Feedback Thread

eagle eye

Xavi6 wrote: »

Agree with bans but at the same time there should be more leniency for calling out an obvious troll for what they are. Basically if you're right, as per mod discretion, then there should be no yellow for it.

Also, if trolling is a punishable offence then so should being an over sensitive Sally. Some people just want to be offended and their drivel is as irritating and adds as little value as a troll.

Disagree with this because its only stirring things up by calling somebody a troll. You will find lots of people posting it if there is no punishment for it. It will ruin threads.

Turtyturd

eagle eye wrote: »

Disagree with this because its only stirring things up by calling somebody a troll. You will find lots of people posting it if there is no punishment for it. It will ruin threads.

I don't think a free for all calling everyone you disagree with a troll is what he means. Some posters are blatantly obvious...I can think of one poster in the LFC thread who will show up like clockwork...get his attention..and then report posts that call him up on it. All it would take is a bit of common sense from the mods to realise what they are at. It also deters them in some cases...such as Berba disappearing back to the Spurs forum since people found out who he was.

If you got rid of banning the place would be overrun with dicks. Crazy suggestion.

Still a few of them around the place, but nothing like a few years ago.

Chucky the tree

How exactly is it decided who is acting a dick/trolling? Does it need to be put to vote by the mods, majority needed etc? I'm pretty sure everyone here could provide a good few names of posters who consistently do it yet nothing is done about it. Also some blatantly obvious re-regs seem to have the run of the place for far longer than they should do.

Chucky the tree

Chucky the tree wrote: »

How exactly is it decided who is acting a dick/trolling? Does it need to be put to vote by the mods, majority needed etc? I'm pretty sure everyone here could provide a good few names of posters who consistently do it yet nothing is done about it. Also some blatantly obvious re-regs seem to have the run of the place for far longer than they should do.

It can be obvious enough.

Posting a comment in a thread trying to bait. Do this regularly and you are acting the dick and should be perma-banned imo.

Knex*

I'm in favour of the new infraction/ban proposal, but I would like to go along with eagle eye's suggestion somewhat that a red should possibly equate to some sort of a ban, depending on the severity of the post.

It really shouldn't be that hard to post in a way that avoids 5 or 6 yellows in a 12 month period.

Liam O

How many yellows did the Muppet get in the months before he was permabanned the 2nd time if I'm allowed to ask out of curiosity?

I remain fully in favour of just editing posts and if someone persists then they get a yellow. A yellow can't really be called a warning if you need so few to get a ban. Some people who just don't like a poster will report anything that is even slightly debatable as a yellow where there are some who follow the general consensus and get away with more than the unpopular posters.

Dr_Brian_Cocks

Liam O wrote: »

How many yellows did the Muppet get in the months before he was permabanned the 2nd time if I'm allowed to ask out of curiosity?

I remain fully in favour of just editing posts and if someone persists then they get a yellow. A yellow can't really be called a warning if you need so few to get a ban. Some people who just don't like a poster will report anything that is even slightly debatable as a yellow where there are some who follow the general consensus and get away with more than the unpopular posters.

The new system means it will take 3 cards to get a ban, so if you get a ban you deserve it.

When you're on two yellows you should be well aware of what breaks the charter.

adox

Agree with Eagle Eye that a red card has to be a ban. It would be ludicrous to suffer no punishment for a red IMO.

Turtyturd

Liam O wrote: »

How many yellows did the Muppet get in the months before he was permabanned the 2nd time if I'm allowed to ask out of curiosity?

I remain fully in favour of just editing posts and if someone persists then they get a yellow. A yellow can't really be called a warning if you need so few to get a ban. Some people who just don't like a poster will report anything that is even slightly debatable as a yellow where there are some who follow the general consensus and get away with more than the unpopular posters.

I wouldn't agree with this at all. Editing, and deleting posts undermines the moderation process that you want users to adhere to. I know why it is done but in the busier threads it's nearly impossible to remove a post without someone commenting on it or seeing it, so there is no point in doing it, a mod post informing people to move on from it, and the post left there with evidence that it has been dealt with would work better. There are numerous examples of people saying they reported posts and nothing happened, or mods saying 'we deleted that post' which can come across as protecting certain posters, and clubs, but if you want people to use the system in place rather than calling people trolls there should be evidence that it works.

On another matter can Mods still not overturn yellow cards they have given out?

Dr_Brian_Cocks

I amn't sure about the Soccer Forum, but I know in other threads the mod warning is put in the title and then gives the post number.

Mod Warnings should be put in the first post. Maybe this already happens, not sure.

padd b1975

Chucky the tree wrote: »

How exactly is it decided who is acting a dick/trolling? Does it need to be put to vote by the mods, majority needed etc? I'm pretty sure everyone here could provide a good few names of posters who consistently do it yet nothing is done about it. Also some blatantly obvious re-regs seem to have the run of the place for far longer than they should do.

One of the long term posters who mistakenly think that having lots of posts gives them more power usually make that call.

These "powerful" posters can easily be identified by their use of the phrases 'our thread' and 'what are you doing in our thread?':o

Will I Amnt

I would be in agreement with mod notes in the first post.
If you're using the touch site and you see "mod note post 437" you will be more inclined to take you're chances because it would involve a mathematical equation to find it.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Chucky the tree wrote: »

How exactly is it decided who is acting a dick/trolling? Does it need to be put to vote by the mods, majority needed etc? I'm pretty sure everyone here could provide a good few names of posters who consistently do it yet nothing is done about it. Also some blatantly obvious re-regs seem to have the run of the place for far longer than they should do.

There is no rule against re-regging unless a user is doing it to get around a ban so they can get the run of the place if they want without fear of being outed by an angry mob with pitch forks.

Liam O

Dr_Brian_Cocks wrote: »

The new system means it will take 3 cards to get a ban, so if you get a ban you deserve it.

When you're on two yellows you should be well aware of what breaks the charter.

Yes but when the same card is given for a blatant disregard of the charter or a small one like saying fat Ronaldo then it's not entirely fair imo.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Turtyturd wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with this at all. Editing, and deleting posts undermines the moderation process that you want users to adhere to. I know why it is done but in the busier threads it's nearly impossible to remove a post without someone commenting on it or seeing it, so there is no point in doing it, a mod post informing people to move on from it, and the post left there with evidence that it has been dealt with would work better. There are numerous examples of people saying they reported posts and nothing happened, or mods saying 'we deleted that post' which can come across as protecting certain posters, and clubs, but if you want people to use the system in place rather than calling people trolls there should be evidence that it works.

On another matter can Mods still not overturn yellow cards they have given out?

Mods can overturn yellows, just not without help from an admin but there is a process in place so it is not hard to do once we agree it.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Liam O wrote: »

Yes but when the same card is given for a blatant disregard of the charter or a small one like saying fat Ronaldo then it's not entirely fair imo.

There are not many breaches of the charter that are not blatant. All it takes is a little bit of cop on to avoid a ban or even several warnings.

The rules are published there for all to see and people agree to them to sign up to the charter. If people are not happy with the rules or penalties for each infraction or issue then raise them and we can discuss.

SantryRed

Can we go back to putting all mod notes in the opening post? It's not happening as often any more.

Xavi6

eagle eye wrote: »

Disagree with this because its only stirring things up by calling somebody a troll. You will find lots of people posting it if there is no punishment for it. It will ruin threads.

Re-read what I said. If you call someone a troll and they are deemed to be one by the mods then you don't get a yellow.

If I call you a troll, for example, because I disagree with your opinion then I get a yellow as per normal.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

There is no rule against re-regging unless a user is doing it to get around a ban so they can get the run of the place if they want without fear of being outed by an angry mob with pitch forks.

And this is where I'd like to see a bit more work done by the mods.

If user A was a bit of a WUM and comes back as user B and is still a WUM then, thanks to modutils, the mod team can know straight away who it is.

A word in the ear along the lines "we know who you are, keep it up and you're gone" is proactive rather than "there's no rule against re-regging, nothing we can do about it".

Thanx 4 The Fish

Xavi6 wrote: »

And this is where I'd like to see a bit more work done by the mods.

If user A was a bit of a WUM and comes back as user B and is still a WUM then, thanks to modutils, the mod team can know straight away who it is.

A word in the ear along the lines "we know who you are, keep it up and you're gone" is proactive rather than "there's no rule against re-regging, nothing we can do about it".

Modutils cannot tell us straight away who anyone is. Particularly if the user is clever about it as people who want to assume a new identity are. We have had several occasions where we have spotted re-regges and they have not been allowed access to the forum. As you know, there is a lot that you do not see that goes on in the forum. We do get a lot of help from the admins when we suspect people of re-regging and we have introduced some stuff in the access request to cater for it as well. You have been a mod here before and you want the mods to do more work. What is it that you think we can do to make this better and how big is the problem because while we have have seen many I do not think it is a huge problem for the forum. At the moment we have a few posters in the forum who are re-regges, we know who they are and we know that people have accused them of being trolls before. Now that does not make them trolls, often it just means gobby people have called them a troll or do not like a contrary opinion and so cry troll at the first opportunity. Also, nobody said there is nothing we can do about it, you may have read that but nobody said it, I just said there are no rules against it.

We know who a lot of these people are, we encourage them to let us know before they get access to the forum and if we find out that they are re-regges after they have been granted access, we have a word or revoke their access. What more would you suggest?

alchemist33

I've only read half the pages so apologies if this has been mentioned. What often starts fights off are the irrelevant comparisons when a player's behaviour is called into question. For instance a player dives and some posters give out. Figuring they know what team those posters support, others start with "X player on your team is just as bad" which has no relevance to the dive/foul that has just happened. And let's be honest, this often involves Man Utd/Liverpool supporters (I say this as a Man Utd fan) and in both directions.

I'd welcome yellows for anyone who complains about a player not involved in the game that's being discussed. If you think the uninvolved player is a diver, then wait for him to do it and you can complain about his actions to your hearts content (within the charter)

Xavi6

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Modutils cannot tell us straight away who anyone is. Particularly if the user is clever about it as people who want to assume a new identity are. We have had several occasions where we have spotted re-regges and they have not been allowed access to the forum. As you know, there is a lot that you do not see that goes on in the forum. We do get a lot of help from the admins when we suspect people of re-regging and we have introduced some stuff in the access request to cater for it as well. You have been a mod here before and you want the mods to do more work. What is it that you think we can do to make this better and how big is the problem because while we have have seen many I do not think it is a huge problem for the forum. At the moment we have a few posters in the forum who are re-regges, we know who they are and we know that people have accused them of being trolls before. Now that does not make them trolls, often it just means gobby people have called them a troll or do not like a contrary opinion and so cry troll at the first opportunity. Also, nobody said there is nothing we can do about it, you may have read that but nobody said it, I just said there are no rules against it.

We know who a lot of these people are, we encourage them to let us know before they get access to the forum and if we find out that they are re-regges after they have been granted access, we have a word or revoke their access. What more would you suggest?

You've asked for feedback regarding issues in the forum and I've given some. If nothing can be done about it or the mod team feels that they're doing enough then that's my answer.

Being an ex mod here doesn't really come into it, I'm making a suggestion as a user like anyone else.

There are plenty of trolls in the forum and a good few who are reincarnations of previous trolls. They cause hassle, disappear, come back as someone else, then whinge when they're called on it (and the person who calls them out is the one pulled up). That's a pain in the arse as a user.

I'm not a fan of giving the mods extra work but on the flip side the option is there to get one or two more people on board if it's for the good of the forum.

Pushing back on the feedback isn't the way these threads should work either, if a user has a problem then 99% of the time there's a valid reason for it.

Kerrigooney

5 days ago in a thread that's now closed a poster got a yellow for calling Nani "scum". 9 posts later a different poster got a yellow for calling the same player "United scum". 9 posts after that another poster called Gerrard "Liverpool scum" but no card was issued this time.

What's up with that?

Chucky the tree

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

There is no rule against re-regging unless a user is doing it to get around a ban so they can get the run of the place if they want without fear of being outed by an angry mob with pitch forks.

So if I get 5 yellows I should just close my account, re-reg with another and I have free run of the place for another 5 yellows? That to me seems to create a clear and obvious problem.

Dr_Brian_Cocks

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So if I get 5 yellows I should just close my account, re-reg with another and I have free run of the place for another 5 yellows? That to me seems to create a clear and obvious problem.

Would be logical to carry over them 5 yellows.

K-9

alchemist33 wrote: »

I've only read half the pages so apologies if this has been mentioned. What often starts fights off are the irrelevant comparisons when a player's behaviour is called into question. For instance a player dives and some posters give out. Figuring they know what team those posters support, others start with "X player on your team is just as bad" which has no relevance to the dive/foul that has just happened. And let's be honest, this often involves Man Utd/Liverpool supporters (I say this as a Man Utd fan) and in both directions.

I'd welcome yellows for anyone who complains about a player not involved in the game that's being discussed. If you think the uninvolved player is a diver, then wait for him to do it and you can complain about his actions to your hearts content (within the charter)

People are just giving comparisons, a perfectly logical thing to do. People do that when prison sentences are handed in the courts, well x did that, y did this, they compare and form a judgement. Pretty reasoned thinking but bring Man Utd./Liverpool, whatever rivalry takes your fancy, into it, logic goes out the window.

Logical argument should never get discarded in favour of bias, especially in something as partisan as soccer. Indeed, if something is hitting a sore point with biased posters, it's probably pointing out home truths!

Professional Griefer

Kerrigooney wrote: »

5 days ago in a thread that's now closed a poster got a yellow for calling Nani "scum". 9 posts later a different poster got a yellow for calling the same player "United scum". 9 posts after that another poster called Gerrard "Liverpool scum" but no card was issued this time.

What's up with that?

Did you report it?

eagle eye

Kerrigooney wrote: »

5 days ago in a thread that's now closed a poster got a yellow for calling Nani "scum". 9 posts later a different poster got a yellow for calling the same player "United scum". 9 posts after that another poster called Gerrard "Liverpool scum" but no card was issued this time.

What's up with that?

I'd imagine that the first two post were reported and the last one wasn't. At this time of year I'm sure the mods are not on as much, basically taking a holiday from what is a very demanding voluntary job.

dfx-

Kerrigooney wrote: »

5 days ago in a thread that's now closed a poster got a yellow for calling Nani "scum". 9 posts later a different poster got a yellow for calling the same player "United scum". 9 posts after that another poster called Gerrard "Liverpool scum" but no card was issued this time.

What's up with that?

That's not something that gets let go if it is highlighted or spotted. I don't personally recall seeing the post offhand (not to doubt that it does exist).

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So if I get 5 yellows I should just close my account, re-reg with another and I have free run of the place for another 5 yellows? That to me seems to create a clear and obvious problem.

With the current card-to-ban system, you don't really get free run of the place for 5 yellows anymore. You've been banned for nearly 4 months by that stage.

With the current system, you get one 'free' yellow and no free reds. With the system Beasty mentioned, that would increase to two free yellows.

Liam O

Ultimately I think more of an effort should be spent on not banning people, the mods are volunteers who would be unable to do their jobs if the people in the forum weren't somewhat behind them, the mods now are for the most part excellent and diverse posters but I think for some things like 6 month bans the users should get more of a say in the matter.

Xavi6

Liam O wrote: »

I think for some things like 6 month bans the users should get more of a say in the matter.

So like a public trial type thing? Each side pleads its case and the regular users decide the poster's fate by poll?

Now THAT is a suggestion!

Kerrigooney

Kerrigooney wrote: »

5 days ago in a thread that's now closed a poster got a yellow for calling Nani "scum". 9 posts later a different poster got a yellow for calling the same player "United scum". 9 posts after that another poster called Gerrard "Liverpool scum" but no card was issued this time.

What's up with that?

If it wasn't reported it was probably missed.

If it was reported and nothing done about it that's obviously an issue.

Fuhrer

How about more punishment for people doing the "This is a whatever club thread" or "Its this person again, lets all just ignore them" when someone posts anything in a rival thread.


Its not so bad now but it always picks up around game time.

LuckyLloyd

Allowing people to dump old accounts and assume a new identity is currently boards.ie policy under the reasoning that Account Closure and reregging has been thrust upon them by the Data Protection Commisioner. This is a particular problem in soccer where the ability to cast off an identity can be especially useful for certain types of posters but what can you do when it's coming from the very top?

As has been said many, many times before the Soccer Access Request protocal would ideally be more robust from experience it's unreasonable to expect mods to do a whole lot more there - they aren't compensated to do an exhaustive modutils / post style audit for every access request.

Mars Bar

Professional Griefer wrote: »

Did you report it?

Exactly, it would not have been missed if it was reported.
Yesterday, I was in a thread I don't frequent often where I saw two cases of abuse from a week or two ago and they weren't acted on. I could only assume that they weren't reported. That's not our fault.
We notice the same people doing the reporting and I want to thank those posters who do report posts.
There's a mentality of "I don't report posts coz it's not my thing" in many fora on Boards and it makes for hard work for the mods.

Yellows are handed out for calling a person a troll coz even if you're right, you can bring the topic off on a tangent when the accused gets offended and starts defending his cause. The report function should be used and it gets to us far quicker. It's far more beneficial for everyone.

There is a process which we have to follow with admins when it comes to identifying a re-reg so while it's going to seem as if we are doing nothing about it, it's often that we are just waiting on a confirmation as to whether we or you guys have been correct in identifying them. Again, if you have your suspicions, report a post of theirs or PM one of the mods.

As for the whole "Fat" debate. You see or know a fat person, would you walk up to them and go "Hey, Fat (insert name here)"? No, I doubt anyone would. (Now, I am aware that Ronaldo is unlikely to ever read the forum!). This forum is a pleasant place to be 99% of the time and I think it's a good standard we have that should be kept up. It's a childish reference, IMO, when Ronaldo can easily by identified as Brazilian Ronaldo.

As was pointed out, the poster got a warning and was banned coz of an accumulation of cards. It got us talking about the card system and we came up with the revised chart. It's not set in stone yet.

Mod notes in the title of threads can be done for sure. I'll start integrating it in to my modding duties if it helps.

Jax Teller

Can we call him overweight Ronaldo ? Serious question . No one seems to ever get carded for calling someone overweight on here .

lordgoat

Jax Teller wrote: »

Can we call him overweight Ronaldo ? Serious question . No one seems to ever get carded for calling someone overweight on here .

Beasty already cleared it up. Just not fat ronaldo. Unless you are describing ronaldo as having put on weight.

As in you can say. Oh look ronaldo is fat

But you can't say. Oh look there's fat ronaldo.

Simples.

aindriu80

The only thing about the forum is that with all the moderation and rules there is a bit of an over head before you can actually type what you would like to. Maybe thats a good thing but I'm not doing online banking here and don't worry too much about what I read/type but having to think before I type is a bit like getting a note from Ulster bank saying they are charging me €4/month.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Is the overhead that you are talking about having to think before you type? Once you have read the rules once, surely you are aware of them and after that you can work away. If people do have to have a think before they post something then all the better if you ask me.

keith16

lordgoat wrote: »

Beasty already cleared it up. Just not fat ronaldo. Unless you are describing ronaldo as having put on weight.

As in you can say. Oh look ronaldo is fat

But you can't say. Oh look there's fat ronaldo.

Simples.

What's this? Replying to a non-moderator? Or is that only because it suits your argument?

Serious question - why won't you talk to other people when they challenge your views?

Anyway, I'm beyond explaining it at this stage.

PhlegmyMoses

Mars Bar wrote: »

As for the whole "Fat" debate. You see or know a fat person, would you walk up to them and go "Hey, Fat (insert name here)"? No, I doubt anyone would. (Now, I am aware that Ronaldo is unlikely to ever read the forum!). This forum is a pleasant place to be 99% of the time and I think it's a good standard we have that should be kept up. It's a childish reference, IMO, when Ronaldo can easily by identified as Brazilian Ronaldo.

As was pointed out, the poster got a warning and was banned coz of an accumulation of cards. It got us talking about the card system and we came up with the revised chart. It's not set in stone yet.

I'd agree with Beasty's suggestion for 3 yellows and a ban for this very reason. A poster could make a stupid post at the start of the season, get a card then resolve to make sure they don't make the same mistake again. They then make a post like "Fat Ronaldo was a far superior player to Cristiano Ronaldo, imo" with no malice or intention to troll and they've now got a ban on their record. 3 yellows before a ban gives a bit of wiggle room in a situation like that. This where I think discretion comes into it.

dfx-

Will I Amnt wrote: »

I would be in agreement with mod notes in the first post.
If you're using the touch site and you see "mod note post 437" you will be more inclined to take you're chances because it would involve a mathematical equation to find it.

In the body of the opening post? Or just the title?

I would imagine they would not make much sense without the context of the posts before them (which might run to pages in a busy thread) in the body of the OP.

lordgoat

keith16 wrote: »

What's this? Replying to a non-moderator? Or is that only because it suits your argument?

Serious question - why won't you talk to other people when they challenge your views?

Anyway, I'm beyond explaining it at this stage.

I was pointing out the issue is dealt with. Maybe the poster had missed beasty's post and I know alot of readers are fed up reading about this topic.

As I've already stated I only want mods feedback as debating with regular posters is pointless as in just trying to get clarification of a very vague point. And it takes over the entire thread and makes it boring for those not interested.

keith16

dfx- wrote: »

In the body of the opening post? Or just the title?

I would imagine they would not make much sense without the context of the posts before them (which might run to pages in a busy thread) in the body of the OP.

You could link to the single or offending posts the warning is for. Generally the warning on it's own in the OP and the relevant place in the thread is enough.

However, sometimes there may be numerous offending posts so the mod warning on it's own should be enough for people to figure out what is being referred too.

Will I Amnt

dfx- wrote: »

In the body of the opening post? Or just the title?

I would imagine they would not make much sense without the context of the posts before them (which might run to pages in a busy thread) in the body of the OP.

I just think any general mod notes should be added to the first post for those that are not around when they are posted.
Then maybe something along the lines of "mod notes in op, read before posting" added to the thread title.

There's no post numbers on the touch site and it's a pain in the arse finding them if they are somewhere in the middle of a large thread.

Mars Bar

Will I Amnt wrote: »

I just think any general mod notes should be added to the first post for those that are not around when they are posted.
Then maybe something along the lines of "mod notes in op, read before posting" added to the thread title.

There's no post numbers on the touch site and it's a pain in the arse finding them if they are somewhere in the middle of a large thread.

I always use the "view last unread post". The touch site does this by default too. If someone is following a thread and there is a mod warning since they were in last, they would see the warning as they scroll through the thread?

Will I Amnt

Mars Bar wrote: »

I always use the "view last unread post". The touch site does this by default too. If someone is following a thread and there is a mod warning since they were in last, they would see the warning as they scroll through the thread?

And if there's been a couple of hundred posts since you last read it?
Some threads on here can move very quickly, I'll often just skip to the last post.

The way it is now, you're relying on everybody reading every post which just doesn't happen.

dfx-

Will I Amnt wrote: »

I just think any general mod notes should be added to the first post for those that are not around when they are posted.
Then maybe something along the lines of "mod notes in op, read before posting" added to the thread title.

For example, I intervened to call a halt to a chant discussion post-match in the last Liverpool v United matchthread.

The discussion in question spanned at least three pages before I got to it. The warning would need the context for anyone reading it to understand why it exists, it's not much use in isolation.

Mars Bar

Will I Amnt wrote: »

And if there's been a couple of hundred posts since you last read it?
Some threads on here can move very quickly, I'll often just skip to the last post.

The way it is now, you're relying on everybody reading every post which just doesn't happen.

It's interesting how we all work a bit differently!

I tend to scroll through them really quickly until I get to the last page or two where I'd catch up with the latest subject that's being debated.

Which is more beneficial to you guys then? Mod warning note number in the thread title or a mod warning in the first post?

The only time I ever read or see the first page is when the thread has only started.

Will I Amnt

dfx- wrote: »

For example, I intervened to call a halt to a chant discussion post-match in the last Liverpool v United matchthread.

The discussion in question spanned at least three pages before I got to it. The warning would need the context for anyone reading it to understand why it exists, it's not much use in isolation.

I'm not saying only put it in the op. Do it the way it is now and then in the op something to say no discussions on Hillsborough/Munich chanting.

Quite easy for someone to arrive late to those threads in particular having been out to watch it or whatever and start banging on about the chanting they heard. I'm pretty sure I've seen that scenario play out already.