Soccer forum

dfx-

On the access system, I'm personally very much in favour of it for the same reasons included by posters here on the first page, there are four elements:

1. The minimum time period is very important with disposable accounts to continue trolling/breaking of the charter unimpeded. This is by far the most important and valuable element for me. This is what the forum is missing out on during open access periods.

2. The probation period further discourages trolling from the start of access and several troublesome posters have been quickly removed for falling foul of the probation period.

3. It gives new posters an extra chance to read the charter before they post. I have noticed that during open access, this is sorely missed and people get caught out on stuff acceptable elsewhere. This is noticeable during open access where the regulars know the charter and others don't read it.

4. The post count. I've no idea why this was set at 50 originally (it was before my time) and this could be reduced if we were to revisit it, once the other elements remained in place. There are genuine posters from time to time who get in touch asking for it to be lowered as they will never get to 50 posts.

I would add we try to make it as easy as possible for as many new posters as possible, there's no secret recipe. We give the requirements, we give the exact text that new posters need, we highlight the charter keywords. We could probably re-write the how to apply threads and change the tone of a few years ago.

mansize

Should their be a #Fexit or #Fremain for open access?

Lovely Bloke

The Admin can check into my PMs to verify the legitimacy of this, but a poster contacted me last night with this PM.

Soccer feedback

I agree with lot of what you've said. Have to say, I've given up posting on boards for good now I think, had enough of the soccer forum months ago and how the mods act, or don't act to be more accurate. There's 2 or 3 mods there who actually do anything, the rest just sit in their own teams threads and never come out, certainly don't action reported posts afaics.

Wish you well in the thread but they won't listen. Less moderation, as has been suggested will make soccer a complete mess but there you go

All the best

Of course, that person can also be dismissed because they are not agreeing with the mod/cmod/admin/staff line, but there you go.

NyOmnishambles

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

The Admin can check into my PMs to verify the legitimacy of this, but a poster contacted me last night with this PM.

This isn't the first time you have mentioned something like this but you know damn well that Admins can't read your PM's unless you report the PM and if you did that you should have stated it for clarity

That just comes across as sh!tstirring for the sake of it and does nothing to help some of your valid grievances with the running of the soccer forum

Lovely Bloke

I said check into, fairly certain it can be ascertained that I received a PM last evening.

Can't report it as that would compromise the anonymity of the person who sent it to me.

The Moldy Gowl

It does look like **** stirring though.

Why can't the poster just post here instead of messaging you?

The anonymity of him? Christ. Talk about tinfoil hats.
What is he so afraid of posting here? He will be put on the bold list?

This isn't some groundbreaking whistle blowing journalism.


I actually agree with you mostly about the SF but that pm could easily be dismissed as fake. Im sure its not but it's hardly reliable

Lovely Bloke

Well, it's fairly obvious that there's a shítlist of "usuals" (I'm absolutely sure there's no actual real list of names, but that may have changed since my time, but there is absolutely a list of users who the Admin/Cmods/Mods mentally tick in Feedback) so if it's someone who wouldn't think they'd be on such a list then I can see the reasoning for them not wanting to get themselves onto it.

That's just my personal opinion though, I didn't ask the person why they PMd instead of posting, it's none of my business either.

It's just good to know that I'm not being a mental about this, that other people do agree with me, but for one reason or another can't post publically.

dudara

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

The Admin can check into my PMs to verify the legitimacy of this

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

I said check into, fairly certain it can be ascertained that I received a PM last evening.

In the interests of 100% clarity, so that there can be no further misunderstanding, Admins can see only the number of PMs sent and received by a poster. We cannot see when the PMs were sent or received, and we definitely cannot see the content.

The only time we ever get to see the inside of someone else's PM is when they are Reported.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Well, it's fairly obvious that there's a shítlist of "usuals" (I'm absolutely sure there's no actual real list of names, but that may have changed since my time, but there is absolutely a list of users who the Admin/Cmods/Mods mentally tick in Feedback) so if it's someone who wouldn't think they'd be on such a list then I can see the reasoning for them not wanting to get themselves onto it.

Reckon they might have tapped your phone as well?

4zn76tysfajdxp

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100234740&postcount=439

There's five or six posts in this thread demanding the post linked above is actioned??? That is a joke.

<snip></snip>

Strumms

The standalone post isn't exactly the most trolliest of contributions in the history of boards but certainly indicative of that individual who I have noted as constantly at it and often instigates the decline in quality of threads throughout the season. So I wouldn't focus on just that post. I think the complaint is certainly justified, however the mods feel about how people are debating the point in this thread, believe me it is a problem and instead of dismissing it and users for that matter take a look at the core point and listen to the people who want to contribute in a constructive and well meaning manner and who enjoy the banter but not the school yard snide one upmanship that these types of contributions and worse certainly bring to the forum....

LoLth

Strumms wrote: »

The standalone post isn't exactly the most trolliest of contributions in the history of boards but certainly indicative of that individual who I have noted as constantly at it and often instigates the decline in quality of threads throughout the season. So I wouldn't focus on just that post. I think the complaint is certainly justified, however the mods feel about how people are debating the point in this thread, believe me it is a problem and instead of dismissing it and users for that matter take a look at the core point and listen to the people who want to contribute in a constructive and well meaning manner and who enjoy the banter but not the school yard snide one upmanship that these types of contributions and worse certainly bring to the forum....

at the risk of trotting out a cliche, if you see a poster consistently pushing the edge of the charter then you should bring it to the attention of a mod. Report one of the posts and in your reason explain why you think this post is an example of a pattern of behaviour. Low level trolls were a large issue a few years ago and there were many feedback threads on exactly this topic. Mods took the feedback on board and started paying attention to the borderline behaviour. Cmods and Admins also take low level trolling into account when reviewing DRP threads.

I dont think anyone is ignoring or dismissing anyone's feedback here. Baldy's issue with his reported post not being actioned has been addressed by the mods. Ok, Baldy might not be happy with the explanation, and that's ok, its feedback and its not being ignored. Just as I am sure the mods have not ignored the reported post. It has been brought to their attention and highlighted.

As for snide oneupmanship and off-topic opportunistic sniping. I think all forums, including feedback, would be better off without it. It only serves to degrade the impact of an opinion if the person making the point cant resist being a git while they do so.

BMMachine

LoLth wrote: »

at the risk of trotting out a cliche, if you see a poster consistently pushing the edge of the charter then you should bring it to the attention of a mod. Report one of the posts and in your reason explain why you think this post is an example of a pattern of behaviour.

that straight up doesn't work

Strumms

The reporting the post thing... yes for sure. I fully get why that is important and in the context of the running of the forum, users self policing etc and it is a good thing.

On the other hand I think that point is trotted out too often by some mods as a bit of a get out or an excuse when there is feedback of a negative nature towards moderation in general. Often the mod who might say this is active in contributing to the thread and discussion themselves and would or should know what the issue is..

The topic at hand here is not about one or two posts but about an overall issue of trolling on various levels.. it's not something that will be improved by posters using the report function more often if we are being honest...there needs to be top down motivation to firstly acknowledge the issue and secondly to do something about it.

Apart from the Euros I usually stick to the super thread for the club I support... it's just too much of a snooze fest reading through other stuff with people and their agendas and what not... it's a minority who are at it which makes the chance of dealing with the issue very achievable.

LoLth

BMMachine wrote: »

that straight up doesn't work

why? is there evidence of this? I can find many instances of users getting cards and bans, including site bans, for low level trolling and generally being a timesink by disrupting communities.

The onyl way it wouldnt work (as in a poster is brought to a mods attention for consideration as a low level troll) is if:

a. the mods do not read the reported posts
b. the mods ignore a report from a user because the user is perceived as a crank
c. the mods ignore the reported post because the user reporting is rude or overly demanding
d. the mods, after consideration, do not agree with the conclusion of the reporter.

a & b are flat out wrong imho and a mod should be sanctioned if they do this.

c not good either. perhaps understandable though. mods arent servants to click virtual fingers at. "I'll have a form ban for this muppet and make it snappy! dont dawdle you layabout mod, dont question, just do it now dammit!". Perhaps, in this instance the reporting feature is being used a medium for trolling and its the mods being trolled. would need to be examined and the mods should bring it to their Cmod.

d. perfectly fine. if it happens consistently then feedback like this may lead cmods or admins to ask the mods to clarify how they are establishing their baselines for their decisions on what constitues disruption/low level trolling / general gittishness.

LoLth

Strumms wrote: »

On the other hand I think that point is trotted out too often by some mods as a bit of a get out or an excuse when there is feedback of a negative nature towards moderation in general.

while certainly a possibility I'm not sure this is true. Or at least not as often as you believe. Also, dont forget mods are modded by cmods who are in turn modded by admins who in turn mod each other. If a mod is saying "then report it" as an excuse for not modding , it will, and does, get picked up on and solutions are discussed.

The topic at hand here is not about one or two posts but about an overall issue of trolling on various levels.. it's not something that will be improved by posters using the report function more often if we are being honest...there needs to be top down motivation to firstly acknowledge the issue and secondly to do something about it.

and as I said it is something that has come up before and something that there is very much a top down, middle-out, bottom up (resist urge to make "carry on" type noise here) and all round desire to tackle and ideally eradicate. However, you have to allow for posting styles. One mans flighty happy-go-lucky interaction style is another mans low-level-trolling-seagull-poster. There is a balance that needs to be found to match the tone of a forum and its users. That tone, and those users however are constantly changing. To keep it static you would have to only cater for the wishes of "the regulars" which will quickly lead to cries of favouritism and cliques and general unfriendliness toward newcomers.

Apart from the Euros I usually stick to the super thread for the club I support... it's just too much of a snooze fest reading through other stuff with people and their agendas and what not... it's a minority who are at it which makes the chance of dealing with the issue very achievable.

I agree. it is achievable. if users give usable feedback to the mods and the mods use that feedback as best they can. that means, report posts so the mods can see patterns. bring problem users to the mods attention to allow them to build up a pattern so they can tackle them.

DRP was introduced to bring clarity, transparency and fairness to the banning system. To tackle the low level trolls this means the mods need evidence to show low level trolling. If you want something done about these trolls faster, then help the mods build that block of evidence that we can then use to quite emphatically know the timesink senseless before hitting the airlock jettison button.

Its certainly more effecting than not reporting or equally bad, insisting the mods do something right now regardless of whether they fully support the action to be taken. Would you prefer more people to be banned in error and then unbanned, pissed off and probably out the door for OTT mod reactions or due care taken before removing a user's access to a forum?

LoLth

dfx- wrote: »

1. The minimum time period is very important with disposable accounts to continue trolling/breaking of the charter unimpeded. This is by far the most important and valuable element for me. This is what the forum is missing out on during open access periods.

2. The probation period further discourages trolling from the start of access and several troublesome posters have been quickly removed for falling foul of the probation period.

3. It gives new posters an extra chance to read the charter before they post. I have noticed that during open access, this is sorely missed and people get caught out on stuff acceptable elsewhere. This is noticeable during open access where the regulars know the charter and others don't read it.

4. The post count. I've no idea why this was set at 50 originally (it was before my time) and this could be reduced if we were to revisit it, once the other elements remained in place. There are genuine posters from time to time who get in touch asking for it to be lowered as they will never get to 50 posts.

I would add we try to make it as easy as possible for as many new posters as possible, there's no secret recipe. We give the requirements, we give the exact text that new posters need, we highlight the charter keywords. We could probably re-write the how to apply threads and change the tone of a few years ago.

When Forum Requests was overrun I borrowed the Soccer/Football/roundyball access system as a basis for who can suggest fora and who can vote as the second step toward organisation. (Tags were the first step) Admittedly it took Myrddin to finish the job and clean it up properly but I like to think the access model made it at least usable until it got sorted out properly.

I like the idea of open access for big events though. If nothing else it highlights the community to others that might not otherwise make the effort to join and big events are better with a big community. Fresh opinions (almost) never hurt either.

BMMachine

LoLth wrote: »

why? is there evidence of this? I can find many instances of users getting cards and bans, including site bans, for low level trolling and generally being a timesink by disrupting communities.

The onyl way it wouldnt work (as in a poster is brought to a mods attention for consideration as a low level troll) is if:

a. the mods do not read the reported posts
b. the mods ignore a report from a user because the user is perceived as a crank
c. the mods ignore the reported post because the user reporting is rude or overly demanding
d. the mods, after consideration, do not agree with the conclusion of the reporter.

a & b are flat out wrong imho and a mod should be sanctioned if they do this.

c not good either. perhaps understandable though. mods arent servants to click virtual fingers at. "I'll have a form ban for this muppet and make it snappy! dont dawdle you layabout mod, dont question, just do it now dammit!". Perhaps, in this instance the reporting feature is being used a medium for trolling and its the mods being trolled. would need to be examined and the mods should bring it to their Cmod.

d. perfectly fine. if it happens consistently then feedback like this may lead cmods or admins to ask the mods to clarify how they are establishing their baselines for their decisions on what constitues disruption/low level trolling / general gittishness.

a - i doubt it happens.

but they will just say everything is d anyway, even if it is b & c.
the posters that are protected are posters that have been there a lot longer than others. I'd imagine they are given leighway due to this and the fact that the mods 'know' them (maybe not in real life). this is despite those posters having terrible records and in one case having been sitebanned for a month for trolling.

I outlined a lot of this on the other feedback thread that was recently locked for Dav & co to review. There is an awful culture of moderating and moderators on this site that it frankly distorts and bleeds into everything.
Im just going to post the links to those posts as Im kinda busy atm sorry!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99825961&postcount=949
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99883556&postcount=1261

LoLth

BMMachine wrote: »

a - i doubt it happens.

but they will just say everything is d anyway, even if it is b & c.
the posters that are protected are posters that have been there a lot longer than others. I'd imagine they are given leighway due to this and the fact that the mods 'know' them (maybe not in real life). this is despite those posters having terrible records and in one case having been sitebanned for a month for trolling.

in fairness, if low level trolling is caught then users who the mods have interacted with for longer are statistically less likely to be low level trolls Also, mods come from the community so there is bound to be some sense of comraderie that gets left behind after we scoop out the soul and ability to think for themselves. We tried removing the part of the brain that controls loyalty but they kept trying to ban the admins..... on a more serious note: mods are human, they are bound to have some degree of bias, especially for posters that they have come to understand over a period of time. A good mod however will manage to review a situation and minimise that bias or recognise that they need a second opinion. A cmod has even less bias and to become an Admin you have to permaban your own mother.

I outlined a lot of this on the other feedback thread that was recently locked for Dav & co to review. There is an awful culture of moderating and moderators on this site that it frankly distorts and bleeds into everything.
Im just going to post the links to those posts as Im kinda busy atm sorry!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99825961&postcount=949
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99883556&postcount=1261

to be fair, before the thread was locked these points were discussed. granted possibly not to finality , but they certainly were not ignored. K-9 addressed your second post directly at the time and many agreed with some of the points you made and included their own extensions of your opinion.

To re-visit the general modding conversation here would be unfair to the original topic of the feedback thread which is on the need for access requests on soccer seeing as how the euro 2016 open season didn't result in the summoning of some Rooney/Gerard hybrid abomination that would go on a murder spree of all those who stand in the way of Accrington Stanley's rise to power.

BMMachine

LoLth wrote: »

in fairness, if low level trolling is caught then users who the mods have interacted with for longer are statistically less likely to be low level trolls Also, mods come from the community so there is bound to be some sense of comraderie that gets left behind after we scoop out the soul and ability to think for themselves. We tried removing the part of the brain that controls loyalty but they kept trying to ban the admins..... on a more serious note: mods are human, they are bound to have some degree of bias, especially for posters that they have come to understand over a period of time. A good mod however will manage to review a situation and minimise that bias or recognise that they need a second opinion. A cmod has even less bias and to become an Admin you have to permaban your own mother.

correct - and this is a lot of the problem. they prefer to do right by the people they know no matter how much it effects other people. Telling me why and how it happens matters not, its something you guys as admins of the site have to change if you want the site to work better.

LoLth wrote:

to be fair, before the thread was locked these points were discussed. granted possibly not to finality , but they certainly were not ignored. K-9 addressed your second post directly at the time and many agreed with some of the points you made and included their own extensions of your opinion.

To re-visit the general modding conversation here would be unfair to the original topic of the feedback thread which is on the need for access requests on soccer seeing as how the euro 2016 open season didn't result in the summoning of some Rooney/Gerard hybrid abomination that would go on a murder spree of all those who stand in the way of Accrington Stanley's rise to power.

they were touched on but notably not in any meaningful way. But as Dav said in his final post on that thread, they are looking at all the feedback there so it matters not if it was handled on that thread or not, as long as the main people running the site are able to and correct this big problem.

also notably, when pushed to talk about this culture admins and old heads basically refused to acknowledge any of it. I can understand why, as I'm sure you can too but it really is quite telling and that exact sort of culture trickles down to what we have going on in this thread here about that soccer forum there.

dfx-

LoLth wrote: »

When Forum Requests was overrun I borrowed the Soccer/Football/roundyball access system as a basis for who can suggest fora and who can vote as the second step toward organisation. (Tags were the first step) Admittedly it took Myrddin to finish the job and clean it up properly but I like to think the access model made it at least usable until it got sorted out properly.

I like the idea of open access for big events though. If nothing else it highlights the community to others that might not otherwise make the effort to join and big events are better with a big community. Fresh opinions (almost) never hurt either.

As a poster elsewhere, I feel access would definitely be useful to be employed in other fora, especially with disposable accounts. It might even decrease the workload of some mods spotting serial re-regs.

I said in 2014 that I wasn't a fan of open access, but a World Cup is a good time to give it a try for fresh opinions, introduce the forum to new posters etc and it was ok. Until Suarez had a bite of someone's shoulder and it got a bit mad. This time around has definitely been more work in my opinion, but a month for Summer international tournaments especially if Ireland are playing is doable if the forum wants it.

RasTa

Soccer forum is grand these days. I do wonder how many posts gets reported daily during an match or a random footballer did stupid story. I remember one ex mod showing me his phone when Liverpool lost with a sigh with all the crap he was going to have to deal with.

Beasty

RasTa wrote: »

I remember one ex mod showing me his phone when Liverpool lost with a sigh with all the crap he was going to have to deal with.

And it's the same when United lose. Far worse when one loses to the other. Then there are the days when both lose ......

Of course those are the times the forum is at its busiest and there are bound to be more reports for that reason alone. However some posters do seem to go out of their way to look out for stuff that offends them, but only if the person posting offends them, which may be mainly down to which of the two they support

Having said that I do think there has been a significant improvement over the past year or two as one or two particularly troublesome individuals have lost access. That's an argument for retaining the access system as regulars typically understand where the boundary is

Lovely Bloke

Seemingly the word "Paki" is acceptable on the forum.

There's not an Irish football fan alive who knows that is not the correct spelling of the name of the hero of Italia '90.

4zn76tysfajdxp

The only issue with "Paki" in that context is that it's a misspelling of a name, absolutely no racial connotations whatsoever.

Do you think the mods should pull people up on their spelling now?

Wiseman Drinkwater

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Seemingly the word Paki is acceptable on the forum.

There's not an Irish football fan alive who knows that is not the correct spelling of the name of the hero of Italia '90.

Have you ever considered trying meditation? You seem to be in a permanent state of agitation. It can't be healthy. Meditation may help you relax and put things in context.

Flint Fredstone

Julissa Quick Visa wrote: »

The only issue with "Paki" in that context is that it's a misspelling of a name, absolutely no racial connotations whatsoever.

Do you think the mods should pull people up on their spelling now?

I don't think it was a spelling mistake. It was an attempt to be funny in my opinion. The surname is misspelled too to mean an erection. Put the 2 together...

I imagine it was done in ignorance more than anything nasty.

The Moldy Gowl

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Seemingly the word "Paki" is acceptable on the forum.

There's not an Irish football fan alive who knows that is not the correct spelling of the name of the hero of Italia '90.

Jesus christ Baldy. Really clutching at straws there.

If you reported that, you should be carded.

Conor Bourke

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

I don't think it was a spelling mistake. It was an attempt to be funny in my opinion. The surname is misspelled too to mean an erection. Put the 2 together...

I imagine it was done in ignorance more than anything nasty.

In Donegal the surname Bonner is usually pronounced Boner tbf

KERSPLAT!

Cornelius Crow wrote: »

In Donegal the surname Bonner is usually pronounced Boner tbf

There's a pub in Ballybofey called Boners