Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Feedback Thread **READ POST #1 IN FULL**

1…457910…16

Comments

  • #302
    G.K.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭G.K.


    We are no longer posting streams, as per Sean Sherlock.

    You can read more here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056565895


  • #303
    grenache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,477 ✭✭✭grenache


    W*anker! I thought that only applied to links to articles. Shooks.


  • #304
    amiable
    Registered Users Posts: 12,206 ✭✭✭✭amiable


    I'm genuinely disappointed inconsistency of the mods isn't included in the voting options.
    It's been mentioned before yet it still isn't addressed and it's not improved as it's excused and brushed aside.


  • #305
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,032 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    Spot On
    amiable wrote: »
    I'm genuinely disappointed inconsistency of the mods isn't included in the voting options.
    It's been mentioned before yet it still isn't addressed and it's not improved as it's excused and brushed aside.

    Mods are always going to have the favorites and are going let some away with stuff others would not get away with, i don't there is much anyone can do about it.


  • #306
    amiable
    Registered Users Posts: 12,206 ✭✭✭✭amiable


    niallo27 wrote: »
    Mods are always going to have the favorites and are going let some away with stuff others would not get away with, i don't there is much anyone can do about it.

    I genuinely don't think it's always to do with favourites
    I think consistency is the least people should expect.


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,032 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    Spot On
    amiable wrote: »
    I genuinely don't think it's always to do with favourites
    I think consistency is the least people should expect.

    Consistency is tough when mods are doing this off their own back and getting nothing out of it.


  • #308
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    I'd say if you went through the volume of posts on this forum, 98% of posters can post and not get serial cards.

    There's a 2% that just don't get it.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #309
    Adolf Hipster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Adolf Hipster


    K-9 wrote: »
    I'd say if you went through the volume of posts on this forum, 98% of posters can post and not get serial cards.

    There's a 2% that just don't get it.
    I think it's the other way around really, alot of posts that could be carded that haven't been, hence the inconsistency.


  • #310
    PHB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    I'm consistantly inconsistant. I'm willing to let posters who are generally good away with marginal stuff more than posters who are constantly causing trouble.

    I'm 100% consistant on people who don't get infractions. That shouldn't be that hard since all you need to do is not abuse anyone whatsoever and write posts that are generally longer than 2 lines. If you could follow those rules, you'd probably never get an infraction.


  • #311
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Adolf Hipster wrote: »
    I think it's the other way around really, alot of posts that could be carded that haven't been, hence the inconsistency.

    You just can't expect mods to follow every thread on the forum, that's where reported posts come in.

    From modiing politics we probably have more mods to a ratio of posts/threads, and we can't catch everything. You are looking for an idyllic forum that would have no reported posts as mods would be deleting them quickly, contentious posts carded, which somebody will reply to anyway, posters in match threads who don't get humour, unless it's against their rival, God forbid you tell the same joke against my team.

    Politics is a breeze compared to Soccer.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #312
    monkey9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,337 ✭✭✭✭monkey9


    PHB wrote: »
    I'm consistantly inconsistant. I'm willing to let posters who are generally good away with marginal stuff more than posters who are constantly causing trouble.

    I'm 100% consistant on people who don't get infractions. That shouldn't be that hard since all you need to do is not abuse anyone whatsoever and write posts that are generally longer than 2 lines. If you could follow those rules, you'd probably never get an infraction.

    If people report posts, do the mods take into reflection the backstory to reported posts? You gave me a yellow card a couple of weeks ago for a post that was clearly a joke yet i understand technically, you're entitled to give me that yellow.

    What does my head in though is the fact i got that yellow about a week and a half after the post was put up. And it was the day after a supporter of the club i referred to tried to to engage in an arguement that i was having none off.

    So basically, the poster wasn't happy with the fact i wasn't responding to his jibes, remembered the post i put up and all he could do was report it as a response.

    I know exactly what went on and you could have at least acknowledged my response to your pm!!


  • #313
    Drumpot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    PHB wrote: »
    I'm consistantly inconsistant. I'm willing to let posters who are generally good away with marginal stuff more than posters who are constantly causing trouble.

    I'm 100% consistant on people who don't get infractions. That shouldn't be that hard since all you need to do is not abuse anyone whatsoever and write posts that are generally longer than 2 lines. If you could follow those rules, you'd probably never get an infraction.

    Thats the way it should be, but its a problem when other mods arent interested in the differance between people intentionally causing trouble, to people who are just frustrated or making a general comment (that just happens to break the forum charter, but isnt really that offensive).

    If a rule is not open to interpretation (eg - define insulting a player - is saying they played sh*t not an insult ?) then this forum will never be consistantly modded.

    I dont think anybody expects every thread and every post to be veted, but a bit of common sense isnt asking alot.


  • #314
    Adolf Hipster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Adolf Hipster


    K-9 wrote: »
    Adolf Hipster wrote: »
    I think it's the other way around really, alot of posts that could be carded that haven't been, hence the inconsistency.

    You just can't expect mods to follow every thread on the forum, that's where reported posts come in.

    From modiing politics we probably have more mods to a ratio of posts/threads, and we can't catch everything. You are looking for an idyllic forum that would have no reported posts as mods would be deleting them quickly, contentious posts carded, which somebody will reply to anyway, posters in match threads who don't get humour, unless it's against their rival, God forbid you tell the same joke against my team.

    Politics is a breeze compared to Soccer.


    If you did a forum search for posts containing key words like cnut, prick dickhead troll etc you'd find alot of abusive posts, and people being called trolls for trolling.

    Not ideal but at least goes someway to carding people who have actually broken rules.


  • #315
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Adolf Hipster wrote: »
    If you did a forum search for posts containing key words like cnut, prick dickhead troll etc you'd find alot of abusive posts, and people being called trolls for trolling.

    Not ideal but at least goes someway to carding people who have actually broken rules.

    That's kind of the point. If posters did a trawl through every posters posts, they'd probably find something actionable.

    Modding in contentious forums is subjective, hence it never being perfect.

    So, repeated offenders who just don 't get it, well..................

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #316
    Frisbee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,569 ✭✭✭✭Frisbee


    fyi: Another Mod approved.


  • #317
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    PHB wrote: »
    I'm willing to let posters who are generally good away with marginal stuff more than posters who are constantly causing trouble.

    Sorry dude, but this is very clearly bullshít, because this fella...
    monkey9 wrote: »
    If people report posts, do the mods take into reflection the backstory to reported posts? You gave me a yellow card a couple of weeks ago for a post that was clearly a joke yet i understand technically, you're entitled to give me that yellow.

    What does my head in though is the fact i got that yellow about a week and a half after the post was put up. And it was the day after a supporter of the club i referred to tried to to engage in an arguement that i was having none off.

    So basically, the poster wasn't happy with the fact i wasn't responding to his jibes, remembered the post i put up and all he could do was report it as a response.

    I know exactly what went on and you could have at least acknowledged my response to your pm!!

    ...is an excellent, one of the best in fact, contributor to the LOI threads on here.

    Something you, and most of the other mods, are blissfully unaware of.

    All of these new mod appointments are mighty, but there will be still no proper moderation of the LOI threads, and it's getting shameful at this stage.

    Hopefully I'm wrong, and the new mod that Laura is talking about there, is a proper knowledgeable LOI head, doubtful though, as the drum has been banged for so long now, the mod team won't want to lose face by appointing someone from that side of things.

    I've been away from posting in the Soccer Forum for 2 weeks or more, and can genuinely say I have not missed it one bit.

    It probably hasn't missed me, in fairness, but the forum is a shadow of it's former self.

    Funny how before the number of mods wasn't an issue, now we suddenly get three more.

    Cool.


  • #318
    Drumpot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    There is a real "head in the sand" approach to the feedback on this forum. More mods does not solve the lack of common sense shown by specific mods.

    It is quite easily to see in a thread (particularly a match thread) who is antagoning, trolling and looking to derail the thread. Its not rocket science and it doesnt require that much attention because there are usually only specific matches each week where the majority of the trouble will be.

    If you have a history of this kind of messing, you should have less room to manoevre with the forum charter, but people who seldom, if ever, cause any trouble should be given the benefit of the doubt. It would be a way of making modding at least more consistantly.

    I am not sure if you could do something like use a rating system of posts per complaint/infraction. That way a person with something like 500 soccerforum posts who has had 2 infractions should not get the same treatment as a person with the same posts who has 30 or 40 infractions.

    Lets look at an incident in a game. A player gets sent off -

    Chelsea fan: Terry, your a ****/idiot/gobsh*t/ass**** etc
    Opposing fan: Aha ha ha ha , Terry you mong etc
    Opposing Fan: Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha . . Well played terry


    Now, in all cases, Terry is getting abuse, but in a differant way but which ones are more likely to kick things off ?. Should they really be treated in the same context and as the same infraction ?

    In the world of football, it is politically correct to call a player getting sent off stupidly "a stupid idiot" or something to that effect, yet on a soccer forum its judged as abuse ? Common sense approach would be to factor in the reason the post was made as opposed to taking a blunt knife in all cases.

    Personally, I think there should be a sticky for "pub talk" where people who arent quite that sensitive can have a bit of banter. This could be a practise for common sense modding whereby the forum charter rules are more relaxed (within reason).


  • #319
    daithijjj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭daithijjj


    Des wrote: »
    Sorry dude, but this is very clearly bullshít, because this fella...



    ...is an excellent, one of the best in fact, contributor to the LOI threads on here.

    Something you, and most of the other mods, are blissfully unaware of.

    All of these new mod appointments are mighty, but there will be still no proper moderation of the LOI threads, and it's getting shameful at this stage.

    Hopefully I'm wrong, and the new mod that Laura is talking about there, is a proper knowledgeable LOI head, doubtful though, as the drum has been banged for so long now, the mod team won't want to lose face by appointing someone from that side of things.

    I've been away from posting in the Soccer Forum for 2 weeks or more, and can genuinely say I have not missed it one bit.

    It probably hasn't missed me, in fairness, but the forum is a shadow of it's former self.

    Funny how before the number of mods wasn't an issue, now we suddenly get three more.

    Cool.

    Amen.

    Stayed away for about a month myself recently. Avoided match threads for the large part this year also.

    Adding mods is great but to use an analogy, no use putting 3 more bandages on a wound that needs stitches. Pre emptive moderation during match threads or particular flashpoints during the year surely lessens the load, dishing out yellows days after is neither preventative nor a 'cure', for the forum, its posters, or the mods imho.


  • #320
    Pro. F
    Registered Users Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    Drumpot wrote: »
    It is quite easily to see in a thread (particularly a match thread) who is antagoning, trolling and looking to derail the thread. Its not rocket science...
    No it is not ''quite easy''. You are completely wrong there. There is good natured ribbing, acceptable gloating, on the edge comments and over the line comments. All of these are coming from the hundreds of different posters who populate this board and quite often changing their attitudes from situation to situation. You are living in a fantasy land thinking that sorting that stuff out in match threads is easy.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    and it doesnt require that much attention because there are usually only specific matches each week where the majority of the trouble will be.
    Bullshít. Every match thread is open to trouble and it's impossible to predict when and where each troll will turn up. There can be no doubt that policing the match threads closely requires a huge amount of mod attention.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    If you have a history of this kind of messing, you should have less room to manoevre with the forum charter, but people who seldom, if ever, cause any trouble should be given the benefit of the doubt. It would be a way of making modding at least more consistantly.
    The mods do that already. (Except for the LOI threads as Des just pointed out)
    Drumpot wrote: »
    Lets look at an incident in a game. A player gets sent off -

    Chelsea fan: Terry, your a ****/idiot/gobsh*t/ass**** etc
    Opposing fan: Aha ha ha ha , Terry you mong etc
    Opposing Fan: Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha . . Well played terry

    Now, in all cases, Terry is getting abuse, but in a differant way but which ones are more likely to kick things off ?. Should they really be treated in the same context and as the same infraction ?

    In the world of football, it is politically correct to call a player getting sent off stupidly "a stupid idiot" or something to that effect, yet on a soccer forum its judged as abuse ? Common sense approach would be to factor in the reason the post was made as opposed to taking a blunt knife in all cases.
    As far as I'm aware the mods do give some leeway for fans to have a go at their own teams' players, or even neutral fans to express the same sentiments. The mods get it wrong sometimes and get it right sometimes, but in my experience it is not a case that every time somebody calls a player a gobshíte, or whatever, they get pulled up by a mod. Sure you yourself called Terry an idiot in that match thread and didn't get punished, presumably because it was obvious you weren't stirring and were contributing in a positive way.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    Personally, I think there should be a sticky for "pub talk" where people who arent quite that sensitive can have a bit of banter. This could be a practise for common sense modding whereby the forum charter rules are more relaxed (within reason).
    If you don't like the SF charter then you need to try and get it changed or go and discuss football somewhere else on the internet. I think if you do go anywhere else you will ultimately be disappointed though, because everywhere else is pretty shít in comparison. And that's because everywhere else allows so much banter that the sensible discussion gets drowned out.

    A ''relaxed'' thread where you can partially ignore the charter would be a bloody terrible idea. It would give resentment and antisocial behaviour a place to grow and soon enough cause trouble in the rest of the forum.


  • #321
    Pro. F
    Registered Users Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    daithijjj wrote: »
    Pre emptive moderation during match threads or particular flashpoints during the year surely lessens the load, dishing out yellows days after is neither preventative nor a 'cure', for the forum, its posters, or the mods imho.

    It probably would be better to do it that way, but it may never be possible. What's possible is defined by what the volunteers are willing to do. Policing match threads instead of watching the football and committing to rotas sounds like more than I would expect any volunteer football mod would be willing to do.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    Pro. F
    Registered Users Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    @Mods,

    Well done on getting in new mods. They were sorely needed so it's good to see you doing something about it. Good luck to the new guys.

    Here's two very small general things that occur to me just now:

    The ''see below'' links in the charter don't work. It's only a small thing but it's annoying and a bit confusing.

    I thought it was suggested and approved last year to put thread warnings into the first post so they would be easier to find. If not then I suggest it now - tracking down the various thread warnings is tedious, having them edited into the OP would be great.


  • #323
    Drumpot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    Pro. F wrote: »
    1. No it is not ''quite easy''. You are completely wrong there. There is good natured ribbing, acceptable gloating, on the edge comments and over the line comments. All of these are coming from the hundreds of different posters who populate this board and quite often changing their attitudes from situation to situation. You are living in a fantasy land thinking that sorting that stuff out in match threads is easy.


    2. Bullshít. Every match thread is open to trouble and it's impossible to predict when and where each troll will turn up. There can be no doubt that policing the match threads closely requires a huge amount of mod attention.


    3. The mods do that already. (Except for the LOI threads as Des just pointed out)


    4. As far as I'm aware the mods do give some leeway for fans to have a go at their own teams' players, or even neutral fans to express the same sentiments. The mods get it wrong sometimes and get it right sometimes, but in my experience it is not a case that every time somebody calls a player a gobshíte, or whatever, they get pulled up by a mod. Sure you yourself called Terry an idiot in that match thread and didn't get punished, presumably because it was obvious you weren't stirring and were contributing in a positive way.

    5. If you don't like the SF charter then you need to try and get it changed or go and discuss football somewhere else on the internet. I think if you do go anywhere else you will ultimately be disappointed though, because everywhere else is pretty shít in comparison. And that's because everywhere else allows so much banter that the sensible discussion gets drowned out.

    6. A ''relaxed'' thread where you can partially ignore the charter would be a bloody terrible idea. It would give resentment and antisocial behaviour a place to grow and soon enough cause trouble in the rest of the forum.

    Sorry for the numbers, I dont know how to multiquote!

    1. I wouldnt be on these forums as much as others, but I think in any match thread (I mainly frequent Man United ones as a supporter), it is quite easy to spot who is looking to antagonise. You need only see the thread count jump 3 fold when United lose a goal or get a dodgy decision. I have spoken with LFC fans who confirmed that the opposite seems to happen in Liverpool match threads aswell. Its obvious fans love to troll the other teams match threads when something bad happens.

    2. See 1. I wasnt saying these were the only matches, but that there were specific matches that have a higher degree of trolls that could be monitored more and used as a template to catch the serial offenders.

    3 + 4 - I got an infraction for calling John Terry a douche for getting sent off. I said to the mod that it was a pathetic call and that if he had looked through my posts in the thread he would clearly see I was up for chelsea and pissed off Terry got sent off. Some childish twat reported the post (how they picked mine out of much worse posts, I dont know, there was literally pages of worse stuff around my post!) and I got a warning. I was really enjoying the thread and wasnt even engaging in some of the snotty sh*t being written down (prob cause it wasnt my team and I didnt really mind who won) and then I got a warning for that ! Technically its against the forum charter (as the mod pointed out when I asked why it was pulled up when others werent), but its a complete joke and makes a mockery of the concept of this being a football forum if that warrants a warning.

    5. I have been a football mod on another website and can tell you that not all forums are modded like this one. Its not the worst by any means, but if you warn people for calling a player a douche or stupid for getting stupidly sent off, there is a problem with the lack of common sense being used. I cant really see how anybody can see this example any differantly.
    As it stands, it is impossible to have remotely interesting discussions or commentary on match threads because they are spammed with idiots and its days before anything (if anything) is done. I dont want to report people for silly things that dont really bother me, but I have to put up with sensitive jessies who take offence to much weaker comments I make ? Yeh, thats a good forum philosophy - report or suffer fools . .

    6. The idea of having a "pub" (or a "banter") thread is so if you cant seem to fix a problem (which clearly hasnt been properly addressed), maybe you can at least re-direct it and try to encourage a forum for the tit for tat banter that ruins match threads. It might be a disaster , but I am just trying to come up with new ideas instead of allowing the status quo continue.

    If you dont try anything new then nothing new will happen. If you think the forum is fine then I suppose you wouldnt feel that there are any changes needed to be tried. I have tried by making recomendations here but to be honest apart from taking on more mods, there doesnt seem to be much of an appetite to try anything new. other posters have made similar comments, particularly on match threads that are a complete disaster.

    The worst thing about the inconsistant modding is that you might not engage most of the time with some banter, but then, the odd time you might, next thing you are getting reported for very tame stuff. Even in my case were I wasnt even trolling or trying to really insult the player, I got warned for saying something that is not politically incorrect in the football world (calling a player an idiot for being an idiot). If you are trying to harness a community, then accepting this kind of inconsistancy is not going to work in the long term and all you will be left with is a high turnover of posters when the good ones eventually get fed up and find another site.


  • #324
    Pro. F
    Registered Users Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    Drumpot wrote: »
    Sorry for the numbers, I dont know how to multiquote!

    1. I wouldnt be on these forums as much as others, but I think in any match thread (I mainly frequent Man United ones as a supporter), it is quite easy to spot who is looking to antagonise. You need only see the thread count jump 3 fold when United lose a goal or get a dodgy decision. I have spoken with LFC fans who confirmed that the opposite seems to happen in Liverpool match threads aswell. Its obvious fans love to troll the other teams match threads when something bad happens.

    2. See 1. I wasnt saying these were the only matches, but that there were specific matches that have a higher degree of trolls that could be monitored more and used as a template to catch the serial offenders.

    3 + 4 - I got an infraction for calling John Terry a douche for getting sent off. I said to the mod that it was a pathetic call and that if he had looked through my posts in the thread he would clearly see I was up for chelsea and pissed off Terry got sent off. Some childish twat reported the post (how they picked mine out of much worse posts, I dont know, there was literally pages of worse stuff around my post!) and I got a warning. I was really enjoying the thread and wasnt even engaging in some of the snotty sh*t being written down (prob cause it wasnt my team and I didnt really mind who won) and then I got a warning for that ! Technically its against the forum charter (as the mod pointed out when I asked why it was pulled up when others werent), but its a complete joke and makes a mockery of the concept of this being a football forum if that warrants a warning.

    5. I have been a football mod on another website and can tell you that not all forums are modded like this one. Its not the worst by any means, but if you warn people for calling a player a douche or stupid for getting stupidly sent off, there is a problem with the lack of common sense being used. I cant really see how anybody can see this example any differantly.
    As it stands, it is impossible to have remotely interesting discussions or commentary on match threads because they are spammed with idiots and its days before anything (if anything) is done. I dont want to report people for silly things that dont really bother me, but I have to put up with sensitive jessies who take offence to much weaker comments I make ? Yeh, thats a good forum philosophy - report or suffer fools . .

    6. The idea of having a "pub" (or a "banter") thread is so if you cant seem to fix a problem (which clearly hasnt been properly addressed), maybe you can at least re-direct it and try to encourage a forum for the tit for tat banter that ruins match threads. It might be a disaster , but I am just trying to come up with new ideas instead of allowing the status quo continue.

    If you dont try anything new then nothing new will happen. If you think the forum is fine then I suppose you wouldnt feel that there are any changes needed to be tried. I have tried by making recomendations here but to be honest apart from taking on more mods, there doesnt seem to be much of an appetite to try anything new. other posters have made similar comments, particularly on match threads that are a complete disaster.

    7The worst thing about the inconsistant modding is that you might not engage most of the time with some banter, but then, the odd time you might, next thing you are getting reported for very tame stuff. Even in my case were I wasnt even trolling or trying to really insult the player, I got warned for saying something that is not politically incorrect in the football world (calling a player an idiot for being an idiot). If you are trying to harness a community, then accepting this kind of inconsistancy is not going to work in the long term and all you will be left with is a high turnover of posters when the good ones eventually get fed up and find another site.

    1. But it's never going to be simple to separate the trolling from the acceptable slagging. For each questionable post the mod needs to check the posters history in the thread, history in previous similar threads and history in general (which they sometimes have a profile on I think). It's a lot of work when you consider that there are a lot of match threads and a lot of posters.

    2. I would be surprised if there are any club match threads that don't get at least some trolling. Even just policing the big EPL sides' match threads would be a lot of work.

    3 & 4. Calling players names just isn't acceptable on the SF. There's no point in arguing that. If you call anybody a douche you are leaving yourself open to an infraction, you might get away with it or you might not. The fact that you can't call people douches doesn't make the forum a joke, it makes the forum kind of cool.

    5. I know this forum isn't moderated like others on the internet. That's why this forum is so much better.

    6. There is the rest of the internet for that type of discussion. If people have a problem following the charter on this forum then giving them a sticky where they can ignore the charter is not going to help. By definition it would foster the behaviour that we don't want on the SF.

    I know you're trying to find a solution to your problem, but tbh your problem sounds like you don't like a fundamental aspect of the SF.

    7. I thought you got a card for calling him a douche. Your post calling him an idiot doesn't seem to have been infracted (and rightly so).

    (To multiquote just copy and paste the quote code bits btw.)


  • #325
    daithijjj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭daithijjj


    Pro. F wrote: »
    It probably would be better to do it that way, but it may never be possible. What's possible is defined by what the volunteers are willing to do. Policing match threads instead of watching the football and committing to rotas sounds like more than I would expect any volunteer football mod would be willing to do.

    It was possible until the start of this season :confused:, i see no reason why it cant be again.

    Personally, i see no purpose in someone taking a moderator position is a soccer forum if they arent willing to sit in a few/some/alot of match threads during the year.

    If its the case that things have changed and its generally accepted by everyone that a soccer mods remit is to dip in and out at leisure, reading posts made days earlier and dishing out yellows, fine (i might even put my name forward :pac:), but at the same time, that makes the entire forum laborious to read because it just leads to all parties insulting each other whilst skirting within the rules.

    Essentially, given time, what you would be left with is alot of good posters not bothering their hole with the place, posters with a fleeting interest in the soccer forum winding everyone up for what can be days, and posters who are willing to put up with it but step out of line eventually. Boards then becomes no better than any other forum........it used to be very good but not this year.


  • #326
    Pro. F
    Registered Users Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    daithijjj wrote: »
    It was possible until the start of this season :confused:, i see no reason why it cant be again.

    I thought this same issue was discussed in last season's feedback. I can't find that thread now though, so I can't be sure.
    daithijjj wrote: »
    Personally, i see no purpose in someone taking a moderator position is a soccer forum if they arent willing to sit in a few/some/alot of match threads during the year.

    If its the case that things have changed and its generally accepted by everyone that a soccer mods remit is to dip in and out at leisure, reading posts made days earlier and dishing out yellows, fine (i might even put my name forward :pac:), but at the same time, that makes the entire forum laborious to read because it just leads to all parties insulting each other whilst skirting within the rules.

    Essentially, given time, what you would be left with is alot of good posters not bothering their hole with the place, posters with a fleeting interest in the soccer forum winding everyone up for what can be days, and posters who are willing to put up with it but step out of line eventually. Boards then becomes no better than any other forum........it used to be very good but not this year.

    Nobody is saying that the mods only need to breeze in and out and take days to get to everything. All I'm saying is that the match threads are probably too frequently problematic to ever be policed as strictly as you want.


  • #327
    Drumpot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    Pro. F wrote: »
    (To multiquote just copy and paste the quote code bits btw.)

    Running out to the pub for the united game so will mess around with multiquote later to try and figure it out! (Im sure its simple but so am I!).

    I got a verbal warning for douche. I know the mod had to act because the post was reported for some reason, I just thought it was an extremely tame post and wasnt even written in any context that should of been taken as an insult in soccer circles. (Think we can agree to disagree on that point because I dont think calling a player an idiot for getting sent off stupidly is worthy of a warning).

    I dont have a problem with the fundamental concept of not allowing people insult players or each other. I just dont think its fair that people are getting reprimanded and "caught" for relatively minor offences because they are getting reported. Its the inconsistantly that I have a problem with. If you cant keep track of all infractions then its difficult to argue that the forum is modded consistantly.

    I was a mod for a socceforum so I know its a thankless task. Good luck tonight . . ;)


  • #328
    daithijjj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭daithijjj


    Pro. F wrote: »
    I thought this same issue was discussed in last season's feedback. I can't find that thread now though, so I can't be sure.



    Nobody is saying that the mods only need to breeze in and out and take days to get to everything. All I'm saying is that the match threads are probably too frequently problematic to ever be policed as strictly as you want.

    They are only problematic if they are let go. Previously any shenanigans were nipped in the bud and there was far less need to police them at all after that.


  • #329
    Thanx 4 The Fish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,399 ✭✭✭✭Thanx 4 The Fish


    Here's one to throw out there for discussion. The use of the word yid has bece commonplace both out in football world and in the forum. I am married to a spurs fan and her family all refer to one another as yids but it is also an ethnonym that has negative connotations and is seen by many as offensive or racist.

    How do we as a forum feel about it? For what it's worth I would be for disallowing it if it has the potential to, or already does cause our members discomfort. What do the rest of ye think?


  • #330
    GavRedKing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53,262 ✭✭✭✭GavRedKing


    Too Lenient
    Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »
    Here's one to throw out there for discussion. The use of the word yid has bece commonplace both out in football world and in the forum. I am married to a spurs fan and her family all refer to one another as yids but it is also an ethnonym that has negative connotations and is seen by many as offensive or racist.

    How do we as a forum feel about it? For what it's worth I would be for disallowing it if it has the potential to, or already does cause our members discomfort. What do the rest of ye think?

    Does that mean we can ban KindgomYid so? :pac:

    I think it should certainly be reported if it causes offence as it would touch a nerve with some poster's.

    It is a term of racism at the end of the day, maybe not as personal to some as it is to others but I think any abuse and casual racism should be stamped out.

    Just my 2 cents.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    amiable
    Registered Users Posts: 12,206 ✭✭✭✭amiable


    gavredking wrote: »
    Does that mean we can ban KindgomYid so? :pac:

    I think it should certainly be reported if it causes offence as it would touch a nerve with some poster's.

    It is a term of racism at the end of the day, maybe not as personal to some as it is to others but I think any abuse and casual racism should be stamped out.

    Just my 2 cents.

    I'd agree with you. Just because the Spurs fans use it doesn't mean it's not a racist term. I'm well aware of the chant 'Yid Army' chanted by Spurs fans.

    IMO it's better off being stamped out as it's a racist term.
    I've seen Arsenal fans calling Spurs fans Yids and I'm pretty certain they are not being complimentary when using the word.
    To be fair I don't think they are being malicious and there's a certain amount of ignorance involved.


  • #332
    PHB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    daithijjj wrote: »
    It was possible until the start of this season :confused:, i see no reason why it cant be again.

    Personally, i see no purpose in someone taking a moderator position is a soccer forum if they arent willing to sit in a few/some/alot of match threads during the year.

    If its the case that things have changed and its generally accepted by everyone that a soccer mods remit is to dip in and out at leisure, reading posts made days earlier and dishing out yellows, fine (i might even put my name forward :pac:), but at the same time, that makes the entire forum laborious to read because it just leads to all parties insulting each other whilst skirting within the rules.

    Essentially, given time, what you would be left with is alot of good posters not bothering their hole with the place, posters with a fleeting interest in the soccer forum winding everyone up for what can be days, and posters who are willing to put up with it but step out of line eventually. Boards then becomes no better than any other forum........it used to be very good but not this year.

    A. You've really no idea how much time people spend moderating. You paint it as if mods not online for days is a common occurrence. It's not. The odd time there is a gap, but that should be fixed by more mods.
    B. Some match threads don't kick off. Some do. Near impossible to predict, bar anything with Liverpool and United.
    C. People are volunteers, not employees. Frankly, what you think is an appropriate amount to mod is something that the vast majority of current mods could not give. They have, ya know, jobs.
    D. I'd have as many mods as we possibly could, the problem is it's extremely difficult to find people who you could actually trust to mod.

    If you really think it's required, I suggest you take it past this feedback to a general point about professional moderation. Because that's the only way it'll work at the level you think is required.

    Frankly, I think the entire issues raised by people is about volume. The sheer volume of posters is unreal, match threads are impossible to follow because there are so many posters. Debates are less in depth. It's just the nature of growth. I think a further subdivision of super threads would be welcome, but I can't for the life of me figure out how.


  • #333
    daithijjj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭daithijjj


    PHB wrote: »
    A. You've really no idea how much time people spend moderating. You paint it as if mods not online for days is a common occurrence. It's not. The odd time there is a gap, but that should be fixed by more mods.
    B. Some match threads don't kick off. Some do. Near impossible to predict, bar anything with Liverpool and United.
    C. People are volunteers, not employees. Frankly, what you think is an appropriate amount to mod is something that the vast majority of current mods could not give. They have, ya know, jobs.
    D. I'd have as many mods as we possibly could, the problem is it's extremely difficult to find people who you could actually trust to mod.

    If you really think it's required, I suggest you take it past this feedback to a general point about professional moderation. Because that's the only way it'll work at the level you think is required.

    Frankly, I think the entire issues raised by people is about volume. The sheer volume of posters is unreal, match threads are impossible to follow because there are so many posters. Debates are less in depth. It's just the nature of growth. I think a further subdivision of super threads would be welcome, but I can't for the life of me figure out how.

    A. If it wasn't a common occurrence then why does the forum need 3 more mods......and maybe more?. Des made the point, i wont repeat it. Its not all about user volume.

    B. Id say 99% of the users could predict what match threads could/can/will kick off.

    C. Its been repeatedly said that 24/7 coverage is a ludicrous notion, what people imo expect from a mod of Soccer is some coverage Sat/Sun, Mon evening if theres a game on TV and Euro games Tues/Wed evening, outside that i wouldnt expect anything.

    D. Fair enough.

    If any of the above amounts to a suggestion of pro moderation then fine, i dont think it does, id call it fairly basic stuff some of the old mods who have left were very capable of.


  • #334
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    PHB wrote: »
    I think a further subdivision of super threads would be welcome, but I can't for the life of me figure out how.

    Subdivide the forum.

    The answer is literally staring you all in the face, but for some unfathomable reason the mods just dismiss the idea completely out of hand.

    EVERY other busy forum on Boards has subdivided.

    Politics, AH, jaysis, even the Food & Drink subject is divided out.

    The Soccer Mods are like FIFA and Technology when it comes to this idea really.


    Also...no-one to "trust" to mod, that is laughable.

    There are 500 mods on this site, you've picked one of them, and made another member a mod for the first time.

    The Admins trust the other 490 mods, but you don't?


  • #335
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    daithijjj wrote: »
    C. Its been repeatedly said that 24/7 coverage is a ludicrous notion, what people imo expect from a mod of Soccer is some coverage Sat/Sun, Mon evening if theres a game on TV and Euro games Tues/Wed evening, outside that i wouldnt expect anything.

    I modded the rugby forum, because although I've no interest in the game, I was, at the time, available to mod during a World Cup, and later, at times when games were on, because most of the other mods were at the games.


    When I wasn't able to offer that commitment any more, it was one of the factors that made me step aside.


  • #336
    Frisbee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,569 ✭✭✭✭Frisbee


    When you say subdivide the forum do you mean have an EPL sub-forum, LOI sub-forum, BBVA sub-forum etc?

    Also we don't dismiss it out of hand. Last time there was discussion on it more people were against it than were for it, it's not just the Mods deciding it's not happening.


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    Frisbee wrote: »
    When you say subdivide the forum do you mean have an EPL sub-forum, LOI sub-forum, BBVA sub-forum etc?

    Yes, but I have no idea what BBVA is.

    Not an EPL Sub-forum, the Soccer Forum is practically a EPL Forum anyway, with all discussion of any other league nicely wrapped up in a single weekly thread, or a League Superthread.

    Do a poll, ask people which EPL team they support and make a forum for the biggest three or four teams.

    LoI, La Liga are next - no other league has the following (sorry Seaneh), so we don't need to bother about them. If and when another league garners a lot of following in the future, make a new sub forum, and if needs be, merge any quiet forums back in with the still active Soccer Forum. A review could be had every 24 or 30 Months to see oif any new forums are needed, or any closures needed.

    Look, it's cool to have an Admin decide on a whim to subdivide the forum (Go Ahead Eagles anyone? :rolleyes:, or the Spurs forum being made because the person who asked was "well in" with the Admins at the time), but not to discuss any other sibdivisions, it's ridiculous.


  • #338
    JimsAlterEgo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭JimsAlterEgo


    a sub forum for match threads might also work with access restrictions to 50+ posts in main forum first, also ability to ban people from this forum alone.


  • #339
    Crann na Beatha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,763 ✭✭✭✭Crann na Beatha


    This post has been deleted.


  • #340
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,032 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    Spot On
    I got a yellow card for saying i dont like chelsea fc, why should we skirt around the issue and fill each other with bull****.


  • #341
    Red Crow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,139 ✭✭✭Red Crow


    niallo27 wrote: »
    I got a yellow card for saying i dont like chelsea fc, why should we skirt around the issue and fill each other with bull****.

    'Skirt' around what issue?


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    The_Kew_Tour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,424 ✭✭✭✭The_Kew_Tour


    The consistency is big problem.

    Being called troll and WUM yesterday, and nothing done, and yet when I replied it was me that got warning.


  • #343
    G.K.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭G.K.


    The_Kew_Tour wrote: »
    The consistency is big problem.

    Being called troll and WUM yesterday, and nothing done, and yet when I replied it was me that got warning.

    It's easier if you report these posts - we can't see everything so unless we stumble upon something while reading the threads, unreported things can go without being dealt with.


  • #344
    G.K.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭G.K.


    Niallo, this was your post:
    Can we all stop pretending we respect Chelsea FC, utd arsenal have deserved respect, Chelsea are a horrible football club, no point in bullshiiting around it.

    If that's not intended to cause a reaction from or rile the Chelsea fans, I don't know what is. The rules of the charter you signed up to let me make judgement on your intent, and that's my judgement.

    If you aren't happy, then as I said in a PM, take it up with one of the other mods, and progress up the Dispute Resolution system if you so wish.


  • #345
    monkey9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,337 ✭✭✭✭monkey9


    G.K. wrote: »
    Niallo, this was your post:



    If that's not intended to cause a reaction from or rile the Chelsea fans, I don't know what is. The rules of the charter you signed up to let me make judgement on your intent, and that's my judgement.

    If you aren't happy, then as I said in a PM, take it up with one of the other mods, and progress up the Dispute Resolution system if you so wish.

    To be honest, if he got a yellow card for that, we might as well all pack up and go home. Surely every post is meant to cause a reaction.


  • #346
    Blatter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,832 ✭✭✭✭Blatter


    Too Lenient
    monkey9 wrote: »
    To be honest, if he got a yellow card for that, we might as well all pack up and go home. Surely every post is meant to cause a reaction.

    ''Chelsea are a horrible football club'' is the type of juvenile shíte that people on here hate to see.

    Yes you're right in that we all post for reactions, but the reactions that people should be looking for should be ones that lead to healthy debate, not toilet thrash like what Niallo posted, that will do nothing but rile Chelsea fans and drag the forum down.


  • #347
    Handsome Bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    Too Lenient
    monkey9 wrote: »
    To be honest, if he got a yellow card for that, we might as well all pack up and go home. Surely every post is meant to cause a reaction.

    The post was devoid of subtlety and clearly designed to provoke posters into biting. It's a cut and dried yellow for me, I don't see how it can be argued? :confused:

    Ask yourself this, if the roles were reversed, how would you feel about such a post?


  • #348
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,032 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    Spot On
    I was hammered yesterday and I took the defeat badly, I apologize if I was acting the dick.


  • #349
    G.K.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭G.K.


    monkey, I refer you to the charter.
    There is a misconception that posters who post unpopular or uncomplimentary opinions are trolling this forum. On its own, that behaviour is not a problem. When it is done to deliberately rile an individual or group on the forum then it becomes trolling.

    If you want to post controversial opinion then you should be prepared to argue cogently and coherently in support of your argument. Repeating the same point over and over again without addressing counter arguments is not advisable. It is your responsibility to ensure that you contribute in a positive manner, that does not mean you have to agree with everyone else but you must avoid deliberate disruption of the forum.

    The mod team reserve the right to apply their judgement as to a users intent when posting, and issue bans and/or infractions for trolling as necessary.

    Most of Niallo's posts at the time had been disparaging toward Chelsea. I had to delete one angry reply from a chelsea fan to nip the exchange in the bud - so niallo clearly did draw a negative reaction from them. This is my judgement.

    As it is, he's apologised, so can we leave it at that please.


  • #350
    KittyeeTrix
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,239 ✭✭✭KittyeeTrix


    niallo27 wrote: »
    I was hammered yesterday and I took the defeat badly, I apologize if I was acting the dick.

    Fair play niallo.......:)
    Nice to see someone able to admit when they've got it wrong rather than blaming the soccer mods and other posters... Pity others don't react the same way as you have today


  • #351
    The_Kew_Tour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,424 ✭✭✭✭The_Kew_Tour


    G.K. wrote: »
    It's easier if you report these posts - we can't see everything so unless we stumble upon something while reading the threads, unreported things can go without being dealt with.

    I did report it.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement