Soccer Forum Feedback 2017

5starpool

Kirby wrote: »

The problem is, people tend to spend time in the pub with people they like. Most of the time anyway. This forum is filled with people who dislike each other and want to score points on the "enemy".

"cop on" works with a friend who is acting the eejit. Say it to somebody you don't know or somebody you have previous with........its starting a 10 page row in the thread.

Let the mods, mod. It isn't the job of the users to do it tbh.

The exception of course being calling out trolls. This is necessary to keep the place clean. The trolls are well known here and calling them out on their nonsense should not be a cardable offence. It is without doubt, one of the most ridiculous rules we have.

I hope you are being humourous in the last part of your post, as your suggestion is far more incendiary than what I was trying to say.

I know the outcome of this anyhow, so I don't have a lot more to add to it anyhow.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

omg ur so modly

Bounty Hunter

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

As this was unlocked just wanted to say something as I missed this thread before (cos its stickied):


I like the idea of splitting posts off from a thread more when threads are going way off topic. For example if we have a couple of pages of Pogba / Neymar / Mbappe who was the best value in the transfer thread it could be split into a topic called "Best value Transfer" and the actual transfer thread could be a lot less cluttered.

This obviously applies to more than just that thread and that was a made up example but it is somewhere such actions could be implemented more often.

Agreed

Paully D

pjohnson wrote: »

The Sun is utter clickbait and if your thinking anything in it is true enough to be a "source" you should smell the horsesh*t.

The Sun have called plenty of Sunderland stuff correctly in recent months. Alan Nixon and David Coverdale in particular clearly get information from inside that other papers/websites aren't getting.

Regardless of what has gone on in the past, they are no better or worse than the vast majority of other papers/websites these days when it comes to football.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Paully D wrote: »

The Sun have called plenty of Sunderland stuff correctly in recent months. Alan Nixon and David Coverdale in particular clearly get information from inside that other papers/websites aren't getting.

Regardless of what has gone on in the past, they are no better or worse than the vast majority of other papers/websites these days when it comes to football.

Damned by faint praise indeed.

To further expand on your point, if they are no better or worse than any other source then would a ban on their links make a jot of difference to discussion of football on this site?

In truth, the s*n is an abomination and that's the truth, to paraphrase their most infamous headline. Despite evidence of their true character taking over 2 decades to become evident to a lot of football fans, it was patently obvious to families of the 96 who died at Hillsborough that they were peddling a heap of steaming turds without apology since then and are still denying what they wrought, again despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Banning the rag is the correct decision to make here, regardless of club affiliation.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Patww79

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not the thread for it but you should really educate yourself pal.

alchemist33

I have no time at all for The Sun (and have the odd post hereabouts to show that). But banning it almost gives it an exalted place as something so important it needed its own rule. It's better ignored than banned and tbh nobody with any sense is going to place much faith in any of its "news." All banning it is going to achieve is cards for innocent posters.

I still see no good explanation why one newspaper should have a ban from the forum. It is not like they would have a monopoly of nonsense.

Harry Palmr

I think they are the only publication who libelled the dead supporters of a football club and then maintained that position in face of all evidence to the contrary for decades.

They are or you think they are?

It makes no difference particular to me but am curious why it would be one English news in an Irish message board?

Omackeral

Deleted User wrote: »

They are or you think they are?

It makes no difference particular to me but am curious why it would be one English news in an Irish message board?

Because English football is our football.


Or at least you would think it is.

Harry Palmr

Actually I'm pretty sure they are. Obviously the S*n does have an Irish edition which I presume carries some copy of the British edition, but I don't really care either way about this. They are hurt by the boycotting of hard copies across the water.

Omackeral

Why would you type S*n like that?

Harry Palmr

Well it's like typing Sh*t really.

Omackeral

It's embarrassing.

Harry Palmr

Like I give a f*ck what you think about this matter.

Omackeral

Calm down, calm down.

Cantona's Collars

As far as I can see the whole quoting that paper is pretty much self policing. Any time a story from there comes up it's usually prefaced with "I know it's the S*n but". Links aren't posted,even in the United thread we don't link to them.
No point banning them.Regular posters know the score with them and treat them with contempt,that should be enough.Every publication has a journalist or two with contacts at clubs so no point alienating them for the sins of the publication they work for.

Agree with Zerks.

To add to it, people with common sense and even a small bit of intelligence knows that rag isn't worth linking to.

There's no need to ban it. It's rarely linked anyway.

pjohnson

Omackeral wrote: »

It's embarrassing.

You getting triggered again over English clubs is totally not embarrasing.

Omackeral

I'm hardly triggered over English clubs. I watch and enjoy them myself. As far as the Sun newspaper goes, if you don't like it, just ignore it. It's a Brit rag and nothing more. Don't click on any links to it if it bothers you that much, not that I've ever seen many posted up here. I don't think it's deserving of any special status and wouldn't bother specifically banning it, that's all.

Beasty

My view on the Sun is we should put it to a poll. I personally would not want to censor posters, but generally agree with zerks that it's pretty much self-policing already. However if we run a poll then whatever the outcome posters can have no complaints

Some posters have made their views clear in this thread, but equally we need to give those who have remained silent an opportunity to indicate their views rather than continuing the debate here. I'm sure there are one or two other things posters may want to come back on.

Tom Mann Centuria

Beasty wrote: »

My view on the Sun is we should put it to a poll. I personally would not want to censor posters, but generally agree with zerks that it's pretty much self-policing already. However if we run a poll then whatever the outcome posters can have no complaints

Some posters have made their views clear in this thread, but equally we need to give those who have remained silent an opportunity to indicate their views rather than continuing the debate here. I'm sure there are one or two other things posters may want to come back on.

Only problem with a poll like this is you're bound to have much more motivated "ban it" posters than meh posters like myself.

Beasty

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Only problem with a poll like this is you're bound to have much more motivated "ban it" posters than meh posters like myself.

Yes - and that's what happened with the likes of Brexit. Point is though that if people cannot be bothered to vote they can't complain if it goes the way they don't want

I would add though I think any poll should be anonymous and there should be no discussion in the thread - simply answer the question, with a "meh" option. That would avoid any of those passionate about the subject canvassing in the thread (and equally I think we should curtail further discussion here for the same reason)

duffman13

It shouldn't be a cardable offence though. Not a fan of the sun myself however if you do ban links from it then it shouldn't attract a card for a first offence, particularly for people new to the forum. It might be a rag but people have the option to not click a link aswell and I think the current self policing works well.

Beasty

duffman13 wrote: »

It shouldn't be a cardable offence though. Not a fan of the sun myself however if you do ban links from it then it shouldn't attract a card for a first offence, particularly for people new to the forum. It might be a rag but people have the option to not click a link aswell and I think the current self policing works well.

I agree that unless someone is blatantly stirring things up any initial "offence" should probably be dealt with via an in-thread warning. That's of course assuming there is a change in rules. However I'm starting to tread on the toes of the local mods here and they are the ones who would oversee any changes and application of any new rules

Owryan

More a lurker than an active poster but anyway.

Imo stories from the sun are treated much the same as those from the daily mail or metro, nothing more than clickbait. I can understand why people want to ban it but that just seems like overkill.

What happens if there is such a ban and the sun actually managed to break a story? Will it just lead people to use alternative phrases when discussing the source?

5starpool

To be honest, I'm far more in the ignore it if you don't like it camp.

Liam McPoyle

Are we seriously considering banning a newspaper altogether from the forum?

Seriously?

Everyone knows it's nothing but toilet paper.

Everyone knows it's tainted history.

But to outright ban something that is not derogatory to any groups, or doing anything illegal / immoral in any way, is getting way too far into a nanny state way of being.

Shanotheslayer

So because X amount of people have an issue with a newspaper means it should be banned?

Am I getting that correct?

Super-Rush

If people want to click on links from the S*n, then let them at it.

You can't dictate what people want to read and/or use as a source.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

If you allow even a vote/poll on this issue then you open up the precedent that polls are acceptable for deciding on moderating issue/rules to implement.

You entertain the idea of "one very, very special" case, and you immediately have another "but Spurs have a forum" situation.

Is that what you want to create, or are there some compelling reasons why this won't be the case that I'm missing.

Agent Coulson

It's a sh1t newspaper and a rag but banning it from the forum shouldn't happen.



It's self policed by the majority of posters anyway and that's they way it should be left.

Giggsy11

My question is why do people even read Sun paper? That site looks like some virus infected site.

There are papers like Telegraph, Guardian who reports all the football news, then papers like Daily Mail who adds some spice to the news. You have sites like whoscored.com, fourfourtwo, Squawka who posts articles about tactics and performances.

You get everything you want about football from decent sites which actually looks like a proper website.

Shanotheslayer

Giggsy11 wrote: »

My question is why do people even read Sun paper? That site looks like some virus infected site.

There are papers like Telegraph, Guardian who reports all the football news, then papers like Daily Mail who adds some spice to the news. You have sites like whoscored.com, fourfourtwo, Squawka who posts articles about tactics and performances.

You get everything you want about football from decent sites which actually looks like a proper website.

What people choose to read is irrelevant, if people want to read it they should be allowed even if other people disagree.

The fact you know what the website is like means you've gone on it at some stage to read something or to dismiss it, whatever the case may be.

Yes there are far more reliable sources, but going by that logic nobody should be allowed link The Metro and other such sh!t newspapers.

Giggsy11

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

What people choose to read is irrelevant, if people want to read it they should be allowed even if other people disagree.

The fact you know what the website is like means you've gone on it at some stage to read something or to dismiss it, whatever the case may be.

Yes there are far more reliable sources, but going by that logic nobody should be allowed link The Metro and other such sh!t newspapers.

What I said and what you are replying is completely different, I'm not asking anyone to stop reading the paper, I'm wondering why they read when there are so many better alternatives.

Obviously I clicked the link long back (Years back) which I shouldn't have. Apart from that many on twitter post the pics of Sun, so without clicking also it's easy to check what kind of site it is.

Beasty

The reason I was suggesting a poll was this was one of the main points raised raised in this year's thread and before I mentioned the idea of a poll most of the posters commenting on the topic were supportive of some kind of ban

Taken at face value, and being seen to deal with issues raised the mods could simply have changed the charter to reflect the feedback given

Now the nature of these threads is those who feel passionate about things tend to have their say while those who are less so, or perhaps less interested in the point tend to keep quiet. Indeed it's only since I mentioned the idea that a number of posters have indicated they would not support such a move

My view is if it went to an anonymous poll, then no-one could be in a position to complain should the "vote" go against them. It's certainly not a matter of setting a precedent, although there are other areas where getting more specific feedback via a poll may be appropriate. There is little doubt the rules could be changed in this way but only with the wider support of the forum (and not simply those who are passionate about the specific point)

I hope no body would really agree to restrict what can be accessed on the basis of something that was printed 30 years ago, to make apeasement for a particular group of football fans. If they are going to be offended in some way, let them choose not to read it. But don't let them choose to forbid anyone else to read.

PhilipsR

Mentioning the website in the charter shouldn't happen as it's more publicity than the rag deserves.

Just leave it as it is.

Benimar

I despise the rag, but I'm also not a fan of telling others what to think, so I'd agree with not banning links across the forum.

However, I think it should be a cardable offence to post a link in the Liverpool Superthread. The only people who would do that are the completely stupid (and none of us are stupid!) or those on a wind up.

HalloweenJack

I think Benimar's is the best suggestion.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Wait, what?

Would someone actually eventually be exiled from the city of Liverpool for reading a physical copy of the paper in question on 6 occasions? Because that's what you are suggesting, in an online sense, with the card&ban system in place here.

I've seen plenty pictures of people on ferries or at airports in full Liverpool regalia with a copy of The Sun under their arms. What happens to those people? Light ribbing on twitter mostly "look at this twat" type of comments - no mention of them eventually getting a travel ban or anything so ludicrous.

No fans, no paper, no source should be given "special status" on this forum. We've had problems for years with special status fans.

GLaDOS

I don't think it's the mods duty to decide which sources are acceptable or not.

I don't like the sun, but if people want to link to it, that's their prerogative.

GLaDOS

GLaDOS wrote: »

I don't think it's the mods duty to decide which sources are acceptable or not.

I don't like the sun, but if people want to link to it, that's their prerogative.

If a rule was in place of course it'd be their duty.

The forum must doing something right when the biggest discussion is about a tabloid newspaper.

pjohnson

Ironically I was just about to say we should make a dump thread for the United/Pool arguements. Or issue a card for whatever eejit starts the shíteshow. Its always the same people that start it. A way to stop the nonsense would be to take a hardline against those who start the crap.

irishman86

It would be hilarious to ban a newspaper from being quoted :pac:
Seriously lads how is this even in question
Nonsense this is even been talked about

BMMachine

irishman86 wrote: »

It would be hilarious to ban a newspaper from being quoted :pac:
Seriously lads how is this even in question
Nonsense this is even been talked about

thats the important word here. is it a newspaper? like really? Its paper, thats true... but news? That'll take some convincing. I'd be in favour of banning it across the whole website just to wean people off reading that kind of thing. To me it would be like outlawing purposely ramming your head into a wall.


anyway so, the humour thread guys....

HalloweenJack

People are free to read what they want. I'm no fan of the Sun or the Daily Mail but people read them, that's their business. I would be quite happy to see the end of both those rags, along with countless other but I'm not for forcing people to live by my preferences.

By following the 'don't be a dick' rule, most posters would have the sense to not use the Sun as the basis to defend them when talking about Liverpool and I think posting about Liverpool and using the Sun as a reference is being a dick and should rightly get the poster in trouble.

Away from Liverpool, it's a matter of personal preference. People know what the Sun is about and if they read it, that's their business. They shouldn't be restricted in what they can post about because of that. I don't like the idea of clampin down on posters because of what their interests are. It might start with the Sun but how long 'til it spreads to the Daily Mail or the Herald or the Indo (all papers I have no time for)?