Soccer Forum Feedback Thread 2015

Lord TSC

Donnielighto wrote: »

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?

Chelski was in the charter before I became a mod, so don't quite know, but would imagine it's because it's a term used by non-fans to take a shot at the club? Would imagine it only ever is used in a derogatory way.

As for the second, yes, mods can card without reported posts (and often do), but we will often miss non-reported posts as we can't read everything posted. In certain threads, we would rely heavily on reported posts as we might not see offending posts otherwise.

Panthro

I'd hold Chelski in the same way as I'd regard Lolerpool and Manure.
Rather Juvenile.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Caovyn Lineah

Can anything be done about blatantly berating a poster in the hope he/she will react and therefore get a card or a ban?

Pro. F

Caovyn Lineah wrote: »

Can anything be done about blatantly berating a poster in the hope he/she will react and therefore get a card or a ban?

From the charter:

9. In the case of abuse, should the abuse be a result of provocation, no matter how mild, the initiator will receive a yellow card infraction. Should the initiator be deemed to have purposefully provoked a user in order to report them, the mod may issue a red card infraction (ie. we will examine abuse and if the abuse was provoked, both parties will be sanctioned).

dfx-

Donnielighto wrote: »

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?

Yes, absolutely they are carded if they are seen from our own browsing etc. Reporting means they are more likely to be seen quicker.

On Chelski, it was introduced last year amongst a long feedsback thread discussion over the nature of the abuse rule and the interwoven trolling rule.

SlickRic

I'd just like to point out one other thing, especially in Superthreads.

It'd help the mods too if there was less condescending bullshít. Talk to each other the way you wouldn't mind being talked to. It's fairly simple.

Far too many times in superthreads, a couple of personalities will dominate, squabble, and ruin it for everyone. Then a mod has to come in, clean it up, and make the thread readable again.

Also, the ignore function is amazing. Don't forget to use it. Just because you don't like a post, doesn't necessarily mean it's trolling. If a poster gets up your nose, do yourself a favour, ignore them.

Life's too short, and it's only the Internet.

Lovely Bloke

Ignore function is a joke when imbeciles quote trolls

LiamoSail

United & Liverpool references in the humor thread should be banned.

There's not a single one that's funny enough to justify the series of unfunny tit for tat ****e that inevitably follows any United/Liverpool reference. It's always the same few that wreck an otherwise excellent thread

LiamoSail

On a separate point, what's the issue with Man Yoo?

As far as I can see it's just phonetic, and commonly used in Ireland, outside of those who mix in online super fan circles.

Am I missing something here?

SlickRic

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Ignore function is a joke when imbeciles quote trolls

Well than I would ask the imbeciles to stop quoting them.

It's all part of the 'don't be an idiot' umbrella that I'm encouraging people to congregate under.

Will I Amnt

SlickRic wrote: »

Well than I would ask the imbeciles to stop quoting them.

Asking for people to stop quoting a certain poster is a roundabout way of telling that poster you have them on ignore and would probably earn you a yellow no?

Mickeroo

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Asking for people to stop quoting a certain poster is a roundabout way of telling that poster you have them on ignore and would probably earn you a yellow no?

We can't card PMs,

Pro. F

Could the mods address the post I made about the cross-thread baiting rule?

This thread is due to close tomorrow iirc, I hope it won't be closed before that issue has been discussed.

Mickeroo

Pro. F wrote: »

Could the mods address the post I made about the cross-thread baiting rule?

This thread is due to close tomorrow iirc, I hope it won't be closed before that issue has been discussed.

The rule already covers the scenario you put forward as far as I can see.

pmasterson95

I still think the Brenda/Rodgers thing is harsh. I can mis-type on my phone if my fingers dont hit screen properly. Getting carded for omitting the "n" in Brendan would be harsh?

Pro. F

Mickeroo wrote: »

The rule already covers the scenario you put forward as far as I can see.

Yes the rule covers the original scenario that it was intended to cover. It also covers, and is being used to enforce, things which it was not intended to cover, because it is vaguely written and so is overly broad.

That was the whole point of my post. The posters requested a particular rule, but the mods introduced and overly broad rule and so have unilaterally added a new rule that has no right being in the charter.

padd b1975

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I still think the Brenda/Rodgers thing is harsh. I can mis-type on my phone if my fingers dont hit screen properly. Getting carded for omitting the "n" in Brendan would be harsh?

Ninja edit and type your reason at the bottom.

Mickeroo

I don't see how making the rule only applicable to one specific type cross thread baiting would benefit the forum tbh.

Pro. F

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't see how making the rule only applicable to one specific type cross thread baiting would benefit the forum tbh.

First of all, can you acknowledge what happened?

The posters requested a new rule to prevent a specific type of behaviour - 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. The mods agreed to do that, but wrote a vaguely defined rule and started also prohibiting a different type of behaviour (making jokes about rival teams in your own superthread) on the back of it.

Do you agree that this is what happened?

Turtyturd

padd b1975 wrote: »

Ninja edit and type your reason at the bottom.

Or just type Rodgers. Majority of players/managers are referred to by their surname.

It's not really a difficult situation to avoid.

That_Guy

I'm only really in and out of the Bohs/Newcastle related threads. I won't specifically mention names here but surely, when you make outlandish statements, are called on it to engage in a proper debate and that poster(s) ignore it and returns a couple of days later to make more outlandish statements; can something not be done about it?

It's infuriating and blatant form of trolling imo.

EDIT: I don't see the problem with Man Yoo, Brenda Rodgers, Liverpoo etc etc

There's far worse posted in the humour thread in my opinion. It's childish sure but if you're offended by things like that then football probably isn't the sport for you.

dfx-

Pro. F wrote: »

First of all, can you acknowledge what happened?

The posters requested a new rule to prevent a specific type of behaviour - 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. The mods agreed to do that, but wrote a vaguely defined rule and started also prohibiting a different type of behaviour (making jokes about rival teams in your own superthread) on the back of it.

Do you agree that this is what happened?

Cross thread baiting can take many forms, you don't need to quote a post to do it. You can just start talking about the rival thread or "I went to the United thread and they're so deluded on [such and such]". So it needs to be broader and I don't see enough disagreement with it.

Such specificity brings about rules lawyering which I would be very happy to see decrease.

Gbear

Just add all the common nicknames to the swear filter and have them print the full correctly spelled and capitalised name of the coach/team.

There we go. Problem solved.

Pro. F

dfx- wrote: »

Cross thread baiting can take many forms, you don't need to quote a post to do it. You can just start talking about the rival thread or "I went to the United thread and they're so deluded on [such and such]". So it needs to be broader and I don't see enough disagreement with it.

Such specificity brings about rules lawyering which I would be very happy to see decrease.

Okay, so that is a reasonable argument. The rule might need to be slightly broader than I first described. I'd be interested in discussing that.

However, you are still failing to address the initial point I made. Nobody requested a ban on jokes about rival teams from superthreads, but the mods decided to introduce such a ban unilaterally. The fact that they did this by misusing a rule that the posters had requested I think is a serious issue.

dfx-

To my knowledge and from what I'm seeing reported by posters, cross thread baiting in all forms is an issue for posters and not just the specific type you have picked out and outlined.

You're saying nobody requested it, but from what I've seen, that's what people want.

Pro. F

dfx- wrote: »

To my knowledge and from what I'm seeing reported by posters, cross thread baiting in all forms is an issue for posters and not just the specific type you have picked out and outlined.

I'm not denying that making jokes about rival teams in a superthread is an issue for some posters. If the posters wanted a ban on those jokes then they could have requested one and we could have discussed it before it was put in the charter.

Do you deny that the rule that was requested by posters and agreed upon by the mods, was not requested with the intention of banning jokes about rival teams* in superthreads? Like Will I Amnt says, that the rule he suggested was nothing like the one that was subsequently brought in.

* Just to be clear, I'm talking about jokes about rival teams, not jokes about rival team superthreads.

Beasty

Gbear wrote: »

Just add all the common nicknames to the swear filter and have them print the full correctly spelled and capitalised name of the coach/team.

There we go. Problem solved.

The swear filter covers the whole site - we cannot apply/impose SF rules elsewhere and poor Brenda Fricker would wonder what she had done wrong if we could/did

K-9

dfx- wrote: »

Cross thread baiting can take many forms, you don't need to quote a post to do it. You can just start talking about the rival thread or "I went to the United thread and they're so deluded on [such and such]". So it needs to be broader and I don't see enough disagreement with it.

Such specificity brings about rules lawyering which I would be very happy to see decrease.

Have to agree on that, calling opinions in a rivals team deluded is stupidity, trolling and down right winding up others.

Nalz

K-9 wrote: »

Have to agree on that, calling opinions in a rivals team deluded is stupidity, trolling and down right winding up others.

Not all of the time.

Pro. F

From the OP this thread is due to be closed tomorrow. But I'm still waiting on responses to the question that I asked Mickeroo and Dfx about the cross-thread baiting issue (I think neither of them have been on the forum since I asked the question). So could the thread be left open a bit longer to discuss this further?

The Moldy Gowl

Pro. F wrote: »

From the OP this thread is due to be closed tomorrow. But I'm still waiting on responses to the question that I asked Mickeroo and Dfx about the cross-thread baiting issue (I think neither of them have been on the forum since I asked the question). So could the thread be left open a bit longer to discuss this further?

If someone is following you around threads just report it?

Pro. F

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

If someone is following you around threads just report it?

It's nothing like that.

GavRedKing

I'll close this thread later this evening, incase anyone has any other issues they want to raise

TheDoc

Al Capwned wrote: »

Spill.
Go on....

haha easy

It was a properly organised meeting that resulted in some pretty constructive discussions. Although thinking back on it, it wasn't with mods( although one was present) it was a meeting with the higher level of administration and Dav was leading discussions.

It was a very odd scenario but somewhat required as boards(like many other things) had become the epicentre of the community that was building at the time. (Although since, has migrated away to other platforms, mostly Facebook)

Cantona's Collars

One small thing before the thread is closed is the issue of some posters who are habitually reporting posts ad nauseum,I won't go dragging up the issues we had before with certain posters using other media to basically set up posters and report them on this site but it still seems that a certain few just live to report every little thing then thank each other's posts.

Dozen Wicked Words

zerks wrote: »

One small thing before the thread is closed is the issue of some posters who are habitually reporting posts ad nauseum,I won't go dragging up the issues we had before with certain posters using other media to basically set up posters and report them on this site but it still seems that a certain few just live to report every little thing then thank each other's posts.

How do you know who is reporting what?

Darkglasses

zerks wrote: »

One small thing before the thread is closed is the issue of some posters who are habitually reporting posts ad nauseum,I won't go dragging up the issues we had before with certain posters using other media to basically set up posters and report them on this site but it still seems that a certain few just live to report every little thing then thank each other's posts.

To be clear, how do you know who reports what?

Dozen Wicked Words

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

How do you know who is reporting what?

Yeah, it's a fairly big accusation to be throwing out there

Cantona's Collars

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

How do you know who is reporting what?

As I said,we had an issue before with a group of posters using Twitter to basically work out ways of getting other posters banned.A couple were permabanned but a few are still around and as soon as a poster gets a warning they are celebrating it.
I'm sure mods know those who are constantly hitting report & I reckon the majority of stuff is ignored at this stage as they know the craic.We all see fans of other clubs popping into other threads looking for reasons to be offended,that's how this whole issue of the word "slippy" suddenly becoming an offensive term.It's as if come posters are stalking others just to find an excuse to report them.

Turtyturd

Million dollar question.

Also any chance someone could answer about the mod complaint process before the thread is closed?

The Moldy Gowl

zerks wrote: »

As I said,we had an issue before with a group of posters using Twitter to basically work out ways of getting other posters banned.A couple were permabanned but a few are still around and as soon as a poster gets a warning they are celebrating it.
I'm sure mods know those who are constantly hitting report & I reckon the majority of stuff is ignored at this stage as they know the craic.We all see fans of other clubs popping into other threads looking for reasons to be offended,that's how this whole issue of the word "slippy" suddenly becoming an offensive term.It's as if come posters are stalking others just to find an excuse to report them.

Every reported post creates a new thread in the reported post forum. Every single mod and admin can see these posts.
It would eventually be spotted.
Become friends with a mod so he will tell you, or become an admin so you can't be banned.
If it happens it's eventually spotted

Dozen Wicked Words

zerks wrote: »

As I said,we had an issue before with a group of posters using Twitter to basically work out ways of getting other posters banned.A couple were permabanned but a few are still around and as soon as a poster gets a warning they are celebrating it.
I'm sure mods know those who are constantly hitting report & I reckon the majority of stuff is ignored at this stage as they know the craic.We all see fans of other clubs popping into other threads looking for reasons to be offended,that's how this whole issue of the word "slippy" suddenly becoming an offensive term.It's as if come posters are stalking others just to find an excuse to report them.

Cheers, sort of thought that was what your first post meant, but am amazed people can be bothered to organise themselves for something like that.

zerks

zerks wrote: »

As I said,we had an issue before with a group of posters using Twitter to basically work out ways of getting other posters banned.A couple were permabanned but a few are still around and as soon as a poster gets a warning they are celebrating it.
I'm sure mods know those who are constantly hitting report & I reckon the majority of stuff is ignored at this stage as they know the craic.We all see fans of other clubs popping into other threads looking for reasons to be offended,that's how this whole issue of the word "slippy" suddenly becoming an offensive term.It's as if come posters are stalking others just to find an excuse to report them.

I'd say you'll need solid proof for such as accusation.

Once again bringing up your own yellow card goes against what the feedback is for. That's why DRP is there. Surely only a person who makes the post is accountable for their actions?

Beasty

Turtyturd wrote: »

Also any chance someone could answer about the mod complaint process before the thread is closed?

Must have missed that one - where/what's been mentioned/requested on this?

Cantona's Collars

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Every reported post creates a new thread in the reported post forum. Every single mod and admin can see these posts.
It would eventually be spotted.
Become friends with a mod so he will tell you, or become an admin so you can't be banned.
If it happens it's eventually spotted

Would using a mods power to see these posts and disclosing said info not be seen as an abuse of their position?

Speaking of mods,I'm sure it's been brought up before but couldn't certain issues be solved with a quick in thread warning if something crops up instead of cards and passing the buck by saying take it further and not engaging with posters.The issue would be solved there and then so everybody knows where they stand.Sure if it's serious,eg.Personal abuse then send it up higher but many are minor issues that just need a pm or in thread Mod note.

As an example,I had an issue in another forum where a post was reported but 2 pm's later with the mod the issue was solved and the card was actually rescinded.This approach might actually help here.

Beasty

zerks wrote: »

Would using a mods power to see these posts and disclosing said info not be seen as an abuse of their position?

Absolutely - it is a clear rule that anyone with access to info from the mods forums must not divulge it to non-mods/non-Admins

Lord TSC

zerks wrote: »

As an example,I had an issue in another forum where a post was reported but 2 pm's later with the mod the issue was solved and the card was actually rescinded.This approach might actually help here.

Speaking personally, I'd say a good 1/4 of the yellows I issue are rescinded. A lot more would probably be, if people didn't have a habit of responding to a card with abuse, conspiracy theories, responsibility dodging and blaming others.

I'll also always try and issue in thread warnings first (I think all the mods would be like that), but there's only so many times specific people can get warnings before you have to escalate it. If someone is repeatedly falling foul of the same breach of charter, then you do lose patience and realise no amount of warnings will fix the problem. If someone continually ignores the warnings, there's not much point issuing another. If a problem keeps occuring, there's only so long before the cards have to come out

Cantona's Collars

Lord TSC wrote: »

Speaking personally, I'd say a good 1/4 of the yellows I issue are rescinded. A lot more would probably be, if people didn't have a habit of responding to a card with abuse, conspiracy theories, responsibility dodging and blaming others.

I thought he was site banned;)

It's just the fact that sometimes (even hours after the fact) that a card is handed out when it might be better to try to deal with an issue asap.

bucketybuck

zerks wrote: »

I'm sure mods know those who are constantly hitting report & I reckon the majority of stuff is ignored at this stage as they know the craic.

This would be my concern.

Humans are good at spotting patterns, so I am happy to assume that the mods are perfectly intelligent and so would indeed spot a pattern of the same old posters repeatedly reporting posts, if such a pattern exists.

That being the case, I would then expect that they do not just ignore the reports because "they know the craic", but that they take action against people abusing the report function. Regular posters can roll their eyes and ignore malicious complainers but mods should be spotting what is in effect a form of bullying.

Theres no way for me to know if any of this is happening, but if the mods know then I hope they would act upon it.