Soccer Forum Feedback Thread 2015

Al Capwned

Was it not already stated by someone on thread that words were had with poster(s) abusing the report function?

Edit - yep, here it is.

GavRedKing wrote: »

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

GavRedKing

In thread warnings for me should only happen for certain incidents, like the Adam Johnson case recently for example, you dont want slander on the site so you'd want to warn people about their posting early doors so everyone knows where they stand. (I hope there was in thread warning, I'm just using it as an example off the top of my head).

However, when it comes to match threads and super threads, people are here long enough to know whats not allowed so too many in thread warnings are, IMO, giving people the chance to get across tiny digs. Its like death by 1000 little cuts rather than a striking blow.

I'm all for working things out via PM with users but as Lord TSC has said above, its not always easy to do that so it has to go to a DRP for CMod & Admin review and if it goes that far and by that time, 3 seperate individuals go against you, its probably not 3 people making 3 wrong calls, rather an individual issue at the source that a miniority of users dont learn from or take in board, rarely enough though IMO.

Cantona's Collars

bucketybuck wrote: »

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.

+1

We've all seen match threads descend into farce and cards dished out while the original antagonists slink away,it's as if doing this is a badge of honour.Cause chaos,report posters who react and sit back to admire the anarchy.Mods should seriously look at serial post reporters.It puts people off posting and especially this year we've seen occassional posters pop in and end up declaring "this is why I rarely post here anymore".
People want to voice their opinions without worrying over every phrase or sentence they use in case somebody deems it reportable.

GavRedKing

Al Capwned wrote: »

Was it not already stated by someone on thread that words were had with poster(s) abusing the report function?

I did and I'm not sure how many people it was over the years but its a tiny, tiny amount, somewhere between 2-5 people from my time on the Mod team and even 5 could be slightly higher than I remember correctly.

The vast majority are reporting what they believe to be genuine issues and thats what you want and need in the forum or else things get overlooked.

Do posters go into match thread break the charter and leave the thread? I find that hard to believe. Mods are on top of this and it's something that has been very much improved.

If people stick to the charter and post in a decent fashion their post won't be reported in the first place.

Mickeroo

If a post is reported and acted on then the poster who reported it isn't usually the issue, post aren't actioned just because they're reported. If someone is abusing the reported post function it's usually fairly obvious, and fwiw it hardly ever happens anyway.

Beasty

Just to add - sometimes the mods may miss something that is reported. Not everyone is around all the time (and mods actually sometimes like going to or watching matches without worrying about what's happening here). Often things don't get dealt with until well after a match, or the mods may think someone else has dealt with it. If after, say, 24 hours, you think something may have been missed, there's no harm in reporting a second time. Beyond that though please don't continue reporting in the hope someone may deal with something you have an issue with - if it remains a concern drop one of the mods a PM. They will hopefully get back to you reasonably quickly. Again though please don't keep banging on about something simply because you do not agree with a mod's view - if it's still bothering you at that stage, drop a PM to one of the CMods (probably better me as I keep more of an eye on what's going on around here that Sparks or Steve)

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

bucketybuck

rarnes1 wrote: »

Do posters go into match thread break the charter and leave the thread?

Of course they do, and not only match threads, unless you mean flagrant breaches of the charter rather than the far more insidious practice of dropping inflammatory posts and then sitting back to watch the mess.

I can think of one poster who is notorious for doing this, both with individual posts and new threads. But he is still here, testament to his ability to walk a very fine line. If only us humans weren't so good at spotting those patterns...

SlickRic

zerks wrote: »

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.

What sort of 'minor issues' are you talking about, can I ask?

Also, mods normally do try to solve really minor issues with a thread warning or a PM. I do it all the time. but there is also the issue of some people just not learning.

We can't just keep PM'ing, and doing thread warnings. there have to be consequences at some point.

so yeah, what are these 'minor issues' you speak of?

Pro. F

So it looks at this stage like the mod team have said all they're going to say on the cross-thread baiting issue. I have to say I'm dissapointed with the way this has been dealt with.

I can understand that the mods think that banning all jokes about rival teams in superthreads is the way to go. I can believe that the mods feel that this is what the majority of the forum wants. But when it is such an extreme rule, to introduce it in such an underhanded way (subverting a new rule that posters had requested, so that it does something quite different from what they requested) is really poor form imo. I'm not saying that the mods set out on purpose to subvert this new rule to their own ends, but rather that they were extremely careless in how they implemented it and have failed to honestly review what has gone on.

From the discussion I've had with the mods about the issue on this thread they don't even seem to be acknowledging that this is how the rule was introduced, but when asked directly they pass no comment on that question and offer no alternative explanation.

This episode really does not inspire trust in the mod team to treat poster input on the charter with the proper care it needs. And the idea that the mods can introduce new, arbitrary and draconian rules to the charter without first having to run them past the forum users runs contrary to the whole idea of having community input on how the forum is modded.

It's all very reminiscent of what happened with the Michael Jackson / popcorn gif rule when that was introduced. The fact that something so similar has happened again a year later shows that the current process for introducing new rules is badly flawed.

dfx-

Pro. F wrote: »

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.

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?

I'm not disagreeing with or denying how Will I Amnt or anyone put forward the original rule, but after discussing with mods, CMods and looking at it, the broader rule was introduced after feedback which includes reported posts and PMs. There are mod discussions after every feedback thread and what can be introduced or removed afterwards. If this involves expansion of the point or condensing the charter, I feel the mods should be free to do this with due reason.

The specific issue comes under its umbrella. So the specific issue was covered and other similar issues with cross thread baiting were also covered.

Pro. F

dfx- wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with or denying how Will I Amnt or anyone put forward the original rule, but after discussing with mods, CMods and looking at it, the broader rule was introduced after feedback which includes reported posts and PMs. There are mod discussions after every feedback thread and what can be introduced or removed afterwards. If this involves expansion of the point or condensing the charter, I feel the mods should be free to do this with due reason.

The specific issue comes under its umbrella. So the specific issue was covered and other similar issues with cross thread baiting were also covered.

Thanks for the reply. That's clear and directly addresses my questions.

I think the bolded bit is the crux of the issue. You, the mod team, see those types of changes to user proposed rules as within your remit. I wasn't aware of that and I don't think the mods have ever previously informed us that this was what was going on when user proposed rules were adopted.

Surely if the mods decided to change a user proposed rule so drastically when they were introducing it to the charter, it would have been best for that change to have been explicitly stated and explained at the time. As it is, it seems we gained a significant new rule added to the charter with no announcement or explanation. (It's possible I just missed the announcement and explanation or have forgotten it, there was a lot going on in the SF and feedback last summer with the WC and my memory can be dodgy. So I'm open to correction on this.)

Cantona's Collars

SlickRic wrote: »

What sort of 'minor issues' are you talking about, can I ask?

Also, mods normally do try to solve really minor issues with a thread warning or a PM. I do it all the time. but there is also the issue of some people just not learning.

We can't just keep PM'ing, and doing thread warnings. there have to be consequences at some point.

so yeah, what are these 'minor issues' you speak of?

We all have moments when posters are baited to purely get a reaction,then inevitably they get pissed off and lose the rag and get carded while the originator of the antagonism swans off happy in the knowledge they got somebody carded.Plus unexpected rule changes that not everybody has seen who are bewildered as to why they are in trouble.It's usually not major stuff but can be annoying.

There was an issue before with a certain poster getting a mod to check who reported his post,that poster is no longer here but took to other social media and message boards to vent letting us know what he was at.If people feel there's any kind of bias on the part of the mods how can they have faith in the policing of this forum?

5starpool

zerks wrote: »

We all have moments when posters are baited to purely get a reaction,then inevitably they get pissed off and lose the rag and get carded while the originator of the antagonism swans off happy in the knowledge they got somebody carded.Plus unexpected rule changes that not everybody has seen who are bewildered as to why they are in trouble.It's usually not major stuff but can be annoying.

There was an issue before with a certain poster getting a mod to check who reported his post,that poster is no longer here but took to other social media and message boards to vent letting us know what he was at.If people feel there's any kind of bias on the part of the mods how can they have faith in the policing of this forum?

Do you think mods on this forum are biased? One of them? All of them?

SlickRic

zerks wrote: »

We all have moments when posters are baited to purely get a reaction,then inevitably they get pissed off and lose the rag and get carded while the originator of the antagonism swans off happy in the knowledge they got somebody carded.

Yes, sometimes this happens. I believe it's been dealt with better recently. We'll endeavour to make sure low level trolling is kept to a minimum though.

People usually fall foul of trolling when venturing into other superthreads, so a word of warning to people who do cross the divide (particularly the Utd/Liverpool one)...you don't have to agree with everyone, but you need to be civil.

The 'rule change' thing has been dealt with, but just to say, if people don't engage in using stupid, childish, potentially offensive names, then they'll never have a problem.

zerks wrote: »

There was an issue before with a certain poster getting a mod to check who reported his post,that poster is no longer here but took to other social media and message boards to vent letting us know what he was at.If people feel there's any kind of bias on the part of the mods how can they have faith in the policing of this forum?

I don't fully understand what you're saying about a 'certain poster' other than to say there's probably nothing I can say to someone who already thinks we're biased that will make them think we're not biased.

We're not out to get anyone. Why would we want that sort of work and effort? DRPs, PM arguments, chats with CMods. I think I can speak for the mods in saying none of us search out for that sort of work.

Beasty

Pro. F wrote: »

I think the bolded bit is the crux of the issue. You, the mod team, see those types of changes to user proposed rules as within your remit.

It is absolutely within their remit, as it is across the site. Mods can make/change rules as they see appropriate for the better running of the forum. If posters have an issue with rules, this type of thread gives them the opportunity to comment as they see fit. Beyond that posters can consider starting a thread in the Help Desk or Feedback, or directly communicate with CMods to express their concerns

Cantona's Collars

5starpool wrote: »

Do you think mods on this forum are biased? One of them? All of them?

Did I say they were biased? If so please feel free to quote it.

All I said that if posters felt there was a hint of bias then they'd lose faith in the system.Proof of some stuff that went on before between a poster and a mod basically telling tales on who reported posts in soccer was put up on social media.This and other stuff was discussed before but if people want to plough up old ground then so be it.
My point is that posters need to feel that processes are being followed without any influences,I think Turtyturd pretty much asked the same earlier about modding.

SlickRic

Have any of the current mods been doing this?

If not, I don't see the point of your comment.

Of course if we're biased the system won't work. That's obvious.

zerks

zerks wrote: »

I thought he was site banned;)

zerks wrote: »

There was an issue before with a certain poster getting a mod to check who reported his post,that poster is no longer here but took to other social media and message boards to vent letting us know what he was at.If people feel there's any kind of bias on the part of the mods how can they have faith in the policing of this forum?

zerks wrote: »

Proof of some stuff that went on before between a poster and a mod basically telling tales on who reported posts in soccer was put up on social media.This and other stuff was discussed before but if people want to plough up old ground then so be it.
.

Sounds like a vandetta more than feedback.

I find this type of posting one of the worst types on the SF tbh. Thankfully it's not that common. Nothing against you Zerks but this type of nonsense about ex-posters? What does it add. You have an axe to grind against someone that used to post here and a mod by the sounds of it.

Not really sure who you're talking about, but I'd hazard a guess at 3 or 4 people, there's so many gone the last while. Anyway, it doesn't matter the identity.

I'd bet 99.99% of posters don't care for this stuff. People come to talk soccer. This is the type of stuff that takes the fun out of posting tbh.

Cantona's Collars

rarnes1 wrote: »

Sounds like a vandetta more than feedback.

I find this type of posting one of the worst types on the SF tbh. Thankfully it's not that common. Nothing against you Zerks but this type of nonsense about ex-posters? What does it add. You have an axe to grind against someone that used to post here and a mod by the sounds of it.

Not really sure who you're talking about, but I'd hazard a guess at 3 or 4 people, there's so many gone the last while. Anyway, it doesn't matter the identity.

I'd bet 99.99% of posters don't care for this stuff. People come to talk soccer. This is the type of stuff that takes the fun out of posting tbh.

Not a vendetta at all,of course you know who it is,only the new arrivals won't but what went on set a precedent especially when said individual named names on social media and posted PM's from here.
As I said,Turtyturd brought up the problem if a poster has an issue with a mod and what to do about it,I haven't seen any issues there,sure I felt like I was banging my head against a wall dealing with them at times but nothing serious enough to go to war over.Maybe others have and I was just trying to make sure that we can have faith in mods and the processes of policing the forum,what I posted about stuff going on before is the thing that sows seeds of doubt in people being dealt a fair hand and mods breaking the code by divulging information not meant for the likes of you or I.
I'm not accusing any of the mods here now of doing anything like that but it happened and we'd like assurances it won't happen again.

Beasty

zerks wrote: »

I'm not accusing any of the mods here now of doing anything like that but it happened and we'd like assurances it won't happen again.

To my knowledge there has never been any suggestion of this happening with mods of the SF. I certainly cannot comment about mods from non-sports forums, but I have already made it absolutely clear in this thread that such behaviour is simply not acceptable

Pro. F

Beasty wrote: »

It is absolutely within their remit, as it is across the site. Mods can make/change rules as they see appropriate for the better running of the forum.

And do you think it is a good idea for the mods to make these changes, introducing new bans on common behaviours, without announcing to the forum that that is what they have done? Is this commonly done by mods across the site?

Cantona's Collars

Beasty wrote: »

To my knowledge there has never been any suggestion of this happening with mods of the SF. I certainly cannot comment about mods from non-sports forums, but I have already made it absolutely clear in this thread that such behaviour is simply not acceptable

It has happened in the SF as the pm's were posted online for all to see but hopefully that was an isolated incident.I'm not suggesting anybody is doing similar now.

Pro. F

Beasty wrote: »

To my knowledge there has never been any suggestion of this happening with mods of the SF. I certainly cannot comment about mods from non-sports forums, but I have already made it absolutely clear in this thread that such behaviour is simply not acceptable

Just in case anybody reading this might be conned by Zerks' mud slinging, the mod that Zerks is talking about was never a mod on the soccer forum and has subsequently been sitebanned.

GavRedKing

And we're done.

Cheers for all the feedback people and an update on any changes will be posted here in due course.