Feedback thread 2014

MagicIRL

MagicIRL wrote: »

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.

That's back seat modding as you are essentially telling someone to leave the thread. Only mods can do that.

Mars Bar

MagicIRL wrote: »

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.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73160788&postcount=4

Examples of back-seat modding include:
Calling someone a troll
Telling a poster not to post in a thread, or they should post elsewhere
Telling a poster you have reported their post (effectively accusing them of a breach of the charter)
Commenting on a breach of charter
Informing a user that you have/will be putting them on your ignore list. Advising others to do the same.

LuckyLloyd

MagicIRL wrote: »

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.

The Superthreads are just threads, organised as a container for the bulk of discussion relating to the club involved. There is no rule that says they have to be limited to discussion of he club concerned exclusively. As has been mentioned many times before, from time to time it is utterly appropriate to discuss a rival club because of the context of a current situation.

What I frequently see is:

- in thread for Team X supporter of Team X mentions Team Y;
- relatable discussion about Team Y continues from fans of Team X, Team Y and maybe Team Z;
- discussion starts to go in a direction that is unsatisfactory for fans of Team X;
- fans of Team X throw all their toys out of the pram and we are treated to lines such as 'thought this was the Team X thread'; 'go back to the Team Y thread if you want to talk about Team Y'; etc;

The nature of a public board is that while you're free to make any contextual or interrealated point you wish, you can't cry foul when people from other parts of the public board come in to set the record straight.

And really, the crossover within the superthreads is often the unique thing about here that makes it great. Long term 'inside the lines' trolls are a negative, but as has oft been noted: if you want exclusive club based discussion you are free to go to one of the many websites that will cater for same.

Kerrigooney

On back seat modding...earlier in the season I got a yellow for writing "Ghosts in the machine" after a few posts were deleted. That was the full post. That post was also deleted.

Harsh,no?

Blatter

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The Superthreads are just threads, organised as a container for the bulk of discussion relating to the club involved. There is no rule that says they have to be limited to discussion of he club concerned exclusively. As has been mentioned many times before, from time to time it is utterly appropriate to discuss a rival club because of the context of a current situation.

What I frequently see is:

- in thread for Team X supporter of Team X mentions Team Y;
- relatable discussion about Team Y continues from fans of Team X, Team Y and maybe Team Z;
- discussion starts to go in a direction that is unsatisfactory for fans of Team X;
- fans of Team X throw all their toys out of the pram and we are treated to lines such as 'thought this was the Team X thread'; 'go back to the Team Y thread if you want to talk about Team Y'; etc;

The nature of a public board is that while you're free to make any contextual or interrealated point you wish, you can't cry foul when people from other parts of the public board come in to set the record straight.

And really, the crossover within the superthreads is often the unique thing about here that makes it great. Long term 'inside the lines' trolls are a negative, but as has oft been noted: if you want exclusive club based discussion you are free to go to one of the many websites that will cater for same.

This is exactly what happens.

I think mods should take a more hardline approach to posters even suggesting that certain talk doesn't belong in 'their' superthread. It happens all too often and there doesn't seem to be many repercussions.

Darkglasses

Kerrigooney wrote: »

On back seat modding...earlier in the season I got a yellow for writing "Ghosts in the machine" after a few posts were deleted. That was the full post. That post was also deleted.

Harsh,no?

This isn't the thread to discuss or dispute your own cards. You PM the mod and take it from there.

Agueroooo

Kerrigooney wrote: »

On back seat modding...earlier in the season I got a yellow for writing "Ghosts in the machine" after a few posts were deleted. That was the full post. That post was also deleted.

Harsh,no?

that stems back to my point a few posts back - when post get deleted by mods without even a brief explanation it leaves them wide open to interpretation - good or bad, true or false.

(eg)
I was accused as being a troll, and there was two or three posts within a minute by different posters basically falsely backing up the claim.
I didnt report the post (as mentioned I usually don't), but within minutes all four posts got deleted.

again it was no big deal to me but...

I found this bizarre and awaited a bold texted mod explanation which never surfaced, so I decided to just ask the question:

I PM'd the mods and admin of the day (to which Beasty replied) with times dates etc
asking who/why the posts got deleted.... to this day I have not got an explanation.

honestly;I think the mod protected the posters in question by deleted the posts, and not following the usual course of action for troll accusation.

am I right?.... probably not, but without an explanation on my side there is nothing else left to think.

I am sure the two or three users who's post got deleted got a PM/explanation why.

again this is water under the bridge to me but I think its important to highlight that if a thread is manipulated by a mod then it needs to be clear why, or its wide open to be taken up rightly or wrongly.

Pro. F

Kerrigooney wrote: »

On back seat modding...earlier in the season I got a yellow for writing "Ghosts in the machine" after a few posts were deleted. That was the full post. That post was also deleted.

Harsh,no?

It does sound very harsh. Did you dispute it?

brevity

Probably something the development team might need to work on but I wonder would it be possible to disable quoting of carded posts?

I know there would be a work around if someone really wanted to quote it but it might deter the wall of quotes if someone has posted something controversial. Mods wouldn't have to delete the post and there would be transparency as to what has happened...just a thought.

Darkglasses

brevity wrote: »

Probably something the development team might need to work on but I wonder would it be possible to disable quoting of carded posts?

I know there would be a work around if someone really wanted to quote it but it might deter the wall of quotes if someone has posted something controversial. Mods wouldn't have to delete the post and there would be transparency as to what has happened...just a thought.

Was mentioned a bit earlier in the thread - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=90547227

As you say, it's one for the development team. Not something we can implement.

Pro. F

brevity wrote: »

Probably something the development team might need to work on but I wonder would it be possible to disable quoting of carded posts?

I know there would be a work around if someone really wanted to quote it but it might deter the wall of quotes if someone has posted something controversial. Mods wouldn't have to delete the post and there would be transparency as to what has happened...just a thought.

Not that there is any chance of this being introduced, but there is no need to stop people quoting carded posts. It's not like a carded post automatically messes up a thread when people respond to it.

Will I Amnt

brevity wrote: »

Probably something the development team might need to work on but I wonder would it be possible to disable quoting of carded posts?

I know there would be a work around if someone really wanted to quote it but it might deter the wall of quotes if someone has posted something controversial. Mods wouldn't have to delete the post and there would be transparency as to what has happened...just a thought.

You would be relying on a mod to be there immediately after the post is reported for it to be effective. If the post was carded even 5 minutes after it appeared it would have already had the wall of quotes.

Liam O

Using this don't post in my thread debate as a jumping off point, can people really not see why someone with the username Aguerooo and a Liverpool fan might be treated with initial scepticism in the United thread? Now he's an alright poster generally but obviously with a username like that he's going to be pissing people off. If I changed mine to 'Gerrard's slip' and began posting in the Liverpool thread everyday would I be able to without getting some negativity my way?

Thanx 4 The Fish

Agueroooo wrote: »

that stems back to my point a few posts back - when post get deleted by mods without even a brief explanation it leaves them wide open to interpretation - good or bad, true or false.

(eg)
I was accused as being a troll, and there was two or three posts within a minute by different posters basically falsely backing up the claim.
I didnt report the post (as mentioned I usually don't), but within minutes all four posts got deleted.

again it was no big deal to me but...

I found this bizarre and awaited a bold texted mod explanation which never surfaced, so I decided to just ask the question:

I PM'd the mods and admin of the day (to which Beasty replied) with times dates etc
asking who/why the posts got deleted.... to this day I have not got an explanation.

honestly;I think the mod protected the posters in question by deleted the posts, and not following the usual course of action for troll accusation.

am I right?.... probably not, but without an explanation on my side there is nothing else left to think.

I am sure the two or three users who's post got deleted got a PM/explanation why.

again this is water under the bridge to me but I think its important to highlight that if a thread is manipulated by a mod then it needs to be clear why, or its wide open to be taken up rightly or wrongly.

Why do you automatically assume that the thing that you thought should happen did not happen?

Were it me, I would assume that the result I thought should occur had and only worry about it if there was some evidence to the contrary. The net result of your issue was that the posts accusing you of being a troll were no longer on the site and nobody else would see them.

Personally cannot see what the issue is after that? Are you upset because you did not see someone get a kicking for calling you a troll?

Mickeroo

Liam O wrote: »

Using this don't post in my thread debate as a jumping off point, can people really not see why someone with the username Aguerooo and a Liverpool fan might be treated with initial scepticism in the United thread? Now he's an alright poster generally but obviously with a username like that he's going to be pissing people off. If I changed mine to 'Gerrard's slip' and began posting in the Liverpool thread everyday would I be able to without getting some negativity my way?

I don't see what Agueroooo's username has to do with posts being deleted, also I don't really think usernames are something you should expect us to police as we have no power over what a user decides to call themselves when they register.

I'll also remind you this thread is not for airing grievances about specific posters but for feedback on how the forum is run as a whole.

Nuri Sahin

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

If both those examples were reported it does seem a bit inconsistent, perhaps only one was reported? /guess

Maybe, maybe not. The most first and most recent one, was probably not reported given how long it was up there without a warning or the like, at least considering when I last posted in here. I'm sure I'll get the usual it has to be reported spiel thrown at me. Some people are proactive, some are reactive. The thread in question was going a million miles at a minute and should have an eye on it given the mod warnings in said thread without needing for posts to be reported anyway.

Not saying you think any different DWW, but it's naive for anyone to think otherwise, but let's face it, some people are more likely to be reported than others. If someone wants to be offended, they'll be offended, especially when it comes to posters they do not like. Simple as that.

I'll be honest, I rarely used the report function up until the last half a dozen or so months and I have no problem admitting that. After some of the stuff I've been reported and punished for, well, my outlook has changed let's put it that way. People think I'm trying to squirm my way out of these warnings are clueless. I wouldn't have an issue if there was a bit of consistency, but there is none and I'd put some amount down on there being no improvement, no matter how many moderators are added or how many of these feedback threads are needed.

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 get what you're saying Liam, I really do, but it comes back to poster history in many cases. Tbh, if a poster has been here for more than six months if even that and frequents the Liverpool threads for example, be it a Liverpool supporter or not, only to make victim comments, they know what they're doing as far as I am concerned. You only need to glance at past threads in relation to Hillsborough to see people's sentiments towards such a topic, not even in the soccer forum, but After Hours too. I'm not trying to make this about just Liverpool btw, as I said originally, taking the piss out of people, any supporter no matter what club who happened to be attending a football match, only to lose their life and get some joy out of winding up people because they're the 'enemy club fans' is f'n pathetic. Hell would have to freeze over before it happened, even when I was a moderator of other forums even if I'd liked the chance as I truly believe I would have done a better job, but if it were me, they'd be banned for a lengthy time at the very least. No silly cards and the like will be handed out on such a matter.

SlickRic

most of the things people get infractions for are just plain stupid, and they need to look at themselves.

if you need to call someone "fat", "a prick", or whatever name you want to call someone, then it's your own stupid fault if you get an infraction for it. it's the easiest thing in the world not to do. you have time to think about something before posting it - it's the beauty of posting, texting, e-mailing etc. it's also not at all needed for any sort of constructive debate.

it's the same with "back seat modding". just don't tell another poster where they should or shouldn't post, or don't call them, or insinuate that they are, a troll. very simple. if you get warned/infracted for that, you deserve it.

also, i barely notice that the mods exist. i'd imagine many others do too. why is that? hmmm. i reckon if you have a problem with the mods, it's usually (not always) because you're the one being difficult.

the one thing that needs to be used more, and the mods need to be given licence to use more, is the "don't be a díck" rule. it would solve all the other problems IMO. the problem is, as LL alluded to, that it's a very long and difficult process to not only get someone banned using the rule, but also, you have to go through PM after PM after PM of nonsense and proof that that person "is being a díck" and isn't just "misunderstood". everyone has a right to post, including points of view that deviate from the popular viewpoints. so:

1) Mods have to be careful.
2) The forum as a whole has to trust the instincts of the mods, because the clever people don't make it too obvious they're acting the díck.

also, acting the díck does not mean gloating at another team's expense. people need to man up and know the fúcking difference there. that's part of football fandom. if you can't handle it, don't follow sport. it'll be far easier for you and the rest of us.

the forum seems to run fine. if posters were slightly less precious, and the mods able to be a bit more forceful with the "don't be a díck" rule, everything would run perfectly IMO.

Agueroooo

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Why do you automatically assume that the thing that you thought should happen did not happen?

Were it me, I would assume that the result I thought should occur had and only worry about it if there was some evidence to the contrary. The net result of your issue was that the posts accusing you of being a troll were no longer on the site and nobody else would see them.

Personally cannot see what the issue is after that? Are you upset because you did not see someone get a kicking for calling you a troll?

again I didn't expect anything really hence me not reporting the post initially.

maybe I took things up wrong but I always thought (and seen) a mod make a post indicating what action was taken, and what was expected going forward - good enough for me.

In this case there was action taken (posts deleted) and I was expecting an explanation/guide. that's all.

it never came so I PM'd and asked why.

If its normal practice not to post an explanations after posts deleted/disappear then fine, but then the argument of 'well we cant be there all the time to see every post' becomes weakened, no?

cause in this case there was a mod on the spot at the time. action was taken. thread changed. no explanation.

cant have it both ways.

this is my last post on this matter as I dont want to be seen to be turning the feedback thread into a discussion about a single incident.
My original point/post was to highlight that making posts disappear without explanation leaves things open to interpretation.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Agueroooo wrote: »

again I didn't expect anything really hence me not reporting the post initially.

maybe I took things up wrong but I always thought (and seen) a mod make a post indicating what action was taken, and what was expected going forward - good enough for me.

In this case there was action taken (posts deleted) and I was expecting an explanation/guide. that's all.

it never came so I PM'd and asked why.

If its normal practice not to post an explanations after posts deleted/disappear then fine, but then the argument of 'well we cant be there all the time to see every post' becomes weakened, no?

cause in this case there was a mod on the spot at the time. action was taken. thread changed. no explanation.

cant have it both ways.

this is my last post on this matter as I dont want to be seen to be turning the feedback thread into a discussion about a single incident.
My original point/post was to highlight that making posts disappear without explanation leaves things open to interpretation.

What benefit would it have done the thread for a mod to put up a note to say posts removed because someone called Aguerooo a troll?

Action was taken, I should imagine the people who called you troll have not done so since on thread, if everyone was calling you troll then perhaps a mod note would be justified but if the posts were deleted and it was a clear breach of the charter then I expect that they were actioned appropriately and the responsible posters know have had a sanction imposed.

I do not recall the incident but it may also have been that they were not outright or obviously calling you a troll and the mod in question deleted the posts and sent a pm saying we know what you are at, cut it out to the perpetrators, and deleted the post as it may have caused you upset or offence.

5starpool

I've just noticed this thread now and will have a proper read tonight hopefully, and maybe make a fuller post then, but my main little bugbear this season has been the amount of soft yellows handed out to people for nothing 'offences'. Calling a player on your own team a twat or similar in the heat of a match thread or when they do something silly is ridiculous.

It's obvious when the player/manager abuse rule is being used to inflame or rile up others, and common sense should clearly be used in these instances.

Lovely Bloke

5starpool wrote: »

I've just noticed this thread now and will have a proper read tonight hopefully, and maybe make a fuller post then, but my main little bugbear this season has been the amount of soft yellows handed out to people for nothing 'offences'. Calling a player on your own team a twat or similar in the heat of a match thread or when they do something silly is ridiculous.

It's obvious when the player/manager abuse rule is being used to inflame or rile up others, and common sense should clearly be used in these instances.

A "no abuse" rules is a "no abuse" rule. What's to stop me deciding I'm a Liverpool fan tomorrow, posting "XXX Player is a twat", then decide tomorrow I'm a United fan, post "XXX player is a twat".

Mods can't and shouldn't be expected to know who each poster on the forum supports, just in case they might decide to abuse a player on that team.

You either can or call players/managers/commentators/other posters names, or you can't.

Also "heat of a match thread" sound suspiciously like "heat of the moment".

There can be NO heat of the match thread/moment when this is the process for posting

• incident happens
• decide to post about said incident
• type the words
• (maybe proof read, but I doubt if anyone doesn't at least glance over a post before clicking submit)
• submit post
• see post appear
• see content
• decide not to edit post

There are various and numerous times there that a person can type "X is a twat", decide to go ahead and submit it or not.

Darkglasses

5starpool wrote: »

I've just noticed this thread now and will have a proper read tonight hopefully, and maybe make a fuller post then, but my main little bugbear this season has been the amount of soft yellows handed out to people for nothing 'offences'. Calling a player on your own team a twat or similar in the heat of a match thread or when they do something silly is ridiculous.

It's obvious when the player/manager abuse rule is being used to inflame or rile up others, and common sense should clearly be used in these instances.

The opposite view-point is being argued for in this thread too - that we should move even more towards absolute consistency. I'd be very interested in your view on that approach

RasTa

How come ManYoo is allowed but Liverpoo not?

niallo27

RasTa wrote: »

How come ManYoo is allowed but Liverpoo not?

Is ManYoo an insult.

LiamoSail

RasTa wrote: »

How come ManYoo is allowed but Liverpoo not?

What's the issue with ManYoo? Is it not just a phonetic spelling?

niallo27

I have seen some very soft yellows myself. I got one or two myself. It's pointless appealing them as it gets you no where.

Agueroooo

They are both absolutely stupid names and like something out of a playground.
along with the other ridiculous names some grown men like to think they are smart using.:rolleyes:

we should just let them go tbh as its ridiculous to try and mod someone's immaturity, but I can see how they can derail a thread.

RasTa

RasTa wrote: »

How come ManYoo is allowed but Liverpoo not?

Is ManYoo offensive? Never in my life knew that was offensive to anyone. Infact, who uses it?


I'd imagine Liverpoo is banned for the same reason ManUre is.

Knex*

RasTa wrote: »

How come ManYoo is allowed but Liverpoo not?

Why would anybody ever want to use either?

On my phone but will write a better post later, however I do think a lot of people have to look at themselves rather than the mods for the majority of issues.

I think for 90% of the season, if not more, I was fairly happy with the posting and moderation on this forum.

Some need to stop being so precious, and others need to stop solely being a non contributing dick. It is the minority, thankfully.

I do speculate at times as to whether it would be better or not if the report function was entirely removed, and the onus for cards was slightly different. - not that it could or would ever happen.

Baldy Conscience

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

A "no abuse" rules is a "no abuse" rule. What's to stop me deciding I'm a Liverpool fan tomorrow, posting "XXX Player is a twat", then decide tomorrow I'm a United fan, post "XXX player is a twat".

Mods can't and shouldn't be expected to know who each poster on the forum supports, just in case they might decide to abuse a player on that team.

You either can or call players/managers/commentators/other posters names, or you can't.

Also "heat of a match thread" sound suspiciously like "heat of the moment".

There can be NO heat of the match thread/moment when this is the process for posting

• incident happens
• decide to post about said incident
• type the words
• (maybe proof read, but I doubt if anyone doesn't at least glance over a post before clicking submit)
• submit post
• see post appear
• see content
• decide not to edit post

There are various and numerous times there that a person can type "X is a twat", decide to go ahead and submit it or not.

You missed 5stars point.

What's to stop me deciding I'm a Liverpool fan tomorrow, posting "XXX Player is a twat", then decide tomorrow I'm a United fan, post "XXX player is a twat".

What do you mean exactly?

Lovely Bloke

rarnes1 wrote: »

You missed 5stars point.

I don't think I did, his point was about allowing people to abuse player on "their" team, was it not? If it wasn't that, then I'll need it explained to me tbh.

rarnes1 wrote: »

What do you mean exactly?

I didn't think that was unclear.

the point he's making is that it should be ok for a person to be allowed to abuse players on the team they support.

What's stopping me claiming to be a Liverpool fan today, abuse a Liverpool player, tomorrow say I'm an Inter fan and abuse an Inter player, the next say I'm a Sevilla fan and abuse a Sevilla player. Can I support only one team per country? Can I support different teams at different levels in the same country (Rotherham and Arsenal?)? Do I have to pick one team only for abusable players?

No, zero abuse of anyone, on any team, by any poster is the only actual consistent way to enforce a "no abuse" rule.

He also mentioned "Heat of a match thread" which I just think is an absolute cop-out, for reasons explained above. I've always thought it, I thought it when I modded Rugby and I never let anyone use it as an excuse to get out of cards/infractions etc there, and I'll always hold that opinion. There is too much of a process one must go through to actually get ones words on the screen that the "heat" is essentially gone by the time one hits the "submit" button to send a post onto the threads here.

Liam O

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't see what Agueroooo's username has to do with posts being deleted, also I don't really think usernames are something you should expect us to police as we have no power over what a user decides to call themselves when they register.

I'll also remind you this thread is not for airing grievances about specific posters but for feedback on how the forum is run as a whole.

I wasn't airing any grievances with him and as far as I can see my post was based around back seat modding i.e. people saying don't post in our thread. I said he was an alright poster but surely it must be expected that a Liverpool fan with that username is going to get a few people thinking he's trolling before they even read what he says. I think it's unfair to infract these people based on reacting negatively to something like that.

SlickRic

niallo27 wrote: »

I have seen some very soft yellows myself. I got one or two myself. It's pointless appealing them as it gets you no where.

define "soft"?

i'm genuinely interested.

in my experience people describe soft yellows as simply calling a player a name. that's not soft. it's fúcking dumb.

Turtyturd

SlickRic wrote: »

define "soft"?

i'm genuinely interested.

in my experience people describe soft yellows as simply calling a player a name. that's not soft. it's fúcking dumb.

I would consider the example given by Kerrigooney to be a soft yellow, as are a lot of backseat modding cards (which again arises from inconsistent modding).

SlickRic

inconsistency is definitely an issue, and that is something that should be tightened up.

however, with the size of the forum, as well as the fact the volunteers are just that - volunteers - it's going to happen from time to time. but i agree it should be tightened up where possible.

Kerrigooney's does look harsh.

however, as a rule, getting a yellow for "back seat modding" (when it's obvious) is indeed soft. but it's not the mods' fault it's soft. it's the poster's fault for being so stupid to back seat mod. it's soft, as in, it's very easy not to do so nobody should ever fall into that trap.

Liam O

Liam O wrote: »

I wasn't airing any grievances with him and as far as I can see my post was based around back seat modding i.e. people saying don't post in our thread. I said he was an alright poster but surely it must be expected that a Liverpool fan with that username is going to get a few people thinking he's trolling before they even read what he says. I think it's unfair to infract these people based on reacting negatively to something like that.

If a non-offensive username offends people they need to quit the internet.

Pighead

Main problem is when Mods stick their oar in and decide what constitutes an interesting debate or not as the case may be. Have seen interesting discussions stopped in their tracks because a mod has decided 'this debate is going round in circles'. Fair enough not everybody likes long drawn out debates but some do and I'm not sure what harm a mod thinks it's doing to leave the discussion going.

A mods job is to prevent aggro and to promote civilised discussion. They shouldn't really be dictating what constitutes valid discussion. It's a bit like a bouncer in a nightclub getting behind the decks and stopping the music because he doesn't like the song.

Lovely Bloke

rarnes1 wrote: »

If a non-offensive username offends people they need to quit the internet.

there's a difference between a username chosen as to be irksome and "offensive".

I actually can't believe how anyone can actually think other than he meant to be irksome to United fans with that username, and actually defend him with a straight face.

Seriously, if an "Arsenal fan" signs up in a year with the name "Stephen Gerard's Slip" do you not think some Liverpool fans will throw their arms up and complain?

It's a username designed to garner bad reactions from a certain section of the community, that much is clear, the story he keeps on telling about it being "a pivotal moment" or whatever bullshít he claims is nonsense really, but hey ho, this is not for the discussion of specifics.

Baldy Conscience

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

What's stopping me claiming to be a Liverpool fan today, abuse a Liverpool player, tomorrow say I'm an Inter fan and abuse an Inter player, the next say I'm a Sevilla fan and abuse a Sevilla player. Can I support only one team per country? Can I support different teams at different levels in the same country (Rotherham and Arsenal?)? Do I have to pick one team only for abusable players?

.

Ok, now I get you.

Wouldn't it be obvious to the mod though in fairness. A quick history check would tell you if the poster does support that team. If I abused an Hearts player for exampleand claimed I actually support Hearts it'd take about a minute to reveal I was bullshítting.

Tbh, I don't this is a massive issue and it's certainly one where discretion should take over by the mods. I'd imagine it does anyway. Probably just depends on the mod on the day perhaps.

Over the years I've found the best mods usually use discretion, same as the best refs imo (not just here but in any forum)

Lovely Bloke

rarnes1 wrote: »

Ok, now I get you.

Wouldn't it be obvious to the mod though in fairness. A quick history check would tell you if the poster does support that team. If I abused an Hearts player for exampleand claimed I actually support Hearts it'd take about a minute to reveal I was bullshítting.

Tbh, I don't this is a massive issue and it's certainly one where discretion should take over by the mods. I'd imagine it does anyway. Probably just depends on the mod on the day perhaps.

Over the years I've found the best mods usually use discretion, same as the best refs imo (not just here but in any forum)

you are correct on the discretion thing, but one man's discretion is another man's inconsistency, so on a black & white thing like "Did the poster use an abusive term toward a player" Yes/No, I think it's best for the forum and the mods that if the answer there is "Yes" then the card must come out, because next year in this thread you'll get imbeciles saying "well he slagged that player and there was no card, where's my justice!1!!"

Baldy Conscience

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

there's a difference between a username chosen as to be irksome and "offensive".

I actually can't believe how anyone can actually think other than he meant to be irksome to United fans with that username, and actually defend him with a straight face.

Seriously, if an "Arsenal fan" signs up in a year with the name "Stephen Gerard's Slip" do you not think some Liverpool fans will throw their arms up and complain?

It's a username designed to garner bad reactions from a certain section of the community, that much is clear, the story he keeps on telling about it being "a pivotal moment" or whatever bullshít he claims is nonsense really, but hey ho, this is not for the discussion of specifics.

I saw a sig recently referencing Gerrards lack of league medals versus individual Utd players. If a username can irk people could this too?

Btw, I have no problem with it and I would think anyone who does is precious. Just giving it an an example.

I have sigs switched off almost all the time personally as they make threads harder to read through.

niallo27

SlickRic wrote: »

define "soft"?

i'm genuinely interested.

in my experience people describe soft yellows as simply calling a player a name. that's not soft. it's fúcking dumb.

I got a yellow for saying "typical irish diving" after Shane long dived. I got it because it wasn't clear I was irish and was only joking. I remember the the_kew_tour got a red for something completely harmless. There is no point in trying to debate it. You will get no where.

Will I Amnt

I got a yellow in the first couple of months of my time in the soccer forum for calling Vidic a twat after bringing down a West Ham player.
The person reporting it probably wouldn't have known who I supported and the same for the moderator so I can see why there is a blanket ban on abuse.

While it might be obvious what team a poster who has been here for years supports, it's a bit of extra work to find out what teams the newer posters support before warning them.
We all know there's zero-tolerance on abuse now, it's our own fault if we don't adhere to it.

Baldy Conscience

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

you are correct on the discretion thing, but one man's discretion is another man's inconsistency, so on a black & white thing like "Did the poster use an abusive term toward a player" Yes/No, I think it's best for the forum and the mods that if the answer there is "Yes" then the card must come out, because next year in this thread you'll get imbeciles saying "well he slagged that player and there was no card, where's my justice!1!!"

By the letter of the law it's probably abuse I guess.

You'd wonder who could you offend by calling your own player a name? But that's another discussion!

adox

It's really not hard to avoid being carded. It always amazes me how surprised people are when they get cards. A read of the charter and a bit of common sense would go a long way.

niallo27

adox wrote: »

It's really not hard to avoid being carded. It always amazes me how surprised people are when they get cards. A read of the charter and a bit of common sense would go a long way.

You never got one.

adox

niallo27 wrote: »

You never got one.

Not sure if that's a question?

Pro. F

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

What benefit would it have done the thread for a mod to put up a note to say posts removed because someone called Aguerooo a troll?

First of all it would make the modding of the forum more transparent, which would make posters more likely to trust the mods. Transparency is normally understood to be an important factor for a legal system to work. And the modding of the forum is some type of legal system.

Also, aside from how modding is viewed, it is really annoying when threads change because of deleted posts and the posters don't know what has happened. When a group of posts are deleted, that usually means there is at least some disruption to the conversation. A mod note pointing out that posts have been deleted and why* makes everything clear, and so the thread is easier to read.

*edit: The explanation obviously wouldn't need to say who was called a troll. That would be counter productive to purpose of deleting the posts in the first place.

RasTa

LiamoSail wrote: »

What's the issue with ManYoo? Is it not just a phonetic spelling?

Same as Chelski tbh, all 3 are the same level of silly dig but ManYoo is allowed for some reason

niallo27

adox wrote: »

Not sure if that's a question?

Yes.