Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Soccer forum - Appeal infraction

Options
  • 27-05-2014 4:10pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,294 ✭✭✭


    Good afternoon,

    I received an infraction on Saturday for a post that has since been deleted by the mod. I can only assume it was for perceived abuse/name calling, as the PM I received did not specify

    I PM'd the mod in question on Sunday after noticing the infraction and have heard nothing back.

    My post was in the Champions league final match thread.
    LiamoSail wrote: »
    While I dislike them, you've got to feel for Atletico. It was just a hurdle too far. Nobody wants to see those nazis win the thing

    BoaPGU_IUAEm8zp.jpg
    [/QUOTE]

    Referring to a group with Nazi flags, who have a history of pro-Nazi beliefs, and who were later shown on Portuguese TV chanting "sieg heil", as nazi's is a fair enough comment IMO. I understand the rules regarding abuse in the forum, however I don't see how referring to the Ultras Sur as nazis constitutes abuse, given their much publicised political beliefs.

    As such, I'd like to appeal the infraction


Comments

  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,290 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    OK, firstly you received a yellow card for the post you quoted above which is a "warning", not an "infraction" where you get a red card

    It is absolutely clear to me that you were referring to the club's supporters (and possibly the club itself) and posted the photo to try to help support your comment that the fans were Nazis. That's basically tarring the whole fanbase. You could, if you had wished, used terms to refer only to those supporters shown in the photo, in which case I may have some sympathy. But you chose not to, and it's absolutely clear to me what you were getting at.

    Yellow card upheld

    You may ask an Admin to review this decision if you wish


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,294 ✭✭✭LiamoSail


    Beasty wrote: »
    OK, firstly you received a yellow card for the post you quoted above which is a "warning", not an "infraction" where you get a red card

    It is absolutely clear to me that you were referring to the club's supporters (and possibly the club itself) and posted the photo to try to help support your comment that the fans were Nazis. That's basically tarring the whole fanbase. You could, if you had wished, used terms to refer only to those supporters shown in the photo, in which case I may have some sympathy. But you chose not to, and it's absolutely clear to me what you were getting at.

    Yellow card upheld

    You may ask an Admin to review this decision if you wish

    Thanks for taking the time to reply.

    I was referring to the Ultras Sur, the group pictured. Their right wing politics are well known, and I would have assumed the reference was obvious

    I posted a picture of them and referred to them as "those nazis". I think that's a fairly clear cut reference. I didn't post a picture of the whole fan base, or the side, just the ultras. I find it absolutely amazing that I'm being given a yellow card for referring to a group, pictured with a nazi flag, with well publicised pro-Nazi beliefs, as nazis.

    I'd also add that I believe its a fair assumption that most reading the soccer forum would be aware of the ultras sur, and hence understand the reference

    Id like the admins to review this decision


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    The issue for me is the phrase "Nobody wants to see those nazis win the thing" - in the context of the match in question, the "winners" would have been Real Madrid, not a minority of their supporters.

    The warning is upheld.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement