Feedback thread 2014

niallo27

RasTa wrote: »

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

What's offensive about ManYoo though. Why is it a dig.

adox

niallo27 wrote: »

Yes.

I've had one.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

What's offensive about ManYoo though. Why is it a dig.

There's nothing offensive about it.

Last year someone brought up ManU being offensive too iirc.

niallo27

adox wrote: »

I've had one.

Good going. I have had about 20 of them. I thought you would have more.

Pro. F

rarnes1 wrote: »

There's nothing offensive about it.

Last year someone brought up ManU being offensive too iirc.

There was a myth that the term "Man U" was created as part of an offensive song. That myth has been fairly thoroughly debunked. And even if it hadn't been, "Man U" would still be a valid abbreviation for a club with a particularly long name.

I have no idea what Man Yoo is supposed to mean or why anybody is supposed to care.

Lucas Hood

Not sure why people consider Chelski offensive either.

Agueroooo

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

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 have no clue what you are on about with your "quoted" part as I never said such things, so please refrain from putting words in my mouth. thank you.

If you (or anyone) have a problem with my username then quite frankly that is your problem.
not the soccer forum. not the mods. not anyone, but yourself!

the fact that it has got referenced so many times on the feedback thread is kinda silly tbh.

lets move on.

Lovely Bloke

rarnes1 wrote: »

Last year someone brought up ManU being offensive too iirc.

Yes they did, and the majority of people didn't know why. But then it was pointed out that SOME Manchester United fans consider it a dig at Munich, I'm not clear on the details, and I actually consider it to be fairly ridiculous, Sky used ManU for years without widespread comment.

Anyway, I have a semi-related point to make here. At the time someone raised the "Man U Issue" a lot of people were confused as to why it was being raised, a lot of people never heard it offended some people before, the fact is though the phrase HAS been used in a negative context in relation to Munich. Does that mean that everyone who uses it is using it in that context, obviously not, but the phrase is not banned, Manchester United fans, in the main, do not get up in arms about it, and I've even seen instances of people being told to cop on in the United thread when they try to make it a "thing".

Do I believe people never heard that before? Yep I do. Which leads me to the following point. I've been personally told by a mod that he didn't believe me when I said I never heard the "Always the victim..." thing before the Suarez/Evra affair. I've been to OT once in my life, and it was to see Man U play Middlesborough, and that chant was not used on that occasion, or if it was I never heard it. I was in the main stand, second tier. The mod claimed that I couldn't be a football fan and not have heard about that chant before that incident. Seemingly it had been used regularly in the early 90s (when I would have been 11, 12, 13 so not paying attention really to the nuances of crowd noises on TV tbh), but I didn't know, but that mod decided to sully my name in the eyes of Liverpool fans on this forum, simply because he didn't believe me. It is still referred to today by a certain element of the Liverpool fan base on this forum, and this guy who holds a position of power here has done this to me. I honestly, honestly never heard that chant before, but because one guy decides to not believe that, I now have a "name" as a "Hillsborough Abuser", when nothing could be further from the truth. I've contributed to Hillsborough charities, but that Mod decided nope, I'm a cúnt.

Pighead

Lucas Hood wrote: »

Not sure why people consider Chelski offensive either.

Agreed. Is there actually a single Chelsea fan here that finds that word offensive?

Pro. F

Pro. F wrote: »

There was a myth that the term "Man U" was created as part of an offensive song. That myth has been fairly thoroughly debunked. And even if it hadn't been, "Man U" would still be a valid abbreviation for a club with a particularly long name.

I have no idea what Man Yoo is supposed to mean or why anybody is supposed to care.

Think Baldy just cleared the first bit up although I'll be honest, I've never heard that before.

2nd part, agreed.

Dozen Wicked Words

Pighead wrote: »

Agreed. Is there actually a single Chelsea fan here that finds that word offensive?

I post in the Chelsea thread, find Chelski irritating rather than annoying. It's not the name of the team, or a nickname the supporters use so why would anyone else use it? Unless it amuses them?

Sheepy99

In terms of strictness and how mature your superiors(in this case mods, although of course not) seen you growing up, the ranking of policing across the soccer forum definitely has to be in the bracket of Primary School. It's like getting in trouble for an accidental curse word or wanting to use a pen instead of a pencil.

Take it down a notch. threads won't get derailed if you don't allow yourself to get annoyed by such petty comments and involved in needless arguments. You are the only one who controls your feelings/emotions/reactions etc.

Another point in relation to trolling. We should(I feel) be able to call out trolls, instead of the proposed 'just report it' method. Reading back a few pages, people seem to have had issue with some posts(for whatever sort of breach of rule) going unpunished because it wasn't reported.
In the event that people start calling out a troll, it's not like there's a massive influx of 'Oooh troll. Hey everyone troll. OMG troll'. There's 5-8 people at max who do it, and it wouldn't be that often, just in extremely blatent cases. When this happens I think we can put our fingers through the pain of an extra scroll or two to further, worthwhile reading if it means a cynical troll-er is brought to the attention of someone, instead of (maybe) everybody assuming someone else will/has reported the user.

I can see myself getting in trouble for this.

Liam O

Agueroooo wrote: »

I have no clue what you are on about with your "quoted" part as I never said such things, so please refrain from putting words in my mouth. thank you.

If you (or anyone) have a problem with my username then quite frankly that is your problem.
not the soccer forum. not the mods. not anyone, but yourself!

the fact that it has got referenced so many times on the feedback thread is kinda silly tbh.

lets move on.

It has caused disruption in the United thread and I think people have gotten cards over it so I can't be sure. That's why it's in the feedback thread. Like I said I don't have a problem with you, not much of a problem with the username myself (always had a soft spot for him myself) but the amount of times your posting has caused confusion and off topic posting, which leads to potential cards is something that has annoyed me and I'd think many others. You are one of the best Liverpool fans for cross thread discussion but too often it comes down to your username and I'd ask the mods to be a bit more proactive in getting the thread back on topic and avoid cards in such situations.

I also think that banning people by number of cards is a flawed system. A person could get 3 cards in 1000 posts and be banned but someone who gets 2 in the space of 20-30 posts can walk a tightrope after that. Who would be the more disruptive poster. A year is a long time and with as busy a forum as this there are people who could pick up 2 fairly innocuous cards 3 months apart and then be walking a tightrope for 5 or 6 months which will inhibit their arguments because of the small risk that what they post could be seen as abuse. Therefore there's a bunch of "he's not worth the ban" type posts instead of debate. Maybe wipe the cards or increase the amount towards the end of the season, even a modest increase would be a good move imo.

Pighead

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

I post in the Chelsea thread, find Chelski irritating rather than annoying. It's not the name of the team, or a nickname the supporters use so why would anyone else use it? Unless it amuses them?

I never use it myself but I don't think it's designed to annoy Chelsea fans. It's just a word to donate the Russian connection since Roman took over. A bit like the media dubbing The US President Barack O'Bama when he revealed his Irish ancestory. Doubt he was too annoyed when he heard it.

Dozen Wicked Words

Pighead wrote: »

I never use it myself but I don't think it's designed to annoy Chelsea fans. It's just a word to donate the Russian connection since Roman took over. A bit like the media dubbing The US President Barack O'Bama when he revealed his Irish ancestory. Doubt he was too annoyed when he heard it.

So Team Old Trafford Red Devils soccer team and Team Merseyside Reds soccer team is acceptable since it denotes those teams US ownership, Apart from being sub PES type names they are ridiculous, childish names, much like Chelski.

Agueroooo

the day I get in a heated debate or argument with somebody because the referred to Liverpool as Liverpoo, Liverpoop etc

you have permission to smoother me in my sleep.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Pighead

Phoenix wrote: »

Its not something we Chelsea fans would use and its often used in a context having a dig at the club

Does it offend you? Like if you were amongst friends and somebody used the term Chelski would you give it more than a milliseconds thought?

Dozen Wicked Words

Pighead wrote: »

Does it offend you? Like if you were amongst friends and somebody used the term Chelski would you give it more than a milliseconds thought?

I don't know anyone irl who calls them Chelski, fans of the club or otherwise. Would I be offended no, would I find it irritating? Probably.

Edit:Sorry Pighead, you weren't asking me.

Pighead

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

I don't know anyone irl who calls them Chelski, fans of the club or otherwise. Would I be offended no, would I find it irritating? Probably.

I find footballers inane nicknames a tad irritating (Lamps, Becks, Scholesy, Giggsy) yet wouldn't in a million years expect the mods to ban their usage from the forum.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Pighead

Phoenix wrote: »

My friends are a bit old using terms like that:)

Ok, well to sum up (as this is a minor issue compared to some of the other feedback) stuff that mildly irritates you and your fellow Chelsea fans shouldn't really be carded. Stuff that you find offensive should.

Dozen Wicked Words

Pighead wrote: »

I find footballers inane nicknames a tad irritating (Lamps, Becks, Scholesy, Giggsy) yet wouldn't in a million years expect the mods to ban their usage from the forum.

Agree, those kind of nicknames are inane, fans of Chelsea call Lampard Lamps, United call Giggs Giggsy, Liverpool fans call Gerrard Stevie G (throwing up in my mouth as I type ALL THESE ). NO Chelsea fans I have ever met, spoken to or listened I to have ever called their own team Chelski.

So the comparison doesn't explain why anyone would call a team by another name. Why are there not hilarious names denoting all other teams ownership, since there are not many left in English hands.

If you don't think it should be carded for offense, I'd consider it baiting or trolling. Neither of which have to offend

Hangballlouie

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Agree, those kind of nicknames are inane, fans of Chelsea call Lampard Lamps, United call Giggs Giggsy, Liverpool fans call Gerrard Stevie G (throwing up in my mouth as I type). NO Chelsea fans I have ever met, spoken to or listened I to have ever called their own team Chelski.

So the comparison doesn't explain why anyone would call a team by another name. Why are there not hilarious names denoting all other teams ownership, since there are not many left in English hands.

If you don't think it should be carded for offense, I'd consider it baiting or trolling. Neither of which have to offend

Is this not more childish than the Chelski thing?

Dozen Wicked Words

hangballlouie wrote: »

Is this not more childish than the Chelski thing?

All those nicknames are nauseating and can imagine Tim Lovejoy and the like uttering them.

Hangballlouie

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

All those nicknames are nauseating and can imagine Tim Lovejoy and the like uttering them.

Fair enough, I ain't a big fan of them either, just don't bother me tbh, much like Liverpoo, Chelski etc.

Dozen Wicked Words

hangballlouie wrote: »

Fair enough, I ain't a big fan of them either, just don't bother me tbh, much like Liverpoo, Chelski etc.

I'm going on, and made my point (too many times now, apologies, last time I promise) but people would only use Liverpoo to annoy, or Man Urinal or Chelski for the same reason. Don't see why any should be permissable or what they add to discussion.

Sheepy99

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Yes they did, and the majority of people didn't know why. But then it was pointed out that SOME Manchester United fans consider it a dig at Munich, I'm not clear on the details, and I actually consider it to be fairly ridiculous, Sky used ManU for years without widespread comment.

Anyway, I have a semi-related point to make here. At the time someone raised the "Man U Issue" a lot of people were confused as to why it was being raised, a lot of people never heard it offended some people before, the fact is though the phrase HAS been used in a negative context in relation to Munich. Does that mean that everyone who uses it is using it in that context, obviously not, but the phrase is not banned, Manchester United fans, in the main, do not get up in arms about it, and I've even seen instances of people being told to cop on in the United thread when they try to make it a "thing".

Do I believe people never heard that before? Yep I do. Which leads me to the following point. I've been personally told by a mod that he didn't believe me when I said I never heard the "Always the victim..." thing before the Suarez/Evra affair. I've been to OT once in my life, and it was to see Man U play Middlesborough, and that chant was not used on that occasion, or if it was I never heard it. I was in the main stand, second tier. The mod claimed that I couldn't be a football fan and not have heard about that chant before that incident. Seemingly it had been used regularly in the early 90s (when I would have been 11, 12, 13 so not paying attention really to the nuances of crowd noises on TV tbh), but I didn't know, but that mod decided to sully my name in the eyes of Liverpool fans on this forum, simply because he didn't believe me. It is still referred to today by a certain element of the Liverpool fan base on this forum, and this guy who holds a position of power here has done this to me. I honestly, honestly never heard that chant before, but because one guy decides to not believe that, I now have a "name" as a "Hillsborough Abuser", when nothing could be further from the truth. I've contributed to Hillsborough charities, but that Mod decided nope, I'm a cúnt.

In reference to them seeing ManU as a reference to Munich, that has to be the definition of 'looking to be offended'. Goodluck otherwise

RasTa

rarnes1 wrote: »

There's nothing offensive about it.

Last year someone brought up ManU being offensive too iirc.

What's offensive about Chelski? Man Yoo is what others mention as an insult that all our fans are from London etc.

I don't really care but if Chelski and Liver whatever are no no's then how come that is allowed.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ManYoo

Sheepy99

Phoenix wrote: »

Its not something we Chelsea fans would use and its often used in a context having a dig at the club

More in a joking/ light-hearted kind of way, from my own experience anyway

Pighead

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

I'm going on, and made my point (too many times now, apologies, last time I promise) but people would only use Liverpoo to annoy, or Man Urinal or Chelski for the same reason. Don't see why any should be permissable or what they add to discussion.

Why would you expect it to 'add' anything to the discussion? Using the word Chelsea doesn't add anything either.
Chelski played really well today V Chelsea played really well today =the exact same. Do you think calling David Luiz 'Sideshow Bob' adds anything to a discussion or do you just use it as it's a mildly comical nickname?

Kerrigooney

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.

rarnes1 wrote: »

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

Would you say my post below was back seat modding?

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?

Darkglasses wrote: »

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

MagicIRL asked a question and I was trying to answer it. I used my own experience to answer the question...I can't use someone's elses that I know nothing about,can I? As for PMing the mod,well that's a complete waste of time as Niallo has said below and quite a few others as well. It's not like I'm trying to get the card rescinded or anything..I've served my time.I'm just using it as an example of frankly bizarre modding.

Pro. F wrote: »

It does sound very harsh. Did you dispute it?

Nah man...waste of time.

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.

The impression I'm getting from this thread is in most cases a mod won't action a post unless it's been reported(not always the case,of course) and if someone was so upset by me writing "Ghosts in the machine" they felt the need to report it and a mod thought it was card worthy then the forum is doomed.

Sheepy99

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Agree, those kind of nicknames are inane, fans of Chelsea call Lampard Lamps, United call Giggs Giggsy, Liverpool fans call Gerrard Stevie G (throwing up in my mouth as I type ALL THESE ). NO Chelsea fans I have ever met, spoken to or listened I to have ever called their own team Chelski.

So the comparison doesn't explain why anyone would call a team by another name. Why are there not hilarious names denoting all other teams ownership, since there are not many left in English hands.

If you don't think it should be carded for offense, I'd consider it baiting or trolling. Neither of which have to offend

That's just blatant overpolicing though. Nobody has a problem with chelski, (myself included), hence why punish it. Much like fans or people across other forums who come across as 'looking to be offended', this speaks to me as 'looking to dish out punishment' or something along those lines.

Don't fix what's not broken( or in this case, not a problem ).

Sheepy99

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

I'm going on, and made my point (too many times now, apologies, last time I promise) but people would only use Liverpoo to annoy, or Man Urinal or Chelski for the same reason. Don't see why any should be permissable or what they add to discussion.

This isn't a debating environment though or 1960's irish school where you'd be worried about stepping out of line for fear of a beating or being banished for who knows what reasons.
It's a place for light-hearted football discussion, which can be insightful and at times a bit funny. It's people jumping the gun and taking offence at everything which takes away from this imo.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Pighead

Phoenix wrote: »

So should lolerpool be carded Pighead?

I'm probably not the right man to ask as stuff like that doesn't bother me in the slightest. But from a mods point of view I'd probably view lolerpool as more antagonistic than Chelski. Lolerpool is straight up laughing at Liverpool whilst all Chelski does is point out the clubs Russian connections.

If I was a Chelsea fan and somebody came up and started shouting Chelski in my face the conversation would probably go something like this.

Nerdlinger: Ha ha ha you support Chelski.
Pighead: Why are you calling them Chelski?
Nerdlinger: Because they are owned by a filthy rich Russian and are a very well off club.
Pighead: Yes, yes they are. And what's funny about that?
Nerdlinger: ......................................shut up Pighead you stupid arsehole.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Pighead

Phoenix wrote: »

You see we fail to understand what chelski maureen etc brings to a discussion why bother use the term?

You have to be kidding me. Check back on your posts during the last Liverpool V Chelsea thread and tell me what you're posts added to that discussion. Chelski, Maureen etc are ridiculously tame.

Sheepy99

Phoenix wrote: »

You see we fail to understand what chelski maureen etc brings to a discussion why bother use the term?

To add a bit of variety every now and again, or to take away the staleness from every sentence (Chelsea's as an example) starting with Chelsea,Chelsea,Chelsea and so on.
Outlawing the use of the word completely is just extreme and unnecessary.

RasTa

RasTa wrote: »

What's offensive about Chelski? Man Yoo is what others mention as an insult that all our fans are from London etc.

I don't really care but if Chelski and Liver whatever are no no's then how come that is allowed.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ManYoo

Chelski? Nothing as far as I can see. I'm presuming it's because Chelsea are owned by a Russian owner.


Urban Dictionary as a reference? :P Seriously

I do love that site though, could spend hours trawling through that.

Found this

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rasta&page=3

Nuri Sahin

rarnes1 wrote: »

There's nothing offensive about it.

Last year someone brought up ManU being offensive too iirc.

That was the first time I genuinely heard of it being offensive, it was from a poster who never mentioned it being offensive before that neither from what I remember despite posting in the SF for a number of years. As I said before, if you WANT to be offended, you will be offended.

The 'Chelski' thing is baffling too. I've not used the word before, but how is a term that's associating Chelsea Football Club, Russia and Roman Abromovich deemed offensive is strange. Adding 'ski' to a word makes it offensive? If there is some hidden meaning to it, I'm all ears. So if I said Lampski some Chelsea fan here will find it offensive? One Liverpool poster got a yellow card recently and as a result, it totted up to a 1 month ban. Soon enough, we'll see 'The Rodgers' as card worthy with the way some mods are, because one or two Liverpool fans have got in a huff with one or two other Liverpool saying it. Just wait and see.

Highly comparable to calling Man Utd (I made sure to add the 'td'!) or Liverpool either Manure or Liverpoo.

edit -Yeah, yeah, yeah, it has to be reported before the mods will seemingly act by throwing cards at posters like Gambit before dropping the hammer, I don't need it said to me.

RasTa

rarnes1 wrote: »

Chelski? Nothing as far as I can see. I'm presuming it's because Chelsea are owned by a Russian owner.


Urban Dictionary as a reference? :P Seriously

I do love that site though, could spend hours trawling through that.

Found this

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rasta&page=3

Well you're hardly going to find ManYoo and Chelski in a Oxford English dictionary hence me asking

Neither bother me bar one being allowed and others not.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

RasTa

RasTa wrote: »

Well you're hardly going to find ManYoo and Chelski in a Oxford English dictionary hence me asking

Neither bother me bar one being allowed and others not.

Tbh, I don't think I've ever used either of them on here or in real life.

Just checked there, ManYoo has been used 24 times in the past year, only by a handful of people.

Only one poster reacted to it (said it was childish).

So, for an offensive word nobody actually found it offensive, until today.

RasTa

rarnes1 wrote: »

Tbh, I don't think I've ever used either of them on here or in real life.

Just checked there, ManYoo has been used 24 times in the past year.

Only one poster reacted to it (being childish).

So, for an offensive word nobody actually found it offensive, until today.

What's your point?

Phoenix

Phoenix wrote: »

Why should such childish names be allowed anyway?either allow them all or none at all

That's all it is, being childish. It's not offensive.

I'm sure you've been childish on here yourself the odd time

5starpool

Here is a post I made recently elsewhere:

What the soccer forum needs least is more rules. What it needs most is sensible application of fewer, better rules that allow the root of most of the trouble to be banned quicker. It's a very hard balance to achieve, I will admit, with lots of judgement calls which can be tricky with so many mods of varying styles and certainly won't keep everyone happy either, but I'd prefer that approach to be tried rather than the black and white application of rules like the player/manager/non posters abuse rule that is being applied often very much against the spirit of the original rule.

As rarnes1 put it though, essentially lots of modding tasks boil down to the boards unofficial motto of don't be a dick.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89950896&postcount=312

The above sums up my feeling about the soccer forum really. The thing I mentioned earlier that Baldy misrepresented about soft yellows was not saying that anyone who supports a team can abuse any of the people associated with that team, it is saying that there is a clear difference between a Utd fan (or anyone really) calling Rooney a twat for a stupid red card challenge in a match or similar for someone who missed a great chance to score, and someone calling the same player a twat with no context like that available.

Soft yellows for things like the above and then little done it seems about people going into superthreads or otherwise deliberately to goad or slag is my main other annoyance. Those doing the goading will often be consistently skirting the line so each post doesn't amount to a cardable offence, but it's clear the intentions of some. Most of the people who post in threads other than those they support are fine, but some few are clearly on the wind up more often than not. There are a few Liverpool fans who engage in this and it annoys me to see it from generally good contributors on all things Liverpool.

All this being said, there is no golden method of keeping everyone happy on a very difficult forum to mod, and it is impossible to do what everyone wants as lots of different people have different ideas about which way is best to mod.

Common sense is harder to justify perhaps, but when properly applied is impossible to argue against in the main. I think the abuse rule for one should be modified to something along the lines of "Insults or abuse to players/managers/teams/etc is punishable at the moderators discretion if it is judged that the insult was designed to inflame". Having a hard and fast rule that results in something silly like GavRedKing getting a yellow card for calling Salah a twat (or similar, I can't remember the exact words) is just silly. Congrats on the lack or bias, and the consistency, etc, but it is a daft situation.

I say all the above as someone who while far from perfect (I recently made a twat of myself in a thread and got deserved slagging for it), knows how to live by the rules, even if I don't agree with all of them, and I've never been carded on boards (although I would have been yellow carded once about 5 years ago but couldn't as it wasn't possible to card anyone who was a moderator at that point, but that's a moot point really).

It'd be an ideal world there would be modding by common sense and few rules, but unfortunately this is not really a realistic aim and is open to abuse if the wrong people are mods of course. Things have generally come a long way in the last number of years in here, and that is to be applauded, but things like thread bans for a period of time (at least) for those clearly on the wind up, and a common sense approach to the name calling/abuse of footballers and so on, would go a long way to improving things.

Edit: People get yellow cards for being stupid all the time, and that is a fair tax on the stupidity a lot of the time.

Sorry, that probably got a bit rambly.

RasTa

RasTa wrote: »

What's your point?

It's not offensive and stop making out it is basically

RasTa

rarnes1 wrote: »

It's not offensive and stop making out it is basically

Jesus...

I don't care about it, what I do find odd is silly non offensive names for other teams are banned but one isn't

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.