Feedback Thread 2019

Beasty

Owl. wrote: »

That's quite the accusation. Do you have any proof or are you just taking a swing at someone that can't defend themselves?

If you have a problem with a post or poster report it and leave it to the mods to sort out

In this case I would propose no further action is required so let's leave the subject of Nuri there

Any questions, please PM me and don't continue this discussion here

Thanks

Beasty

jayo26 wrote: »

Well said TSC you summed up perfectly what most are thinking.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. I'm not sure you, or indeed I, am in a position to make such a claim. That's one of the problems though - making such statements is seeking to add credibility to someone else's points. Yes you are certainly allowed to agree with the points, but please don't try and bring the rest of us into it

Just to add, this is nothing whatsoever to do with the points made by TSC, and I have no comments beyond what I have already said on certain matters. However I am concerned when claims like these are made as they add to the "us and them" tribal behaviour within the forum

jayo26

Beasty wrote: »

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. I'm not sure you, or indeed I, am in a position to make such a claim. That's one of the problems though - making such statements is seeking to add credibility to someone else's points. Yes you are certainly allowed to agree with the points, but please don't try and bring the rest of us into it

Just to add, this is nothing whatsoever to do with the points made by TSC, and I have no comments beyond what I have already said on certain matters. However I am concerned when claims like these are made as they add to the "us and them" tribal behaviour within the forum

Beasty all due respects If my comment concerns you to the point that you feel the need to quote and reply to it but a comment that says "all people that want consistency should be drop kicked off A cliff" doesn't even warrant questioning that say a lot for either the attention that's been paid to this thread or the level of things that concern you.

To explain my sweeping comment a bit further I purely meant it's what most of us that want the charter to be black and white and concistently enforced are thinking. Some of us ain't that good at typing out our points and arguments to certain situations but TSC nailed it in my opinion.

Sorry if that was wrong of me to post but at that moment I felt it was a great comment that summed up what people like myself were thinking.

brinty

Lord TSC wrote: »

Speaking from experience, both here and elsewhere as a mod and as a normal user, I always appreciated a full and detailed charter.

It's nice to think that "trust the mods will make good decision" will keep trouble makers off their back, but the fact is when someone is sending you PMs abusing you for cards and punishments you've dished out, its really great as a mod to be able to point to something very specific in the charter. It shuts down any rule-lawyers when you can say "The charter clearly says X is a yellow card offense, and that Y yellows this season is a Z level ban".

In general, I also think that a "more relaxed charter" is something that the vast majority of users won't care about, simply because the vast majority of users will never fall foul of the charter. That's not to say there isn't examples where clarity shouldn't be sought (the current discussions about context of "nicknames" being a very good example"). But I'd wager that 90% of posters on here have never read the charter, and never needed the charter, because the fact of the matter is that it is incredibly difficult to actually breach it. If anything, I often find that some of the worst trouble makers on here are the ones who push hard for more "relaxed" rules (not saying you yourself fall in that category btw, more just general experience with, say, people who have 20+ cards and want to place the blame for their behaviour anywhere but on themselves....)

A greatly reduced charter, especially one that boils down to an over-simplistic "Don't be a dick" rule, does nothing but benefit the trolls imo; those who will argue semantics and demand that you, as a mod, have made a stupid mistake reading their comments. Those who will send you 20 PMs with long, detailed reasons why their comment doesn't fall foul of the "Don't be a dick" rule, and you're obviously a stupid, biased mod if you don't agree with their interpretation. If the charter is long, it's because nearly every line in it was put there because someone decided to kick up a fuss about something not specifically being stated as being "against the rules".

A full and detailed charter is a great tool and shield for the mods, AND should help normal users work out any complaints about any perceived biasness, since there's a clear path as to what is and what isn't worthy of punishment. If a normal user can point to a specific rule that has been broken when reporting posts, then they should be relatively happy that it will be auctioned accordingly, without need for either their own or the mods interpreting it differently.

There'll always be some nuance involved, decisions via mod discretion to give people second chances, and threads like this are great for ironing out any holes in it. But I've always felt that calls for a greatly reduced charter are, at best, incredibly naive in how they view the nature of message forums and those who are not posting in good faith.

Absolutely brilliant summation of things there from someone who’s been a mod and knows what happens behind the scenes.

The day TSC left the soccer mods was a very dark day and it’s no coincidence that since he’s departed that the place has fallen asunder. Himself and gav were/ are some of the best mods going and kept the place in rude health.

Skylinehead

jayo26 wrote: »

Beasty all due respects If my comment concerns you to the point that you feel the need to quote and reply to it but a comment that says "all people that want consistency should be drop kicked off A cliff" doesn't even warrant questioning that say a lot for either the attention that's been paid to this thread or the level of things that concern you.

To explain my sweeping comment a bit further I purely meant it's what most of us that want the charter to be black and white and concistently enforced are thinking. Some of us ain't that good at typing out our points and arguments to certain situations but TSC nailed it in my opinion.

Sorry if that was wrong of me to post but at that moment I felt it was a great comment that summed up what people like myself were thinking.

No, he's right. It's this tribal crap that's ruining the place ultimately, and between two sets of fans. Backslapping thanks on every single post that goes against the other club.

This is a bit different in fairness but a) your comment added nothing (that's what the thanks button is for, you might as well say "this"), and b) please don't presume to know what most boards members want, it's incredibly disingenuous and self-serving.

jayo26

Skylinehead wrote: »

No, he's right. It's this tribal crap that's ruining the place ultimately, and between two sets of fans. Backslapping thanks on every single post that goes against the other club.

This is a bit different in fairness but a) your comment added nothing (that's what the thanks button is for, you might as well say "this"), and b) please don't presume to know what most boards members want, it's incredibly disingenuous and self-serving.

Again in my second post I clairifed that I meant for those of us that want the charter to be more black and white and more consistent this is great summery of what we are thinking. Obviously I don't know what every boards member is thinking and it was more of a general comment and not meant to be taking as fact.

I have actively taken part in this thread from the start and feel that I have put forward my opinions best I could, I haven't been making any digs or in any kind of childish manner and that comment was not meant in anyway as a this against them comment.

Skylinehead

jayo26 wrote: »

Again in my second post I clairifed that I meant for those of us that want the charter to be more black and white and more consistent this is great summery of what we are thinking. Obviously I don't know what every boards member is thinking and it was more of a general comment and not meant to be taking as fact.

I have actively taken part in this thread from the start and feel that I have put forward my opinions best I could, I haven't been making any digs or in any kind of childish manner and that comment was not meant in anyway as a this against them comment.

Oh aye, I don't mean to attack you in any way. I'm just seeing this stupid divide even in this thread.

Tom Mann Centuria

Of course there's going to be division of opinion. Some agree with the points TSC made, some clearly don't. If we cant voice opinions in a feedback thread, what is the point of feedback? Incidentally I didn't see any problem with jayo26 post, and it would have slipped by, mostly unnoticed, until bought up again and highlighted for some reason.

pjohnson

If the feedback thread is meant to just be unanimous opinions then it shouldn't be called feedback, it should be called the congratulations thread.

Cantona's Collars

Regarding moderation,is there a point where a mods inactivity on a forum leads to them being stripped of their status? I believe that there's been incidents where mods have disappeared off the forum for a long time yet suddenly reappear and continue on.
How can they be up to speed with the day to day activities on the forum if they aren't around for months or even years at a time?

Shanotheslayer

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

Regarding moderation,is there a point where a mods inactivity on a forum leads to them being stripped of their status? I believe that there's been incidents where mods have disappeared off the forum for a long time yet suddenly reappear and continue on.
How can they be up to speed with the day to day activities on the forum if they aren't around for months or even years at a time?

I would assume only Mods can define how active they are. Some may not post that much but may read alot and do the reporting on the back end.

I looked at the list of mods and I recognize all of them as regular enough posters and then I see Amirani, never heard of him, didn't know he/she existed.

A quick search through their posts and we wouldn't post in many of the same threads so it makes sense I've never heard of them, but he/she has only 28 posts in 7 months, which seems significantly low. If this Mod is not issuing cards in the background etc, is there a reason why he/she is still a Mod?

Just because they don't post doesn't mean they're not here.

Skylinehead

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

Regarding moderation,is there a point where a mods inactivity on a forum leads to them being stripped of their status? I believe that there's been incidents where mods have disappeared off the forum for a long time yet suddenly reappear and continue on.
How can they be up to speed with the day to day activities on the forum if they aren't around for months or even years at a time?

We've done it in AH when someones been AWOL for a year or so.

Don't really see the issue though, not like there's a limited number of spots that they're wasting one of.


Psssh want to be a mod :pac:

Shanotheslayer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just because they don't post doesn't mean they're not here.

Literally read the first part of my post.

Cantona's Collars

Skylinehead wrote: »

Psssh want to be a mod :pac:

Hell no, there'd be more triggers than in a gun shop if that happens.

Tom Mann Centuria

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I would assume only Mods can define how active they are. Some may not post that much but may read alot and do the reporting on the back end.

I looked at the list of mods and I recognize all of them as regular enough posters and then I see Amirani, never heard of him, didn't know he/she existed.

A quick search through their posts and we wouldn't post in many of the same threads so it makes sense I've never heard of them, but he/she has only 28 posts in 7 months, which seems significantly low. If this Mod is not issuing cards in the background etc, is there a reason why he/she is still a Mod?

It's also easy for cmods of their forum and admin to see how many moderation actions a mod has taken. Obviously for some forums it would be no surprise to see no moderator action (no posters = no need for moderation!) but others, you'd expect to see a fair share of mod interventions and reasonably equal actions taken by all the mods of the forum, give or take.

dfx-

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

Regarding moderation,is there a point where a mods inactivity on a forum leads to them being stripped of their status? I believe that there's been incidents where mods have disappeared off the forum for a long time yet suddenly reappear and continue on.
How can they be up to speed with the day to day activities on the forum if they aren't around for months or even years at a time?

The history of the SF is littered with ragequits, people who leave almost immediately and mostly those who wear thin of the constant workload and those who are great posters, but then don't post as mod.

So when you get people who are still prepared to help out, perhaps not dishing out cards, but to help the new people through with advice, you want to keep them as long as they are happy to stay.

Cantona's Collars

dfx- wrote: »

The history of the SF is littered with ragequits, people who leave almost immediately and mostly those who wear thin of the constant workload and those who are great posters, but then don't post as mod.

So when you get people who are still prepared to help out, perhaps not dishing out cards, but to help the new people through with advice, you want to keep them as long as they are happy to stay.

Yes but the ordinary Joe's on the forum see names of mods but never see them participate in any form,not just applying the rules but even just posting and taking part in discussion. This leads us to think "are they even monitoring the forum and what's the point of them"?

Shanotheslayer

dfx- wrote: »

So when you get people who are still prepared to help out, perhaps not dishing out cards, but to help the new people through with advice, you want to keep them as long as they are happy to stay.

Perhaps create a different title than Mod? Assistant Mod etc.

redzerdrog

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

Yes but the ordinary Joe's on the forum see names of mods but never see them participate in any form,not just applying the rules but even just posting and taking part in discussion. This leads us to think "are they even monitoring the forum and what's the point of them"?

So what?

Really who cares that someone is a mod and you don't know them? It is not as if they are taking a place of someone more deserving or that there is limited mod spaces. They could be providing insight in the background.

I have no idea who the poster is either but I doesn't impact me in the slightest that they are named mod

Will I Am Not

redzerdrog wrote: »

So what?

Really who cares that someone is a mod and you don't know them? It is not as if they are taking a place of someone more deserving or that there is limited mod spaces. They could be providing insight in the background.

I have no idea who the poster is either but I doesn't impact me in the slightest that they are named mod

It makes sense to have mods that participate. Things change. Some stuff that wasn’t a card a few years ago is now. Kess was still down as a mod nearly 2 years after he was last active, where’s the point in that?

Will I Am Not

Will I Am Not wrote: »

It makes sense to have mods that participate. Things change. Some stuff that wasn’t a card a few years ago is now. Kess was still down as a mod nearly 2 years after he was last active, where’s the point in that?

Just on that, here’s a bit of feedback... If mods decide that something that was said or done in the past is suddenly against the charter, how about letting us know instead of having to find out for yourself by way of a card?

redzerdrog

Will I Am Not wrote: »

It makes sense to have mods that participate. Things change. Some stuff that wasn’t a card a few years ago is now. Kess was still down as a mod nearly 2 years after he was last active, where’s the point in that?

There are mods that participate. Makes no difference you or me who is listed. It's only a bloody list. We don't know what people are contributing in the background.

I have been on the this site for more years than I care to remember and can honestly say the only time I have checked who is listed as a mod has been this week. It really doesn't concern the average user

Will I Am Not

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Just on that, here’s a bit of feedback... If mods decide that something that was said or done in the past is suddenly against the charter, how about letting us know instead of having to find out for yourself by way of a card?

I'm pretty sure updates to the charter are made notified, so you should know?

Will I Am Not

redzerdrog wrote: »

There are mods that participate. Makes no difference you or me who is listed. It's only a bloody list. We don't know what people are contributing in the background.

I have been on the this site for more years than I care to remember and can honestly say the only time I have checked who is listed as a mod has been this week. It really doesn't concern the average user

It kind of does if they decide to jump back in unfamiliar with the place.

Will I Am Not

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm pretty sure updates to the charter are made notified, so you should know?

You’d think that alright.

Shanotheslayer

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Literally read the first part of my post.

Why would you assume I was replying direct to you?

redzerdrog

Will I Am Not wrote: »

It kind of does if they decide to jump back in unfamiliar with the place.

How do you know they are unfamiliar with the place? Could be reading in the background for a month before reengaging

Will I Am Not

redzerdrog wrote: »

How do you know they are unfamiliar with the place? Could be reading in the background for a month before reengaging

Could be...

Skylinehead

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Just on that, here’s a bit of feedback... If mods decide that something that was said or done in the past is suddenly against the charter, how about letting us know instead of having to find out for yourself by way of a card?

I'm not sure we've ever made an unannounced change to the charter, any examples?

Beasty

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

It's also easy for cmods of their forum and admin to see how many moderation actions a mod has taken. Obviously for some forums it would be no surprise to see no moderator action (no posters = no need for moderation!) but others, you'd expect to see a fair share of mod interventions and reasonably equal actions taken by all the mods of the forum, give or take.

Heads over to check the Rugby League forum, which has at least one prolific poster:pac::pac:

EDIT - here you go

"There are no moderator log entries."

Shanotheslayer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why would you assume I was replying direct to you?

Because it was in relation to the same topic.

Tom Mann Centuria

Beasty wrote: »

Heads over to check the Rugby League forum, which has at least one prolific poster:pac::pac:

EDIT - here you go

"There are no moderator log entries."

Lot of behind the scenes stuff goes on though..........

Will I Am Not

Skylinehead wrote: »

I'm not sure we've ever made an unannounced change to the charter, any examples?

Snowflake is a word that just happened to be a cardable offence all of a sudden. Slippy G was being bandied about all across the forum with impunity and then one day a user gets a card for it.

Skylinehead

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Snowflake is a word that just happened to be a cardable offence all of a sudden. Slippy G was being bandied about all across the forum with impunity and then one day a user gets a card for it.

Slippy G would be under the abuse of players, which we announced.

Snowflake, when aimed at a user, is just an insult. Only came into prominence over the last few years, but an insult it is.

Will I Am Not

Skylinehead wrote: »

Slippy G would be under the abuse of players, which we announced.

Snowflake, when aimed at a user, is just an insult. Only came into prominence over the last few years, but an insult it is.

Yeah except Slippy G seemed to be fine one day and not the next, there was loads of people using it at the time. Same with snowflake actually.

5starpool

If people would grow up a bit and not use terms like slippy g that would help mods out.

brinty

Skylinehead wrote:

Slippy G would be under the abuse of players, which we announced.

Snowflake, when aimed at a user, is just an insult. Only came into prominence over the last few years, but an insult it is.

No disrespect here but neither are in the charter which I'm pretty sure was updated en masse in February of this year by T4TF around about 23-2-2019.

Nowhere does it state either term is a cardable offence and as the poster said all of a sudden it is cardable.

I believe Fat Frank, whisky nose, fat Spanish waiter and Maureen are specifically stated as beach of charter. So surely these should both be on that list.

This is like the sudden introduction of the abusing through the thanks system (thanking abusive posts) rule which watching have been given out for too.

When a poster is then suddenly carded when something goes uncarded previously it brings up the claims of mod bias.

Whilst I agree both terms are inflammatory to certain fan bases it doesn't take away from the fact there's a grey area which some mods will use as a cover their arse card to ban people.

Will I Am Not

5starpool wrote: »

If people would grow up a bit and not use terms like slippy g that would help mods out.

Yeah but that’s not the point I’m making. Just using examples.

I think some people are making the soccer forum out to be more complex than it is.

Any mod should be able to do mod it regardless of an interest in the big teams. An interest in football obviously is key.

This isn't astrophysics!

Sometimes a new face is good. Works in real life. Why not here.

Jurgen The German

5starpool wrote: »

If people would grow up a bit and not use terms like slippy g that would help mods out.

And if some people weren't so easily triggered by terms like slippy g then that would help them out too tbh.

Sure there was a poster, that twice, in 100% honesty called for 'slip' to be banned from the lfc thread, you cannot legislate for that level of offence.

Mickeroo

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Yeah except Slippy G seemed to be fine one day and not the next, there was loads of people using it at the time. Same with snowflake actually.

Snowflake is debatable depending on the context but slippy g goes back to what I said about fraudiola and emptihad. If you need that level of handholding to know what is and isn't acceptable then that's on you not to the charter.

Harry Palmr

What about Granny Shagger - which is just a facht.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056320446

Re the charter and cards -

Warnings and the sanctions that they receive.
Yellow means a warning. An infraction is the same as red (or two yellows). Where yellows are discussed, a red counts for two.

1st yellow - warning
2nd yellow - warning
3 yellows = 2 weeks
4 yellows = 1 month
5 yellows = 3 months
6th = 6 month ban and re-apply


But there is no stated time frame, surely there ought to be on grounds of fair play.

eg if you get three yellows in a week a ban is understandable but if it took a year to hit that tally a ban if any sort would be over-reaction I'd say.

Mickeroo

Harry Palmr wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056320446

Re the charter and cards -

Warnings and the sanctions that they receive.
Yellow means a warning. An infraction is the same as red (or two yellows). Where yellows are discussed, a red counts for two.

1st yellow - warning
2nd yellow - warning
3 yellows = 2 weeks
4 yellows = 1 month
5 yellows = 3 months
6th = 6 month ban and re-apply


But there is no stated time frame, surely there ought to be on grounds of fair play.

eg if you get three yellows in a week a ban is understandable but if it took a year to hit that tally a ban if any sort would be over-reaction I'd say.

The time frame is a season, it resets at the start of august.

Shanotheslayer

Mickeroo wrote: »

Snowflake is debatable depending on the context but slippy g goes back to what I said about fraudiola and emptihad. If you need that level of handholding to know what is and isn't acceptable then that's on you not to the charter.

The issue is Mick that Emptihad and Fraudiola wasn't carded all season.

I imagine it was the same with Slippy G. Now next season I would assume Emptihad/Fraudiola would be a cardable offense. If this isn't in the charter than people will refer to previous posts where it wasn't a cardable offense.

It's not hand holding at all, the only reason it was deemed ok is because it didn't involve Manchester United or Liverpool.

Both of those fall under already existing charter rules so why were mods never issuing cards for them?

Will I Am Not

Saying something is covered in the charter by abuse is a cop out if the definition of abuse changes throughout the year. I guess plenty of people will need their hand held so.

Mickeroo

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

The issue is Mick that Emptihad and Fraudiola wasn't carded all season.

I imagine it was the same with Slippy G. Now next season I would assume Emptihad/Fraudiola would be a cardable offense. If this isn't in the charter than people will refer to previous posts where it wasn't a cardable offense.

It's not hand holding at all, the only reason it was deemed ok is because it didn't involve Manchester United or Liverpool.

Both of those fall under already existing charter rules so why were mods never issuing cards for them?

****ed if I know tbh but it sure as hell wasn't because the charter is ambiguous about it.

Anyone using Fraudiola, Fat Frank, Whiskey nose, Slippy G, Empitad etc etc is doing so for a reason and should be sanctioned. In fact for being so childish it should be a straight red.

Mickeroo

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Saying something is covered in the charter by abuse is a cop out if the definition of abuse changes throughout the year. I guess plenty of people will need their hand held so.

Rest easy, only a very small set of posters need that kind of hand holding thankfully and they'd be no loss to the forum if they got themselves banned due to lack of said hand holding so it's not really that big of a deal in my eyes.

Harry Palmr

Harry Palmr wrote: »

1st yellow - warning
2nd yellow - warning
3 yellows = 2 weeks
4 yellows = 1 month
5 yellows = 3 months
6th = 6 month ban and re-apply
.

This is way too favorable for persistent trouble makers. 4 yellows and it's only a month, that's madness!

Any chance you this could be looked at?

Ftr, anyone picking up 6 yellows in a single season should just be perma banned.