Feedback thread 2014

Pighead

Phoenix wrote: »

And yourself too:)like every poster here im sure from time to time over their entire soccer posting history

It comes across as a bit hypocritical when you call others childish for using the word Chelski when you have been way more childish previously. You are not really in a position to be saying stuff like 'My friends are a bit old using terms like that'.

Sheepy99

The last 3 pages just seem to have been the same recycled conversation.
In essence is what I wrote two pages back(which nobody was arsed to reply to, seems relevant now though) not what's after being discussed.
A bit of leniency(childishness) allowed when it comes to unimportant things like Chelski, ManU(Sorry bu that's not even offence), Manure, Liver-whatever-variation will go a long way so long as people(which they're expected to do) don't b1tch & moan at any given moment about frivolous slagging

Pro. F

Pighead wrote: »

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.

The difference in how tame they are compared to "Lolerpool", for example, is extremely slight. Both "lolerpool" and "Chelski" are tame. Both of the terms are used by people who aren't fans of the clubs to have a tame dig at the clubs. It's not that they are offensive, nor even that they are irritating. It's that they express the intention of the poster using them to have a go at the fans reading them.

The term "Chelski" can be interpreted as having a dig at the fact that the club are owned and run by a sugar daddy. They're seen as having bought their success as opposed to having earned it through steady building through on pitch performance. It's tame as you say. But any poster that uses it comes across as trying to have a tame dig at them. If I was a Chelsea fan and I was reading "Chelski" all the time from an opposition fan it would rile me up a bit and I would post more aggressively when responding to them. Ban the stupid pointless digs and you end up with a better standard of discussion. Allow them and you gain nothing.

Beasty

Sheepy99 wrote: »

Another point in relation to trolling. We should(I feel) be able to call out trolls, instead of the proposed 'just report it' method.

The backseat modding rule is a site rule - all forums are required to implement it. Non-mods (of the forum in question) calling out trolls is not permitted anywhere on the site and a non-starter without Admin blessing (which is very unlikely to be obtained).

Beasty

Pighead wrote: »

It comes across as a bit hypocritical when you call others childish for using the word Chelski when you have been way more childish previously. You are not really in a position to be saying stuff like 'My friends are a bit old using terms like that'.

And while I'm at it - cut out this sort of crap. This is not Feedback, it's having a dig at another poster

Pighead

Beasty wrote: »

And while I'm at it - cut out this sort of crap. This is not Feedback, it's having a dig at another poster

It's not crap. It's pointing out the guys hypocrisy.

As Larry Flynt once said:
'Hypocrisy is a detriment to progress. There's always a hidden agenda'.

Thanks Beasty.

Fudge You

Darkglasses wrote: »

The 8 of us cannot get through every post and spend the time necessary to moderate them unless posts get reported.

Why is there not more Mods in the soccer forum?
Its seem obvious to me that more is needed as mods have lives, and cant be on here 24/7.

Also, there is so much anger in this forum. Too much. So the forum will never be perfect. The mods have an impossible job.

kryogen

Fudge You wrote: »

Why is there not more Mods in the soccer forum?
Its seem obvious to me that more is needed as mods have lives, and cant be on here 24/7.

Also, there is so much anger in this forum. Too much. So the forum will never be perfect. The mods have an impossible job.

There isn't more mods for various reasons

So many of the regulars (myself included) would not be coveted very highly by the admins to give them mod powers

So many of the other regulars (again, myself included ) would not want the job anyway

Those are the two main ones I guess, the forum will never be perfect of course, what forum is? That is why mods are needed

GavRedKing

Fudge You wrote: »

Why is there not more Mods in the soccer forum?
Its seem obvious to me that more is needed as mods have lives, and cant be on here 24/7.

More doesnt always equal better, we've a good mix of Mods who give as much time as actively possible to the forum, from what I can see.

Even if we had double the Mods in the forum there would be issues and posts slipping through the net, 24/7 coverage of the forum is nearly impossible and we can only mod what we can see via the reported posts.

Also, there is so much anger in this forum. Too much. So the forum will never be perfect. The mods have an impossible job.

The issue with that is, its impossible to deal with until it raises its head and it will do so around key games in the calendar, Utd v Liverpool is re the most heated thread on the forum and around the game week thi splace goes into over drive and cards usually follow, those are the toughest times in the forum as the match thread, and supporters thread moves so quickly its easy to get swamped by it all but by and large, if its possible we've nearly every Mod and CMod on "duty" for a few hours that day.

grumpymunster

Pighead wrote: »

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

Well from what I have seen yes most of them (Chelsea fans) object to the term, I also find the term objectionable.

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.

If it is not designed to annoy Chelsea fans just what is it's purpose in this context. For me there are a few posters who come on to the Chelsea thread with little intention of entering a discussion they are there to goad and use of Chelski is part of this. They can be annoying in a stupid childish way and distract from whatever is being discussed.

It is difficult to hit a happy medium when looking at moderating but in general this place is fairly well moderated. If anyone wants an example of terrible moderating try Munsterfans gave up the ghost on that site last year due to the antics of posters and moderators. In general it is most likely better to be a little too stringent that too lax.

djPSB

Phoenix wrote: »

So should lolerpool be carded Pighead?

That's the kind of stuff you'd expect from kids in a playground.

Knex*

Does anyone actually take offence to lolerpool, ManYoo, Chelski, etc? Seriously?

The only time I even bat an eyelid at it is if say, Liverpool lost a game and someone comes into the thread and goes, "haha, lolerpool", or something similar.

Even then, all I would do is throw up a gif, or a curt reply, in response. If even that. Certainly don't see why its infraction worthy or offensive.

Chelski is the most harmless one of all, and I think I even threw it into discussion posts in the past, with no intention of getting a rise or anything. It was used in the media and everything and became prominent enough.

We need less rules and more common sense. Mods should probably be allowed to tell posters to stop being so bloody precious with half their post reports, and seemingly that has become a near point scoring system that's being abused from what I've gathered over the last few Feedback Threads.

Its tough because there is clear agendas from some, and those posters often know how to dispute and wrangle their way around bans etc.
So perhaps less rules, more common sense, and more power for the mods to look at a body of work that a poster has put up, including crappy posts reports, and then tell said poster to feck off for a while.

Get the charter changed so people who request access to the SF, also accept those rule changes and can't go wrangling their way out of bans for the type of trolling and point scoring that annoys the majority here.

Issue then is what constitutes as banter, and what is trolling, etc, etc. But that's where the body of work comes in and if you get more mods on board in the SF, and an internal ban review system, it might work.

Would certainly need more planning than my spontaneous brain dump above, though.

Nuri Sahin

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

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.

Jaysus, if someone finds Merseyside Reds offensive, I've probably been reported for calling a team I support that very name sometime last year.

Will I Amnt

Knex. wrote: »

We need less rules and more common sense. Mods should probably be allowed to tell posters to stop being so bloody precious with half their post reports, and seemingly that has become a near point scoring system that's being abused from what I've gathered over the last few Feedback Threads.

That all comes back to consistency though. It's a bit annoying to see somebody getting away with something you have been carded for before or something worse than you have been carded for, however tame their post is.

Consistency is the main topic every Feedback thread but there's nothing that can be done about it without turning the forum into a zero tolerance, black and white, almost military style operation when it comes to modding and that would be even worse.

Dozen Wicked Words

Nuri Sahin wrote: »

Jaysus, if someone finds Merseyside Reds offensive, I've probably been reported for calling a team I support that very name sometime last year.

Did I say it was offensive in that quote?

Nuri Sahin

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Did I say it was offensive in that quote?

I never said you did, did I?

Merseyside Reds is as harmless as Chelski is my point.

Dozen Wicked Words

Nuri Sahin wrote: »

I never said you did, did I?

Merseyside Reds is as harmless as Chelski is my point.

Sorry, I agree then, they are as harmless and as pointless as each other.

K-9

Knex. wrote: »

Does anyone actually take offence to lolerpool, ManYoo, Chelski, etc? Seriously?

The only time I even bat an eyelid at it is if say, Liverpool lost a game and someone comes into the thread and goes, "haha, lolerpool", or something similar.

They are helpful in a way, bit like an IQ test.

Seriously, I don't see what benefit they add to the forum so I don't think we'll miss them.

grumpymunster

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Sorry, I agree then, they are as harmless and as pointless as each other.

Pointless being the operative word I suppose here. I am at a loss as to why the question regarding Chelsea fans view on Chelski was asked at all when there was no interest in listening to the responses.

At the end of the day Liverpool fans seem to be in the majority in the soccer area and as a result seem to feel if they think it is so then it is. By and large Mods let them off with this view.

Will I Amnt

Chelski, Spuds, Lolerpool, ManYoo.
If you are offended by these you are an idiot. If you use them you're just as big an idiot.

LuckyLloyd

People are idiots.

grumpymunster

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

People are idiots.

They have to be, for if people did not exist then idiots would not exist. Therefore all people have the ability to be an idiot, it would be ungracious of me to say how many exercise that right.

Knex*

K-9 wrote: »

They are helpful in a way, bit like an IQ test.

Seriously, I don't see what benefit they add to the forum so I don't think we'll miss them.

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Chelski, Spuds, Lolerpool, ManYoo.
If you are offended by these you are an idiot. If you use them you're just as big an idiot.

Can't argue there.

Lovely Bloke

The people who use the terms are showing themselves to be juvenile idiots, the people getting offended by them are showing themselves to be precious idiots.

grumpymunster

There seems to be an awful lot of high ground taken here has this thread deteriorated to a medium just to call people idiots?

You can call it idiotic you can call it looking for balance but I am not sure you can call this feed back. This is why a zero or close to zero tolerance needs to be taken by the mods if certain cliques don't get their way it degenerates very quickly.

hullaballoo

So basically, the usual anti-Chelsea crowd want to be allowed to call the club Chelski and they're hoping that by sheer weight of numbers, they'll make the mods brain-fart themselves into thinking it's a good idea?

LuckyLloyd

hullaballoo wrote: »

So basically, the usual anti-Chelsea crowd want to be allowed to call the club Chelski and they're hoping that by sheer weight of numbers, they'll make the mods brain-fart themselves into thinking it's a good idea?

For our charter based forum, have a rule that 'only the proper original name of a Club or regular media abbreviation may be used'. That creates a level playing field and means you will be unable to get offended in future.

Lawrence1895

May I contribute as well?

I always draw a line between calling a user a rude name, or calling a football tea a rude name, because the first option is much more of a personal matter.

Generalisations, such as 'All XYZ supporters are idiots' (just because one of them crossed the line of good behaviour, should not be tolerated either.

But then, some things just happen in the heat of the moment, it can happen to everyone, so maybe there should be an exemption from the rule, imo

ArmaniJeanss

Chelski doesn't really work anyway, -ski is most associated with Poland, and is comparatively rare in Russia, probably not in the top 20 surname endings.
Chelkov would be much better.

*****
Forum seemed to be ran about as fine as it could be last season as far as I'm concerned, wp all.

grumpymunster

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

For our charter based forum, have a rule that 'only the proper original name of a Club or regular media abbreviation may be used'. That creates a level playing field and means you will be unable to get offended in future.

Define regular media, as pretty much anything can be defined as such and therefore depending upon your publications of choice anything is fair game.

Turtyturd

I agree that the childish names should be cut out, but it does lead down a slippery slope. If people are offended at Chelski what's to stop others becoming offended at 'The Special One' or the laughable 'TSHO' that one or two posters use? Does fergie suddenly have to get his full title?

Liam O

Ultimately better policing of match thread de-railing and baiting and everything else is minor imo. All that requires is mods being on while games are happening, given there's 12 mods or whatever and I only ever really see about half that many actively acting I think that's something that could definitely be improved on. Some fans just shouldn't be allowed in rivals match threads as far as I'm concerned unless their team are involved. The same culprits week after week.

grumpymunster

Turtyturd wrote: »

I agree that the childish names should be cut out, but it does lead down a slippery slope. If people are offended at Chelski what's to stop others becoming offended at 'The Special One' or the laughable 'TSHO' that one or two posters use? Does fergie suddenly have to get his full title?

hullaballoo wrote: »

So basically, the usual anti-Chelsea crowd want to be allowed to call the club Chelski and they're hoping that by sheer weight of numbers, they'll make the mods brain-fart themselves into thinking it's a good idea?

There is your answer hullaballoo, not that you were in much doubt anyway.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Chelski to me would be a fair use on how to describe Chelsea in the context of when they spend 50 million on a player. I don't use the term but trying to get the word 'banned' seems like over policing to me.

Can I claim to be 'offended' by people laughing at Stevie G for using the word slip and then slipping himself to cost Pool the game against Chelsea? I hope not tbh.

Sheepy99

The thing is imo, if you're getting offended by something which you're reading on a screen by some random person who you (most likely) will never see or even now their full name, then you've got issues. It doesn't carry emotion, sometimes the context is ambiguous so it's all about how you perceive which means it's you who's controlling if you're offended not the poster. If half of ye cop onto yourselves and stop whinging everything will be fine. I'm not a fan of Chelski, Lolerpool etc (mainly for their lack of creativity) but how can you get offended by it, or let it put you off the forum or take away from your overall enjoyment of it. Get over yourselves. There are far more important things to be worrying about, such as digs/references to disasters which have affected clubs.

Even a youtube video's comment section, with about 40 curse words per sentence isn't a place people should be getting offended about, let alone here.

Sheepy99

In reference to the fact all the threads can't be monitored at one time, could the boys behind the scenes at boards not set up something which detects posts in a particular forum (this football one as an example) as they come in if they feature words such as sh1t, fcuk, chelski, liverfools, manure, castle grayskull, yid, munich, hillsborough, you name it, include it.. ?

If such words were to pop up you'd only need 2-3 mods as most of the 'doity woik' (dirty work) would be taken care of.

niallo27

Liam O wrote: »

Ultimately better policing of match thread de-railing and baiting and everything else is minor imo. All that requires is mods being on while games are happening, given there's 12 mods or whatever and I only ever really see about half that many actively acting I think that's something that could definitely be improved on. Some fans just shouldn't be allowed in rivals match threads as far as I'm concerned unless their team are involved. The same culprits week after week.

If they don't like what to hear its very easy to gang up on the poster which is I think is worse than trolling. I was called a troll and worse because I dare say arsenal would be better off without wenger as they weren't improving and they had the same problems every year. I got the usual abuse was called bitter then someone had a go at Rodgers. We are so tribal in here. We can abuse our team but **** me anyone else who does is a ****.

Bounty Hunter

Liam O wrote: »

Ultimately better policing of match thread de-railing and baiting and everything else is minor imo. All that requires is mods being on while games are happening, given there's 12 mods or whatever and I only ever really see about half that many actively acting I think that's something that could definitely be improved on. Some fans just shouldn't be allowed in rivals match threads as far as I'm concerned unless their team are involved. The same culprits week after week.

There are only 9 mods

Will I Amnt

Sheepy99 wrote: »

In reference to the fact all the threads can't be monitored at one time, could the boys behind the scenes at boards not set up something which detects posts in a particular forum (this football one as an example) as they come in if they feature words such as sh1t, fcuk, chelski, liverfools, manure, castle grayskull, yid, munich, hillsborough, you name it, include it.. ?

If such words were to pop up you'd only need 2-3 mods as most of the 'doity woik' (dirty work) would be taken care of.

What the hell is castle grayskull referring to?

dfx-

grumpymunster wrote: »

Pointless being the operative word I suppose here. I am at a loss as to why the question regarding Chelsea fans view on Chelski was asked at all when there was no interest in listening to the responses.

At the end of the day Liverpool fans seem to be in the majority in the soccer area and as a result seem to feel if they think it is so then it is. By and large Mods let them off with this view.

I asked the question about it and in general the abuse rule here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90550971&postcount=109

I'm interested in all opinions on it and it hasn't just been Chelsea fans or Liverpool fans replying. The general conversation has been informative.

Liam O

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

There are only 9 mods

Ah, was on the mobile and it says 12 at the bottom, didn't do any further digging. Mod selection in recent time has been fantastic as an aside. Something you did really well when I frequented the wrestling forum was break off potentially good topics into new threads.maybe this would be a better way to get around OT conversation in threads, more freedom for the mods might improve relations as when you're all in the background and only interact to ban someone it probably leads to more resentment than if you're all actively seen a lot more. I'm just really rambling though at this stage...

Gbear

Will I Amnt wrote: »

What the hell is castle grayskull referring to?

Some people mistakenly think that's where Skeletor lives and, as such, they're calling OT a place of evil.

But it's not. It's where He-Man lives.

It's like sneering at OT by calling it Minas Tirith or the place where the Justice League hang out.

Will I Amnt

Gbear wrote: »

Some people mistakenly think that's where Skeletor lives and, as such, they're calling OT a place of evil.

But it's not. It's where He-Man lives.

It's like sneering at OT by calling it Minas Tirith or the place where the Justice League hang out.

Cheers, although you lost me on the last paragraph, I've no idea what you're talking about there :pac:

Turtyturd

Gbear wrote: »

Some people mistakenly think that's where Skeletor lives and, as such, they're calling OT a place of evil.

But it's not. It's where He-Man lives.

It's like sneering at OT by calling it Minas Tirith or the place where the Justice League hang out.

The Watchtower.

Gbear

On low-level trolling - is there some way we could create a consensus-based approach to it?

Obviously a mod can't act unilaterally and give out the card, but what if there was some sort of voting process - a jury of sorts?

So, for example, message 4 mods and 20 regular posters and if the 4 mods agree and there's a certain % of the regular posters that agree that it's trolling then they're carded?

Just a random idea. I've no idea about how effective or feasible it would be.

Bounty Hunter

Liam O wrote: »

Ah, was on the mobile and it says 12 at the bottom, didn't do any further digging. Mod selection in recent time has been fantastic as an aside. Something you did really well when I frequented the wrestling forum was break off potentially good topics into new threads.maybe this would be a better way to get around OT conversation in threads, more freedom for the mods might improve relations as when you're all in the background and only interact to ban someone it probably leads to more resentment than if you're all actively seen a lot more. I'm just really rambling though at this stage...

That is probably including the CMods one of which is also a mod (Gav) on the soccer board. I appreciate your words about PW although that board which although it gets good traffic these days and runs very well is very easy to run and it wouldn't be as easy to replicate certain positives from it on a board such as Soccer for a number of reasons although obviously it is worth noting that that approach could be used in certain cases.

That_Guy

With regards to 'Chelski', 'Lollerpool' etc I think it's harmless. Unoriginal and not witty but harmless. Anybody who gets offended by such nonsense should really take a look at themselves.

Football is a popular sport. It's every day culture and teams/individuals are going to get a slagging from time to time.

It happens.

Look at the humour thread FFS. The amount of gifs/photoshops that take the piss out of teams/players is incredible. It's funny and the thread works well for the most part bar a few precious posters (I can think of one in particular) who goes mad when people post funny photoshops of their favourite player/team.

Obviously there's a line not to be crossed but if I was to turn around and say, 'what's Brent going to say after this game' (referring to Brendan Rodgers) would I be deemed worthy of an infraction? Likewise if I referred to Roy Hodgson as 'the owl'.

Neither of those two are exactly original but would people get offended by such comments? I find it hard to believe that anybody would genuinely be annoyed despite maybe showing faux outrage.

LuckyLloyd

Gbear wrote: »

On low-level trolling - is there some way we could create a consensus-based approach to it?

Obviously a mod can't act unilaterally and give out the card, but what if there was some sort of voting process - a jury of sorts?

So, for example, message 4 mods and 20 regular posters and if the 4 mods agree and there's a certain % of the regular posters that agree that it's trolling then they're carded?

Just a random idea. I've no idea about how effective or feasible it would be.

Good idea and easy to implement:

1) Create a private forum where access or lack thereof is controlled by the Soccer Mod Team;
2) Mod team do not have to formalise or publicise their criteria for access;
3) In the Private Forum only mods have privileges to create threads;
4) Mods create a thread with a poll as required and lock when they see fit;
5) Those threads are designed to discuss either an individual instance or body of work as the mods see fit;
6) Mods are under no obligation to act on a consensus;

Won't happen mind.

LuckyLloyd

grumpymunster wrote: »

Define regular media, as pretty much anything can be defined as such and therefore depending upon your publications of choice anything is fair game.

Regular media:

- TV stations;
- Traditional Newspapers;
- Soccer website media (Goal.com, Zonal Marking, etc);

Non Regular media:

- fanzines;
- fan sites;
- fan forums;
- whatever other watery site you were about to propose;

Gbear

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Good idea and easy to implement:

1) Create a private forum where access or lack thereof is controlled by the Soccer Mod Team;
2) Mod team do not have to formalise or publicise their criteria for access;
3) In the Private Forum only mods have privileges to create threads;
4) Mods create a thread with a poll as required and lock when they see fit;
5) Those threads are designed to discuss either an individual instance or body of work as the mods see fit;
6) Mods are under no obligation to act on a consensus;

Won't happen mind.

That seems like a lot of work to be honest. If the problem was absolutely ruining the forum it might be worth putting in the work but I don't think the low-level trolling problem is at a critical level.

I was thinking of a sort of hypothetical automated system, where a post is reported, designated as low-level trolling, and from that an automatically generated message is sent to x number of mods and y number of regular posters at random.

They reply with their decision. The mod who first responded to it then acts on their decision. It could be as transparent as you like.

So that would require reading your messages, replying and the mod reading the reply. It would only take seconds of the people on the jury's time.

It wouldn't be a particularly difficult thing to implement, but that's not to say the site as it is has that ability or that I'd expect changes to be made to facilitate it.