Feedback Thread

LuckyLloyd

GavRedKing wrote: »

Very first point in this thread.

Yep, my post was designed to highlight the wider longstanding issue of 'within the lines' trolling as I believe the specific poster cited is a fine example of same. Dishonest posting or trolling comes in many forms and it is my contention that examples like this should be proactively dealt with on the grounds of:

- body of work;
- consideration of net positive / negative to forum;
- additional evidence outside of body of work that would suggest dishonesty / trolling;

As such, I do not believe my original post was inappropriate.

Leiva

GavRedKing wrote: »

Very first point in this thread.

dead right and this is getting a little uncomfortable.

mods need do something I think be it a slap or a ban and put this to bed.

hope this doesn't sound like I am back seating.

Andersonisgod

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Yep, my post was designed to highlight the wider longstanding issue of 'within the lines' trolling as I believe the specific poster cited is a fine example of same. Dishonest posting or trolling comes in many forms and it is my contention that examples like this should be proactively dealt with on the grounds of:

- body of work;
- consideration of net positive / negative to forum;
- additional evidence outside of body of work that would suggest dishonesty / trolling;

As such, I do not believe my original post was inappropriate.

I don't want to have a go here but I do find it a bit rich that a poster whose constant slating of Brendan Rodgers has often led to the kinds of roundabout arguments that I have been having and yet here he is asking for me to be banned.

Do I think Lloyd should be banned? No. Perhaps he doesn't rate Rodgers as a manager, maybe he doesn't think he is good enough for Liverpool. Either way it's a football opinion, one which I'm sure he'll have an argument to back it up with. Equally believing that Spain are the greatest national side ever is a football opinion, one which I have an argument to back it up with. If people don't agree, fine, it's a football forum, it's main objective is to encourage football debate and I have no problem talking football with anybody. However when this happens, this situation that at times has resembled a witch hunt, where I am apparently the WUM in a thread where I've been goaded for over 120 minutes and had the good grace not to respond, to let the match be the topic, then there is a problem.

GavRedKing

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Yep, my post was designed to highlight the wider longstanding issue of 'within the lines' trolling as I believe the specific poster cited is a fine example of same. Dishonest posting or trolling comes in many forms and it is my contention that examples like this should be proactively dealt with on the grounds of:

- body of work;
- consideration of net positive / negative to forum;
- additional evidence outside of body of work that would suggest dishonesty / trolling;

As such, I do not believe my original post was inappropriate.

It wasnt aimed at yourself LL. Just a general comment to everyone here.

We (Mod team) are aware of the feeling towards the majority of the SF towards AIG.

Your post was perfectly fine as you said it provided evidence and backup of previous comments from AIG admitting to previous accounts on other forums and yes we are aware of it.

While you can understand we cant say too much to the SF as a whole I will say we are aware of AIG's posts and his posting style and are discussing it among ourselves.

Leiva wrote: »

dead right and this is getting a little uncomfortable.

mods need do something I think be it a slap or a ban and put this to bed.

hope this doesn't sound like I am back seating.

I dont think its back seat for the purpose of the debate anyway.

We may have a word with AIG but that is at our discretion for the time being.

RasTa

There isn't a single post where AIG has broke the charter imo. If you don't like his love of Barca then just stick him on ignore.

Leiva

RasTa wrote: »

There isn't a single post where AIG has broke the charter imo. If you don't like his love of Barca then just stick him on ignore.

I think we all know its more than just that.

Andersonisgod

RasTa wrote: »

There isn't a single post where AIG has broke the charter imo. If you don't like his love of Barca then just stick him on ignore.

Thank you again. Anyway I'm trying to resolve this problem, I don't know if other users want me banned, personally I wouldn't want to see anyone banned. I think it's ridiculous that we are even talking about banning on a football forum when all I've done is talk about Spain and Barcelona.

I've also said as you said, I'm willing to meet people half way, if they arent or if they are sick of this, as I am, then please put me on ignore. Honestly I won't lose any sleep over it and neither will the poster ignoring me.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Will I Amnt

When you have people actively calling him out on thread so they can berate his mad ramblings it doesn't really help.
Give a man a stage and he'll perform...

I find the whole situation quite funny tbh.
People know what they're getting into by engaging with him but still go ahead and do it.

RasTa

Leiva wrote: »

I think we all know its more than just that.

Who is this we? There is another dead rapper on here who is obvious, AIG is harmless.

Andersonisgod

darced wrote: »

AIG must be the most harmless troll in history,there are plenty more match thread regulars who put him to shame in the trolling stakes.

I can never see how his posts rile people up so much,maybe now I will looking at them from a different perspective.

I'm not even trolling. I cant believe that being a passionate Barcelona fan is considered trolling by some. I agree with what you say though, the reaction is ridiculous. Yes I think Messi is the best player ever, it's not that uncommon a view. Yes I think Xavi is the best midfielder of his generation, hardly a crazy controversial view, I think Busquets is the best holding midfielder in the world, is that so surprising? I think Piqué and Valdes are excellent players, get the stocks, quick!

The_Kew_Tour

Ignore button is there for reason.

LuckyLloyd

RasTa wrote: »

There isn't a single post where AIG has broke the charter

thatsthejoke.jpg

SlickRic

nobody wants someone like AIG banned simply for his views on Barca IMO.

personally, i enjoy argument and debate; that includes when I'm trying to deconstruct notions that I believe are bullshít notions.

so I wouldn't want him banned for airing annoying opinions. if he's trolling, then he should be, but that's not for me to decide. the fact that he's done it on other forums is relevant IMO, which is why his style of posting is coming under scrutiny now. that's for the mods to look at.

at the end of the day, it's riling some posters, IMO, because he waxes lyrical about Barca/Spain at any opportunity. even if it's just Xavi winning a free or something. and he'll write it in a weirdly poetic way that comes across as trolling. it just does. long soliloquies. random Spanish phrases. outlandish superlatives for anything a Spaniard or Barca player does. we don't really know if he's being serious, or if it's just his way of writing. but that's his choice. it's not something that should be at all a banning offence.

IMO, posters should just ignore if they don't want to engage.

but i would also say that AIG cannot ask people not to take the píss out of his posting style when he comes up with the kind of stuff he comes out with, whether it's his poetry, or his extreme bias. as long as it's not malicious, then he has to take some of the "banter" (for want of a better word) on the chin. again, as long as he as a person is not abused.

sorry that AIG is being used as an example, but it is a decent case study on deciding what is trolling and not trolling, as well as how other posters should or shouldn't react.

Andersonisgod

SlickRic wrote: »

nobody wants someone like AIG banned simply for his views on Barca IMO.

personally, i enjoy argument and debate; that includes when I'm trying to deconstruct notions that I believe are bullshít notions.

so I wouldn't want him banned for airing annoying opinions. if he's trolling, then he should be, but that's not for me to decide. the fact that he's done it on other forums is relevant IMO, which is why his style of posting is coming under scrutiny now. that's for the mods to look at.

at the end of the day, it's riling some posters, IMO, because he waxes lyrical about Barca/Spain at any opportunity. even if it's just Xavi winning a free or something. and he'll write it in a weirdly poetic way that comes across as trolling. it just does. long soliloquies. random Spanish phrases. outlandish superlatives for anything a Spaniard or Barca player does. we don't really know if he's being serious, or if it's just his way of writing. but that's his choice. it's not something that should be at all a banning offence.

IMO, posters should just ignore if they don't want to engage.

but i would also say that AIG cannot ask people not to take the píss out of his posting style when he comes up with the kind of stuff he comes out with, whether it's his poetry, or his extreme bias. as long as it's not malicious, then he has to take some of the "banter" (for want of a better word) on the chin. again, as long as he as a person is not abused.

sorry that AIG is being used as an example, but it is a decent case study on deciding what is trolling and not trolling, as well as how other posters should or shouldn't react.

I don't want to sound like a broken record bit I don't think the situation on the other forum is relavent. Like I said, the context and situation over there was vastly different than it is here. The difference here is that, despite maybe the odd argument, I don't dislike anybody, I barely know anybody because it's such a big forum, not like that forum that has 25-30 regular posters do everybody knew each other. I also have no problem with the modding system on this forum and as a result of all of that I've not had to report abuse on a single post on this forum.

Last night I think when one of the Spanish players won a freekick I said something to the effect of "he's done well to get that freekick" is that's considered poetic or waxing lyrically then honestly I give up. My longest post, up until the one at the end, was just a few tactical patterns if noticed, no bias in the post at all, indeed you could almost argue I was slightly (only slightly) critical of Spain for not using Arbeloa more often.

I can assure you that's just how I write. My writing style, wherever I am, doesn't change.

I also agree that if you don't want to read my posts then it is entirely possible to ignore me.

At no stage have I ever reported a post, I've never complained to the mods be side some people criticise my use of superlatives, I've often thanked posts that I've found funny at my expense, for example AdamB I think called be Busquets V2 and I thought it was a funny comment in response to my initial comment. I've no problem with banter, though the Xbox profile thing is creepy, but even that I didn't report to the mods because I have no intention of causing warnings and bans for other people.

I will say though that I do feel wronged that I am being blamed for that match thread going do woefully off the tracks. What if I had responded to each post that directly named me? There would have been no match discussion at all, just another argument about me. Instead I refrained, for the good of thr thread and the forum I bit my tongue even though I feel that I was made a topic last night by other people and I was being goaded into an argument to which I did not respond. I dont understand how, in that situation last night, I was the troll.

SlickRic

i'm just going to respond to 2 things RE: that match thread.

1) Xavi won a free, and you said "he and Iniesta are exerting more influence now". i think i replied by saying if Xavi is being influential, then I don't know what Pirlo is.

2) you constantly talk about how brilliant Spanish football is. you talk about how it's so pure, and it's the way football should be played. that is absolutely fine, and that is your opinion. people can disagree with you, and there's no problem there. we all get on with our lives.

but last night, Italy were very much outplaying Spain for about an hour, and your excuse was that Spain have chosen to play the way they're playing, implying that it wasn't Italy's good play that had them dominating, but that Spain simply chose themselves to sit back. and this is mere minutes after someone said Italy were playing very attractive football, moreso in their opinion than Spain, and you said that was ridiculous, as Spain are always proactive, while Italy are reactive. i.e. Spain are awesome.

so you see, aligned with all the soliloquies, and the behaviour on the other fora, there are reasons people don't take you seriously, why people think you might be trolling, and why people sometimes take the píss out of your comments on things.

if you're genuine, fair enough, and we're all just being silly. but you have to see what it looks like.

that's all I'm going to say, because I really don't want this to turn into a debrief on last night's thread. I've made my points and given you some friendly, I hope, advice, as well as to others. that's my 2c.

Andersonisgod

SlickRic wrote: »

i'm just going to respond to 2 things RE: that match thread.

1) Xavi won a free, and you said "he and Iniesta are exerting more influence now". i think i replied by saying if Xavi is being influential, then I don't know what Pirlo is.

2) you constantly talk about how brilliant Spanish football is. you talk about how it's so pure, and it's the way football should be played. that is absolutely fine, and that is your opinion. people can disagree with you, and there's no problem there. we all get on with our lives.

but last night, Italy were very much outplaying Spain for about an hour, and your excuse was that Spain have chosen to play the way they're playing, implying that it wasn't Italy's good play that had them dominating, but that Spain simply chose themselves to sit back. and this is mere minutes after someone said Italy were playing very attractive football, moreso in their opinion than Spain, and you said that was ridiculous, as Spain are always proactive, while Italy are reactive.

so you see, aligned with all the soliloquies, there are reasons people don't take you seriously, why people think you might be trolling, and why people sometimes take the píss out of your comments on things.

if you're genuine, fair enough, and we're all just being silly. but you have to see what it looks like.

that's all I'm going to say, because I really don't want this to turn into a debrief on last night's thread. I've made my points and given you some friendly, I hope, advice, as well as to others. that's my 2c.

Slowly I felt Xavi and Iniesta were starting to find pockets of space beyond the Italian midfield that weren't there up to that point. I'm a fan of Spanish football, that's no secret, if you're a Man Utd fan I don't expect you to praise Gerrard for everything he does against your team, same thing lady night with Pirlo. After the game I said he played very well, I thought Busquets did well last night as did Piqué but nobody was quick to praise them either. My point being, we all have likes and dislikes, Im confident I praised Pirlo more in that thread last night than anyone supporting Italy praised Busquets or Piqué or Ramos.

It's possible you mis-understood my comments and that's fine, these things happen in online conversations but I never said Spain chose to play reactively or counter attacking football, simply I said its do rare to see them play that way that when they do it's a talking point. I definitely didn't say that they wanted to play that way. But again, a simple mia-understanding.

I'm a passionate guy, I've been a fan of this style of Spanish play, of this group of players and of their youth teams for some time now so I do get passionate when they overcome daunting obstacles like last night. Maybe I will try to lessen the soliloquies and goal goal goal celebration comments. However my intention on here has never been to troll.

Like you, that'll be it for me too. I've made my points, I've explained my case to a mod. Like I said I have no I'll feelings towards anyone on here, I've not reported a single post on here, I don't mind banter and I'd rather not have to talk about myself do much. The only two things I'm annoyed about are the Xbox profile pic, which is weird, and being blamed for that match thread going off the rails last night when anyone who wants to read through it will see me being named and goaded throughout the game and me having the sense of mind not to respond to it for risk of wrecking the thread, I honestly feel wronged for being blamed for that thread going off the rails.

Dr_Brian_Cocks

This is the master case of a poster being dislike because of their posts.

If people are getting trolled because they don't like AIG prasing Barcelona (heralded as one of the best teams ever) than they should get off imo.

If he was creaming himself over Stoke or Newcastle then I'd understand.

And the fact that he has switched supporting teams makes no difference whatsoever. Don't try and bully him off the forum for doing no wrong.

SlickRic

yup, the problem is he likes Barcelona. of course it is :rolleyes:

and i hope he is not bullied off the forum. that would be ridiculous.

Dr_Brian_Cocks

SlickRic wrote: »

yup, the problem is he likes Barcelona. of course it is.

and i hope he is not bullied off the forum. that would be ridiculous.

Good man yourself.

The_Kew_Tour

I be more worried about posters who can get personal and have a agenda against particular poster.

When they have never met that poster in person it's kinds sad and bit pathetic.

But I enjoy boards. I think 99% posters here are great and can have laugh and engage in some debate.

It's just pity about few but it's impossible to ever fully get rid of.

GavRedKing

Can we nip the Andersonisgod chat in the bud please, we'd liek to move the discussion on from talking about one individual.

The mod team are aware of some peoples problem with the user but truth be told hes not picked up a single warning/card in the SF to date and the calls for him to be banned are inapproporiate.

If you have a problem with AIG then report his posts and we'll deal with them on an individual basis, while its a last resort and personal preference, if you have a problem with AIG put him on ignore.

So, please everybody, including AIG, can we move on from this and get back to Feedback, its being noted and discussed by the Soccer Mods and Sports CMod as we speak.

Thanks.

Kess73

Thread should be locked and thrown away at this stage.

LuckyLloyd

GavRedKing wrote: »

Can we nip the Andersonisgod chat in the bud please, we'd liek to move the discussion on from talking about one individual.

The mod team are aware of some peoples problem with the user but truth be told hes not picked up a single warning/card in the SF to date and the calls for him to be banned are inapproporiate.

If you have a problem with AIG then report his posts and we'll deal with them on an individual basis, while its a last resort and personal preference, if you have a problem with AIG put him on ignore.

So, please everybody, including AIG, can we move on from this and get back to Feedback, its being noted and discussed by the Soccer Mods and Sports CMod as we speak.

Thanks.

Same as it ever was, troll to your heart's content once you stay within the lines. Thanks for confirming mod team policy on the issue though, much appreciated.

Beasty

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Same as it ever was, troll to your heart's content once you stay within the lines. Thanks for confirming mod team policy on the issue though, much appreciated.

have you reported any posts you consider trolling? <snip>

LuckyLloyd

Beasty wrote: »

have you reported any posts you consider trolling?<snip>

Excuse me, but maybe you need to reread my last two posts in this thread? I've complained in this thread and I've explained clearly that my complaint is related to general body of work.

You've actually neatly demonstrated the issue actually. A poster is causing consistent widespread disruption through an extreme posting style (that is admittedly inside the charter on a post per post basis) and your retort is 'report individual posts'.

You and the specific team don't seem to get it, no matter how many times it's raised.

Beasty

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Excuse me, but maybe you need to reread my last two posts in this thread? I've complained in this thread and I've explained clearly that my complaint is related to general body of work.

You've actually neatly demonstrated the issue actually. A poster is causing consistent widespread disruption through an extreme posting style (that is admittedly inside the charter on a post per post basis) and your retort is 'report individual posts'.

You and the specific team don't seem to get it, no matter how many times it's raised.

OK, these comments are general to both the SF and elsewhere on Boards

Boards has moved on from the past when it may have been possible to ban people for their "posting style". What goes on outside of Boards is irrelevant when determing what action to take against posters. Mod actions have to stand up to scrutiny, particularly in the DRF. Posters cannot be banned on a whim. Basically we must build up a record to justify bans.

In the case of the SF, there is more of process involved in that accumulations of cards lead to set bans - the bar for bans is actually set very low in the SF compared to many other forums. The mods have discretion to issue harsher penalties dependent on the nature of the offence. However general "posting style" is not something that will result in bans. A track record of trolling will.

If posters are not prepared to state exactly what posts cause offence, the mods are not going to go out looking for them (there are simply too many posts in the SF to do that). So the solution is very simple - report those posts that cause problems. If specific posters give rise to more concern the mods can act accordingly. If such posters continue to cause problems bans will follow

SlickRic

Beasty wrote: »

have you reported any posts you consider trolling<snip>

before I start talking about the general issue of trolling, the points I make are not at AIG. as Gav said, it's time to leave that.

but the issue with trolling is always the same.

people who troll, unless they're so blatantly, stupidly obvious, rarely get banned.

someone can go into the Liverpool thread saying "Liverpool have no good players and are not a big club anymore". that can be the theme of the majority of their posts. and it can rile everyone in the Liverpool thread up, but it's easy for that troll to hide behind "it's my opinion". and it might be. but it's obvious they're doing it for kicks.

we've had instances in the past, while I was a mod, where a poster who was eventually banned a couple of years ago, was saying Liverpool fans were partially to blame for Hillsborough, and hid behind the "this is what was reported in papers", and "i'm just asking the question". it's an extreme example, but technically it wasn't cut and dry, and I rightly got some grief from some posters for the slowness in actually banning him. he had one yellow to his name, and cited that as proof to me that he was not a troll, even though he took digs at Liverpool on an almost weekly basis.

meanwhile if someone calls him out, according to the charter, that poster should be carded.

the card system is great for most of the issues, but when it comes to trolling it sometimes just doesn't work, because someone needs to build up a reputation over a bit of time before you can definitely say they're trolling, unless it's ridiculously obvious that it almost smacks you in the face.

mods need to be trusted to be able to ban those who are being "dícks". as I've said before, the "don't be a díck" rule should be the only rule. mods should be picked because they're trusted, they know the community, they know the ambience, and they're sensible enough to know when someone is out of line. if mods abuse this, then they're not a mod anymore. we need to trust that they won't though.

i know when I modded, you were often worried, when it came to a trolling issue, that an appeal would be made by the poster, and it might seem to someone not used to the SF (i.e some form of admin) that a mod is being unreasonable, because there might be no cards on that profile, but that mod knows from experience what that poster is doing.

mods need to be accountable for their decisions on bans, but they need to just be trusted to weed out those who really are a disruption to the forum.

Beasty

OK, if it causes offence I will edit it and all those posts quoting it - apologies to LL for making the statement in the first place (and I realise it's out in the open despite my edits)

Jax Teller

Sweep it under the carpet there like a good lad .

I don't appreciate my posts being deleted either I've done no wrong .

Panthro

My 2 cents.
Say we have a WUM who is posting within the rules of the forum, the regular poster on here knows he/she is a WUM, the Mods will be aware he/she's a WUM.
Could the Mods not have a discussion, if all agree there is a WUM posting within the rules, contact the Admin and say look, they are causing trouble, we are not happy about it, advise.
If Admin agrees with the local mods, the WUM gets turfed out, end of.

Beasty

Jax Teller wrote: »

Sweep it under the carpet there like a good lad .

I don't appreciate my posts being deleted either I've done no wrong .

They were only deleted to avoid specific reference to the issue you were complaining about and which I apologised for

Jax Teller

Beasty wrote: »

They were only deleted to avoid specific reference to the issue you were complaining about and which I apologised for

And that's meant to be the end of it ? I want to complain about you , where can I do that ? You've deleted the posts now so I wonder if there's any point .

GavRedKing

Jax Teller wrote: »

And that's meant to be the end of it ? I want to complain about you , where can I do that ? You've deleted the posts now so I wonder if there's any point .

Just out of curiosity, what are you complaining about?

If it can be resolved with Beasty then PM him.

Panthro

Panthro wrote: »

My 2 cents.
Say we have a WUM who is posting within the rules of the forum, the regular poster on here knows he/she is a WUM, the Mods will be aware he/she's a WUM.
Could the Mods not have a discussion, if all agree there is a WUM posting within the rules, contact the Admin and say look, they are causing trouble, we are not happy about it, advise.
If Admin agrees with the local mods, the WUM gets turfed out, end of.

It's been done before and I don't see why it would be such a problem tbh.

LuckyLloyd

SlickRic wrote: »

before I start talking about the general issue of trolling, the points I make are not at AIG. as Gav said, it's time to leave that.

but the issue with trolling is always the same.

people who troll, unless they're so blatantly, stupidly obvious, rarely get banned.

someone can go into the Liverpool thread saying "Liverpool have no good players and are not a big club anymore". that can be the theme of the majority of their posts. and it can rile everyone in the Liverpool thread up, but it's easy for that troll to hide behind "it's my opinion". and it might be. but it's obvious they're doing it for kicks.

we've had instances in the past, while I was a mod, where a poster who was eventually banned a couple of years ago, was saying Liverpool fans were partially to blame for Hillsborough, and hid behind the "this is what was reported in papers", and "i'm just asking the question". it's an extreme example, but technically it wasn't cut and dry, and I rightly got some grief from some posters for the slowness in actually banning him. he had one yellow to his name, and cited that as proof to me that he was not a troll, even though he took digs at Liverpool on an almost weekly basis.

meanwhile if someone calls him out, according to the charter, that poster should be carded.

the card system is great for most of the issues, but when it comes to trolling it sometimes just doesn't work, because someone needs to build up a reputation over a bit of time before you can definitely say they're trolling, unless it's ridiculously obvious that it almost smacks you in the face.

mods need to be trusted to be able to ban those who are being "dícks". as I've said before, the "don't be a díck" rule should be the only rule. mods should be picked because they're trusted, they know the community, they know the ambience, and they're sensible enough to know when someone is out of line. if mods abuse this, then they're not a mod anymore. we need to trust that they won't though.

i know when I modded, you were often worried, when it came to a trolling issue, that an appeal would be made by the poster, and it might seem to someone not used to the SF (i.e some form of admin) that a mod is being unreasonable, because there might be no cards on that profile, but that mod knows from experience what that poster is doing.

mods need to be accountable for their decisions on bans, but they need to just be trusted to weed out those who really are a disruption to the forum.

The frustrating part is that the topic has been clearly raised in the above fashion numerous times only for members of the mod structure at any time to behave as if they were dropped out of the sky and aggressively go 'well show me where these users have broken the charter' as per Beasty's post pre edit.

The starting post for next year's feedback thread should draw from this very thread imo and so on and so forth.

K-9

In fairness though reported posts play a big part and help in modding a forum. If there are no or little RP's about a user that suggests it isn't that big an issue.

Leiva

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness though reported posts play a big part and help in modding a forum. If there are no or little RP's about a user that suggests it isn't that big an issue.

that is until certain posters try and use it as some sort of rock throwing exercise against those they simply don't like.

mods get bombarded and defeats the whole purpose.

Leiva

Leiva wrote: »

that is until certain posters try and use it as some sort of rock throwing exercise against those they simply don't like.

mods get bombarded and defeats the whole purpose.

In fairness, that would be easy for the mods to spot.

Leiva

rarnes1 wrote: »

In fairness, that would be easy for the mods to spot.

Yep but i don't see anything in the charter for abusing the "report post" process.

LuckyLloyd

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness though reported posts play a big part and help in modding a forum. If there are no or little RP's about a user that suggests it isn't that big an issue.

I don't dispute that they play a vital part but come on now: are the avalanche of pissed off responses to the posts of the subject at hand not enough? The 'our hands are tied because no posts were reported' argument is weak for this textbook example of a repeated problem.

The_Kew_Tour

There should only be 2 rules and it was brought up by another poster cant remember who

If you act the dick, Yellow Card

If you keep acting the dick, Red card.

Its very simple.

You can see in certain cases the person getting a yellow card is the person retaliating rather then person who caused the havoc in first place.

I dont have a problem with the Mods. They do a good job and they have to go along with the rules. Its the system that needs a fix.

The_Kew_Tour

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

There should only be 2 rules and it was brought up by another poster cant remember who

If you act the dick, Yellow Card

If you keep acting the dick, Red card.

Its very simple.

You can see in certain cases the person getting a yellow card is the person retaliating rather then person who caused the havoc in first place.

I dont have a problem with the Mods. They do a good job and they have to go along with the rules. Its the system that needs a fix.

If you acting the dick consistantly the card system should be bypassed and the user should be perma-banned.

dfx-

Leiva wrote: »

Yep but i don't see anything in the charter for abusing the "report post" process.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73160806&postcount=6

It has been used in the past year for someone unnecessarily reporting several posts word for word with a warning they got. A quiet word was had in this case to resolve it, but we do notice.

On the trolling issue, posts that you disagree with or find controversial or tiresome are not necessarily an offence in the forum. If it was, everyone would be banned.

The_Kew_Tour

rarnes1 wrote: »

If you acting the dick consistantly the card system should be bypassed and the user should be perma-banned.

Yep that would be fine with most I guess.

I think a simple system would make life whole lot easier for Mods too

The_Kew_Tour

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Yep that would be fine with most I guess.

I think a simple system would make life whole lot easier for Mods too

Seems pretty straightfoward to me. The mods used the rule a few years ago when banning a poster who had avoided bans/cards in the SF.

It can be done.

K-9

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

There should only be 2 rules and it was brought up by another poster cant remember who

If you act the dick, Yellow Card

If you keep acting the dick, Red card.

Its very simple.

You can see in certain cases the person getting a yellow card is the person retaliating rather then person who caused the havoc in first place.

I dont have a problem with the Mods. They do a good job and they have to go along with the rules. Its the system that needs a fix.

Retaliating is making the problem worse though, I know it can be hard not too, been there myself plenty of times, but the best thing is to not reply.

Panthro

Devil's advocate to the new system.
What if one of the more popular posters gets banned for acting the dick, public outcry ensues, mods eventually are forced to back down and lift the ban.
Would that ever happen?

The_Kew_Tour

Panthro wrote: »

Devil's advocate to the new system.
What if one of the more popular posters gets banned for acting the dick, public outcry ensues, mods eventually are forced to back down and lift the ban.
Would that ever happen?

Why should it be one rule for one person and another for others?

No matter what is in place will have some fault.

Keeping the rules as simple as possible makes it a much easier task for Mods.

Basically just a bit of common sense goes a long way.

SlickRic

rarnes1 wrote: »

If you acting the dick consistantly the card system should be bypassed and the user should be perma-banned.

if we trust the mods to not abuse it, that's perfect.

it also means admins must trust the mods, while also holding them accountable if there's an obvious error in judgment.