Feedback thread 2014

Lucas Hood

This seems to be going really well.

kryogen

Didn't get the chance, the card was issued instantly. I did explain what had happened to the mod in question, appealed for common sense and was told it was standing, take it to DRP if I wanted.

I couldn't be bothered at the time to be honest, I ended up regretting that decision.

Of course it happens now and then, you don't see the mod warning, and in those situations I have edited the post or pm'd the mod to explain I hadn't seen it-deleted the post. There was nothing actionable in the post either for the record, simply "ignoring mod instructions"

Anyway, this isn't the place for specific incidents I guess, just vented last night and want to clear up the situation this morning.

Lovely Bloke

Lucas Hood wrote: »

This seems to be going really well.

it would help if the CMod wasn't "rules lawyering" or obtusely missing the point.

Beasty, the point is not mods implementing the "don't question a mod" rule, that's fine. The point is that mods sometimes stick in ridiculous warnings about stuff that isn't "warnable" in the first place.

Lovely Bloke

Ah here.

There is an obvious case of trolling AND back seat modding here, and not even a card?

Benimar

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Beasty, the point is not mods implementing the "don't question a mod" rule, that's fine. The point is that mods sometimes stick in ridiculous warnings about stuff that isn't "warnable" in the first place.

This. In fairness, the original point was very clear on the matter, so I don't see the confusion.

There is NO issue with being carded for questioning a mod. The issue is with mods sometimes deciding that some things cannot be discussed even though they aren't off topic or outside the charter. There was a whole thread about this only a month ago and it's happened since.

LuckyLloyd

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Is this all about pandas again?

Will I Amnt wrote: »

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

Pandas now, what later?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Lovely Bloke

Lloyd, you should have made that forum-relevant.

First they came for The Muppet, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not The Muppet.

LuckyLloyd

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Lloyd, you should have made that forum-relevant.

First they came for The Muppet, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not The Muppet.

Heh

Look, we went to feedback over this specific issue and got it sorted. I would have thought the take away from that for the mods was that 'have your cake and eat it too modding' was no longer in play - i.e. this silly notion that they can issue a warning over whatever they choose and then card / infract / ban any non compliance with said warning under the auspices of 'ignoring moderator instruction' was ridiculous and would not be tolerated.

If they haven't understood that and intend to carry on as before they can probably expect more feedback threads on the subject I'd imagine.

Will I Amnt

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Pandas now, what later?

Personally, I couldn't care less what silly little meme is taking over a thread next time so they can come for whatever they want as far as I'm concerned.

ShiverinEskimo

Baldy gets banned from SF for giving feedback on the Feedback thread.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

I don't often post in the soccer forum, but I read a lot. One thing that I always find is that particularly in big games, the match threads are basically unreadable

Usually just a collection of childish insults with very little discussion about the actual game. Now obviously with such high traffic it's hard to police but I think the mods should adapt more of a no nonsense policy on match threads. Any stupid bickering over something unrelated to the game and you can't post in the thread

Kunkka

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Baldy gets banned from SF for giving feedback on the Feedback thread.

I agree with the mods here. There is no need for his aggressive posting style in a feedback thread.

Lucas Hood

Mods & CMods have really shown themselves up in this thread.

shamrock55

No policing whatsoever in the football threads is the way to go i think , unless one poster murders another through written word then its fine

ShiverinEskimo

Kunkka wrote: »

I agree with the mods here. There is no need for his aggressive posting style in a feedback thread.

Asking for feeback only to not like what's fed back?

Thread's a mess. Mods are on the defensive. Users getting banned.

I wonder when it's eventually locked will they all gather around and go "well that went well".

MagicIRL

Can we get the Soccer charter sticky'd in this Soccer forum? Can we also get it changed to Football? Soccer is so American.

Regarding the mod card issue, I think it's being misunderstood gravely and I would like to try and clarify it.

Situation #1

I abuse a player.
A mod comes in and drops a warning like a decent human being (:pac:) telling us all not to be getting personal towards players.
I post again, after the warning, absuing a player and recieve a card.

That is 100% fine. It's 100% my fault. I broke the charter. End off.

Situation #2

I start talking about Suarez in the United thread.
A mod comes in and says no Suarez talk.
I continue to talk about Suarez and get carded.

The problem here is that I haven't broken the charter by talking about Suarez (or whoever it may be) but I have disobeyed a mod and therefor have been carded. The card, however, is for going against a mod but the mod warning shouldn't exist in the first place because the OP hasn't done anything technically (read: charter) wrong. That's the problem.

Mars Bar

MagicIRL wrote: »

Can we get the Soccer charter sticky'd in this Soccer forum? Can we also get it changed to Football? Soccer is so American.

Regarding the mod card issue, I think it's being misunderstood gravely and I would like to try and clarify it.

Situation #1

I abuse a player.
A mod comes in and drops a warning like a decent human being (:pac:) telling us all not to be getting personal towards players.
I post again, after the warning, absuing a player and recieve a card.

That is 100% fine. It's 100% my fault. I broke the charter. End off.

Situation #2

I start talking about Suarez in the United thread.
A mod comes in and says no Suarez talk.
I continue to talk about Suarez and get carded.

The problem here is that I haven't broken the charter by talking about Suarez (or whoever it may be) but I have disobeyed a mod and therefor have been carded. The card, however, is for going against a mod but the mod warning shouldn't exist in the first place because the OP hasn't done anything technically (read: charter) wrong. That's the problem.

Situation 2 is all well and good depending on what prompted the Suarez discussion? If a United supporters says "Welbeck is a better player than Suarez (:pac:) and then a Liverpool poster comes in to defend Suarez and posters on both sides are having a good, civil debate about it, then I think it should continue. If a Liverpool supporter comes in with a Suarez bombshell from nowhere then it's just an off-topic post which is cardable.

It comes down to context again I guess.

There was a while where any mention of Suarez brought on the "racism" card and a plug had to be put on it for it to blow over and it has for the most part.

Lovely Bloke

In fairness to all involved, the ban was overturned, so here's some positive feedback for yiz.

Thanks.

PhlegmyMoses

One thing that concerned me from earlier in this thread was the insinuation that there were very few options when it comes to choosing mods as many people have fallen foul of the rules or haven't got clean enough records.

Does this not ring alarm bells? Maybe the problem isn't everyone else?

MagicIRL

Mars Bar wrote: »

Situation 2 is all well and good depending on what prompted the Suarez discussion? If a United supporters says "Welbeck is a better player than Suarez (:pac:) and then a Liverpool poster comes in to defend Suarez and posters on both sides are having a good, civil debate about it, then I think it should continue. If a Liverpool supporter comes in with a Suarez bombshell from nowhere then it's just an off-topic post which is cardable.

It comes down to context again I guess.

There was a while where any mention of Suarez brought on the "racism" card and a plug had to be put on it for it to blow over and it has for the most part.

There's nothing in the charter/rules about talking about a player. Lets take Suarez (this'll end well! :pac:)

A mod comes in to stop the talk about the player because they think it'll descend in to off topic drival and bickering.

Absuing another poster is covered by the charter, so cards for users in this respect makes sense.

Trolling and baiting another user is also against the charter (I think) so again, cards are warranted.

The problem is that the Suarez being a racist chat is being stopped because the mod doesn't like it, not because it's breaking any rules (yet). Surely, every conversation should be allowed to flow assuming the charter is being held up?

glued

MagicIRL wrote: »

There's nothing in the charter/rules about talking about a player. Lets take Suarez (this'll end well! :pac:)

A mod comes in to stop the talk about the player because they think it'll descend in to off topic drival and bickering.

It always does descend into drivel and bickering. I don't see what relevance Suarez has in the Manchester United thread.

The problem is that the Suarez being a racist chat is being stopped because the mod doesn't like it, not because it's breaking any rules (yet). Surely, every conversation should be allowed to flow assuming the charter is being held up?

There is clear grounds for that chat not to be allowed on the soccer forum. The issue has been dealt with and it always descends into a few too many people getting upset over it. Yes, we should be allowed to talk about it but unfortunately history has shown that people can't behave themselves and get a little bit too worked up.

There is a practical application involved in moderation. The don't be a d1ck rule covers a lot and it works quite well but often regurgitating old topics adds nothing to the discussion and gets people quite worked up so 99% of there is good merit to them not being discussed.

Mars Bar

MagicIRL wrote: »

There's nothing in the charter/rules about talking about a player. Lets take Suarez (this'll end well! :pac:)

A mod comes in to stop the talk about the player because they think it'll descend in to off topic drival and bickering.

Absuing another poster is covered by the charter, so cards for users in this respect makes sense.

Trolling and baiting another user is also against the charter (I think) so again, cards are warranted.

The problem is that the Suarez being a racist chat is being stopped because the mod doesn't like it, not because it's breaking any rules (yet). Surely, every conversation should be allowed to flow assuming the charter is being held up?

There is a thread for the Suarez racism stuff so the chat could be guided to elsewhere to keep the United thread on topic.

The charter prohibits off topic posting?

Kunkka

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Asking for feeback only to not like what's fed back?

Thread's a mess. Mods are on the defensive. Users getting banned.

I wonder when it's eventually locked will they all gather around and go "well that went well".

On the defensive for a reason I'd say . You have people like Baldy attacking them. What would you do?

dfx-

MagicIRL wrote: »

There's nothing in the charter/rules about talking about a player. Lets take Suarez (this'll end well! :pac:)

A mod comes in to stop the talk about the player because they think it'll descend in to off topic drival and bickering.

Absuing another poster is covered by the charter, so cards for users in this respect makes sense.

Trolling and baiting another user is also against the charter (I think) so again, cards are warranted.

The problem is that the Suarez being a racist chat is being stopped because the mod doesn't like it, not because it's breaking any rules (yet). Surely, every conversation should be allowed to flow assuming the charter is being held up?

It is not necessarily because only a moderator doesn't like a topic. Say the Suarez talk is disrupting the thread for users or there are in-jokes that nobody else knows or cares about flooding a matchthread, disrupting others use of the forum as did happen in the incident in the recent feedback thread highlighted in earlier posts this morning.

Say other users are complaining about it 'being allowed to go on'.

MagicIRL

glued wrote: »

It always does descend into drivel and bickering. I don't see what relevance Suarez has in the Manchester United thread.



There is clear grounds for that chat not to be allowed on the soccer forum. The issue has been dealt with and it always descends into a few too many people getting upset over it. Yes, we should be allowed to talk about it but unfortunately history has shown that people can't behave themselves and get a little bit too worked up.

There is a practical application involved in moderation. The don't be a d1ck rule covers a lot and it works quite well but often regurgitating old topics adds nothing to the discussion and gets people quite worked up so 99% of there is good merit to them not being discussed.

Point missed. You're carding people based on a moderators own view of how things should play out in a thread. I can discuss Suarez, Him being an alleged racist, and say... Danny Welbeck all within context of one another within the United thread.

I'm not doing anything wrong. For example:

Suarez? That racist? No thank you! I would much rather we give Danny Welbeck his chance up front than sign that vampire!

The above could be well within the context of Manchester United discussion. A mod may take offence to my post because it could antagonize Liverpool fans, but I haven't broken any rules nor am I just chatting or posting off topic. I could well get a card for the above if I continued it after a mod warning, all because the mod doesn't want it to continue in the thread despite it not being against any rules.

MagicIRL

dfx- wrote: »

Say other users are complaining about it 'being allowed to go on'.

This would make a lot of sense for stepping in and stopping a certain line of discussion, however, do moderators regularly post in thread saying that, for example, "The Suarez talk stops now because we've had several forum users complain about it derailing the thread"? I don't think I've ever seen it myself. All I recall is something similar to "The Suarez talk stops now." and that's the end of it.

glued

MagicIRL wrote: »

Point missed. You're carding people based on a moderators own view of how things should play out in a thread. I can discuss Suarez, Him being an alleged racist, and say... Danny Welbeck all within context of one another within the United thread.

You could talk about anything if that's the case. I think you're missing the point. Despite the fact that it may be soccer related, it's not related to Manchester United and therefore only serves to work a few people up.

I can't see what you're missing here. I don't want to be reading your two cents on Suarez in the Manchester United thread and I doubt many others do too.

MagicIRL

glued wrote: »

You could talk about anything if that's the case. I think you're missing the point. Despite the fact that it may be soccer related, it's not related to Manchester United and therefore only serves to work a few people up.

I can't see what you're missing here. I don't want to be reading your two cents on Suarez in the Manchester United thread and I doubt many others do too.

That was just an example. If we're discussing transfer targets, for example, and someone wants to buy Suarez it could all organically grow out from there. Stopping that discussion because a mod feels it may take a turn is whats causing this card/no card problem to begin with.

People are being carded for breaking rules laid down by mods that are not in the charter and its causing havoc.

K-9

MagicIRL wrote: »

Point missed. You're carding people based on a moderators own view of how things should play out in a thread. I can discuss Suarez, Him being an alleged racist, and say... Danny Welbeck all within context of one another within the United thread.

I'm not doing anything wrong. For example:



The above could be well within the context of Manchester United discussion. A mod may take offence to my post because it could antagonize Liverpool fans, but I haven't broken any rules nor am I just chatting or posting off topic. I could well get a card for the above if I continued it after a mod warning, all because the mod doesn't want it to continue in the thread despite it not being against any rules.

For me, mods only act if a discussion gets out of hand and starts derailing a thread. Mods aren't just there to hand out bans and cards, they are there in a role a bit like a caretaker. Indeed, handing out bans and cards are nearly always a last resort.

MagicIRL wrote: »

This would make a lot of sense for stepping in and stopping a certain line of discussion, however, do moderators regularly post in thread saying that, for example, "The Suarez talk stops now because we've had several forum users complain about it derailing the thread"? I don't think I've ever seen it myself. All I recall is something similar to "The Suarez talk stops now." and that's the end of it.

Exactly, mod warnings are more often than not friendly reminders. There's plenty of off topic chat in the Liverpool thread and I'm sure other ones and mods don't bother with it.

As for panda gate, its a bit like people bringing up cards and bans, let it go! There was a feedback thread, the issue got resolved, mods make mistakes and aren't infallible, let go of the pitch forks.

Knex*

glued wrote: »

You could talk about anything if that's the case. I think you're missing the point. Despite the fact that it may be soccer related, it's not related to Manchester United and therefore only serves to work a few people up.

I can't see what you're missing here. I don't want to be reading your two cents on Suarez in the Manchester United thread and I doubt many others do too.

Pop into the Liverpool thread and you'll see countless tangents on a daily basis, its what makes it so enjoyable IMO.

Making this place as rigid as you seem to suggest would ruin it, for me anyway. Of course there are going to be other discussions that stem from whatever is the priority in the thread, that's natural, especially in soccer.

Its like when people complain about United being discussed in the Liverpool thread, or visa versa, or whatever. Mostly, it IS actually relevant. Years of rivalry, league position, and countless other reasons makes it so.

Odds on, if I bring United, or a United player/manager up in the LFC Thread, I'm doing so from a Liverpool perspective and if I wouldn't see the point nor reason to bring the same post to the United thread. This happens all the time for many users.

I know that the main off topic stuff comes from outside the Super Threads usually, but I still feel that the majority of it, unless its seen to descend into point scoring and trolling, should be allowed.

Obviously, this has to be within reason, but I do feel there has been a few occasions when the mod warning has come in too soon and unjustified just because they themselves didn't like the nature of the discussion.

Banning harmless and good natured stuff with a mod warning is the main issue at play in the SF right now, for me.

As gripes go, perhaps its not huge, and my first few posts in this thread stated that overall I was happy enough, but its certainly something that can be frustrating from time to time.

Mars Bar

MagicIRL wrote: »

That was just an example. If we're discussing transfer targets, for example, and someone wants to buy Suarez it could all organically grow out from there. Stopping that discussion because a mod feels it may take a turn is whats causing this card/no card problem to begin with.

People are being carded for breaking rules laid down by mods that are not in the charter and its causing havoc.

And that is perfectly fine.

Can you give me an example of a mod stopping a perfectly good discussion in its tracks?

I think I may have been involved in one recently in the United thread but I can't even remember what it was.
There was the Cleverley debate earlier in the season in the United thread that everyone was sick of and I put the boot in it.

K-9

So basically we've gone from mods being too soft earlier in the thread to mods being Nazi baxtards now!

Knex*

K-9 wrote: »

So basically we've gone from mods being too soft earlier in the thread to mods being Nazi baxtards now!

Who implied that?! :pac:

MagicIRL

Don't get too off topic now. I was merely ellaborating on the original complaint regarding mods stopping discussion in threads and handing out cards as a result. This then developed in to an example and how that case would further explain the original situation.

TL;DR - Moderator descretion seems to be the issue at hand. Different strokes for different folks. Mod 1 would allow the conversation to continue but Mod 2 would stop it and there lies the problem. With the Charter, it's easy. It's either banned or not. With the individual weilding all the power, it gets out of hand which brings me right back to the original discussion which started on page 27 I think.

Al Capwned

Knex. wrote: »

Pop into the Liverpool thread and you'll see countless tangents on a daily basis, its what makes it so enjoyable IMO.

Making this place as rigid as you seem to suggest would ruin it, for me anyway. Of course there are going to be other discussions that stem from whatever is the priority in the thread, that's natural, especially in soccer.

..........

Banning harmless and good natured stuff with a mod warning is the main issue at play in the SF right now, for me.

.....

Couldn't agree more - if the mods, who I think generally do a very good job, were to stick rigidly to the charter and completely prohibit OT posting, a lot of the enjoyment of the United superthread in particular would be diminished for me.

One mod in particular has a very civil way of putting 'gentle reminders' in to threads, and it is a pattern that would hugely benefit the forum if other mods were to follow suit.

Mickeroo

I think we're already pretty lenient on what is allowed in Superthreads. The Liverpool thread turned into a conversation about Adam Sandler movies yesterday and I don't seem to recall any of us stepping in (Punch Drunk Love is his best btw :pac:). Most superthreads also have pages upon pages talking about rival teams and players.


It's not on when that kind of thing carries over into match-threads though as it ends up derailing the thread completely and alienating those who are not in on the joke. Even in a superthread, if someone came in with a genuine post who is not much of a regular poster or is a fan of another team and the only replies they get are relating to some in-joke amongst the regulars then that is not really fair either.

What I'm trying to get at is there's generally no problem with off topic debates, in jokes etc in superthreads as far as I can see provided it doesn't get to the point where it's disrupting the threads rather than adding to them, alienate other users from the conversation or spread into other threads.

K-9

MagicIRL wrote: »

Don't get too off topic now. I was merely ellaborating on the original complaint regarding mods stopping discussion in threads and handing out cards as a result. This then developed in to an example and how that case would further explain the original situation.

That's fine, but for me modding the majority of the time is making judgement calls about context.

TL;DR - Moderator descretion seems to be the issue at hand. Different strokes for different folks. Mod 1 would allow the conversation to continue but Mod 2 would stop it and there lies the problem. With the Charter, it's easy. It's either banned or not. With the individual weilding all the power, it gets out of hand which brings me right back to the original discussion which started on page 27 I think.

I'd hate to see a situation where the charter prohibits chat about Suarez V. RVP in a United or Liverpool thread because a few posters (the usual suspects) can't debate reasonably civilly and objectively. There's plenty of decent posters on this boards that can do it, why should they be punished?

The humour and draw a footballer threads show what the forum can be when it is at its best, stuff like that above shows it at its worst.

When it comes down to it lads, it isn't mods and modding that is the problem, it's the users that nearly everybody agreed are a problem earlier. Posters than can't take any criticism of their team, can't look at a rival team objectively, basically the guy everybody ignores in the pub when they are watching a match. This is a board for supporters of football first and foremost, fanboyism is catered elsewhere in an abundance of sites. If opposition fans giving an opinion annoys you, the problem isn't them.

There is a problem with trolls and WUM's, always will be, but some people are very precious about their team.

So, you should be able to have a reasonable discussion about Suarez, I'm sure there has been ones throughout the season that required no mod intervention, so for me, that isn't the issue. Unfortunately sometimes the muppets get there first and then the reasonable posters can't have nice things.

The vast majority of users on this board have little or no mod actions against them, so the poster who suggested the mods are the problem, nope, its not us (mods and 90% of the users), it's most definitely you.

Mars Bar

Al Capwned wrote: »

Couldn't agree more - if the mods, who I think generally do a very good job, were to stick rigidly to the charter and completely prohibit OT posting, a lot of the enjoyment of the United superthread in particular would be diminished for me.

One mod in particular has a very civil way of putting 'gentle reminders' in to threads, and it is a pattern that would hugely benefit the forum if other mods were to follow suit.

I agree with that too. A lot of it comes down to context and gut feeling. IME, it's not a nice way to have to mod but often enough, it's the only way. For the mds, it'd be great if everything was just black and white.

I love some of the hilarious off topic posts we get the odd time in the United thread. It's just a by product of posters getting a feel for each other and the community feeling. There should never be an end to that IMO.

Then there is just off topic that can cause aggro and you just have to nip it in the bud.

MagicIRL

My point, which I admit ahs been clsightly marred with 'off topic validity' talk boils down to this:

In order for everything to get on nice and rosey, the moderators must take their own personal opinion out of issues. The original complaint was mods stepping in to stop something that wasn't against the charter (see the Dwight Gale example earlier in the thread) and people being carded as a result.

Assuming this was sorted out, with a few other tweaks, like reasoning as to why posts have been deleted or why something is being disallowed from now on (see the Suarez example re: user complaints) would definately help things.


This feedback thread is 100% useless if absolutely nothing changes as a result.

dfx-

MagicIRL wrote: »

This would make a lot of sense for stepping in and stopping a certain line of discussion, however, do moderators regularly post in thread saying that, for example, "The Suarez talk stops now because we've had several forum users complain about it derailing the thread"? I don't think I've ever seen it myself. All I recall is something similar to "The Suarez talk stops now." and that's the end of it.

We can probably agree about the tone of the message when stepping in (different situations, different tone), but some posters earlier this morning and in the past page of the thread - as far as I read it - are taking issue with a moderator deciding to step in at all on a certain line of discussion.

MagicIRL

dfx- wrote: »

We can probably agree about the tone of the message when stepping in (different situations, different tone), but some posters earlier this morning and in the past page of the thread - as far as I read it - are taking issue with a moderator deciding to step in at all on a certain line of discussion.

Yes, from what I understand the issue can arise when a mod steps in to prevent something from happening but by doing so isn't inforcing a charter-rule but using common sense to prevent a future incident which is where this card issue is arising.

Perhaps more warnings, less cards? I know the banhammer has the alure about it (I moderate forums.ukcs.net) but it's not always the case. Also more informative reasons for the moderator stepping in would be greatly appreciated.

X is not to be discussed anymore because of Y or something.

Pro. F

Mars Bar wrote: »

I agree with that too. A lot of it comes down to context and gut feeling. IME, it's not a nice way to have to mod but often enough, it's the only way. For the mds, it'd be great if everything was just black and white.

I love some of the hilarious off topic posts we get the odd time in the United thread. It's just a by product of posters getting a feel for each other and the community feeling. There should never be an end to that IMO.

Then there is just off topic that can cause aggro and you just have to nip it in the bud.

You take this idea of moderation by nipping things in the bud way too far Mars. You take it into warning people off on topic discussions because there has been agro when you think the on topic discussion doesn't need to be talked about any more. It is not your place to decide what should be talked about as long as it's on topic and within the charter. And if some posters break the charter while discussing those topics then they should be carded, not the rest of us banned from talking about the topics.

Mars Bar

I don't think I do that far too often but a couple of times I have and I have admitted as much.

hullaballoo

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.

Very droll, Lloyd.

I think the issue is that no one is allowed call clubs a name, childish or otherwise, in an attempt to wind up fans of that club. It doesn't matter whether the fans actually get wound up by it or not, it's the intention behind the use of the name that is questionable.

MagicIRL

Can a mod explain why this post was carded, for example?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90596948&postcount=8

That's harmless fun aimed at people acting like kids on a thread. If you stamp that out of the forum the place will die.

Also, perhaps a thread could be started on the forum for users to post questions to the mod team? I say a topic instead of a PM because transparency is good for both sides.

dfx-

MagicIRL wrote: »

Yes, from what I understand the issue can arise when a mod steps in to prevent something from happening but by doing so isn't inforcing a charter-rule but using common sense to prevent a future incident which is where this card issue is arising.

Perhaps more warnings, less cards? I know the banhammer has the alure about it (I moderate forums.ukcs.net) but it's not always the case. Also more informative reasons for the moderator stepping in would be greatly appreciated.

X is not to be discussed anymore because of Y or something

What happens when posters continue to discuss X after that point?

MagicIRL

dfx- wrote: »

What happens when posters continue to discuss X after that point?

That's the crux of the issue. One the one hand, if you say something as a mod, and a user goes against it, they're breaking the charter which is a card. On the other though, if a user gets a card for discussing a topic that's not breaking the charter, but a mod says stop anyway, and they get carded based on that mods opinion of a topic, then we have an issue.

Mars Bar

MagicIRL wrote: »

Can a mod explain why this post was carded, for example?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90596948&postcount=8

That's harmless fun aimed at people acting like kids on a thread. If you stamp that out of the forum the place will die.

Also, perhaps a thread could be started on the forum for users to post questions to the mod team? I say a topic instead of a PM because transparency is good for both sides.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80997682&postcount=8

Gifs that only serve a purpose to inflame or drag a thread off topic or otherwise do not contribute to a thread will be removed, if it is considered that the only purpose of that gif was to further inflame an argument, then the poster may receive a warning for it. (ie Michael Jackson/Popcorn gif/pictures)

...

MagicIRL

Mars Bar wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80997682&postcount=8

I think it would be handy if the mod replied to the thread stating exactly what was broken and why the card was handed out it could again add some much needed transperancy to the soccer forum.

Mars Bar

MagicIRL wrote: »

I think it would be handy if the mod replied to the thread stating exactly what was broken and why the card was handed out it could again add some much needed transperancy to the soccer forum.

If you click on the yellow card you'll see "breach of forum charter" and you can go to the charter and find which rule has been broken.