Feedback Thread **READ POST #1 IN FULL**

Frisbee

CSF wrote: »

Can you elaborate a bit on this? From what I've seen, the mere mention of the b word has led to outrage.

Yup it usually leads to outrage alright. That doesn't mean I infract/ban for it because a couple of delicate souls go all drama queen.

I infract/ban for it if it's used in a way to deliberately wind up people.

_blank_

Can some mod please explain what the point of the access requests is?

Frisbee

Filter out as many idiots/possible re-regs as possible.

_blank_

Well, it isn't working.

Frisbee

Lol, there's only so much we can do, someone can be a paragon of virtue in their first 50 posts and then act the dick as soon as they get access. I check their post history, infraction history and IP for possible matches, what else am I supposed to do?

I've been doing access requests since the start of May and I've banned/denied access in the request forum to 7 posters. It's not much, but it's better than those 7 being able to post in here freely.

Blatter

Too Lenient

Des wrote: »

Well, it isn't working.

It would be a lot worst if there was no access request system in fairness.

stovelid

Frisbee wrote: »

Yup it usually leads to outrage alright. That doesn't mean I infract/ban for it because a couple of delicate souls go all drama queen.

I infract/ban for it if it's used in a way to deliberately wind up people.

Fair enough.

I realise that I'm probably flogging a dead horse here (apologies) but I wrote a post yesterday that called the Dublin Super Cup something along the lines of 'Barstool Heroes vs LOI XI massacre' and it appears to have been deleted.

Fair enough, it's was a bit acerbic but is it really that bad? It was in a thread about Irish football (FAI) not an EPL thread.

What I'm trying to say is that for all the talk about the phrase being OK unless it's specifically meant to wind up, I'm struggling to think of a single scenario where it would be deemed OK given that some people are absolutely hell-bent on having a hissy fit at the mere mention of it.

If posts are going to be deleted without warning for using the phrase (presumably because of people crying to the mods) then why not just ban it?

Frisbee

stovelid wrote: »

Fair enough.

I realise that I'm probably flogging a dead horse here (apologies) but I wrote a post yesterday that called the Dublin Super Cup something along the lines of 'Barstool Heroes vs LOI XI massacre' and it appears to have been deleted.

I was the one who deleted that.

It was borderline, but the way it was phrased: 'barstool heroes' was only going to draw an overly negative reaction out of some people. I understand where you're coming from but I just erred on the side of caution.

stovelid

So in other words, despite assurances to the contrary, the tail is wagging the dog: the hands of mods are being forced by the fear of overreaction by a few posters.

More than likely the same type of supporter that can't be left on their own in their own match threads due to acute thin skin syndrome.

Fair enough. Not having go at you personally, Frisbee.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Too Lenient

stovelid it sounds as if you're just arguing for the sake of it at this stage. There's a simple solution to all this, don't use the word barstooler. Heck, why even bring up the "barstooler" population at all? It seems like every second post of yours is criticising one thing or another anyways, why bother? Relax a little.

Pro. F

Frisbee wrote: »

I was the one who deleted that.

It was borderline, but the way it was phrased: 'barstool heroes' was only going to draw an overly negative reaction out of some people. I understand where you're coming from but I just erred on the side of caution.

I get the feeling that you delete a lot of posts rather than make moderation decisions - either letting the post stand or infracting/warning the post. I can't provide concrete evidence for this, but most often when I see you moderating it seems to be by deleting rather than anything else.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Too Lenient

Pro. F wrote: »

I get the feeling that you delete a lot of posts rather than make moderation decisions - either letting the post stand or infracting/warning the post. I can't provide concrete evidence for this, but most often when I see you moderating it seems to be by deleting rather than anything else.

Careful now.

lordgoat

Too Lenient

in fairness, as a mod i'd edit posts that I know are just going to cause a headache in the forum down the line. Where editing isn't an option i delete them. I can understand where Fris is coming from on this on.

It's not the tail wagging the dog, it's keeping the atmosphere that encourages good posts rather than reactionary ones.

It also means people are less likely to get carded/banned for mistaking 'banter' for what it is and reacting to it.

amiable

THFC wrote: »

stovelid it sounds as if you're just arguing for the sake of it at this stage. There's a simple solution to all this, don't use the word barstooler. Heck, why even bring up the "barstooler" population at all? It seems like every second post of yours is criticising one thing or another anyways, why bother? Relax a little.

I'd imagine that some LOI posters bring it up as they are a little annoyed that Irish people would have the audacity to support an English club.

Pro. F

lordgoat wrote: »

in fairness, as a mod i'd edit posts that I know are just going to cause a headache in the forum down the line. Where editing isn't an option i delete them. I can understand where Fris is coming from on this on.

It's not the tail wagging the dog, it's keeping the atmosphere that encourages good posts rather than reactionary ones.

It also means people are less likely to get carded/banned for mistaking 'banter' for what it is and reacting to it.

I can see the reason to edit or delete posts sometimes. But I'm saying I think there is too much of it. Can a deleted post even be appealed in the same way as an infraction can?

lordgoat

Too Lenient

Pro. F wrote: »

I can see the reason to edit or delete posts sometimes. But I'm saying I think there is too much of it. Can a deleted post even be appealed in the same way as an infraction can?

I can't comment on soccer but I've had a few PM's over the years about posts i've deleted and i've explained why they've gone. And normally it was as i felt they were wumming, what i say is you can post along the same lines again just make a better argument and don't try to deliberately wind people up. 995 of the time the don't repost.

The alternative for me is to card/ban them for the original post, which I generally don't like doing. I'd rather edit the post or delete it than card or ban someone.

Pro. F

lordgoat wrote: »

I can't comment on soccer but I've had a few PM's over the years about posts i've deleted and i've explained why they've gone. And normally it was as i felt they were wumming, what i say is you can post along the same lines again just make a better argument and don't try to deliberately wind people up. 995 of the time the don't repost.

But can the decision be appealed up the chain of command into the DRP like an infraction can? Tbh it's not really that important of a question anyway. I just think there is a bit too much deleting going on sometimes.

Frisbee

Pro. F wrote: »

I get the feeling that you delete a lot of posts rather than make moderation decisions - either letting the post stand or infracting/warning the post. I can't provide concrete evidence for this, but most often when I see you moderating it seems to be by deleting rather than anything else.

I delete a post if it's not worthy of a warning but still not necessary that it was posted. Or if a group of people post a rake of off topic stuff in a thread. I infract/ban plenty of people, as my inbox full of bitching PM's can attest.

Pro. F

Frisbee wrote: »

I delete a post if it's not worthy of a warning but still not necessary that it was posted. Or if a group of people post a rake of off topic stuff in a thread. I infract/ban plenty of people, as my inbox full of bitching PM's can attest.

I'm sure you hand out plenty of infractions too, there is a huge volume of everything on the forum. I just get a feeling that you do more deleting and less deciding (ie keeping the post up or infracting it) than is best. That's just the impression I get. It could be that all the mods are doing it too.

With regards to off topic posts, or repetitive arguments, I would agree that deleting is often the fairest treatment.

Dub13

Des wrote: »

Can some mod please explain what the point of the access requests is?

Its the best way to make someone read the charter,this them eliminates the 'I did not realize this was against the charter' argument.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Pro. F wrote: »

But can the decision be appealed up the chain of command into the DRP like an infraction can? Tbh it's not really that important of a question anyway. I just think there is a bit too much deleting going on sometimes.

Yes you can although by the time you get through the mods and the DRP process the thread is likely to have moved on from the point that you posted in and it will only be reintroduced in the place that you made it, not reposted so would probably be missed after you had the deletion overturned too had an admin deemed that to be the appropriate action.

K-9

Pro. F wrote: »

I'm sure you hand out plenty of infractions too, there is a huge volume of everything on the forum. I just get a feeling that you do more deleting and less deciding (ie keeping the post up or infracting it) than is best. That's just the impression I get. It could be that all the mods are doing it too.

With regards to off topic posts, or repetitive arguments, I would agree that deleting is often the fairest treatment.

A post can be infracted and deleted.

From a general modding point of view I'd have been against it as a user but it's a very useful tool for a mod, there's a value to deleting posts rather than just leaving them there. It has an added value in that it annoys the trolls!

Pro. F

K-9 wrote: »

A post can be infracted and deleted.

From a general modding point of view I'd have been against it as a user but it's a very useful tool for a mod, there's a value to deleting posts rather than just leaving them there. It has an added value in that it annoys the trolls!

Yeah I know they can. I wasn't talking about that.

Frisbee

K-9 wrote: »

A post can be infracted and deleted.

From a general modding point of view I'd have been against it as a user but it's a very useful tool for a mod, there's a value to deleting posts rather than just leaving them there. It has an added value in that it annoys the trolls!

Exactly. 99% of the time if I give someone a red/yellow I leave the post in place so other users can see what is/isn't acceptable.

In other cases if I leave the posts where they are they'll just generate a negative reaction and result in more infractions.

For example in the 'New Liverpool manager' thread last night.

A new (who I'm not so sure is new now) user and a regular user got in a moronic tit for tat argument that was completely Off-Topic. I deleted 18 posts from that thread and infracted the user. Yes I could have left them all there, but it would have achieved nothing aside from dragging the thread further off topic when someone sees the argument for the first time later today and decides to resurrect it.

K-9

Pro. F wrote: »

Yeah I know they can. I wasn't talking about that.

True. You seem to just have issues with frisbees modding style.

PM's are a great tool!

K-9

Frisbee wrote: »

Exactly. 99% of the time if I give someone a red/yellow I leave the post in place so other users can see what is/isn't acceptable.

In other cases if I leave the posts where they are they'll just generate a negative reaction and result in more infractions.

For example in the 'New Liverpool manager' thread last night.

A new (who I'm not so sure is new now) user and a regular user got in a moronic tit for tat argument that was completely Off-Topic. I deleted 18 posts from that thread and infracted the user. Yes I could have left them all there, but it would have achieved nothing aside from dragging the thread further off topic when someone sees the argument for the first time later today and decides to resurrect it.

Probably would have ended up chiming in today myself and in a weeks time giving out to others for replying to a WUM on the main Liverpool thread!

I would have brought up the point on feedback threads that you can't expect on such a busy forum for everybody to ignore inflammatory posts, it's a fine principle but somebody invariably will reply and off they go.

Deleting is a way of nipping that in the bud and posters most of the time don't see the work that goes into that. Behind the scenes stuff. Soccer is more active than politics so we tend to get to delete before the sh*tstorm kicks off.

LuckyLloyd

Des wrote: »

Well, it isn't working.

It isn't working as originally intended, though it is better than nothing and prevents gimmick accounts which is a small mercy.

================

Does anyone remember Section F? CiaranC is cut from the same cloth imo. He just loves himself some Shamrock Rovers and the whole concept of fully engaging with one's local club. He has an agenda, and that makes his posts quite confrontational by nature.

As always, what those pushing from a sub forum want is not what they'll get. They'd like a place to themselves, where they get to moderate it themselves and tune out anything that doesn't fit the message. That simply won't be allowed, so why bother? I lurk the LOI threads regularly and it is very easy to keep up with them as part of the main forum. A moderator who regularly contributes there should clamp down on the silly trolling, and when that happens what other real problems will there be?

I mean, does anyone actually read the Spurs Supporters Forum? How would that be better than what we have going on in the main forum? The lack of an outside opinion is painfully apparent.

stovelid

THFC wrote: »

There's a simple solution to all this, don't use the word barstooler..

Why?

Usage of the phrase is not banned is it?

Despite the fact that people here appear to surrepititously egging on mods to dole out infractions for it no matter what context it's mentuioned in.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Too Lenient

stovelid wrote: »

Why?

Usage of the phrase is not banned is it?

Despite the fact that people here appear to surrepititously egging on mods to dole out infractions for it no matter what context it's mentuioned in.

Because people clearly have a problem with it. And why use it if it's just going to cause offence?

stovelid

THFC wrote: »

Because people clearly have a problem with it. And why use it if it's just going to cause offence?

I'm sorry but I can't legislate for the propensity of others to take offence easily. And I wouldn't expect others to.

Good luck badgering the mods to legislate for your own touchiness (masked as 'feedback') though. By the looks of it, it seems to work.

Not much more can be said about it so I'll go back to talking about football on the forum.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Too Lenient

Badgering the mods? Eh, how exactly? All my posts have been directed at you stovelid, not Frisbee, Slick or any other mod. And fair enough, I'm not going to bother with it anymore if all I'm getting are childish responses like that.

PhlegmyMoses

Too Lenient

Why would any adult get bothered about being called a barstooler? Non-entity of an issue.

Pro. F

stovelid wrote: »

Why?

Usage of the phrase is not banned is it?

Despite the fact that people here appear to surrepititously egging on mods to dole out infractions for it no matter what context it's mentuioned in.

Your paranoia is delightful.

stovelid

Pro. F wrote: »

Your paranoia is delightful.

Your whinging, less so.

Pro. F

stovelid wrote: »

Your whinging, less so.

Your cries of 'whinging' at the suggestion of enforcing the charter on LOI fans are delightful.

This is fun.

stovelid

Pro. F wrote: »

Your cries of 'whinging' at the suggestion of enforcing the charter on LOI fans are delightful.

This is fun.

Not really.

It appears to be more of a question of enforcing the charter to the extent that you see fit - hence whatb appears to be your implicit implcaition that you felt a mod saw fit to delete a post (sensibly, I guess, to stop people get their jocks in a twist) when you felt an nfraction was required for your pet peeve..

Pro. F

stovelid wrote: »

Not really.

It appears to be more of a question of enforcing the charter to the extent that you see fit - hence whatb appears to be your implicit implcaition that you felt a mod saw fit to delete a post (sensibly, I guess, to stop people get their jocks in a twist) when you felt an nfraction was required for your pet peeve..

As I mentioned several times, the options aren't only to either delete or infract. The post can also be left up if the mod decides that way, that's a mod decision too.

_blank_

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I mean, does anyone actually read the Spurs Supporters Forum? How would that be better than what we have going on in the main forum? The lack of an outside opinion is painfully apparent.

I don't read the spurs forum, the way it comes across in your post there is that it's a bit of a love in. No-one wants that, and an LoI Subforum wouldn't BE that, the threads certainly aren't.

"Outside Opinion" from Non-LoI supporting people on this main forum consists of

• The LoI is shíte.
  
• I went to a game once, it's crap.
  
• I drove past Monaghan's ground one time and looked over the wall, facilities are crap so I don't go.
  
• There's no club within five miles of the house I grew up in, so I don't support an Irish Club, I prefer to support a team that plays so far away from me I have to go by plane or boat.
  
• Let's all get on the Europe League Bandwagon, I've never been to a LoI game but I'm going to pontificate that all LoI fans should support Rovers for a couple of months, even though I'd never support the cross town rivals of the team I'm a fan of in the EPL. I know what's best I do.
  
• Let's start a sub forum about a team in Holland. The Admins don't mind splitting the forum if it's a "bit of craic".
  
• There's a huge hooligan problem in the LoI.

You say you lurk around the LoI threads, do you honestly think a sub forum would be some kind of cliquey love in where everyone posts lovey dovey messages to each other. "Oh you Cork City fans, I think you're all just swell and your club is awesome".

Yeah. Cool story.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Too Lenient

Let me assure you that the SSC is far from a 'love in' as put above. There's far less shíte posted there than here, also the moderation is quite relaxed, don't think anyone has actually been infracted there, just trolls banned really.

Frisbee

Pro. F

Don't post in this thread again. You're adding absolutely nothing to the conversation. You've been warned.

LuckyLloyd

Des wrote: »

I don't read the spurs forum, the way it comes across in your post there is that it's a bit of a love in. No-one wants that, and an LoI Subforum wouldn't BE that, the threads certainly aren't.

"Outside Opinion" from Non-LoI supporting people on this main forum consists of

• The LoI is shíte.
  
• I went to a game once, it's crap.
  
• I drove past Monaghan's ground one time and looked over the wall, facilities are crap so I don't go.
  
• There's no club within five miles of the house I grew up in, so I don't support an Irish Club, I prefer to support a team that plays so far away from me I have to go by plane or boat.
  
• Let's all get on the Europe League Bandwagon, I've never been to a LoI game but I'm going to pontificate that all LoI fans should support Rovers for a couple of months, even though I'd never support the cross town rivals of the team I'm a fan of in the EPL. I know what's best I do.
  
• Let's start a sub forum about a team in Holland. The Admins don't mind splitting the forum if it's a "bit of craic".
  
• There's a huge hooligan problem in the LoI.

You say you lurk around the LoI threads, do you honestly think a sub forum would be some kind of cliquey love in where everyone posts lovey dovey messages to each other. "Oh you Cork City fans, I think you're all just swell and your club is awesome".

Yeah. Cool story.

Actually, no that all makes sense. I could be converted to a LOI sub forum because it won't be club specific.

THFC wrote: »

Let me assure you that the SSC is far from a 'love in' as put above. There's far less shíte posted there than here, also the moderation is quite relaxed, don't think anyone has actually been infracted there, just trolls banned really.

God man, it's Spurs fans only. It's very lovey dovey altogether imo relative to what we have here. Less ****e? Probably. Less insight? Definitely.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Too Lenient

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

God man, it's Spurs fans only. It's very lovey dovey altogether imo relative to what we have here. Less ****e? Probably. Less insight? Definitely.

Ahoy captain obvious, this thread was hardly made for the craic. And yea far more insight here, more 100 posters all cramming into one thread coupled with other posters spouting shíte looking for a reaction. Quantity =/= quality.

LuckyLloyd

THFC wrote: »

Ahoy captain obvious, this thread was hardly made for the craic. And yea far more insight here, more 100 posters all cramming into one thread coupled with other posters spouting shíte looking for a reaction. Quantity =/= quality.

- "here" = "forum as a whole"
- You're correct Quantity /= Quality, neither does a lack of quantity automatically ensure a better noise to signal ratio

A Spurs fan is hardly best placed to see that though, we'll have to agree to disagree.

eagle eye

I'd be fully in favour of a LOI sub-forum/forum. Its our national league and this is an Irish community forum so I don't see why there shouldn't be a separate forum for it.

I don't follow it anymore but I fully respect all those that do.

_blank_

Jesus, someone got infracted for calling another poster an idiot.

the name calling was because the "victim" of the name calling wished someone was dead.

Excellent Moderation once again, by a Mod who has long ago been proven to not read around the issues, simply deal directly with the reported post.

It's a ridiculous way to moderate, and lazy.

If you don't have the time to put into moderating properly, then step down.

amiable

Des wrote: »

Jesus, someone got infracted for calling another poster an idiot.

the name calling was because the "victim" of the name calling wished someone was dead.

Excellent Moderation once again, by a Mod who has long ago been proven to not read around the issues, simply deal directly with the reported post.

It's a ridiculous way to moderate, and lazy.

If you don't have the time to put into moderating properly, then step down.

I'm pretty sure I've come across this before

willmunny1990

Des wrote: »

Jesus, someone got infracted for calling another poster an idiot.

the name calling was because the "victim" of the name calling wished someone was dead.

Excellent Moderation once again, by a Mod who has long ago been proven to not read around the issues, simply deal directly with the reported post.

It's a ridiculous way to moderate, and lazy.

If you don't have the time to put into moderating properly, then step down.

Calling another poster an idiot is a clear cut infraction. The context is irrelevant and you as a mod should really know this.

Sounds to me like you have a gripe with a certain mod and thats the only reason you're making an issue out of it.

amiable

willmunny1990 wrote: »

Calling another poster an idiot is a clear cut infraction. The context is irrelevant and you as a mod should really know this.

Sounds to me like you have a gripe with a certain mod and thats the only reason you're making an issue out of it.

What's that on your nose Willy?

_blank_

willmunny1990 wrote: »

Calling another poster an idiot is a clear cut infraction. The context is irrelevant and you as a mod should really know this.

Sounds to me like you have a gripe with a certain mod and thats the only reason you're making an issue out of it.

I'm not saying it wasn't an infraction, I was simply pointing out stupid inconsistencies that really shouldn't happen.

Who were you before btw?

Thanx 4 The Fish

Des wrote: »

Jesus, someone got infracted for calling another poster an idiot.

the name calling was because the "victim" of the name calling wished someone was dead.

Excellent Moderation once again, by a Mod who has long ago been proven to not read around the issues, simply deal directly with the reported post.

It's a ridiculous way to moderate, and lazy.

If you don't have the time to put into moderating properly, then step down.

If only we could work out who it was that reported said post as abuse Des, that would probably show this up for what it is. The rules are the rules and there was always going to be one of two things happen here. You would either complain because there was not an infraction handed out having come across this at some stage in the forum and moan that there was some kind of mod conspiracy or we are pandering to other users and not applying the rules consistently, or you would whinge because an infraction was handed out. It is as simple as that. Someone broke the rules, another poster deemed it worthy of reporting said post as they should have done as there was an instance of abuse and action was taken on the instance.