Another Soccer Banning

Xavi6

Ok first up apologies to those who are sick of people complaining about the moderation in the soccer forum. Unfortunately I feel I have been on the receiving end of it and have no choice but to air my case.

So this morning I received this -

Charter violation - Abuse

2 Weeks.

Now inevitably I was surprised. Had I called a fellow poster a name? Had I insulted someone inadvertantly? Looking back over my posts the answer was no, I hadn't.

So I PM'd the mod (can I name?) and asked why. I had presumed it was something in the Roy Keane thread as there were conflicts of opinions. But I was wrong, well half wrong. It was to do with Keane but in a different thread. I used an insulting adjective to describe him -

Xavi6 wrote:

We nick a last minute winner, the other lot lose miserably and that w*nker Keane is made a mockery of. It's a great Saturday!

Now bear in mind my team had just nicked an important last minute winner, our biggest rivals lost and they guy I hate most in English football got hammered. I was over the moon and was excited upon posting.

The mod's response is that it was 'mindless abuse'. Well how I laughed. Negative personal opinions aren't allowed? The post was so bad it hasn't even been feckin edited!

The worst part is a few weeks back I did almost the same thing in another Premiership thread -

Xavi6 wrote:

I notice this thread is for the 3rd and 4th. What about the big game on the 5th? The thought of that wordthatshallnotbesaid-bag Keane winning at our place scares me.

A similar adjective. Was I banned? Warned? No. So why would I not do it again?

Also tonight we had this comment from a poster -

How in the name of bejaysus was Hunt not sent off/arrested today. Scumbag.

Surely that would also constitute 'mindless abuse'. Was he banned? I also recently read a thread where Almunia of Arsenal was referred to as a 'tard'. No banning there. Is Keane exempt from criticism?

Basically I'm pissed because I wasn't told anything when I commented on Keane the first time and yet I'm banned for doing it again. Also I have no previous record for abuse and am a regular and well behaved poster in the forum. I think a warning would have been fair for a first offence but a banning is ridiculous.

godtabh

If you dont like other posters post report it.

Just because they havent been banned yet doenst mean they wont be.

Soccer needs to be strict. A lot of crap happened there before.

You got done fore personal abuse

Xavi6

kearnsr wrote: »

Soccer needs to be strict. A lot of crap happened there before.

Yep agree wholeheartadly. The problem is that that the mods aren't. My issue, as I said, is with the selective banning. It should be all or nothing.

kearnsr wrote: »

You got done fore personal abuse

Eh no I didn't. This is the reason I was given in PM -

It was the Roy Keane is a wanker comment.

godtabh

Xavi6 wrote: »

Yep agree wholeheartadly. The problem is that that the mods aren't. My issue, as I said, is with the selective banning. It should be all or nothing.



Eh no I didn't. This is the reason I was given in PM -

Sorry I meant personal abuse towards roy keane. As far as I've seen before people either got banned for personal abuse directly to boards posters or personal abuse to others that either merits a ban in its self or likely to cause trouble later in the thread.

Did you report the post? I'm sure the soccer mods have better stuff to do than to read every single thread and post

Chinafoot

Xavi6 wrote: »

My issue, as I said, is with the selective banning. It should be all or nothing.

Have you reported any of these other posts or are the mods meant to have read every single post in the forum? Slightly unrealistic if you're expecting the latter. Mods need the help of the users when it comes to off-topic and abusive posts.

Terms of abuse such as "scumbag" and "wanker" aren't allowed in soccer whether it's in reference to another poster or a team/player.

soccer forum charter wrote:

Outbursts of personal abuse/racism etc, be it directed at other board members or at groups of fans or sports personalities people will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to edit/move/delete such posts as we see fit and issue bans to the poster of such. The basic rule is keeping it civil; you can have friendly banter without resorting to personal abuse.

You broke the rules and got a ban. Seems fairly clear-cut to me.

Xavi6

kearnsr wrote: »

Sorry I meant personal abuse towards roy keane. As far as I've seen before people either got banned for personal abuse directly to boards posters or personal abuse to others that either merits a ban in its self or likely to cause trouble later in the thread.

I doubt Roy Keane read the thread when he got home last night and made a complaint. I called him a wanker. Anyone else who someone takes offence to that is ridiculous.

kearnsr wrote: »

Did you report the post? I'm sure the soccer mods have better stuff to do than to read every single thread and post

No I don't report posts like that because they don't offend me. If someone called a player a wanker I'd accept it as personal opinion not abuse. If the mods are so busy why would they ban someone for something so trivial as this?

Look Hunt was called a scumbag, Almunia a 'tard and there are countless other examples. I don't think these people should be banned either. It's an opinion.

Xavi6

We reserve the right to edit/move/delete such posts as we see fit and issue bans to the poster of such.

Chinafoot wrote: »

You broke the rules and got a ban. Seems fairly clear-cut to me.

The post wasn't edited, wasn't deleted, wasn't moved and I didn't get a warning but yet it bad enough to warrant a ban? Surely a warning would suffice for a first offence.

Chinafoot

Xavi6 wrote: »

The post wasn't edited, wasn't deleted, wasn't moved and I didn't get a warning but yet it bad enough to warrant a ban? Surely a warning would suffice for a first offence.

In order to gain access to soccer you have apply to the mods, yes? When you apply for access you state that you have read the charter, yes? Why then do you think you deserve a warning when you broke the first rule in that charter? As far as I'd be concerned, especially somewhere like soccer, the charter is your warning.

Xavi6

Chinafoot wrote: »

In order to gain access to soccer you have apply to the mods, yes? When you apply for access you state that you have read the charter, yes? Why then do you think you deserve a warning when you broke the first rule in that charter? As far as I'd be concerned, especially somewhere like soccer, the charter is your warning.

There is no point in having a charter if it isn't 100% enforced. If soccer is that bad then maybe there needs to be more mods to punish everyone, not just the odd one or two who insult the wrong person or are unfortunate to be caught.

Mr. Presentable

I could be wrong here, but I'd imagine the OP, like me, has no feelings one way or another about Roy keane the person, given that I don't know him. Had I made the remark in question it would have been directed at Roy Keane the icon/idol revered by so many. This is what I suspect was also the OP's target. Thus not personal abuse.

On related remarks, reporting posts or not, there was a mod on the discussion who should have acted on the other personal abuses, if only to appear to be even-handed. That he/she didn't smacks of innefficiency of the moderating or favouritism or double standards - none of which is laudable. But we've seen this debate before, no?

Peyton Manning

Happens us all big guy - its what you get for not contributing to Eircom League discussions. Take it on the chin.

leninbenjamin

i think Xavi6 is making some valid remarks in relation to the modding of the soccer forum. it certainly seems... inconsistent... at times.

one of the reasons for this i feel is that the mods get very little help from the rest of us who post there mostly because the rest of us aren't bothered by said rules... then the onus is on the mods to look at every single thread and post, which some days is quite difficult as the forum can receive an awful lot of traffic.

Xavi6

Archimedes wrote: »

Happens us all big guy - its what you get for not contributing to Eircom League discussions. Take it on the chin.

I would but unfortunately it's a 'three strikes your out' policy and this is number 2 (I was also a victim of the inconsistent 'scum' bannings discussed in the other thread. I'm walking a fine line thanks to this trivial banning.

Peyton Manning

Although I dont agree with your opinion of Sir Roy, and frankly I never will , I understand it must be hard to take the ban seeing as others get away with similar offenses. I got banned last year for calling Robin Van Persie a pr1ck, and during the 2 weeks I was banned I had seen and reported similar and worse name calling. Of course nothing was done about it, I was just told to stop reporting posts.

copacetic

Chinafoot wrote: »

In order to gain access to soccer you have apply to the mods, yes? When you apply for access you state that you have read the charter, yes? Why then do you think you deserve a warning when you broke the first rule in that charter? As far as I'd be concerned, especially somewhere like soccer, the charter is your warning.

hardly, on the other recent thread in feedback it was stated by soccer mods that they were being more lenient these days hence why people got banned in the past for this kind of thing, but not any more.

Then the OP gets banned for something that happens in most threads every day. His post wasn't reported either so where is the consistency? Or even an attempt at it?

Chinafoot

nipplenuts wrote: »

I could be wrong here, but I'd imagine the OP, like me, has no feelings one way or another about Roy keane the person, given that I don't know him. Had I made the remark in question it would have been directed at Roy Keane the icon/idol revered by so many. This is what I suspect was also the OP's target. Thus not personal abuse.

It's still against the charter though. You may not see it as abuse. You may not be offended when other people use phrases like that to describe players/managers/teams, but the fact of the matter is it's a bannable offence on the soccer forum as stated in the charter that you all claime to have read before gaining access.

Xavi6 wrote:

There is no point in having a charter if it isn't 100% enforced. If soccer is that bad then maybe there needs to be more mods to punish everyone, not just the odd one or two who insult the wrong person or are unfortunate to be caught.

And a charter can't be 100% enforced if the users of the forum aren't doing their bit and reporting posts that break the rules.

MrJoeSoap

Archimedes wrote: »

Happens us all big guy - its what you get for not contributing to Eircom League discussions. Take it on the chin.

What the hell are you talking about? I contribute to Eircom League discussions and I've been banned twice. Xavi6 is a Shelbourne fan and has commented on the Eircom League plenty and has now been banned twice.

Are you suggesting that people who don't follow the Eircom League are being victimised, because that is so far from the truth its not even funny.

Do you remember thejollyrodger?

Chinafoot

copacetic wrote: »

hardly, on the other recent thread in feedback it was stated by soccer mods that they were being more lenient these days hence why people got banned in the past for this kind of thing, but not any more.

Then the OP gets banned for something that happens in most threads every day. His post wasn't reported either so where is the consistency? Or even an attempt at it?

Well thats something only the relevant mod(s) can answer. As far as I can see the OP's post was against the charter. Seems pretty simple to me, but thats just my opinion.

copacetic

Chinafoot wrote: »

Well thats something only the relevant mod(s) can answer. As far as I can see the OP's post was against the charter. Seems pretty simple to me, but thats just my opinion.

you should probably have a look at the other thread, it is at the bottom of the page..

Latchy

It's just my humble opinion but the fact that you have to apply to the soccer forum for entrance tells it's own story ,obiously some people are being abusive (i am assuming ) .I applied as requsted but was refused and still not sure why .Perhaps i applied incorrectly ?

DSB

Ridiculous banning. People do so much worse and get away with it on a regular basis.

estebancambias

To be fair I was banned for doing something similar, and the ban lasted longer than a month.

I still think it is unfair that a comment like that is deemed breaking the rules.

leninbenjamin

Chinafoot wrote: »

And a charter can't be 100% enforced if the users of the forum aren't doing their bit and reporting posts that break the rules.

not necessarily true. every single post gets read in AH, which has a fair bit more traffic than the soccer forums. it's common knowledge among the mods and users of the soccer forum that the vast majority of people frankly don't give a sh*t about some of the rules they put in place. we'll observe them but we're not gonna go as far as enforce something we don't fully agree with. the mods know this, so they should create a modding team that can operate with these constraints in mind. unfortunately this is not the case.

Necronomicon

I think it was harsh because of the context of the comment. If he'd started a thread that said 'Roy Keane is a w*nker' then it would've been a no-brainer, but it was just an excited post that could've been edited with a warning. Especially since in the same thread, Stephen Hunt was called a scumbag and as far as I can tell, he was only warned.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055188226&page=7

Posts #131 and #135.

RoundyMooney

Personal abuse toward Roy Keane?

Is he a member of boards.ie?

Is the comment in any way libellous?

Was the banning pre-emptive, in that it served to discourage further name calling, in other words, is it policy to discourage same in order to keep the forum more or less on the rails?

I'm genuinely curious here, because this comes up again and again.

Xavi6

Recently there was a thread started on the reasons why we hate England. Now the thread was left open and the OP wasn't banned/warned despite most people disagreeing with the statement i.e. we don't actually hate England. Now surely starting a hate thread is abuse. Was nothing done because no one actually reported the OP? As far I saw everyone made their feelings quite clear with their posts. Again it's the lazy, inconsistent modding that is a mark of the soccer forum.

RoundyMooney

Look, calling mods (or their actions) lazy and inconsistent is only going to inflame the issue.

My point above, is that Soccer comes up again, and again, and again, as a Feedback issue.

As it's such a contentious subject, no one is going to be 100% happy all the time, no matter how much people aspire to such a target.

It's time for suggestions here, rather than blanket criticism. If your own issue can be clarified/resolved along the way without a flame war breaking out, so much the better.

Latchy

Xavi6 wrote: »

Recently there was a thread started on the reasons why we hate England. Now the thread was left open and the OP wasn't banned/warned despite most people disagreeing with the statement i.e. we don't actually hate England. Now surely starting a hate thread is abuse. Was nothing done because no one actually reported the OP? As far I saw everyone made their feelings quite clear with their posts. Again it's the lazy, inconsistent modding that is a mark of the soccer forum.

Fair comment i would say ,for a froum subject to be equal and fair it must be modorated as such ,thats not to say the mods here dont do so .

Faith

kearnsr wrote: »

Did you report the post? I'm sure the soccer mods have better stuff to do than to read every single thread and post

Chinafoot wrote: »

Have you reported any of these other posts or are the mods meant to have read every single post in the forum?

The point of moderators is that they DO read every single post in their fora. Otherwise, why bother with them? If only reported posts are to be dealt with, them I'm sure the admins and Smods could deal with them. Most fora have several moderators, to ensure that everything gets read. Reported posts are helpful if the moderator is busy, but we all know the vast majority of problem posts aren't reported.

I'm not just talking about the soccer mods, but all mods. If you agree to moderate a forum, you agree to read all the posts whereever possible. If you can't do that, a co-mod is added to help. I know on the busier forums like soccer, politics, PI, AH etc this is difficult, but it's still part of the job description. A couple of threads down, Terry posted how he reads every single post on AH, so it's clearly not impossible. I read all the posts on the forums I moderate.

Anyway, this has very little to do with the topic at hand, but I don't think it's fair to blame a user for not reporting every single problem post they see when it's not their problem.

Xavi6

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Look, calling mods (or their actions) lazy and inconsistent is only going to inflame the issue.

Ok valid point and I retract. My frustration got the better there.

RoundyMooney wrote: »

It's time for suggestions here, rather than blanket criticism. If your own issue can be clarified/resolved along the way without a flame war breaking out, so much the better.

Reinstate me and admit an error! Problem solved.

Ah no seriously, the modding needs a serious look. Still no one had been installed to replace the inactive Talla. This needs to be done asap and I also think additional mods should be installed.

leninbenjamin

Xavi6 wrote: »

Ah no seriously, the modding needs a serious look. Still no one had been installed to replace the inactive Talla. This needs to be done asap and I also think additional mods should be installed.

agreed. at least two new mods should be added in my opinion, at least that is if it's deemed desirable to enforce the current charter.

secondly i think the mods of the forum need to agree a set protocol for dealing with the minor transgressions like this. it seems like some will ban where others simply issue a warning. an increased element of cooperation and consistency between mods is needed i personally feel.

RoundyMooney

Faith wrote: »

The point of moderators is that they DO read every single post in their fora. Otherwise, why bother with them? If only reported posts are to be dealt with, them I'm sure the admins and Smods could deal with them. Most fora have several moderators, to ensure that everything gets read. Reported posts are helpful if the moderator is busy, but we all know the vast majority of problem posts aren't reported.

I wouldn't subscribe to that tbh, although I fully agree with the aspiration. It's nigh on impossible to read every post on a busy forum. I can't stress enough how important it is to report something objectionable, even if you're not sure.

If it were left to SMods to make judgement calls on every reported post (admins aside for the purposes of this discussion, as their role has, for the most part moved beyond the day to day running of the site, banning spammers etc. is what I mean here), we'd need a lot more than ten of them.

Bottom line is, a mod cannot read everything, although I hope, (and know for the most part) that where possible, they'd do more than simply respond to the reported stuff.

Faith wrote: »

I'm not just talking about the soccer mods, but all mods. If you agree to moderate a forum, you agree to read all the posts whereever possible. If you can't do that, a co-mod is added to help. I know on the busier forums like soccer, politics, PI, AH etc this is difficult, but it's still part of the job description. A couple of threads down, Terry posted how he reads every single post on AH, so it's clearly not impossible. I read all the posts on the forums I moderate.

Some mods (very few) have the time to do this, the vast majority do not. It's easy for me to read every post on, say Hobby Radio, as that's a small community, but I freely admit that it's impossible to read every contribution on FS Electronics (on adverts), just as an example.

Like I say, I agree with the theory of vetting every post, but the execution is extremely difficult on busier fora.

Faith wrote: »

Anyway, this has very little to do with the topic at hand, but I don't think it's fair to blame a user for not reporting every single problem post they see when it's not their problem.

Agree++

This is a stick that I've seen used to beat people here before, and although encouraging users to report things is a positive mindset, blanket criticism of them for not reporting something is a negative one.

Xavi6 wrote: »

Ok valid point and I retract. My frustration got the better there.

Fair play, it's more than many do

Xavi6 wrote: »

Reinstate me and admit an error! Problem solved.

Joking aside, on the post in question, it seems to me that there's a gaping discrepancy afoot. I don't regularly read the forum any more, so freely admit that I may be missing some subtlety, however, although I doubt it.

Xavi6 wrote: »

Ah no seriously, the modding needs a serious look. Still no one had been installed to replace the inactive Talla. This needs to be done asap and I also think additional mods should be installed.

There was a recent mod cleanup (still ongoing to a degree), and I don't recall it being raised there.

My own view from a moderating perspective, is that it's very hard to apply hard and fast rules, firstly because every situation is different, and secondly, because a hard and fast set of rules (as laid down in what would necessarily become a very large charter) removes discretion from the moderating team, and is at odds with mod policy on boards up to now.

Look at AH, for example. That has the capability (and the legacy) of being a bag of cats. It is moderated by an eclectic and slightly lunatic( ) bunch of guys who in my view act with impartiality, common sense, and discretion.

It doesn't have a massive charter, or an inordinately long set of commandments either. It doesn't need to.

As a result, criticise it all you want, it is a well organised, orderly microcosm of society at large, without the public urination, punishment beatings, and gangland killings.

I can't for the life of me see why Soccer cannot follow a similiar path.

Chinafoot

Faith wrote: »

The point of moderators is that they DO read every single post in their fora. Otherwise, why bother with them? If only reported posts are to be dealt with, them I'm sure the admins and Smods could deal with them. Most fora have several moderators, to ensure that everything gets read. Reported posts are helpful if the moderator is busy, but we all know the vast majority of problem posts aren't reported.

I'm not just talking about the soccer mods, but all mods. If you agree to moderate a forum, you agree to read all the posts whereever possible. If you can't do that, a co-mod is added to help. I know on the busier forums like soccer, politics, PI, AH etc this is difficult, but it's still part of the job description. A couple of threads down, Terry posted how he reads every single post on AH, so it's clearly not impossible. I read all the posts on the forums I moderate.

Well good for you and good for Terry. Not everyone will have the time though and posts will slip through the cracks if they are not reported. In theory reading every post is a lovely idea, in practice it may not be possible on very busy forums.

Faith wrote: »

Anyway, this has very little to do with the topic at hand, but I don't think it's fair to blame a user for not reporting every single problem post they see when it's not their problem.

I agree and thats not what I was doing. However when users who do get nabbed for breaking the rules instantly say "oh well 'so and so' said this too why weren't they banned?!" all of a sudden its the mods fault for missing the post. Thats hardly fair either. The user obviously noticed that the other persons post broke the rules so they should report it in case the mod doesn't see it. If they're not prepared to do that then they shouldn't be bringing it up.

Anyway, like you said this is all slightly off-topic.

Xavi6

Chinafoot wrote: »

I agree and thats not what I was doing. However when users who do get nabbed for breaking the rules instantly say "oh well 'so and so' said this too why weren't they banned?!" all of a sudden its the mods fault for missing the post. Thats hardly fair either. The user obviously noticed that the other persons post broke the rules so they should report it in case the mod doesn't see it. If they're not prepared to do that then they shouldn't be bringing it up.

What if I didn't deem the other posts to be negative? The ones I quoted weren't offensive to me in any way shape or form so why would I report them? My point is that why should I be banned and not them if a mod sees it as a bannable offence?

Jules

Maybe it's an idea that the mods that mod soccer, just mod that forum and no others. I understand that it is a very difficult place to mod as it gets so much traffic.

How many times can i get mod in one sentence?

Chinafoot

Xavi6 wrote: »

What if I didn't deem the other posts to be negative? The ones I quoted weren't offensive to me in any way shape or form so why would I report them? My point is that why should I be banned and not them if a mod sees it as a bannable offence?

Again, what if the mod didn't see it?

In the last thread Psi said

A year ago, soccer was modded alot more stringently than it is now. I can't speak for the other mods, but the charter is in place as a guideline to behavior and intent is a big issue when deciding on a ban. Generally I ban for intent, so if you look like you intend to abuse, even without using nasty words, you'll most likely get a sanction.

Just recently, someone complained about a ban because they said they thought they worded their abuse without breaking the rules, the fact is, abuse is againts the rules.

As far as I can tell the problems with soccer are cyclical. We relax, forum gets trolly, people complain, we get tough, trouble dies down, people ask us to relax, we relax, forum gets trolly..... repeat to infinity.

He also said

For instance, there is a misconception on soccer that calling someone a name is bannable. It isn't. Calling someone a name for the sake of abuse is bannable. We all like to use exclamations when we're making a passionate case, If someone said, "I think Delaney has acted like a dick for doing X, Y and Z", then personally I woudn't ban the person. If on the other hand they posted "Delaney is just a dick" I'd probably warn if not ban them.

The difference is, one case the poster is giving an opinion on the actions of Delaney, the other is outright namecalling. We have a place for one and not the other. In the same we say attack the post and not the poster for boards users, attack the actions and not the person for non-boards users.

I personally read all reported posts. Some we act on, some we don't. It's a judgement call which I guess is why we're paid the big bucks to mod soccer. The users of the forum never seem to grasp the differences between attacking actions and people and thats why reported posts go unacted upon. Of course, then weeks later in feedback, like above, we get a totally skewed version of what actually happened with demands for actions.

Xavi6

Chinafoot wrote: »

Again, what if the mod didn't see it?

Then there should be a sufficient amount of mods so it is seen. Everyone knows the problems with soccer so therefore it should be the most heavily modded forum, yet it's not.

Look the issue here is that there were two examples in the exact same thread that fall into that mods category of 'abuse' (Keane called a wanker, Hunt called a scumbag). He banned one poster, did nothing to the other. Now if he saw my post then he must have seen the other cause it was a page or so later. Your argument about them not being able to read every post holds no water in this instance.

godtabh

Xavi6 wrote: »

No I don't report posts like that because they don't offend me.

You give out about double standards. But how can the double standards be delt with if no one reports the post

RoundyMooney

This is what I mean.

If the OP didn't feel his own post was in breach of the charter, why would he report a similiar post prior to his banning?

Throwing out a blanket condemnation if someone doesn't report something is not the answer.

We all agree that people should report posts, but we can't hide behind that mantra if there is a problem.

Xavi6, just because a mod didn't catch something doesn't mean a forum is undermoderated.

Mr. Presentable

kearnsr wrote: »

You give out about double standards. But how can the double standards be delt with if no one reports the post

Posts get reported and nothing done. Why should the poster be obliged to report a post to have an offensive remark noted? The mods are either on the job or not. As I posted before, there was a mod active in the thread in question who in fact replied to and quoted one of the other "offensive" posts the OP refers.

Was the RK remark reported by someone, I don't recall?

copacetic

nipplenuts wrote: »

Posts get reported and nothing done. Why should the poster be obliged to report a post to have an offensive remark noted? The mods are either on the job or not. As I posted before, there was a mod active in the thread in question who in fact replied to and quoted one of the other "offensive" posts the OP refers.

Was the RK remark reported by someone, I don't recall?

not as far as I could tell...

leninbenjamin

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

.

what an insightful contribution to the topic at hand. could you elaborate further?

Thanx 4 The Fish

psi wrote:

For instance, there is a misconception on soccer that calling someone a name is bannable. It isn't. Calling someone a name for the sake of abuse is bannable. We all like to use exclamations when we're making a passionate case, If someone said, "I think Delaney has acted like a dick for doing X, Y and Z", then personally I woudn't ban the person. If on the other hand they posted "Delaney is just a dick" I'd probably warn if not ban them.

The difference is, one case the poster is giving an opinion on the actions of Delaney, the other is outright namecalling. We have a place for one and not the other. In the same we say attack the post and not the poster for boards users, attack the actions and not the person for non-boards users.

What part of that do you not understand ? You called roy keane what you called him for absolutely no reason at all, just threw it in there as if it was part of a normal conversation and was to be expected. The other occasion of abuse that you highlight was used to express how much disgust somebody felt for an action that somebody took where he almost took somebodies leg off at the knee for no other reason than he felt like it, an action that could have ended a career.

If you cannot see a difference between your actions and his then perhaps you should go somewhere and find out before you come back.

And lenin, it was as insightful a comment as alot made on this thread TBH.

therecklessone

Given that quote from psi above the decision seems pretty consistent IMO.

Xavi wrote:

We nick a last minute winner, the other lot lose miserably and that w*nker Keane is made a mockery of. It's a great Saturday!"

Understand you're excited, or overly emotional, but calling Keane a w*nker is just abuse for the sake of it.

TheBigLebowski wrote:

How in the name of bejaysus was Hunt not sent off/arrested today. Scumbag.

Key word, context. That said, it's borderline IMO, not without fault but not deserving of a ban. I think that's why KdjaCL posted "TheBigLebowski scumbag ? charter?"

estebancambias

He contributes well, let him back in.

AlmightyCushion

estebancambias wrote: »

He contributes well, let him back in.

It doesn't matter how much he contributes if he breaks the rules he must face the consequences.

Xavi6

kearnsr wrote: »

You give out about double standards. But how can the double standards be delt with if no one reports the post

How many times do I have to say it? How could I have report a post that I hadn't found offensive? I didn't realise other people on the forum would be so touchy over a comment about 'Sir Roy'.

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Xavi6, just because a mod didn't catch something doesn't mean a forum is undermoderated.

Of course it does. If something is missed then it's clearly not being moderated to the necessary.

therecklessone wrote: »

Key word, context. That said, it's borderline IMO, not without fault but not deserving of a ban. I think that's why KdjaCL posted "TheBigLebowski scumbag ? charter?"

A similar posting with regard to my comment would have been sufficient. The post wasn't edited so couldn't have been that bad. It's one extreme to another i.e. some posts ignored, others warranting bans for the same thing. As I said, nothing was done to the poster who labelled Almunia a 'tard' after he conceded against United. Where's the consistency? I have every right to feel aggrieved when **** like that is happening.

cson

Reminds me of one of my law lectures; The old court system followed legislation to the hilt and eventually it became unworkable which is why nowadays courts adopt the approach of the reasonable man looking on. But can we define reasonable? What's reasonable to me and what's reasonable to you could be miles apart. It's a curious one indeed. How do you apply it to the soccer forum?

On the subject of the ban, imo it was a bit harsh due to the fact that there's some shocking inconsistency in the thread with regard to name calling. In all and anyways...

Thanx 4 The Fish

Xavi, you understand why you were banned (at least I hope you do, it is there in pretty plain english) and the difference between what you did and what the other poster did, now apply that when you get back in and you will be alright.

BTW, just because we do not take action on a thread does not mean it is being ignored, just that we do not feel it is actionable.

RoundyMooney

A few more ramblings...

As I said before, here and elsewhere, a reasoned approach applies to AH and is proven to work well. I say reasoned because the consensus among those who have had time to form an opinion is almost universally positive (quibbles about content aside, which none of us can really control).

The interested reader, who like me hasn't been here since the turn of the century (almost), and who has a few hours to kill, would do well to do a search here for past threads on this issue. Soccer has proven to be a very problematic part of this site in the past.

On that basis, I feel that Soccer should remain a forum that requires access to be granted by the mods there. I don't feel however that posting in a boiler plate fashion on the access forum in order to contribute there achieves much in the grand scheme of things, certainly not long term.

I still can't see why it cannot follow the AH model (albeit as I say, with approved access, as otherwise the one topic posters who sign up to flame will be rampant). This will obviously need greater mod coverage, so appoint some more based on their conduct therein to date, or whatever...

Is suggesting a new approach such a bad idea?

Thanx 4 The Fish

Not at all, but change for changes sake is never good either. The reason that they have to do as they do to get into soccer is so that after a week, when they start calling each other all sorts of stupid names they can not use the I did not read the charter excuse.

And just so you do not feel that the sentiment expressed is the norm in the soccer forum and that because there has been two threads in the last two weeks it is a hole, hated by all that come here is the last post in the other thread.

PHB wrote: »

I think if you took a poll of the soccer forum posters who actually use the forum on a regular basis, you'd find most people happy with the current modding. It was more strict about a year ago but it has gotten much lighter since then. That said, that's because the forum has gotten a lot 'cleaner' since then.

While I think that the harsh periods have stifled some of the fun parts of talking about soccer, I think that's beginning to return. I really wouldn't want to see a non-soccer fan mod the boards, simply because they don't really understand what it's all about.
Trolling in the classic sense of the word, i.e. saying something as a jibe, even for a response, or for a laugh, is part and parcel of being a soccer fan. Once it's in good spirits, I think that should be ok. It's just a bit of banter.

For example, Mr. Alan recently recently was talking about whether or not Ronaldo should be captain of United, and listed off people who he thought would be better captains, Ferdinand, Rooney, etc. etc. and then listed Dong. Now he did that as a tongue in cheek remark, which I think many could see as trolling. But it really isn't. It's just what being a soccer fan is all about. Hence why I have in my signature, 'you can't win the premiership on penalties'. Obviously i'm mocking liverpool fans here, but it's just a bit of banter.

For a while, I think stuff like that in general (not those specific examples, but that sort of general attitude) wouldn't have been tolerated, but because the mods were harsh then people know they can't really step over the line anymore.
Scum used to be almost instantly bannable but now it's gotten a bit more lax. The reason it was initially bannable wasn't because every single use of it really deserved a banning, it's because it had to be that way in order to get the forum in some sort of order.
Now you'd normally get a warning or get away with if it it's not just a random insult, but part of a larger point, which is fair enough.

Those initial periods of harshness were needed to get the forum in order. But now that it is, it's been laxed a little, which is great. As such, we're beginning to get the right balance between a forum which actually talks about things without descending into mindless insults, and between of a bit of banter that would go on with mates if you were talking about soccer.

As I said at the start, if you took a poll among the regular posters on the soccer forum of how well people thought the mods were doing, I'd say it would end up in the positive.

Now that is not exactly a ringing endorsement but the point he is making is, I think, a good one and that is that if you are there to talk about footy and not throw around random insults for no reason then you will get along fine, but if you just turn up to p1ss off people by calling others (be they players or posters) names for no other reason than you are not a fan of theirs then you should probably head off elsewhere.