Feedback Thread 2018

There's been some closed accounts over last weekends cards etc so that might well help with the forum.

Lord TSC

corwill wrote: »

I completely agree, jayo, it's as if boards are waiting for some sort of smoking gun or dramatic confession before they'll take meaningful action to stop an obvious troll.

I'll say this then; help the mods out & report people you think are low level trolls.

Something I was told constantly as a mod when trying to deal with low level trolls was there wasn't enough of a paper trail on some of them to justify branding them as such. And that's a user base issue imo. There's people who bemoan low level trolls but rarely if ever will report them.

Instead, posters actively engage with them, feed them and engage with them.

If people ignored who they thought were low level trolls, and instead of responding just reported it over and over to the mods (via constructive feedback within those reports, explaining why they think X is trolling), it would make mods jobs a lot easier. Especially if you realise that mods don't read every post made on this forum, and so might not catch as easily the difference between someone having the occasional contraversial opinion and someone ALwAYS having the opposing position.

I'll say this too; the "ignore" feature has become something I've grown fond of in the last few weeks too. If you feel the mods aren't dealing with who you perceive to be a low level troll, there's that option too. No one forces people to engage or respond, and if you do in the knowledge of the aims of that poster, you're as bad.

(And yes, I say that knowing I have engaged myself in recent months with one or two as well....)

Gbear

Bar the little hiccup mid-season where the no match chat in superthreads thing was sprung on us again, it's been a pretty good season modding-wise IMO.

I can only assume in that case there wasn't an awareness of what a godsend treating the Match Threads as quarantine for irritating tribal bull**** was.

By and large I've found that neutral threads generally work fine. In fact, even possibly contentious threads can work ok, (Is XYZ done?) because you know what to expect when you go in. You take the debate less seriously because you can see the way it's framed from the off.

I think Superthreads should be largely the preserve of fans of said team and treated as a sort of safe space for super-duper snowflakes, because their purpose is surely mostly to cater to the fans of that team and give them a place to discuss matters in good faith.
Other fans shouldn't be banned in general, but maybe temp-bans could be issued on an ad-hoc basis from mods to avoid shenanigans after contentious games or certain negative results (EG. "MOD NOTE: THIS THREAD IS FOR XYZ FANS ONLY FOR THE NEXT 24 HOURS).
Maybe that seems like too much work, or too draconian, but it's surely better than the resulting friction. Once passions die down, everyone can debate the issues of the day more calmly.

Match threads generally seem to be the most difficult to mod and least productive avenues for discussion. Their value is in relieving the Superthreads of unwanted conflict, IMO.
Everyone who likes banter can fill their boots there.

I try to be unbiased and even-handed in my posts, but I know I'm not. As a result, I largely avoid superthreads of other teams. I've probably posted fewer than a dozen posts in them in my time on this site. Some people can walk that line, and fair enough to them. Even when I know they're, for example, Utd fans in a Liverpool thread, I don't immediately feel the need to dismiss what they're saying because they've credit in the bank as people who post respectfully and argue in good faith.
Those that don't do that, I just stick on ignore mode, and voila. Everyone's happy.

A few posters are appearing in many posters **** lists and I really just think if you put them on ignore, rather than moaning about it, everyone could get on a lot better. You'll enjoy it more too.
There are certain limits to what the jackboot of the Man can achieve. :pac:

We avoid a lot of the sock puppetry and re-regging that plagues AH, and that's possibly where you see the biggest benefit of using thread bans liberally, but banning some posters from a Superthread (lapsing when a new one is created, or maybe after three months if it's one of the longer-lasting threads) is something I agree is worth looking at.

Also, while personal abuse is pretty cut and dry in being deserving of a ban, I do feel like the hand-wringing over the word nonce is a bit much. It's used interchangeably with things like tosser or twat, in most circles. I know what it means, technically, but it's obtuse to take the euphemism for the same as the word it's representing.
Still a ban, as twat or tosser ought to be, but not worth getting too animated over.

jayo26

jayo26 wrote: »

Couldn't be further from the truth but as I say if you see something report it so someone can defend themselves!!

Stuff like what you have just done is exactly a bigger issue and causes more problems then it fixes and I think that's the main aim.

I am not sure if I understand what you post. Can you explain what you mean?

corwill

How much respect, realistically, can one expect to be shown for flat Earth theories on a geology forum? Or for creationism on a paleontology board?

Everyone's right to an opinion deserves respect, but not the opinions themselves. And when someone continues to propound the nonsensical and baseless over and over again, in an increasingly shrill, rude and contentious manner, beyond the point where they're entitled to any benefit of the the doubt as to their good faith, exasperation and consternation will manifest themselves.

Moist Bread

corwill wrote: »

How much respect, realistically, can one expect to be shown for flat Earth theories on a geology forum? Or for creationism on a paleontology board?

This is a poor analogy and a big exaggeration. Disagreeing about a players worth is nothing like the examples you posted. It's not that cut and dry.

I have no problem with people saying an arguement is nonsense, but when you clearly imply the person themselves is stupid, it crosses the line.

Trigger

Very good post Gbear, I won’t quote it as it’s big enough and I would agree largely with it in general. On your point in making the superthreads fan free for 24 hours, there was a similar point made previously here that I would definitely be in favour of.

It was that something should go in the charter about having a zero tolerance period after a match for say 5/6 hours where posters of opposition teams would have to thread very carefully about what they say, one liners and winding up or blatant going against the thread would be met with sanction. Basically a “cooling off period” Even 24 hours could be a decent cooling off period

Trigger

corwill wrote: »

How much respect, realistically, can one expect to be shown for flat Earth theories on a geology forum? Or for creationism on a paleontology board?

Everyone's right to an opinion deserves respect, but not the opinions themselves. And when someone continues to propound the nonsensical and baseless over and over again, in an increasingly shrill, rude and contentious manner, beyond the point where they're entitled to any benefit of the the doubt as to their good faith, exasperation and consternation will manifest themselves.

Hold on, I Need to get out me dictionary :pac:

jayo26

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I am not sure if I understand what you post. Can you explain what you mean?

You have accused someone mainly me of trying to hound out poster out of a thread.

If you feel I or anyone else is doing that then report it so it can be dealth with instead of saying it in thread where it is not achieving anything.

dfx-

astradave wrote: »

That would be some amount of work for volunteers to undergo in fairness.. even just taking Saturday and Sunday, 2 days, over 100 reports, I’d imagine it would take a hell of a lot of time each day to be sending PM’s to users about reported posts.

I do get where you are coming from though, reporting a post that is trolling/wumming only to see no action taken can be incredibly frustrating.

I appreciate that idea, but there were in total 260 reported posts (some one post reported more than once) over the weekend. 100 Saturday night, another 100 again by Sunday morning/afternoon.

I don't honestly think we'd ever get out of a black hole of PMs to respond to everything. It would need to be an automatic process and I would imagine that could be complex.

Moist Bread

Moist Bread wrote: »

.....

I have no problem with people saying an arguement is nonsense, but when you clearly imply the person themselves is stupid, it crosses the line.

It's funny.....he was critical of that sort of rubbish himself yesterday. .... https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107153677&postcount=587


It seems he thinks he's above it, whilst being up to his neck in it.

Gbear

dfx- wrote: »

I appreciate that idea, but there were in total 260 reported posts (some one post reported more than once) over the weekend. 100 Saturday night, another 100 again by Sunday morning/afternoon.

I don't honestly think we'd ever get out of a black hole of PMs to respond to everything.

I'm surprised there isn't some sort of automated function available.
Or is there, and it's just not worth using?

It'd be handy even if a post that was reported could be flagged automatically whenever a mod has dealt with it, and anyone who reported it gets a simple notification. There's something to be said for seeing the law in action, so to speak.

Agent Coulson

Lord TSC wrote: »

I'll say this then; help the mods out & report people you think are low level trolls.

Something I was told constantly as a mod when trying to deal with low level trolls was there wasn't enough of a paper trail on some of them to justify branding them as such. And that's a user base issue imo. There's people who bemoan low level trolls but rarely if ever will report them.

Instead, posters actively engage with them, feed them and engage with them.

If people ignored who they thought were low level trolls, and instead of responding just reported it over and over to the mods (via constructive feedback within those reports, explaining why they think X is trolling), it would make mods jobs a lot easier. Especially if you realise that mods don't read every post made on this forum, and so might not catch as easily the difference between someone having the occasional contraversial opinion and someone ALwAYS having the opposing position.

I'll say this too; the "ignore" feature has become something I've grown fond of in the last few weeks too.If you feel the mods aren't dealing with who you perceive to be a low level troll, there's that option too. No one forces people to engage or respond, and if you do in the knowledge of the aims of that poster, you're as bad.

(And yes, I say that knowing I have engaged myself in recent months with one or two as well....)

It's great.

However it still has major issues that could be addressed like the quote function still shows those you have on it.


Also if those you have on keep replying to your posts it drives other in the thread nuts.

And as it is a breach of the charter to tell someone you have them on it well that creates hassles for the other readers of the thread who have to put up with a one sided conversation.


No of course if someone doesn't get the hint after a while you don't want to engage with them and they keep replying you have to wonder is that being done on purpose to WUM the thread and other posters in general.

Gbear

corwill wrote: »

How much respect, realistically, can one expect to be shown for flat Earth theories on a geology forum? Or for creationism on a paleontology board?

Everyone's right to an opinion deserves respect, but not the opinions themselves. And when someone continues to propound the nonsensical and baseless over and over again, in an increasingly shrill, rude and contentious manner, beyond the point where they're entitled to any benefit of the the doubt as to their good faith, exasperation and consternation will manifest themselves.

If you look at places like Politics or the Atheism forum, there's pretty clear and well-applied rules about soap-boxing. Some particular threads are magnets to posters who aren't capable of debating properly and they're given enough time to present their case but at a certain point they're required to substantiate what they're saying and if they can't they can pack it in or leave.

Not quite sure how that gets applied to something less concrete and prone to subjectivity, mind you.
I guess if you're reporting a post you could link a string of others that in totality show the poster is failing to engage honestly.

osarusan

Gbear wrote: »

I'm surprised there isn't some sort of automated function available.
Or is there, and it's just not worth using?

It'd be handy even if a post that was reported could be flagged automatically whenever a mod has dealt with it, and anyone who reported it gets a simple notification. There's something to be said for seeing the law in action, so to speak.

The only thing I can think of is something like a list of options for a mod to choose from which reflect whatever decision they made (obviously there might be other options to add to the list):

• no action taken
• pm sent
• post edited
• post deleted
• yellow card
• red card

It might clear things up for other mods as well, who, it seems, need to do a bit of checking to see if a report has been seen/dealt with by any other mods.

And whatever option they choose from above, when they click on it, an automatic messge is sent to anybody who reported that post that simply said 'the post you reported has been checked by a moderator' and nothing more than that.

I don't know if that is possible, or something that mods would want to use, or see as worthwhile, though.

Moist Bread

Augeo wrote: »

It's funny.....he was critical of that sort of rubbish himself yesterday. .... https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107153677&postcount=587


It seems he thinks he's above it, whilst being up to his neck in it.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107155234&postcount=312

I mean, I am almost sure this was aimed at me. If so it is pretty much the coward's way of calling me stupid. You can say my point was stupid, fine, but this sort of goes in the realm of personal abuse surely?

corwill

Augeo wrote: »

It's funny.....he was critical of that sort of rubbish himself yesterday. .... https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107153677&postcount=587


It seems he thinks he's above it, whilst being up to his neck in it.

Use the report button for this sort of thing (however baseless), would you?

I've no doubt you are correct.

Contrast the posts to the speel written last night..... perhaps if you throw in a few long words it's not abuse ?

corwill

corwill wrote: »

Use the report button for this sort of thing (however baseless), would you?

I wouldn't report it but you could easily refrain from it

corwill

Augeo wrote: »

I wouldn't report it but you could easily refrain from it

corwill wrote: »

... (however baseless)...

Thanx 4 The Fish

Moist Bread wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107155234&postcount=312

I mean, I am almost sure this was aimed at me. If so it is pretty much the coward's way of calling me stupid. You can say my point was stupid, fine, but this sort of goes in the realm of personal abuse surely?

It could just as easily be argued by many that you are deliberately on a mission to troll the forum and the thread with arguments that you know will annoy most fans of that thread for your own personal amusement. One man's meat is another man's poison.

Would you like mods to start acting on almost sure because posters or mods may be almost sure you are trolling just as you are almost sure that a post is aimed at you.

Just as with all of our moderation we will attempt on the most case to be confident in our decisions ad I know in the past we have delayed action, either deleting a post to stop it causing further uproar or closing a thread for a brief period, whilst waiting for feedback in the Mods thread to get a second/third opinion on our course of action.

Necro

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

It could just as easily be argued by many that you are deliberately on a mission to troll the forum and the thread with arguments that you know will annoy most fans of that thread for your own personal amusement. One man's meat is another man's poison.

I would argue there's exactly that sort of thing going on in the Everton thread tbh.

corwill

corwill wrote: »

Not at all..... see the "not sure" post above

Moist Bread

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

It could just as easily be argued by many that you are deliberately on a mission to troll the forum and the thread with arguments that you know will annoy most fans of that thread for your own personal amusement. One man's meat is another man's poison.

Would you like mods to start acting on almost sure because posters or mods may be almost sure you are trolling just as you are almost sure that a post is aimed at you.

Just as with all of our moderation we will attempt on the most case to be confident in our decisions ad I know in the past we have delayed action, either deleting a post to stop it causing further uproar or closing a thread for a brief period, whilst waiting for feedback in the Mods thread to get a second/third opinion on our course of action.

I have enjoyed interacting with people and hearing views that are opposed to mine. I learn through this. I am not trying to 'stir the pot' as people have said, surely a forum is all about debate and not just an echo chamber?

jayo26

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

It could just as easily be argued by many that you are deliberately on a mission to troll the forum and the thread with arguments that you know will annoy most fans of that thread for your own personal amusement. One man's meat is another man's poison.

Would you like mods to start acting on almost sure because posters or mods may be almost sure you are trolling just as you are almost sure that a post is aimed at you.
.

If this is the case I for one would love for mods to act on this type of behaviour across all threads.

SlickRic

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Too much carding for insulting players. I get the need to card for insulting posters.

But if a player acts like a scumbag on the pitch...you should not be carded for calling them a scumbag.

Or for using a player or a managers well known, well used nickname.

That, to me, is micro-modding.

in many ways, it's harsh. i get that. there are far more things that are a possible detriment to the forum. it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if it wasn't there.

but at the same time, it's the easiest rule not to fall foul of.

you've to type the abuse.
look at what you've typed.
post it.
and leave it there.

so many chances not to get done.

5starpool

SlickRic wrote: »

in many ways, it's harsh. i get that. there are far more things that are a possible detriment to the forum. it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if it wasn't there.

but at the same time, it's the easiest rule not to fall foul of.

you've to type the abuse.
look at what you've typed.
post it.
and leave it there.

so many chances not to get done.

Consistency and context are again key here, although I am aware that apply context can make it seem inconsistent, so on a hiding to nothing, but if watching a Liverpool match a Liverpool player dives for a penalty when he could have taken a shot, I would be annoyed to get a card for calling him a useless diving c**t in the heat of the moment, and I'd even say that a gleeful opposition fan calling him similar at the point where it just happened shouldn't be card worthy either, but away from the emotion of a game similar happened it is far more worthy of sanction imo.

DM_7

astradave wrote: »

Many threads are filled like this across boards as a whole, the worst part is that instead of actually discussing their points, they continue to shift the goalposts. It adds nothing to a discussion at all. I’d actually like to see blatant moving of goalposts as a cardable offence.

There is plenty of posters that go against the grain but give reasons and back up their points and you can see that it’s an honest opinion, even if it’s one you or the majority disagree with like Thedoc and deaddonkey in the United thread. This would be mainly aimed at people who post an opinion against the grain, get challenged on their opinion but instead of clarifying their position, post something entirely different to the ongoing discussion, it results in the thread as a whole becoming downright unreadable at times

Very difficult for a mod to be left to deal with this type of thing. Mainly because the poster may be genuine.

Should forum members not be able to ignore this type of stuff if it bothers them? If others respond they must he happy to discuss with them.

SlickRic

5starpool wrote: »

Consistency and context are again key here, although I am aware that apply context can make it seem inconsistent, so on a hiding to nothing, but if watching a Liverpool match a Liverpool player dives for a penalty when he could have taken a shot, I would be annoyed to get a card for calling him a useless diving c**t in the heat of the moment, and I'd even say that a gleeful opposition fan calling him similar at the point where it just happened shouldn't be card worthy either, but away from the emotion of a game similar happened it is far more worthy of sanction imo.

and speaking for myself at least, I do try and apply context, unless it really is fúcking stupid.

but at the same time, there's no such thing as 'heat of the moment' on the Internet. it's not like blurting something out. you have to go to the trouble of typing, sending, and leaving it there.

Moist Bread

SlickRic wrote: »

and speaking for myself at least, I do try and apply context, unless it really is fúcking stupid.

but at the same time, there's no such thing as 'heat of the moment' on the Internet. it's not like blurting something out. you have to go to the trouble of typing, sending, and leaving it there.

I disagree here. The heat of the moment can be different for different people. You can be angry for more than a few seconds about something before simmering down. More than enough time to post something silly.

RoboKlopp

RoboKlopp wrote: »

It's pretty clear Liverpool and Utd fans don't generally mix well on here. It's getting worse too.

I would disagree with that statement entirely. There is quite a bit of cross-posting in each others' superthreads which passes, usually, without incident.

RoboKlopp wrote: »

It's even on this thread, with one or two posters pushing that blinkered agenda.

Most or a huge chunk of this thread is linked back to Liverpool and Utd fans "rivalry" which shows it's a major headache.

I also think you are mistaken here. Time and again Utd fans have stated that they are not looking for retrospective 'punishment', but rather clarification as to a) what the rules are, b) what the results of breaching those rules are and c) why are those breaches not, currently, being treated consistently? The reason it is being dominated by the pool vs utd ange is cos of the arseholery that went on last weekend, the postponement of the feedback thread and the locked post where a mod was thrown under the bus without any discussion or reasoning allowed.

Question: If a mod says something that I find to be goading, do I now have carte blanche to call him whatever I want, with a yellow being the top end of the repercussions?

Answer: No, of course not, you can't call someone a rapist and expect it to be okay. Somebody already received a red for abuse in this thread.

So where's the consistency? Why is "Bemitez" on a par with "You're a child molester"?

Why is one mod publicly hung out to dry for the perceived notion that his team affiliation clouded his judgement, while others are allowed to bend the rules as they see fit and not card fans of their own team as harshly as they should be? How are these two things not the same?
(Is this even the case? Were the yellows handed out by a Pool mod?)

Thanx 4 The Fish

From a moderation perspective how do we judge that as well? Is it okay to call ramos a scumbag then in the middle of a game but two hours afterwards it is worth a card, some people may stay angry longer than others...

Heat of the moment cannot be an excuse, people think of something and I can understand them saying it but then to think, GGGGrrr I am going to let some people on the internet know I feel this way about that person and on this occasion I am not going to use all of my words takes some consideration.

Necro

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

From a moderation perspective how do we judge that as well? s it okay to call ramos a scumbag then in the middle of a game but two hours afterwards it is worth a card, some people may stay angry longer than others...

I personally don't have an issue with that current rule, even if I :O fell foul of it recently.

Player abuse = yellow. It's clear cut and straight forward.

Will I Am Not

Necrominus wrote: »

Player abuse = yellow. It's clear cut and straight forward.

You would think...

SlickRic

Moist Bread wrote: »

I disagree here. The heat of the moment can be different for different people. You can be angry for more than a few seconds about something before simmering down. More than enough time to post something silly.

just to repeat, i would have no problem if the rule was gotten rid of. no skin off my nose at all.

but the above is just not true. heat of the moment is heat of the moment. it's 'gut reaction'. and that just doesn't exist when posting something IMO. there are too many steps before you post.

it's not my job to decide whether you're a particularly emotional or angry person whose anger lasts minutes.

i agree with 5Star's point about consistency though. as has been mentioned ad nauseum already, it's something we'll be working on further after what happened on Saturday, spilling into Sunday and Monday. at times, all i ask for (speaking for myself) is patience on occasion. i understand the anger at what seemed to happen at the weekend, but more often than not, there is a reason certain things haven't happened as posters would like them. that's not an excuse, but it is a reason. ideally we'd have just nailed every decision the first time. but with it being late and everything going into meltdown, and the sheer volume of stuff coming in, etc etc, it's just didn't happen.

but consistency, in the long run, is key.

Gbear

SlickRic wrote: »

but the above is just not true. heat of the moment is heat of the moment. it's 'gut reaction'. and that just doesn't exist when posting something IMO. there are too many steps before you post.

What if you're really really quick on the draw?

I seen the ‘ignore’ poster option mentioned.

How do I use that ?

I can’t find the option.

I’m using the legacy site, on safari, on my iPhone if that info is needed.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

From a moderation perspective how do we judge that as well? Is it okay to call ramos a scumbag then in the middle of a game but two hours afterwards it is worth a card, some people may stay angry longer than others...

I'm still not over the Lou Macari-Jimmy Greenhoff goal in the '77 cup final.......

marklazarcovic

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I seen the ‘ignore’ poster option mentioned.

How do I use that ?

I can’t find the option.

I’m using the legacy site, on safari, on my iPhone if that info is needed.

I tried on my phone but couldn't,had to use laltop

Moist Bread

Deleted User wrote: »

I seen the ‘ignore’ poster option mentioned.

How do I use that ?

I can’t find the option.

I’m using the legacy site, on safari, on my iPhone if that info is needed.

Did you try clicking on the username and looking at the options listed? Not on iPhone so not sure.

marklazarcovic

marklazarcovic wrote: »

I tried on my phone but couldn't,had to use laltop

Thought that might be the case.

Real shame cause I’m never on a laptop.

Moist Bread

Moist Bread wrote: »

Did you try clicking on the username and looking at the options listed? Not on iPhone so not sure.

I did.

There are 3 options none of which are ignore.

Will I Am Not

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I did.

There are 3 options none of which are ignore.

Switch to the full site on you phone and go into control panel. Ignore settings will be listed in the options on the left. Add username of person you want to ignore.

Thanks for all replies.

The solution is too long winded though so I’ll suffer in silence.

StringerBell

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Thanks for all replies.

The solution is too long winded though so I’ll suffer in silence.

The solution is actually fairly simple tbh, just go on to the full site and add the user(s) to your ignore list and switch back again. I'd be amazed if that took longer then 5 minutes

Will I Am Not

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Thanks for all replies.

The solution is too long winded though so I’ll suffer in silence.

It’s not at all. I won’t rest until you get this.

https://streamable.com/0x25h

Will I Am Not

Will I Am Not wrote: »

It’s not at all. I won’t rest until you get this.

https://streamable.com/0x25h

Quality.

McGrath5

Is this forum been opened up to great unwashed for the WC?

If I recall last time it turned into a bit of a free for all.

GavRedKing

McGrath5 wrote: »

Is this forum been opened up to great unwashed for the WC?

If I recall last time it turned into a bit of a free for all.

Its open for discussion, there seems to be more open to the suggestion than against it.

If we can setup a sub forum in Soccer (like the ticket forum or coaching forum) it might be better.

Its with the back office anyway to see if the capability and resources are available to make it happen.

Dunno if its feasible or not, but how about an immediate post match 'silly' banter type thread where all the childish/baiting etc stuff can go with the threat of a big ban hammer for those who desire to post this nonsense in the 'official' match thread? Could be opened immediately after the final whistle and let run for a day or two. Don't think this problem can ever be solved fully, just a policy of channeling and containment imo.