Warning in soccer forum

Liam McPoyle

Hello.

I received a warning the other day in the soccer forum from thanx for the fish.

Post in question is below.

Chelsea still not over the effects of Adolf Mourinho it seems. Poor little lambs.

This was posted in the general PL thread while Chelsea were losing at the weekend.

T4TF sent me the below message

You have received a warning
Dear Business Cat,

You have been warned for being uncivil.

Typically, this means that you are posting in a needlessly aggressive or confrontational manner being disruptive on the forum or causing stress for the other members. We don't want that here.

For more information please refer to the Boards.ie FAQ.



Thanx 4 The Fish

Moderator Note

Abuse/changing a managers name to rile up other fans is in breach of the charter.

Your post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Business Cat View Post
Chelsea still not over the effects of Adolf Mourinho it seems. Poor little lambs.

My response is as follows.

Ah here.

Are you having a laugh?

I'm a United fan.

Have a look through any of my posts, im a huge fan of Mourinho.

The comment was clearly tongue in cheek as there is a section of posters on the forum that blame Mourinho for anything ill that occurs that has any connection to him, be it players or former clubs, most notably Chelsea.

I'd like the card rescinded please.

They replied with

I am nopt having a laugh, your post is in clear violation of the charter. Please feel free to take this one to DRP.

So the crux of the matter is that I referred to Mourinho as Adolf and that is abusive and/or designed to rile up Manchester United fans.

Like many things on Boards, context is king.

I am a Manchester United fan.

I have been and continue to be a supporter of Mourinho.

There is a consistent trend running through the soccer forum where supporters of other teams throw thinly veiled digs at Mourinho, laying blame at his feet for former teams form and former/current players form.

My post was poking fun at that considering the fact he is gone from Chelsea over 2 years and they won the league title last season. Certain individuals are hyperbolic in their criticism, that in of itself is designed to wind up United fans.

If I had said Adolf Klopp, Conte, Wenger or whomever then fair enough, as Im not a fan of those particular teams managers but considering the fact I have consistently backed and defended Mourinho, me insulting him/riling up fellow United fans holds no water.

I'd like the card reversed please.

dudara

Hi BC, I'll request a Sports CMod to take a look at this.

Liam McPoyle

Cheers D, no rush.

Steve

Hi BC,

Looking at this from the outside (I have no soccer affiliations or interest in it), and comparing your post to what is in the forum charter, I would like to make the following findings.

The charter clearly states:

The rules on abuse apply to more than just boards users, and cover players/managers/fans/clubs/sports personalities as well. You may consider certain terms to be a bit of banter, but any nickname or phrase that is even vaguely derogatory may be considered as abuse for the purpose of the charter.

Calling a team Manure, Liverpoo, redsh1te, bluesh1te, the Scum, the Hun or any other variant is abuse.

Nicknames like whisky nose, fat Spanish waiter, Fat Sam, Fat Frank and similar is abuse.

Calling Andy Gray or Pat Dolan names is abuse.

This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but it is common for users to misinterpret this rule and assume that language like the above is OK. Please think carefully before posting anything like the above.

However, emotional language is not in itself a problem. It is ok to deliver a point passionately, to swear if you so choose, though you can make a point solidly without having to call people / teams / etc names.

The mod team reserve the right to apply their judgement as to a users intent when posting, and issue bans and/or infractions for abuse as neccesary.

I fully accept the context within which you posted, however, you cannot reasonably expect that all other forum members and moderators will know that you are actually a fan of the manager in question, will search your previous posts, and that it was posted as an ironic comment.

So the crux of the matter is that I referred to Mourinho as Adolf and that is abusive and/or designed to rile up Manchester United fans.

The crux of the matter is that, unfortunately,what you posted was a clear violation of the charter rule I quoted above and is considered abuse. It is not relevant or a defense to say that is was ironic or in jest or whether or not any fanbase would be potentially riled up, it simply is not allowed under any circumstances.

In light of that, I agree with the moderator action and cannot see any reason to overturn this.

Warning upheld.

You may, if you wish, appeal this further to Admins, please let me know.

Thanks,
Steve.

Liam McPoyle

Steve wrote: »

Hi BC,

Looking at this from the outside (I have no soccer affiliations or interest in it), and comparing your post to what is in the forum charter, I would like to make the following findings.

The charter clearly states:


I fully accept the context within which you posted, however, you cannot reasonably expect that all other forum members and moderators will know that you are actually a fan of the manager in question, will search your previous posts, and that it was posted as an ironic comment.



The crux of the matter is that, unfortunately,what you posted was a clear violation of the charter rule I quoted above and is considered abuse. It is not relevant or a defense to say that is was ironic or in jest or whether or not any fanbase would be potentially riled up, it simply is not allowed under any circumstances.

In light of that, I agree with the moderator action and cannot see any reason to overturn this.

Warning upheld.

You may, if you wish, appeal this further to Admins, please let me know.

Thanks,
Steve.

Thanks for looking at this Steve.

On the surface of it then yes, it appears to be an abusive comment however I have explained the reasoning behind the comment and my thoughts about Mourinho so on that basis, I don't see how you can stand over the card.

I could post countless examples of my posts to illustrate that I have no gripe with Mourinho.

Of course I don't expect mods to know each individual posters leanings nor would I expect them to pore over a user's posts to get additonal evidence or background but if someone can categorically prove that there was no abusive intent behind their post then how can a card for being abusive be upheld?

The point of the DRP is to give users the opportunity to explain themselves/their post(s) if they disagree with a mod action, with a view to the mod action being overturned. If a clear explanation behind a post(s) is given but not accepted then there isn't any point in having a DRP at all.

I'd like an admin review.

Cheers.

Steve

Business Cat wrote: »

Thanks for looking at this Steve.

On the surface of it then yes, it appears to be an abusive comment however I have explained the reasoning behind the comment and my thoughts about Mourinho so on that basis, I don't see how you can stand over the card.

I could post countless examples of my posts to illustrate that I have no gripe with Mourinho.

Of course I don't expect mods to know each individual posters leanings nor would I expect them to pore over a user's posts to get additonal evidence or background

I accept your reasoning behind the post and I further accept that there was no ill intent behind it.

but if someone can categorically prove that there was no abusive intent behind their post then how can a card for being abusive be upheld?

The reasons I upheld it are firstly, having accepted that there was no ill intent, it circles back to the rule where it says "You may consider certain terms to be a bit of banter". Without ill intent, what you posted would, in my view, fall under the banter category.
Secondly, the rule, in my experience, is applied consistently and without exception in the forum, there is no indication that you were singled out or the rule was applied in an inconsistent manner in this case.
Thirdly, hypothetically allowing exceptions to the rule based on the posters affiliation would render the rule unmanageable and unenforceable my the mods due to the extra workload it would put on them - every single abuse sanction would turn into an appeal, string of pms, and possibly a DRP. That's not a burden I am willing to place on the mods.

The point of the DRP is to give users the opportunity to explain themselves/their post(s) if they disagree with a mod action, with a view to the mod action being overturned. If a clear explanation behind a post(s) is given but not accepted then there isn't any point in having a DRP at all.

I agree, and sanctions are frequently overturned in this forum, however, there has to exist a grey area where the moderator has been inconsistent in their application of a rule, or a rule that is vauge to the point that there is room to argue how it can be interpreted, or indeed a rule that is generally not enforced so there are examples of many unsanctioned posts of the same nature. In such cases it would come down to intent behind the words amongst other things.
To put it in soccer terms, its akin to attempting to argue to a ref that the own goal you just scored had no intent behind it (which would be 100% true) and you kicked the ball in an ironic manner so therefore it shouldn't count.

I'd like an admin review.

Cheers.

I will let them know,
Thanks.

Beasty

I agree fully with Steve's analysis here Business Cat

The way I look at this sort of comment is if it goes unchecked then someone else picks it up and uses the same wording because they've seen it accepted from a United fan. If a United fan is permitted to use this terminology then why not a Liverpool fan? It ends up in chaos with essentially the rule, which was introduced on the back of user feedback, being ignored

I fully accept there was no malicious intent behind the comment, but that is only because I know you are a United fan. The comment broke the rule though, and in the Soccer forum as I'm sure you are aware, there are plenty of users looking to both exploit rules and get others into trouble, resulting in a very strict application of rules like this one. I am therefore upholding the card

Liam McPoyle

Thanks for the follow up lads.

I personally don't agree with it tbh.

It was carded for being abusive.

It's been both accepted and acknowledged that there was no ill intent behind the post and therefore it was not in fact abusive.

But the card for being abusive stands even though it actually wasn't abusive.



By the absolute letter of the law then the card would stand but sometimes things aren't black and white which is why the DRP exists.

Anyway, I've taken enough time up with it, it's not a major issue and has not impacted my posting privileges so I'll leave it there.

Thanks for taking the time to review.

Liam McPoyle

Just one final thing for the record, t4tf is well aware I'm a United fan, of that I have no doubt.