Soccer Forum Feedback Thread 2015

Oranage2

What about a sticky thread where posters could dispute a card?

The current drp forum doesn't really suit a forum where cards are handed out frequently and for harmless stuff.

My suggestion would be a thread that a poster can appeal a card and mods then can vote to keep or overturn the card.

Beasty

Oranage2 wrote: »

What about a sticky thread where posters could dispute a card?

The current drp forum doesn't really suit a forum where cards are handed out frequently and for harmless stuff.

My suggestion would be a thread that a poster can appeal a card and mods then can vote to keep or overturn the card.

This simply cannot happen within the current Boards setup. Any appeals against cards can only be dealt with either directly via discussion with the mod, or escalation to the DRP

Oranage2

Beasty wrote: »

This simply cannot happen within the current Boards setup. Any appeals against cards can only be dealt with either directly via discussion with the mod, or escalation to the DRP

Shame that, but rules are rules.

MagicIRL

The only carding I'm against is posts that claim a player is a useless bollox or something similar, and people get carded for being mean to the player or some nonsense.

Lovely Bloke

"Heat of the moment" is a get out for abuse. As rarnes has said, and I've been saying for years; there is NO heat of the moment on forums.

You think about what you want to post, you type it, you look over, you click submit. That process in and of itself takes the heat out of any moment, you literally have to think about what you are posting.

So, it's not comparable to being at a match and seeing the ref not give a blatant penalty for your team, then blurting out "FFS REF you blind prick", because while sitting at home watching a match on the telly and seeing that same incident, and probably blurting out "FFS REF you blind prick", then deciding, actually, I'm going to post that on the internet. Type it, look at it, click submit.

That "moment" is gone. You've consciously decided to go on the internet and call the referee a prick.

Deal with the consequences of that like an adult, instead of claiming to be a child with no control of their faculties.

MagicIRL

MagicIRL wrote: »

The only carding I'm against is posts that claim a player is a useless bollox or something similar, and people get carded for being mean to the player or some nonsense.

Why even put the word bollox there though?

Player X is useless

Player X is a useless bollox


Surely it's not hard to just not call them anything?

I don't think it's generally a major issue though

Buford T. Justice XIX

rarnes1 wrote: »

2 acts of trolling should be a permanent ban imo.

We don't all have multiply accounts, though;)

I think the forum is working just fine atm. Re-writing the charter will result in a lot of confusion for all existing posters which would be a shame considering how well everything is going currently.

Certainly, re-write some sections to include any changes over the last while but leave it as is now it's working.

Oranage2

rarnes1 wrote: »

Why even put the word bollox there though?

Player X is useless

Player X is a useless bollox


Surely it's not hard to just not call them anything?

I don't think it's generally a major issue though

But say a player gives away a penalty and you write, what a clown - that could get you a card too.

Will I Amnt

Maybe don't call him a clown then?

Lucas Hood

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Maybe don't call him a clown then?

How about silly billy?

Lovely Bloke

Oranage2 wrote: »

But say a player gives away a penalty and you write, what a clown - that could get you a card too.

why would you write that, in the full knowledge that calling a player names is against the charter?

Better to ban all namecalling than have grey areas where the likes of you can be pedantic so-and-sos saying, "Oh well, the name I used is not as offensive as the name he used, so I shouldn't be sanctioned" - can you not understand how much of a nightmare that would be to moderate?

For example, I personally do not find the word "clown" offensive, but nor do I find the word "cúnt" offensive, so if I write "What a cúnt", I'd be outraged to be sanctioned under the rules as you'd want them.

Where is the line drawn?

Silly billy
Clown
Eejit
Geebag
Bastard
Fúcker
Cúnt

all names you could call a player for doing something in a match. Which ones are let go? Which ones are sanctioned.

I don't care if someone calls my favourite player on my favourite team a cúnt, so what tbh, but you might get offended if I call YOUR favourite player an eejit.

adox

Geebag should always be allowed in every situation.

pmasterson95

adox wrote: »

Geebag should always be allowed in every situation.

Shut up geebag

5starpool

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

why would you write that, in the full knowledge that calling a player names is against the charter?

Better to ban all namecalling than have grey areas where the likes of you can be pedantic so-and-sos saying, "Oh well, the name I used is not as offensive as the name he used, so I shouldn't be sanctioned" - can you not understand how much of a nightmare that would be to moderate?

For example, I personally do not find the word "clown" offensive, but nor do I find the word "cúnt" offensive, so if I write "What a cúnt", I'd be outraged to be sanctioned under the rules as you'd want them.

Where is the line drawn?

Silly billy
Clown
Eejit
Geebag
Bastard
Fúcker
Cúnt

all names you could call a player for doing something in a match. Which ones are let go? Which ones are sanctioned.

I don't care if someone calls my favourite player on my favourite team a cúnt, so what tbh, but you might get offended if I call YOUR favourite player an eejit.

All about context really. It annoys me to see a poster get a card for calling a player a twat for doing something silly or making a mistake on the pitch. this is why mods are people who can tell context (most of the time) rather than blind automotans who are blind to it. It seems to me that this season there has been an increase in sense and discretion and it's been a good thing.

Will I Amnt

5starpool wrote: »

All about context really. It annoys me to see a poster get a card for calling a player a twat for doing something silly or making a mistake on the pitch. this is why mods are people who can tell context (most of the time) rather than blind automotans who are blind to it. It seems to me that this season there has been an increase in sense and discretion and it's been a good thing.

I got a card for calling Vidic a twat for doing something silly, thought it was harsh at the time but I've never made that mistake again.

5starpool

Will I Amnt wrote: »

I got a card for calling Vidic a twat for doing something silly, thought it was harsh at the time but I've never made that mistake again.

It was harsh, but I get the point. It's the same reason why I don't do it myself, but it still doesn't make it a good rule when applied rigidly. It makes modding appear less consistent and more nuanced, and I realise I'm probably on the minority side of the argument, but nuance is a good thing when done right.

cson

Nuance and common sense do go a long way.

A couple of years ago I remember getting a 2 week ban for 2 yellows, one of which I had got in August and the 2nd one in May. Almost put me off ever posting here again.

dfx-

As Al Capwned outlined, one person could be banned for saying the same thing as another who doesn't get banned and more red cards leads to permanent bans quicker.

It might lead to paranoia that mods are out to get people over others or certain clubs over others and bias and a lot of whataboutery that might cause mod burnout, but Beasty's proposal has a huge impact on posters than mods.

I think the theme of this thread is that the forum is settled as it is, for which the credit is due to all posters.

TheDoc

This actually reminds me of something that came up a few weeks ago.

The charter has a general outline for "words" and "phrases" that are considered inflammatory, but it doesn't go to state what exactly these words are. The assumption is that it will be open to common sense.

So while I could perfectly understand someone being pulled up for say "Manchester ****ty" or "lolerpool", it appears some cards have been handed out for names being used that have caused offense to posters.

The most obvious one to come to light was "Slippy G". I have to say it kinda knocked me for six. It was shortly after the incident, that became sort of pop culture with gifs, memes and the works being done on just about everywhere. But someone said SlippyG and got banned I believe.

While the mods may be proactive in terms of dealing with issues, more often then not it's a case of responding to a report. I guess the point I'm making is are we not moving into that weir, obscure realm, or how a lot of "offense" is subjective, and personal to the person involved.

For example SlippyG doesn't "offend" me, nor does references to Sir Alex as "red nose" or "red face", or all the other sort of nicknames like that.

I personally hate "banter"(the word) but also the practice, as an excuse for having a laugh with something extremely offensive or controversial, and is as such, obviously.

But when it comes to the above, player names being changed to reflect a recent incident, I think we are moving into the realms of subjective offence, which isn't applicable to everyone.

While I don't partake in that sort of stuff myself, and rarely get into club rivalry stuff and baiting, I do sometimes roll my eyes at seeing punishment handed out for certain things, but again that is mostly subjective as it takes a lot to offend me.

I've a few infractions and cards I believe, and from immediate memory I think one was calling Rooney a "retard" (possibly twice) and while I took umbrage at the initial card, I accepted I wasn't in friends company and that word could cause offense in general public, which is fair enough.

Another infraction was I believe telling a poster to go **** himself. Again something I accepted without fuss, but did feel a bit "ugh" as I didn't think anyone would take offense, as we regularly engage in debate and thought it would be interpreted like youd say it to your mate with a wry smile.

I'd probably weigh in with above that the forum pretty much looks to be in a good place(for me) I rarely venture outside of my respective clubs superthread, I think that thread is well modded, and there is a good sense of allowing the thread to flow even if it does go a little off topic. I assume as with most, there is a nice community of people there and I think the mods help growing it with doing stellar work in the thread in question.

I've had some pretty horrible experiences in other forums, and one in particular that involved face to face meetings with Boards reps, but all in all I think this forum is very well run, and there seems to genuine common sense in place. In instances I've received infractions, warnings or cards, the mods involved have been good to explain the situation, and happy enough to respond to any queries I have.

Will I Amnt

Are mods mindful of "group reporting"?
Like if the same handful of posters were reporting the same people or set of fans.
I think I've read somewhere or was told that a post that gets reported by more people will be more likely to be actioned.

Permaban people if group reporting. I'd imagine that's a site ban offence.

Does this actually happen? If so was it reported?

Amazing how these things haven't been heard off all season. It's like problems are really being looked for.

Will I Amnt

rarnes1 wrote: »

Permaban people if group reporting. I'd imagine that's a site ban offence.

Does this actually happen? If so was it reported?

Amazing how these things haven't been heard off all season. It's like problems are really being looked for.

I don't know. Hence asking the question, we don't get to ask these during the season. That's kind of the point of this thread.

Will I Amnt

Will I Amnt wrote: »

I don't know. Hence asking the question, we don't get to ask these during the season. That's kind of the point of this thread.

Fair enough. Seems a bit random.

I'd imagine the mods will know if it happens anyway.

GavRedKing

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Are mods mindful of "group reporting"?
Like if the same handful of posters were reporting the same people or set of fans.
I think I've read somewhere or was told that a post that gets reported by more people will be more likely to be actioned.

Being honest, when something is so blatant against the charter it will usually result in several reports.

If its a fast moving match thread however it might only get one or two as the pages and posts rack up pretty quickly and some people miss an offensive post.

Saying something in a superthread is more likely to be seen by more people giving the slower nature of posting in them and thus, giving us more reports.

EDIT : However, theres no campaign of the same 2 or 3 people reporting opposition fans and vice versa, not in a pattern that stands out anyway.

Mickeroo

I don't think it happens tbh, or if it does then it's very rare.

GavRedKing

People have been pulled up for "spamming" the report button before, its a very rare thing to happen though.

Will I Amnt

GavRedKing wrote: »

EDIT : However, theres no campaign of the same 2 or 3 people reporting opposition fans and vice versa, not in a pattern that stands out anyway.

Cheers, it was just something I've always been curious about given the tribal nature of the forum and the cliques that form.

TheDoc

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Cheers, it was just something I've always been curious about given the tribal nature of the forum and the cliques that form.

Used to happen a lot in another forum I used to frequent

GavRedKing

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Cheers, it was just something I've always been curious about given the tribal nature of the forum and the cliques that form.

Was a good question actually. The more prolific posters tend to report more than newer users but thats down to IMO, the fact theyre more used to the forum and know the charter better and theyre more active.

I'd always implore people to report posts as its our best way to see issues and offensive posts as we dont go in and monitor every single thread, even if something looks trivial or a 50/50 call, its good to report it and we can have a look.

One rules I'd like introduced is that the first person who mentions or alludes to both United and Liverpool in a match thread not involving them, or a transfer thread involving only other teams should get an instant ban. So annoying following a somewhat interesting discussion for a few dozen posts, coming back the next day to see another posts and they turn out to be about United making Ronaldo the second best player in the world/"our year"/Suarez etc.

Also blatant "x-player is a <swearword>/other slur" posts should be treated with more harshly along with warnings for those thanking such posts. The last year or two such posts were occurring, and would just be followed by a mod warning and the blatant rule-breaking led to no actual punishment.

Pro. F

alchemist33 wrote: »

It's hard to have a blanket ban on nicknames without taking intent into consideration. For instance, I've seen Chelsea fans call their goalkeeper T-BO. Nobody's trying to insult anyone with that and it's almost a term of endearment. Stuff like "scholsey", as simple as it seems, is also a nickname and is not going to get abused by anyone.
By contrast, Maureen or Brenda is probably used as an insult, even if its not much of an insult. Yes, I know this means a continuation of the eternal battle between consistency and "common sense", but if mods adhere to having absolutely no nicknames, it's too proscriptive for me. They'll usually be able to tell the difference between posts intended as insults and those that aren't.

There isn't a blanket ban on nicknames, it's only derogatory nicknames that aren't allowed.

GavRedKing

Deleted User wrote: »

One rules I'd like introduced is that the first person who mentions or alludes to both United and Liverpool in a match thread not involving them, or a transfer thread involving only other teams should get an instant ban. So annoying following a somewhat interesting discussion for a few dozen posts, coming back the next day to see another posts and they turn out to be about United making Ronaldo the second best player in the world/"our year"/Suarez etc.

What happens the second or third person to mention Pool v Utd?

Given they represent the two best supported English sides in Ireland the fans have the majority share on Boards, theyre bound to reguarly clash.

All we can do is try manage it and hope as adults, the posters dont drag every discussion into a Pool v Utd debate, sometimes its easier said than done though.

duffman13

Deleted User wrote: »

Also blatant "x-player is a <swearword>/other slur" posts should be treated with more harshly along with warnings for those thanking such posts. The last year or two such posts were occurring, and would just be followed by a mod warning and the blatant rule-breaking led to no actual punishment.

I agree at the first bit however thanking a post can sometimes be a poster thanking the fact there is a yellow card or red card on it not the actual content of the post.

5starpool

Deleted User wrote: »

One rules I'd like introduced is that the first person who mentions or alludes to both United and Liverpool in a match thread not involving them, or a transfer thread involving only other teams should get an instant ban. So annoying following a somewhat interesting discussion for a few dozen posts, coming back the next day to see another posts and they turn out to be about United making Ronaldo the second best player in the world/"our year"/Suarez etc.

That would be a horrible rule. I agree that quite a few threads get derailed in this way but there are times when it's very relevant so having a blanket ban on it would be ridiculous.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

One rules I'd like introduced is that the first person who mentions or alludes to both United and Liverpool in a match thread not involving them, or a transfer thread involving only other teams should get an instant ban. So annoying following a somewhat interesting discussion for a few dozen posts, coming back the next day to see another posts and they turn out to be about United making Ronaldo the second best player in the world/"our year"/Suarez etc.

It has got to the stage it's pointless comparing tne 2 because of:

1) A few fan boys from both clubs who make it near impossible and
2) A few sensitive souls from others who don't seem to want any discussion on it, a bit unrealistically.

GavRedKing

GavRedKing wrote: »

What happens the second or third person to mention Pool v Utd?

Given they represent the two best supported English sides in Ireland the fans have the majority share on Boards, theyre bound to reguarly clash.

All we can do is try manage it and hope as adults, the posters dont drag every discussion into a Pool v Utd debate, sometimes its easier said than done though.

Where the mods are too slow to nip it in the bud just dole out cards. :P

5starpool wrote: »

That would be a horrible rule. I agree that quite a few threads get derailed in this way but there are times when it's very relevant so having a blanket ban on it would be ridiculous.

K-9 wrote: »

It has got to the stage it's pointless comparing tne 2 because of:

1) A few fan boys from both clubs who make it near impossible and
2) A few sensitive souls from others who don't seem to want any discussion on it, a bit unrealistically.

So because there's greater numbers of people (rather than Chelsea/Arsenal fans) who want to derail a thread then it's fine?


Absolute blanket ban I understand probably isn't suitable, but when it gets to the stage of a match or round thread involving neither side it's pretty stupid. Or when a mod has to post a warning about the bickering, by that stage the thread's already been destroyed.

Pro. F

Beasty wrote: »

Would be interested in feedback on the following concerning the charter

It's prescriptive and as a result very long. That also reflects the way changes have been introduced over the years often on the back of these feedback threads.

What's the general view on the way it is now? I personally think it could be cut down quite a lot if we move to a more "principle" based set of rules. So, using the abuse rule as an example. That is policed quite vigorously and has resulted in some posters getting carded for heat of the moment comments on players of the team they support. Equally some of the nicknames are often used as banter with no malicious intent. However under the rules a yellow usually follows. My suggestion would be to try to look at intent rather than the letter of the rule. I appreciate though that this would leave a lot more potential of differing views which in turn could make my job in the DRP more difficult.

If we were to move this way it may result in fewer yellows. In parallel though I would like to see more reds and possibly outright bans for any blatantly abusive or trolling posts/posters.

That may also need another look at the totting up process. I don't want to get too deeply into that though until we see whether there is any consensus for the sort of changes I have outlined above.

A principle based charter isn't practical. There are many unusual rules in the soccer forum and they are all there because they have been found to work over the years. Doing away with those rules and expecting the mods to be able to figure it out for themselves would be a disaster imo.

The reason derogatory nicknames get a yellow is because they always cause trouble and because the "banter" they engender is rubbish and easily found in every other football forum.

As others have said "heat of the moment" is a poor excuse and I'd be against it being considered valid.

Beasty wrote: »

A lot of things that often get a yellow here (such as blatant trolling and personal abuse towards other users) would usually attract a red or ban elsewhere on the site.

It explicitly says in the SF charter that personal abuse of posters is a red card offence.

Pro. F

Deleted User wrote: »

Also blatant "x-player is a <swearword>/other slur" posts should be treated with more harshly along with warnings for those thanking such posts. The last year or two such posts were occurring, and would just be followed by a mod warning and the blatant rule-breaking led to no actual punishment.

I'd say that is simply a poor call by the mod. The charter is clear that "x-player is a <swearword>/other slur" is a yellow card.

Pro. F

Pro. F wrote: »

I'd say that is simply a poor call by the mod. The charter is clear that "x-player is a <swearword>/other slur" is a yellow card.

I know the charter is clear, it just seems to be a common shortcut they like to take, especially when a few people have done it after something controversial.

Pro. F

Deleted User wrote: »

I know the charter is clear, it just seems to be a common shortcut they like to take, especially when a few people have done it after something controversial.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of that the rare time I've seen it happen.

Al Capwned

TheDoc wrote: »

.......
I've had some pretty horrible experiences in other forums, and one in particular that involved face to face meetings with Boards reps, but all in all I think this forum is very well run, and there seems to genuine common sense in place. In instances I've received infractions, warnings or cards, the mods involved have been good to explain the situation, and happy enough to respond to any queries I have.

Spill.
Go on....

Shanotheslayer

Give Liverpoool fans their own forum and give United fans there's and we'd have half the problems :pac:

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

Where the mods are too slow to nip it in the bud just dole out cards. :P

Er no, I just gave reasons why its difficult to have any discussion on it. Somebody can make a perfectly valid comparison and the "not another pool united argument" comes in, just as bad as the dick waving.




So because there's greater numbers of people (rather than Chelsea/Arsenal fans) who want to derail a thread then it's fine?

Absolute blanket ban I understand probably isn't suitable, but when it gets to the stage of a match or round thread involving neither side it's pretty stupid. Or when a mod has to post a warning about the bickering, by that stage the thread's already been destroyed.

That sounds reasonable, repeated offenders warned and banned would be fine by me.

Beasty

One thing on the totting up process. There are some posters who have racked up more than 1 six month ban in their time here. The rules say they need to reapply for access after 6 months, but in practice that rarely happens as the ban is automatically lifted

In my view a permaban should be issued if they have reached the specified threshold, and they would need to show they have reformed their behaviour (via their posting elsewhere on the site) before being considered for "parole". However anyone who has already had one such ban should be issued with a permaban without parole if they continue with their prior behaviour (and anyone re-regging to try and avoid any of these thresholds should be denied access or if they have somehow managed to evade being spotted they should expect a ban to come their way) - it would not have to await getting another 6 yellows before such a ban is issued - anyone who has had a 6+ month ban should consider themselves under licence and the mods could then issue a permaban for any further blatant rule breaches

Pro. F

Beasty wrote: »

One thing on the totting up process. There are some posters who have racked up more than 1 six month ban in their time here. The rules say they need to reapply for access after 6 months, but in practice that rarely happens as the ban is automatically lifted

In my view a permaban should be issued if they have reached the specified threshold, and they would need to show they have reformed their behaviour (via their posting elsewhere on the site) before being considered for "parole". However anyone who has already had one such ban should be issued with a permaban without parole if they continue with their prior behaviour (and anyone re-regging to try and avoid any of these thresholds should be denied access or if they have somehow managed to evade being spotted they should expect a ban to come their way) - it would not have to await getting another 6 yellows before such a ban is issued - anyone who has had a 6+ month ban should consider themselves under licence and the mods could then issue a permaban for any further blatant rule breaches

This is already covered in the charter:

A user who wishes to come back to the forum after a 6 infraction ban.


1) User applies through the soccer access forum with a special application (to be confirmed in the near future, before anyone who is due to come back is up for re-admittance).
2) Forum mods (and Cmods where the mods request it) will discuss the request and a response will be written on the application thread.
3) If the user is re-admitted, it is under the condition that if they get one infraction in the next three months they will be permanently banned. After the 3 month probation period they are considered full members of the forum once more.

LuckyLloyd

Yeah, just enforce the charter as far as that suggestion is concerned.

Pro. F

There's a problem with the cross-thread baiting rule as it's been implemented imo. Here's the two mentions from the charter:

Cross thread baiting/flaming may also be regarded as a form of trolling as well as being an attempt to threadspoil.

Crossthread baiting/flaming is regarded as an attempt at threadspoiling across a number of threads and will be treated as such.

As I remember it, this rule was requested by the posters in order to prevent a particular scenario. Namely, where posters would quote and respond to posts from rival fans in a thread other than the one where the original post was made. That resulted in the original post being slagged off while the original poster wouldn't get a chance to defend themselves.

In practice the rule has been used by mods to prohibit jokes about rival teams in superthreads and there have been plenty of yellows handed out for it. The users never requested or agreed to this new ban on jokes about rival teams in superthreads.

I suggest the cross-thread baiting rule be re-written like this:

Cross-thread baiting (ie quoting and responding antagonistically to a post in a thread other than the original, so that the original poster is denied the chance to defend themselves) is regarded as a form of flaming and will be treated as such.

That's a bit wordy, so maybe somebody can make it more concise while still covering all the points.

Will I Amnt

Pro. F wrote: »

There's a problem with the cross-thread baiting rule as it's been implemented imo. Here's the two mentions from the charter:



As I remember it, this rule was requested by the posters in order to prevent a particular scenario. Namely, where posters would quote and respond to posts from rival fans in a thread other than the one where the original post was made. That resulted in the original post being slagged off while the original poster wouldn't get a chance to defend themselves.

In practice the rule has been used by mods to prohibit jokes about rival teams in superthreads and there have been plenty of yellows handed out for it. The users never requested or agreed to this new ban on jokes about rival teams in superthreads.

I suggest the cross-thread baiting rule be re-written like this:

That's a bit wordy, so maybe somebody can make it more concise while still covering all the points.

I suggested that in the last feedback thread and many agreed, the rules that were brought in are nothing like what I was suggesting.

Donnielighto

Been reading back skipped some pages. What exactly is the issue with chelski? The only thing it does is reference the owners nationality, not exactly horrific.



One other thing I've seen mentioned is names and phrases not getting carded if they aren't reported, can mods card if they see it but it hasn't been reported?