Feedback Thread 2018

Thanx 4 The Fish

bucketybuck wrote: »

This is the response I get for asking a question in a feedback thread? Seriously?

Why did you ask the question? Was there t overhangs because you wanted action taken on a post by somebody?

Nothing in the charter has changed so far, this is where it is reviewed.

marklazarcovic

It's quite sad the when you go to a rivals thread/s just to find stuff to report to mods, pathetic actually. Imo.

bucketybuck

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Why did you ask the question? Was there t overhangs because you wanted action taken on a post by somebody?

Nothing in the charter has changed so far, this is where it is reviewed.

Because I wanted clarification on what is a yellow and what is not, if I wanted action taken against somebody then I would have said so. That you decide to question my motives says everything about the moderation of this board.

PhlegmyMoses

Bizarre hostility for no apparent reason.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Bizarre hostility for no apparent reason.

run of the mill with no repercussions, as per.

Thanx 4 The Fish

No aggression at all. Serious question based on information that is perhaps not available to everyone. If it came across in that way then I apologise but the feedback thread is not really the place for chasing up in other actions within the forum.

Will I Am Not

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

No aggression at all. Serious question based on information that is perhaps not available to everyone. If it came across in that way then I apologise but the feedback thread is not really the place for chasing up in other actions within the forum.

But it suely is the place to ask about what is and isn’t allowed fly in particular threads no?
If I reported someone for calling a player a scumbag and there was no action, I’d be using this thread to ask if scumbag is an acceptable term or not.

wandatowell

marklazarcovic wrote: »

It's quite sad the when you go to a rivals thread/s just to find stuff to report to mods, pathetic actually. Imo.

People actually do this?

My god boards.........

bucketybuck

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

No aggression at all. Serious question based on information that is perhaps not available to everyone. If it came across in that way then I apologise but the feedback thread is not really the place for chasing up in other actions within the forum.

Bull****, and again an implication of ulterior motives.

"Information not available to everyone", "other actions within the forum", you can take a guess what I think of your own ulterior motives here.

I asked a simple ****ing question, and unlike you if I meant something else by it I would have come right out and said so.

Good job mate, well done.

Rossi IRL

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

It is a breach of the charter.

"It is a breach of the charter"

Is the charter going to be updated now to where personal abuse against other posters is now only deemed a yellow.

I dont think it has been answered yet on why a mod decided to issue yellows for posts that were nailed on reds.

Maybe as the main mod here you can give an explanation on why the charter wasn't followed on the night by your fellow mods and what can be done in the future to stop that **** show happening again.

Trigger

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

No aggression at all. Serious question based on information that is perhaps not available to everyone. If it came across in that way then I apologise but the feedback thread is not really the place for chasing up in other actions within the forum.

What are you trying to imply here? As this really doesn’t read good.

Edit: Sorry, I’ll elaborate. By using this sentence here it seems that you are saying that you have information that shows there is ulterior novice at play with any questions asked(I presume by United fans) in this thread. That surely means that you cannot analyse and answer these questions objectively if you are looking at them with the view that there is an ulterior motive behind them.

Potential Underachiever

Someone on the Liverpool thread called Ramos a thug yesterday, then you have somebody questioning whether calling a player a thug or scumbag is a yellow card, my initial thought when I read the post on here was that it was referencing the Ramos post. Maybe it was all very coincidental. I'll be honest I think utd fans are looking for blood of a Liverpool supporting mod, the way yous have swarmed around T4TF since hasn't really disproved my theory tbh.

Potential Underachiever

Potential Underachiever wrote: »

Someone on the Liverpool thread called Ramos a thug yesterday............

Is that post still there?
Search isn't finding it

https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?sort=newest&date_to=&date_from=&query=thug&forum=151

Some from over a week ago alright, uncarded too it seems.

pjohnson

Potential Underachiever wrote: »

Someone on the Liverpool thread called Ramos a thug yesterday, then you have somebody questioning whether calling a player a thug or scumbag is a yellow card, my initial thought when I read the post on here was that it was referencing the Ramos post. Maybe it was all very coincidental. I'll be honest I think utd fans are looking for blood of a Liverpool supporting mod, the way yous have swarmed around T4TF since hasn't really disproved my theory tbh.

How is asking a question of a moderator regarding moderation "baying for blood"? Is the feedback thread not supposed to help clarify moderation for the coming year and clarify any oddities that occured during the past year?

And why does who T4TF support have to do with moderation?

The_Kew_Tour

Potential Underachiever wrote: »

Someone on the Liverpool thread called Ramos a thug yesterday, then you have somebody questioning whether calling a player a thug or scumbag is a yellow card, my initial thought when I read the post on here was that it was referencing the Ramos post. Maybe it was all very coincidental. I'll be honest I think utd fans are looking for blood of a Liverpool supporting mod, the way yous have swarmed around T4TF since hasn't really disproved my theory tbh.

Chill, its ok

Thug is now a banned word?

Agent Coulson

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Thug is now a banned word?

Really?

WOW.

Seems like ganging up alright. Seen it happening in previous feedback threads.

Time to wrap it up I'd imagine.

Agent Coulson

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Really?

WOW.

I want just wondering. Didn't think so.

RoboKlopp

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Thug is now a banned word?

A breach of charter, to call somone a thug
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107189844&postcount=948

Trigger

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Thug is now a banned word?

Well I think that was the point of the original question by Bucky, abuse of players is outlined as a minor offence in the charter(yellow card), clarification is needed with regards to what is considered abuse of players, is calling someone a thug, abuse? Is calling someone a scumbag? C*nt? Prick? Snowflake?

Is saying “that’s thuggish behaviour from Ramos”, the same as saying “Ramos is a thug”?

If anything, this really needs to be clarified.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Rossi IRL wrote: »

Maybe as the main mod here

pjohnson

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Seems like ganging up alright. Seen it happening in previous feedback threads.

Time to wrap it up I'd imagine.

So no questions allowed in feedback. Good to know. Questions = ganging up

Agent Coulson

astradave wrote: »

What are you trying to imply here? As this really doesn’t read good.

Edit: Sorry, I’ll elaborate. By using this sentence here it seems that you are saying that you have information that shows there is ulterior novice at play with any questions asked(I presume by United fans) in this thread. That surely means that you cannot analyse and answer these questions objectively if you are looking at them with the view that there is an ulterior motive behind them.

There has been quite a one sided narrative been told from the beginning of this thread from some posters from what I and many others have seen and read maybe reading between the lines there is ulterior motive to that narrative.

citytillidie

Augeo wrote: »

A breach of charter, to call somone a thug
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107189844&postcount=948

So is calling fans a word that rhymes with runts but that has gone uncarded

Lord TSC

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Seems like ganging up alright. Seen it happening in previous feedback threads.

Time to wrap it up I'd imagine.

You know, there's been a few times since this thread launched where non-mod Liverpool fans have come in here saying things like "Whats the point", trying to downplay and dismiss any concerns from United fans simply as petty biasness and now, the latest, saying things like "Time to wrap up". This is even funnier when the original point was raised by a Pool fan early on that if United fans have issues, they need to raise them more vocally like the Pool fans did with theirs and Mac.

With the greatest of respect, the posters on this forum basically get once a year to ask questions and seek clarity like this on a public forum with the mods. The aforementioned attitudes of trying to dismiss or shut down any such discussions should really only come from the mods, NOT from other users. Fair play if you guys are happy with everything and don't feel the need to raise any further concerns at present, but stop trying to shut down everyone elses.

If you aren't interested in this line of thinking, then fine but trying to shut down others is just condescending and going to cause more trouble in both the short and long term. If you feel that you guys have got what you want from the feedback thread, fine, move on, but until the mods make the decision to shut it down, how bout you then let others voice their concerns, huh?

Adamocovic

Think people are blowing the last couple of pages out of proportion.
Accusations of ganging up are childish in my eyes. If someone asks a question on a feedback thread and isn't happy with the response they are going to let you know. It doesn't make them right but it is a feedback thread after all.

It's ridiculous how petty some United and Liverpool fans can get in here at times trying to get little meaningless wins over each other.

Again talks seems to be about clarification of carded offenses and charter rules. I don't think we need to keep going in circles around it, most have already stated we believe the rules need to be updated, some taken away, others added, and clearly explained what is and isn't an offence.

Doing so will be the first step in ensuring consistent moderating. I don't think we need to continue pushing the mods for explanations of what is and isn't a red, no doubt they are aware they need to clarify the rules better and enforce them more consistently.

pjohnson

Agent Coulson wrote: »

There has been quite a one sided narrative been told from the beginning of this thread from some posters from what I and many others have seen and read maybe reading between the lines there is ulterior motive to that narrative.

Indeed there has. I and many others have been wondering why the decisions made regarding moderation have a large degree of variation.

Trigger

Agent Coulson wrote: »

There has been quite a one sided narrative been told from the beginning of this thread from some posters from what I and many others have seen and read maybe reading between the lines there is ulterior motive to that narrative.

Would you include Bucketybuck in that narrative? The person who was described to have ulterior motive? Would you include me in that? Bucky wants an answer to a straight up question that he has asked from the beginning of the thread, to no real explanation. I thought T4tf, as a moderator, should have worded his post differently. I personally have had no problems with mods on this forum and I couldn’t really give a toss who they support.

GavRedKing

I'll be closing this up sometime after lunch time.

Adamocovic

Good hustle guys. Phil would be proud.

Beasty

Rossi IRL wrote: »

Maybe as the main mod here you can give an explanation on why the charter wasn't followed on the night by your fellow mods and what can be done in the future to stop that **** show happening again.

I have already provided an explanation earlier in the thread.

@LordTsc

@LordTsc.

I only said wrap it up as that was the plan from the OP, 7 days from last Wednesday afternoon.

I think the last few pages didn't really add anything that's wasn't the discussed already in the thread.

Agent Coulson

astradave wrote: »

Would you include Bucketybuck in that narrative? The person who was described to have ulterior motive? Would you include me in that? Bucky wants an answer to a straight up question that he has asked from the beginning of the thread, to no real explanation. I thought T4tf, as a moderator, should have worded his post differently. I personally have had no problems with mods on this forum and I couldn’t really give a toss who they support.

Who knows maybe the lack of answers is all part of it as well.

Trigger

Beasty wrote: »

I have already provided an explanation earlier in the thread.

While your here Beasty can I ask that you discuss with the mods, when this thread is finished obviously, and clarify to posters what construes to abuse of players?

Beasty

Just going to add to Gav's post. After it's closed I'm suggesting to the mods we'll try to spend a few days going through the thread with a view to updating on actions proposed, or indeed not, and possibly providing the opportunity for further discussion on potential solutions. That's certainly not intended to be an opportunity to raise new issues though.

Rossi IRL

Beasty wrote: »

I have already provided an explanation earlier in the thread.

OK yeah, forgot about that post earlier in the thread.

LuckyLloyd

wandatowell wrote: »

People actually do this?

My god boards.........

The very act of doing that has dominated much of this annual forum wide feedback thread!! :pac:

Beasty

astradave wrote: »

While your here Beasty can I ask that you discuss with the mods, when this thread is finished obviously, and clarify to posters what construes to abuse of players?

We will. It was an issue raised, I think, last year, when we agreed some heat of the moment stuff directed at players in the team you support was perhaps less worthy of a card. Opponents though is different.

It also comes down though to whether posters want more mod discretion to be applied or applying the charter to the letter, and I've seen proponents from both sides in this thread - some saying moderation is too strict, others complaining at lack of mod action be it for low-level trolling or perceived abuse

Mickeroo

astradave wrote: »

While your here Beasty can I ask that you discuss with the mods, when this thread is finished obviously, and clarify to posters what construes to abuse of players?

For your example above I would say calling a player a thug is abuse but saying their behaviour is thuggish would not be. In the same way saying you think a post is stupid is not the same as saying a poster is stupid.

To me the abuse rule works the same as attack the post not the poster ie it's fine to criticise behaviour but not be critical of the person carrying out that behaviour as a whole.

That was always the interpretation I would have taken when I was still modding the forum anyway.

Agent Coulson

Beasty wrote: »

We will. It was an issue raised, I think, last year, when we agreed some heat of the moment stuff directed at players in the team you support was perhaps less worthy of a card. Opponents though is different.

It also comes down though to whether posters want more mod discretion to be applied or applying the charter to the letter, and I've seen proponents from both sides in this thread - some saying moderation is too strict, others complaining at lack of mod action be it for low-level trolling or perceived abuse

How would this work when we discuss players that make the news for doing not nice stuff outside of football like stub a cigar in a person's eye or beat their girlfriend/wife/partner or groom underage children etc.


Thug/Scumbag etc would seem quiet light names to call those individuals I do understand Boards as a whole has to worry about legal matters as well.

Trigger

Agent Coulson wrote: »

How would this work when we discuss players that make the news for doing not nice stuff outside of football like stub a cigar in a person's eye or beat their girlfriend/wife/partner or groom underage children etc.


Thug/Scumbag etc would seem quiet light names to call those individuals I do understand Boards as a whole has to worry about legal matters as well.

“That’s thuggish behaviour” I think the onus should be on the poster themselves to be able to be critical of the behaviour, instead of downright abusing the person like what Mickeroo states above, that’s what I was getting at with my example in the post he is referring to, one is abuse and the other is a criticism(possibly not the word I’m looking for but will have to do)

Harry Palmr

Agent Coulson wrote: »

How would this work when we discuss players that make the news for doing not nice stuff outside of football like stub a cigar in a person's eye or beat their girlfriend/wife/partner or groom underage children etc.


Thug/Scumbag etc would seem quiet light names to call those individuals I do understand Boards as a whole has to worry about legal matters as well.

Imagine how Mary Poppins would speak of such people and use her words. It appears to be the only safe route

Drumpot

Grayditch wrote: »

History remembers who won, not how it was won. We got done by a notorious rat bag. It is what it is, time to forget it.

This post at least was in the Liverpool thread for over a day and was thanked and viewed by over 10 Liverpool fans. It did not appear to have any card (as discussions were going on here about what exactly is breaking forum charter insulting players).

Is this ok? I don’t really think it’s that bad, have no issue with it personally but I’ve been called up on some tame stuff similar to this... This is not to have a go at Liverpool fans , it’s asking is it the context or wording (scumbag v rat?). Is it that it was a popular post in the forum that nobody took offense? Does this sort of post have to be reprimanded when nobody is really offended by it?

I mean this united v pool issue is because of ambiguity and mod consistency. There may genuinely be no intentional bias on anybody’s part . But likewise there are some posters who feel like they get caught in the cross hairs of some underlieing bias when we see things like this not get addressed and the we get pulled up for relatively minor similar things.

Beasty

Agent Coulson wrote: »

How would this work when we discuss players that make the news for doing not nice stuff outside of football like stub a cigar in a person's eye or beat their girlfriend/wife/partner or groom underage children etc.


Thug/Scumbag etc would seem quiet light names to call those individuals I do understand Boards as a whole has to worry about legal matters as well.

That's exactly the issue with the way the Charter is set out, and an expectation it will be applied to the letter

My preference would be more discretion to the mods, but that opens up more accusations of bias, whether it is there or not

OwaynOTT

It all getting a little petty now.

gimli2112

Beasty wrote: »

That's exactly the issue with the way the Charter is set out, and an expectation it will be applied to the letter

My preference would be more discretion to the mods, but that opens up more accusations of bias, whether it is there or not

Yeah I'd definitely prefer more mod discretion allowed. We'll just have to learn to live with the perceived bias or lack thereof.

Adamocovic

Beasty wrote: »

That's exactly the issue with the way the Charter is set out, and an expectation it will be applied to the letter

My preference would be more discretion to the mods, but that opens up more accusations of bias, whether it is there or not

While I understand the pros in leaving it the mod discretion I think the inconsistencies that can lead to creates a bad reaction from posters. Think it has created the situation we find ourselves in now.

Taking away most of the mod discretion you would imagine would help them too. It should reduce posters whinging and complaining about certain mods picking on them, pointing at how they got away with something similar, or how someone else did previously. Leaving the possibilities that similar comments will receive different judgements will always lead to complaints, and then in turn create this blurry opinion of what is actually accepted and what is not.

It's difficult to follow but I personally think having the charter updated and mods following them to the letter is the only way to go really.

Potential Underachiever

OwaynOTT wrote: »

It all getting a little petty now.

All of it?


Every last thing?


How can you be 100% sure in your opinion?


Just messin' btw


Off into the sun I go.

Cantona's Collars

I posted in the United thread that I was having discussions in the repeal thread in AH.
Mods let heated debate go but as soon as anyone called names or acted the bollix they were gone.
It could be the way forward for the soccer forum,give a bit of leeway but if you cross the line then have a scale for bans,eg. The Humour thread. "Chat = 24 HR ban". Let there be similar in the rest of the forum. Eg, use a derogatory nickname, 24 HR ban etc. Keep at it then the longer the ban each time.
Not just a visual thing of seeing a yellow card icon,put in a quick note to tell the carded poster of their punishment there and then.