Soccer Warning

Washington Irving

I received a warning (and subsequent 2 week ban) yesterday for this post:

Washington Irving wrote: »

And another one down.

We'll hardly be able to justify a match thread between the two or three LFC fans left by the Southampton game.

The reason given was:

We do not tolerate discussion of moderation,- thats a quote from the charter, it's also a quote from a recent in thread warning I made in the liverpool thread. Therefore you are now getting a warning personally

I exchanged PMs with the mod who gave the warning, but he upheld the decision.

I don't see how acknowledging a regular poster in the thread being banned is discussing moderation. I wasn't attempting to imply anything or argue with the decision to ban him, or with the modding in general. I felt it was relevant to the thread to mention the departure. If I hadn't posted, someone inevitably would have asked where x poster was and it would have been talked about regardless.

To use a recent example, Mike65's warning, temp SF ban and account closure was discussed openly in the thread (and elsewhere) at length without any mod interjection. Why is this any different?

This post, which is pretty much identical to my own, was not actioned (I don't want anyone getting warned on account of me, so please don't do anything you wouldn't have as a result of this). (Looking through the thread last night when PMing the mod I saw Beasty's in thread warning, which may be why mine was deemed cardable though I had only skimmed through the day's posts and the warning wasn't linked in the OP or put in the thread title, or at least at the time of my post.)

I feel the warning is inconsistent with previous posts of a similar nature (including one only a few hours before) and the discussion of moderation rule is being used to justify mod action on posts that are not in breach of that rule's reason for being.

Beasty

Making reference to the fact a person is banned from the forum or site is off-topic, and yes it's discussing modding matters, and encouraging others to discuss modding and indeed the dispute process

I had been involved in a Dispute thread that followed another (n that case forum) banning and when I saw the other post you linked to, which actually made the statement "not for discussion" and then noted the additional comments relating to the same user and their ban, I issued the following in-thread warning

Beasty wrote: »

If you wish to discuss modding matters PM the mods. Dispute threads are not up for discussion, and the mention of them here is not acceptable

I did so, not as a Soccer Forum modding matter, but as the CMod that had dealt with the dispute in question., The warning was as much to do with site as forum rules/requirements and I left the post in question at that in-thread warning

You subsequently made your own reference to a site-banned user, which was essentially ignoring my own in-thread warning. Your own post then triggered further discussion over that banned user and what they may have done to warrant the ban. Essentially your post raised a topic that is absolutely nothing to do with Liverpool Football club, and only resulted in further discussion of modding matters. As I had issued that in-thread warning, and would generally not expect anyone to start discussing banned users within the public forums, I am seeing no reason to overturn this card

Now I normally deal with Soccer dispute threads as GavRedKing is a Soccer mod, and we try to bring an "independent" view to disputes where we can. Given I issued the in-thread warning, there is arguably an element of "conflict" if I continue with this discussion. You may though ask for an Admin to review this decision

Washington Irving

Beasty wrote: »

Making reference to the fact a person is banned from the forum or site is off-topic, and yes it's discussing modding matters, and encouraging others to discuss modding and indeed the dispute process

Again, I ask why this was not enforced in previous situations such as with Mike65 in a few weeks ago. The rule seems to only sporadically apply to mentioning a poster is banned, and at least with regard to the LFC thread, never resulted in a card. I was not aware of your in thread warning at the time of my post.

I had been involved in a Dispute thread that followed another (n that case forum) banning and when I saw the other post you linked to, which actually made the statement "not for discussion" and then noted the additional comments relating to the same user and their ban, I issued the following in-thread warning

I did so, not as a Soccer Forum modding matter, but as the CMod that had dealt with the dispute in question., The warning was as much to do with site as forum rules/requirements and I left the post in question at that in-thread warning

You subsequently made your own reference to a site-banned user, which was essentially ignoring my own in-thread warning. Your own post then triggered further discussion over that banned user and what they may have done to warrant the ban. Essentially your post raised a topic that is absolutely nothing to do with Liverpool Football club, and only resulted in further discussion of modding matters. As I had issued that in-thread warning, and would generally not expect anyone to start discussing banned users within the public forums, I am seeing no reason to overturn this card

I only saw the in thread warning later that evening when PMing the mod as I said in my original post. The warning was not linked in the OP, or put in the thread title and was easily missed. To me, it seemed the earlier post had been deemed within the rules.

Washington Irving wrote: »

This post, which is pretty much identical to my own, was not actioned (I don't want anyone getting warned on account of me, so please don't do anything you wouldn't have as a result of this). (Looking through the thread last night when PMing the mod I saw Beasty's in thread warning, which may be why mine was deemed cardable though I had only skimmed through the day's posts and the warning wasn't linked in the OP or put in the thread title, or at least at the time of my post.)

Beasty

Just one more point from me. The "Mike65" thing you are referring to was, from my recollection, that posters were noting he had closed his account rather than discussing whether he was banned or not

As I've already indicated I think it best if my involvement ends here given I was the one who's in-thread warning was ignored. If you do wish to take this further I think it best for you to ask for an Admin to review this

Washington Irving

Beasty wrote: »

Just one more point from me. The "Mike65" thing you are referring to was, from my recollection, that posters were noting he had closed his account rather than discussing whether he was banned or not

The account closure immediately followed a temp ban from the SF, there was speculation as to their connection.

As I've already indicated I think it best if my involvement ends here given I was the one who's in-thread warning was ignored. If you do wish to take this further I think it best for you to ask for an Admin to review this

I'm happy to go ahead with this.