Soccer forum

Alf Veedersane

I received a warning in the Manchester United superthread for the below post where I said, about Michael Owen that"I still can't stomach the little gimp".

Given how unseemly it often gets in the soccer forum, I'm really not sure that it constitutes 'abuse'. If I said it about another poster, a warning would absolutely be warranted.

It's not a big deal that I received a warning but I just don't think it is 'abuse' that warrants a warning. If it is, so be it. But cards would be like confetti in the Soccer forum if that's the case. But maybe it is.

Exchanges with the mod in question below.

GavRedKing wrote:

Dear Alf Veedersane,

You have been warned for a breach of the forum charter.

Every forum on Boards.ie has a charter which lists any specific rules that forum may have and it is really important that you read this as it'll help you familiarise yourself with how that forum works. You should also understand that every forum is different and that charters are how you learn the differences.

Please see the Boards.ie FAQ for more details.



GavRedKing

Moderator Note

Abuse

Your post:

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Sand wrote: »

He's an international ambassador for Liverpool and he got a lot of criticism a year back when he credited Benzema with helping him move to United. There was a bit of a campaign to remove him from his role. If he was seen celebrating a United goal, he'd get even more abuse.

Liverpool fans don't even like him.

Scored a winner in a Manchester derby and I still can't stomach the little gimp.

GavRedKing wrote:

Alf Veedersane wrote:

I was going to leave it but since I am considering appealing it in DRF, I have to raise it here.

Is what I said really the level of abuse that warrants a sanction? I know it can get pretty unseemly in the soccer forum and plenty of post warrant a sanction but I don't think mine was anywhere near being worthy of a sanction

IMO, it warrants a card but you're free to take it to the Dispute forum if you like.

Mickeroo

Hi Alf Veedersane,

I know it may seem harsh but it's outlined fairly clearly in the charter if you see the extracts below. It's by far the most widely known and enforced rule in the forum and it was asked for by posters in a feedback thread many years ago:

Frisbee wrote: »

ABUSE: Prejudice will not be tolerated, in any form. Outbursts of personal abuse be it directed at other board members or at non-boards persons, famous or otherwise, is strictly prohibited. We reserve the right to edit/move/delete such posts as we see fit and issue bans and/or infractions to the poster of such. The basic rule is keeping it civil; you can have friendly banter without resorting to personal abuse. For more detail on mod policy on abuse, see below.

Frisbee wrote: »

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, Chelski, redsh1te, bluesh1te, the Scum, the Hun, SEVCO (for the purpose of winding up Rangers fans) or any other variant is abuse.

Nicknames like whisky nose, fat Spanish waiter, Fat Sam, Fat Frank, Maureen, 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.

Alf Veedersane

Mickeroo wrote: »

Hi Alf Veedersane,

I know it may seem harsh but it's outlined fairly clearly in the charter if you see the extracts below. It's by far the most widely known and enforced rule in the forum and it was asked for by posters in a feedback thread many years ago:

Appreciate that, Mickeroo. And no issue with the principle.

I just don't think it was abuse. If I called him a fool it would amount to the same but I don't think that would warrant a warning either.

It wasn't an outburst but my reading of the rules as highlighted is that it's not on to call someone a 'diving prìck' but it's ok to call someone a 'f**king diver.

Anyhoo, it is what it is. I just don't think it warrants a warning but I didn't expect a moderator to be overruled anyway

Mickeroo

Your reading of the rules would be the same as mine regards diving prick vs ****ing diver but gimp is clearly on the diving prick side of the scale imo.

I think it's a fairly text book case so I am upholding the card. You can ask for an admin to review further if you wish.

Alf Veedersane

Mickeroo wrote: »

Your reading of the rules would be the same as mine regards diving prick vs ****ing diver but gimp is clearly on the diving prick side of the scale imo.

I think it's a fairly text book case so I am upholding the card. You can ask for an admin to review further if you wish.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. Unless I missed the memo that said 'gimp' was a lot worse than I take it to mean.

Anyway, I'll leave it there. I completely understand and agree with the rules. I just don't classify it as abuse and especially not abuse warranting censure.

Plenty of examples of vitriol directed at players that somehow don't seem to have been warned but c'est la vie. I've made my point and it's not worth the time to pursue further.

Beasty

Marking as resolved