Feedback Thread 2016 - Mod Warning in OP

K-9

Paully D wrote: »

I think your post is very good Lloyd but I'd have to disagree on this point to a certain extent.

For example, there's probably about 3 posters on here who would have any interest in say a typical Sunderland v [insert team outside the big guns here] game at 3pm on a Saturday. A match thread would be doing well to reach 10 posts and IMO it would be a waste when it can be discussed in the superthread.

In fairness it would probably work extremely well for Manchester United and Liverpool games due to the volume of discussion their games generate on here, but then there's a situation where it's one rule for a certain section of fans and another for others.

Ah yeah, there's no call for a Sunderland vs. West Ham match thread, that's overkill.

But as somebody posted earlier, if there's a match thread, use it for match stuff, it's a simple enough thing to do and was a rule enforced when superthreads started, no match discussion while the match is on. Obviously posts at half time or general points about a manager would be fine, I'd leave it to mod discretion.

As Lloyd said previously it may not be a big problem now but you have to look at 12 or 24 months down the line. If more and more match discussion happens in superthreads we are on the path to fan forum style posting and this isn't a fan forum, boards is the exact opposite and anything encouraging it should be stamped down on.

Again, if it's Palace vs. City and is only going to get 20 posts fair enough, or a pre season friendly that most neutrals aren't bothered about, only fans of the team involved.

inforfun

I had no idea the forum was a free for all during WC2014 so can hardly be against it to be open again for the Euro's.

Can Holland play in this forum or didnt we qualify for that either?

Liam McPoyle

BMMachine wrote: »

numerous replies but none from people that have any power.
trollish to people that quite ironically want to protect themselves because they love trolling.
"stop trolling the humour thread?! but I love trolling! I'll just thank any poster that disagrees with him and pretend the trolling doesn't happen"

as I said, its simple and its obvious. For some reason certain trolls are protected because this website is a giant bureaucracy. A small example is the distortion of what is acceptable on one thread but not another on one forum, such as this.
Either tell us and mark down that trolling is allowed on the thread or remove the trolling and those involved. I can pick 3 people from the top of my head who if removed from the thread there would be no issue whatsoever. All 3 are well known trolls, all 3 have had disciplinary problems in this forum and all 3 enjoy doing it. I know thats really blunt, but its accurate and those reading, they know it

Is the attached trolling?

You singled out a post about LFC in the humour thread.

You mention 3 posters you could name, I'd be fairly confident I could guess who you are talking about.

You also took to the United thread over the space of a week or so a few months back to basically take posters to task in a delightfully condescending manner about piss taking.

Is "trolling" acceptable once its not directed at the team you support?

K-9

Giggsy11 wrote: »

People getting salty over humour thread? If that bothers so much just don't open the thread.

I don't know about others but I find few of the posts very funny and found them funny even when we had Moyes in charge. what's the point if you can't even laugh at little things?

Also same poster brining it every time feedback thread is opened. If some 3 posters annoy you so much then use ignore function and grease monkey addon, that will solve the problem.

On the whole this forum is grand. Mods have done excellent job, not perfect but one of the best moderated forums. Even more impressive considering this is not a dedicated forum for individual clubs.

What ManUtd fans do when Liverpool are not winning and what Liverpool/City fans do when ManUtd are not winning is so obvious but sometimes it's a good laugh.

Nail on head, nobody should want a sterile forum either. If a Liverpool or Arsenal fan can't take a bit of stick on a match thread from a United or Chelsea fan well...

Also a reason match discuss while the match is ongoing should be on the dedicated thread. People tend to be even more defensive in their "own patch" as it were.

Flint Fredstone

K-9 wrote: »

Ah yeah, there's no call for a Sunderland vs. West Ham match thread, that's overkill.

But as somebody posted earlier, if there's a match thread, use it for match stuff, it's a simple enough thing to do and was a rule enforced when superthreads started, no match discussion while the match is on. Obviously posts at half time or general points about a manager would be fine, I'd leave it to mod discretion.

As Lloyd said previously it may not be a big problem now but you have to look at 12 or 24 months down the line. If more and more match discussion happens in superthreads we are on the path to fan forum style posting and this isn't a fan forum, boards is the exact opposite and anything encouraging it should be stamped down on.

Again, if it's Palace vs. City and is only going to get 20 posts fair enough, or a pre season friendly that most neutrals aren't bothered about, only fans of the team involved.

You're basically forcing it on the United and Liverpool fans only if you do it that way. I think it works fine the way it is. Some people just couldn't be arsed reading through a mountain of one and two word posts or the stuff that goes on when your team is losing.

It doesn't affect me at all as I don't post when my team are playing but I totally understand why people don't bother with it.

K-9

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

You're basically forcing it on the United and Liverpool fans only if you do it that way. I think it works fine the way it is. Some people just couldn't be arsed reading through a mountain of one and two word posts or the stuff that goes on when your team is losing.

It doesn't affect me at all as I don't post when my team are playing but I totally understand why people don't bother with it.

It isn't really forcing it on United or Liverpool fans though, they are the clubs with the biggest fan base, what clubs they are is incidental. Chelsea, Arsenal, City or whatever fans who are involved in a high profile match all get treated the same.

The point about one or two word posts, it isn't as if the standard of discussion about matches is higher in a superthread, it's still "hey ref" type posts.

The problem is the snowball effect, it starts as a couple of posters, then a few, before you know it...

Match discussion will happen before and after the game anyway.

The principle is fans cross posting on threads should be encouraged on an open forum like this.

Flint Fredstone

K-9 wrote: »

It isn't really forcing it on United or Liverpool fans though, they are the clubs with the biggest fan base, what clubs they are is incidental. Chelsea, Arsenal, City or whatever fans who are involved in a high profile match all get treated the same.

The point about one or two word posts, it isn't as if the standard of discussion about matches is higher in a superthread, it's still "hey ref" type posts.

The problem is the snowball effect, it starts as a couple of posters, then a few, before you know it...

Match discussion will happen before and after the game anyway.

The principle is fans cross posting on threads should be encouraged on an open forum like this.

It is though. City, Arsenal and Chelsea fans don't really do match threads unless it's against each other or United/Liverpool. United and Liverpool have match threads for every game of the season in every competition.

As I said, I think it's fine the way it is. I don't see it snowballing at all. If it becomes a huge problem then it can be dealt with down the line. The forum is running better than ever at the moment and changing something like that could have a knock on effect.

K-9

It isn't changing it, that's the thing!

Liam O

Yeah don't see a major problem with how it is now, it's not like the match threads have become any different from this practice.

Polo_Mint

The United / Liverpool Match threads are a mess every week.

Free for All

Sure you can see it in both Superthreads.

One loses and the Posts in the opposition Super thread will be:

"Off to the match thread to rip the piss" :pac:

The posts in the Match thread banter/ Trolling would not be allowed in the Super threads.

So why is it allowed in the Match threads if its under the same charter?

K-9

When people watch a match they are more reactive because well, they are responding to events as they happen, that's the difference. Superthreads shouldn't be clogged up with "that was a free kick" minutae either.

Trolling should be stamped down on in match threads, but there's plenty of humour and piss taking in them that is no harm.

The biggest problem in match threads are those who can dish it out when it suits, but not take it back when their team gets a bad result. Those types should not be pandered in anyway whatsoever and if it was me, I'd treat it as trolling.

Flint Fredstone

K-9 wrote: »

When people watch a match they are more reactive because well, they are responding to events as they happen, that's the difference. Superthreads shouldn't be clogged up with "that was a free kick" minutae either.

Trolling should be stamped down on in match threads, but there's plenty of humour and piss taking in them that is no harm.

The biggest problem in match threads are those who can dish it out when it suits, but not take it back when their team gets a bad result. Those types should not be pandered in anyway whatsoever and if it was me, I'd treat it as trolling.

A million times this. It's easy enough to slink off from a match thread after a defeat but some people hang around waiting to be offended.

Buford T. Justice XIX

+1

I rarely venture into match threads any more when Liverpool lose. While it should be a place to discuss what happened during the match, in effect it's a septic swamp of name calling and low-level trolling.

That's why so much posting goes on in superthreads during the match, you can have a discussion with other supporters without some schoolground-level 'banter'.

Also, it's fine to encourage cross-thread posting as it could turn into an interesting discussion but I remember when Mourinho was appointed last week, one poster ran into the Liverpool superthread, mickey swinging, with trolling their only intention.

I'm not 12 any more and I would imagine most on here would be a bit beyond that stage but it seems to be a recurring theme here more so than other sites I post on.

That_Guy

Beasty wrote: »

The Euros kick off next week, and it may take a day or two to open up access (which is over to the office to do). If anyone has any comments on this (I see there have already been a few approving) could you perhaps post them sooner rather than later as a decision will be required quite quickly

Thanks

Just on this.

I have no issue with opening up the SF as such but you're kinda hoping then that new posters will exclusively stick to the Euro match threads/superthreads rather than trolling in superthreads etc.

Would it not be better to create a sub forum exclusively for the Euros and have that as open access and then close it a few days after when the tournament is over?

I think it'd be a fair bit easier to manage in a contained forum rather than in the general soccer forum.

Just my 2 cents.

Beasty

That_Guy wrote: »

Just on this.

I have no issue with opening up the SF as such but you're kinda hoping then that new posters will exclusively stick to the Euro match threads/superthreads rather than trolling in superthreads etc.

Would it not be better to create a sub forum exclusively for the Euros and have that as open access and then close it a few days after when the tournament is over?

I think it'd be a fair bit easier to manage in a contained forum rather than in the general soccer forum.

Just my 2 cents.

When we opened up fo the last WC, my recollection is the only ones doing any trolling already had access. Those who did not have access generally posted in a civil manner, and some stuck around, going through the formal access process for the subsequent season

IIRC it was also a case of 2 yellows or a red and a 1 month ban kicked in, meaning anyone coming into the forum just to troll whilst access was free would soon find themselves banned for the whole of the free access period anyway

A separate forum would be a whole new ball game and I've no idea if it's even feasible (particularly given the need for full-time resource to be dealing with wider site issues at present) in the timescale.

CSF

IMO to the answer to these trolling issues in match threads/superthreads isn't which thread people post in, it's how strictly you mod them. The Man United/Liverpool 'banter' needs to be clamped down on. It's gotten to the point where you can't have an ex Liverpool manager join a club in another country without it becoming a Rodgers/Van Gaal/Moyes/Benitez mudfest.

Call it banter all you want but it ruins threads like.

BMMachine

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Is the attached trolling?

You singled out a post about LFC in the humour thread.

You mention 3 posters you could name, I'd be fairly confident I could guess who you are talking about.

You also took to the United thread over the space of a week or so a few months back to basically take posters to task in a delightfully condescending manner about piss taking.

Is "trolling" acceptable once its not directed at the team you support?

yeah it probably is alright. I knew what I was doing calling him that. Kinda half and half though, more a disdain for that particular player than anything else.

The post I singled out just happened to be the last post in there, which I felt was somewhat ironic.

And no, trolling is not acceptable and one of those 3 people is a Liverpool fan so take from that what you will. And hey, in "taking them to task" do you mean questioning why particular posters post in the way they do? I think, no - I know, I was exactly spot on about that as there is evidence everywhere.

grumpymunster

I cannot believe people are still upset regarding not being able to use Chelski as a slang term for Chelsea why does this have to be brought up every year. What is wrong with calling them Chelsea same keystrokes people. I can understand Manchester United being called ManU or just United, Manchester City being called ManC or City same as Tottenham Hotspurs called Spurs. But Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal are short enough names so why not use them?

For the most part mods are good I think one or two heavy handed or just plain biased but such is life. As mentioned by a poster earlier shame DWW went on to pastures new he was one of the better non biased ones.

BMMachine

grumpymunster wrote: »

I cannot believe people are still upset regarding not being able to use Chelski as a slang term for Chelsea why does this have to be brought up every year. What is wrong with calling them Chelsea same keystrokes people. I can understand Manchester United being called ManU or just United, Manchester City being called ManC or City same as Tottenham Hotspurs called Spurs. But Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal are short enough names so why not use them?

For the most part mods are good I think one or two heavy handed or just plain biased but such is life. As mentioned by a poster earlier shame DWW went on to pastures new he was one of the better non biased ones.

To me its a context thing. About 2 years ago I got carded for saying this "1 & 2 - probably citeh and chelski"
Citeh is a take on the Manchester accent, nothing wrong there. But Chelski has a lot of negative connotations. It implies the negativity of a club owned by a corrupt Russian gangster who would have not nearly reached the successes they have unless he owned them, which to be fair is an insulting reminder for a club you love. Theres a deeper meaning to calling Chelsea "chelski" compared to "manure" which just implies feces. It would be funny if united were owned by a fertilizer company or something but since thats never going to happen its just stupid.

brianregan09

The point of people getting offended over stupid slang names that supporters coming up with for teams is ridiculous anyway I can't imagine the same people every actually go to football matches because they might need a cold shower and cry themselves to sleep after it without mods to help them give out

Again Mods do a grand job no bother at all. the problem for me is posters coming into a forum with no backbone granted some do come in just to stir up **** but those can be spotted fairly handy because they'll usually reoffend and be banned anyway but **** me I dont care if some people call Arsenal bad names I'm not gonnna run and tell teacher its the internet for god sake not primary school

grumpymunster

I am neither insulted or bothered by anything Chelsea are called on here, I went to school in West London and you lot don't hold a candle believe me. Are Chelsea owned by a corrupt Russian gangster I have no idea. Roman is Russian but I assume you have proof of him being a corrupt Russian gangster. It is pointless stupid remarks like that which would lead me to believe you perhaps deserved those cards but I am nearly assuming. Maybe you could slag off any females who support City as the country of their owners seem to have little regard for their rights. Personally I admire City and what they have done.

I still don't understand why when it is made crystal clear that respect be shown to supporters of other clubs you can't seem to find it. For me personally I really dislike a handful of clubs, mainly a traditional thing being a Chelsea fan. But if you want to play the game as least have some regard for the rules. Therefore City are City, United are United and Spurs are Spurs (though I must admit to calling West Ham the 'Appy 'Ammers also Leicester "and Leicester" though that is a traditional thing as well and very common folklore).

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

brianregan09

I'm not preaching about using them , I'm just saying it mental that people are really getting offended over it , the only one I've used on here is the Silly Spuds and that was the time spurs threw away 3rd place on the final day of the seasons do i deserve a card for that ? (which i didn't get btw)

mav79

I'd prefer if the mods were more heavy handed with cards, the threads are unreadable at times with childish, petty, point scoring posting. Forget giving warnings, yellows straight away for breaking the rules. No more nicknames at all, no more mentioning whats happening on other threads, no ganging up on posters. If there is any leeway certain posters get away with things while someone else gets carded. The don't be a dick rule is great but for it to work properly it needs to be enforced. Too many posters can troll without crossing the line, baiting someone else into getting carded. Mods need to clamp down on this. If you can't post in a civil manner you should not be allowed in the forum.

Match threads are great for keeping heat of the moment reactions together instead of clogging up the superthread.

As for the Humour thread, I've no interest in it at all, but if it keeps childish "funny" posts away from the superthread, I'm happy.

BMMachine

its the worst when someone is clearly trolling, you call them on it and the mod comes in going "ah ah ah! read the charter!" so its like, oh the troll wins both on account of trolling and on account that the system allows for them to. They know how to work it and are taking the piss out of you while doing it. Reporting seems to do f**k all because its the same people doing the same trolling over and over again.
Why not let us stand up for ourselves instead of protecting the trolls? They even delete posts for them.

eagle eye

Panthro wrote: »

Jaysus, there is no line between any of them, they're all childish.
And pointless.
Just like this conversation!

Are we gonna ban this conversation now because it's childish in your estimation?

Seriously I am asking you to tell me how you would be offended by Chelski?

You just keep going back to saying it's childish or offensive but you don't seem to be able to give an explanation as to why exactly it's offensive.

Just because something might seem a bit immature to you doesn't make it offensive.

There are clear reasons why Manure and Lolerpool are considered offensive as I've already explained but I don't see it with Chelski and nobody has given any explanation as to how it's offensive.

Trigger

Just on the lesser supported teams match day thread and keeping the match talk away from the Superthreads. I thought that the mods should be directing all the match talk from these lesser used threads to the "General PL matchday thread". I'm pretty sure that this was brought in exactly for this purpose. It can seem a bit unfair having one set of rules for some supporters but a different set for others.

CSF

astradave wrote: »

Just on the lesser supported teams match day thread and keeping the match talk away from the Superthreads. I thought that the mods should be directing all the match talk from these lesser used threads to the "General PL matchday thread". I'm pretty sure that this was brought in exactly for this purpose. It can seem a bit unfair having one set of rules for some supporters but a different set for others.

Not the worst idea. Pity I'll have no use for it next year

BMMachine

eagle eye wrote: »

There are clear reasons why Manure and Lolerpool are considered offensive as I've already explained but I don't see it with Chelski and nobody has given any explanation as to how it's offensive.

its because it relates the clubs success to a corrupt russian gangster owner which to be fair is pretty offensive. If Liverpool were owned by an oligarch I wouldn't want to be reminded of it

CSF

Clearly I don't have any reason to be offended by the use of something like that, but you'd have to wonder why someone would be using those sorts of terms, and the type of poster that would be.

astradave

astradave wrote: »

Just on the lesser supported teams match day thread and keeping the match talk away from the Superthreads. I thought that the mods should be directing all the match talk from these lesser used threads to the "General PL matchday thread". I'm pretty sure that this was brought in exactly for this purpose. It can seem a bit unfair having one set of rules for some supporters but a different set for others.

It got good use this season tbf. It was also good for generic after match discussion.

Trigger

M!Ck^ wrote: »

It got good use this season tbf. It was also good for generic after match discussion.

I agree, and i think its probably the easiest way to keep the chat from the Superthreads, but it would need to be enforced

astradave

astradave wrote: »

I agree, and i think its probably the easiest way to keep the chat from the Superthreads, but it would need to be enforced

So a suggestion that mods issue notification if match incidents are discussed in super threads? I would imagine it is still quite hard to control especially if it's within a less popular teams thread tho. Unless someone is actively browsing all threads then I can't see it working.
I've nearly really noted it to be that big of an issue considering it is enforced in let's say the busiest super-threads anyway.

keith16

I like the Soccer Forum.

ArmaniJeanss

eagle eye wrote: »

There are clear reasons why Manure and Lolerpool are considered offensive as I've already explained but I don't see it with Chelski and nobody has given any explanation as to how it's offensive.

Theres surely a pretty clear implication in 'Chelski' that the current club is in some way different to the pre-RomanAb club?
Its the chant "you're not Chelsea anymore" summed up in one word.

brianregan09

But why would the Chelski term offend anyone ? My Dad is a chelsea fan and we often take the piss out of each other , I mean the Chelsea hierarchy aren't on boards are they ?

brianregan09

I guess what I'm trying to say is banter and taking mick out of clubs that aren't you'res is part and parcel of football as long as you're not launching personal attacks on posters I'd see no problem its no different from people slagging arsenal for finishing top four and **** all else for years

CSF

brianregan09 wrote: »

I guess what I'm trying to say is banter and taking mick out of clubs that aren't you'res is part and parcel of football as long as you're not launching personal attacks on posters I'd see no problem its no different from people slagging arsenal for finishing top four and **** all else for years

That's what the humour thread is for though right? It should be kept there. The rest should be for actually talking about football in at least an attempt at doing so in an intelligent manner.

That_Guy

Chelski isn't an offensive term. It's just... well, immature. I wouldn't be offended if someone referred to Newcastle as 'poo-castle' or something along the lines of that. That said, I'd find it hard to take that poster seriously when engaging in debate/conversation.

You have to be thick skinned to be a football supporter and I can take as much as I can give but throwing around terms like 'Manure', 'Chelski' just makes people seem immature and childish.

No need for terms like that. Fairly inoffensive terms but completely needless all the same.

SantryRed

brianregan09 wrote: »

But why would the Chelski term offend anyone ? My Dad is a chelsea fan and we often take the piss out of each other , I mean the Chelsea hierarchy aren't on boards are they ?

Why the **** does anyone have to use Chelski in the first place? It adds absolutely nothing to the conversation and is something that drags things off topics.

You're not kids lads, it's not bloody hard to use a real name or the correct abbreviation. I can't believe so many posts in this thread have been about whether a stupid name (which is the exact same length too!) can be used or not, what a crock of crap!

The sort of bickering going on with this name sums up the only real problem with the forum, which is definitely the smoothest run in years.

Fair play to the mods because I don't know how you clean up the crap like the above without a full on crack down.

eagle eye

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Theres surely a pretty clear implication in 'Chelski' that the current club is in some way different to the pre-RomanAb club?
Its the chant "you're not Chelsea anymore" summed up in one word.

It certainly reminds you that the club is owned by a Russian. I still haven't seen a good reason for it being banned though. I haven't seen one good reason why it's offensive.

As I said it might be considered by some to be immature but that isn't enough to warrant it being banned is it?

HalloweenJack

These are some names that I've made up on the fly to remind posters of where the club's owners are from, just in case we'd forgotten:
Yankpool
Yankchester United
Manchester Sheikhy
Iranton
Sunderyank
Norwich Britty
Swanleek City

I can think of ones for Leicester and Watford but they're fairly racist.

Would you take people who use these names seriously? Why should Chelski be any different? And why not just use their proper name?

It's just silly and completely unnecessary and reminds you that the poster you're dealing is entertained by nonsense like that and people who complain that they can't post silly and unnecessary things on a discussion board aren't to be taken seriously, imo.

LiamoSail

HalloweenJack wrote: »

These are some names that I've made up on the fly to remind posters of where the club's owners are from, just in case we'd forgotten:
Yankpool
Yankchester United
Manchester Sheikhy
Iranton
Sunderyank
Norwich Britty
Swanleek City

I can think of ones for Leicester and Watford but they're fairly racist.

Would you take people who use these names seriously? Why should Chelski be any different? And why not just use their proper name?

It's just silly and completely unnecessary and reminds you that the poster you're dealing is entertained by nonsense like that and people who complain that they can't post silly and unnecessary things on a discussion board aren't to be taken seriously, imo.

The Chelski one was at least funny initially. Your examples, like "Manure", were never funny. There's a difference

HalloweenJack

Chelski was never funny.

GavRedKing

Chelski isnt offensive, its childish, as others have said, its the same as Lolerpool or Manure or other terrible names.

Its only in the charter as an example, much like the Utd and Pool examples, if you want to include every childish/offensive term for the teams, the charter would be pages upon pages long.

Use common sense, if it doesnt look out of place on something like the Daily Mail or Youtube comments section, its probably not for Boards.

LiamoSail

GavRedKing wrote: »

Chelski isnt offensive, its childish, as others have said, its the same as Lolerpool or Manure or other terrible names.

Its only in the charter as an example, much like the Utd and Pool examples, if you want to include every childish/offensive term for the teams, the charter would be pages upon pages long.

Use common sense, if it doesnt look out of place on something like the Daily Mail or Youtube comments section, its probably not for Boards.

It's not the same though is it? Lolerpool or Manure are obviously just daft insults. Chelski was initially humorous, and is accurate in that it's a reference to the club having become a vehicle for a criminal Russian billionaire to hide behind

eagle eye

GavRedKing wrote: »

Chelski isnt offensive, its childish, as others have said, its the same as Lolerpool or Manure or other terrible names.

Its only in the charter as an example, much like the Utd and Pool examples, if you want to include every childish/offensive term for the teams, the charter would be pages upon pages long.

Use common sense, if it doesnt look out of place on something like the Daily Mail or Youtube comments section, its probably not for Boards.

My take on it again,

Lolerpool = Your club is a laughing stock

Manure = Your club is sh1t

Chelski = Chelsea has a Russian owner

First two are clearly offensive, third one is not. They all might be considered immature but the third one doesn't offend anybody imo and shouldn't be banned imo.

GavRedKing

LiamoSail wrote: »

It's not the same though is it? Lolerpool or Manure are obviously just daft insults. Chelski was initially humorous, and is accurate in that it's a reference to the club having become a vehicle for a criminal Russian billionaire to hide behind

What crimes has he been convicted of?

GavRedKing

eagle eye wrote: »

My take on it again,

Lolerpool = Your club is a laughing stock

Manure = Your club is sh1t

Chelski = Chelsea has a Russian owner

First two are clearly offensive, third one is not. They all might be considered immature but the third one doesn't offend anybody imo and shouldn't be banned imo.

Anyone thats offended by any of them should probably get off the internet, the point is theyre all childish and only used to wind people up.

I cant see anyone for example getting offended by saying Spuds or Sours lost again LOL, but its childish and will probably lead to a Spurs fan replying.

Its either none are acceptable or they all are, and for a smoother run forum, none of them are allowed.

CSF

LiamoSail wrote: »

It's not the same though is it? Lolerpool or Manure are obviously just daft insults. Chelski was initially humorous, and is accurate in that it's a reference to the club having become a vehicle for a criminal Russian billionaire to hide behind

So it is intended to offend then?