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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Issue with Soccer Forum

Options
12467…11

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Thanx 4 The Fish
    Registered Users Posts: 15,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #93
    Thanx 4 The Fish
    Registered Users Posts: 15,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #94
    Bobeagleburger
    Registered Users Posts: 45,262 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #95
    Knex*
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #96
    Thanx 4 The Fish
    Registered Users Posts: 15,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭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
  • Options
    #97
    Bounty Hunter
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,640 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


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #99
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,128 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #100
    Knex*
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #101
    Thanx 4 The Fish
    Registered Users Posts: 15,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭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
  • Options
    #102
    OwaynOTT
    Registered Users Posts: 10,533 ✭✭✭✭OwaynOTT


    rarnes1 wrote: »
    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.

    Oh I agree it hot a bit out of hand with panda gifs in the match thread but elsewhere not so much and the sap thing was a tad harsh.
    Bounty Hunter wrote: »
    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.

    That's fair enough and I do think it was harsh.


  • Options
    #103
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,128 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »
    I will have a looksee but as I was not the mod who did action I do not know the particulars.

    Can you please confirm whether your on thread warning regarding posting panda gifs on the superthread stands and, if so, the reasoning behind same? Cheers.


  • Options
    #104
    Bounty Hunter
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,640 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bounty Hunter


    Just to clarify 100% (and avoid people working under assumption) as this might help with this kind of thing although as stated it was the ignoring mod instructions not the bears that were the issue with anything I was involved in moderating recently.

    What is the "in joke" with regards the Pandas?


  • Options
    #105
    Blatter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,832 ✭✭✭✭Blatter


    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.

    I remember bringing this up before. This was my suggestion:
    For me, it would be very simple. A mod could ask themselves two questions when they see something that could be construed as abuse;

    1 - Was it the posters intention to incite a negative reaction/annoy other members of the forum with said abuse?

    2 - Did the said abuse actually cause significant trouble or did it have the potential to?

    If the answer is yes to either of those questions, infract the post.

    If the answer is no to both of those questions (which it often is), use some common sense and don't hand out the infraction.

    It all comes down to lack of common sense, the same reason why this thread was started. It's good to have detailed rules as they help create necessary boundaries, but to optimise the running of the forum, the mods must be able to exert common sense. Otherwise, good posters inevitably end up getting in trouble due to rules that were designed to stop something else in the first place.

    Basically, before a mod hands out an infraction because a user broke a rule they should ask themselves:


    1) What is the rule and what was the problem as to why this rule was implemented in the first place?

    2) Is said post something that is causing that problem?



    For example, let's apply this to the Panda GIFs being posted in the superthread.

    1) GIF rule - because people were using popcorn gifs at the start of a lot of threads over a sustained period of weeks/months and it was growing tiresome for users

    2) NO! ----> NO INFRACTION


  • Options
    #106
    Knex*
    Registered Users Posts: 22,477 ✭✭✭✭Knex*


    Bounty Hunter wrote: »
    Just to clarify 100% (and avoid people working under assumption) as this might help with this kind of thing although as stated it was the ignoring mod instructions not the bears that were the issue with anything I was involved in moderating recently.

    What is the "in joke" with regards the Pandas?

    We were in jovial mood that day, discussing random stuff and even posting in Irish. We are a thread that regularly goes off topic for a page or so from time to time. Its what makes it enjoyable.

    Anyway, following our upbeat posting, one poster stated how it had been ages since he could post a sad panda image, since we've been beyond lucky in what we are witnessing in recent months. He then posted a panda going down a slide, bashing into other pandas.

    I refuted, saying Red Panda's gifs is where's its at nowadays, and actually posted one with a caption along the lines of "This is relevant to how our season has been so far".

    People then went on a panda frenzy for about an hour or two, which coincided in the match thread being opened.

    It would have all faded away no problem, only lets be honest, BNMC came in with his usual nonsense, and instead of retorting to abuse, which we have seen the cards for before, we hit him Panda gifs.

    A much more pleasurable way of dealing with it, for everyone involved really. Its kinda funny that the thread got locked by our method of not confronting and resorting to flaming.


  • Options
    #107
    Sparks43
    Registered Users Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Sparks43


    Bounty Hunter wrote: »

    What is the "in joke" with regards the Pandas?


    Guessing here

    What do a panda And a Liverpool girl have in common



    ....................................


    Would love to know the panda injoke as well


  • Options
    #108
    OwaynOTT
    Registered Users Posts: 10,533 ✭✭✭✭OwaynOTT


    Anyway, following our upbeat posting, one poster stated how it had been ages since he could post a sad panda image, since we've been beyond lucky in what we are witnessing in recent months. He then posted a panda going down a slide, bashing into other pandas.

    God, it sounds something like Baldrick's causes of WW1.


  • Options
    #109
    djPSB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,299 ✭✭✭djPSB


    OwaynOTT wrote: »
    Anyway, following our upbeat posting, one poster stated how it had been ages since he could post a sad panda image, since we've been beyond lucky in what we are witnessing in recent months. He then posted a panda going down a slide, bashing into other pandas.

    God, it sounds something like Baldrick's causes of WW1.

    Was the panda injured after going down the slide?


  • Options
    #110
    OwaynOTT
    Registered Users Posts: 10,533 ✭✭✭✭OwaynOTT


    djPSB wrote: »
    OwaynOTT wrote: »
    Anyway, following our upbeat posting, one poster stated how it had been ages since he could post a sad panda image, since we've been beyond lucky in what we are witnessing in recent months. He then posted a panda going down a slide, bashing into other pandas.

    Was the panda injured after going down the slide?

    Shot by Archie Duke.

    Prob shouldn't go off topic here but I couldn't help it.




    Overall found this thread to be a good idea and thanks to Lloyd.


  • Options
    #111
    dfx-
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,662 Mod ✭✭✭✭dfx-


    Blatter wrote: »
    For example, let's apply this to the Panda GIFs being posted in the superthread.

    1) GIF rule - because people were using popcorn gifs at the start of a lot of threads over a sustained period of weeks/months and it was growing tiresome for users

    2) NO! ----> NO INFRACTION

    It's not about the gif rule. Nobody at all has been carded under the gif rule, to the best of my knowledge and certainly not in the matchthread. They have been warned under ignoring a mod instruction or back seat moderation or other reasons abuse etc. To the best of my knowledge, the gif rule has nothing to do with this - I don't know why it is brought up.

    I posted the match-thread warning and I will standover it. An entire page of off topic posts and in-jokes from a superthread that had flooded the thread had to be cleaned up. Within minutes, it was considered ok to tell a moderator to **** off on-thread and another was abused by PM, while others debated the warning on-thread. So it had to be closed.
    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Can you please confirm whether your on thread warning regarding posting panda gifs on the superthread stands and, if so, the reasoning behind same? Cheers.

    The warning in the superthread says the same applies as the matchthread. The matchthread reasoning was off topic posting. Can you indicate how panda jokes, pics, gifs etc are on-topic to a Liverpool FC Superthread?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,128 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    dfx- wrote: »
    The warning in the superthread says the same applies as the matchthread. The matchthread reasoning was off topic posting. Can you indicate how panda jokes, pics, gifs etc are on-topic to a Liverpool FC Superthread?

    Seems Pro F's post applies:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89925515&postcount=60
    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.

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

    This is the rule:


    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.

    And it looks like this is the outcome the mod team want:
    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Why do WWE gifs add to football debate?

    You will never have universal consensus on the comedic merits of anything. Maybe the outcome of this will be a strict no gifs policy on the forum, but that would seem to be unneccesary?

    Say it ain't so?


  • Options
    #113
    dfx-
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,662 Mod ✭✭✭✭dfx-


    I see no reason for a strict no gifs policy. I say that as someone who promoted that rule to be introduced as a poster in feedback threads, though I do see the advantage in having the rule that some can be allowed and others not, like those mentioned in the rule.

    Again however, I don't see anyone disciplined under the gif rule this weekend, so its relevance is not immediate.

    Can you again explain how panda jokes - in all forms - are on-topic in a Liverpool FC Superthread?


  • Options
    #114
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,128 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    dfx- wrote: »
    I see no reason for a strict no gifs policy. I say that as someone who promoted that rule to be introduced as a poster in feedback threads, though I do see the advantage in having the rule that some can be allowed and others not, like those mentioned in the rule.

    Again however, I don't see anyone disciplined under the gif rule this weekend, so its relevance is not immediate.

    Excuse me, this issue is immediate as per the below warning in the superthread irrespective of what technicalities you are trying to employ here:
    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]

    As such, can people post panda gifs in the super thread? If not, why not? Cheers.


  • Options
    #115
    dfx-
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,662 Mod ✭✭✭✭dfx-


    The issue may be immediate, but it is nothing to do with gifs in particular. To paraphrase: 'Same rule applies as the matchthread' - the rule applied in the matchthread was not about gifs as I've described previously.

    Unless you can explain why panda jokes are on-topic in the Liverpool FC Superthread, there may be no issue with that warning. You can post any gif you like that is on-topic.


  • Options
    #116
    OwaynOTT
    Registered Users Posts: 10,533 ✭✭✭✭OwaynOTT


    A poster said that due to our good results he couldn't post the sad panda gif. So what followed was a slew of panda gifs in response to that. It then became a joke and as a joke related to liverpools futures this year it is always on topic or as on topic as the majority of gifs posted on the superthreads.
    The vast majority of gifs/pics are usually related to an off topic discussion but the panda one actually was related to the futures of Liverpool this year.

    It was overused in the match thread and the decision was warranted but to carry that over into the superthread is not warranted.
    Why ban one gif and allow others? How do we decide which are allowed? Censoring of panda gifs in the superthread is too much censorship.
    There were no complaints in the superthread that I could see.
    It was a fad that would have faded out.

    And why the the reference to ourselves as saps was included is beyond my kin. If mods were abused because of this it is regrettable but surely that happened after the decision and shouldn't have any impact upon why the decision to ban the word sap was reached.


  • Options
    #117
    Nuri Sahin
    Site Banned Posts: 26,456 ✭✭✭✭Nuri Sahin


    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:

    Just on what Knex said. I feel I should have my say since it's about me regarding my warning and subsequent 3 month, then turned into a 1 month ban in which I had referred to Chelsea player, Mohammed Salah as a prat in the Liverpool thread earlier.

    It was deemed as abuse by the moderator in question -
    im sure you no calling someone a prat including a non poster is against the charter as per the abuse rule

    Salah for those who didn't see the game missed an absolute sitter early-ish in the first half. It was an appalling miss one Chelsea fans would agree with me. An idiotic miss I'd deem as he didn't have much left to do after being served the chance. There was no excuse for not scoring.

    It goes further than that though as it's no straight forward case. Anyone who has regularly read the Liverpool thread from 12 months ago to January knows that I've regularly been lavishing praise on Salah be it here on boards or elsewhere. In the link below, please note how I'm on my one man crusade of praise for him until his move to Chelsea, even going as far back as to do a somewhat lengthy blog type post on him -

    http://twitlonger.com/show/n_1ru5a58

    http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?forum=151&sort=oldest&date_to=&date_from=&query=salah


    So it's safe to say I am a fan of the player, even now I am a fan of him despite being greatly unhappy with the eventual choice of club he opted for over my club, Liverpool. So yeah, I'm a bit salty, but far less so back then in late January.

    I've also referred to my fellow club's players as prats/eejits/idiots on a few occasions if I'm not mistaken, including calling Liverpool's Luis Suarez that for one or two moments of simulation and Borussia Dortmund's Marcel Schmelzer being he annoys me greatly. I'm sure whoever reported me, assuming it was a non-Liverpool fan didn't mind me calling Suarez that in the slightest.

    The question I ask is whether this is deemed abuse too despite it being players from the clubs I support? Will I or anyone get infracted in future for this? Or why wasn't myself and others infracted in the past for posting the term prats? Sure, there's plenty of examples of it.

    http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?forum=151&sort=newest&date_to=&date_from=&query=prat

    Most of it from what I can see is in lighthearted context, be it me calling a couple of guys I get on with one or whatever else. There's probably countless example of it in other threads, but I'll refrain from going there as it's about the soccer forum.

    To me it seems the moderators eyes lit up and there was the excuse to warn and ban me knowing full well I only needed one warning to cross the line, as well as potentially being permabanned. Do the moderators seriously think there was malice behind my comment and I'd go out of the way to sabotage myself knowing full well the consequences? I had a few beers as I mentioned earlier in the day, but I had my wherewithal to post what I did without thinking it was going to get me banned.

    Some moderators moderate as things are simply black and white with no real sense of context applied in their decision making. I've seen that far too much with some of the soccer forum moderators in particular, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen it. There's large elements of it on the basis of what this thread is about. Before one of them say it, I'm not an angel. I've said that plenty of times and I'm sure some of them don't believe me when I say this, but I genuinely wish the soccer forum was better. I do stand by what I've said to some of them that my been mostly productive over the 6 years of posting, but for example since he was mentioned, the likes of BMNC had free reign for far too long to run amok in countless Liverpool related threads. There are more names I could mention, including a couple in this thread, but I won't for now as it would truly derail it. Suffice to say one of them ONLY gets involved with posters and rarely discuss football, but for a sentence or two response at a push. Some might find me frustrating, but no one can argue my love for discussing football on a grand scale, even if they disagree with my opinion. It'd be absolutely awesome if there was consistent and fair modding in the soccer forum. I truly believe there's only a few of them capable of this, and one or two who are incapable of being a regular presence which is needed on such a forum. From what I've been told by a former moderator and the selection of new moderators a year or so ago when I was a moderator myself, if it's true what he said, I'd really, really question one person's position there.

    Going back to the gifs and off topic talk, it's absolutely harmless. Those moaning about it know who regularly post about such things and if they hate it so much, they should put those people on ignore, but I have a feeling they won't as they wouldn't want to miss out on reporting them. Probably the same people who get a kick out of people's posting history being brought up so to have a pop at them and yet, if similar is done to them, well, no-no. Can't be having that now. Ridiculous.

    Apolgises for going off in a bit of a tangent and rambling at times above, sleep deprived, beer and tired of some of the crap going on don't mix well.


  • Options
    #118
    Bobeagleburger
    Registered Users Posts: 45,262 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    I think I'm even more confused after reading dfx's replies.

    Can we post gifs if we choose to in the superthread?

    It's something I might do every so often so I'd like to know if I'll get sanctioned for it.


  • Options
    #119
    Turtyturd
    Registered Users Posts: 28,394 ✭✭✭✭Turtyturd


    Orion wrote: »
    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.
    .

    This is a major issue for me. All posts should be dealt with and left on thread. It sends a visual warning to others, and it demonstrates that the report system actually works. When posts are deleted it comes across more as mods giving a pass to certain posters because they get along with them. Or in Gav's case (which I am guessing he wasn't infracted for) helping out a fellow mod.


  • Options
    #120
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,290 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Turtyturd wrote: »
    This is a major issue for me. All posts should be dealt with and left on thread. It sends a visual warning to others, and it demonstrates that the report system actually works. When posts are deleted it comes across more as mods giving a pass to certain posters because they get along with them. Or in Gav's case (which I am guessing he wasn't infracted for) helping out a fellow mod.
    OK to clear this one up I deleted the Mod's post. I also carded him for that post. I did not consider it appropriate to leave what was essentially a bad example to others up in thread. I would add that going back the the match thread that kicked all this off, getting on for 50 posts have been deleted by the local mods. While sometimes it may be appropriate to leave such posts up to show others what is not acceptable, they also can destroy the flow of a thread. Whether posts are deleted or left up is generally a mod discretion issue, but in my view is most certainly not a "major" issue


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    jaykay74
    Registered Users Posts: 6,555 ✭✭✭jaykay74


    humour gifs (pandas, cats, wwe etc) for the humour thread imo. gifs related to football such as goals, skill etc for the regular football threads.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement