Feedback thread 2014

5starpool

Will I Amnt wrote: »

If we come out the other side of it with 1 or 2 small changes that improve an already good forum then it will have been.

What exactly are people expecting from it? Consistency seems to be the problem for the majority of people every time this thread comes around, it's never going to be sorted unless there is no ambiguity in the charter and there is no leeway given to mods and that would become a much worse forum IMO.

I'd have an opposite view in some ways. Consistency is all well and good, but carding something because something similar was carded before is not a good way to mod. If there are good mods in place then few rules, many guidelines and sensible modding would be a great thing.

Unfortunately that won't happen anyhow, partially as the people who did get carded would whinge, but it should all be about context for me. It makes it harder to mod of course, but it's a world where I would get a card for calling (for example) Sturridge a twat/prat/gobshíte for a stupid challenge, giving the ball away, missing a great chance it's a ridiculous state of affairs. On the other hand, if I called Rooney a twat for no discernible reason in the utd superthread on the other hand it would serve me right to get a card for that.

Now modding seems to be like working in a call centre, it's mostly about following the script, and don't deviate.

Will I Amnt

5starpool wrote: »

I'd have an opposite view in some ways. Consistency is all well and good, but carding something because something similar was carded before is not a good way to mod. If there are good mods in place then few rules, many guidelines and sensible modding would be a great thing.

Unfortunately that won't happen anyhow, partially as the people who did get carded would whinge, but it should all be about context for me. It makes it harder to mod of course, but it's a world where I would get a card for calling (for example) Sturridge a twat/prat/gobshíte for a stupid challenge, giving the ball away, missing a great chance it's a ridiculous state of affairs. On the other hand, if I called Rooney a twat for no discernible reason in the utd superthread on the other hand it would serve me right to get a card for that.

Now modding seems to be like working in a call centre, it's mostly about following the script, and don't deviate.

So if a new user comes along and their first post in the forum is "what was that prat Sturridge thinking?"
What happens there? Does the mod PM and ask them what team they support, then wait around indefinitely for an answer before issuing a card?

monkey9

Liam O wrote: »

You have an example of this? Or are you just going to make baseless statements based around absolutely nothing based around getting a reaction like you have been all season?

An example? Go into any Man U thread and your yawn inducing posts about Liverpool are fans everywhere.

And listen, report any of my posts instead of naming me as a troll because if you think I'm a troll, then you've led a very sheltered Boards life.

Darkglasses

monkey9 wrote: »

An example? Go into any Man U thread and your yawn inducing posts about Liverpool are fans everywhere.

And listen, report any of my posts instead of naming me as a troll because if you think I'm a troll, then you've led a very sheltered Boards life.

Stop the personal bickering would ye, feedback only here.

5starpool

Will I Amnt wrote: »

So if a new user comes along and their first post in the forum is "what was that prat Sturridge thinking?"
What happens there? Does the mod PM and ask them what team they support, then wait around indefinitely for an answer before issuing a card?

What do you think should happen? Do you need a rulebook to cover every eventuality?

In my opinion if that comment is in a match thread where Sturridge has done something silly then it's fine, no matter who he supports. If he did it with no context in the Liverpool thread then if you see it necessary to do something about that, tell him that he should be less inflammatory in future. If he continues to post iffy things then take stronger action. If someone says something stupid and things get a bit heated, post telling everyone to chill out and relax a bit, and if that's not heeded and things get out of hand issue some 3 day bannings (again, length dependent on context), and post a final warning or bannings will get harsher.

If a poster is too much trouble for the forum (as judged by the mods) then ban them.

It's a pointless conversation anyhow as my style of modding is different to how modding on boards in general has evolved over the years as the site has gotten busier. People are too used (here especially) of things a certain strict way with hard and fast rules that there would be too much complaining if it changed too much. Some mods here do a very good job in my opinion, even given the current rules in place (Gav being the foremost example from my knowledge of things), but a minority certainly don't, and most of their interventions that I see annoy me. Obviously I won't name names, but there you go.

Will I Amnt

5starpool wrote: »

What do you think should happen? Do you need a rulebook to cover every eventuality?

I called Vidic a twat not long after I got access to the forum, I got a yellow card and never did it again.

Washington Irving

It's a difficult situation in regards to the 'player abuse' thing. We could say to just leave to context and mods using common sense but that just leads to inconsistencies where one user is carded and another with a very similar post is not.

Either don't allow any calling players idiots/prats/knobs by anyone, or allow it for everyone. Taking context or who a user supports into it just complicates things and creates more problems. I would say allow those rather tame terms unless it's blatantly obvious the user is trying to wind up others, and give users the benefit of the doubt. As Mars Bar said earlier in the thread, she doesn't like carding anyone. I'd like to think that applies to the rest of the mods too, so giving users that bit more freedom should benefit everyone (unless it backfires horribly ).

Darkglasses wrote: »

Stop the personal bickering would ye, feedback only here.

To be fair, they're only following on in the same vein as a post you condoned a few pages back. Everyone can see that "feedback only here" has not been case throughout the course of this thread, and if you wanted it to be then you might have done better not to thank and praise a post that went completely against that.

Liam McPoyle

The major thing that is wrong with this forum is perfectly illustrated in the first page of the "draw a footballer" thread.

People are all too quick to get outraged by the most innocuous things and as a result the real trolls keep getting away with it as mods time is wasted carding people for using terms like Manure, Lollerpool or Chelski, imo the most ridiculous reasons for warnings anywhere on Boards.

The fact of the matter is that mods on the SF are the hardest working mods on Boards and they have an impossible job.

Banter is taking the piss out of your rivals a bit when they lose and its gloating a bit when your team wins.

Banter is not making digs about Hillsborough or Munich, thats been a wanker.

I think mods need to look at the card structure, leave off things like Manure from been a warning but for someone having a dig about Hillsborough say, make things like that an auto 2 week ban and have it on a sliding scale, doubling every time the user does something similar.

I have no cards in the SF so I could go into the Liverpool super thread now and say "Hillsborough was Liverpool fans fault and they should all be ashamed of themselves"

Id get a card for it but be free to post away as Ive no warnings however the shyt storm it would create would be massive and would likely end up in a load of posters getting warnings or infractions aswell as a crap load of work for the mods.

If we stopped acting like little bitches alot of the time then the SF would be a much more enjoyable place. Save the outrage for things that are actually outrage worthy instead of been the way it is now, a sanitised place where even the smallest perceived slight or insult results in a mod action.

Liam O

Why is Manure being lumped in with lolerpool and Chelski? One is calling a team a name, the others are just play on words. If I was to write LOL at Liverpool it would be no different from lolerpool, Manure is nothing like that. Chelski too isn't really offensive, not really calling them a name. Manure definitely is though...

niallo27

Coleman Slawski wrote: »

The major thing that is wrong with this forum is perfectly illustrated in the first page of the "draw a footballer" thread.

People are all too quick to get outraged by the most innocuous things and as a result the real trolls keep getting away with it as mods time is wasted carding people for using terms like Manure, Lollerpool or Chelski, imo the most ridiculous reasons for warnings anywhere on Boards.

The fact of the matter is that mods on the SF are the hardest working mods on Boards and they have an impossible job.

Banter is taking the piss out of your rivals a bit when they lose and its gloating a bit when your team wins.

Banter is not making digs about Hillsborough or Munich, thats been a wanker.

I think mods need to look at the card structure, leave off things like Manure from been a warning but for someone having a dig about Hillsborough say, make things like that an auto 2 week ban and have it on a sliding scale, doubling every time the user does something similar.

I have no cards in the SF so I could go into the Liverpool super thread now and say "Hillsborough was Liverpool fans fault and they should all be ashamed of themselves"

Id get a card for it but be free to post away as Ive no warnings however the shyt storm it would create would be massive and would likely end up in a load of posters getting warnings or infractions aswell as a crap load of work for the mods.

If we stopped acting like little bitches alot of the time then the SF would be a much more enjoyable place. Save the outrage for things that are actually outrage worthy instead of been the way it is now, a sanitised place where even the smallest perceived slight or insult results in a mod action.

I would think you would get a red for that and maybe a month ban if not more.

niallo27

Liam O wrote: »

Why is Manure being lumped in with lolerpool and Chelski? One is calling a team a name, the others are just play on words. If I was to write LOL at Liverpool it would be no different from lolerpool, Manure is nothing like that. Chelski too isn't really offensive, not really calling them a name. Manure definitely is though...

Will you stop will you. They are all stupid and childish.

Turtyturd

Lolerpool becomes Lol at Liverpool
Manure becomes Man U are sh*t
Chelski becomes Chelsea are ???...skis?

Last one is clearly the odd one out.

Panthro

Turtyturd wrote: »

Lolerpool becomes Lol at Liverpool
Manure becomes Man U are sh*t
Chelski becomes Chelsea are ???...skis?

Last one is clearly the odd one out.

Common denominator....its all just pure fcukin childish.

dfx-

CS, you can be banned for one offence with a red card (which I suspect your example would receive). It would be an automatic two week ban minimum and does happen.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Bounty Hunter

LiamoSail wrote: »

Is it possible this could be addressed? The reasons behind the locking of the second thread are obvious, but the second thread wouldn't have been started had anyone known why the first was locked.

Seems amazing that the only solution to such an issue is to PM every single mod. Do mods really want to be getting PMs off various different users regarding the locking of a thread which had nothing to do with them?

I'm going to hold my hands up here and admit I was 100% at fault here as there had been several reported posts about that thread and I locked it temporarily so as to clean it up or issue a warning before it got worse.

Looking back im not too sure why there were so many reported posts to be honest although there is a deleted post there that on viewing it as I still can as a mod would probably have been the reason for a good portion of it especially following a comment about Ranger along the lines of "or whatever they call themselves nowadays" (this was right after a big row elsewhere about the term Sevco iirc).

Unfortunately what should have been locked for a matter of minutes turned into far longer than that as real life sh!t hit me and I wasn't on boards then for a while and I guess the other mods were not sure why it had been locked.

100% my bad, hope this accountability can somewhat appease you but it was unintentional human error as a result of personal sh!t whihc I apologize for. Obviously not the biggest issue in this thread but I wanted to address it when I realized it was me you were talking about.

Warnings in OPs
set timelimits on Match threads

these seem to be things that there sounds to be somewhat of a consensus about and that I can see being changed before this thread itself ends though I wonder is there anything else most of you guys agree on before we, the mods, disect whats been said and see what we can do with it

LiamoSail

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

I'm going to hold my hands up here and admit I was 100% at fault here as there had been several reported posts about that thread and I locked it temporarily so as to clean it up or issue a warning before it got worse.

Looking back im not too sure why there were so many reported posts to be honest although there is a deleted post there that on viewing it as I still can as a mod would probably have been the reason for a good portion of it especially following a comment about Ranger along the lines of "or whatever they call themselves nowadays" (this was right after a big row elsewhere about the term Sevco iirc).

Unfortunately what should have been locked for a matter of minutes turned into far longer than that as real life sh!t hit me and I wasn't on boards then for a while and I guess the other mods were not sure why it had been locked.

100% my bad, hope this accountability can somewhat appease you but it was unintentional human error as a result of personal sh!t whihc I apologize for. Obviously not the biggest issue in this thread but I wanted to address it when I realized it was me you were talking about.

Thanks for clarifying what happened. Obviously real life takes priority, so fully understand why there was no note etc, these things happen.

Bounty Hunter

Turtyturd wrote: »

Lolerpool becomes Lol at Liverpool
Manure becomes Man U are sh*t
Chelski becomes Chelsea are ???...skis?

Last one is clearly the odd one out.

top result from urban dictionary:

An english subsidary of a russian mafia syndicate
If we don't win the title we will steal it.

now im not saying that is the context I would think of but some might and instead I do wonder what all these people who are arguing the difference in how offensive or whatever some of these names are thinks we should actually do about them moving forward.

1 against the charter, all against the charter? or what?

Knex*

Is there any chance of continuous feedback thread, with strict guidelines, whereby Mod warnings/reasoning can be discussed in public?

I don't think it would turn in the mayhem that many might predict it could be. Perhaps put a timeline on each discussion brought up there. (a day max, or even only an hour) After that, usual practices apply.

It might not actually change any of the rulings or happenings in the respective threads, but would probably go a long way to relieving frustration/animosity/tension etc. And I don't say this meaning people can go in and start attacking a mod decision saying, "x was a load of bollocks", as that's obviously not fair or needed.

Would also stop any excuse for the ignoring mod instruction thing that was discussed prior to today's 'events'.

Knex*

LiamoSail wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying what happened. Obviously real life takes priority, so fully understand why there was no note etc, these things happen.

Hearing things like that help put stuff into perspective, really, doesn't it?

mav79

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

now im not saying that is the context I would think of but some might and instead I do wonder what all these people who are arguing the difference in how offensive or whatever some of these names are thinks we should actually do about them moving forward.

1 against the charter, all against the charter? or what?

Just like the ban on text speak, any childish names should be against the rules. All they do is antagonize posters, which is what they are intended to do. Would like to see Mods take a hard stance on them, obviously some posts will slip under the radar and its up to posters to ignore these and not get baited into replying.

LiamoSail

Knex. wrote: »

Hearing things like that help put stuff into perspective, really, doesn't it?

Yea of course, real life takes priority. I just wanted to know why the thread was locked, and that's been answered. I fully understand why a note wasn't left, and have no issue with that whatsoever

Knex*

LiamoSail wrote: »

Yea of course, real life takes priority. I just wanted to know why the thread was locked, and that's been answered. I fully understand why a note wasn't left, and have no issue with that whatsoever

Sorry, didn't mean to come across in a preachy way. Meant it as much as a thought or realisation for myself, as anything.

Beasty

I've got a suggestion about the use of Chelski and the like. Although I've mentioned the idea to them, I've not agreed anything with the local mod team, but what would people think of we slightly changed tack?

My proposal would be to differentiate between abuse of other posters which dependent on severity and target would attract either a yellow, a red or possibly an extended ban and would always fall into the "abuse" category. However abusive naming of players/managers/officials etc would be considered trolling, usually attracting a yellow. That would incorporate names such as Chelski which some Chelsea fans clearly are offended by, as some United and Liverpool fans take offence at attempts to put variations into their names such as ManYoo and Lolerpool ("Fat Frank" and the like would also fall into this category of "offence"), as in most cases it would appear to me these are terms used by "opposing" fans to try and cast the team/individual in a negative light.

That still leaves open the question of heat of the moment comments made about a player/manager from the club the poster supports. The problem here is the mod team simply cannot know who every single poster supports - so do you think there should be discretion or consistency applied in the circumstances? If discretion is applied there would remain the option for a poster who thinks they have been wrongly carded to take it up directly with the mod and seek an overturning of the yellow - of course the mod would not take very kindly to subsequently discovering they had been lied to. There would still be a potential issue though where posters report something and nothing happens because the mod has shown discretion in favour of the poster, but in most cases it's probably going to be quite clear who the "offender" supports

5live

Beasty wrote: »

I've got a suggestion about the use of Chelski and the like. Although I've mentioned the idea to them, I've not agreed anything with the local mod team, but what would people think of we slightly changed tack?

My proposal would be to differentiate between abuse of other posters which dependent on severity and target would attract either a yellow, a red or possibly an extended ban and would always fall into the "abuse" category. However abusive naming of players/managers/officials etc would be considered trolling, usually attracting a yellow. That would incorporate names such as Chelski which some Chelsea fans clearly are offended by, as some United and Liverpool fans take offence at attempts to put variations into their names such as ManYoo and Lolerpool ("Fat Frank" and the like would also fall into this category of "offence"), as in most cases it would appear to me these are terms used by "opposing" fans to try and cast the team/individual in a negative light.

That still leaves open the question of heat of the moment comments made about a player/manager from the club the poster supports. The problem here is the mod team simply cannot know who every single poster supports - so do you think there should be discretion or consistency applied in the circumstances? If discretion is applied there would remain the option for a poster who thinks they have been wrongly carded to take it up directly with the mod and seek an overturning of the yellow - of course the mod would not take very kindly to subsequently discovering they had been lied to. There would still be a potential issue though where posters report something and nothing happens because the mod has shown discretion in favour of the poster, but in most cases it's probably going to be quite clear who the "offender" supports

If a poster gets a yellow overturned because he claimed to support a team whose player he called a prat or whatever and it turns out he supports a different team then some automatic ban should apply, automatic red? It would discourage the chancers somewhat.

Liam McPoyle

dfx- wrote: »

CS, you can be banned for one offence with a red card (which I suspect your example would receive). It would be an automatic two week ban minimum and does happen.

Cheers man.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that very obvious efforts to troll such as using Hillsborough or whatever to score points or get digs in should be treated much more severely, even if the efforts are alot more subtle than the one I used.

dfx-

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Jaysus. Isn't really difficult! Warning is where the warning is, thread title updated to 'warning in OP'. Edit the OP to say 'Mod warning: <post link>. If another warning or warnings gets added you update thread title to 'warnings in OP' and just add 'Additional Mod warning: <post link> and 'Further Mod warning: <post link> to the OP as necessary.

on this...

So, someone sees the title 'warnings in OP', 'new warning in OP' or even '4th warning in OP', reads the OP and reads the thread. Another warning being added could well be missed.

Something like 'read OP before posting' would need posters particularly regulars to check back to the OP to keep themselves up to date.

Lucas Hood

Something like this

Manchester United Superthread mod warnings in op (updated 31/5/14)


When the date changes we'll know there's a new warning in the thread.

Kess73

Beasty wrote: »

I've got a suggestion about the use of Chelski and the like. Although I've mentioned the idea to them, I've not agreed anything with the local mod team, but what would people think of we slightly changed tack?

My proposal would be to differentiate between abuse of other posters which dependent on severity and target would attract either a yellow, a red or possibly an extended ban and would always fall into the "abuse" category. However abusive naming of players/managers/officials etc would be considered trolling, usually attracting a yellow. That would incorporate names such as Chelski which some Chelsea fans clearly are offended by, as some United and Liverpool fans take offence at attempts to put variations into their names such as ManYoo and Lolerpool ("Fat Frank" and the like would also fall into this category of "offence"), as in most cases it would appear to me these are terms used by "opposing" fans to try and cast the team/individual in a negative light.

That still leaves open the question of heat of the moment comments made about a player/manager from the club the poster supports. The problem here is the mod team simply cannot know who every single poster supports - so do you think there should be discretion or consistency applied in the circumstances? If discretion is applied there would remain the option for a poster who thinks they have been wrongly carded to take it up directly with the mod and seek an overturning of the yellow - of course the mod would not take very kindly to subsequently discovering they had been lied to. There would still be a potential issue though where posters report something and nothing happens because the mod has shown discretion in favour of the poster, but in most cases it's probably going to be quite clear who the "offender" supports

To be fair, many posters already do this. They will contact a mod with regards to a card that they thought was giving harshly/wrongly, and sometimes they get the card recinded, sometimes they do not.

And they do have the option of taking it out of the mod's hands if they disagree with the mod's final decision by either contacting a sports Cmod directly or through the DRP.


What I do think is needed in cases like the above is for both the poster and mod involved in such a situation to remain calm, and for both to explain their POV properly during any PM exchange.

When a poster PMs a mod about a card and the PM consists of maybe one line like "What a fcuking joke" then the mod will not be as inclined to want to take the time to try and find out exactly why that poster thinks the card was a wrong decision. A lot of posters do take this approach as their opening PM to a mod after they have gotten a card, and then I see the same names pop up in the DRP forum saying a mod was short or rude to them. It is a two way street. If a mod is expected to be polite to a poster, than that poster needs to come at the mod in a manner that reflects how the poster wants the mod to be towards them.

I think the flip side would be us mods needing to make sure that when a poster takes the time to argue their case in a reasoned manner that we respond in kind and don't try to brush them off with a brusque reply. We would have to make sure that we stayed very consistent on that front if we want posters to engage with us.


But I do think it important that how PM exchanges have a little more thought to them. Posters cannot expect mods to want to interact with them if they are going to open with a sarky comment or an aggressive blast, and mods cannot expect posters to want to interact if attempts to reason with a mod are met with stunted responses.

A bit of thought from all who find themselves about to be involved in such an exchange could go a long way towards improving consistency in terms of bad mod calls being overturned, and good mod calls being upheld.

Kess73

Lucas Hood wrote: »

Something like this

Manchester United Superthread mod warnings in op (updated 31/5/14)


When the date changes we'll know there's a new warning in the thread.

Sometimes the simplest of solutions are the ones easiest to overlook. That is a very good suggestion and makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Richard Hillman

When you make a positive point about a player and somebody responds with 'You need to stop listening to Sky Sports'. I think it is insulting and intended to insult. It is also extremely counter productive in trying to debate about the quality of players/teams/leagues. Its very school playground.

'Sky Sports Hype-Machine' is another one.' It insinuates that the poster doesn't have the mental capacity to make their own minds up.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Kess73 wrote: »

Sometimes the simplest of solutions are the ones easiest to overlook. That is a very good suggestion and makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Would need a time for match-threads.

hullaballoo

I have to say that I haven't had a chance to get through the first few pages of this thread but I wanted to raise this for a few months so apologies if it's already been covered.


Match threads seriously need to be kept on topic. I think that the only discussion that should be allowed is discussion of the actual match, rather than side-shows about the teams involved etc. One big problem is that invariably, due to the teams' support levels, match threads that are totally unrelated to Man Utd and Liverpool become about those teams. I understand that these are the two clubs with the largest numbers of supporters and as a result, there is always a chance this issue will arise in any thread.

I think in particular for non-Man Utd/Liverpool threads, an extra effort should be made to stamp out discussion of those teams. This isn't having a go at those teams or supporters at all, it's just highlighting what I see as an issue that makes the SF more difficult to follow from an outside perspective.


Also, related to match threads, I think in-jokes from team-talk threads need to be excluded and this should apply to all teams. Again, it's off-topic and incredibly confusing. I don't read or butt in to other teams' threads other than to congratulate them where it's appropriate so I literally haven't a clue what's going on when these in-jokes etc. crop up outside of their threads. I then have to go and ask someone ITK what's going on before I can get back to following the match thread. This is particularly annoying when it goes on as the match is live.


Other than the match threads, I think everything else is managed pretty well and I appreciate that in the main, the trolling in this forum has reached a level of sophistication that makes it enjoyable. Some of it rates above David Thorne. :pac:

LuckyLloyd

Disagree on on topic point. Background context is what makes games interesting. Discussing the action in a pure vacuum would be too limiting.

Kerrigooney

Zaph wrote: »

There is one single thing that could happen which would, in one fell swoop improve moderation in the forum and improve the forum experience for many posters in it - that's for you to go and annoy some other site. In all my time as a mod and admin on Boards I have never seen a single poster taking up so much of a forum's mods time and, by extension, that of the CMods and admins as well. Your behaviour on this forum, not to mention nasty little stunts you pull such as the crap in your sig and profile this week, results in endless discussions between the mods. This in turn reduces the amount of time they have available to moderate the rest of the forum. And rubbish like what I've quoted above clearly demonstrates that you never miss an opportunity to have a sly dig at the mods. It wouldn't kill you once in a while to actually be appreciative of the work they do on what is probably the hardest forum to mod on Boards, and to stop being such a royal pain in the ass for them for a bit.

No doubt that you'll now go off whinging to your sycophantic little cohort on Twitter about how the big bad admin has it in for you. You know what? You're damn right he does. This is your final warning, cut out the crap and start behaving like 99% of the posters in this forum are able to behave, or I'll personally ban you from the forum myself.

Second edit. My edit to a full stop made it look like I condoned this post. I don't but I won't get into it. It wouldn't end well for me.

5starpool

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Disagree on on topic point. Background context is what makes games interesting. Discussing the action in a pure vacuum would be too limiting.

Banning things before they become a problem in specific instances is a bad thing for sure.

If City are playing Arsenal and a discussion starts about how Liverpool or utd have/would play against either and no problems are caused in the thread is fine. If they are playing but it turns into a "Ha, my team beat these lot comfortably a while back,t hey will murder this other team" and then descends into bickering, then it's a problem.

More hard and fast rules = more unhappy people. More sense for situations arising = more happy people.

Fescue

I always admired the way golfers call penalties on themselves. It shows a lot of integrity.

My suggestion is that we are given the power to infract ourselves.

If anyone feels they have infracted themselves incorrectly, then by appealing to yourself, you have a chance to have the infraction removed.

Mods will simply be here to ensure that no one is being to hard on themselves.

Panthro

Fescue wrote: »

I always admired the way golfers call penalties on themselves. It shows a lot of integrity.

My suggestion is that we are given the power to infract ourselves.

If anyone feels they have infracted themselves incorrectly, then by appealing to yourself, you have a chance to have the infraction removed.

Mods will simply be here to ensure that no one is being to hard on themselves.

On yer marks.
Get set...
NO.

Knex*

Fescue wrote: »

I always admired the way golfers call penalties on themselves. It shows a lot of integrity.

My suggestion is that we are given the power to infract ourselves.

If anyone feels they have infracted themselves incorrectly, then by appealing to yourself, you have a chance to have the infraction removed.

Mods will simply be here to ensure that no one is being to hard on themselves.

:pac:

Certainly beats your last idea, Fescue! :P

dfx-

Fescue wrote: »

I always admired the way golfers call penalties on themselves. It shows a lot of integrity.

It has happened...

A contributor to this thread on reflection reported his/her own post in an LOI thread for abuse.

Fescue

dfx- wrote: »

It has happened...

A contributor to this thread on reflection reported his/her own post in an LOI thread for abuse.

Thats just class.

Darkglasses

Ulster says yes.

Thanx 4 The Fish

dfx- wrote: »

It has happened...

A contributor to this thread on reflection reported his/her own post in an LOI thread for abuse.

It happened before that as well!

Mickeroo

And on that bombshell, a week has past so it's time to lock this up.

Darkglasses

Firstly I would like to thank everybody for taking part in the feedback thread. Here is a review of exactly what is going to moderated differently for next season.

As suggested, all in-thread mod warnings will now be linked in the OP, with the date of updates edited into the thread title. This is something we have already started doing.

It was suggested that match threads should have a specified life span, and it received a good deal of support. It is not something we will be rigidly enforced, but we will consider it more often when it looks like worthwhile discussion has ended after 24-48 hours after full time.

It was requested that there be more transparency in moderation - as a result we will be more careful in not deleting/removing moderated posts, possibly posting in-thread when a user is banned, posting reasons why threads are locked in-thread, better explanation of why discussion of certain topics is being prohibited.

In terms of moderators working too close to the word of rule, versus acting purely off "don't be a dick" vague kind of rules, there was no consensus reached - significant numbers were arguing for and against. As a result there won't be any changes to the charter in relation to that.

As regards the abuse section the terms Chelski and Maureen will be staying against the charter. In terms of enforcement, it will be thought of separately to abuse of other members of the site. Name-calling of players, managers etc. will be considered more in terms of trolling with a standard yellow applying.

Abuse of other users is what the site rule was designed to deal with, and we can then issue higher penalties particularly when someone is very abusive towards another user.

So for example, abusive name-calling of a player, manager, club etc. - automatic yellow

Abusive name-calling of another forum user - minimum red

There will be no changes to the totting-up process in the charter as there was no consensus reached. Some users wanted it made much stricter, but not enough of a push for it to change it in the charter. The new season for totting up purposes begins August 1st, 2014.

In terms of the superthreads, there will be more careful moderation for cross-thread baiting, and this is something already happening on the forum. There will be a possible change of charter in respect of this before the start of the season, please watch this space.

We are going to remove the post about temporarily locking threads in the charter, as it doesn't really happen anymore. There should also be a tidy-up of the sticky threads coming.

Finally we would like to thank all the genuine posters who joined us during the World Cup, and encourage you to seek access for the rest of the football season here!