Feedback thread 2014

Mars Bar

What do you mean darced? Deleting a post that has been actioned?

Kess73

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sometimes a mod will card a poster for something and then also have to remove that post as it may contain something NSFW, grossly offensive, a link to a paysite etc etc.


When it comes to more "regular" cardings, I think it can vary a little from mod to mod as to whether a carded post is left in thread as an indicator as to what will happen it others try the same thing, or removed in case it sparks off childish tit for tat reprisals

darced

This post has been deleted.

Mars Bar

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sometimes you just know that a post is going to be quoted even after it has been actioned so they can have the last word or get offended. Some people just can't help themselves so the best thing is to delete it so the thread moves on smoothly.

Will I Amnt

Will I Amnt wrote: »

I was talking about your suggestion of carding posters complaining about opposition fans in the superthreads.

Eg: There's a few posters that come in to the United superthread with a link to every article they come across that shows the club or a player in a negative light, often after it's been discussed at length in the thread already. It's quite obvious what they're up to when it's so regular and it's all they do. They know they're not breaking any rules.

By your suggestion the poster that complains about it gets carded. That's the grey area I'm talking about.

No, I'm talking about posts where people say

"Why are you posting in this thread"

"Post in your own thread"

Paraphrasing obviously but you get my drift.



As for the bit in bold, that happens site wide. Do you expect opposition fans to come in with great news about their rivals?

If the poster can argue about his/her lick with reasoned debate I don't see the problem. Yes it can be annoying perhaps if the same issue is talked about over and over, but fans of their own team do this too. Go into the Utd/Liverpool thread in the last few days and you'll find the same topics being discussed as 6 months ago. Same transfer targets etc etc

Agueroooo

If I think I have darced correct then he has a point.

I have seen posts by others that are border line deleted without explanation.

Fair enough some posts need to be taken down rapid for fear of total derailment, but I think it's best for mods to always explain (in brief) when deleting.

Otherwise it could be perceived as protecting certain posters/match threads.

Kess73

Agueroooo wrote: »

If I think I have darced correct then he has a point.

I have seen posts by others that are border line deleted without explanation.

Fair enough some posts need to be taken down rapid for fear of total derailment, but I think it's best for mods to always explain (in brief) when deleting.

Otherwise it could be perceived as protecting certain posters/match threads.

Generally if a post (that is deemed borderline but non card worthy) is removed to avoid an escalation or tit for tat, the mod doing so will send a PM to the person who put that post up explaining why the post was removed.


Now there may be cases where a mod cannot send a PM straight away due to rl or whatever, but for the most part I know that all of the current mods do try their best to contact the person whose post has been removed in the circumstances you described.


So the poster of the removed post would usually be contacted, and the post removal would be discussed. Sometimes it is simply not practical to try and have that discussion with the post still active in the open forum.

Will I Amnt

rarnes1 wrote: »

Do you expect opposition fans to come in with great news about their rivals?

If the poster can argue about his/her lick with reasoned debate I don't see the problem.

You don't seem to be getting what I'm saying. They are not arguing any points, just popping in with an article and a bitchy comment and then leaving.
That's their only contribution to that thread and it happens on a regular basis, I don't see why somebody should be carded for complaining about that.
I get you on the "get out of the thread" type posts but they are already covered in the charter as back seat moderation.

Kess73

Benimar wrote: »

My post alluded to the fact that it isn't necessary to read every single post. I certainly don't but can spot the posters we are talking about a mile off.

Yes, posts should be reported, but surely if a Mod sees an obvious wind up (and some practically scream wind up) they should be able to nip it in the bud without the post being reported? Even the 'post in this thread again and I'll ban you for a week/month/to damnation and back' type warning tends to be enough.

Will it catch everyone? No. Will some obvious WUMs slip through the net? Definitely. But it shouldn't stop the stricter enforcement of the 'don't be a dick rule' by Mods, just because it won't catch them all.

The thing is that a mod can be damned no matter what approach is taken.

There have been complaints and childish comments in threads this season when mods took the approachin your post that I highlighted, and funnily enough many of the exact same posters who complained about inthread warnings then started sending PMs of complaints to various mods about a lack of an inthread warning when mods went straight to carding posters for thread derailment.

What a number of posters will know, and can attest to, is that they themselves received PMs from mods when they have been seen to be posting in an overly aggressive or over confrontational style. Sometimes the posters send a PM back saying fair enough and tone things down. Sometimes they ignore the pm from a mod and that's when the supposedly out of the blue card or inthread warning appears.


But a mod seeing what he or she thinks is a wind up is not always enough. We have to be as sure as we can be that it is a wind up, and we have to be certain as we can be that when we go in with a card that it will stand up as a genuine carding. That's why, as I said in an earlier post, we have co mods, Cmods and admin cast an eye on the stuff that looks like under the radar baiting/trolling/flaming. But we have to be able to point to a clear breach of charter or a track record of pretty obvious mischief if we as mods want a warning/infraction/ban to stand up to scrutiny in the DRP forum.

Basically we often have only a short span of time to decide if a poster is just having a bit of banter (and as such no modding or some low level modding may be needed) or is a repeat low level troll who is smart enough to use the charter to his or her advantage. If we suspect a poster to be the latter then often it takes a hell of a lot of time to be able to gather enough "evidence" so that proper action can be taken against a poster.


For example if I thought you were one of the biggest WUMs in the forum, but you were clever enough to phrase all your trolling posts in a manner where you could argue that the context of how you meant your post was different to how I saw it, then anytime I tried to card you, you would have a good chance of getting an admin to overrule my card, and if that happened enough times then suddenly it appears like I am out to get you rather than you laying bait every chance you get. So we have to play the long game for such posters and build a proper case.

It is very frustrating for posters to see the same names causing hassle, and then often the same names being the ones that shout the loudest about others being trolls/wums/flamers etc., but soccer mods and sports Cmods have very clear guidelines that they have to follow, and often that can mean having to play the aforementioned long game in order to deal with certain types.

Will I Amnt

Will I Amnt wrote: »

You don't seem to be getting what I'm saying. They are not arguing any points, just popping in with an article and a bitchy comment and then leaving.
That's their only contribution to that thread and it happens on a regular basis, I don't see why somebody should be carded for complaining about that.
I get you on the "get out of the thread" type posts but they are already covered in the charter as back seat moderation.

What you said is baiting so should be covered in the charter too I'd imagine.


Yeah I thought what I mentioned was a breech also but obviously not

Will I Amnt

rarnes1 wrote: »

Yeah I thought what I mentioned was a breech also but obviously not

It is, I got carded for telling someone to "go away" recently, back seat moderation apparently so I'm sure telling posters not to post in a thread is the same, I'm nearly sure it's in the charter.


Edit:
From the charter

2. If you have a problem with a post, report the post. Abusing other posters, telling posters not to post or any other "moderation" of the threads will not be tolerated, no matter how inflammatory. If you aren't discussing the points of a post, don't reply.

Will I Amnt

Will I Amnt wrote: »

It is, I got carded for telling someone to "go away" recently, back seat moderation apparently so I'm sure telling posters not to post in a thread is the same, I'm nearly sure it's in the charter.

Probably goes down in the consistency bracket so

5live

Tbh, for me anyway, one of the easiest ways to spot a troll is a poster on another teams match thread/superthread when their own team has a match thread open from a match finished at the same time.

Granted, some posters are there only for a general discussion but the majority arrive in solely for WUMming/trolling.

I've seen it time and time again this past year and i appreciate the difficulty that mods have in keeping control of a situation. Without posting in the teams match thread regularly then its difficult to tell supporters apart, especially ones with similar usernames.

In fairness to the mods, they do a great job, sometimes in heated circumstances, even if sometimes we complain they are being too harsh/lenient.

There's a very fine line between being under moderated and over moderated and i think that they mostly get the balance right.

Vinz Mesrine

All you have to do is go through the match threads over the last few months to see what posters are trying their best to wind people up. There was a running joke in the Liverpool threads calling for a poster to have his say so we could go in front in a match. I'm sure other teams match threads have posters like that too, who can be relied upon to jump in every time a team scores against a rival team. It's embarrassing at this stage.

niallo27

Can the word bitter be a yellow card offence.

Will I Amnt

niallo27 wrote: »

Can the word bitter be a yellow card offence.

Would it not be a bit ridiculous to start banning inoffensive word like that?

niallo27

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Would it not be a bit ridiculous to start banning inoffensive word like that?

It seems to be the answer if you criticise any player or manager.

Will I Amnt

niallo27 wrote: »

It seems to be the answer if you criticise any player or manager.

In some cases it correctly describes the person doing the criticising. It is overused alright but it would be silly to start banning words that annoy people.
I've a whole dictionary full of them if we are going down that route.

niallo27

Will I Amnt wrote: »

In some cases it correctly describes the person doing the criticising. It is overused alright but it would be silly to start banning words that annoy people.
I've a whole dictionary full of them if we are going down that route.

Ya your right, it is so overused. I mean people were called bitter for having a go at Ronaldo last night. Half these people couldn't care less about Ronaldo or Madrid.

Will I Amnt

niallo27 wrote: »

Half these people couldn't care less about Ronaldo or Madrid.

Yet they're still in there right now arguing over him :pac:

What constitutes abuse is pretty hilarious and the laziness of mods when they can't be bothered infracting a couple of posts gets on my wick. A tongue-in-cheek post will get a yellow card while if several people blatantly break the the rules they either get a yellow (despite it being blatant) or better yet there'll be an on-thread warning from a mod directed at all of them and no infraction.

What constitutes abuse also needs to be cleared up. Is it any nickname used to refer to a player/manager/club by a fan of another team? Is questioning or criticising part of someone's character abuse? Is clearly tongue-in-cheek over the top stuff abuse?

Pro. F

Mars Bar wrote: »

Sometimes you just know that a post is going to be quoted even after it has been actioned so they can have the last word or get offended. Some people just can't help themselves so the best thing is to delete it so the thread moves on smoothly.

I disagree that that is the best thing. Imo it is far more important that the modding process be transparent (for the purposes of education and trust for posters) than that mods should be able to shape what direction the conversation goes.

In fact, I think the idea that it is part of the mods' job to shape the direction of a discussion is misguided. Granted, there are some well worn paths - United v Liverpool, Celtic v Rangers, etc - that the majority of the forum agrees can sometimes be given a miss, especially if they are going to derail a thread which is clearly about something other than those things. And I agree it is part of the mods' job to try to try to prevent a conversation from turning nasty and resulting in cards. But all that should not be confused with it being okay for mods to cut off a conversation that they don't think is worthy, even when it is clearly related to the thread topic. Some match and team threads will march off down the road of discussing the actions of an individual or group of players, managers, fans, journalists, and that's okay. That is the nature of discussion. I think it is an error when mods go from modding posts and warning against behaviours to proscribing an entire avenue of discussion.

Your modding of the Atletico Madrid vs Real Madrid thread and the Ronaldo celebration discussion is a perfect example of this. You've gone from warning people off turning it into a United v Pool discussion, which imo is a perfectly valid ruling for you to make, to forbidding people from discussing the behaviour of one of the biggest names in football in one of the biggest games of the season. Mods should not get to tell people to stop discussing things that are on topic and within the charter. What the mod personally thinks of the discussion's value is irrelevant.

Kess73

Deleted User wrote: »

What constitutes abuse is pretty hilarious and the laziness of mods when they can't be bothered infracting a couple of posts gets on my wick. A tongue-in-cheek post will get a yellow card while if several people blatantly break the the rules they either get a yellow (despite it being blatant) or better yet there'll be an on-thread warning from a mod directed at all of them and no infraction.

What constitutes abuse also needs to be cleared up. Is it any nickname used to refer to a player/manager/club by a fan of another team? Is questioning or criticising part of someone's character abuse? Is clearly tongue-in-cheek over the top stuff abuse?

Think the charter is already pretty clear on this.

Policy on Abuse

---

The rules on abuse apply to more than just boards users, and cover players/managers/fans/clubs/sports personalities as well. You may consider certain terms to be a bit of banter, but any nickname or phrase that is even vaguely derogatory may be considered as abuse for the purpose of the charter.

Calling a team Manure, Liverpoo, Chelski, redsh1te, bluesh1te, the Scum, the Hun or any other variant is abuse.

Nicknames like whisky nose, fat Spanish waiter, Fat Sam, Fat Frank, Maureen, and similar is abuse.

Calling Andy Gray or Pat Dolan names is abuse.

This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but it is common for users to misinterpret this rule and assume that language like the above is OK. Please think carefully before posting anything like the above.

However, emotional language is not in itself a problem. It is ok to deliver a point passionately, to swear if you so choose, though you can make a point solidly without having to call people / teams / etc names.

The mod team reserve the right to apply their judgement as to a users intent when posting, and issue bans and/or infractions for abuse as neccesary.

The basic rule of thumb would be if you think what you are about to post is abusive, then it probably is.

Context also has to come into play when trying to determine what is abusive or not, which is why when a mod has any doubts he/she will try to use any co mods online as a sounding board before acting. If no other mods are online and a mod has doubts about the content of a post then that mod will do one or all of the following before acting.

• Check the poster's post history in the forum to see if he/she has form
• Temporarily delete the post whilst checking.
• Contact the poster and question over post. Suggesting an edit if possible
• Delete post altogether if it is seen as a potential fire starter and let poster know why

Of course if the online mod thinks that the post is genuinely abusive or is a blatant breach of charter, then the mod goes straight to whatever action he/she deems appropriate, be it an inthread or PM warning, a card, or a ban.



Take the next two lines

Suarez is scum

That was scummy by Suarez.

Now if I saw those posts in a matchthread after Suarez had just done something, then it would only be the first one that would really draw my attention as a mod because it is directly abusive and also potentially being down to bait other posters.

The second one I would see as a reaction to what was happening in the game, and regard it as a critique of what the player did.

Obvs the above is a very simplified example, but nine times out of ten a poster who posts something abusive knows what he/she is doing, and it is being done to garner a reaction.

Kess73

Kess73 wrote: »

Context also has to come into play when trying to determine what is abusive or not, which is why when a mod has any doubts he/she will try to use any co mods online as a sounding board before acting. If no other mods are online and a mod has doubts about the content of a post then that mod will do one or all of the following before acting.

• Check the poster's post history in the forum to see if he/she has form
• Temporarily delete the post whilst checking.
• Contact the poster and question over post. Suggesting an edit if possible
• Delete post altogether if it is seen as a potential fire starter and let poster know why

Of course if the online mod thinks that the post is genuinely abusive or is a blatant breach of charter, then the mod goes straight to whatever action he/she deems appropriate, be it an inthread or PM warning, a card, or a ban.

And that's the issue, we don't see that but we see others getting away with blatant stuff pretty often. I was infracted once within 2 minutes of a post that I thought was pretty obviously tongue-in-cheek and I had no history of infractions or anything else. Was that process followed or was it typical boards and a mod was never going to change his/her mind having given out an infraction?
I wasn't even all that annoyed about my infraction because it made little difference to me but getting handwaved away with the above "explanation" is pretty annoying.

Take the next two lines

Now if I saw those posts in a matchthread after Suarez had just done something, then it would only be the first one that would really draw my attention as a mod because it is directly abusive and also potentially being down to bait other posters.

The second one I would see as a reaction to what was happening in the game, and regard it as a critique of what the player did.

Obvs the above is a very simplified example, but nine times out of ten a poster who posts something abusive knows what he/she is doing, and it is being done to garner a reaction.

How about "Player X does a lot of actions that would be typical of a scumbag"? What are the semantics exactly? It has to be aimed at the action rather than the player?

mike65

Turn off gifs

Mars Bar

Pro. F wrote: »

I disagree that that is the best thing. Imo it is far more important that the modding process be transparent (for the purposes of education and trust for posters) than that mods should be able to shape what direction the conversation goes.

In fact, I think the idea that it is part of the mods' job to shape the direction of a discussion is misguided. Granted, there are some well worn paths - United v Liverpool, Celtic v Rangers, etc - that the majority of the forum agrees can sometimes be given a miss, especially if they are going to derail a thread which is clearly about something other than those things. And I agree it is part of the mods' job to try to try to prevent a conversation from turning nasty and resulting in cards. But all that should not be confused with it being okay for mods to cut off a conversation that they don't think is worthy, even when it is clearly related to the thread topic. Some match and team threads will march off down the road of discussing the actions of an individual or group of players, managers, fans, journalists, and that's okay. That is the nature of discussion. I think it is an error when mods go from modding posts and warning against behaviours to proscribing an entire avenue of discussion.

Your modding of the Atletico Madrid vs Real Madrid thread and the Ronaldo celebration discussion is a perfect example of this. You've gone from warning people off turning it into a United v Pool discussion, which imo is a perfectly valid ruling for you to make, to forbidding people from discussing the behaviour of one of the biggest names in football in one of the biggest games of the season. Mods should not get to tell people to stop discussing things that are on topic and within the charter. What the mod personally thinks of the discussion's value is irrelevant.

Personally, it's very rare that I'd delete a post after actioning it unless I was certain it was going to be quoted after it has been actioned.

I take your point about the Ronaldo celebration. However, can't you see it was going around in circles and all it was going to do was ending in a poster or two getting yellows? Perhaps contrary to popular belief, I don't like seeing posters pick up yellows!
Again, I completely understand what you say with regards to plugging the conversation as I did rather than guiding posters back to create a civil discussion on his antics so they don't pick up yellows.

Mars Bar

mike65 wrote: »

Turn off gifs

Get better internet Mike!!

Kess73

Mars Bar wrote: »

Get better internet Mike!!

Beat me to it.

You can turn off gifs afaik but it also may involve turning off images

Oat23

mike65 wrote: »

Turn off gifs

lordgoat

Mars Bar wrote: »

Personally, it's very rare that I'd delete a post after actioning it unless I was certain it was going to be quoted after it has been actioned.

I take your point about the Ronaldo celebration. However, can't you see it was going around in circles and all it was going to do was ending in a poster or two getting yellows? Perhaps contrary to popular belief, I don't like seeing posters pick up yellows!
Again, I completely understand what you say with regards to plugging the conversation as I did rather than guiding posters back to create a civil discussion on his antics so they don't pick up yellows.

Sure that is a point. But it's heavy handed. Ban all talk for everyone as a small number of posters are making the moderation difficult.

alchemist33

But there really is a point where a thread goes round and round in circles, the same arguments being made over and over again, like the Ronaldo one. It becomes like a form of spam, and you have to jump over whole pages to get to any other topic on a game or club thread. Unless some other point or info is going to come up, I'd have no problem with a mod stopping a tooic being discussed.

mike65

mike65 wrote: »

Turn off gifs

Depending on the time of day GIFs can be a pain with the loading process, but the laughter they bring makes it all worth it. IMO anyway.

Kess73

Deleted User wrote: »

And that's the issue, we don't see that but we see others getting away with blatant stuff pretty often. I was infracted once within 2 minutes of a post that I thought was pretty obviously tongue-in-cheek and I had no history of infractions or anything else. Was that process followed or was it typical boards and a mod was never going to change his/her mind having given out an infraction?
I wasn't even all that annoyed about my infraction because it made little difference to me but getting handwaved away with the above "explanation" is pretty annoying.

Well firstly I was not handwaving you away when I replied to you. You asked a question, and I gave you my opinion along with what I know goes on behind the scenes.


Secondly I have no idea what infraction you are talking about because I just had a look at your record and the only infraction (red card) you have received was in a different forum altogether. I do see that you have had two warnings (yellow cards) in the soccer forum, but given that individual cardings are not going to be discussed in this thread you are going to have to take that one to PM with whichever of the mods that carded you on 16/09/2013 or 19/04/2014 whose decision you have an issue with. What I can see is that on each occasion the acting mod did send a message to you via PM. But I will say is that a fast response inthread by a mod is normally a sign that the mod did not have any doubts as to how they viewed your post and they acted as such on the spot. As such they would have had no need to discuss it with another mod, and what I outlined in my earlier post is what I have seen happen when mods have some doubt with regards to a post or potential line of action.


The offer to discuss it further via PM is open to you, and you can go to the mod that carded you or if you wish you can discuss it with another mod or Cmod. But as far as this thread is concerned, there will be no further inthread discussion with regard to your yellow cards.

Deleted User wrote: »

How about "Player X does a lot of actions that would be typical of a scumbag"? What are the semantics exactly? It has to be aimed at the action rather than the player?

There are no exact right and wrongs but if a posters comments directly on the actions of a player rather than on the player himself, then usually there will be more chance of the comment being taking at face value or at worse the poster may be asked to phrase his/her post in a less abrasive manner (depending on the wording of course).

I say usually because there will always be cases where a poster has tried the same trick a number of times or is trying to work an obvious insult/bit of trolling into what is being passed off as an innocent bit of commentary.


I really do wish I had some hard and fast answers for you and every other poster because it would mean we had found a way to run a forum that left no room for error or any ambiguities, but short of having a horribly santised forum I cannot offer you an exact list of what is and is not acceptable in terms of what could potentially be said.

This forum is not perfect, and the running of the forum will never be such that every poster happy with it or it's mods, but the aim for us mods has to be to try and create an enviroment which allows the majority of posters to enjoy using it more often than not, and threads like this go a long way towards making that happen.

Kess73

Kess73 wrote: »

Well firstly I was not handwaving you away when I replied to you. You asked a question, and I gave you my opinion along with what I know goes on behind the scenes.

The fact that the use of the words infraction/warning don't match up with what the forum software calls them makes it pretty hard to have a discussion on it. If I click on a tab titles "infractions" then whatever is there is an infraction.
There's no way that the process you describe happened in the few minutes between the post I made and and the card being given.

Secondly I have no idea what infraction you are talking about because I just had a look at your record and the only infraction (red card) you have received was in a different forum altogether. I do see that you have had two warnings (yellow cards) in the soccer forum, but given that individual cardings are not going to be discussed in this thread you are going to have to take that one to PM with whichever of the mods that carded you on 16/09/2013 or 19/04/2014 whose decision you have an issue with. What I can see is that on each occasion the acting mod did send a message to you via PM. But I will say is that a fast response inthread by a mod is normally a sign that the mod did not have any doubts as to how they viewed your post and they acted as such on the spot. As such they would have had no need to discuss it with another mod, and what I outlined in my earlier post is what I have seen happen when mods have some doubt with regards to a post or potential line of action.


The offer to discuss it further via PM is open to you, and you can go to the mod that carded you or if you wish you can discuss it with another mod or Cmod. But as far as this thread is concerned, there will be no further inthread discussion with regard to your yellow cards.

Funnily enough if you look at my record you'll spot a red card elsewhere that was overturned. Now that I try to find the thread where it was overturned to use as an example of the opacity of boards it appears that it has actually been deleted which demonstrates the point even better. :pac:
EDIT: Found it. 11 days it took for a moderator and CMod to admit that they misread what I said. It's in a different forum but it's typical boards so having shades of grey and placing great import on semantics and syntax makes things pretty frustrating.

There are no exact right and wrongs but if a posters comments directly on the actions of a player rather than on the player himself, then usually there will be more chance of the comment being taking at face value or at worse the poster may be asked to phrase his/her post in a less abrasive manner (depending on the wording of course).

I say usually because there will always be cases where a poster has tried the same trick a number of times or is trying to work an obvious insult/bit of trolling into what is being passed off as an innocent bit of commentary.

More experienced posters consistently do that not-quite-saying thing and get away with it over and over again. It's a silly bit of semantics yet probably leads to the most cards of anything when someone doesn't use proper grammar to "abuse" a player.

I really do wish I had some hard and fast answers for you and every other poster because it would mean we had found a way to run a forum that left no room for error or any ambiguities, but short of having a horribly santised forum I cannot offer you an exact list of what is and is not acceptable in terms of what could potentially be said.

This forum is not perfect, and the running of the forum will never be such that every poster happy with it or it's mods, but the aim for us mods has to be to try and create an enviroment which allows the majority of posters to enjoy using it more often than not, and threads like this go a long way towards making that happen.

Do you think the majority of posters are happy with the modding?
A thread was started a few weeks ago and got over 100 posts and was closed and ignored. Issues were raised and completely ignored.

Kess73

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that the use of the words infraction/warning don't match up with what the forum software calls them makes it pretty hard to have a discussion on it. If I click on a tab titles "infractions" then whatever is there is an infraction.
There's no way that the process you describe happened in the few minutes between the post I made and and the card being given.

Never said it did. What I actually did say to you with regards to cards that are given quickly was

But I will say is that a fast response inthread by a mod is normally a sign that the mod did not have any doubts as to how they viewed your post and they acted as such on the spot.

So my opinion is that the mod who carded you, with whichever one of the two yellows you are referring to, was not in any doubt as to the meaning of your post, and as such did not feel the need to put it to his/her co mods.


I also said to you that your issues with regards to your past yellow cards are not going to be discussed in this thread, so if you do not wish to speak via PM to either of the two mods who carded you (and from whom you did receive PMs at the time of you receiving those cards), then this is the very last time any discussion regarding those yellow cards will be had in this thread.

Deleted User wrote: »

Funnily enough if you look at my record you'll spot a red card elsewhere that was overturned. Now that I try to find the thread where it was overturned to use as an example of the opacity of boards it appears that it has actually been deleted which demonstrates the point even better. :pac:
EDIT: Found it. 11 days it took for a moderator and CMod to admit that they misread what I said. It's in a different forum but it's typical boards so having shades of grey and placing great import on semantics and syntax makes things pretty frustrating.

Nothing at all to do with the soccer forum or the purpose of this thread. There is a feedback forum that is open 365 days of the year that, if you have an issue with Boards in general or the mods of the other forum that gave you the red card, should be your first port of call. This is not the thread to be bringing up issues you have with other forums or the site as a whole.

Deleted User wrote: »

More experienced posters consistently do that not-quite-saying thing and get away with it over and over again. It's a silly bit of semantics yet probably leads to the most cards of anything when someone doesn't use proper grammar to "abuse" a player.

So what exactly is your suggestion as to how things could be improved on that front? This thread offers you a chance to put forward ideas that you think would improve the forum.

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think the majority of posters are happy with the modding?
A thread was started a few weeks ago and got over 100 posts and was closed and ignored. Issues were raised and completely ignored.

Again what exactly are your suggestions as to what improvements you want to see made to this forum? No point you bringing up a yellow card that already have been explained to you by the mods that issued it, a red card that was not even issued in the soccer forum and a thread whose closure was explained by a Cmod if you are not going to offer any sort of suggestion as to what you think could be done to improve the forum, and how you think that suggestion could be implemented.

A big chunk of the current charter and a lot of the current forum rules came about through various feedback threads, so much of what is currently in place is there because it is what posters asked for. This thread gives all posters here the chance to look at things, and then put forward ideas as to what could be changed/improved.

5live

Mars Bar wrote: »

Personally, it's very rare that I'd delete a post after actioning it unless I was certain it was going to be quoted after it has been actioned.

I take your point about the Ronaldo celebration. However, can't you see it was going around in circles and all it was going to do was ending in a poster or two getting yellows? Perhaps contrary to popular belief, I don't like seeing posters pick up yellows!
Again, I completely understand what you say with regards to plugging the conversation as I did rather than guiding posters back to create a civil discussion on his antics so they don't pick up yellows.

On that point, would it be possible that a post that was carded could be frozen ie left on thread but the quote function disabled?

Anyone reading through the thread after the card would see the post and the card and could learn what language use and topics will be carded and would have the opportunity to change their behaviour without needing to receive a card themselves.

Naturally, any gross abuse would still be deleted but it might allow others to see the post and the sanctions applied without inflaming the thread by quoting the carded post?

Beasty

5live wrote: »

On that point, would it be possible that a post that was carded could be frozen ie left on thread but the quote function disabled?

No - that would probably require some fundamental changes at site level.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Beasty

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually the best way, which often happens, is for the mods to stick-up an in-thread warning. TBH, match and superthreads are so fast moving the chances are that a lot of posters are simply not going to see most carded posts (and there is no visible evidence of bans being issued - that often only becomes apparent if a separate mod comment is made or a dispute thread started). An in-thread warning with a comment in the thread title is much more likely to grab the attention of the majority of posters than hoping they may see that a particular post picked up a yellow. I would add that a lot of the carded posts are left up - sometimes though they will be deleted (for example any chat in the humour thread, where leaving it up would completely defeat the purpose of the rule in the first place). In addition the reason for most cards would be pretty obvious from a simple reading of the Charter or site rules - there is no reason to tell everyone every time someone gets carded for abuse towards another user of player/manager etc

Pro. F

Mars Bar wrote: »

Personally, it's very rare that I'd delete a post after actioning it unless I was certain it was going to be quoted after it has been actioned.

I don't see why a carded post being quoted and replied to is such a bad thing.

Mars Bar wrote: »

I take your point about the Ronaldo celebration. However, can't you see it was going around in circles and all it was going to do was ending in a poster or two getting yellows? Perhaps contrary to popular belief, I don't like seeing posters pick up yellows!
Again, I completely understand what you say with regards to plugging the conversation as I did rather than guiding posters back to create a civil discussion on his antics so they don't pick up yellows.

I agree it was going around in circles. And with those types of big games the thread will be even worse for that, as new posters pop in every few hours and repeat the same argument. I was involved in that discussion this time, but other times I'll be just as bored as anyone else by some repetitive argument carrying on in a thread. But the fact is, if people want to talk about it they should be allowed to. It should be no part of a mod's role to decide which on-topic and within-the-charter discussion is worthy of being allowed to take place.

With regards to trying to save posters from unnecessary cards, I do know the mods work towards that all the time. Preventing legitimate discussion just to save some posters from cards is going way too far in trying to achieve that goal.

Kerrigooney

Not sure if this is the thread for this and if it's not then ignore it.

Just wondering why 2 infractions on my profile page are marked as "Private" and 1 of them has the reason "N/A"? Same mod for both infractions. There's 4 more from different mods that I can read. Why is this?

Liam O

A lot of what I wanted to say has been said, I'll reiterate Will I Amnt's point about quoting and discussing posts in another thread. I mean it happened to me and it was a fluke that I noticed it but I left it as it was pretty far back in the thread in question. I'd probably have gotten my 2nd card that day if I'd seen it immediately.

Ultimately there are people here who have the art of trolling down to a tee. It's not really the superthreads but I'm sure I could show a pattern in the match threads whereby a group of posters will come in with something that's just inside the line or a 'LOL @ United type post right as the game ends, the same 2 posters will thank it every week and itwill hook in a different person every week and derail the thread. I've said that I think it's a coincidence that they're mainly Liverpool fans cause they have the most people on the forum as fans and it's not like United have a clean record on this path. Ultimately it feels like the people who end up complaining about trolls get more cards than the people actually doing it. These guys are decent posters on other forums but when it comes to this one they are baiting a lot more.

There was an incident where a couple of weeks ago, a poster, who actually posted in the United superthread yesterday with pretty made up unreliable quotes, was told not to post in the thread again or discuss this topic and 5 minutes later comes back with a 'why shouldn't I' type post. No action was taken, I opened the probably naive feedback thread that lasted about 10 minutes because I wanted to talk about this without getting a card but it just went away.

On that note I don't see why a feedback thread is such a taboo that they have to be only once a year in the off season. I know they can be volatile but if something happens in January and is repeatedly happening for the next 2 or 3 months there should be somewhere that a discussion about it can happen without being told that you can discuss it in the end of season feedback thread which makes it more likely to stew and result in bitter posts that get good posters banned.

Beasty

Liam O wrote: »

There was an incident where a couple of weeks ago, a poster, who actually posted in the United superthread yesterday with pretty made up unreliable quotes, was told not to post in the thread again or discuss this topic and 5 minutes later comes back with a 'why shouldn't I' type post. No action was taken, I opened the probably naive feedback thread that lasted about 10 minutes because I wanted to talk about this without getting a card but it just went away.

I have just gone through every reported post in the SF over the past 48 hours. There was no report of this "incident"

Liam O

Beasty wrote: »

I have just gone through every reported post in the SF over the past 48 hours. There was no report of this "incident"

Because it wasn't breaking the charter.

Also I find it kind of petty from what I've heard that there's a group of posters who will report other fans as soon as they slip when talking to these people. Also the fact that mods of any forum can see who I report mean I probably wont be doing much reporting at all really. It will just lead to people finding out I have reported them and being out to get me back.

Paul Tergat

The dont be a dick rule is not enforced anywhere near enough. People know how to troll without actually breaking the rules. It's clear as day but nowt is done.

Beasty

Liam O wrote: »

Because it wasn't breaking the charter.

Hang on - I've now spent the last 15 minutes going through the thread looking for this but to no avail. You suggested the poster had been told not to post in the thread again, then indicated a few minutes later they posted again. That's against a mod instruction (I am presuming a mod issued the "instruction") which is a blatant breach of site rules. What I'm not sure of from your post is whether this happened yesterday or "a couple of weeks ago" or whether they were told not to post in the thread a couple of weeks ago but posted yesterday

Liam O

Beasty wrote: »

Hang on - I've now spent the last 15 minutes going through the thread looking for this but to no avail. You suggested the poster had been told not to post in the thread again, then indicated a few minutes later they posted again. That's against a mod instruction (I am presuming a mod issued the "instruction") which is a blatant breach of site rules. What I'm not sure of from your post is whether this happened yesterday or "a couple of weeks ago" or whether they were told not to post in the thread a couple of weeks ago but posted yesterday

I said it happened a few weeks ago but as an aside I said he was in there yesterday. I think there has been a miscommunication. He was told, the night I opened that feedback thread to not post in the thread about that again and 5 minutes later questions the mod and was again told to not question the decision rather than action being taken. Nothing to do with his post yesterday. Sorry for inconveniencing you.

Looking at it again I worded it horribly. He was only told to avoid the thread that night, not indefinitely as it may have appeared in my post.

Beasty

Paul Tergat wrote: »

People know how to troll without actually breaking the rules.

Trolling is breaking the rules. Everyone has different views of what constitues trolling. If a poster gets reported regularly by the same person that's going to carry less weight that when we see the same poster reporetd by numerous different posters, as in some cases people seem to go out of their way only to report certain posters or fans of certain clubs. Clearly the mods assess the report, will take into account whether there is more than one report, the history of teh poster in question, will discuss with the other mods if they see fit then act accordingly. If it doesn't get reported at all though there's a fair chance it won't get even looked at.

Vinz Mesrine

Beasty wrote: »

Trolling is breaking the rules. Everyone has different views of what constitues trolling. If a poster gets reported regularly by the same person that's going to carry less weight that when we see the same poster reporetd by numerous different posters, as in some cases people seem to go out of their way only to report certain posters or fans of certain clubs. Clearly the mods assess the report, will take into account whether there is more than one report, the history of teh poster in question, will discuss with the other mods if they see fit then act accordingly. If it doesn't get reported at all though there's a fair chance it won't get even looked at.

The people who do it are well able to do it without breaking the rules, that's the point he is making and the same post I made earlier.