Feedback Thread 2019

The White Wolf

pjohnson wrote: »

I dont get at least 2 of those supposed "digs". Maybe people just need to be less sensitive no more than crying "witch hunt" whenever a question is asked? If people just get offended over everything then discussion becomes impossible.

Plus as you say later (but as usual dont give examples of) theres also digs already by Pool fans in the same thread.

Lol.... sensitive indeed.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

If you knew the answer to the question you asked might I ask what your motivation for asking it was?
The attitude you've displayed just now indicates precisely why I've been avoiding entering discussions here for such a length of time.

Maybe so the rest for us would know? Feedback can't be vague allegations

Turtyturd

gimli2112 wrote: »

the Utd fans genuinely believe there's an issue and should be allowed vote in their own mod

Tbh that could just lead to a situation like a few years back where a small group get one of their own in and dictate what happens in the forum.

Boards kinda paints itself into a corner with mod appointments across the site by insisting that they are better than normal posters and above bias. That’s never going to be the case, there will always be some level of bias . Surely there’s some middle ground between having a completely clean record and avoiding having to de-mod someone again after they lose the run of themselves to find suitable candidates.

hetuzozaho

Maybe the Feedback Thread alone will be enough to keep the arguments regarding Liverpool and United away from the rest of the forum.

Let's just leave this open for the season

Cantona's Collars

giveitholly wrote: »

A good few posters here giving out about posters going into the utd thread and wumming and derailing it on purpose but they should practise what they preach. The new General Premier League thread was set up by citytillidie and a few posters couldn't resist throwing a few digs

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110247716&postcount=15

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110247785&postcount=16

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110247966&postcount=19

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110248037&postcount=21

Look it happens on both threads and should be stamped out but I think its a bit ironic some posters crying foul when both sides are at it. As some one suggested there should definitely be a Utd moderator and I see a few posters have made suggestions already. Maybe one of those better posters should be approached to see would they become a mod

I'll counter argue on my post. The op there became famous for his unique style of league table layout and there were jokes about it which even he took part in. When someone who isn't in the clique makes one then it's "wumming"?
Give me a break.
I won't speak for anyone else but let them explain themselves as I'm sure they can debunk the wumming allegations quite easily.

Necro

Necro wrote: »

Haha, thanks for the namedrop Fred but I'm disqualified on the grounds of

I'm an Arsenal fan

It definitely should be considered though, I see the merits in having someone in tune with each of the main super threads being part of the team.

In all fairness to Beasty while there has been a marked improvement in the thread since he started actively modding it he's also got other admin stuff that is probably as if not more important.

To elaborate I have been saying already in this thread that the Utd thread has improved slightly because Beasty has been actively present but as you say he is an admin and not a mod. He's got other stuff to do.
When you have someone tell you a mod doesn't bother with the Utd thread within the same forum it's supposed to moderate and apply the charter then the problem is clear as day.
A tonne of bull**** would be sorted if a current regular and level headed participant with a clean record becomes a mod to to do the job Beasty is covering for.

In comparison look how the Liverpool thread is actioned and stuff is always clamped down fairly swiftly because of the precense of multiple mods.
Side note: It's ironic the poster above now looking to create a conspiracy about a club taking over the forum. Member the conspiracy deflection earlier in the thread?

facehugger99

My only suggestion would be for people to stop being such snowflakes - this thread has been embarrassing to read.

Cantona's Collars

I want to go back to a point made earlier. Clamping down quicker on posters who constantly soapbox or just stick in condescending posts to belittle others and rather than debate constantly see their point of view as the only one causing threads to descend into a roundabout argument about one topic.
It's noticeable in the United thread that a lot of this has gone recently after certain posters were banned or others coincidentally disappeared the same time as said posters got banned.
I'm sure posters from other threads have similar complaints that certain posters are tolerated for far too long before mods act on them. This carry on puts off so many from posting as all they see are circular arguments about the same thing.
At least if someone pops in from another thread for "the banter" they piss off again but these guys ruin threads.

pjohnson

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

I want to go back to a point made earlier. Clamping down quicker on posters who constantly soapbox or just stick in condescending posts to belittle others and rather than debate constantly see their point of view as the only one causing threads to descend into a roundabout argument about one topic.
It's noticeable in the United thread that a lot of this has gone recently after certain posters were banned or others coincidentally disappeared the same time as said posters got banned.
I'm sure posters from other threads have similar complaints that certain posters are tolerated for far too long before mods act on them. This carry on puts off so many from posting as all they see are circular arguments about the same thing.
At least if someone pops in from another thread for "the banter" they piss off again but these guys ruin threads.

The problem is its good now but the next thread will be back to same crap since thread bans are only temporary. Usual service will resume.

redzerdrog

I really hate the idea of a specific team 'voting' in their 'own' mod.

Think it would cause more issues in the long term and add to the tribalism within the place.

The most suitable and appropriate persons should be mods regardless of who they support. Picking someone just because they support a certain teams makes a mockery of the moderation system in my opinion

Peatys

pjohnson wrote: »

The problem is its good now but the next thread will be back to same crap since thread bans are only temporary. Usual service will resume.

With the amount of attention it's getting, there'll have to be zero tolerance

pjohnson

The White Wolf wrote: »

Lol.... sensitive indeed.

Thats the second time someone has mentioned both sides in it yet they can only post examples from one side. Either drop the charade of "both sides" if you think its only one or actually provide examples of both. So many just seem to be trying to dismiss issues by only highlighting the "big bad mean Utd fans" which is thick.

pjohnson

Peatys wrote: »

With the amount of attention it's getting, there'll have to be zero tolerance

This would be ideal for all.

Except the wums who would be stopped off course.

hufpc8w3adnk65

Peatys wrote: »

With the amount of attention it's getting, there'll have to be zero tolerance

But the rules state zero tolerance already! No one watches the United thread! We were told a poster was a great example of a rival fan coming in and having a serious debate with us and next thing that same poster was thread banned! An active mod would have known he was a wum and not held him up as a model poster

jayo26

redzerdrog wrote: »

I really hate the idea of a specific team 'voting' in their 'own' mod.

Think it would cause more issues in the long term and add to the tribalism within the place.

The most suitable and appropriate persons should be mods regardless of who they support. Picking someone just because they support a certain teams makes a mockery of the moderation system in my opinion

While I agree with both of your points in relation united and Liverpool threads you can't have a moderator that doesn't follow either thread expected to wade into 100s of posts a day they have no interest in and to have a feel for place.

Issues like soapboxing are impossible for a mod that doesn't follow a thread to judge also so is issues like rival posters coming in on the windup after a defeat. When you follow the threads you know exactly what is happening in every posts.

In regards a slow moving thread like Everton at the time last year it was easy pop in there and see the previous two days posts were taken up by posters going in on the windup about how good the manager that they hated was.

So yes it shouldn't matter what team you support but a arsenal mod is not going to be closely following 100s of post in pool or united thread every day and visa versa.

All piss taking and winding up asside all any united fan want is for the United thread to be run smoothly. Yes a handful might have an agenda but that can't be made the forefront and deny what the majority want and allow overtake things like this feedback thread.

Peatys

MrMac84 wrote: »

But the rules state zero tolerance already! No one watches the United thread! We were told a poster was a great example of a rival fan coming in and having a serious debate with us and next thing that same poster was thread banned! An active mod would have known he was a wum and not held him up as a model poster

Actual zero tolerance. Coupled with the suggestion of having a utd mod, forum wide, voted in.

redzerdrog

jayo26 wrote: »

While I agree with both of your points in relation united and Liverpool threads you can't have a moderator that doesn't follow either thread expected to wade into 100s of posts a day they have no interest in and to have a feel for place.

Issues like soapboxing are impossible for a mod that doesn't follow a thread to judge also so is issues like rival posters coming in on the windup after a defeat. When you follow the threads you know exactly what is happening in every posts.

In regards a slow moving thread like Everton at the time last year it was easy pop in there and see the previous two days posts were taken up by posters going in on the windup about how good the manager that they hated was.

So yes it shouldn't matter what team you support but a arsenal mod is not going to be closely following 100s of post in pool or united thread every day and visa versa.

All piss taking and winding up asside all any united fan want is for the United thread to be run smoothly. Yes a handful might have an agenda but that can't be made the forefront and deny what the majority want and allow overtake things like this feedback thread.

Very easy for a mod to follow a thread without actually supporting the team in the thread. I am sure there are plenty of opposition fans that follow both threads and know exactly what is going on at any given time.

A person can follow a thread and know exactly what is happening without having to post and engage in it themselves.

I am not sure how the moderation team work together but a simple solution would be to identify the threads that have active mods oversight and then assign threads that don't have active mods oversight to someone (s) to check regularly. (Probably already happens)

redzerdrog

redzerdrog wrote: »

Very easy for a mod to follow a thread without actually supporting the team in the thread. I am sure there are plenty of opposition fans that follow both threads and know exactly what is going on at any given time.

A person can follow a thread and know exactly what is happening without having to post and engage in it themselves.

I am not sure how the moderation team work together but a simple solution would be to identify the threads that have active mods oversight and then assign threads that don't have active mods oversight to someone (s) to check regularly. (Probably already happens)

Absolutely, and that's what Beasty the Admin has been doing. Nobody else it seems. If they were then why did he have step in in the first place?
5Starpool has already said there is a mod who happens to support Liverpool doesn't get involved in the Utd thread as one example. Why not?

jayo26

redzerdrog wrote: »

Very easy for a mod to follow a thread without actually supporting the team in the thread. I am sure there are plenty of opposition fans that follow both threads and know exactly what is going on at any given time.

A person can follow a thread and know exactly what is happening without having to post and engage in it themselves.

I am not sure how the moderation team work together but a simple solution would be to identify the threads that have active mods oversight and then assign threads that don't have active mods oversight to someone (s) to check regularly. (Probably already happens)

If it was very easy then why did an admin have to come in an clean up the united thread and ban users. Why did it take so long to get rid of a poster that was guilty of soapboxing but what he was banned for was a total different thing entirely.

The current model is not working so no its not easy for someone that doesn't follow a thread to jump in and know exactly what's going on.

Each thread should have 2 mods and if they are constantly missing stuff then they should be replaced.

Why have we soccer mods that go missing for weeks on end? It's not some kind of medal or reward to be a soccer mod its a responsibility to help run a public forum that should be free and fun place for everyone to be able post and if that's not happening then replace them.

If as beasty says that the current problems with inconsistencies are because mods miss things then we need a better mod setup and a couple more mods.

Tom Mann Centuria

Lot of names in the mod list, how many get seen outside of one or maybe two threads?

So far in this thread I've seen three of the ones I'd expect to (including an admin and Cmod), there's maybe one or two more I wouldn't be surprised to see, the rest?

hufpc8w3adnk65

jayo26 wrote: »

If it was very easy then why did an admin have to come in an clean up the united thread and ban users. Why did it take so long to get rid of a poster that was guilty of soapboxing but what he was banned for was a total different thing entirely.

The current model is not working so no its not easy for someone that doesn't follow a thread to jump in and know exactly what's going on.

Each thread should have 2 mods and if they are constantly missing stuff then they should be replaced.

Why have we soccer mods that go missing for weeks on end? It's not some kind of medal or reward to be a soccer mod its a responsibility to help run a public forum that should be free and fun place for everyone to be able post and if that's not happening then replace them.

If as beasty says that the current problems with inconsistencies are because mods miss things then we need a better mod setup and a couple more mods.

Some mods go missing for months and years at a time and just come back and carry on like nothing happened

BillyHasMates

Omackeral wrote: »

BillyHasMates wrote: »

Any of the "neutrals" wish to contribute? ðŸ˜

I don't give a fiddlers about United or Liverpool. I used to enjoy their matches as a neutral but the rise of social media and group chats etc has really spoiled elements of it for me. I wouldn't dream of getting involved in a thread involving either side nowadays. It's just toxic. Wouldn't mind if it was funny or witty but it rarely is.

My comment is a bit tongue in cheek. Its the feedback thread so i'm hoping for fans of teams other than United and Liverpool would post their thoughts. Might help steer it away from the Liverpool vs United theme.

redzerdrog

So the system that Beasty and the mods have put in place recently appear to be working. That is great as it shows them what needs to be done and Beasty is setting an example for the mods to follow. Next step is someone to take over that responsibility from Beasty so he can take a step back and ensure he is happy with the governance.

I can't comment re slick as do not know his own rational.

However I also see the argument for a mod not implementing his/her mod powers I'm a conversation they are actively engaging in. Obviously if it is clear cut abuse ect it is different then mod should act. But if a mod is engaging in a thread with someone that has a difference of opinion and they start handing out warnings then it won't be long before people are crying censorship and abuse of mod powers.

This is it

I don't believe there's anything to say a cmod or admin can't also be mods. If Beasty is working out, which I would agree he is, why not ask if he has the time and desire to stay on?

hufpc8w3adnk65

jayo26 wrote: »

If as beasty says that the current problems with inconsistencies are because mods miss things then we need a better mod setup and a couple more mods.

I addressed this at length last year in feedback and gave a fool proof way of erasing all the selectively missed posts from the mods buddy’s.

This post was thanked by over 30 people including Beasty, GavRedKing, Inforfun, LordTSC, Nixonbot, Riffmongus, SlickRic, Steve, Thanx 4 The Fish, Tomm Man Centruria.

All of these are mods OR higher so the idea was obviously a good one. Yet none of the things I proposed were introduced as, in my humble opinion, the inactive mods and the mods who target certain posters and ignore others would have no where to hide and beasty or the other admins could watch them too closely for comfort

pjohnson

I'm pretty sure I said it last year but its just as valid again. Moderation isn't actually hard once there is a functioning system and functoning moderators. Setting up that system might be a bit time consuming but once done it pays back.

It certainly shouldn't be hard here where there is such a regular amount of people/traffic. Offences will get noticed by some of the many users and reported quickly (or they should be but a lot have pointed out here they dont bother due to nothing happening after the report). If its a ghost forum then yeah things can go unnoticed for a while but on an active forum? I mean again one would assume moderators would have the common sense to only take on the role if they can actually DO it. If mods are going missing for months then that should be an instant demodding and try to find someone active to actually mod the bloody place.

pjohnson

This is it wrote: »

I don't believe there's anything to say a cmod or admin can't also be mods. If Beasty is working out, which I would agree he is, why not ask if he has the time and desire to stay on?

I'd imagine as being an admin he has more responsibilities across other forums on the website. Its not really an admins job to moderate fair play to him doing it but thats the moderators job. You wouldn't exactly expect the bank manager to clean toilets.

Tom Mann Centuria

MrMac84 wrote: »

I addressed this at length last year in feedback and gave a fool proof way of erasing all the selectively missed posts from the mods buddy’s.

This post was thanked by over 30 people including Beasty, GavRedKing, Inforfun, LordTSC, Nixonbot, Riffmongus, SlickRic, Steve, Thanx 4 The Fish, Tomm Man Centruria.

All of these are mods OR higher so the idea was obviously a good one. Yet none of the things I proposed were introduced as, in my humble opinion, the inactive mods and the mods who target certain posters and ignore others would have no where to hide and beasty or the other admins could watch them too closely for comfort

Yeah but i have zero sway about anything! Unless you want to talk about Rugby League (which no one does :pac:!)

This is it

pjohnson wrote: »

I'd imagine as being an admin he has more responsibilities across other forums on the website. Its not really an admins job to moderate fair play to him doing it but thats the moderators job. You wouldn't exactly expect the bank manager to clean toilets.

Plenty of examples of cmods and admin modding across the site.

hufpc8w3adnk65

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Yeah but i have zero sway about anything! Unless you want to talk about Rugby League (which no one does :pac:!)

I know ye are not all soccer mods that I named But I went into detail about the report process and how it’s currently worked and where it could be improved upon. All the mods who liked this would be familiar with it so that’s why I named ye

RasTa

I'm still unsure as to what my United supporting posters are upset about regarding the modding this season.

Mickeroo

Fred The Red wrote: »

Absolutely, and that's what Beasty the Admin has been doing. Nobody else it seems. If they were then why did he have step in in the first place?
5Starpool has already said there is a mod who happens to support Liverpool doesn't get involved in the Utd thread as one example. Why not?

Pretty sure they said they don't get involved in the Liverpool thread not the United thread. Having said that I'm not aware of SlickRic imposing any restrictions on himself regarding either thread as a whole.

Its fairly normal for a mod to maybe take a step back in a given situation or mention to their Co mods they feel they shouldn't mod a particular situation for whatever reason. Being able to hold your hands up and say "I can't be impartial here can someone else chip in?" is probably one of the best qualities a mod can have imo.

dfx-

beno619 wrote: »

If you find it distasteful you should keep it to yourself, feedback was for the mods not you.

This feedback thread is for everyone, it should stand to be challenged if disagreed by other users as well as mods.

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Pretty sure they said they don't get involved in the Liverpool thread not the United thread. Having said that I'm not aware of SlickRic imposing any restrictions on himself regarding either thread as a whole.

Its fairly normal for a mod to maybe take a step back in a given situation or mention to their Co mods they feel they shouldn't mod a particular situation for whatever reason. Being able to hold your hands up and say "I can't be impartial here can someone else chip in?" is probably one of the best qualities a mod can have imo.

The problem is mods disappearing for months and then showing up out if the blue. Reported posts that should be actioned as per the charter and nothing happens.
If you are not an active member of the forum how can you be expected to moderate it probably without regular over view of the running of the threads. Again only when Beasty observed the Utd thread regularly could he spot the issues and then took action.
The mods listed are not doing so.

Weepsie

Fred The Red wrote: »

The problem is mods disappearing for months and then showing up out if the blue. Reported posts that should be actioned as per the charter and nothing happens.
If you are not an active member of the forum how can you be expected to moderate it probably without regular over view of the running of the threads. Again only when Beasty observed the Utd thread regularly could he spot the issues and then took action.
The mods listed are not doing so.

Unless you're a mod, and can see what warnings etc have been given, you can't tell what has been actioned

People complain that something was reported and ignored, when commonly enough the reported poster has been carded and that's it. Regular posters can't, and shouldn't be able to see that.

Will I Am Not

Weepsie wrote: »

Unless you're a mod, and can see what warnings etc have been given, you can't tell what has been actioned

People complain that something was reported and ignored, when commonly enough the reported poster has been carded and that's it. Regular posters can't, and shouldn't be able to see that.

Everyone can see a card

osarusan

Weepsie wrote: »

Unless you're a mod, and can see what warnings etc have been given, you can't tell what has been actioned

People complain that something was reported and ignored, when commonly enough the reported poster has been carded and that's it. Regular posters can't, and shouldn't be able to see that.

If a poster has been carded, it would be visible.

Other mod actions like PMs and thread bans and so on, might not be visible, and therefore appear to go unactioned.

A lack of visible moderation is a site-wide issue in my opinion. More visible mod action would make it clear on how the rules are applied and also limit the amount of claims about stuff apparently being ignored.

Cantona's Collars

Weepsie wrote: »

Unless you're a mod, and can see what warnings etc have been given, you can't tell what has been actioned

People complain that something was reported and ignored, when commonly enough the reported poster has been carded and that's it. Regular posters can't, and shouldn't be able to see that.

Say a poster is warned via pm by a mod but the transgression isn't deemed card worthy, I think the mod should put a note in the thread that said poster has been warned. At least others will then know that action has been taken and the transgressor isn't deemed to have gotten away with acting the bollix.

Weepsie

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

Say a poster is warned via pm by a mod but the transgression isn't deemed card worthy, I think the mod should put a note in the thread that said poster has been warned. At least others will then know that action has been taken and the transgressor isn't deemed to have gotten away with acting the bollix.

Then you'd have to be putting in dozens and dozens of posts . The occasional in thread warning should be enough

Weepsie

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Everyone can see a card

If that's the case then okay. I never recall seeing any before I become a mod elsewhere.

This is it

Weepsie wrote: »

If that's the case then okay. I never recall seeing any before I become a mod elsewhere.

Cards are seen by everyone, no matter the thread or forum

Cantona's Collars

Weepsie wrote: »

Then you'd have to be putting in dozens and dozens of posts . The occasional in thread warning should be enough

Not really,if you have the time to PM someone then just put the warning in the thread instead. That means someone is warned and everyone knows it. A targeted warning is more effective than a standard mod note.

This is it

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

Say a poster is warned via pm by a mod but the transgression isn't deemed card worthy, I think the mod should put a note in the thread that said poster has been warned. At least others will then know that action has been taken and the transgressor isn't deemed to have gotten away with acting the bollix.

Much better to warn a poster in thread than by PM. It keeps it transparent and it shows others where the line is and that what the poster did/said was unacceptable. It was always the favored method of 'warning' in any high traffic forum I modded.

Trigger

You could always edit the offending post and put a mod note/warning in the offending post like on other forums (politics use it)instead of by PM. I agree with the above, it should be a transparent process. It would cut out the need for posters questioning mods on why posts havent been actioned even though they might have been behind the scenes

OldMrBrennan83

Is this the equivalent of waving the imaginary card at a referee?

Why is everyone so desperate for people to be warned and to know that they've been warned. Grow up and look after your own posting.

Trigger

Weepsie wrote: »

If that's the case then okay. I never recall seeing any before I become a mod elsewhere.

You have to be on the full site, it doesnt work on the mobile/touch. But if you click on the card on the offending post it shows the reason for the card

Discodog

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

Is this the equivalent of waving the imaginary card at a referee?

Why is everyone so desperate for people to be warned and to know that they've been warned. Grow up and look after your own posting.

A warning on the post could be one word like Noted. It does a lot more good than a card with no, on thread, note. The warning isn't just about warning the offender. It's about setting & show the limits to all the posters.

Jurgen The German

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

Grow up and look after your own posting.

If everyone was held to the same standard then I'd agree with you 100%. The reality is that the moderation of the SF is wildly inconsistent and it goes from being massively heavy handed to been completely impotent on any given occasion.

OldMrBrennan83

Discodog wrote: »

A warning on the post could be one word like Noted. It does a lot more good than a card with no, on thread, note. The warning isn't just about warning the offender. It's about setting & show the limits to all the posters.

If you get a warning yourself then you'll know by PM, if it's not your warning then it's none of your business. There's rules there to show limits so there's no need for the playground stuff.

5starpool

Fred The Red wrote: »

Absolutely, and that's what Beasty the Admin has been doing. Nobody else it seems. If they were then why did he have step in in the first place?
5Starpool has already said there is a mod who happens to support Liverpool doesn't get involved in the Utd thread as one example. Why not?

That's not what I said. I believe (and I could be mistaken) that SlickRic said he tries not to mod the Liverpool thread as he is very involved as a poster. That doesn't mean he'd ignore someone doing something utterly blatant that is actionable, but that he tries to be a poster in there who is a mod, rather than a mid who posts.