame in a way that is almost impossible to infract directly. This is a more general thing about the rules.

Quazzie

SlickRic wrote: »

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.

I called BERBA a troll in this post after he avoided a match thread for the majority of the game and then came in after the final whistle gloating. It was trolling of the most basic order. He asked how it was trolling and I explained here. I was calm and civil in both interactions. I was infracted for both incidents, and thus received a one week ban. Please don't make me out to be a liar or as if I'm making a mountain out of a molehill by stating that it doesn't happen or that ALL the mods are extremely lenient because whilst some are, there are definitely others that aren't which again adds to the inconsistency of the moderating the SF.

_blank_

amiable wrote: »

I'd also like to know what happened all the posts in this thread that were deleted and if they were infracted?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72050626#post72050626

Anyone answering this, or is it being swept under the carpet, like every other problem in the SF?

"We are dealing with it in the SF Mods forum., go away now pleb, we'll talk to you when we see fit, or not at all".

Christ, it's bad enough when trolls hide behind charters and start to become rules lawyers. It's ridiculous when Mods do it to justify leaving trolls alone to post.

Baffling responses so far. But nothing unexpected, speaking from experience.

_blank_

Quazzie wrote: »

I called BERBA a troll in this post after he avoided a match thread for the majority of the game and then came in after the final whistle gloating. It was trolling of the most basic order. He asked how it was trolling and I explained here. I was calm and civil in both interactions. I was infracted for both incidents, and thus received a one week ban. Please don't make me out to be a liar or as if I'm making a mountain out of a molehill by stating that it doesn't happen or that ALL the mods are extremely lenient because whilst some are, there are definitely others that aren't which again adds to the inconsistency of the moderating the SF.

So, the troll got what he wanted. A reaction, two yellows for the person who reacted AND a ban too.

And the mods wonder why the normal posters complain?

Give us a break here lads.

Those two cards and that ban should be struck from the record.

If the mods can't deal with the problems, the normal posters shouldn't be on the receiving end of that.

It's the way Boards.ie in general is going though, keep the trolls happy, they generate content.

PHB

Des wrote: »

It's the way Boards.ie in general is going though, keep the trolls happy, they generate content.

It's a conspiracy and we're all in on it. Now to cash in those boards.ie shares.

Quazzie

PHB wrote: »

It's a conspiracy and we're all in on it. Now to cash in those boards.ie shares.

Please don't do that. All it serves to do is belittle the genuine points being made by the users and furthers the idea that there is a divide between users and moderators. Feedback threads should be used to bring both sides to an amicable agreement, not an opportunity for one side to mock the other.

PHB

Quazzie wrote: »

Please don't do that. All it serves to do is belittle the genuine points being made by the users and furthers the idea that there is a divide between users and moderators. Feedback threads should be used to bring both sides to an amicable agreement, not an opportunity for one side to mock the other.

Quazzie, while I'm perfectly willing to listen to any points being made by users, and I think your points are very worthwhile and worth considering, there's a point at which some things are just silly, and should be pointed out. The idea that this is a grand strategy on behalf of boards.ie that we moderators are encouraging trolling and flame wars because it generates content for revenue is exactly that, silly.

I agree, these are not opportunities for one side to mock another, which both sides should keep in mind.

The Muppet

Des wrote: »

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.

3 infractions in two and half years only 2 in soccer.

Des wrote: »

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?

The answer to that question is pretty obvious.

SlickRic wrote: »

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.

I think it best to leave personalities out of this discussion but as you have attemepted to paint what I consider to be a false picture of my involvment I feel i must draw attention to you own comments about my posting style which you made last December.

SlickRic wrote:

also, for the record, this isn't a trolling award.
there's a huge difference between stirring a bit of debate, or maybe a bit of shít, and trolling the shít out of a forum.
that's the fine line we all know is walked here. there's no ambiguity there. if we started banning people for alternative opinions, this place would be a fúcking horrendous place to be
backing up a difference of opinion, and being willing to back it up in a discussion no matter what is the key here for shít-stirring IMO, which is why i went for The Muppet.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69718691&postcount=24

Very true, pity you didn't stick by you convictions.

SlickRic

The Muppet wrote: »

I think it best to leave personalities out of this discussion but as you have attemepted to paint what I consider to be a false picture of my involvment I feel i must draw attention to you own comments about my posting style which you made last December.

you seemed to have no problem with Des calling it the "Muppet Rule" so forgive me if i don't believe your indignation.

plus, judging by your other Feedback thread, you're more than willing and quick to make it all about you, so again, forgive me if i don't believe that you "think it's best to leave personalities out of this".

and, of all those you dealt with Muppet, i was probably one of the more diplomatic with you. i tried to reason and justify your behaviour countless times on threads and behind the scenes, as you know, but there came a time where your ban was just deserved, and you being in the SF was too much of a hindrance to the enjoyment of the board for others.

your ban isn't up for discussion here though, and anyway it was justified...the enforcement of the rule you fell foul of is what's being discussed. something i've been vocal in the past that we've at times been too lenient on...so let's keep it about that discussion...

SlickRic

Des wrote: »

The Colin Wanker infraction should be removed. End Of. There is absolutely no sane justification for it not being removed.

to be fair, as far as i can see, it is removed.

amiable may be able to confirm.

_blank_

PHB wrote: »

It's a conspiracy and we're all in on it. Now to cash in those boards.ie shares.

I'd forgotten how good you were at quoting one line and ignoring everything else, cool.

Of course I don't think the mods are in on it, but there is definitely something fishy in the way trolls are dealt with these days, in comparison to 12, 18, 24 months ago.

I've been on the receiving end of it myself, and I'm actually afraid to Moderate in case some Admin dislikes something I've done somewhere, even though it wouldn't have been a problem before.

I called bamboozling out as a troll in Feedback, was told my an Admin to "go about it the right way" or some other kid glove type of crap, another Admin DEFENDED the troll here in feedback, until someone from HQ actually turned up and booted the troll.

The Admin are toothless to act on any situation, in my opinion, and mods are afraid to mod in case it pisses off HQ.

I reported a Spammer once, and was told off ffs.

amiable

SlickRic wrote: »

to be fair, as far as i can see, it is removed.

amiable may be able to confirm.

It's expired but wasn't reversed or removed

amiable

Des wrote: »

I'd forgotten how good you were at quoting one line and ignoring everything else, cool.

Of course I don't think the mods are in on it, but there is definitely something fishy in the way trolls are dealt with these days, in comparison to 12, 18, 24 months ago.

I've been on the receiving end of it myself, and I'm actually afraid to Moderate in case some Admin dislikes something I've done somewhere, even though it wouldn't have been a problem before.

I called bamboozling out as a troll in Feedback, was told my an Admin to "go about it the right way" or some other kid glove type of crap, another Admin DEFENDED the troll here in feedback, until someone from HQ actually turned up and booted the troll.

The Admin are toothless to act on any situation, in my opinion, and mods are afraid to mod in case it pisses off HQ.

I reported a Spammer once, and was told off ffs.

Why would someone be afraid to piss off HQ?

Mods are volunteers so HQ should be helping them out as much as possible surely?

pickarooney

Quazzie wrote: »

I called BERBA a troll in this post after he avoided a match thread for the majority of the game and then came in after the final whistle gloating. It was trolling of the most basic order. He asked how it was trolling and I explained here. I was calm and civil in both interactions. I was infracted for both incidents, and thus received a one week ban. Please don't make me out to be a liar or as if I'm making a mountain out of a molehill by stating that it doesn't happen or that ALL the mods are extremely lenient because whilst some are, there are definitely others that aren't which again adds to the inconsistency of the moderating the SF.

Is gloating when your team beats their fiercest rivals banned now? Christ alive, I've never seen anything so precious as some of the posters in the SF.

_blank_

pickarooney wrote: »

Is gloating when your team beats their fiercest rivals banned now? Christ alive, I've never seen anything so precious as some of the posters in the SF.

He was trolling.,

BERBA is a troll.

It's that simple, BERBA, Bateman and Bamboozling have made the SF nigh on unreadable for months now, the moderation of these users has not been up to scratch.

Quazzie

pickarooney wrote: »

Is gloating when your team beats their fiercest rivals banned now? Christ alive, I've never seen anything so precious as some of the posters in the SF.

Gloating is fine, but as I explained in that particular case BERBA stayed away from the match thread for the majority of the game and came on specifically to gloat. Its more flaming than trolling if we are pedantic about it. He came on to the SF with one purpose, to wind up the fans of the losing opposition after having minimal input to the match thread throughout the actual match. Had he been a regular contributor to the thread then I wouldn't have had any problems with it

SlickRic

amiable wrote: »

It's expired but wasn't reversed or removed

sorted for you so.

well, it should be official in the next couple of days i hope.

now, we can focus on the rest of the discussion.

Xavi6

I think the mods need to take a leaf out of the book of that referee who didn't card Billy Sharp last night.

Basically, yes there are rules but sometimes it's ok to overlook them in certain circumstances, i.e. when pointing out an obvious troll like some of the aforementioned.

The Muppet

Quazzie wrote: »

Gloating is fine, but as I explained in that particular case BERBA stayed away from the match thread for the majority of the game and came on specifically to gloat.

Perhaps he was watching the game.

Really this type of complaint is just nonsense.

_blank_

The Muppet wrote: »

Perhaps he was watching the game.

Perhaps he was, but his history would suggest sinister motives.

Fact is this, if you've a history of doing something (trolling), not many people are going to believe you when you say that something that looks like trolling, isn't trolling, it's something else innocent.

SlickRic

Xavi6 wrote: »

Basically, yes there are rules but sometimes it's ok to overlook them in certain circumstances, i.e. when pointing out an obvious troll like some of the aforementioned.

and we generally do.

i'm not trying to belittle Quazzie's issue, but at least 95% of the time, i issue on thread notes for that sort of thing.

obviously one of my fellow mods felt it was about time someone was infracted.

if we go down the lines of being allowed carte blanche to name trolls we think are obvious, on thread, it just won't work. it's just best that people do it through the reporting or PM mechanisms, which many have done with me in the past.

_blank_

The Muppet wrote: »

Really this type of complaint is just nonsense.

you edited this in as I was replying.

It's not nonsense.

It's people finally reacting to months and months of trolling. Idiots ruining the forum with low-level troll posts, not breaking the rules, but not exactly playing within them either.

Like Suarez, gets a tap on the ankle and goes down outside the United box. Usually, in the real world, he wouldn't really fall, but on the pitch he does. He didn't break any rules, but he still gets away with being a little troll at the same time.

And then he does it in nearly every match he plays, until one day he really is fouled badly and the ref doesn't give him a free-kick, because that ref says to him, hmmmm, in all those other games you didn't really cheat or dive, but you did "go down easy", so tihs time, no, feck off, no free kick - and then Poor Suarez starts a whinge after the match or whatever, he doesn't think he's done anything wrong. He hasn't really broken the rules, but he's still managed to piss off a sizeable number of people all the same, by playing on the edge of the rules.

You reap what you sow really, I just wish the mods would harvest earlier - late October, early november, the fruit is usually rotten.

The Muppet

Des wrote: »

Perhaps he was, but his history would suggest sinister motives.

Fact is this, if you've a history of doing something (trolling), not many people are going to believe you when you say that something that looks like trolling, isn't trolling, it's something else innocent.

I accept that and I'm not defending Berba, there should be better examples to use to back up accusations of trolling.

The example used is not trolling imo but it does indicate is how easily offended some users on soccer are.

_blank_

The Muppet wrote: »

I accept that and I'm not defending Berba, there should be better examples to use to back up accusations of trolling.

The example used is not trolling imo but it does indicate is how easily offended some users on soccer are.

In BERBA's case it's not "easily offended" - it's "mildly offended a hundred times", now I'm finally cracking and getting the flyspray out, to rid myself of this annoying little bastard.

It's probably the same with yourself and Liverpool fans - I wasn't offended by 99.99% of your posts, some of them, maybe yeah, but meh.

Bateman, BERBA and Bamboozling (I'm going to just go ahead and post 3B from now on) are annoying little pricks, imo, and almost everypost is an irritant.

pickarooney

I don't get it, honestly. Trolling is pretending to hold a certain viewpoint with the sole purpose of getting a reaction. Flaming is openly insulting another poster. How can cheering the team you support fall into either category? If you can't take someone gloating a bit after a win, what are you doing watching sport?