Issue with Soccer Forum

BNMC

Nuri Sahin wrote: »

What do you add to the soccer forum in all honesty that is in anyway constructive posting? Heaven forbid it was me who had actually gone and done some of the petty crap you've done, ie: for me to go into all the Manchester United match threads and thank every single negative comment in turn knowing full well I was provoking Manchester United posters, while on the very, very odd occasion I'll post something negatively about them myself. That's your style. Nothing more. Nothing less. It's a shame some of my fellow Liverpool supporters have picked up warnings and infractions, if not worse for replying to you far more swiftly than you deservedly should have been dealt with IMO as you've been the catalyst with your woeful attempts at crap stirring.

Oh, and you know full well what you were thanking in the humour thread a couple of nights ago, you attempts to play dumb don't fook anyone, well, the Liverpool regulars anyway. I don't can't answer for what the mods thought. You just got lucky the source proved to be not under the same umbrella as Murdoch's media.

You're seriously getting your knickers in a twist over what posts a member "thanks"? You must be very precious.

Just because you don't agree with what I post must mean I'm a troll and a WUM?

On the Pardew thing in the humour thread - I found it hilarious and still do. How a few Liverpool fans thought the headline was a dig at their club is beyond me. The righteous indignation from a few Liverpool fans was bordering on embarrassing on their part.

Crap stirring? I could write a book on it about the Liverpool heads. Your buddy Michael99999whatshisface called me out four or five times on a thread I started in AH where I state I broke my thumb in a work accident. All those little jibes from him were duly thanked by (since we're namimg names) you, Turtyturd, et al.

Don't come on here getting all high and mighty when you yourself are as guilty as anyone of winding up posters.

GavRedKing

Nuri Sahin wrote: »

Since I feel like all my comments are being ignored here by the higher ups as evidenced by everyone else who has asked a question or made a remark more or less being replied to in some form be it by CMod or mods, I'll ask this once (even though I've queried about this via PM yesterday and was more or less going in around in circles wasting my time).

Is calling a footballer, be it from the club you support or an opposing either of the following words below allowed and if not, is it always going to be a yellow card offense from here on in like was awarded for me?

Stupid
Idiot
Prat
Eejit

Definition of prat - an incompetent or stupid person; an idiot. The above are the same thing in my eyes, but by all means educate me if I am wrong.

I'll answer are from my experience, I've got carded twice this season for abusing Ramires and Salah.

The Ramires incident, I think I talked to ya about but for the rest of the thread, it was horror tackle at Villa and I was less then impressed so lets just say i was passionate in my response and I was carded and deserved it too but it was the heat of the moment.

The 2nd was the weekend when Salah missed the 2nd of his 2 chances towards the end of the half, the language I used was too colourful really and I referred to him a a clown in the same insult, it probably justifies a warning too as others have been carded for similar so again, I've no problem with the card other than to just watch what I say, even if its regarding my own clubs players.

I mean if I call JT a Cu....ya know the word, I'll be carded, it doesnt matter if I support Chelsea its still abuse as per the charter.

All I can do, speaking from my own experience is just to think twice before posting, even in the heat of the moment and even if its my own club, it still doesnt really give me, a CMod, free reign to throw abuse at a player just because I support the club.

Will I Amnt

Agueroooo wrote: »

might be a 'little tiff' to you but it's not to me....especially with the accusation in hand.

but again youre right and my offer still stands to take it to PM, but I'd be silly to hold my breath as I've been waiting over two weeks now.

more just a case now of hypocrisy and irony, and highlighting same.

I think you are making more of a deal of it than it is TBH. That match thread was full of plane jokes and they spilled into the superthread. The tag that was being discussed was a little different, still innocent IMO but it was taken too literally by yourself from what I remember, could be wrong, just the way I remember it.

GavRedKing

Knex. wrote: »

Thanks Gav. Like Lloyd said, we appreciate the time you put in here to get up to speed with the situation and help us out in clarifying some matters.

Must say, the tone in which you did so was hugely appreciated as well. I doubt I'd be the only one who thinks that too.

Just trying to sort issues, I mean ideally there'd be none but if it comes to these situations and issues a rise we can only try our best to reolve them to the best of our ability.

If it means the SF is a better place I'll feel the time and effort from me and all of yere input has been worth it.

djPSB

Knex. wrote: »

Thanks Gav. Like Lloyd said, we appreciate the time you put in here to get up to speed with the situation and help us out in clarifying some matters.

Must say, the tone in which you did so was hugely appreciated as well. I doubt I'd be the only one who thinks that too.

100% agree.

RasTa

Actually it after I said yes go away I added you to my ignore list so you know what I think of you.

Pro. F

dfx- wrote: »

Yes you can, until a moderator specifically says not to. I will leave it to T4TF to talk about his in-thread note.

I would tend to agree, but I think some leeway should be given - and is given - to Superthreads.

I haven't had the chance to look at any thread well enough since yesterday. I don't disagree. As I said, leeway should be given to Superthreads.

And for gifs or images that could be considered trolling, baiting or threadspoiling? Gifs or images that flood a thread and disrupt debate?

There was a reported post yesterday from a non-Liverpool fan complaining about the fact that both replies (by the same user) to him making a comment in the thread was an image of a panda and the other a comment that his original point was more irrelevant and off topic than panda stuff. I won't name the posters, but the post is still there. Is this behaviour ok?

As outlined above, how about when it impacts upon non-Liverpool fans or new fans from posting in the Liverpool thread.

Thanks for the reply.

That situation you describe (and RasTa described a few posts later) would not be an acceptable use of .gifs all right. It sounds like something definitely worthy of a Mod Warning on thread. Understandable that mods would get sick of the joke if the .gifs were being used in that way.

The problem I think was the moderation going further than just stopping that particular, disruptive and rude use of the .gifs and going on to prohibit the other, fair use of them.

Fair play to all the mods for looking at the issue, dealing with the feedback and responding.

K-9

Will I Amnt wrote: »

So I'm guessing that in-joke is at my expense due to something I said in another thread???

Personally, I couldn't care less, fire away for all I care but would that not be against the spirit of the forum?

It's also close to something else that I want to get off my chest but I suppose that should wait until the SF feedback thread.

I'd have thought your original post was a bit tongue in cheek and you can take the oft mentioned banter.

Will I Amnt

K-9 wrote: »

I'd have thought your original post was a bit tongue in cheek and you can take the oft mentioned banter.

Of course, I've already said as much but change the post content a bit and it can be a different story.
I see it all the time on the soccer forum, someone says something in one thread and it's brought up or even quoted in another thread where the OP may not visit for a group to poke fun at and turn into an in-joke in some cases.

That to me is bitchy, cowardly and in an extreme case could be construed as bullying. It's something I've been wanting to bring up in the soccer forum feedback for a while now.

K-9

BMNC, you asked for an explanation about the Sun in the deleted thread, you got one, if you don't like it and choose to use it as yet another excuse to get a cheap dig at Liverpool fans, that is up to you.

LuckyLloyd

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Of course, I've already said as much but change the post content a bit and it can be a different story.
I see it all the time on the soccer forum, someone says something in one thread and it's brought up or even quoted in another thread where the OP may not visit for a group to poke fun at and turn into an in-joke in some cases.

That to me is bitchy, cowardly and in an extreme case could be construed as bullying. It's something I've been wanting to bring up in the soccer forum feedback for a while now.

I don't agree with this and will be arguing it in the Soccer Feedback thread should you choose to raise it. You post stuff, expect that stuff to be up for discussion. It doesn't have to be discussed solely in the thread it was posted in or you PM'd if someone quotes it. The forum exists as a whole on interrelated topics. It is absolutely normal for things to be discussed therefore in a cross thread fashion.

Moreover, there should be no expecation that everything is unfailingly polite or is business speak or whatever. Sometimes posts will get ripped to shreds (once personal abuse, etc is not part of that). That's the nature of ongoing debate. Some opinions are more equal than others as it were.

But we can duel this out further in a few weeks.

Nuri Sahin

GavRedKing wrote: »

I'll answer are from my experience, I've got carded twice this season for abusing Ramires and Salah.

The Ramires incident, I think I talked to ya about but for the rest of the thread, it was horror tackle at Villa and I was less then impressed so lets just say i was passionate in my response and I was carded and deserved it too but it was the heat of the moment.

The 2nd was the weekend when Salah missed the 2nd of his 2 chances towards the end of the half, the language I used was too colourful really and I referred to him a a clown in the same insult, it probably justifies a warning too as others have been carded for similar so again, I've no problem with the card other than to just watch what I say, even if its regarding my own clubs players.

I mean if I call JT a Cu....ya know the word, I'll be carded, it doesnt matter if I support Chelsea its still abuse as per the charter.

All I can do, speaking from my own experience is just to think twice before posting, even in the heat of the moment and even if its my own club, it still doesnt really give me, a CMod, free reign to throw abuse at a player just because I support the club.

So, to clarify - If I or someone else report a post where X poster calls X player stupid or an idiot no matter the context, that is a warning for now on?

As well as that, if you search the word prat, I jokingly called 5live and PaullyD one as a light hearted jibe recently knowing they'd take in the manner it was intended, can people (I'm sure one or two have) report this and get me infracted? Or is context applied for this all of a sudden?

Calling a player cnut or scum/scumbag (which many people have gotten away with) is on a different level to calling someone an idiot I'd have thought, Gav. If I called Salah a cnut or scumbag, I'd have no issue with my infraction and in turn ban whatsoever. I called him an idiot, in a light hearted manner after being a salty on his move to Chelsea, coupled with his miss at the weekend... after months of praising the hell out of him. That's the context. Trigger happy modding and a chance to get rid of me is what it feels like right now.

Furthermore, I see posts referring to Chelsea as Chelski yesterday. A quick search will lead you to it. Are all posters who refer to Chelsea as Chelski given a warning for now on too? I've never referred to Chelsea as Chelski myself, it's a bit cringey tbh, but it's a nothing comment I feel, something referring to Roman's ownership of the club. Is it really that offensive? I'd like to see clarification on this too. I know Luckycharms got a warning for saying Chelski once over the weekend and knowing him, I'll bet anything he didn't mean it in any trolling/WUM manner. If it's considered abuse and/or trolling, I'd argue the term ABU is one too. What does that add to any debate/conversation other than to highlight a poster who should be looked down upon?

Nuri Sahin

BNMC wrote: »

You're seriously getting your knickers in a twist over what posts a member "thanks"? You must be very precious.

Just because you don't agree with what I post must mean I'm a troll and a WUM?

On the Pardew thing in the humour thread - I found it hilarious and still do. How a few Liverpool fans thought the headline was a dig at their club is beyond me. The righteous indignation from a few Liverpool fans was bordering on embarrassing on their part.

Crap stirring? I could write a book on it about the Liverpool heads. Your buddy Michael99999whatshisface called me out four or five times on a thread I started in AH where I state I broke my thumb in a work accident. All those little jibes from him were duly thanked by (since we're namimg names) you, Turtyturd, et al.

Don't come on here getting all high and mighty when you yourself are as guilty as anyone of winding up posters.

I stand by everything I've said about you. Good to see your pal agrees with you though, another poster who does nothing but highlight the opposition club and their supporters consistently throughout his entire time on the soccer forum. People might not like me, I don't give a damn, they can't argue that I've not at least contributed positively to the soccer forum at one point or another and have engaged in genuine football talk, be it in the Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man U thread or various other league and international threads.

What have you added? Englighten us all.

Will I Amnt

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I don't agree with this and will be arguing it in the Soccer Feedback thread should you choose to raise it. You post stuff, expect that stuff to be up for discussion. It doesn't have to be discussed solely in the thread it was posted in or you PM'd if someone quotes it. The forum exists as a whole on interrelated topics. It is absolutely normal for things to be discussed therefore in a cross thread fashion.

Moreover, there should be no expecation that everything is unfailingly polite or is business speak or whatever. Sometimes posts will get ripped to shreds (once personal abuse, etc is not part of that). That's the nature of ongoing debate. Some opinions are more equal than others as it were.

But we can duel this out further in a few weeks.

It's not a case of discussion though.
"Ha ha, look what this lad posted in the United thread" is not discussion. It's ridiculing someone behind their back, where they might not be around to see it.
If you're not up to saying it in the thread where it was posted then you should really keep it to yourself.

K-9

Will I Amnt wrote: »

It's not a case of discussion though.
"Ha ha, look what this lad posted in the United thread" is not discussion. It's ridiculing someone behind their back, where they might not be around to see it.
If you're not up to saying it in the thread where it was posted then you should really keep it to yourself.

Not a fan of it but there's an argument that it is less behind the back as a general scoff at what other superthreads are discussing.

Knex*

Will I Amnt wrote: »

It's not a case of discussion though.
"Ha ha, look what this lad posted in the United thread" is not discussion. It's ridiculing someone behind their back, where they might not be around to see it.
If you're not up to saying it in the thread where it was posted then you should really keep it to yourself.

I really think Llyod has a point. You post it on an open forum, therefore it can get discussed anywhere. Not just on Boards either. There is nothing stopping another forum stumbling across a discussion and it being linked on another site.

Happens here often enough, be it Red Cafe, Rawk, or even Twitter, or whatever. I can't see how it could ever be stopped, providing people stick with the regular Boards rules, ie, attack the post, not the poster, etc.

That's pretty just modern social media, right there.

Will I Amnt

Nuri Sahin wrote: »

I stand by everything I've said about you. Good to see your pal agrees with you though, another poster who does nothing but highlight the opposition club and their supporters consistently throughout his entire time on the soccer forum. People might not like me, I don't give a damn, they can't argue that I've not at least contributed positively to the soccer forum at one point or another and have engaged in genuine football talk, be it in the Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man U thread or various other league and international threads.

What have you added? Englighten us all.

I thanked that post for this line

Don't come on here getting all high and mighty when you yourself are as guilty as anyone of winding up posters.

You have used this thread to try and grovel your way out of a forum ban.
You don't take any responsibility for anything, it's always someone else's fault and there's always someone else that should be banned/infracted instead of you.

I'm on this site to discuss soccer and that's what I do for the most part.
The arrogance of you to think that regardless of your behaviour you deserve to be allowed to post before me or anyone else because you think your posting more important is astounding.

Grayditch

One person can do more damage than 5 people can do good, in each others thread. Then the sheer ignorance of the generalisations I see directed toward different teams supporters as a result of these troublemakers is incredible. And the cycle just continues. Good posters get dragged into it. Bad buzz everywhere.

Will I Amnt

Knex. wrote: »

I really think Llyod has a point. You post it on an open forum, therefore it can get discussed anywhere. Not just on Boards either. There is nothing stopping another forum stumbling across a discussion and it being linked on another site.

Happens here often enough, be it Red Cafe, Rawk, or even Twitter, or whatever. I can't see how it could ever be stopped, providing people stick with the regular Boards rules, ie, attack the post, not the poster, etc.

That's pretty just modern social media, right there.

It's not a responsibility of this site to worry about upsetting users of other sites.
I'll be bringing it up anyway and we'll see where it goes, I think it's a bit cowardly and is happening too much lately.

Knex*

Will I Amnt wrote: »

It's not a responsibility of this site to worry about upsetting users of other sites.
I'll be bringing it up anyway and we'll see where it goes, I think it's a bit cowardly and is happening too much lately.

Your best hope would be to see it go under the "off topic" rule, really. But 9/10 times when someone mentions in LFC thread something in the United thread that's going on, there's a Liverpool reference. Same visa versa. This would then go back to my original point, I suppose.

Not saying there aren't accounts where it is completely uncalled for, though. And I would agree that that could be reviewed and perhaps worked upon.

Edit: As a complete, random aside, I really love how "KERSPLAT!", comes up as bold when he thanks posts. Its the small things

Will I Amnt

Knex. wrote: »

Your best hope would be to see it go under the "off topic" rule, really. But 9/10 when someone mentions in LFC thread something in the United thread that's going on, there's a Liverpool reference. Same visa versa.

Not saying there aren't account where it is completely uncalled for, though.

As I said, if you can't say it where you read it, don't scuttle off and bitch about it elsewhere.

Knex*

Will I Amnt wrote: »

As I said, if you can't say it where you read it, don't scuttle off and bitch about it elsewhere.

What happens if they do both?

Honestly, not sure how it can be prevented if it doesn't violate the off topic rule, and if the post is "attacked" in the correct manner.

I'm saying this even as someone who I don't believe has ever done this either. Nor do I think that I would. Certainly don't recall quoting a United post in the Liverpool thread, although I have made jokes such as, "We're going to sign Reus to replace Johnson at right back". Fairly sure many in your own thread would have done similar after that affair, though!

keane2097

It's the internet, you can't control the spread of data. If you're worried about people taking what you say and running with it you're better off not posting.

Will I Amnt

keane2097 wrote: »

It's the internet, you can't control the spread of data. If you're worried about people taking what you say and running with it you're better off not posting.

I understand that. I'd like to think there's a bit of etiquette within that particular forum regarding the situation.
There's plenty of other rules that are not even sitewide never mind across the web...

keane2097

Will I Amnt wrote: »

I understand that. I'd like to think there's a bit of etiquette within that particular forum regarding the situation.
There's plenty of other rules that are not even sitewide never mind across the web...

Yeah but I think asserting control over how data you publish is spread isn't, can't practically be, and in any case shouldn't be one of them for a bunch of reasons.

LuckyLloyd

Will I Amnt wrote: »

I understand that. I'd like to think there's a bit of etiquette within that particular forum regarding the situation.
There's plenty of other rules that are not even sitewide never mind across the web...

To be honest, if there is a post in a Utd thread and someone quotes it in the Liverpool thread to disagree with it, argue the specific point!

What this comes down to is, someone posts something silly, it gets ripped apart and rather than debating the point (because you can't, the original post WAS silly) we get 'oh it's so unfair that you ripped that silly opinion apart'. Or if the post is quoted and ripped apart in the original thread we then get 'oh is this not the original team thread, you are all obsessed aren't ye by coming over here to post'.

Ultimately what you want to say but can't is 'I don't like it when posters or posts pro the team I support have their posts dismantled by posts or posters of teams I dislike'. Boo ****ing hoo tbh.

Will I Amnt

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Ultimately what you want to say but can't is 'I don't like it when posters or posts pro the team I support have their posts dismantled by posts or posters of teams I dislike'. Boo ****ing hoo tbh.

What a load of rubbish.

OwaynOTT

Will I Amnt wrote: »

What a load of rubbish.

Was this kind of response not pulled up as what was wrong with the Panda pics? Where the poster refuses to respond to the argument and basically posts a pointless picture or a needless put down.

Will I Amnt

OwaynOTT wrote: »

Was this kind of response not pulled up as what was wrong with the Panda pics? Where the poster refuses to respond to the argument and basically posts a pointless picture or a needless put down.

I don't really care. I think his point is a load of rubbish. Anyone that tells me what I am trying to say when it's not will be met with the same.

Anyway, I've said what I wanted. We will leave it until the other thread and see what happens.

Lovely Bloke

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Ultimately what you want to say but can't is 'I don't like it when posters or posts pro the team I support have their posts dismantled by posts or posters of teams I dislike'. Boo ****ing hoo tbh.

Nope, it's not that.

It's halfwits in superthreads thinking they are the bigman by quoting out of context posts and saying "hurdehur look at this derp" without the balls to directly confront the post they are quoting within the context in which it was originally posted.

If I post in Thread X - I may never read Thread Y, meanwhile some utter tramp is slagging me off in Thread Y, without my knowledge, without giving me a chance to back-up my point that he disagrees with, instead he posts somewhere else, like a coward, knowing I'm unlikely to see it, and he and his little tramp chums can laugh it up. Backslapping away like the sad bastards they are.