Feedback thread 2014

glued

kryogen wrote: »

Sorry, this confuses me, just going by your join date. How could you be able to do that?

What would my join date have to do with the ability to type something into twitter?

But you knew that was a stupid comment anyway

MagicIRL

Discussing other teams in depth in a Team Superthread should be banned completely. The United thread has had pages upon pages of shíte about Liverpool and Everton all season long. It was tiresome as a United fan, to log in to our own thread and have the posts be about another team for pages and pages.

Turtyturd

Awful lot of 'he says, she says' going on. One poster said he got PM's about it so if he has them and wants to, he could forward them on, other than that I wouldn't be putting much stock in people hearing about it or being able to name them.

Re-regging is another thing that should be looked into. If a poster wants to close their account for a fresh start fair enough but if they are doing it to avoid an impending ban then it should be stopped.

Will I Amnt

Will I Amnt wrote: »

As far as I'm aware there was a group of posters that got together to ask a mod/mods to stop a particular poster who hadn't got access to the forum from thanking posts in the forum.

I'm taking somebody's word on that but that would be ringing alarm bells for me if true. That kind of behind the scenes organisation is not good.

Was the poster banned though? Or a re-reg that was banned under a previous name?

Therefore it could have been seen as trolling and reported as such? Don't know the ins and outs of the case myself though . Sounds like you don't either and are posting on someone's word.

Soups123

If you report a post does the user you report become aware it was you who reported them?

Turtyturd

Soups123 wrote: »

If you report a post does the user you report become aware it was you who reported them?

No, although if they are a mod they will probably have access to it.

Bounty Hunter

glued wrote: »

What would my join date have to do with the ability to type something into twitter?

But you knew that was a stupid comment anyway

the line is attack the post not the poster and although (he may have been eluding to you perhaps having re-regged - which is also not a road we should go down) that is what youve done here lads lets leave this line of discussion here anyway, there will be no naming and shaming here, and this is something the mod team have been looking into, although it isnt exactly all that easy to cover what happens off site on platforms like twitter etc but that does not ok it in anyway whatsoever.

MagicIRL wrote: »

Discussing other teams in depth in a Team Superthread should be banned completely. The United thread has had pages upon pages of shíte about Liverpool and Everton all season long. It was tiresome as a United fan, to log in to our own thread and have the posts be about another team for pages and pages.

technically it is, with regards off topic posting. Sometimes it can develop organically though from something that is on topic and thus it isnt something usually clamped down on too much but hey if it goes on too long report it, a mod isnt too likely to hand out a warning or an infraction in such a case but after being alerted to it and realizing it is bothering someone may put a in thread message / warning that the off topic talk has gone on too long an to take the talk elsewhere if its needs to continue.

Mickeroo

Soups123 wrote: »

If you report a post does the user you report become aware it was you who reported them?

No, we get an e-mail saying a post was reported and a thread is started in the reported posts forum which is only visible to mods.

Turtyturd

Mickeroo wrote: »

No, we get an e-mail saying a post was reported and a thread is started in the reported posts forum which is only visible to mods.

Which in itself raises the problems of Mods knowing who reported their posts.

Will I Amnt

rarnes1 wrote: »

Was the poster banned though? Or a re-reg that was banned under a previous name?

Therefore it could have been seen as trolling and reported as such? Don't know the ins and outs of the case myself though . Sounds like you don't either and are posting on someone's word.

I've already said I'm taking someone's word on it

The poster was a re-reg and had been banned but ban was up iirc.
That's beside the point anyway, it's the grouping together to get things done that's the problem there.

glued

Turtyturd wrote: »

Which in itself raises the problems of Mods knowing who reported their posts.

Wouldn't it not be fairly obvious if a mod was targeting someone?

I doubt anyone is that petty tbh

Beasty

Turtyturd wrote: »

Which in itself raises the problems of Mods knowing who reported their posts.

It's a site-wide issue we (Mods and CMods) have no control over. However anyone abusing their position as a mod and who is seen to be acting based on information they have obtained via reported posts forum can expect a discussion of their behaviour and possible further action at Admin level

Will I Amnt

Will I Amnt wrote: »

I've already said I'm taking someone's word on it

The poster was a re-reg and had been banned but ban was up iirc.
That's beside the point anyway, it's the grouping together to get things done that's the problem there.

How did they group together though with a mod?

Seems like it's far fetched to me.

Kess73

glued wrote: »

Wouldn't it not be fairly obvious if a mod was targeting someone?

I doubt anyone is that petty tbh

If a soccer mod was targetting a poster, then it would become pretty obvious over time to the cmods and admin. Everytime we card or ban a poster it shows up on Boards.ie's own system, but in the soccer mod forum we also have to list any ban, final warning etc we as mods give out in a thread that is for that purpose only. The cmods and admin can see this thread anytime they want, so if a poster made a claim that a mod was unfairly carding him or her, then the cmods and admin can check the posters track record, they can check the mod's card and warning track record, and they also have the thread we have to use in the mod forum to check.

Any mod giving out unwarranted cards would be caught pretty quickly, and going by what I have seen happen to mods in other forums that were caught out, they seem to hang around once admin get involved



If you mean do non soccer forum mods use their position as mod to read the reported posts and then yes that does happen.


Do all of those mods then use that information to target other posters or to help others to target individual posters? No I am pretty confident that the majority of non soccer forum mods don't use the reported post forum as a way to target other posters, but I have little doubt that there are some that do so, and that is something that does get dealt with by the admin when such mods get caught (although I will admit that it can be difficult to catch such mods outs)


In an ideal world I think the best thing would be a system where mods can only see the reported posts from the forums they are modding, but based on discussions with higher ups that would require some major changes in how the site is set up. Programming heads would better understand that side of things than I would.

Will I Amnt

rarnes1 wrote: »

How did they group together though with a mod?

Seems like it's far fetched to me.

Seems like you were aware of it though. Unless the banned user and re-reg was just a shot in the dark?

You might think it's far fetched but that poster stopped thanking the posts in the soccer forum which backs it up. I've no reason to believe he was lying.

LuckyLloyd

If people organise offsite there isn't a whole lot you can do about it - unless you can find sure proof of same.

If people are doing this stuff via PM, then there is a 'report PM' option. My understanding is that the Admin team (who receive reported PMs) take an extremely dim view of such activity and similar has been a site bannable offense in the past.

In the absence of the Soccer mod team receiving information or visibility of either; and nobody reporting such PMs then all one can ask of the mod team is that they are not swayed by such instances. There is an important clarification to be reiterated in relation to this:

the assessment of a post being actionable should be independent from the fact of it being reported or not; reported once or multiple times.

In theory this stuff shouldn't actually be an issue, as the mod team should only use the reported posts forum as a headsup and should come across non reported actionable issues regularly anyway as part of their assumed everyday engagement with the forum.

hufpc8w3adnk65

I think a straight ban for talking in the funny gif's and images thread is a bit OTT. Maybe a yellow card warning first and then a red for repeat offenders. I mean certain chat in there goes unpunished (I'm not claiming it should be punished either) but other chat then gets hammered with a ban.

Will I Amnt

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Seems like you were aware of it though. Unless the banned user and re-reg was just a shot in the dark?

You might think it's far fetched but that poster stopped thanking the posts in the soccer forum which backs it up. I've no reason to believe he was lying.

I'm certainly aware of the poster you're talking about. Same poster gets airtime every feedback thread for a bizarre reason!

I said it's far fetched that a group got together with a mod and put a stop to it.


Thanking posts on a forum you haven't access to is a bit ridiculous anyway.

I wonder was it stopped site wide as a matter of interest or just for one user?

MrMac84

MrMac84 wrote: »

I think a straight ban for talking in the funny gif's and images thread is a bit OTT. Maybe a yellow card warning first and then a red for repeat offenders. I mean certain chat in there goes unpunished (I'm not claiming it should be punished either) but other chat then gets hammered with a ban.

Its only a 24hr ban.

I think it works great tbh. That thread flows much better with no chat

Will I Amnt

rarnes1 wrote: »

I said it's far fetched that a group got together with a mod and put a stop to it.

Knowing the way some posters here behave, I wouldn't.

Kess73

rarnes1 wrote: »

How did they group together though with a mod?

Seems like it's far fetched to me.

Could happen very easily.

Say you and I are pals and we both dislike another poster.

One of us then becomes a mod in some other forum.

All it would take is for the one who is a mod to keep an eye out for anything the poster we don't like reports and then report him as a duo. Now make our little sad group a bit bigger and suddenly we have two, three, or four people who can take in turns to keep reporting one poster, or report him enmasse to make it appear like a number of posters are offended by the individual poster who we don't know in real life but whose internet persona we have taken a dislike to.


It is childish, it can be vindictive, but I have little doubt that it does go on on Boards and on websites all over the net.


Thankfully though it is something that is being watched more and more in the reported post forum, and patterns of the same poster being reported over and over by the same small groups of names are coming to the attention of the site admin more often than they used to.

Mickeroo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

the assessment of a post being actionable should be independent from the fact of it being reported or not; reported once or multiple times.

That already is the case though, I do action stuff that hasn't been reported or if I'm on my phone or something I'll report it myself so the other mods see it.

LuckyLloyd

Mickeroo wrote: »

That already is the case though, I do action stuff that hasn't been reported or if I'm on my phone or something I'll report it myself so the other mods see it.

I don't doubt that it is, but there is a bizarre expectation amongst users that if they report a post it should be actioned and - according to what we're hearing here - a belief that a critical mass of post reporting is more likely to see action from the mods. As such, it's worth noting how things should work in that regard.

Will I Amnt

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Knowing the way some posters here behave, I wouldn't.

Fair enough. There's probably alot more to that story than that and I'd imagine mods and admins have looked at it.

If Kess is right then this sort of stuff is being watched

Bounty Hunter

felt like doing one big reply for what ive seen raised in here thus far...

everyone saying they know who the troublemakers are and the mods should too and be able to deal with them:

We can't ban on our opinion alone
We need something to back it up
if they have been avoiding breaking the charter rules this is very difficult
even more so if people are not reporting their posts
The mods are not always online (have real lives) and dealing with these guys is a time sink
especially without something to back it up
especially when it results in them starting Dispute resolution or feedback threads
This in turn results in less time available to actually mod the forum

ok there are the usual and very truthful reasons (excuses im sure some will say) why its not easy but in most cases yes we know as you do who needs to be dealt with but it isnt as easy as just banning them unfortunately.

----

Consistancy: The main point folk seem to have here is in terms of what i've most often heard refered to as "Whataboutery" i.e My post or post x was actioned for whatever reason but his post or post Y wasn't and that that isn't fair.

1) Mods are not on all the time and wont catch every post
2) Not every post is reported if they were more would be actioned upon especially ones were similar action had been recently taken

and most importantly

3) If your post or post x was in violation of the charter it matters not what the other lad posted (post Y) and the point is moot unless you want to report that post in which case just do so, don't pm a mod complaining.

----

Abuse of the reported post system:

people demanding to know why posts werent actioned

In general we want people to report more (assuming the posts are worthy of reporting of course) but if a mod wasn't online for a particularly busy matchday it would not be surprising at all to come on and see 50 reported posts (or in some particular cases a lot more than that) the amount of time it would waste to have to pm every single person who reported a post that wasnt actioned would be very counter productive in terms of time available to actually moderate the forum.

I've even seen someone reporting their own post to get claification on why such a post isnt actioned (as they saw with another post)

I've also many times seen people using the reported post system to have a go at the mods with comments like if I / a lteam x fan etc did this i'd get banned, you guys are a farce if you dont do something about this guy etc or even tell me why you arent banning him? (ive seen this type of thing with a post that hadn't even been reported before this)

that is very counter prodictive and I dont know about the other mods who are giving up their time to mod the board but I wouldnt appreciate when im going through reported posts trying to improve the place to have to wade through people having a pop at the mods

The twitter thing - This is something that the mods are aware of, it is something hard to mod as obviously it takes place outside of boards.ie but that does not mean it is condoned in any way nor that it is being ignored, it very much so is not

but as LL pointed out:
the assessment of a post being actionable should be independent from the fact of it being reported or not; reported once or multiple times.

so it shouldnt really matter if 10 different people report a post, if it wasnt actionable it wont be warned or infracted, if it is then it will be and if anything this group (which should not be cting in such a way) will have actually helped

----

Inactive mods:

I saw the suggestion that inactive mods should be replaced. Well when we have an inactive mod we know it obviously and we also know why and it isn't always the easiest to replace a mod anyway.

The mod team has been growing in size the last few years but sometimes a slightly less active mod is better than losing a mod anyway.

Not many of the regulars in the soccer forum have great records and the admins are not exaclty rushing to mod them and those that would make the cut are not always rushing to take the job either or refer to the job as thankless and not worth it.

tbh I am pretty sure we would like some more candidates who would both take the job and have clean records even at the moment.
----

Wanting to hear from the mods and not from Beasty: He is always talking to the mods in the mods forum and trust me when Beasty speaks we listen.

----

24hr ban / the humour thread:

People want that thread, but the "humour" in there is subjective by nature and is very likely to lead to tit for tat arguements. In fact this was happening so the no chat rule was brought in. This was being regularily ignored despite on thread warnings so the 24hr ban was brought in. It may seem harsh but it is clearly stated in the thread title and iirc it does not result in a card so does not affect the poster after that 24hr period

----
Name & Shame: on a few issues as they have here people always claim in threads such as these that they could name peeople doing X or Y, please do not do so here, this is not a place for accusations to be thrown at specific posters or mods. PM a mod with any information if you believe it should be shared with those who can potentially affect change with it.

Similarily this is not a thread to call out mods to explain specific mod decisions from the past as 1 mod has been asked to do so.
---

im sure some of that is poorly phrased so I hope you dont knitpick it too much but thats this mods opinion on a number of the issues raised so far

Paully D

Surely grown men with kids don't actually gang up with each other (on social networking sites or other) to try and get a poster banned? Jesus wept :pac:

Honestly, I think people just need to relax. At the end of the day, it's an Internet football forum. A lot of the stuff is very, very childish and petty.

SantryRed

Outright ban on talking about United/Liverpool in a thread that has nothing to do with either would be great. The CL thread the latest example.

SantryRed

SantryRed wrote: »

Outright ban on talking about United/Liverpool in a thread that has nothing to do with either would be great. The CL thread the latest example.

Agreed.

A month ban off the bat would stop it instantly.

Pro. F

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Just on this point, I think accountability on discussion forums (and in life in general) regarding predictions is extremely important. In my view, once you post things on a public forum you should be forced to own them. If people want to take strong predictive stances in discussion it's good as it leads to robust debate, but it's only fair that such arguments get pulled up along the line if it doesn't pan out the way they thought it would.

If this wasn't allowed, it would benefit trolling and WUMing rather than mitigate against it. If people were allowed to fire their heavy artillery with every counter intuitive negative prediction on rival clubs / disliked players and managers and never have those posts pulled up for reference a season or seasons down the line that would be a very exploitative loophole for those of a particular mindset.
Assessment of predictions and the ability to highlight a lack of consistency in positions is a fairly basic aspect of debate in all walks of life. The suggestion to remove it here should be avoided at all costs imo.

I strongly agree with this.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

- have a mid year feedback thread the first week of January or similar;

And I think this is a good idea.

upstairs for coffee

There is a lot of finger pointing that at the moderators for not being consistent.

The onus should be on posters to post reasonable coherent comments rather than cheap, willy-rousing, point scoring jibes. I know a user can put other users on ignore. But if there was a public rating system (downvotes/upvotes?) showing how well a poster is regarded that might be an incentive to stop posting rubbish.

Darkglasses

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

But if there was a public rating system (downvotes/upvotes?) showing how well a poster is regarded that might be an incentive to stop posting rubbish.

This used to exist on the whole site, it was called Karma. It was before my time but going on what they say about it on the feedback forum now, it was terrible. From what I understand, it was a case of people clubbing up together and giving themselves "good" karma and organizing themselves to give people they don't like the "bad" karma. Sounds familiar..

Chucky the tree

Liam O wrote: »

I agree with most of what you say there Nuri, just on the victim thing, I think that there is sometimes a bit of overreaction to that in here. I think 90% of the time it isn't used in a loaded sense but it's treated as such a lot of the time when there was no real malice intended. Maybe it's seen differently by others and I've never done it myself but it's getting to the stage where merely saying victim to a Liverpool fan is seen as disgusting and a swipe at Hillsborough. I don't think that's the case.

I think 100% of the time it's used is as a loaded term. You can argue the rights or wrongs, but pretty much every poster knows that using the term victims in a Liverpool context will not be looked at kindly. So you have to ask yourself, knowing the reaction a poster will get, why would they use the term victim? The only real reason is because they want to have a dig at Liverpool fans. I can think of any valid/legitimate excuse a poster can use when using the word victim in a Liverpool thread or context.

Turtyturd

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

----

Consistancy: The main point folk seem to have here is in terms of what i've most often heard refered to as "Whataboutery" i.e My post or post x was actioned for whatever reason but his post or post Y wasn't and that that isn't fair.

1) Mods are not on all the time and wont catch every post
2) Not every post is reported if they were more would be actioned upon especially ones were similar action had been recently taken

and most importantly

3) If your post or post x was in violation of the charter it matters not what the other lad posted (post Y) and the point is moot unless you want to report that post in which case just do so, don't pm a mod complaining.

----

Abuse of the reported post system:

people demanding to know why posts werent actioned

In general we want people to report more (assuming the posts are worthy of reporting of course) but if a mod wasn't online for a particularly busy matchday it would not be surprising at all to come on and see 50 reported posts (or in some particular cases a lot more than that) the amount of time it would waste to have to pm every single person who reported a post that wasnt actioned would be very counter productive in terms of time available to actually moderate the forum.

On the first point that doesn't change the inconsistent modding. Two posts get reported for the same thing, one gets a yellow, one doesn't and we are back to square one, all the 'you need to report the posts' ideology does is shift the blame for erratic modding onto the posters.

On reporting of posts, how many of those 50 would want an explanation as to why their post wasn't acknowledged? personally I have done it very few times, and the one that sticks out was asking why personal abuse was allowed in the post. I assumed that once its filtered personal abuse is fine.

Soups123

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I think 100% of the time it's used is as a loaded term. You can argue the rights or wrongs, but pretty much every poster knows that using the term victims in a Liverpool context will not be looked at kindly. So you have to ask yourself, knowing the reaction a poster will get, why would they use the term victim? The only real reason is because they want to have a dig at Liverpool fans. I can think of any valid/legitimate excuse a poster can use when using the word victim in a Liverpool thread or context.

100% of the time it comes down to context

'Liverpool always the victim'
'Liverpool crying victim there'

The second one could easily be used without any underlying dig. If I said either now in a match thread or Liverpool thread I would be treated the same way use of the word victim can't just be banned context has to be considered

Chucky the tree

Soups123 wrote: »

100% of the time it comes down to context

'Liverpool always the victim'
'Liverpool crying victim there'

The second one could easily be used without any underlying dig. If I said either now in a match thread or Liverpool thread I would be treated the same way use of the word victim can't just be banned context has to be considered

Again I can't see a reason why some would use the exact word victim. There are plenty of others terms to use. So I'd really wonder about a persons motive when they use victim in the second line.

Al Capwned

Perhaps because 'crying victim' is a perfectly appropriate term to use when describing someone who might feel their team has been unfairly targeted by others. Be that the officials, opposition, fans, governing bodies, media or whatever.

The word 'victim' in itself has no connotations or connection to anything that some posters feel the need to connect it to. I know and understand the connection to the (disgusting) chant, and that is something i detest, but some people seem to be looking for things to be offended about.

btw, not saying you are Chucky.

Paul Tergat

Al Capwned wrote: »

Perhaps because 'crying victim' is a perfectly appropriate term to use when describing someone who might feel their team has been unfairly targeted by others. Be that the officials, opposition, fans, governing bodies, media or whatever.

The word 'victim' in itself has no connotations or connection to anything that some posters feel the need to connect it to. I know and understand the connection to the (disgusting) chant, and that is something i detest, but some people seem to be looking for things to be offended about.

btw, not saying you are Chucky.

Cant agree with this. I think there are alternative choices of phrases that can be used to explain the point as opposed to one that has been used to raise quite sensitive issues.

This type of thing is the dont be a dick rule

Bounty Hunter

Turtyturd wrote: »

On the first point that doesn't change the inconsistent modding. Two posts get reported for the same thing, one gets a yellow, one doesn't and we are back to square one, all the 'you need to report the posts' ideology does is shift the blame for erratic modding onto the posters.

On reporting of posts, how many of those 50 would want an explanation as to why their post wasn't acknowledged? personally I have done it very few times, and the one that sticks out was asking why personal abuse was allowed in the post. I assumed that once its filtered personal abuse is fine.

on Point 1) of course it does not Change the Point in the example you have laid out but the majority of situations which I have dealt with where People have complained about consistancy fell into that catagory which is why I posted that as obviously if most cases are as such then perhaps it needs to be said that a) it does not matter what someone elses post contained if your (not you specifically, in General here) post contravened the rules layed out in the charter or b) Mods are human and will miss Posts so there will always be examples People can Point to which will Show inconsistancy but if they are reported that will be lessened.

I say lessened though not stopped as again mods make mistakes, no mod will Claim otherwise but if our repititon of please Report Posts more (assuming they are worthy of reporting) makes more People do so, then great! the Forum will never be 100% free of inconsistancy, there will be human error etc but it will improve with regards consistancty if more of These Posts are reported.

I mean it is very strange that some posters seem to have lists of Posts that break the rules but rather than Report them , they save them up so they can produce them later and say well These were not acted upon why was mine? (this has happened to me and I know it has to other mods for example)

on Point 2) I dont know how many want an Explanation as obviously that wasn't a specific example I was giving but im sure if People thought they would get an explanation for why any reported post of theirs wasnt actioned upon just by saying they want one then everyone would and personally I don't think that would be the best way to use a mods time when moderating. It would be conter productive especially when my opinion has always been that there were not enough Soccer mods (hence we has grown in number the past few years) to tie up resources in such a way an make modding less attract to potential mods if you had to explain each non Action as well as each action. If for example a mod posted relatively Close to the post you reported that was not acted upon and you really wanted an explanation as to why it wasnt acted upon then perhaps pming that mod who you would be sure would have seen the post and ask why ould be a better course of Action than using the Report post function.

Soups123

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Again I can't see a reason why some would use the exact word victim. There are plenty of others terms to use. So I'd really wonder about a persons motive when they use victim in the second line.

Victim is a widely used word in sport but agree how it has been used in the Pool threads is disgusting but the word itself isn't exclusive to that. It is used to describe many situations, variants can be used but if used it the right context no way can it be banable.

As I said context is everything

Chucky the tree

Al Capwned wrote: »

Perhaps because 'crying victim' is a perfectly appropriate term to use when describing someone who might feel their team has been unfairly targeted by others. Be that the officials, opposition, fans, governing bodies, media or whatever.

The word 'victim' in itself has no connotations or connection to anything that some posters feel the need to connect it to. I know and understand the connection to the (disgusting) chant, and that is something i detest, but some people seem to be looking for things to be offended about.

btw, not saying you are Chucky.

There are 101 other terms to use to describe the exact same thing happening. As I said before, I really would question the motives of someone to use a phrase that contains victim in it when they know the potential of it causing offence. They are thinking..

A) tough ****e, I'll use it anyway because people are to easily offended
or
It's easy way to get a dig into Liverpool fan.

Will I Amnt

I reported a post earlier this year that went unactioned. I waited a day to question why and was told there were more serious posts that needed action at the time. I was also told by the moderator that they would not be trawling back through the thread to give out warnings even though they had already seen the post in question from the link I had given.
I asked, tongue in cheek, should I expect to get away with saying the same thing but changing the club name and was told no.

Are all reported posts not investigated? How does one post get precedence over another? Is it the report description?

Al Capwned

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Cant agree with this. I think there are alternative choices of phrases that can be used to explain the point as opposed to one that has been used to raise quite sensitive issues.

This type of thing is the dont be a dick rule

Chucky the tree wrote: »

There are 101 other terms to use to describe the exact same thing happening. As I said before, I really would question the motives of someone to use a phrase that contains victim in it when they know the potential of it causing offence. They are thinking..

A) tough ****e, I'll use it anyway because people are to easily offended
or
It's easy way to get a dig into Liverpool fan.

Fair enough, maybe I'm just too much of an idealist - it's obviously a bigger issue for some than others - if i ever did use that term, it would not be meant in any derogatory way whatsoever.

Turtyturd

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

on Point 1) of course it does not Change the Point in the example you have laid out but the majority of situations which I have dealt with where People have complained about consistancy fell into that catagory which is why I posted that as obviously if most cases are as such then perhaps it needs to be said that a) it does not matter what someone elses post contained if your (not you specifically, in General here) post contravened the rules layed out in the charter or b) Mods are human and will miss Posts so there will always be examples People can Point to which will Show inconsistancy but if they are reported that will be lessened.

I say lessened though not stopped as again mods make mistakes, no mod will Claim otherwise but if our repititon of please Report Posts more (assuming they are worthy of reporting) makes more People do so, then great! the Forum will never be 100% free of inconsistancy, there will be human error etc but it will improve with regards consistancty if more of These Posts are reported.

I mean it is very strange that some posters seem to have lists of Posts that break the rules but rather than Report them , they save them up so they can produce them later and say well These were not acted upon why was mine? (this has happened to me and I know it has to other mods for example)

on Point 2) I dont know how many want an Explanation as obviously that wasn't a specific example I was giving but im sure if People thought they would get an explanation for why any reported post of theirs wasnt actioned upon just by saying they want one then everyone would and personally I don't think that would be the best way to use a mods time when moderating. It would be conter productive especially when my opinion has always been that there were not enough Soccer mods (hence we has grown in number the past few years) to tie up resources in such a way an make modding less attract to potential mods if you had to explain each non Action as well as each action. If for example a mod posted relatively Close to the post you reported that was not acted upon and you really wanted an explanation as to why it wasnt acted upon then perhaps pming that mod who you would be sure would have seen the post and ask why ould be a better course of Action than using the Report post function.

It does matter though. I agree that another post not being infracted should not be the basis of an argument from a poster to try and get their own card rescinded but when a poster sees a similar post that is ignored by the Mods it is inconsistent modding and annoying. I discussed an example of this with you a few weeks ago. I told you I had no issue with my card but asked you why the other post was deemed ok, you said it was your opinion that the post wasn't baiting, and said you would get the other mods opinion, and that was the end of the issue. Looking through the DRP forum the poster got a ban for a post which was a lot less worthy of a ban IMO, and not baiting at all. There needs to be some level of consistency there.

On the second point I can see what you mean about the system being abused if it's available but again using me own example it was a post in one of the less busy superthreads, not on a match day, there were no real excuses not to respond and say 'This is why the post is acceptable...'. Although I think if the system was in place mods would soon become familiar with those misusing it.

dfx-

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I don't doubt that it is, but there is a bizarre expectation amongst users that if they report a post it should be actioned and - according to what we're hearing here - a belief that a critical mass of post reporting is more likely to see action from the mods. As such, it's worth noting how things should work in that regard.

I agree, I think clearing this expectation up would be helpful.

A reported post does not indeed mean automatically that a card/ban/warning will be issued. A moderator will judge it themselves independently. The case of a post being reported several times by the same poster where there was no breach of charter (which we do have) brought no action, no matter how many times it was reported.

Posts that do require action are substantially more likely to be noticed when highlighted via a reported post.

Oranage2

Do people actually want to see all banter banned?

Agueroooo

Oranage2 wrote: »

Do people actually want to see all banter banned?

I don't think one person has suggested that.

Soft Falling Rain

Oranage2 wrote: »

Do people actually want to see all banter banned?

What banter would that be?

LuckyLloyd

Oranage2 wrote: »

Do people actually want to see all banter banned?

No, they just want to see all banter that their club is on the receiving end of banned. These arguments are all intensely hypocritical, as they always have been.

Dozen Wicked Words

Oranage2 wrote: »

Do people actually want to see all banter banned?

I'd like to see the use of the word banter as a cardable offence and use of the word bants or bantz as site ban or execution by firing squad.

MagicIRL

What actually is back seat modding?

I've been carded this season for telling a Liverpool fan to go back to his own thread with his Liverpool chat. I'm not being a mod in this case, I'm just looking to discuss Manchester United in the Manchester United thread.