Feedback thread 2014

stereomatic

Just wondering if having a sub-forum "soccer resolutions" would be a good and feasible idea where there would be separate stickies of posters that received red cards, yellow cards and infractions, and also like soccer access requests posters could request resolution with regards to their infractions, yellow or red cards or if they think that there is a problem with a thread.
I've not had a problem with any post but if I did I probably wouldn't report it (thinking that I might be too sensitive or it could be banter or misinterpret the post or get the poster unnecessarily into hot water) after a pm to the poster is there any other recourse that might be available before reporting on the poster. I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one that would not report on a poster (I do realise that this doesn't help the moderators but it isn't done to obstruct them)

grumpymunster

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.

This is the type of post that generally sets topics on the wrong path but I'd imagine you knew that anyway.

Suggesting one set of fans gets more favourable decisions from the mods is ridiculous.

grumpymunster

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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;

Watery site what do you mean by that?

Media has changed radically over the past few years and will continue to change at a rapid pace. There are some excellent people on twitter and some excellent blog sites which are far more reputable, knowledgeable and balanced than most traditional newspapers and all TV stations have their own agenda.

Anybody who relies on "traditional media' for information are badly and I would say misinformed.

mav79

After reading through the thread the only change I feel should definitely happen is Agueroos point about the "always the victim" dig that can be thrown around, it is not banter, and I cannot think of one instance where it could be used in a discussion without some snide undertone.

I find match threads great during the game but the minute the final whistle goes, they go to hell. Its understandable posters get worked up after a bad result, and it seems this is when some posters feel they get baited into cards. Would it work if mods gave 24hr bans instead of cards in match threads.

Winston Payne

Both forms of media that LuckyLloyd has chosen use the term Chelski, which presumably means it's fine. I don't think it's fine and agree with those who've chosen to weigh in on the issue through posts or thanks who think that the term is completely unhelpful to the discourse of the forum. It doesn't contribute to debate in any meaningful manner and is used pretty much solely as a word to rile up Chelsea fans.

grumpymunster

grumpymunster wrote: »

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.

rarnes1 wrote: »

This is the type of post that generally sets topics on the wrong path but I'd imagine you knew that anyway.

Suggesting one set of fans gets more favourable decisions from the mods is ridiculous.

Obviously you didn't read on 6 posts then.

If feedback is being looked for then suggesting there is significantly more leeway given to one set of fans is absolutely reasonable. If you don't want to know the answer don't ask the question old sales adage which is good for life in general.

LuckyLloyd

grumpymunster wrote: »

Watery site what do you mean by that?

Media has changed radically over the past few years and will continue to change at a rapid pace. There are some excellent people on twitter and some excellent blog sites which are far more reputable, knowledgeable and balanced than most traditional newspapers and all TV stations have their own agenda.

Anybody who relies on "traditional media' for information are badly and I would say misinformed.

And if they are great as you say they won't be using 'Chelski' / 'Liverpoo' / 'Yids' whatever.

Will I Amnt

mav79 wrote: »

After reading through the thread the only change I feel should definitely happen is Agueroos point about the "always the victim" dig that can be thrown around, it is not banter, and I cannot think of one instance where it could be used in a discussion without some snide undertone.

"Always the victim" will already get you carded the way it is now. Some people wanted the word victim banned when talking about Liverpool, there's a big difference there.

grumpymunster

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And if they are great as you say they won't be using 'Chelski' / 'Liverpoo' / 'Yids' whatever.

Indeed yet you suggest that we should use the sun, mirror, mail as the basis for our ethics. Wow that is priceless

Agueroooo

I don't think it's the meanings of the words themselves that is the problem (cause admit it they are ridiculous) but the potential to rapidly derail a thread/discussion when used.

LuckyLloyd

grumpymunster wrote: »

Indeed yet you suggest that we should use the sun, mirror, mail as the basis for our ethics. Wow that is priceless

Rightly or wrongly, they are bound by constraints of political correctness, etc.

grumpymunster

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Rightly or wrongly, they are bound by constraints of political correctness, etc.

So for you the tabloid press is a bastion of political correctness oh my poor sides

LuckyLloyd

grumpymunster wrote: »

So for you the tabloid press is a bastion of political correctness oh my poor sides

Do the traditional media use the term 'Chelski'?

Beasty

stereomatic wrote: »

Just wondering if having a sub-forum "soccer resolutions" would be a good and feasible idea where there would be separate stickies of posters that received red cards, yellow cards and infractions, and also like soccer access requests posters could request resolution with regards to their infractions, yellow or red cards or if they think that there is a problem with a thread.

Just on this point, the site established a dispute resolution process around 3 years ago. I do not believe there would be any appetite amongst the Admins or office staff to create a different process for one forum. Either way this is nothing the local mods or CMods would have any control over and would need to be picked up directly with the Admins

Personally, having dealt with a lot of soccer disputes and knowing the amount of work that often goes into them, I would not support anything of this nature as I would expect it to significantly increase the workload of mods and/or CMods

grumpymunster

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Do the traditional media use the term 'Chelski'?

Are you seriously suggesting if it is reported in the traditional press then it is ok? This is the traditional press which is very heavily in debt and will appeal to any sphere that will buy its papers by any sensational means.

Really are you serious?

Have you forgotten the disgraceful reporting of the sun post hillsborough? It took over 20 years to right that wrong. That is the tip of a disgraceful iceberg and these are people you want us to model our ethics on. Well you can if you wish it is of course your choice.

Turtyturd

It's nothing to do with their values or morals...outside the odd headline you will not see them uses terms like Chelski. It's not that difficult a point to get so I am guessing you're intentionally missing it.

grumpymunster

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/205692/Platini-rap-for-Chelski.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411839/Mrs-Chelski---11bn-work-experience-girl.html

Yea would never ever ever happen would it

Winston Payne

Whether the traditional media use it or not is irrelevant. We're talking about here, this forum, and how we're going to conduct ourselves. I don't think Chelski has any place in that.

LuckyLloyd

grumpymunster wrote: »

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/205692/Platini-rap-for-Chelski.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411839/Mrs-Chelski---11bn-work-experience-girl.html

Yea would never ever ever happen would it

Well done, to be fair. Links from 2006 and 07 but well done nonetheless.

Sheepy99

Will I Amnt wrote: »

What the hell is castle grayskull referring to?

Ibrox stadium or old trafford

Turtyturd

grumpymunster wrote: »

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/205692/Platini-rap-for-Chelski.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411839/Mrs-Chelski---11bn-work-experience-girl.html

Yea would never ever ever happen would it

You know what a headline is, yeah?

grumpymunster

Turtyturd wrote: »

You know what a headline is, yeah?

Yes I do though you may not.

grumpymunster

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Well done, to be fair. Links from 2006 and 07 but well done nonetheless.

Well more up to date nowt to do with football but shows the term in its grossest form

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2420391/Meet-Russians-Russians-buying-Britain-star-vulgar-reality-TV-show.html

Note the word Chelski in the headline from September of last year, very harmless

MaroonAndGreen

Ye might aswel give up on getting Chelski off the banned list cos its not gona happen, too many disagree so far.

5starpool

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.

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.

This is a ridiculously overcomplicated and unworkable process for something that should be the mods bread and butter, so to speak.

5starpool

On a separate point, and I know my view on this is going to be very much in the minority, but I hate the infraction system in general on boards.

Knex*

What irks me, is when a Mod suddenly decides that they don't like a specific something, even when its not against charter, and puts a warning against said thing in thread.

Then when its repeated, out comes the "Ignoring mod instructions" card, or whatever the wording is, even though the initial 'ban' on whatever it is could be ridiculous. You never get carded for actually doing the thing the mod takes a disliking to, only for ignoring the warning. This, to me, appears to be because there is little ground for a worthy infraction in the first place.

Its a loophole that mods use at times to infract people for something that they should never really get infracted for, all because they don't like or get what is going on in the thread.

LuckyLloyd

5starpool wrote: »

This is a ridiculously overcomplicated and unworkable process for something that should be the mods bread and butter, so to speak.

Wouldn't be the first time you've disagreed with me, mostly with good cause!

Beasty

Knex. wrote: »

Its a loophole that mods use at times to infract people for something that they should never really get infracted for, all because they don't like or get what is going on in the thread.

If posters ignore a Mod warning of course they can expect to be carded. It's not a "loophole", simply the application of basic site rules.

Knex*

Beasty wrote: »

If posters ignore a Mod warning of course they can expect to be carded. It's not a "loophole", simply the application of basic site rules.

See, this is immensely frustrating. You don't get it. The infraction should never occur because the warning often should never be given in the first place, as the thing in question doesn't actually breach charter.

Its simply a mod taking a disliking to the way something is going, so they fire in a warning, rightly or wrongly.

We go around in circles with this all the time, seemingly, and I know I brought it up in that thread not too long ago.

For me, its definitely a hide behind the charter scenario when you come out with the, "can't be seen to ignore mod warning", no matter how ludicrous the initial warning may be. It often leaves a bad taste tbh.

I've long since left behind the, "Don't do this because I told you so", mentality. I imagine the majority of us here have. This is the one scenario in the SF that leaves me feeling like I'm being treated with in a childlike manner, and comes across as very much, "I have the power, you shut up", whether intended or not.

Beasty

If you have a problem with an in-thread warning given by a mod PM the mod to discuss it further. If you are not satisfied with the outcome, PM a CMod who will look at it. If you are still not satisfied you could consider starting a Help Desk thread where it is possible to get Admin input. A basic rule of Boards (and not specific to the Soccer forum) is not to take it into your own hands. If you do so, don't be surprised if you get carded and/or banned

Washington Irving

I typed this before Beasty's above reply but I'll post it anyway. Example of what I think Knex is explaining:



A group of posters are discussing the countless reasons why Dwight Gayle is a superior football player to Lionel Messi.

Mr. Mod, who is a big Lionel Messi fan, comes along and doesn't like this discussion so he posts a mod note/in-thread warning stating that no one is allowed to talk about Dwight Gayle.

Now clearly this ban on mentioning Gayle should never have been put in place, but then Mr. Registered User comes along and says "Why can't we talk about Gayle?" or "I think Gayle is GOAT".

Mr. Mod then proceeds to card Mr. Registered User for ignoring the mod note.

Knex*

Beasty wrote: »

If you have a problem with an in-thread warning given by a mod PM the mod to discuss it further. If you are not satisfied with the outcome, PM a CMod who will look at it. If you are still not satisfied you could consider starting a Help Desk thread where it is possible to get Admin input. A basic rule of Boards (and not specific to the Soccer forum) is not to take it into your own hands. If you do so, don't be surprised if you get carded and/or banned

Doesn't really deal with the crux of the issue, at all.

Who cares in hindsight, anyway? By the time you send a few PMs and go through the process, even if the warning in thread gets retracted, by that stage the moment is gone and its not worth the hassle. For the majority of people anyway, and mods know this well. Chances of it ever getting anywhere positive is another grim matter altogether...

Issue still lies with mods being able to slap in a warning with no justification and then the only place it can be 'challenged' is behind closed doors.

Pointless and infuriating.

Knex*

Washington Irving wrote: »

I typed this before Beasty's above reply but I'll post it anyway. Example of what I think Knex is explaining:



A group of posters are discussing the countless reasons why Dwight Gayle is a superior football player to Lionel Messi.

Mr. Mod, who is a big Lionel Messi fan, comes along and doesn't like this discussion so he posts a mod note/in-thread warning stating that no one is allowed to talk about Dwight Gayle.

Now clearly this ban on mentioning Gayle should never have been put in place, but then Mr. Registered User comes along and says "Why can't we talk about Gayle?" or "I think Gayle is GOAT".

Mr. Mod then proceeds to card Mr. Registered User for ignoring the mod note.

Its primary school level stuff, it really is. I don't care what part of the charter you point the lecture stick at.

Beasty

Washington Irving wrote: »

Now clearly this ban on mentioning Gayle should never have been put in place, but then Mr. Registered User comes along and says "Why can't we talk about Gayle?" or "I think Gayle is GOAT".

Mr. Mod then proceeds to card Mr. Registered User for ignoring the mod note.

You and Knex. seem to be misunderstanding some basic Boards rules. I've set out the process above. The mods apply the site and forum rules, and have some discretion to help with the smooth running of the forum. It's not for other users to disagree with mod decisions in-thread (in any forum on the site). If posters don't wish to engage with the mods and/or CMods directly via PM then there's nothing more than I can say really, other than such posters can face the consequences (under Site rules)

Knex*

Beasty wrote: »

You and Knex. seem to be misunderstanding some basic Boards rules. I've set out the process above. The mods apply the site and forum rules, and have some discretion to help with the smooth running of the forum. It's not for other users to disagree with mod decisions in-thread (in any forum on the site). If posters don't wish to engage with the mods and/or CMods directly via PM then there's nothing more than I can say really, other than such posters can face the consequences (under Site rules)

See, this is the pat on head type of stuff I mentioned.

The issue is with the initial ridiculous warning and ban of topic, or whatever. Following that, the card comes out from the ignoring mod instruction rule. I wouldn't even bother try and dispute that as everyone knows the rule is there. You know well neither I, nor Washington, is misunderstanding it and you're dragging our point back towards the charter again.

In no other forum do I see Mods making up as many rules in thread as I do in the SF.

GavRedKing

Knex. wrote: »

See, this is the pat on head type of stuff I mentioned.

The issue is with the initial ridiculous warning and ban of topic, or whatever. Following that, the card comes out from the ignoring mod instruction rule. I wouldn't even bother try and dispute that as everyone knows the rule is there. You know well neither I, nor Washington, is misunderstanding it and you're dragging our point back towards the charter again.

In no other forum do I see Mods making up as many rules in thread as I do in the SF.

Find me another forum with a set of rules as ours and I'll be surprised.

Given the tribalistic nature of football in general its to be expected.

I also dont think any mod makes up rules, we use the charter as a guideline, like we all should and apply accordingly.

For instance, Spain could be playing in the WC, theres a match thread and theres a raft of posts saying oh sure Spain are probably doping no wonder theyre winning.

This adds nothing constructive to the thread so a warning would go up saying cut out the doping allegations etc and if a user comes back and keeps it up or questions the decision they'll be carded.

Thats a bread and butter example but if you can show me an instance where a mod has posted a warning to suit his/her agenda and carded happily on the back of it, I'd like to see it.

In general, in therad mod warnings are their to keep the thread on topic and to let ye know we're watching the thread.

Washington Irving

If mods are allowed to dictate what people can/can't post, and users who don't agree with the mod warning have to jump through hoops, wait hours, just for an answer, which will the vast majority of the time fall in the mod's favour, then mod's have far too much playroom.

A mod can just decide they don't like something and stop users talking about it, and no one can question it without going to the effort of PMing the mod, an admin, and/or starting a Help Desk thread. In the unlikely event the warning gets overturned hours/day(s) have passed, the thread has moved on and it doesn't make any difference.

As Gav's example above, most in-thread warning are completely justified but that is not always the case, and when it isn't the case, the mod holds all the cards as it were and there's not a whole lot users can do.

No one is trying to say that ignoring mod warnings or questioning why they are there in-thread should be allowed, if that's what you're taking from all this.

glued

The term Chelski isn't offensive. It's a suffix that works quite well. It's incorrect in the sense that 'ski' isn't Russian but Slavic. It's referring to the Abromovich era at Chelsea and that's about it. I don't see how that can be found offensive.

Slattsy

glued wrote: »

The term Chelski isn't offensive. It's a suffix that works quite well. It's incorrect in the sense that 'ski' isn't Russian but Slavic. It's referring to the Abromovich era at Chelsea and that's about it. I don't see how that can be found offensive.

Unless a mod happens to be a Chelsea fan I guess.

Panthro

Slattsy wrote: »

Unless a mod happens to be a Chelsea fan I guess.

Balls to that. There's a broad range of mods in here, manure lolerpool etc etc arent tolerated either and its dick all to do with which mods support what teams.
If I'm reading your intended implication correctly here, its a rather low blow IMO.

Knex*

Washington Irving wrote: »

If mods are allowed to dictate what people can/can't post, and users who don't agree with the mod warning have to jump through hoops, wait hours, just for an answer, which will the vast majority of the time fall in the mod's favour, then mod's have far too much playroom.

A mod can just decide they don't like something and stop users talking about it, and no one can question it without going to the effort of PMing the mod, an admin, and/or starting a Help Desk thread. In the unlikely event the warning gets overturned hours/day(s) have passed, the thread has moved on and it doesn't make any difference.

As Gav's example above, most in-thread warning are completely justified but that is not always the case, and when it isn't the case, the mod holds all the cards as it were and there's not a whole lot users can do.

No one is trying to say that ignoring mod warnings or questioning why they are there in-thread should be allowed, if that's what you're taking from all this.

Can't put it better than this, really.

Will I Amnt

Is this all about pandas again?

kryogen

Beasty wrote: »

If posters ignore a Mod warning of course they can expect to be carded. It's not a "loophole", simply the application of basic site rules.

Yep, even if they didn't even see the warning as they were responding to a post when it was posted. Even if a user posts less then 2 minutes after the mod warning, for that reason, actually writing a post at the time of the warning so is completely unaware of it they should still expect common sense to go out the window and expect a card for that.

googled eyes

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Is this all about pandas again?

That was a different feedback thread

Will I Amnt

googled eyes wrote: »

That was a different feedback thread

Seems like it's taking the same direction...

googled eyes

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Seems like it's taking the same direction...

Twas but a joke Will.

Will I Amnt

googled eyes wrote: »

Twas but a joke Will.

Oh, well in that case errr... ha ha

Beasty

kryogen wrote: »

Yep, even if they didn't even see the warning as they were responding to a post when it was posted. Even if a user posts less then 2 minutes after the mod warning, for that reason, actually writing a post at the time of the warning so is completely unaware of it they should still expect common sense to go out the window and expect a card for that.

That's where mod discretion comes in, and I've seen plenty of examples where mods have simply deleted something like that. Better still though the poster can delete it themselves. Of course if the post is card-worthy irrespective of the warning then the poster cannot really hope for any discretion to be applied in their favour.

Mickeroo

kryogen wrote: »

Yep, even if they didn't even see the warning as they were responding to a post when it was posted. Even if a user posts less then 2 minutes after the mod warning, for that reason, actually writing a post at the time of the warning so is completely unaware of it they should still expect common sense to go out the window and expect a card for that.

When that happens I might delete the post, I wouldn't card them or often times users will edit their post to say they were typing it while the mod was posting up the warning.