Feedback Thread

RasTa

I don't get the point in mod warnings. Same as charter no?

eagle eye

Mars Bar wrote: »

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.

Either is fine imo. I think when a mod warning is in the thread title it acts as a deterrent to trolls which is a good thing.

Panthro

Mars Bar wrote: »

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.

I'd go "Mod warning, Read First Post" in Thread Title, that way there's no confusion over where the Mod warning is.
If is says Mod Warning Post No. 252 for example, the likelihood is very few will scroll through the pages to see what the Mod warning is, whereas if it's in the 1st post, you simply click on Page 1 and boom, you see the Mod Warning.
That's my tuppence on it.:)

RasTa

Panthro wrote: »

I'd go "Mod warning, Read First Post" in Thread Title, that way there's no confusion over where the Mod warning is.
If is says Mod Warning Post No. 252 for example, the likelihood is very few will scroll through the pages to see what the Mod warning is, whereas if it's in the 1st post, you simply click on Page 1 and boom, you see the Mod Warning.
That's my tuppence on it.:)

The warning itself is usually keep it civil or something as equally pointless. Just don't see the issue in bringing it up.

Dav

Hello all, I just wanted to pop in here and correct some misinformation.

The office needed to close Social Groups. It needed to be done quickly and any existing group was invited to contact me to look at creating a hosted forum for them in lieu of the Social Group.

One of the forums I created was for a Chelsea Supporters Club group. They had an active community with regular posts and so the removal of the Social Groups functionality was definitely an impact on them. I was happy to be able to help them out. One other soccer related group asked for a forum, this group had no activity since January or February I think and it only consisted of people talking about this forum and being abusive about other members. They, naturally enough, did not get a forum.

So to everyone who is complaining about their particular team not having their own "forum" I would point out that had any of you felt that strongly about it, and had been using the social groups, you would have had one.

There was no one else except the tech team and I and our COO involved in the process of removing the Social Groups functionality - none of the mods, none of the CMods and none of the Admins and I'm very disappointed that so many members of this community didn't seem to care about these facts before abusing the volunteers who give up their time to make this site tick.

RasTa

Dav wrote: »

So to everyone who is complaining about their particular team not having their own "forum" I would point out that had any of you felt that strongly about it, and had been using the social groups, you would have had one.

Active is your typical get out clause for this mess up. There was a United one, not sure if there was a Liverpool or many other teams but there was 11 pages of discussion since it was opened. There also wasn't abuse, more giving out how the SF is ran, sort of like this feedback thread.

You denied it, there wasn't any messages on the SF to change it to a private forum.

I'd also like the mods to get back on the PM I sent last night.

Jax Teller

I never knew there was a Man united Social group . If I did I may have posted in it am sure lots more would have also.

Turtyturd

Likewise on any Liverpool related one...would be interesting to guage how many members knew they existed, and how many would use them if they did.

Zaph

RasTa wrote: »

Active is your typical get out clause for this mess up.

For the benefit of those who may not have seen your forum request, I'll just repeat what I stated there. In the 15 months preceding the forum request the Man U social group had a grand total of zero posts. By no stretch of anyone's imagination could that be considered active. It's hardly a get out clause when the facts speak for themselves.

Jax Teller

Zaph wrote: »

For the benefit of those who may not have seen your forum request, I'll just repeat what I stated there. In the 15 months preceding the forum request the Man U social group had a grand total of zero posts. By no stretch of anyone's imagination could that be considered active. It's hardly a get out clause when the facts speak for themselves.

How many people knew it existed though ?

Zaph

Well at least 96 people who were members of the group.

Thanx 4 The Fish

RasTa wrote: »

I'd also like the mods to get back on the PM I sent last night.

I have already responded to you on that. Once I have more information I will respond further. Why did you feel the need to bring that up in this thread? That has nothing to do with feedback on the running of the forum.

Beasty

Zaph wrote: »

Well at least 96 people who were members of the group.

I found it, joined it, saw what a ghost town it was and eventually left it. All discussion was taking place in the SF and there was absolutely no appetite to start what would have been parallel discussions there

There's tons of team only forums sites out there and tbh they are mainly hideous.

Why would you want one on boards too?

Kerrigooney

Professional Griefer wrote: »

Did you report it?

I didn't. Maybe I should have but it didn't bother me that much tbh. I was just curious why it happened. The post below probably explains it.

eagle eye wrote: »

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.

rarnes1 wrote: »

If it wasn't reported it was probably missed.

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

Maybe it wasn't but I found it odd that in the Liverpool thread no Liverpool supporter reported the abuse of Gerrard but 2 instances of abuse of Nani were reported.

I don't really want to make a big issue of it,like I said I was just wondering.

Thanx 4 The Fish

You would be surprised the number of fans of other teams who trawl through their rivals superthreads looking for something to report.

Kerrigooney

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

You would be surprised the number of fans of other teams who trawl through their rivals superthreads looking for something to report.

Sad really.

The_Kew_Tour

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

You would be surprised the number of fans of other teams who trawl through their rivals superthreads looking for something to report.

Sad, but not surprising.

Especially when these people more then likely never met that poster in real life.

K-9

Kerrigooney wrote: »

I didn't. Maybe I should have but it didn't bother me that much tbh. I was just curious why it happened. The post below probably explains it.






Maybe it wasn't but I found it odd that in the Liverpool thread no Liverpool supporter reported the abuse of Gerrard but 2 instances of abuse of Nani were reported.

I don't really want to make a big issue of it,like I said I was just wondering.

I thought about reporting that post.

Odd one, the post that was abusive about Liverpool on the Liverpool thread went unreported, the posts about Nani seemed to create quite the fuss from avid United fans of reading the Liverpool thread.

Will I Amnt

K-9 wrote: »

I thought about reporting that post.

Odd one, the post that was abusive about Liverpool on the Liverpool thread went unreported, the posts about Nani seemed to create quite the fuss from avid United fans of reading the Liverpool thread.

It's not really odd though is it?
If Gerrard was being called a c*nt and Liverpool scum in the United thread it would cause a fuss from the Liverpool fans that read it.

What's the problem?
It seems that the villain here is the one that did the right thing and reported it and the victim is the one dishing out the abuse???
Now where have I seen that before...

Pro. F

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.

Just to be clear, myself and PJ got yellows from you for questioning your warning on thread, not for calling Ronaldo fat or 'Fat Ronaldo' which neither of us did.

The poster who you warned didn't call him Fat Ronaldo either. He referred to him as "the fat one" when differentiating him from the other one. So your referencing of Fat Ronaldo and the charter section on nicknames was not relevant and is still not relevant. RobertKK's reference to Ronaldo as fat was unnecessary and insensitive, but it is nothing different to what goes on in the forum every day and it is not the type of thing that has been punished by the mods up until now. Whether or not he would say it to Ronaldo's face is irrelevant because he was not talking to Ronaldo's face.

Referring to players as fat is not prohibited by the charter and up to now it has not been punished by the mods (unless it was attached to abuse or in a nickname like "Fat Frank"). Despite your mod warning in the Man Utd thread I very much doubt that the forum is going to suddenly change and cards are now going to be handed out for posters referring to players as fat. Since the SF mods are being so vague about the whole thing in this thread it would be extremely unfair if ye were in fact now planning on changing what is allowed when referring to players' weight.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

I thought about reporting that post.

Odd one, the post that was abusive about Liverpool on the Liverpool thread went unreported, the posts about Nani seemed to create quite the fuss from avid United fans of reading the Liverpool thread.

Strange one alright

Bet if I had 3 guesses I'd get who reported it

In fairness, the threads aren't as bad as they used to be

Nuri Sahin

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

You would be surprised the number of fans of other teams who trawl through their rivals superthreads looking for something to report.

Surprising for those who have never been a mod.

I won't forget the one time I ventured into the reported posts forum to look at one of the threads in the forums I was modding at the time that had gathered a lot of reported posts one day, and near the entire first page was dedicated to one person just reporting a lot of the more established Liverpool supporters over the most minor of stuff. Stuff that was nowhere near worth an infraction and thankfully the mods saw that as nothing was handed out from what I recall. It was all clearly done so in the hope that infractions and bans would be handed out though. What's even funnier is the fact that poster doesn't post in the SF anymore, it doesn't stop him from reading it and thanking posts that go against X club though.

___

As for the Nani incident that some have vaguely mentioned. IF I wasn't honest, IF I hadn't corrected one post, I wouldn't have been infracted I believe Suppose I could have phrased it better than I did. I don't like Nani, I make no bones about that. The thing about that was however was that I was actually defending him (Nani) in response to those who were making him out to be rubbish and thus turning their nose up at the thought of Liverpool signing him. Not that is going to happen whatsoever in reality, but that's not the point. I've also said in the past that Suarez was acting like a right **** ... that wasn't infracted interestingly. Despite me being a Liverpool supporter, if it had been reported, would I have been infracted? I doubt X poster minded me saying that about Suarez

What really grinds me is the fact that it seems calling certain players and even insinuating that a group of supporters are scum seems to be waved away as non-infraction/ban worthy.

Consistency will always be my biggest issue with the SF. There doesn't seem to be any, at least for any sustained period of time. Let alone all the time.

Nuri Sahin

rarnes1 wrote: »

Strange one alright

Bet if I had 3 guesses I'd get who reported it

In fairness, the threads aren't as bad as they used to be

If only bookies had odds on it

Easy, very easy money.

Nuri Sahin

Nuri Sahin wrote: »

If only bookies had odds on it

Easy, very easy money.

Better than moar corners!

Will I Amnt

Nuri Sahin wrote: »

Surprising for those who have never been a mod.

I won't forget the one time I ventured into the reported posts forum to look at one of the threads in the forums I was modding at the time that had gathered a lot of reported posts one day, and near the entire first page was dedicated to one person just reporting a lot of the more established Liverpool supporters over the most minor of stuff. Stuff that was nowhere near worth an infraction and thankfully the mods saw that as nothing was handed out from what I recall. It was all clearly done so in the hope that infractions and bans would be handed out though. What's even funnier is the fact that poster doesn't post in the SF anymore, it doesn't stop him from reading it and thanking posts that go against X club though.

___

As for the Nani incident that some have vaguely mentioned. IF I wasn't honest, IF I hadn't corrected one post, I wouldn't have been infracted I believe Suppose I could have phrased it better than I did. I don't like Nani, I make no bones about that. The thing about that was however was that I was actually defending him (Nani) in response to those who were making him out to be rubbish and thus turning their nose up at the thought of Liverpool signing him. Not that is going to happen whatsoever in reality, but that's not the point. I've also said in the past that Suarez was acting like a right **** ... that wasn't infracted interestingly. Despite me being a Liverpool supporter, if it had been reported, would I have been infracted? I doubt X poster minded me saying that about Suarez

What really grinds me is the fact that it seems calling certain players and even insinuating that a group of supporters are scum seems to be waved away as non-infraction/ban worthy.

Consistency will always be my biggest issue with the SF. There doesn't seem to be any, at least for any sustained period of time. Let alone all the time.

You got away with one so. Didn't stop someone reporting me.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71485745&postcount=185

The_Kew_Tour

Interesting.

Being United supporter if I was to say Rooney is a scumbag or Suarez is a scumbag we all know which one would be more likely to get reported, attention or attack on post.

Although I have defended Suarez in number of occasions so I'm ok on this one. :-)

Dr_Brian_Cocks

Is this allowed?

I think it's a bit condescending.

Just banter? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85190210&postcount=1046

Dr_Brian_Cocks

Dr_Brian_Cocks wrote: »

Is this allowed?

I think it's a bit condescending.

Just banter? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85190210&postcount=1046

If you start carding people for that it's goodnight to the forum.

Bounty Hunter

Dr_Brian_Cocks wrote: »

Is this allowed?

I think it's a bit condescending.

Just banter? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85190210&postcount=1046

I'll leave someone else to answer that as it's after 1am where I am and I wont be online to deal with the follow up but... This isn't the place to ask that kind of question imho. Report it, PM a mod sure, but we dont want a load of posters using this thread as a way to report current posts they believe to be infractionable (not suggesting this is what your doing here but people always call for consistancy and im sure your query could lead to other similar ones and completely derail the feedback thread unnecesarily considering there are avenues set up to deal with a post you think may be actionable).

Dr_Brian_Cocks

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

I'll leave someone else to answer that as it's after 1am where I am and I wont be online to deal with the follow up but... This isn't the place to ask that kind of question imho. Report it, PM a mod sure, but we dont want a load of posters using this thread as a way to report current posts they believe to be infractionable (not suggesting this is what your doing here but people always call for consistancy and im sure your query could lead to other similar ones and completely derail the feedback thread unnecesarily considering there are avenues set up to deal with a post you think may be actionable).

No I didn't report it and won't. Just wondering.

It's another way of saying "your posts are sh-ite" imo.

Bounty Hunter

Dr_Brian_Cocks wrote: »

No I didn't report it and won't. Just wondering.

It's another way of saying "your posts are sh-ite" imo.

understand and can appreciate that but felt that needed to be said so we didnt get a load of people seeking clarification (on this thread) on things currently being posted on the forum. This thread isn't the place for that imo

SlickRic

in an ideal world, "don't be a díck" would be the only rule on the forum.

if people just addressed people as they themselves would like, or wouldn't mind, being addressed themselves, then there would be no problems whatsoever.

there'd be no abuse.
there'd be no reporting of pointless posts either, because people would not be being dícks and reporting stuff that is quite obviously not worthy of being reported.

unfortunately, people are keyboard warriors. people also look for reasons to be offended.

if people just cut out being a díck, you wouldn't even notice that the mods exist.

PhlegmyMoses

Nuri Sahin wrote: »

Surprising for those who have never been a mod.

I won't forget the one time I ventured into the reported posts forum to look at one of the threads in the forums I was modding at the time that had gathered a lot of reported posts one day, and near the entire first page was dedicated to one person just reporting a lot of the more established Liverpool supporters over the most minor of stuff. Stuff that was nowhere near worth an infraction and thankfully the mods saw that as nothing was handed out from what I recall. It was all clearly done so in the hope that infractions and bans would be handed out though. What's even funnier is the fact that poster doesn't post in the SF anymore, it doesn't stop him from reading it and thanking posts that go against X club though.

___

This is part of the reason that I don't report many posts - 2 ever maybe? It's a bit off-putting to know that so many mods that don't mod the soccer and post as ordinary posters here can go in and see what people are reporting. Not a slight on Nuri here who seems a decent sort, I'm sure everyone would do the same, it just doesn't sit well with me for some reason.

Will I Amnt

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

This is part of the reason that I don't report many posts - 2 ever maybe? It's a bit off-putting to know that so many mods that don't mod the soccer and post as ordinary posters here can go in and see what people are reporting. Not a slight on Nuri here who seems a decent sort, I'm sure everyone would do the same, it just doesn't sit well with me for some reason.

It's been discussed in the feedback forum recently.
Apparently mods are a greater being than us mere mortals whose morals wouldn't allow them read the reported post forum for anything but advice and guidelines on how to deal with a situation.

In my almost 5 years on this site, I would reckon I'm still in single figures on the number of posts I have reported.
Only recently have I bothered to do so, it is a little off putting though when you know that so many others can see it.

Oh yeah, the witchhunt thread, that was fun.

lordgoat

SlickRic wrote: »

in an ideal world, "don't be a díck" would be the only rule on the forum.

if people just addressed people as they themselves would like, or wouldn't mind, being addressed themselves, then there would be no problems whatsoever.

there'd be no abuse.
there'd be no reporting of pointless posts either, because people would not be being dícks and reporting stuff that is quite obviously not worthy of being reported.

unfortunately, people are keyboard warriors. people also look for reasons to be offended.

if people just cut out being a díck, you wouldn't even notice that the mods exist.

While I agree completely with you. Some people have a much lower level of tolerance and feel that they are being picked on when all that's happening is a bit of piss taking.

Sure some people don't know where the line is and go way too far but others don't even have a line.

Missed you in the united thread buddy x

(The above is a perfect example of me saying it to you as I know it'll be taken in jest but there are not many pool fans that would appreciate it)

lordgoat

Pro. F wrote: »

Just to be clear, myself and PJ got yellows from you for questioning your warning on thread, not for calling Ronaldo fat or 'Fat Ronaldo' which neither of us did.

The poster who you warned didn't call him Fat Ronaldo either. He referred to him as "the fat one" when differentiating him from the other one. So your referencing of Fat Ronaldo and the charter section on nicknames was not relevant and is still not relevant. RobertKK's reference to Ronaldo as fat was unnecessary and insensitive, but it is nothing different to what goes on in the forum every day and it is not the type of thing that has been punished by the mods up until now. Whether or not he would say it to Ronaldo's face is irrelevant because he was not talking to Ronaldo's face.

Referring to players as fat is not prohibited by the charter and up to now it has not been punished by the mods (unless it was attached to abuse or in a nickname like "Fat Frank"). Despite your mod warning in the Man Utd thread I very much doubt that the forum is going to suddenly change and cards are now going to be handed out for posters referring to players as fat. Since the SF mods are being so vague about the whole thing in this thread it would be extremely unfair if ye were in fact now planning on changing what is allowed when referring to players' weight.

You might have missed it earlier in thread Beasty have his opinion on the whole fat ronaldo issue. Doesn't clear everything up but does give a bit more clarification on what you can and can't say.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Only recently have I bothered to do so, it is a little off putting though when you know that so many others can see it.

Why would you worry about people seeing your reported post unless you were only doing it as a wind up or were disingenuous in your reporting.

Will I Amnt

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Why would you worry about people seeing your reported post unless you were only doing it as a wind up or were disingenuous in your reporting.

Because its not really anybody else's business.
The person you are reporting could get onto a mod they get on well with through pm to find out who it was. If it's a mod they can just check themselves.

I'm not saying it's common practice but it would be naive to think it doesn't go on at all.

I would be almost certain K9 knows who reported the post he was referring to earlier in this thread if he was bothered enough to mention which posts got infracted and which ones didn't, even if it's just out of curiosity. I'd do the same myself.

The_Kew_Tour

There should be a name and shame if somebody is really acting dick with reporting posts

GLaDOS

Will I Amnt wrote: »

The person you are reporting could get onto a mod they get on well with through pm to find out who it was.

How would they know it was reported though?

Report a post if you think it needs mod attention, silly worrying about more than that.

Will I Amnt

ScienceNerd wrote: »

How would they know it was reported though

When they get a warning/infraction.
I'd imagine the majority are reported posts.

GLaDOS

Will I Amnt wrote: »

When they get a warning/infraction.
I'd imagine the majority are reported posts.

So they broke the rules and are getting a pissy that someone reported them for it? If not their problem is with the mod who infracted them.

Will I Amnt

Forget it, nothing can be done about it here. I'm not in the habit of reporting posts much anyway.
I was just replying to PhlegmyMoses, he brought it up, why not ask him...

101001

Shouldn't the straight up copying and pasting of articles be moderated? On a daily basis articles are reproduced on the forum without links,isn't this against site policy.

I'm no copyright Nazi but I like to know where an article comes from.

LuckyLloyd

Dr_Brian_Cocks wrote: »

No I didn't report it and won't. Just wondering.

It's another way of saying "your posts are sh-ite" imo.

You are allowed to attack posts.

Dr_Brian_Cocks

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You are allowed to attack posts.

Not really.
What does it add to the forum by saying "your posts are stupid" without backing it up?

LuckyLloyd

Dr_Brian_Cocks wrote: »

Not really.
What does it add to the forum by saying "your posts are stupid" without backing it up?

Some posters build up a solid body of posts; some are erratic; some posters post bad consistently. Sometimes it's okay to call a spade a spade. As long as it's about posts it's all good.

Dr_Brian_Cocks

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Some posters build up a solid body of posts; some are erratic; some posters post bad consistently. Sometimes it's okay to call a spade a spade. As long as it's about posts it's all good.

I disagree.

How many posts does it take to be consistent?

What if I find someones posts idiotic yet the majority find them good. Can I tell them their posts are stupid?