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

Issue with Soccer Forum

24567

Comments

  • #52
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,399 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    mike65 wrote: »
    Can I just say absolutely HATE repeat HATE gifs with a passion you people could hardly believe - they slow down my interweb and clog up the browser like crazy.

    I'd like to see them banned outright for good on the football forum.

    yours, in exile.

    What's your dial up at these days Mike? :pac:

    I'm not a fan of the Panda stuff myself, and good .gif posting is a nuanced art that escapes most who turn their hands to it. But this is about consistency of policy and figuring out how to deal with stuff like this without resorting to card on site nonsense.


  • #53
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    It's an in joke and cliquish


  • #54
    djPSB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,299 ✭✭✭djPSB


    I actually thought the LFC thread was mighty craic over the past few weeks, probably the best since I've joined Boards. Obviously, the uplift in on pitch fortunes has helped this.

    But I do think that 99.999999% of stuff that was posted was not malicious and just harmless craic, whether it was panda gifs or whatever. It's hard to keep the thread 100% on topic when there's such excitement and a full week between games. A week these days feels like a year, and an auld panda/wrestling gif just lightens the mood from time to time.

    P.S. Somebody spare a thought for the Pandas in all this.


  • #55
    Vito Corleone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭Vito Corleone


    I'd like to see no modding in the soccer forum. Just a big free for all of slagging and off topic discussion.

    WE ARE LIVERPOOL TRA LA LA LA LA!!


  • #56
    GavRedKing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53,262 ✭✭✭✭GavRedKing


    Turtyturd wrote: »
    Can mods be infracted as with regular posters?

    Yup they sure can.

    Ive being carded on recently for calling out Ramires tackle against Villa.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89476902&postcount=153


  • #57
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    rarnes1 wrote: »
    Ism't there a way to turn them off for a user or did I dream that?

    There is but its involves a cunning script of some sort if I recall and therefore
    a script host and that has to be integrated into the browser and ah forget it! :p


  • #58
    googled eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 4,629 ✭✭✭googled eyes


    rarnes1 wrote: »
    Ism't there a way to turn them off for a user or did I dream that?

    I think if a user optioned to turn off .gifs they wouldn't be able to see any images


  • #59
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,399 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    efb wrote: »
    It's an in joke and cliquish

    Are you suggesting that super thread regulars shouldn't be allowed to develop certain injokes? All of the long term threads have regulars who will spend a lot of time talking amongst each other. If they decide that posting pictures of tin cans is hilarious for a couple of days should it really be clamped down on by the moderation team?


  • #60
    Pro. F
    Registered Users Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    efb wrote: »
    What does panda gifs add to football debate? Just breeds cliquish and clannish behaviour

    The soccer forum is not just a soccer debate. The forum as a whole, and the team threads in particular, is a community where all sorts of football discussion goes on. People tell jokes and have ongoing jokes. Gifs and pics are a part of that.

    I could see why the panda gifs were banned from the match thread the other night. They were clogging it up. And it looked like it was possibly the case that those pictures were being spammed to prevent discussion, discussion that the LFC fans thought was trolling. So banning that joke, in that thread, at that time made sense. But in the team super thread, where Liverpool fans are getting giddy about their season that is not what is happening. It's just excited fans sharing a joke.

    I think what is happening here is that a badly worded rule is being misused.

    This is the rule:
    Gifs that only serve a purpose to inflame or drag a thread off topic or otherwise do not contribute to a thread will be removed, if it is considered that the only purpose of that gif was to further inflame an argument, then the poster may receive a warning for it. (ie Michael Jackson/Popcorn gif/pictures)

    From what I remember this rule was introduced after forum feedback where posters complained about the popcorn gifs that were getting posted at the start of every contentious thread. Posters asked for them to be banned, the new rule did far more than that. Now the new rule is being used for something completely different.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Tbf I wasn't talking about the super thread thing, I was talking match forum, super threads are different explains how I didn't get the joke


  • #62
    googled eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 4,629 ✭✭✭googled eyes


    efb wrote: »
    It's an in joke and cliquish

    .


  • #63
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    The Liverpool thread has been full of good humour and yes long winded running in jokes about wood and Lord Trollingtons bet and its what makes the thread to be honest. If football was the only reason to post the place would be as quite as a Hyde FC supporters thread.


  • #64
    Bobeagleburger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,735 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    Pro. F wrote: »
    The soccer forum is not just a soccer debate. The forum as a whole, and the team threads in particular, is a community where all sorts of football discussion goes on. People tell jokes and have ongoing jokes. Gifs and pics are a part of that.

    I could see why the panda gifs were banned from the match thread the other night. They were clogging it up. And it looked like it was possibly the case that those pictures were being spammed to prevent discussion, discussion that the LFC fans thought was trolling. So banning that joke, in that thread, at that time made sense. But in the team super thread, where Liverpool fans are getting giddy about their season that is not what is happening. It's just excited fans sharing a joke.

    Spot on


  • #65
    Knex*
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,477 ✭✭✭✭Knex*


    GavRedKing wrote: »
    Yup they sure can.

    Ive being carded on recently for calling out Ramires tackle against Villa.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89476902&postcount=153

    I don't want to be an ass about this, but I know someone on our thread called Salah a prat when he missed, and I was also reading the Chelsea thread during the game.

    You had a post, which you since deleted I think, that had some choice words to say about him too.

    Now, like I say, I don't want to be an ass about it, but it just highlights some of the inconsistency that we are seeing.

    Also, to put on record, I don't really see how either incident today warranted an infraction. Your Ramires post on the other hand was perhaps a little excessive :pac:


  • #66
    GavRedKing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53,262 ✭✭✭✭GavRedKing


    Knex. wrote: »
    I don't want to be an ass about this, but I know someone on our thread called Salah a prat when he missed, and I was also reading the Chelsea thread during the game.

    You had a post, which you since deleted I think, that had some choice words to say about him too.

    Now, like I say, I don't want to be an ass about it, but it just highlights some of the inconsistency that we are seeing.

    Also, to put on record, I don't really see how either incident today warranted an infraction. Your Ramires post on the other hand was perhaps a little excessive :pac:

    I didnt delete it anyway but I know the post, I called him a useless clown, iirc.

    TBF the Ramires one was a little harsh but it was the exact feeling of the majority of people, shocking tackle.

    Anyway, back to the larger issue of this feedback thread, let me have a look and get ye a proper answer to LL's post in due time.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    brevity
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,586 ✭✭✭brevity


    OwaynOTT wrote: »
    The sad thing is, the pandas were only a fad and would have died by today I'd say.

    The panda's have now become a symbol of oppression all over the world. I think I saw one walk in front of a tank in Ukraine.


  • #68
    Gbear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Knex. wrote: »
    The issue here lies with reviewing incidents on a singular post merit, and not a body of work.

    Allows obvious wind ups to hide behind the charter, and then any questioning of said posters, or referencing them, results in overall respectable posters getting the infractions.

    I think a lot of the frustration among the forum stems from this, really. Mods aren't allowed use common sense, and say, "Look, you haven't strictly broken one of the rules, but you're being an obvious dick, and you have many deliberately provocative posts to show for it".

    Their hands, I believe, are somewhat tied in this regard, and the Forum won't improve until its changed.

    If the mods have complete discretion people will start moaning that the charter is too vague and flaccid and needs to be more concrete.
    I'm not sure it's something you can get right.

    That's not to say it can't improve in general though.

    The charter isn't the constitution of our country. It doesn't have to be legally bulletproof. A bit of leeway to crack down on the odd troll mightn't go amiss. Being on boards is optional, so they can have any rules they like. Mods don't really have to be "technically correct" in their decisions.

    I think the Soccer Mods have done a pretty good job by and large but things have just gone a bit weird lately. Obviously Liverpool fans are somewhat to blame because we've progressively gotten more and more mental over the past month or so but I don't think that accounts for all of the problem.


  • #69
    5starpool
    Subscribers Posts: 32,855 ✭✭✭✭5starpool


    People being carded for calling their own players names who have done something stupid or missed a chance, etc, is my biggest pet peeve about the SF this season, but I'll be raising that in the soccer feedback thread whenever it gets going.

    It's beyond ridiculous and another instance of applying a rule to the totally wrong situation.


  • #70
    Nuri Sahin
    Site Banned Posts: 26,456 ✭✭✭✭Nuri Sahin


    :(

    #FreeAde2K14 #KentuckyFriedPanda


  • #71
    Liam O
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,338 ✭✭✭✭Liam O


    Knex. wrote: »
    The issue here lies with reviewing incidents on a singular post merit, and not a body of work.

    Allows obvious wind ups to hide behind the charter, and then any questioning of said posters, or referencing them, results in overall respectable posters getting the infractions.

    I think a lot of the frustration among the forum stems from this, really. Mods aren't allowed use common sense, and say, "Look, you haven't strictly broken one of the rules, but you're being an obvious dick, and you have many deliberately provocative posts to show for it".

    Their hands, I believe, are somewhat tied in this regard, and the Forum won't improve until its changed.
    I agree fully, I remember the Muppet was banned for this, I didn't think he was being that bad but he was offending enough people that he must have been up to something.

    How many other people have been banned under this ruling? There are certain people who could do with even being banned from rival team match threads, difficult to enforce I guess but when your only contribution in 90% of rival team threads after a goal is scored posting LOL, or going ott on every contentious incident in an attempt to rile up others and get them banned something has to be looked at.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    rarnes1 wrote: »
    Two questions I have:

    1. Does a post have to be reported to be acted on?

    2. Why do some mods delete inappropraite posts while others card people for them?


    Neither are a pop at moderation but genuinely interested to know

    1. No. Neither does a reported post have to be acted on. If a mod sees an actionable post they will act on it. Reporting it helps because in busy forum mods cannot read every post. But just because a post is reported doesn't mean it is actionable. Mods act on the forum charter and site rules.
    2. Mods are people. And volunteers. Deleted posts may be carded too. Or one mod may send a pm saying cop on while another may use a yellow card to do the same. Different approaches to the same ends.

    I don't follow soccer so the above is without any refefence to Soccer forum moderation.


  • #73
    dzer2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,956 ✭✭✭dzer2


    Just noticed the lack of posts and thanks from the members that should be in here that were in the match threads and rivals threads over the last while.


  • #74
    GavRedKing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53,262 ✭✭✭✭GavRedKing


    5starpool wrote: »
    People being carded for calling their own players names who have done something stupid or missed a chance, etc, is my biggest pet peeve about the SF this season, but I'll be raising that in the soccer feedback thread whenever it gets going.

    It's beyond ridiculous and another instance of applying a rule to the totally wrong situation.

    Soon, expect it after the UCL Final but prior to the WC, so we can implement new rules/changes that you guys have brought up as our season runs July-August inclusive.


  • #75
    Nuri Sahin
    Site Banned Posts: 26,456 ✭✭✭✭Nuri Sahin


    Liam O wrote: »
    I agree fully, I remember the Muppet was banned for this, I didn't think he was being that bad but he was offending enough people that he must have been up to something.

    How many other people have been banned under this ruling? There are certain people who could do with even being banned from rival team match threads, difficult to enforce I guess but when you're only contribution in 90% of rival team threads after a goal is scored posting LOL, or going ott on every contentious incident in an attempt to rile up others and get them banned something has to be looked at.

    It's not really difficult to enforce though. You just have active mods, and no they don't have to be around 24/7. The big EPL team matchthreads need one if not two moderators around. Simple as that. There have been times where there are no mods around. There's mods there who are barely active, it was the case before and it'll probably be the case in the future, unfortunately.


  • #76
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,399 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    GavRedKing wrote: »
    Soon, expect it after the UCL Final but prior to the WC, so we can implement new rules/changes that you guys have brought up as our season runs July-August inclusive.

    I would suggest though that this issue is specific in nature and it is reasonable to raise it now as things were getting a bit out of hand. If we get it sorted it won't need to be rehashed in the end of season thread either.


  • #77
    Will I Amnt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,222 ✭✭✭✭Will I Amnt


    dzer2 wrote: »
    Just noticed the lack of posts and thanks from the members that should be in here that were in the match threads and rivals threads over the last while.

    What has that got to do with anything?


  • #78
    Grayditch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,347 ✭✭✭✭Grayditch


    The way some mods talk down to posters/groups of posters is so counterproductive. If you start branding people as childish, that's actually an insult, accurate or not, so expect push back and for it to get a whole lot more childish.

    It's often hard to respect the work mods do keeping the soccer forums murder free zones, when the inconsistencies are so prevalent, but that's the nature of the beast. I'm just wondering if mod actions/behaviour are reviewed properly by someone in...charge?

    I've seen time and time again calm reasoning working almost all of the time.

    "Ah lads, seriously, give over with the panda thing, its getting silly"

    Maybe I missed a post of this kind.

    It really feels like some mods get off on their bold, long winded, patronising warnings to be honest. They really don't always go down well and this week was over zealous modding 101.

    But soccer forums... generally modded well enough. I'd say a lot of learning will be done from all sides this week, though. Good posters banned after being frustrated by chest puffing, when simple reasoning would have worked.

    Grown ups talking to grown ups at the end of the day, get it done the easy way when you know you can.


  • #79
    Bounty Hunter
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,844 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bounty Hunter


    1 of the things a lot of pepole got mixed up with in the past day or two was the notion of the "in jokes"

    There is no problem with in jokes in theory (obviously it depends on how they are used / the meaning behind them - as you obviously couldn't use them to target another poster for example) however the problem arises when these jokes are deemed to have gone to far and as in the case of the match thread a moderator steps in.

    That thread was a mess and impossible to read especially when a huge proportion of the people reading the thread were not in on the "in joke" which seemed to be taking over the thread ( as was the case for virtually everyone who wasnt a regular in the thread they originated in) before it was locked and cleaned up. There was then a very clear mod message placed in the thread which was duplicated in the OP of the thread which was highlighted in the thread title. It was only when this mod Instruction was ignored (through whatever it was be it Pandas / saps or whatever) did people start receiving warnings and those warnings were for ignoring mod instrction and not for posting Pandas etc

    Does a post have to be reported to be acted on? hell no, but If its reported a mod is far far more likely to a) see it and b) know that other people find it offensive in whatever way

    On the same point though perhaps a post isn't reported and thus not seen by a mod who (lets face it isn't going to see / read every post) then warns / infracts a poster over something it will not do that poster any good to then point out this post that slipped through the cracks and say if they didn't get X, Y or Z then neither should I. Perhaps by highlighting that post you will get someone else warned / infracted as might have happened if it had originally been reported but it will not change what you posted and the warning or whatever you got as a result.


  • #80
    GavRedKing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53,262 ✭✭✭✭GavRedKing


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    I would suggest though that this issue is specific in nature and it is reasonable to raise it now as things were getting a bit out of hand. If we get it sorted it won't need to be rehashed in the end of season thread either.

    Your issue will be dealt with long before the SF feedback thread LL and anything else you guys want to bring up in a few weeks time when the SF feedback thread rolls around your more than welcome to make, the more constructive the posts the better though, as it will help us understand yere issues.


  • #81
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,399 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Thanks BH, but why were people having posts deleted and being carded for posting Pandas in the Superthread today - i.e. not the match thread with the clear bolded moderator warning?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Knex*
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,477 ✭✭✭✭Knex*


    Everyone agrees the panda thing in the match thread was fair, if perhaps the method of dealing with it was a little excessive.

    The sap thing was a moderation mistake. It had no business being put in the mod note and then being used as a means to card people. The fact that people still have infractions to their name because of this, is a blot on said mod's copybook, really.

    I honestly can't get over that we are having this discussion. Bizarre doesn't do it justice.

    Deleting posts without any warning or notification, and then following this up with infractions in the Superthread was also surely less than fair.


  • #83
    5starpool
    Subscribers Posts: 32,855 ✭✭✭✭5starpool


    Bounty Hunter wrote: »
    1 of the things a lot of pepole got mixed up with in the past day or two was the notion of the "in jokes"

    There is no problem with in jokes in theory (obviously it depends on how they are used / the meaning behind them - as you obviously couldn't use them to target another poster for example) however the problem arises when these jokes are deemed to have gone to far and as in the case of the match thread a moderator steps in.

    That thread was a mess and impossible to read especially when a huge proportion of the people reading the thread were not in on the "in joke" which seemed to be taking over the thread ( as was the case for virtually everyone who wasnt a regular in the thread they originated in) before it was locked and cleaned up. There was then a very clear mod message placed in the thread which was duplicated in the OP of the thread which was highlighted in the thread title. It was only when this mod Instruction was ignored (through whatever it was be it Pandas / saps or whatever) did people start receiving warnings and those warnings were for ignoring mod instrction and not for posting Pandas etc

    Does a post have to be reported to be acted on? hell no, but If its reported a mod is far far more likely to a) see it and b) know that other people find it offensive in whatever way

    On the same point though perhaps a post isn't reported and thus not seen by a mod who (lets face it isn't going to see / read every post) then warns / infracts a poster over something it will not do that poster any good to then point out this post that slipped through the cracks and say if they didn't get X, Y or Z then neither should I. Perhaps by highlighting that post you will get someone else warned / infracted as might have happened if it had originally been reported but it will not change what you posted and the warning or whatever you got as a result.

    No one here is referring to the match thread. The latest incidents were when just panda gifs were deleted. There was no messing involved such as went on in the match thread.


  • #84
    OwaynOTT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,563 ✭✭✭✭OwaynOTT


    I also don't see how using the word sap makes a thread unreadable. The use of the word was not intended as an insult to anyone and as such I don't know why it was lumped in with the panda in receiving a mod warning.


  • #85
    padd b1975
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,782 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    5starpool wrote: »
    People being carded for calling their own players names who have done something stupid or missed a chance, etc, is my biggest pet peeve about the SF this season, but I'll be raising that in the soccer feedback thread whenever it gets going.

    It's beyond ridiculous and another instance of applying a rule to the totally wrong situation.
    Are you honestly expecting a volunteer mod to remember every individual poster's team?

    FFS.


  • #86
    Thanx 4 The Fish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,399 ✭✭✭✭Thanx 4 The Fish


    Knex. wrote: »
    Everyone agrees the panda thing in the match thread was fair, if perhaps the method of dealing with it was a little excessive.

    The sap thing was a moderation mistake. It had no business being put in the mod note and then being used as a means to card people. The fact that people still have infractions to their name because of this, is a blot on said mod's copybook, really.

    I honestly can't get over that we are having this discussion. Bizarre doesn't do it justice.

    Deleting posts without any warning or notification, and then following this up with infractions in the Superthread was also surely less than fair.
    Nobody was infracted for panda pictures in the superthread.


  • #87
    Bobeagleburger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,735 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    Yeah I think the match thread isn't the issue here at all.

    The match thread bans were inevitable. There was warnings and then some broke the rules. No can really argue too much.

    It's the superthread that's the issue here.


  • #88
    Knex*
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,477 ✭✭✭✭Knex*


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Are you honestly expecting a volunteer mod to remember every individual supporter's team?

    FFS.

    990/1000 its clear as day from the thread they would have said post in. Would it not?

    And you'd be surprised at how many you would know. Posting on here for two years, and without regularly venturing outside of the LFC thread (although I am more active now and do on occasion), I'd have a fair idea for a lot of posters on here.

    Mods are more active and aware than that again.


  • #89
    Knex*
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,477 ✭✭✭✭Knex*


    Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »
    Nobody was infracted for panda pictures in the superthread.

    Lloyd got one for linking to this feedback thread. That was a knock on affect from what I was referring to.


  • #90
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,399 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »
    Nobody was infracted for panda pictures in the superthread.

    Your post from the superthread:
    Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

    [Mod Hat]
    Feel free, that will get you an infraction though.

    Cut out the Pandas, was on the match thread, same rule applies.
    [/Mod Hat]

    :confused:

    You also deleted posts containing Panda gifs (or well, while I can't be sure you deleted them yourself they were deleted around the time you posted the above)


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    OwaynOTT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,563 ✭✭✭✭OwaynOTT


    rarnes1 wrote: »
    Yeah I think the match thread isn't the issue here at all.

    The match thread bans were inevitable. There was warnings and then some broke the rules. No can really argue too much.

    It's the superthread that's the issue here.

    Someone got carded for asking a question. The cutting out of the panda parade was warranted however but not everything in my view.


  • #92
    Thanx 4 The Fish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,399 ✭✭✭✭Thanx 4 The Fish


    Knex. wrote: »
    990/1000 its clear as day from the thread they would have said post in. Would it not?

    And you'd be surprised at how many you would know. Posting on here for two years, and without regularly venturing outside of the LFC thread (although I am more active now and do on occasion), I'd have a fair idea for a lot of posters on here.

    Mods are more active and aware than that again.
    The op raised this because panda pics got people banned. Nobody was banned or even received a warning infraction for panda pics in there.


  • #93
    Thanx 4 The Fish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,399 ✭✭✭✭Thanx 4 The Fish


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Your post from the superthread:



    :confused:

    You also deleted posts containing Panda gifs (or well, while I can't be sure you deleted them yourself they were deleted around the time you posted the above)

    And still the thing I said stands. NOBODY was infracted for posting panda pics in the superthread. Not sure what you have to be confused about here Lloyd.


  • #94
    Bobeagleburger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,735 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    OwaynOTT wrote: »
    Someone got carded for asking a question. The cutting out of the panda parade was warranted however but not everything in my view.

    Not sure what post you were referring too. I'm talking about the panda gifs on the match thread. I can understand why it was asked to be stopped.


  • #95
    Knex*
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,477 ✭✭✭✭Knex*


    Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »
    The op raised this because panda pics got people banned. Nobody was banned or even received a warning infraction for panda pics in there.
    Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »
    And still the thing I said stands. NOBODY was infracted for posting panda pics in the superthread. Not sure what you have to be confused about here Lloyd.

    Issue still remains. We can go around in circles on a technicality, point is, the mod warning, post deletions, and threatening of future infractions for panda related gifs (I still can't get over typing this sentence), are still very much at hand.

    This is twice now on this thread alone that instead of offering something productive, you've gone on a tangent about something, that in the grand scheme of things, isn't exactly relevant. It smacks of avoidance, really.


  • #96
    Thanx 4 The Fish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,399 ✭✭✭✭Thanx 4 The Fish


    OwaynOTT wrote: »
    Someone got carded for asking a question. The cutting out of the panda parade was warranted however but not everything in my view.

    Nope, somebody got warned for questioning mods decisions to ban others and calling them bans ridiculous on thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Bounty Hunter
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,844 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bounty Hunter


    OwaynOTT wrote: »
    I also don't see how using the word sap makes a thread unreadable. The use of the word was not intended as an insult to anyone and as such I don't know why it was lumped in with the panda in receiving a mod warning.

    When I said it was impossible to read I was obviously referring to more than just the saps issue which arose, however it was listed in the mod instruction.

    Right or wrong that it was there you can decide for yourselves but if you think wrong (not particularly talking about you here Owayn just happen to be quoted) in a situation like that then pm a mod, perhaps the mod involved don;t post about it (whatever the it is, in this case saps) as you will more than likely get actioned in that case.

    With regards the Panda thing I have only talked about the match thread as that was where my involvement was and therefore cannot justify it elsewhere but I will say with regards people calling their own team players / coaches names I dont know who every poster supports and its a very slippery slope if we start saying poster x can say something abusive about 1 player but poster Y cant cos he supports a different team. Abuse is abuse


  • #98
    djPSB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,299 ✭✭✭djPSB


    Bounty Hunter wrote: »
    1 of the things a lot of pepole got mixed up with in the past day or two was the notion of the "in jokes"

    There is no problem with in jokes in theory (obviously it depends on how they are used / the meaning behind them - as you obviously couldn't use them to target another poster for example) however the problem arises when these jokes are deemed to have gone to far and as in the case of the match thread a moderator steps in.

    That thread was a mess and impossible to read especially when a huge proportion of the people reading the thread were not in on the "in joke" which seemed to be taking over the thread ( as was the case for virtually everyone who wasnt a regular in the thread they originated in) before it was locked and cleaned up. There was then a very clear mod message placed in the thread which was duplicated in the OP of the thread which was highlighted in the thread title. It was only when this mod Instruction was ignored (through whatever it was be it Pandas / saps or whatever) did people start receiving warnings and those warnings were for ignoring mod instrction and not for posting Pandas etc

    Does a post have to be reported to be acted on? hell no, but If its reported a mod is far far more likely to a) see it and b) know that other people find it offensive in whatever way

    On the same point though perhaps a post isn't reported and thus not seen by a mod who (lets face it isn't going to see / read every post) then warns / infracts a poster over something it will not do that poster any good to then point out this post that slipped through the cracks and say if they didn't get X, Y or Z then neither should I. Perhaps by highlighting that post you will get someone else warned / infracted as might have happened if it had originally been reported but it will not change what you posted and the warning or whatever you got as a result.

    I don't think anyone had a problem with the Pandas being banned from the match thread.

    But it was a bit harsh carding posters for posting pandas gifs in the LFC Superthread.


  • #99
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,399 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »
    The op raised this because panda pics got people banned. Nobody was banned or even received a warning infraction for panda pics in there.
    Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »
    And still the thing I said stands. NOBODY was infracted for posting panda pics in the superthread. Not sure what you have to be confused about here Lloyd.

    - People were banned and infracted for posting Panda .gifs in the match thread;
    - People went to continue posting such .gifs in the superthread;
    - You issued a mod warning in the superthread to the effect that posting such content in the superthread would result in warnings, etc;
    - You deleted posts containing Panda .gifs at this time;

    And so this thread was started.

    Am I to take it then that your warning in the superthread was actually incorrect, and Liverpool fans (or other fans of course) can post such gifs in that thread should the mood take them?


  • #100
    Knex*
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,477 ✭✭✭✭Knex*


    Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »
    Nope, somebody got warned for questioning mods decisions to ban others and calling them bans ridiculous on thread.

    That was my card, when I reference the card for Washington. I actually put it forth a lot more respectful and amicable than your post would have it believed.

    In my PM's to Bounty Hunter, I accepted my warning no problem. It was the larger issue that I had a problem with. I still believe the card Washington received was OTT, as was the section of the mod note that was used to card him.


  • #101
    Thanx 4 The Fish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,399 ✭✭✭✭Thanx 4 The Fish


    I will have a looksee but as I was not the mod who did action I do not know the particulars.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement