Feedback Thread

Paul Tergat

K-9 wrote: »

It can be difficult to prove (which is why I'm a fan of somebody continuously soap boxing getting banned, it's a big sign), especially posters who are very good at it, and then you also get the valid argument that unpopular opinions aren't trolling. There's two conflicting opinions there.

Going from the comments on here though it looks like it is a big issue, with mainly posters who like posting unpopular opinions against it! Always been the way of feedback threads.

To be fair in some cases this is clearly not the case.

There's a difference between unpopular opinions and somebodies only goal being looking for a rise. There are some in the United thread who go against the grain a lot but its clear they aren't trolling. On the other hand this forum has a few who come into threads, drop a bomb and let it go off.

Enforcement of the dont be a dick rule is needed imo

Donnielighto

Paul Tergat wrote: »

To be fair in some cases this is clearly not the case.

There's a difference between unpopular opinions and somebodies only goal being looking for a rise. There are some in the United thread who go against the grain a lot but its clear they aren't trolling. On the other hand this forum has a few who come into threads, drop a bomb and let it go off.

Enforcement of the dont be a dick rule is needed imo

Pro F. is probably involved in the most arguements in the utd thread but i dont think anybody would call him a troll or even consdier it. It's pretty clear when a poster is trolling though. Some of these lads really need to be made an example of for it too.

PhlegmyMoses

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

I have identified an inconsistency in the application of the rules. I have applied them as they are written. Others have not but as this post was made today and I have already acted in line with the charter. As that is the case and there is an inconsistency, I have asked the question of the other mods. If they have a reason then I am happy to revoke the yellow.

One problem we have now is that there are many people who complain about inconsistency but only when it does not go their way. Lloyd is not currently complaining that he has not been carded surprisingly enough. But he breached the charter and he has currently not had the sanction that the rules state applied and people are not complaining that he has not had the rules applied as they are written and that is inconsistent.

This is why Lloyd and Blatter probably thought it was okay to post what they did:

(1) No constant scapegoating of individual posters. This isn't to turn into a witch hunt against posters you don't like. If you need to make a specific example to back up a more general point that's fine, but constantly singling out individual users as your sole point isn't on

From the first post in this thread. The bolded part causes some ambiguity and seems to suggest that it's okay to use a certain post or body of posts from a user to highlight an issue. Rather than trying to get somebody banned, they are using specific examples to highlight the issue with low-level trolling.

My two cents on the whole matter: I see a lot of what ifs and statements like: "Well we can go into any posters back catalogue and find posts in isolation that can make them out to be a troll." The reality is that this never really happens for most posters, as people would have called them out on it a long time ago.

It's no coincidence that a huge number of people have called out certain posters on this thread or thanked the posts doing so, and if it's upsetting the apple cart to such a degree, it's surely the duty of the mods to look into this? If it is so easy to do this for other posters, why don't we have other people in here doing similar for lots of other people, or why aren't you guys receiving tonnes of reported posts for trolling for every user on the forum? Why do only certain posters attract these kinds of criticisms?

Lloyd and Blatter aren't calling people out like that through spite or without merit. They genuinely like the forum and feel that certain aspects of the charter don't cover the issue of low-level trolling well enough. They've offered alternatives to how it can be counteracted and they've been shot down, which is fair enough and most of the mod feedback has been logical.

It's absolutely correct to pick holes in the suggested alternatives and play Devil's advocate but it would also be nice, imo, to see some acknowledgement that mods\Cmods\admins or whoever are taking that feedback on board and trying to come up with some alternatives as well, as I think everyone can agree that the current rules don't really effectively combat soap-boxers and low-level trolls.

Donnielighto

What's soapboxing?

K-9

Donnielighto wrote: »

What's soapboxing?

Posting the same opinion over and over and over.

Xavi6

The sentiment behind these yearly feedback threads is good and all but really they're fairly pointless. Feedback isn't being taken on board if it's being argued against from the get go.

What should happen is a list of grievances are posted, the mods record them, go away and discuss, then come back with what can and can't be done.

This back and forth nonsense is serving absolutely no purpose and things will just continue as they are when this thread invariably gets locked soon.

K-9

Xavi6 wrote: »

Feedback isn't being taken on board if it's being argued against from the get go.

I'd be far more more worried if nobody was arguing against it, because that means nobody has any problem with it. The contentious stuff is what needs to be discussed and debated on feedback threads.

I think the forum is over all modded pretty well, and the result of the feedback thread is getting down to a few annoyances that still remain.

Xavi6

K-9 wrote: »

I'd be far more more worried if nobody was arguing against it, because that means nobody has any problem with it. The contentious stuff is what needs to be discussed and debated on feedback threads.

I think the forum is over all modded pretty well, and the result of the feedback thread is getting down to a few annoyances that still remain.

It's going absolutely nowhere though, and the exact same points were made last year (probably before that too). Regular users want low level trolling to be hit hard, mods can't do it because their hands are tied by the corporate Boards and the need for a paper trail.

There is no solution here.

Beasty

This is the first SF Feedback thread I've been involved in and I will say the "experience" has been invaluable (even if a bit difficult at times). I would also say I think it's important for the mods to interact on this thread, if only to try and tease out what the most important issues are (but also to correct any misconceptions before the thread takes off on something that the mods have little or no influence over)

What I will say is the points are noted. The most recent one about low-level trolling in particular. I appreciate this issue has been raised in the past. I have been involved in discussions in the Soccer Mods Forum over how to deal with certain posters - the initial approach is to try and get them to mend their ways, although we need the wider forum community to give us (and indeed the posters involved) a little slack to try and sort things out sometimes.

We will certainly have a further discussion about this issue though and see what more can be done within the constraints we are required to operate under

Bounty Hunter

A lot of feedback so far has been from current or former mods and some have talked about what restrictions mods have when dealing with certain issues, If from your vantage point as a mod / former mod you can think of ways we could deal with any particular situation to improve the board go ahead and suggest it.

If you can't come up with a way to deal with your issues dont worry all concerns will be noted down as usual and a discussion will then take place among the mods etc to see which of these things we can improve upon and how. Obviously we would love to reply immediately on thread and say we will fix that by doing X, Y and Z but things just aren't that easy.

The feedback thread is still a thread in the soccer forum and as such still follows the soccer forums charter. Therefore if say calling someone a troll (not talking specifically before anyone gets too defensive) is against the charter, feel free to come in here and say you think that rule should be changed if you believe it should be (personally I think thats a good rule - report it if thats your opinion, its not needed on threads) but please dont come in here with your feedback being ban this person cos they are a troll and that would improve the board. You may be right but you would be 100% posting against the charter and thus could receive an infraction.

If there is a need to specifically name names or whatever maybe drop a mod a PM and then they can pass it on to the other mods if it warrants discussion. Calling people out on threads isn't advisable as it makes those people the focus, not what the thread should be about, and that's not what anyone wants. Similarily if you want to discuss an individual moderation decision which relates to yourself be that a mod action taken against you something you reported PM a mod about it, this isn't the place to discuss personal matters nor that should be used to try and force mods action by stating your case to a public audience. This isn't the case just in this thread though as in any other thread doing similar would be considered back seat modding.

LuckyLloyd

There is a big difference between:

- Someone makes a single post or argues a single point in a 'hostile' thread (i.e. a Liverpool fan in the Utd thread) and is instantly shouted down as a troll or their post is labelled as trolling right off the bat;
- Someone rounds up a series of quotes and cites numerous instances of riling behaviour in an effort to draw a line under posting that is causing much disruption;

The former is a net forum negative, the latter can be a positive. This is where having too many hard and fast rules (in this case 'call a poster trolling receive yellow card') makes your task more difficult and actually reduces the quality of overall modding imo. In the same way that locking yourself into a black and white system of reported posts -> yellow cards -> red cards -> ban allows plenty of room for people to stoke the fire over a long period with consistent within the lines trolling.

SlickRic

i understand everyone must be given a chance to mend their ways, because you can't go banning on a whim.

but low-level trolling needs to be stamped out. this means in some circumstances, the card system must be bypassed - not in every circumstance - but certainly in some. this is because some are able to fly under the radar effectively with few/no cards, like the example I gave earlier in the thread about a poster who had survived until he made a stupid, obvious Hillsborough remark. IMO, he'd probably still be here if he hadn't been stupid about a really sensitive issue.

as has been mentioned, the place is modded well in general IMO; certainly in the threads I frequent.

i have raised concerns by PM before about certain posters, and when I was a mod, posters would PM me in the same way. it's a good way of getting a discussion going between Soccer Mods behind the scenes. so that is certainly something, IMO, that posters should do. if there's a poster you're concerned about, send a PM. if you feel they're getting out of hand, and nothing is being done, send a "dossier". this is not a call for posters to get stupid and complain about someone who simply disagrees with them; i'm talking about those who are generally trolling.

so not being afraid to PM mods about posters, i.e. not just reporting, is one thing posters can do.

but one thing, IMO, mods can do, and I was guilty of this at times during my stint, is not be afraid to deal with those you know are trolling. yes, everybody deserves a chance. absolutely. but it's a (for want of a better word) "privilege", not a right, to post here. it's easy to give posters another chance. it's easy to just deal with the accuser as per the charter. it's not so easy to sometimes do the right thing and deal with the troll, because you don't want the PMs, the debates, the outcries, the moaning, the wasting of your time. but sometimes it has to be done.

with the aforementioned "Hillsborough" incident a couple of years ago, that was a pain, because, mainly, he has one card to his name before it because he was skilled at card avoidance. during and after the ban it took some PMs, it took some debate, it took some time, but ultimately the Liverpool thread (albeit it can still be a nuthouse at times ), became a much better place for it.

and with that in mind, what is going to happen to that incident that Blatter highlighted? i know he shouldn't have mentioned the name of the poster, but just because he did, doesn't mean the point wasn't valid. has there been a card/cards issued? has there been any kind of warning at all? has a "paper trail" been started?

Beasty

SlickRic wrote: »

and with that in mind, what is going to happen to that incident that Blatter highlighted? i know he shouldn't have mentioned the name of the poster, but just because he did, doesn't mean the point wasn't valid. has there been a card/cards issued? has there been any kind of warning at all? has a "paper trail" been started?

Not going to go into too much detail but the one post quoted that was reported was actioned at the time

The mods will have another look particularly at the recent posts to see what, if any, further action is appropriate

SlickRic

Beasty wrote: »

Not going to go into too much detail but the one post quoted that was reported was actioned at the time

The mods will have another look particularly at the recent posts to see what, if any, further action is appropriate

cool.

and I wouldn't have expected you to go into detail. it's just useful to know, for the conversation, that something was done. thanks

LiamoSail

On the subject of the Chelsea/spurs own forums, should a ban from the SF also extend to those two? That way we're all on a level playing field with regard to the effect of a ban

I think its relevant as there were two well know trolls, one Chelsea and one spurs fan who have been banned from the sf, but would still be allowed in their own forums. Perhaps if they knew a SF ban would extend to their own forums, it'd be a greater deterrent

GavRedKing

LiamoSail wrote: »

On the subject of the Chelsea/spurs own forums, should a ban from the SF also extend to those two? That way we're all on a level playing field with regard to the effect of a ban

I think its relevant as there were two well know trolls, one Chelsea and one spurs fan who have been banned from the sf, but would still be allowed in their own forums. Perhaps if they knew a SF ban would extend to their own forums, it'd be a greater deterrent

The Mods in the Spurs forum are HMods, they cant see the reported posts so they wouldnt have a clue who was banned from the SF and they dont have the overview "regular" mods have in that regard.

The Socer Mods would have to say X is banned from the SF would you mind banning them from your forum?

I dont think that would go down to well really.

I mod the Chelsea one, so in my case I can see if a Chelsea fan is banned from the SF, doesnt mean I'd ban them from the Chelsea group unless a higher up asked me too, then I'd have no problem with it but I dont think I could ban someone from one forum simply because there banned from another, even though they run sometimes in parallel. e.g. Soccer

EDIT : Theres also very little chat goes in the Chelsea group TBH, so a ban from the SF would stop a poster from discussing the majority of his points.

Beasty

LiamoSail wrote: »

On the subject of the Chelsea/spurs own forums, should a ban from the SF also extend to those two? That way we're all on a level playing field with regard to the effect of a ban

I think its relevant as there were two well know trolls, one Chelsea and one spurs fan who have been banned from the sf, but would still be allowed in their own forums. Perhaps if they knew a SF ban would extend to their own forums, it'd be a greater deterrent

It's completely outside the control of the Soccer Mods and CMods, so even if it's considered a good idea it's not going to happen - what happens in those forums is entirely down to their mods (and there is no CMod "oversight" of hosted and private forums)

The whole structure of Boards would need to change to accomodate something like this

GavRedKing

Just on Beastys point, I've copied some of the charter in the Chelsea forum.

Please keep posts on-topic. Posts on arranging trips to games, a few beers over a televised match, ticket swaps etc are fine, as are posts on team affairs. Discussion on other football matters is not permitted., and will be edited/deleted as necessary. Do bear in mind that there is a wider football community on boards here with restricted access which can be requested here. Discussion of general football matters should take place there.

This forum is not an alternative to the Soccer Forum, and members should not use it to subvert the rules of the general football forum. Abuse of other boards members is strictly prohibited, please do not use this forum to continue arguments from the Soccer Forum.

There is to be NO discussion of the moderators of the Soccer Forum. There will be no exceptions to this rule.

So in short the Chelsea group doesnt really take away from the SF in general as the majority of us post in the SF, I cant speak for the Spurs forum as i'm not sure of there numbers and who posts where.

Also the Chelsea froum, while private is open to anyone who wants access, just PM me or Phoenix if ya want access.

Donnielighto

So Chelsea and spurs, soccer forums, get to discuss soccer after being banned. Thats ridiculous.


edit: Didn't realise football talk was out in the chelsea one.

LiamoSail

GavRedKing wrote: »

Just on Beastys point, I've copied some of the charter in the Chelsea forum.


So in short the Chelsea group doesnt really take away from the SF in general as the majority of us post in the SF, I cant speak for the Spurs forum as i'm not sure of there numbers and who posts where.

Also the Chelsea froum, while private is open to anyone who wants access, just PM me or Phoenix if ya want access.

It's not that I want access or anything, just that I feel the spurs forum (obviously not so the Chelsea one as football talk isn't permitted) accommodates trolls, in that it allows them to troll other clubs threads, but they're essentially immune from the effect of a ban once they behave in the spurs forum, hence the deterrent isn't there to comply with the charter in the SF. I think we all know the obvious example here

Anyway, as has been said, its impractical so fair enough. Appreciate you both taking the time to reply

jordainius

I just posted something over in a thread on feedback regarding the access request process. Not the most pressing issue, but no harm throwing it out there.

I still think its a bit "easy" to gain access, in terms of all someone has to do is copy and paste a recent access request request and there's a reasonably good chance that the identifier words may not have been changed in the meantime.

Is there some way that the Access request threads can be hidden, or only be visible to the thread creator and admins/soccer mods?

I've thought that maybe it would be an idea to create a Soccer Access Request user/profile who must be PM'd in order to gain access. And the soccer Access Request forum would remain, only nobody would be able to post new threads. And the only way someone would find out about the existence of this SoccerAccessRequest user/profile would be by actually reading through the charter. (All soccer mods would have access to this SoccerAccessRequest's PM's.) It would eliminate the copy and paste access requests, many of whom I believe slip through the net and gain access.

Maybe I'm talking bollocks, and maybe I'm over-complicating it a bit, but no harm in throwing the idea out there to be considered/ridiculed!:D

GavRedKing

jordainius wrote: »

I just posted something over in a thread on feedback regarding the access request process. Not the most pressing issue, but no harm throwing it out there.

TBH I dont think many people read the charter anyway.

As you said you could copy and paste from another users request, we dont want it as sometimes people can be wrong and then what happens is ye both get banned from requesting access for a month for copying and pasting.

Your idea would probably be too hard to bring in for boards and this is the best alternative, you'd be surprised how many re-reg/trolls the access request forum weeds out and if a person is a re-reg/troll usually they'll manage to get themselves cards/bans early in the forum as they wont change there ways.

lordgoat

At the end of this thread can we have a poll or two polls.

One on if LL and Blatter should have been carded for the 'troll' posts

And if someone getting a yellow for saying ronaldo was fat should have got a card.

It would be interesting to see where mods and gen users agree/disagree

Or else put up a few options and ask which of these would you think gets a yellow etc.

amiable

lordgoat wrote: »

At the end of this thread can we have a poll or two polls.

One on if LL and Blatter should have been carded for the 'troll' posts

And if someone getting a yellow for saying ronaldo was fat should have got a card.

It would be interesting to see where mods and gen users agree/disagree

Or else put up a few options and ask which of these would you think gets a yellow etc.

That's a slippery road you are wanting to go down there IMO

GavRedKing

lordgoat wrote: »

At the end of this thread can we have a poll or two polls.

One on if LL and Blatter should have been carded for the 'troll' posts

These are been discussed in our Mods forum in conjunction with the CMod.

Turtyturd

Will there be any kind of follow up to this thread?...either a post here or a new thread outlining any changes? Because so far it seems like little more than a token thread which won't affect anything.

GavRedKing

Turtyturd wrote: »

Will there be any kind of follow up to this thread?...either a post here or a new thread outlining any changes? Because so far it seems like little more than a token thread which won't affect anything.

what I or one of the other Mods can do, after we lock this up, read it and take on board any potential changes we will post in this thread and sticky it for all to see, the charter will also be amended so I'd advise watching out for that also.

From last years Feedback thread there was several changes made to the charter and it this year could very well see similar changes.

lordgoat

amiable wrote: »

That's a slippery road you are wanting to go down there IMO

It could be be from this thread alone there are big differences in how posters view some things and how mods view them. And as shown earlier big differences between what mods think between themselves.

If it was me if like to see how the people I have to deal with viewed how I make my decisions. Of course I can see it being open to abuse but I'd like to think they are smart enough to see the genuine users on here trying to make the place a bit better and more fun as IMO in the last few years its definitely a hell of a lot less craic than it used to be.

amiable

lordgoat wrote: »

It could be be from this thread alone there are big differences in how posters view some things and how mods view them. And as shown earlier big differences between what mods think between themselves.

If it was me if like to see how the people I have to deal with viewed how I make my decisions. Of course I can see it being open to abuse but I'd like to think they are smart enough to see the genuine users on here trying to make the place a bit better and more fun as IMO in the last few years its definitely a hell of a lot less craic than it used to be.

We know from past experiences that Mods often differ on opinions on actions in the Soccer Forum even to the degree where one Mod will dig their heels in and even when most if not all the other Mods think their actions are harsh or unwarranted.

Beasty

amiable wrote: »

We know from past experiences that Mods often differ on opinions on actions in the Soccer Forum even to the degree where one Mod will dig their heels in and even when most if not all the other Mods think their actions are harsh or unwarranted.

Some mod actions are discussed beforehand but in most cases it tends to be whoever gets to the reported post (or comes across while reading the forum) first that deals with it. Normally whatever action is taken is non-contentious amongst the wider mod team. Sometimes they will have a further discussion which could result in a change in the original decision/action

However the mods are not robots. A lot of decisions are down to personal judgement and sometimes there will be differing views on the right action. Yes there will always be an element of inconsistency, but that's human nature - no different from the different interpretations adopted by real referees in real matches.

mitosis

lordgoat wrote: »

At the end of this thread can we have a poll or two polls.

One on if LL and Blatter should have been carded for the 'troll' posts

And if someone getting a yellow for saying ronaldo was fat should have got a card.

It would be interesting to see where mods and gen users agree/disagree

Or else put up a few options and ask which of these would you think gets a yellow etc.

I don't think this is a good idea. You can't have posters deciding how the rules are upheld on a case by case basis.

Also, fat Ronaldo issue falls under the same umbrella as Spanish waiter, Slur Alex etc If it's not allowed, it's not allowed. IMHO

Beasty

There will not be any polls

The mods will draw up a list of the issues discussed and get back with any proposals.

I have some thoughts on how to clarify the "fat Ronaldo" issue, but don't want to pre-judge the discussion amongst the mods

amiable

Beasty wrote: »

Some mod actions are discussed beforehand but in most cases it tends to be whoever gets to the reported post (or comes across while reading the forum) first that deals with it. Normally whatever action is taken is non-contentious amongst the wider mod team. Sometimes they will have a further discussion which could result in a change in the original decision/action

However the mods are not robots. A lot of decisions are down to personal judgement and sometimes there will be differing views on the right action. Yes there will always be an element of inconsistency, but that's human nature - no different from the different interpretations adopted by real referees in real matches.

I'm giving Feedback how I see the Forum is run.
The cliche that mods are not robots is not relevant here when a Mod makes a bad decision and everyone of the other mods and about 99% of posters in the forum highlights this bad decision yet the Mod just decides to dig his heels in.
This is no way to Mod a forum in my honest opinion and it has happened several times in the past.

Beasty

amiable wrote: »

I'm giving Feedback how I see the Forum is run.
The cliche that mods are not robots is not relevant here when a Mod makes a bad decision and everyone of the other mods and about 99% of posters in the forum highlights this bad decision yet the Mod just decides to dig his heels in.
This is no way to Mod a forum in my honest opinion and it has happened several times in the past.

If a poster receives a card or ban they disagree with they can go through the formal appeal process or try and deal with it via PM with the Mod and/or CMod

Likewise if someone feels strongly that a bad decision has been made the CMods can have a look at it - probably via PM is best, but as an alternative it can be done via the Help Desk

If it's a judgement call there normally needs to be compelling reasons for a CMod (or indeed Admin) to overturn it. If it's something where the rules are clear (and that may be at forum or site level) the CMod or Admin will look to deal with it in accordance with the rules.

Obviously I cannot go into specific examples, but during my time as CMod I have been approached by posters on a number of occasions because they feel there is something wrong about a particular mod decision or action (both in connection with the SF and other Sports Forums). While I cannot say everyone has gone away totally satisfied I do generally find it is possible to either provide a satisfactory explanation of the mod action, or the mod has agreed to reconsider the position.

lordgoat

mitosis wrote: »

I don't think this is a good idea. You can't have posters deciding how the rules are upheld on a case by case basis.

Also, fat Ronaldo issue falls under the same umbrella as Spanish waiter, Slur Alex etc If it's not allowed, it's not allowed. IMHO

I never said fat Ronaldo.

And I wasn't suggesting the polls be used for deciding anything, moreso as a way for the mods to see what the general consensus is on a few topics.

Thanks Beasty for replying, as ever you give an answer promptly and that is appreciated.

Will I Amnt

Beasty wrote: »

If a poster receives a card or ban they disagree with they can go through the formal appeal process or try and deal with it via PM with the Mod and/or CMod.

Just on that. I've seen, a number of times, people linking to threads on the Dispute Resolution and Prison fora in a sort of pointing and laughing kind of way.
I personally find DPR a bit off putting for that reason.

amiable

Beasty wrote: »

If a poster receives a card or ban they disagree with they can go through the formal appeal process or try and deal with it via PM with the Mod and/or CMod

Likewise if someone feels strongly that a bad decision has been made the CMods can have a look at it - probably via PM is best, but as an alternative it can be done via the Help Desk

If it's a judgement call there normally needs to be compelling reasons for a CMod (or indeed Admin) to overturn it. If it's something where the rules are clear (and that may be at forum or site level) the CMod or Admin will look to deal with it in accordance with the rules.

Obviously I cannot go into specific examples, but during my time as CMod I have been approached by posters on a number of occasions because they feel there is something wrong about a particular mod decision or action (both in connection with the SF and other Sports Forums). While I cannot say everyone has gone away totally satisfied I do generally find it is possible to either provide a satisfactory explanation of the mod action, or the mod has agreed to reconsider the position.

I'm well aware of the DRP procedure. I'm just giving Feedback as to my experience.
I don't believe it's a sensible way to run a forum.

For the record when I have dealt with you I have found you fair and the issues were resolved.

Beasty

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Just on that. I've seen, a number of times, people linking to threads on the Dispute Resolution and Prison fora in a sort of pointing and laughing kind of way.

Obviously both forums are public in that anyone can view them. However the appeals should not be discussed in the public forums and linking to them is in effect inviting discussion. I would ask that posters report any such instances

Will I Amnt

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Just on that. I've seen, a number of times, people linking to threads on the Dispute Resolution and Prison fora in a sort of pointing and laughing kind of way.
I personally find DPR a bit off putting for that reason.

Because people link to a thread in DRP you would find it off putting to post there?

In the real world I'd say man-up. On the internet I'd say who gives a ****.

Will I Amnt

Beasty wrote: »

Obviously both forums are public in that anyone can view them. However the appeals should not be discussed in the public forums and linking to them is in effect inviting discussion. I would ask that posters report any such instances

Cheers. Wasn't aware of that at all, good to know.

LuckyLloyd

The DRP is off putting because of the number of decisions overturned amounts to an absolutely irrelevant percentage.

Beasty

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The DRP is off putting because of the number of decisions overturned amounts to an absolutely irrelevant percentage.

A very common misconception, probably because the vast majority of those appeals that are upheld or where sanctions are reduced happen as a result of PM discussion between the Mods and/or CMods and the appellant. Anyway, this is definitely not a discussion point for this Feedback thread

Xavi6

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The DRP is off putting because of the number of decisions overturned amounts to an absolutely irrelevant percentage.

And by the time a decision is eventually made the ban is often up anyway so it renders the whole thing a waste of time.

Beasty

Xavi6 wrote: »

And by the time a decision is eventually made the ban is often up anyway so it renders the whole thing a waste of time.

Let me make it a bit clearer

Take it to the Feedback Forum if you wish to discuss the DRP

Thanks

Beasty

Lovely Bloke

Oh dear, another ban as a result of this bollox of being carded for calling out trolls.

Good work.

Thanx 4 The Fish

We have been discussing the Blatter card further. Although the post did violate Boards and Forum rules we recognise some confusion may have been caused by the wording of the OP. In addition the LuckyLloyd post was not actioned although arguably it falls under the same category.

In light of this we have agreed to rescind the Blatter card.

Please note though that further in-thread examples along the same lines will not be acceptable. If anyone has any problem with a poster or their posts the usual channels of reporting posts or PM'ing the mods should be followed

I think we also need to be bringing this thread to a conclusion. There are a few things the mods need to have a look at ahead of the new season, and with that in mind we are proposing to close this thread midnight Friday. Hence if you have any more points to raise please try and do so soon.

Thanks.

amiable

Thanx 4 The Fish is anxiously watching the clock now every 30 seconds

Pj!

The mods in here have a tough time and for the most part do an excellent job for little thanks. As has been said finding consistency is always going to be a challenge but hopefully it can only improve.

I got banned for a month over the 'fat Ronaldo' thing and I see it is still being discussed. A lot of posters have expressed that the whole thing was handled poorly and there is no smoke without fire as they say.
A player can be called fat or skinny without it being in any way abusive.
I think some discretion and common sense can go a long way in these cases (while acknowledging that it always has in the vast majority of similar cases)

An awful lot of players had been described fat or skinny before and since this incident without any need for mod interruption and I and others would hope it continues this way.

At the end of the day a decision was made which I'm quite sure most of the mods wouldn't have taken (I'm open to correction). A mod may have got a slightly tarnished name in some corners as a result and it is even still being discussed a month later. I can't help but feel that some acknowledgement of a possible error may have went a long way. Anyway, life goes on. Right or wrong it is just one incident.


As I said first of all the mods have a tough and tireless job. Without them the place wouldn't exist. This thread will disappear and the soccer forum will live on, and hopefully become an even better place.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Ok guys, thanks for your feedback, we will be back to you by the end of the month with some proposals for change.

Amiable, wrong again?

GavRedKing

Just a quick update, as the Soccer Forum season runs from 1st August to July 31st all previous cards and warnings are in essence wiped clear.

We've decided to update the current card and ban system, the old one was :

1st Yellow - Warning
2nd Yellow - 1 Week
3rd Yellow - 2 Weeks
4th Yellow - 1 Month
5th Yellow - 2 Months
6th Yellow - re-apply for access to the forum after 6 months.

This system had its plus points but its main fall downs were firstly, 2 yellows and you were banned, even if you had a fairly good, clean record you could pick up 2 cards in a matter of minutes depending ont he situation, we've decided to change that, which you'll see below. Secondly the 5th yellow got you a 2month ban, currently there is no option for a 2 month ban, so we had to issue a 3 month ban and lift it after 2 months meaning more work on our side and meaning a poster usually had to remind us after 2 months the ban was indeed up, we've also amended that which you'll see below.

The new card and ban system is as follows :

1st yellow - Warning
2nd yellow - Final warning, reminder that the next yellow is a ban
3rd yellow - 2 week ban
4th yellow - 1 month ban
5th yellow - 3 month ban
6th yellow - Re-apply for access to the forum after 6 months.

A red card for serious breach of the charter is STILL an automatic 2 week ban and will count as 2 yellows in a totting up procedure.

I will amend the charter today to include the new cards procedure and totting up process.

We're still discussing the finer details of the feedback thread but I said as the Soccer Forum season officially starts today it was right to update the cards situtation.

Thanks.