Feedback Thread 2018

Skylinehead

Mars Bar wrote: »

I've used thread bans in the Ladies Lounge. It's a useful tool to be honest!

Sure isn't there a thread ban in the humour thread for chat?

Nah, 24 hour forum ban. I've floated the thread ban thing earlier, I'd be in favour.

Drumpot

Gbear wrote: »

That might work in Politics where there tend to be a few popular but relatively slow-moving threads, with active mods almost always within those threads so they can moderate in the classical sense like in a debate, but I'd imagine they'd be more reliant on here to reporting, given how quick things move.

You can leave a Superthread after a match on a Saturday afternoon and if you get back on Sunday morning it might have gone 400 posts ahead.
Keeping track of the flow of a conversation within that sounds like a lot of work.

I think rather, if we're going to stop soapboxing, it should essentially be fairly loose and subject to receiving multiple reports and the mod's discretion, because there's not really any bulletproof wording you can put in the charter to deal with it.

One issue can be that standing your ground can be seen as soapboxing by virtue of a fact that it might simply just not be a popular opinion. A bad result leads to some fans immediately looking to simplify the issues and find somebody to blame. Some fans use it to crucify manager and players. Others take a step back and take a more grounded view based not just on that result or disappointment. This can be classed “not willing to accept criticism of manager/player” because it interferes with the populist “x is the reason for why I’m unhappy now so let’s all collectively slag him off”.

There are so many regular default, popular stances I dislike - managers at fault for most things - managers always get to pick players they want to sign (they don’t , they have input and publically support who is signed as part of their job!!) - if players are underperforming they are automatically victims of bad management ... it’s an accepted football cultural response to disappointment that makes people feel like this viewpoint shouldn’t be challenged and to do so is somehow “not accepting who is to blame”!

In the united forum I can get into arguments with my fans and know I won’t be accused of trolling cause that’s just what I think. They may find it boring (in all fairness I can find my own comments boring at times) and not like or agree with my views but they at worst (and regularly ) ignore me. If I did this in other forums would it be accepted that this is just a general , unprejudiced stance on all football teams/managers/players ?

It ties in with the “mods can’t know everbody who posts here” but if I respond to a warning is it factored in? If I said “look I can see how it was interpret that way by some but it wasn’t intended that way” is there any room for a mod to amend a decision? Or is it a case of “well that’s how the fans of that forum interpreted it , so just don’t go there if they don’t like your posting style?”. Is that an accepted and valid stance for a mod to take ? I’m just curious as to what sort of culture is encouraged and how flexible mods are when reviewing infractions.

corwill

Drumpot wrote: »

One issue can be that standing your ground can be seen as soapboxing by virtue of a fact that it might simply just not be a popular opinion. A bad result leads to some fans immediately looking to simplify the issues and find somebody to blame. Some fans use it to crucify manager and players. Others take a step back and take a more grounded view based not just on that result or disappointment. This can be classed “not willing to accept criticism of manager/player” because it interferes with the populist “x is the reason for why I’m unhappy now so let’s all collectively slag him off”.

There are so many regular default, popular stances I dislike - managers at fault for most things - managers always get to pick players they want to sign (they don’t , they have input and publically support who is signed as part of their job!!) - if players are underperforming they are automatically victims of bad management ... it’s an accepted football cultural response to disappointment that makes people feel like this viewpoint shouldn’t be challenged and to do so is somehow “not accepting who is to blame”!

In the united forum I can get into arguments with my fans and know I won’t be accused of trolling cause that’s just what I think. They may find it boring (in all fairness I can find my own comments boring at times) and not like or agree with my views but they at worst (and regularly ) ignore me. If I did this in other forums would it be accepted that this is just a general , unprejudiced stance on all football teams/managers/players ?

It ties in with the “mods can’t know everbody who posts here” but if I respond to a warning is it factored in? If I said “look I can see how it was interpret that way by some but it wasn’t intended that way” is there any room for a mod to amend a decision? Or is it a case of “well that’s how the fans of that forum interpreted it , so just don’t go there if they don’t like your posting style?”. Is that an accepted and valid stance for a mod to take ? I’m just curious as to what sort of culture is encouraged and how flexible mods are when reviewing infractions.

Posters arguing the unpopular side of an argument, whether in earnest or as a devil's advocate, is a good thing in any discussion forum. But there are a number of posters in SF who will argue in bad faith in furtherance of their personal vendettas against other posters, often taking a position reflexively contrary to the object of their animus. They mightn't even appear on a thread in the absence of their 'nemesis'. That sort of freakishly obsessive behavior on an ongoing basis has a wearing effect on even the most tolerant of posters, and really detracts from the enjoyment of a given thread.

Moist Bread

corwill wrote: »

Posters arguing the unpopular side of an argument, whether in earnest or as a devil's advocate, is a good thing in any discussion forum. But there are a number of posters in SF who will argue in bad faith in furtherance of their personal vendettas against other posters, often taking a position reflexively contrary to the object of their animus. They mightn't even appear on a thread in the absence of their 'nemesis'. That sort of freakishly obsessive behavior on an ongoing basis has a wearing effect on even the most tolerant of posters, and really detracts from the enjoyment of a given thread.

I think that this could be the case at times, but also it's possible that it could be a paranoid delusion on the part of the offended. It's something that would be hard to moderate, unless extremely obvious. Also it's the sort of rule that could be abused by people with personal vendettas of their own.

The old nemesis stuff is imaginary I reckon. There are folk wandering about with such theories in their heads right enough but they seem to shoehorn situations to fit that theory.

StringerBell

Nah couldn't agree the nemisis stuff is all imaginary, there are definitely posters (however bat**** crazy it is) who target other posters in an unending personal battle.

Will I Am Not

The problem with thread bans for people that are “more trouble than they’re worth” is that some people will inevitably be made look like they’re more trouble than they’re worth through constant complaining and reporting.

Moist Bread

Moist Bread wrote: »

I think that this could be the case at times, but also it's possible that it could be a paranoid delusion on the part of the offended. It's something that would be hard to moderate, unless extremely obvious. Also it's the sort of rule that could be abused by people with personal vendettas of their own.

Not hard to moderate at all.

If repeated arguments are being slung I think it's pretty obvious. Mods definitely aware of it as warnings have been issued on thread at times.

Moist Bread

Will I Am Not wrote: »

The problem with thread bans for people that are “more trouble than they’re worth” is that some people will inevitably be made look like they’re more trouble than they’re worth through constant complaining and reporting.

That's exactly what I was getting at. I think it's naive to believe that such groups don't exist either.

StringerBell

Will I Am Not wrote: »

The problem with thread bans for people that are “more trouble than they’re worth” is that some people will inevitably be made look like they’re more trouble than they’re worth through constant complaining and reporting.

This is a danger of it but one that is manageable I would think if you have more then one mod needing to sign off on a thread ban. A Cmod even maybe?

It is a guarantee that some will join up to try remove some posters from a thread, same way as there has been efforts to get people banned by block reporting. You won't ever stop that you basically just have to have faith in the team to do their job properly.

A thread ban can most likely also be challenged if you feel you have a case for it in DRP same as any other infraction?

Moist Bread

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Not hard to moderate at all.

If repeated arguments are being slung I think it's pretty obvious. Mods definitely aware of it as warnings have been issued on thread at times.

You mean the same arguement or just disagreeing with someone a lot? I mean, isn't often the case that two people will hold conflicting views over a number of issues?

Moist Bread

Moist Bread wrote: »

You mean the same arguement or just disagreeing with someone a lot? I mean, isn't often the case that two people will hold conflicting views over a number of issues?

The same argument over and over.

Just disrupts the flow of the thread.

Gbear

Drumpot wrote: »

One issue can be that standing your ground can be seen as soapboxing by virtue of a fact that it might simply just not be a popular opinion. A bad result leads to some fans immediately looking to simplify the issues and find somebody to blame. Some fans use it to crucify manager and players. Others take a step back and take a more grounded view based not just on that result or disappointment. This can be classed “not willing to accept criticism of manager/player” because it interferes with the populist “x is the reason for why I’m unhappy now so let’s all collectively slag him off”.

[...]

It ties in with the “mods can’t know everbody who posts here” but if I respond to a warning is it factored in? If I said “look I can see how it was interpret that way by some but it wasn’t intended that way” is there any room for a mod to amend a decision? Or is it a case of “well that’s how the fans of that forum interpreted it , so just don’t go there if they don’t like your posting style?”. Is that an accepted and valid stance for a mod to take ? I’m just curious as to what sort of culture is encouraged and how flexible mods are when reviewing infractions.

In other fora there's a fairly clear way to see whether or not someone is arguing in good faith.

So if it's X politician is great/terrible, then they have to back up what they're saying and address others who make good faith arguments that that might not be the case.

Say a manger is sacked.
One poster starts giving loads of non-specific reasons why he shouldn't have been, got a raw deal, it was down to poor players.

Other people counter with the worst win rate in history, evidence that he fell out with players, poor relationship with fans, etc

Poster one restates his position, maybe changing the appearance of it but not the substance and doesn't address any of the issues presented.

Other people counter that he kicked a fan in the face, he was doing coke in the jacks on match days, they got beaten 6-0 four games in a row..

Poster one again just avoids answering them and gives some vague explanations as to why he's so great.

In debates about politican X, or creationism, it's really obvious when posters post like this, and mods usually give them a little leeway (after all, sometimes you don't see posts, or you forget or you didn't have time, or whatever). But after a few hours of back and forwards of selectively ignoring anything that might undermine your point it starts to become clear.

It might be a bit looser in football because there's less clarity about what is a fact in football, but I think the only thing is to give it whirl and see how we get on, maybe try and refine the process a little.

If there's a torrent of spurious reporting that's just making life difficult for mods, then forget about it. If they're getting it wrong by being a little too lenient or strict, a little bit of back and forward will get posters and mods familiar with the new environment and what soapboxing looks like.

Even if you are arguing in good faith and you are trying to address other people's points, is there any great need for people to keep restating their positions once they're not going to budge? Maybe you leave that to posters to decide to agree to disagree, but maybe a mod can step in instead.

Skylinehead

Will I Am Not wrote: »

The problem with thread bans for people that are “more trouble than they’re worth” is that some people will inevitably be made look like they’re more trouble than they’re worth through constant complaining and reporting.

I don't think that would be too much of an issue. We already know who we consider troublemakers

blueser

Just had a look at the Everton thread (don't think I was ever on there!), to see what the fuss was about. I can see what people are on about; some real whoppers posting on there. N***e this, n***e that. Some folk would really want to take a long hard look at themselves.

Apparently non%$ is common chat according to some in there. I've never heard it uttered by anyone in Ireland and whenever I've seen it mentioned it means paedo in an obvious insulting fashion.

Allegedly in east enders it's frequent but spelt differently.

HandsomeBob

blueser wrote: »

Just had a look at the Everton thread (don't think I was ever on there!), to see what the fuss was about. I can see what people are on about; some real whoppers posting on there. N***e this, n***e that. Some folk would really want to take a long hard look at themselves.

Never stepped foot in the thread until today, any one fancy giving me a quick run down of the problems....my inner ex mod on boards has me curious given the enormity of complaints.

Iused2likebusts

What has gone on in the Everton thread is a joke. One poster pretty much able to derail the whole thread. Perfect example of a where a thread ban would work perfectly.

Benimar

Augeo wrote: »

Apparently non%$ is common chat according to some in there. I've never heard it uttered by anyone in Ireland and whenever I've seen it mentioned it means paedo in an obvious insulting fashion.

Allegedly in east enders it's frequent but spelt differently.

I have to say I’m the opposite. Maybe it’s an age thing (I’m no spring chicken) but I’ve heard the term used numerous times, but never to mean paedophile.

In fact, until recently I didn’t know it could mean that. I always took it to mean a nonsense person, a waste of space at it were. I was actually surprised when it caused such a furore last week.

It’s not a term I use and I’m not in the habit of referring to people as paedophiles, but I just want to point out that for a number of people, they may only be aware of the more innocent meaning.

It’s still cardable on a forum obviously as it’s abuse, but I don’t think it’s fair to assume it is meant in its worst sense. I certainly would not have taken the reference in the Everton forum to mean paedophile. (That’s not to defend the sh1tshow that’s going on in the forum though)

Pretty sure Beasty or one of the mods said a few page's back they are looking at the Everton thread issue.

It might be a good user case for the new proposed rule by the sounds of it.

Never heard nonce meaning paedophile until the Adam Johnson case.

Not a word that was used much in Ireland when I was growing up. Think it referred to an imbecile.

AidoEirE

Nonce meaning pedo, soapboxing, snowflakes, sounds like a prison chat up line

Minderbinder

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Never heard nonce meaning paedophile until the Adam Johnson case.

Not a word that was used much in Ireland when I washed growing up. Think it referred to an imbecile.

Is that Suarez defence?

Omackeral

On the other hand, I've never heard it refer to anything except a paedo. Heard it said that it stands for Not Of Normal Criminal Element or some such ie a prison term. Could just be a backronym though. Either way, stupid thing to be typing on a bloody football forum.

HandsomeBob

Minderbinder wrote: »

Is that Suarez defence?

Yeah that's it chief.

Shanotheslayer

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Never heard nonce meaning paedophile until the Adam Johnson case.

Not a word that was used much in Ireland when I washed growing up. Think it referred to an imbecile.

AidoEirE wrote: »

Nonce meaning pedo, soapboxing, snowflakes, sounds like a prison chat up line

https://gyazo.com/a8080b4d2e20fdefaa687f0b54c3fba7

Benimar

Benimar wrote: »

I have to say I’m the opposite. Maybe it’s an age thing (I’m no spring chicken) but I’ve heard the term used numerous times, but never to mean paedophile.

In fact, until recently I didn’t know it could mean that. I always took it to mean a nonsense person, a waste of space at it were. I was actually surprised when it caused such a furore last week.

It’s not a term I use and I’m not in the habit of referring to people as paedophiles, but I just want to point out that for a number of people, they may only be aware of the more innocent meaning.

It’s still cardable on a forum obviously as it’s abuse, but I don’t think it’s fair to assume it is meant in its worst sense. I certainly would not have taken the reference in the Everton forum to mean paedophile. (That’s not to defend the sh1tshow that’s going on in the forum though)

Only for that then-controversial episode of Brass Eye back in 2001, 'Paedogeddon', I wouldn't have a clue what it means tbh.

I can see that some people are applying the older, less offensive meaning to it in here and saying 'How is that so bad?'. Some of them have a point because it wasn't always just another name for a paedophile.

However, since these days it is widely used as a term for a paedophile, no matter what else it is used for, is there any chance we can just not use it in the soccer forum?

If someone feels the need to call another poster a name while debating, use 'clown' or 'numpty' or better still, don't use anything because that's personal abuse.

So, I've just written an on-topic post which contains multiple uses of that 'P' word. Thanks, soccer forum!

Shanotheslayer

Deleted User wrote: »

If someone feels the need to call another poster a name while debating, use 'clown' or 'numpty' or better still, don't use anything because that's personal abuse.

So, I've just written an on-topic post which contains multiple uses of that 'P' word. Thanks, soccer forum!

Nobody called a poster a nonce. It's in relation to me calling Big Sam one.

Minderbinder

For what it’s worth I think the guy in the Everton thread is genuine in his opinions. He defended a manager he thinks is good at his job. He might have been overzealous but if all posters in the soccer forum are allowed to post in all team threads then they ought to have the same rights as the natives in said threads.

Everton fans were passionate about their hatred for Sam. Just because it’s the Everton thread, that doesn’t mean Everton fans have special privileges in that thread. That’s the way people want it and that’s the way it should be until team threads are for fans only.

I think Sam is a good manager too and I was happy when the discussion moved into the General PL thread, but if I find something worth discussing I will discuss it wherever the conversation is at. If that’s in the Everton thread, and if that upsets Everton fans then so be it.

blueser

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Nobody called a poster a nonce. It's in relation to me calling Big Sam one.

Serious question (not WUMming you); looking back now, how do you feel about calling him a nonce now? Are you proud of it/stand over it/ regret it?

Shanotheslayer

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Nobody called a poster a nonce. It's in relation to me calling Big Sam one.

You sure about that? It's been a hot topic for almost a week at this stage in the soccer forum, and now there's confusion over its meaning.

I wasn't talking just about your case specifically, although I did see that in the Everton thread. I'm am 100% sure that you definitely didn't intend to call Sam a 'P', but it didn't read well at all. It also gave a poster the perfect ammo to continue wrecking your heads in there.

jayo26

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Nobody called a poster a nonce. It's in relation to me calling Big Sam one.

They did but it wasn't you.

Iused2likebusts

Minderbinder wrote: »

For what it’s worth I think the guy in the Everton thread is genuine in his opinions. He defended a manager he thinks is good at his job. He might have been overzealous but if all posters in the soccer forum are allowed to post in all team threads then they ought to have the same rights as the natives in said threads.

Everton fans were passionate about their hatred for Sam. Just because it’s the Everton thread, that doesn’t mean Everton fans have special privileges in that thread. That’s the way people want it and that’s the way it should be until team threads are for fans only.

I think Sam is a good manager too and I was happy when the discussion moved into the General PL thread, but if I find something worth discussing I will discuss it wherever the conversation is at. If that’s in the Everton thread, and if that upsets Everton fans then so be it.

There comes a time when you have to let your opinion go though. How many times can you say the same thing and he usually only popped in after Everton had a good result. He made his point but surely there comes a time when you know its winding up the majority of the thread that enough is enough.

Iused2likebusts

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

There comes a time when you have to let your opinion go though. How many times can you say the same thing and he usually only popped in after Everton had a good result. He made his point but surely there comes a time when you know its winding up the majority of the thread that enough is enough.

Exactly

Beasty

I may have strong views about things and post them on Boards. I'll back off though if I'm going completely against the grain for that very reason. I would know quite well to continue putting my point forward would wind others up

I do think it's something we need to be on the lookout for and intervene if someone is persistent in spouting controversial views particularly when the related team is not performing well

Shanotheslayer

blueser wrote: »

Serious question (not WUMming you); looking back now, how do you feel about calling him a nonce now? Are you proud of it/stand over it/ regret it?

I've no regret calling him one tbh. I was referencing the w@nker/pr1ck aspect of it. To be honest I never even heard of the paedophile meaning of it previously.

I believe it was pretty obvious that I wasn't calling him a paedophile and never would do so.

I used the word nonce to avoid the card of calling him a pr1ck or worse. Evidently that failed :pac:

Shanotheslayer

Minderbinder wrote: »

For what it’s worth I think the guy in the Everton thread is genuine in his opinions. He defended a manager he thinks is good at his job. He might have been overzealous but if all posters in the soccer forum are allowed to post in all team threads then they ought to have the same rights as the natives in said threads.

Everton fans were passionate about their hatred for Sam. Just because it’s the Everton thread, that doesn’t mean Everton fans have special privileges in that thread. That’s the way people want it and that’s the way it should be until team threads are for fans only.

I think Sam is a good manager too and I was happy when the discussion moved into the General PL thread, but if I find something worth discussing I will discuss it wherever the conversation is at. If that’s in the Everton thread, and if that upsets Everton fans then so be it.

He came in calling Everton fans uneducated and brain dead also if I recall correctly also.

Shanotheslayer

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I've no regret calling him one tbh. I was referencing the w@nker/pr1ck aspect of it. To be honest I never even heard of the paedophile meaning of it previously.

I believe it was pretty obvious that I wasn't calling him a paedophile and never would do so.

I used the word nonce to avoid the card of calling him a pr1ck or worse. Evidently that failed :pac:

Yep. The term in fairness has more than one meaning. Often used as a description of an eejit.

uncleoswald

Drumpot wrote: »

One issue can be that standing your ground can be seen as soapboxing by virtue of a fact that it might simply just not be a popular opinion. A bad result leads to some fans immediately looking to simplify the issues and find somebody to blame. Some fans use it to crucify manager and players. Others take a step back and take a more grounded view based not just on that result or disappointment.

Maybe it's the condescending tone and not the opinion that results in accusations of soapboxing?

5starpool

Would a thread ban be accompanied by a pm? What if someone hasn't read back fully and has pms off as I believe you can or had a full inbox?

The more informal an arrangement the more holes. It'll turn into a forum ban often enough anyhow. On short lived topics they could work, on permanent running ones not so much.

5starpool

Also, it should be a red card offence to refer to a thread as above forum. Lots of that going on.

adaminho

Minderbinder wrote: »

For what it’s worth I think the guy in the Everton thread is genuine in his opinions. He defended a manager he thinks is good at his job. He might have been overzealous but if all posters in the soccer forum are allowed to post in all team threads then they ought to have the same rights as the natives in said threads.

Everton fans were passionate about their hatred for Sam. Just because it’s the Everton thread, that doesn’t mean Everton fans have special privileges in that thread. That’s the way people want it and that’s the way it should be until team threads are for fans only.

I think Sam is a good manager too and I was happy when the discussion moved into the General PL thread, but if I find something worth discussing I will discuss it wherever the conversation is at. If that’s in the Everton thread, and if that upsets Everton fans then so be it.

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

He came in calling Everton fans uneducated and brain dead also if I recall correctly also.

The problem was there were a few different posters that were pro Allardyce. One was was very condescending to Everton fans but the rest were lumped in with him. Fans who had experience of Sam as a manager were ridiculed due to the actions of one poster.

Shanotheslayer

adaminho wrote: »

The problem was there were a few different posters that were pro Allardyce. One was was very condescending to Everton fans but the rest were lumped in with him. Fans who had experience of Sam as a manager were ridiculed due to the actions of one poster.

From being in the thread it was Rekop Dog and Eagle Eye that people appeared to have an issue with.

I had no problem with Eagle Eye he simple believed Sam was a good manager etc, however, it was Rekop that caused the problems calling fans brain dead and only popping in when Sam won a match.

Trigger

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I've no regret calling him one tbh. I was referencing the w@nker/pr1ck aspect of it. To be honest I never even heard of the paedophile meaning of it previously.

I believe it was pretty obvious that I wasn't calling him a paedophile and never would do so.

I used the word nonce to avoid the card of calling him a pr1ck or worse. Evidently that failed :pac:

I think the problem was with your post the Word you were looking for is nonse. It’s basically derived from nonsense. I posted the two in the Everton thread. While speaking they sound the same but extra care should be taking when written, I think it was obvious that you didn’t mean it in the way it was taken though

Minderbinder

Minderbinder wrote: »

For what it’s worth I think the guy in the Everton thread is genuine in his opinions...

Oh he he may genuinely believe Everton fans are stupid and disloyal, but repeating it in every second contribution is trolling.

Trigger

I think one of my biggest gripes while reading threads is cross thread baiting, “you’ll never guess what they are saying in the United/Pool thread.. thy are saying player A is better than player B or they are bitching about our player in Thread A” it seriously needs to be cut out.. very irritating reading through a thread and coming across those posts

Skylinehead

5starpool wrote: »

Would a thread ban be accompanied by a pm? What if someone hasn't read back fully and has pms off as I believe you can or had a full inbox?

The more informal an arrangement the more holes. It'll turn into a forum ban often enough anyhow. On short lived topics they could work, on permanent running ones not so much.

There'd usually be a little leeway. A reminder especially if the post was soon after a thread ban.

redzerdrog

astradave wrote: »

I think one of my biggest gripes while reading threads is cross thread baiting, “you’ll never guess what they are saying in the United/Pool thread.. thy are saying player A is better than player B or they are bitching about our player in Thread A” it seriously needs to be cut out.. very irritating reading through a thread and coming across those posts

Yep should be a red card offence

Shanotheslayer

astradave wrote: »

I think the problem was with your post the Word you were looking for is nonse. It’s basically derived from nonsense. I posted the two in the Everton thread. While speaking they sound the same but extra care should be taking when written, I think it was obvious that you didn’t mean it in the way it was taken though

I understand that completely. However I did post a screenshot where its spelt nonce also.

Trigger

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I understand that completely. However I did post a screenshot where its spelt nonce also.

Yeah seen that, tbh I think we should just all move on from this here now anyways