Feedback Thread

Pro. F

dfx- wrote: »

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.

Yes this is true. But it is also true that posts that stay within the rules, when taken individually, are not necessarily okay either. That's the issue here.

Some posters are unwilling or unable to contribute sensibly to the forum, there's no good reason why that should just be accepted. If a poster were to consistently post pages of Lorem Ipsum they would be banned quick enough. But if a poster consistently posts idiotic ramblings about football or consistently argues like an idiot about football there seems to be a reluctance by the mods to do anything about it.

It might be that the problem is the system that the mods are working in; it seems that if the troll isn't accumulating cards then they can't be banned. If that's the case then the system needs to change.

Beasty wrote: »

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

Nobody is asking you to ban posters on a whim. Look at the points that Lloyd proposed for dealing with trolling:

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

There's nothing whimsical about what he has put forward there.

Everybody knows that you need a record built up before you ban a poster, but that record can't just be cards. Because it is quite obvious that certain types of troll can avoid cards while still making the forum a much less enjoyable experience for a lot of people.

If you need a record built up before you ban a troll then maybe, with the type of troll we are talking about, you would consider submissions from posters. Posters are already trusted and relied upon to report individual posts that break the charter, so they could also be trusted to report ongoing behaviour that is trollish but avoids breaking the charter in any one post.

I think I remember this happening in the Man Utd thread a while ago. It may have happened with more than one troll, I can't remember. The way it worked was that one poster would make a post collecting together a good sample of the nonsense that the troll had spewed over the last while and would present the argument that the troll was adding nothing constructive to the thread. That post would then be reported so the mods would be sure to see it. I think it might have even had the desired effect and resulted in cards/bans for trolls. (This is all from memory so I might be wrong on the details.)

darced

This post has been deleted.

Pro. F

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

All three have a long track record of sensible and constructive contribution to that thread and the forum. They could point to that in their defence if the mods weren't aware of it. Past trolls like The Muppet, Ntlbell and Flahavaj I think would be the types who would get caught out by the system I'm proposing.

SlickRic

RE: Lloyd, Al etc...that's not trolling.

Leiva

Pro. F wrote: »

All three have a long track record of sensible and constructive contribution to that thread and the forum. They could point to that in their defence if the mods weren't aware of it. Past trolls like The Muppet, Ntlbell and Flahavaj I think would be the types who would get caught out by the system I'm proposing.

^nail hit on the head.

All six names mentioned above probably had/have feck all yellows against them, but 3 of them are really good contributors, and 3 are proven trolls.
The power needs to be given to the mods to filter out those trolls and permaban regardless of past yellows etc.

darced

This post has been deleted.

I think anyone suspected of trolling should have their account checked for re-reg too.

Pro. F

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The "just ignore them" argument is weak. If a troll makes it his business to ruin a thread/forum as much as he can then there is no reason why that should be tolerated. They can be ignored - but that is difficult and annoying - they can also be banned - that is easier and far more effective.

Can a previously good poster then have the freedom of the forum? No. If all they are adding to a thread is idiotic posts then they should be banned. That's not all that Al, Lloyd or Daithi are adding to the LFC thread by a long way.

Where you draw the line is between posters like Al, Lloyd and Daithi who are posting unpopular opinions in a mostly intelligent manner and posters like The Muppet, Ntlbell and Flahavaj who were clearly spending far more of their time trolling than taking part in honest discussion.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Peoples accounts are checked for re-reg on access request in many cases and then when we see patterns of behaviour that can identify them re-occurring. There are several other acid tests that we can and do use.

As for those 6 names mentioned, three of them were banned, one of them was banned for low level trolling and it was torturous making it stick, sometimes because of the sheer volumes of "pleading innocent" pms and then the feedback threads and then the number of people complaing it is unjust etc. One of those members had a sizable body of decent posts but has been banned and not readmitted for being a troll. Shoudl we not have banned them for trolling because looking back they were a fine contributor? I don't think so personally. If LL were to go to the dark side and go full on troll should we just allow it because he has history of not awful behaviour and some decent contributions? Not really in my view. So while there is merit in that approach, there is still a case for every situation on it's own merits, just because you have been here a long time and have not been a dick does not meant that you will not become a dick or abuse the system or just lose it.

And it is not easier just to ban someoen because someone else thinks they are a troll (because banning is not easy in trolling cases). If a Villa fan comes onto a matchday thread having a laugh at Birmingham then that is not trolling. It is a match day thread and that result may see Villa stay up a season or just ha because the Blues are struggling and they do not like their rivals and want to see them lose. But if they went and did something similar in a superthread then maybe it could be considered trolling.

K-9

Pro. F wrote: »

The "just ignore them" argument is weak. If a troll makes it his business to ruin a thread/forum as much as he can then there is no reason why that should be tolerated. They can be ignored - but that is difficult and annoying - they can also be banned - that is easier and far more effective.

I love when a troll posts and it just gets ignored, but you are right, on such a busy forum somebody will react more often than not, which is why there are trolls! Genuinely a newer poster mightn't know they are a troll, and on such a tribalistic and busy forum like Soccer, it's unrealistic to expect everybody not to engage. It takes posters varying times to get that, took a good while for the penny to drop myself. And I still fall for it from time to time.

Can a previously good poster then have the freedom of the forum? No. If all they are adding to a thread is idiotic posts then they should be banned. That's not all that Al, Lloyd or Daithi are adding to the LFC thread by a long way.

Yep, I have known mods to pm a poster about a change in behaviour because they were concerned, but yeah, a long post history shouldn't matter when it comes to trolling, if anything it should count against it, as they should know better.

Where you draw the line is between posters like Al, Lloyd and Daithi who are posting unpopular opinions in a mostly intelligent manner and posters like The Muppet, Ntlbell and Flahavaj who were clearly spending far more of their time trolling than taking part in honest discussion.

The only problem I have with Al et al is it is repetitive, and it is unrealistic. Rodgers just wasn't going to be sacked anytime last season, unless it turned out a total disaster, and he's obviously not going to be sacked this Summer. I suppose there is an element of soap boxing there, a personal hate of mine and something that is implementable in forums like AH and politics, but I'm not sure if it is all that applicable to a Soccer forum.

Rugby has a thing about Leinster vs. Munster stuff, but I don't want Soccer forums that you can't slate a manager, even if it is an unpopular opinion.

Donnielighto

K-9 wrote: »

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.

From frisbees post initiators should be carded too.

Lovely Bloke

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

If a Villa United fan comes onto a matchday thread having a laugh at Birmingham Liverpool then that is not trolling. It is a match day thread and that result may see Villa United stay up a season win the league or just ha because the Blues Pool are struggling and they do not like their rivals and want to see them lose.

In your situation, but with the teams changed, how many reported posts would you see?

From when I was able to read the reported posts forum, when that situation above has occurred, and it has, the number of reported posts from overly sensitive people is huge.

and then the mods go in full steam - instead of looking at it like you have just done, instead of doing proper modding, the thread gets closed, cards are handed out for nonsense reasons, and threads are closed - all at the behest of "offended" people who just can't take a bit of a slagging.

Would they go running to a bar manager if bold boys were having a laugh at their team's expense in the pub? Nope, because they'd be laughed out of it, and rightly so.

The mods should take the same approach.

Anyone

I'd love to have the time to read this thread, but normally I dont. I'd suggest though....match threads should be moderated lighter than team threads.

Let me explain...its easy to make a comment about something that happens in a match when it happens live, a bad tackle, a bad decision...and that comment can just be made..."ahh sure he's a dirty ****, should be red" To me that's not a pre meditated comment designed to troll.

However, people going into team threads are generally going in to post a pre thought out comment and have taken time to word their comments.

Not sure if I have highlighted the difference between the two types of comments, and why one should carry a harsher punishment than the other.

Anyone

Anyone wrote: »

I'd love to have the time to read this thread, but normally I dont. I'd suggest though....match threads should be moderated lighter than team threads.

Let me explain...its easy to make a comment about something that happens in a match when it happens live, a bad tackle, a bad decision...and that comment can just be made..."ahh sure he's a dirty ****, should be red" To me that's not a pre meditated comment designed to troll.

However, people going into team threads are generally going in to post a pre thought out comment and have taken time to word their comments.

Not sure if I have highlighted the difference between the two types of comments, and why one should carry a harsher punishment than the other.

Not really. You still have to type it out.

That's the sort of thing that happens in a match thread that gets about 10 replies and derails the thread.

Lovely Bloke

rarnes1 wrote: »

Not really. You still have to type it out.

True, this "heat of the moment" is an absolutely stupid cop-out, and should not be tolerated.

There is no "heat of the moment" on a forum. You have to hit the reply button, type your message, read it before you hit submit, then hit submit, see the message appear. You can even edit it straight away of you like.

So no, this is a thin excuse that should hold no water, and is a way for people to try to squirm out of thing they have posted.

Stand by your words. Or don't post at all.

The_Kew_Tour

I like to think Mods look beyond Heat of the Moment stuff, I really do.

In fairness, the mods seems to be on the ball quite quickly in match threads with that sort of comment.

Lovely Bloke

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

I like to think Mods look beyond Heat of the Moment stuff, I really do.

what? There is no such thing.

The_Kew_Tour

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

what? There is no such thing.

how?

Lovely Bloke

You are literally asking me to post the same post I posted two minutes before you posted, in post #366.

Seriously?

The_Kew_Tour

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

You are literally asking me to post the same post I posted two minutes before you posted, in post #366.

Seriously?

No I am asking a question.

A question totally different to the one you posted.

Maybe its you that needs to read my post again.

I think Baldy is saying there's no such thing as heat of the moment posts.

I agree with him, as you still have to type it out and submit reply

Lovely Bloke

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

No I am asking a question.

A question totally different to the one you posted.

Maybe its you that needs to read my post again.

I already explained my thoughts on how there is no such thing as "heat of the moment". Not on a forum.

I don't think mods should give any credence to it being used as an excuse. I think people who use it as an excuse are squirming worms without the conviction to stand by what they've posted.

I'm genuinely missing your question, if it's anything other than asking me why I think there's no such thing as "heat of the moment"

The_Kew_Tour

Thats what I was saying!!!!!

No excuses.

Lovely Bloke

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Thats what I was saying!!!!!

No excuses.

You have a weird way of phrasing things then.

"I'd like to think mods look past heat of the moment stuff" - that reads like you accept "heat of the moment" does actually happen on forums, and that you hope mods ignore it because it's somehow acceptable.

Apologies, seems all three of us are on the same page here.

*********************************************

In other news, about the lowlevel trolls who never step outside the boundaries.

It's not just SF mods who aren't willing to deal with them, it goes right to the top of Boards.

More posts = more content = more money.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Bounty Hunter

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

In other news, about the lowlevel trolls who never step outside the boundaries.

It's not just SF mods who aren't willing to deal with them, it goes right to the top of Boards.

More posts = more content = more money.

No offense meant by this (I know that term is usually followed by something offensive but...) as I met you in real life and got on fine with you so hopefully you would believe me when I say I have no agenda with regards yourself. However you do seem to have a problem with boards in general and a lot of your issues may not be ones that could be solved through the soccer forum annual feedback thread. Perhaps there might be a better place for your concerns to be raised than here, as a former mod (as anyone could note from your previous ability to view reported posts) you would know as well as me about where and im not trying to just shut you down here but obviously the soccer forum is part of the overall boards.ie site and will follow site rules on many procedures.

Are there any suggestions you think we would be able to implement for next season that could improve the soccer forum?

and that simple question is to everyone as its very easy in a thread like this to get dragged off that core issue. We can talk about whaat mods do or dont do or what we like and dont like but does anyone have ideas to solve these issues

Lovely Bloke

I was simply pointing out to the people on this thread who are complaining about Low Level Trolling that it's pretty pointless, and why.

It's got nothing to do with issues I may or may not have with Boards at a wider level.

Are there any suggestions as to what would make the forum better? Only that Low Level trolls are dealt with properly, but I've raised that in the past, others are raising it now, and the answers are always the same.

Low Level trolls are a cancer on this forum, and there has never been any real effort to remove them.

Beasty

The answers may always be the same but that's because the local mods (and CMods) are constrained on what they can do. We need an audit trail to support bans otherwise they in all likelihood will be overturned on appeal.

As I've already indicated the mods rely heavily on reported posts. It's simply not possible to keep track of all posts in a busy forum like Soccer (it's not possible for me to track all posts in the Cycling forum any more and that forum probably gets around a quarter of the traffic the SF gets).

If a poster regularly gets reported for trolling the mods then have the ammunition to start handing out cards and bans. The more posters who report particular posts or posters the more weight there is likely to be to support mod action. It may be the same message as previously relayed but that's because of the procedures established by the powers that be.

By all means continue discussing it if you wish but there is very little that can be done here. It's much more of a Site feedback issue.

Donnielighto

Beasty wrote: »

The answers may always be the same but that's because the local mods (and CMods) are constrained on what they can do. We need an audit trail to support bans otherwise they in all likelihood will be overturned on appeal.

As I've already indicated the mods rely heavily on reported posts. It's simply not possible to keep track of all posts in a busy forum like Soccer (it's not possible for me to track all posts in the Cycling forum any more and that forum probably gets around a quarter of the traffic the SF gets).

If a poster regularly gets reported for trolling the mods then have the ammunition to start handing out cards and bans. The more posters who report particular posts or posters the more weight there is likely to be to support mod action. It may be the same message as previously relayed but that's because of the procedures established by the powers that be.

By all means continue discussing it if you wish but there is very little that can be done here. It's much more of a Site feedback issue.

In your opinion is it better to report individual posts which are within charter or wait and present body of work like LL did?

Beasty

Donnielighto wrote: »

In your opinion is it better to report individual posts which are within charter or wait and present body of work like LL did?

Report the individual posts - if the mods see a pattern they can act accordingly. Bear in mind that the way bans typically (but not always) arise is through an accumulation of cards. If the mods see a number of different posters reporting different posts from the same poster that poster will in all likelihood incur the cards and then be on the radar for future action

I would add that although LL presented a "case" in this thread, that would not normally be allowable in the public forum (although mods can be PM'd with relevant details).

Again it's a lot easier for CMods and Admins to uphold bans if we see a pattern of actions being taken and warnings being given by the mods. The warning point is important also as it gives posters a chance to mend their ways. It may be that someone picks up a couple of cards/bans early on, the mods can then have a quiet word and hopefully the poster takes the hint and changes their posting style to avoid further problems

SlickRic

so what about those who can skirt around cards, because their trolling is defended as their "opinion"?

Beasty

SlickRic wrote: »

so what about those who can skirt around cards, because their trolling is defended as their "opinion"?

You are the guys who think they are trolling - report the posts. They can be carded for being a dick. The odd reported post for low level trolling is unlikely to result in much direct action, but as I have already said if a pattern emerges it gives the mods the ammo to start dishing the cards (and indeed marking the cards of the poster concerned - this does happen when the mods think someone is causing or in danger of causing a problem - they get asked to reign it in - if they ignore the request the mods can again resort to carding which in turn leads to bans).

EDIT - and just to add reporting stuff helps weed-out re-regs also. We will often check the individuals involved and report any suspicions to Admins for further investigation if we suspect it may be someone banned from the forum

dfx-

rarnes1 wrote: »

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

This has been discouraged from above as Beasty has outlined and as such there has to be cards and bans specifically associated to posts. A paper trail, so to speak.

dfx-

dfx- wrote: »

This has been discouraged from above as Beasty has outlined and as such there has to be cards and bans specifically associated to posts. A paper trail, so to speak.

It's not hard to fly under the radar of the carding system.

It should still be open for exceptional circumstances.

Leiva

Do cards, warnings, and bad rep stay with a user or just their username?

Cause I know a couple of people who went über nasty only to close their accounts moments before they knew a perma ban was coming, only to start up another account with a clean slate.

That's a loophole that needs to be closed.

Leiva

Leiva wrote: »

Do cards, warnings, and bad rep stay with a user or just their username?

Cause I know a couple of people who went über nasty only to close their accounts moments before they knew a perma ban was coming, only to start up another account with a clean slate.

That's a loophole that needs to be closed.

Good point.

Thanx 4 The Fish

rarnes1 wrote: »

Good point.

There is no loophole. We review all access requests and have ways of linking users to accounts which I will not go into now. They can identify for us people who are likely to be rerregges and then we do not need to ban them as we just do not grant them access, we also share information between us of our investigations and findings and if we need to continue to monitor users to determine if they are rerregges.

Beasty

Leiva wrote: »

Do cards, warnings, and bad rep stay with a user or just their username?

Cause I know a couple of people who went über nasty only to close their accounts moments before they knew a perma ban was coming, only to start up another account with a clean slate.

That's a loophole that needs to be closed.

Prior records are taken into account if the mods know which account(s) are linked. Some posters do not get through the access approval process if we can identify prior accounts.

However only Admins can confirm links. Mods and CMods can ask them to investigate accounts but if they do not confirm links we cannot make assumptions on the matter (we may look out for further evidence to provide to the Admins though)

Professional Griefer

Is it just a IP check?

Pro. F

Beasty wrote: »

You are the guys who think they are trolling - report the posts. They can be carded for being a dick. The odd reported post for low level trolling is unlikely to result in much direct action, but as I have already said if a pattern emerges it gives the mods the ammo to start dishing the cards (and indeed marking the cards of the poster concerned - this does happen when the mods think someone is causing or in danger of causing a problem - they get asked to reign it in - if they ignore the request the mods can again resort to carding which in turn leads to bans).

EDIT - and just to add reporting stuff helps weed-out re-regs also. We will often check the individuals involved and report any suspicions to Admins for further investigation if we suspect it may be someone banned from the forum

From what we hear the SF mods are already plagued with spurious reporting of innocent posts. You are suggesting that the forum report posts which don't break the rules individually but taken as a whole might amount to trolling. If the majority actually took to doing that it would be a cluster fúck imo, there would be way too many posts reported for the mods to read.

Surely it would be better for users to collect together a few of these within-the-rules-trolling posts from the accused troll and submit them all at once - either by PM or by quoting them all in one post and reporting that. That would provide more concrete proof and would be easier for the mods to assess.

The problem with that might be that the subtle troll might only get one yellow for the collection of troll posts reported. But at least the mods would have an easier presentation of evidence to sift through. As long as the mods made it publicly visible that they had carded the troll on the back of the evidence presented, it would probably assure the users that the troll was being dealt with and was one step closer to a ban.

Lovely Bloke

Professional Griefer wrote: »

Is it just a IP check?

It's not just an IP Check.

There is stuff that you won't be told, for obvious reasons.

SlickRic

I understand the "paper trail" scenario.

it just doesn't work when it comes to low level trolling, as I pointed out earlier in the thread.

it needs to be ok, in exceptional circumstances, to just get rid.

^

Wp

SlickRic

thanks Blatter.

well articulated, and a great example of what happens.

It's posts like some of those that spiral superthreads out of control because you get 10 replies and then it just snowballs particularly in a busy superthread.

Infact, aren't posts like that a perfect example of "being a/acting the dick"?

Bounty Hunter

SlickRic wrote: »

thanks Blatter.

well articulated, and a great example of what happens.

That may be true (im not going to label anyone a troll in this thread) but if someone had say reported the post about Man City fans saying that they found it insulting towards City fans and a form of trolling to say that the average fan only started following them when they got rich then at the very least the mods of whom there arent a huge number of would at least have something to work off as a poster would at least have been brought to their attention whether they acted upon that report on that occasion or not.

dfx-

Blatter wrote: »

Don't mean to pick on one poster in particular but Oranage2 is another fairly clever low level troll that has been around a long time.

Just a few posts over the last couple of months, there's plenty more from where they came from if I was bothered to go further back.

You'd feel like a bit of a div by reporting most of those posts in isolation but over a period of time and a body of work it's clear that he's a troll that hides behind ''it's my opinion''. Not that hard of a call to make either tbf.

I don't want to discuss anyone's individual record, but that some posters don't need a 'body of work' to have already encompassed bans and cards for trolling.

Does someone posting every few weeks in full knowledge that it'll get a reaction and then backing out of the thread while it melts down count as low-level trolling?

Bounty Hunter

Deleted User wrote: »

Does someone posting every few weeks in full knowledge that it'll get a reaction and then backing out of the thread while it melts down count as low-level trolling?

obviously if they are posting specifically to get a reaction like that (as implied by saying they are in full knowledge it will happen) then it most likely would. Proving they know that is the difficult thing but if they posted something that to you suggested they did that would be ideal to report