Feedback about Soccer

Kirnsy

Lads Im a big fan of the Soccer forum and while more of lurker than a poster (unless its about arsenal!), I would like to give a bit of feedback regarding the rule about infraction = ban.

I feel that it is unnecessary to have this as a stringent rule in Soccer and will only lead to the bannings of good posters (sherifu and magic marker being two cases in feedback and help desk) which will cause frustration and potentially an Us v Them feeling in Soccer which was the case at certain points in the past.

I understand that you feel that people aren't paying attention to mod warnings and infractions however to ban someone for saying "reported" about a post that offended them is quite harsh IMO.( I know it was technically just a yellow)

Why not have a lower number of infractions = ban. For example 2 infractions in a certain period leads to one day ban, 3 = 5 days, 4 =10 days and so on. Im sure you could come up with a better infraction rate- to - ban length ratio but you get the idea.

Thoughts?

AckwelFoley

imo it needs to be nipped in the bud.

Grown ups shouldnt need more than a warning, however from my expierence of the soccer forum the mods are driven around the twist so their patience is now limited and they come across as harsh to all.

At first i thought it was because they were arseholes.., however from keeping an eye on feedback and looking at most complaints it just seems to be a case of people not being able to discuss a sport without behaving like children

Kirnsy

snyper wrote: »

imo it needs to be nipped in the bud.

Grown ups shouldnt need more than a warning, however from my expierence of the soccer forum the mods are driven around the twist so their patience is now limited and they come across as harsh to all.

At first i thought it was because they were arseholes.., however from keeping an eye on feedback and looking at most complaints it just seems to be a case of people not being able to discuss a sport without behaving like children

well im definetely not saying they are arseholes and tbh i agree that sometimes it must be a pain to moderate soccer.

However I think the forum has got much better now to read and discuss soccer and the quality of discussion and posting has improved a lot.

is this because of this rule? if it is then fair enough.

but i think its more that posters have copped on and the mods are more approachable and there's not an Us v Them feeling in soccer.

The Hill Billy

In certain fora it is encouraged to note on-thread that a post has been reported. This potentially saves many other posters reporting the same post & the forum's mods being swamped with reported post messages.

Sounds a tad harsh to be infracted for it & damn harsh to be banned for it, unless of course it is specifically against the rules in the forum charter.

Then again, may it is a course of action that the Soccer mods need to have in place to keep you unruly lot in line.

therecklessone

Kirnsy wrote: »

I understand that you feel that people aren't paying attention to mod warnings and infractions however to ban someone for saying "reported" about a post that offended them is quite harsh IMO.( I know it was technically just a yellow)

Why not have a lower number of infractions = ban. For example 2 infractions in a certain period leads to one day ban, 3 = 5 days, 4 =10 days and so on. Im sure you could come up with a better infraction rate- to - ban length ratio but you get the idea.

Thoughts?

We already have an accumulated infraction system (6 yellows in 1 "season" = a 6 month/end of season ban, whichever is longer) but as somebody with access to the forum you know that, right? Or is it possible that you, like many of the people who were on the receiving end of that last season weren't aware of it, despite it being in the charter?

That in itself highlights one of the problems we currently face as mods of the forum. One of the people you mentioned admitted they last read the charter around two years ago, when they first joined...it has been updated twice in that time, including once after extensive consultation with the forum users. How can we be held responsible when users will not make themselves aware of the charter?

Hill Billy wrote: »

Sounds a tad harsh to be infracted for it & damn harsh to be banned for it, unless of course it is specifically against the rules in the forum charter.

It is spelled out clearly in the charter, and we went to great lengths to provide clarity where in the past the charter was less informative:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61404604&postcount=4

There is no reason why a user would need to alert others that they have reported a post on soccer, we specifically encourage people to report posts they believe to be in breach of the charter, and I personally believe if people do report posts they are less likely to respond to them, thus removing food from the trolls.

Kirnsy wrote: »

is this because of this rule? if it is then fair enough.

but i think its more that posters have copped on and the mods are more approachable and there's not an Us v Them feeling in soccer.

The policy is in place just over 2 weeks, we are paying close attention to it and will amend or remove it as and when we see fit.

As a general reply, the following was included in a PM I sent to another user this morning as an explanation of what prompted this change:

We have tried to be lenient, we have tried to provide general warnings on-thread before we start to act but we have found that users have started to treat these as the point at which they actually start abiding by the charter, and are deliberately acting the bollox up to that point. It is quite an eye-opener to see threads stop dead when a mod posts a warning on-thread, which supports the point I've made.

I shouldn't have to remind anyone of the forum rules, they are clear, much clearer now than they ever were (and we put enough work into them to ensure that) so why should I or any other mod show leniency to posters who are on the forum long enough to know better?

I also note a point Sherifu raised, and my reply, which suggests we might be on the right track:

Sherifu wrote:

And for the moment soccer posters beware when posting anything that may offend anyone, you run the risk of a weeks ban.

therecklessone wrote:

Posters should always be aware of the forum charter, and play close attention to announcements which we sticky. That way they avoid the risk of a ban.

I will acknowledge that both of the cases you mentioned would not have received bans in the past, and that both users were unlucky in the timing of their posts, but in our opinion this policy serves a greater good and the forum will be a better place for that.

The Hill Billy

therecklessone wrote: »

...It is spelled out clearly in the charter, and we went to great lengths to provide clarity where in the past the charter was less informative:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61404604&postcount=4

There is no reason why a user would need to alert others that they have reported a post on soccer, we specifically encourage people to report posts they believe to be in breach of the charter, and I personally believe if people do report posts they are less likely to respond to them, thus removing food from the trolls...

Well OP there's your answer plain & clear.

Really glad now that I put in my "unless of course..." rider to my statement.

Sherifu

Kirnsy wrote: »

Thoughts?

Thanks for starting this thread, I was going to start another one during the week but this will do fine. I wasn't aware magic marker had fallen foul too.

I have been in contact with TRO and we're not going to ever agree on this new rule. Though I thank him for engaging and explaining his views on it.

I think it's ridiculous and to the detriment of the forum that every minor indiscretion earns a 7 day ban. The mods felt something needed fixing here but I haven't read a good reason for this new rule yet. Yellow cards are meant to be yellow cards, counting towards your ban. I can go back to posting yes/no answers and mostly reading the forum but I shouldn't have to.

A change as big as this should really be put to the forum. The mod team was happy to engage with us before the season started so why now decide among yourselves to throw in a new rule. Next time(hopefully a more positive rule change) a visible forum wide announcement would be appreciated, something like with search... harder to miss.

The only thing this rule change will do is fester resentment and increase workload.

It's little consolation really that we were "unlucky in the timing of their posts". I take my infraction on the chin, remain bitter about the 7 day ban and will fight this new rule change as I believe it's bad for the forum.

Apologies to all offended by my earlier thread...such language :pac:
Now off to read magic marker's thread. Expecting good things...

Headshot

can a soccer mod tell me what offences does one get a yellow card for
I just want some clarification

therecklessone

Headshot wrote: »

can a soccer mod tell me what offences does one get a yellow card for
I just want some clarification

Read the charter in full.

Headshot

edit

I dont mind the new ban thing anyway, i keep my nose clean these days and learned from my mistakes too

Jazzy

tbh, the biggest problem with the soccer forum is the spam. there are far too many posters who spam all day and all night in their best efforts to prove an inane point that ultimately doesnt really have any relevance on the real world of football. there are individuals in there who simply put, dont shut up and they are what drag the forum with them into the state it is in now (yellow card = ban).
we all know who they are and if they are causing the forum to get into such a state perhaps they should be the ones that are nipped in the bud. im not saying ban them, im saying tell them to cop on.

there are threads in there that are beyond ridiculous and go on for 30+ pages which are filled with sniping, baiting and general trolling and not chit-chat and informed discussion.
if the spammers learn to shut up, i guarantee that there would be far more goodwill in the forum and we could all say how Frank Lampard deserves a happy meal without getting banned

Daysha

I've felt fairly sympathetic to the soccer mods in the past, it's a very tough job to do and with the exception of one or two minor incidents I've always thought they've been bang on the money with the mod decisions I've seen.

But this new rule is one step way too far. I can understand the reseasoning behind it, and making people more aware of the charter is always a good thing, but a blanket ban on all infractions, especially when the range of severity is so large, will undoubtedly lead to some grossly unfair bans being handed out.

According to my reading of the charter, an infraction can range from anything from telling someone you reported their post to a full on abusive post aimed at a particular player. Now even Keano's dog could tell you which of those two is the more serious charter breach, yet they both receive the same yellow card infraction.

The only way I could see all yellow card infractions = ban working would be if a 3rd, black card system were to be introduced. This would be given out for the minorest of minor breaches, such as telling someone you reported a post, threadspoiling or "commenting on a breach of charter" (quoted from the charter itself). These would not lead to bans, while the other yellow card offences like abusive posts or mild trolling would remain ban-worthy.

Given the number of revisions the charter has gone through to implement so many different types of possible charter breaches, I think this latest sequence of events has proved the yellow card system has outgrown itself tbh. There's too many offences that fall under the yellow card bracket, and more worryingly some offences in that bracket should be dealt with far more strictly (or leniently) than others. And that's where the change needs to occur imo.

_blank_

I think it's a very silly new "rule".

Just give the infractions as needed, and if someone reaches the threshold, ban them.

Perhaps people are ignoring certain aspects of the charter because they think they are stupid.

mike65

It does appear "banter" is now a total no-no.

Zaph

I agree with the soccer mods that the forum has been a breeding ground for all sorts of muppetry in the past, but this new rule seems to me to be like taking a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. Notwithstanding the fact that the update is buried among the stickies at the top of the forum, and that the charter itself hasn't been updated, a fundamental change such as this should have been highlighted in lights as a proper forum announcement. However, I do think that the punishment in this case does not fit the crime. The forum has gone from a situation where a minor offence that would have earned a yellow card, six of which were required to earn a ban, now gets an instant ban, and not an insignificant one either. I personally think that the forum should revert to the old system or, should the mods feel the need to hand out instant bans that they're either of a shorter duration, say 3 days. Either that or introduce a sliding scale, for example 2 days for the first yellow card, 4 for the second and so on, but certainly something less draconian than is currently in place.

Headshot

dont do the crime if you cant time

you get a ban for a week and you wont be causing trouble again, simple, yes its strict but if it's working, the sf will be better

I know its working for me because im being very careful since the new rule came in.

mike65

Someone just get done for refereing to Manchester United as Manure, I'm wondering at what point does a joke name become offensive.

Moneychester Utd? Manchester Bucaneers? Mna Utd? Then there is Liverpool. Is Liverpoo worth a ban? the fat Spanish Waiter (Rafa)? Slur Alex Fergurson?

Oh and Stan Collymore is not a wanker, not that I'd have said he was. I might say he was a dogger though.

Iago

mike65 wrote: »

Someone just get done for refereing to Manchester United as Manure, I'm wondering at what point does a joke name become offensive.

Moneychester Utd? Manchester Bucaneers? Mna Utd? Then there is Liverpool. Is Liverpoo worth a ban? the fat Spanish Waiter (Rafa)? Slur Alex Fergurson?

Oh and Stan Collymore is not a wanker, not that I'd have said he was. I might say he was a dogger though.

actually yes, they are..

Soccer Forum Charter wrote:

Policy on Abuse
The rules on abuse apply to more than just boards users, and cover players/managers/fans/clubs/sports personalities as well. You may consider certain terms to be a bit of banter, but any nickname or phrase that is even vaguely derogatory may be considered as abuse for the purpose of the charter.

Calling a team Manure, Liverpoo, redsh1te, bluesh1te, the Scum, the Hun or any other variant is abuse.

Nicknames like whisky nose, fat Spanish waiter, Fat Sam, Fat Frank and similar is abuse.

Calling Andy Gray or Pat Dolan names is abuse.

This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but it is common for users to misinterpret this rule and assume that language like the above is OK. Please think carefully before posting anything like the above.

However, emotional language is not in itself a problem. It is ok to deliver a point passionately, to swear if you so choose, though you can make a point solidly without having to call people / teams / etc names.

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

The ins and outs of what constitutes abuse haven't changed. What has changed is the application of the final line in that statement.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have to infract anybody, and it would be possible to have threads that run in the same way as offline conversations with your mates do on the Monday after a match. There's a bit of friendly banter and one-upmanship, there's some mild abusive and slagging terms thrown out, and occasionally some not so mild abuse, and then everyone moves on.

It has been proven time and again that this approach doesn't work on the Soccer forum and as a result more and more rules have had to be layered on in order for the forum to continue to function in any meaningful way. Even with that we still have a number of posters who skate as close to the line as they can in almost every post they make, if we removed some of these rules where would we end up?

Ultimately the forum seemed to be heading in a direction where it was a free for all until any individual poster got to 4 yellow cards and/or a mod posted a warning on thread. That's not sustainable in the long-term and so harsher steps needed to be taken. It really isn't that difficult to post and discuss football without breaking the charter, the fact that only a minority do so is evidence of that fact.

Jazzy

its a crying shame the day frank lampard cant be ripped on for being fat (even though he clearly isnt*) without someone getting banned. if the forum was unworkable the former way then its certainly unworkable now. football causes passion. you are asking people to turn down said passion. that aint gonna work. its gonna become an unnatural place with a day-glo sort of feel about it where there will be no real discussion and it will ultimately lack the very depth that makes it work in the first place.

what to do then...
stop the spammers and you will solve the problem volume / noise is 90% of the real problem here. 'debates' drag and then blow up and then the sniping starts and the cards get handed out. liverpool fans dont care about the club being called 'liverpoo' by some utd fan on boards.ie and chelski fans dont care that lampard is the spokesperson for KFC, McDonalds and Spice Burgers. if ppl dont care, dont have it in the charter. if some retard appears and decides to take offence because they are bored and want to start a fight or try get someone banned then throw them to the wolves. survival of the fittest.
as it is you are just letting a lot of individuals spam away in vain attempts to rile up opposition fans. dont be afraid of targeting individuals and telling them to cop on. i think you'll find if you phrase it right they actually will and if they dont, well... throw them to the wolves


*but he obviously is

therecklessone

mike65 wrote: »

Someone just get done for refereing to Manchester United as Manure, I'm wondering at what point does a joke name become offensive.

Moneychester Utd? Manchester Bucaneers? Mna Utd? Then there is Liverpool. Is Liverpoo worth a ban? the fat Spanish Waiter (Rafa)? Slur Alex Fergurson?

Iago has pointed out the relevant part of the charter, but this reinforces my earlier point: soccer users are not aware of the forum charter. This is making people sit up and take notice. That is a good thing.

Jazzy wrote: »

liverpool fans dont care about the club being called 'liverpoo' by some utd fan on boards.ie and chelski fans dont care that lampard is the spokesperson for KFC, McDonalds and Spice Burgers. if ppl dont care, dont have it in the charter.

You are not in full possession of the facts. People do care about terms of abuse used to describe their team/players/managers and more, if they didn't the forum would be a much easier place to mod because there would be far fewer occurrences when posters took personal exception to criticism levelled at their favourites, and far less aggro. Remember, you don't have to read the reported posts...

leninbenjamin

I agree with many of the sentiments being expressed here.

The quality of discussion has really fallen in recent times, and, for the most part, it seems to maintain any coherent form of conversation one must wade through spades of sh*te and drivel from posters who just want to make their point and don't give a sh*t about the overall discussion. There was a time I had no problem posting in any of the super-threads, these days I just keep to the Arsenal one.

Now I fully understand the argument of the mods. Very few posters seem to give a sh*t about the rules or their fellow posters and will launch into a tirade at the slightest little criticism of their team. Though while In recent years the rules have become progressively more strict, it doesn't seem to have made a wh*t. I'm less likely to post now than I was before the new charter as discussions have become so incoherent. So I don't think this new change will make a difference.

Now the question is, what to do about it? Tbh the only thing i can think of is to introduce a mild form of elitism whereby some form of peer review system is introduced, and maybe restricting access to those users deemed not to be constructively contributing regardless of whether there was an explicit break of the rules?

therecklessone

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Now the question is, what to do about it? Tbh the only thing i can think of is to introduce a mild form of elitism whereby some form of peer review system is introduced, and maybe restricting access to those users deemed not to be constructively contributing regardless of whether there was an explicit break of the rules?

Gut reaction is that is a charter for bullies tbh, where sheer weight of numbers, and possibly team affiliation, will see users removed from the forum. I want no part of that.

However, suggest a structure for such a system and I'll examine it on its merits.

castie

This is ridiculous. Infractions are there for a reason and stand as warnings.
Since when is a 7 day cold shower considered a warning?

I realise the Soccer forum mods have had it tough but if this is the only way you can deal with the users of this forum (ruling with an iron fist) maybe its time you stepped down and let someone who isnt going to run around with only red cards.

Ironic that a discussion forum of a sport that itself has a warning system now does not.

Jazzy

therecklessone wrote: »

Remember, you don't have to read the reported posts...

reporting posts is for the weak

if someone has a problem with manure & liverpoo, cant the mods just ignore them?

Xavi6

castie wrote: »

This is ridiculous. Infractions are there for a reason and stand as warnings.
Since when is a 7 day cold shower considered a warning?

I realise the Soccer forum mods have had it tough but if this is the only way you can deal with the users of this forum (ruling with an iron fist) maybe its time you stepped down and let someone who isnt going to run around with only red cards.

Ironic that a discussion forum of a sport that itself has a warning system now does not.

What part of it do you not get? We tried the leniency route by posting on thread warnings and referring to them in the thread title. It didn't work because people didn't bother to read/acknowledge them. Do you think it's fun to ban people? Do you think we like abuse by PM? Maybe try and look at it from our perspective even just a little before you come waltzing in here looking for heads to roll.

Hank Scorpio

I think some people do over step the line sometimes in that forum, but ffs getting banned for saying manure or chuckling at fat frank is just ridiculous, thats what soccer is mainly about imo, the banter

Look at teamtalk for e.g. the discussion is intense and the banter is huge there but from what iv seen theres no racial abuse or personal insults or anything like that( been using that site for years )

Just soccer fans having abit of craic supporting their team

Heres some pretty harsh bans as of late, where surely a warning or a quick pm would have sorted the problem out

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055720487

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055716487

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055704775

The older system was much better imo

witnessmenow

I made a complaint about the warnings in thread titles before

Take for example the liverpool thread
8228 posts, title suggests i go look at post no 7748. No link to this warning on the first post of the thread.

Is there a secret way of getting to this post that i dont know about?

Hank Scorpio

Xavi6 wrote: »

What part of it do you not get? We tried the leniency route by posting on thread warnings and referring to them in the thread title. It didn't work because people didn't bother to read/acknowledge them. Do you think it's fun to ban people? Do you think we like abuse by PM? Maybe try and look at it from our perspective even just a little before you come waltzing in here looking for heads to roll.

Dont ban people for simple banter but do for personal abuse, thats the line i would take on it. And i dont mean personal abuse as in, Stephen Ireland is a backstabber, but personal abuse to other posters. Soccer is everything about opinion and you as much as everyone knows how money/greed etc runs the games(being a man city fan and all:rolleyes:)

In fairness i always seen those mod warning posts in the thread titles, but i couldnt click it? and i wasnt bothered going through 50 pages to try and find it ( if theres a faster way to do it please let me know ) maybe the majority of people had this problem also?

Another thing is where as people are getting card etc for talking about a player in a match discussion thread, but not regarding the game itself, but the player in general. I think rules like that are absolute nonsence tbh. You should know yourself when to lock those threads judging from the posts, and the respective posters would just go back to there own News/Supporters thread on there respective club

Anyway bottom line is you cant expect seasoned soccer fans to behave in such a way as the charter has outlined it, well you can, but expect every second or third poster to be banned

craiginireland

I have to agree fully with this. I got a ban for saying I thought a player on the team i support played so bad he deserves Donkey status.

This is just constructive criticism but It seems to me the mods are trying to (and doing a great job of) reduce the amount of people posting on the forum. No doubt that they are under a lot of pressure and deal with a lot of idiots but this is ripping the piss. The previous system worked fine IMO and also look at your definition of the word abuse.

nuxxx wrote: »

I think some people do over step the line sometimes in that forum, but ffs getting banned for saying manure or chuckling at fat frank is just ridiculous, thats what soccer is mainly about imo, the banter

Look at teamtalk for e.g. the discussion is intense and the banter is huge there but from what iv seen theres no racial abuse or personal insults or anything like that( been using that site for years )

Just soccer fans having abit of craic supporting their team

Heres some pretty harsh bans as of late, where surely a warning or a quick pm would have sorted the problem out

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055720487

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055716487

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055704775

The older system was much better imo

Kirnsy

therecklessone wrote: »

We already have an accumulated infraction system (6 yellows in 1 "season" = a 6 month/end of season ban, whichever is longer) but as somebody with access to the forum you know that, right? Or is it possible that you, like many of the people who were on the receiving end of that last season weren't aware of it, despite it being in the charter?

I am aware of that thanks, I merely said that if you are so keen to come down on people why not give 1 yellow = infraction and two = ban (1 day or whatever). this is as opposed to banning someone for A WEEK because they stated they reported a post.which is ridiculous.

therecklessone wrote: »

That in itself highlights one of the problems we currently face as mods of the forum. One of the people you mentioned admitted they last read the charter around two years ago, when they first joined...it has been updated twice in that time, including once after extensive consultation with the forum users. How can we be held responsible when users will not make themselves aware of the charter?




It is spelled out clearly in the charter, and we went to great lengths to provide clarity where in the past the charter was less informative

let's face it though very few people on any forum reads the charter more than once, it's not just a soccer thing. Why not have an announcement when implementing a rule change? it feels like it was sneaked in, in the hope of catching people out. which it has done.

therecklessone wrote: »

The policy is in place just over 2 weeks, we are paying close attention to it and will amend or remove it as and when we see fit.

what's your personal opinion on it at the moment? is it contributing to better discussion and a more enjoyable forum for all? have there been many people caught by it and has it had its desired effect?

nuxxx wrote: »

Dont ban people for simple banter but do for personal abuse, thats the line i would take on it. And i dont mean personal abuse as in, Stephen Ireland is a backstabber, but personal abuse to other posters. Soccer is everything about opinion and you as much as everyone knows how money/greed etc runs the games(being a man city fan and all:rolleyes:)

In fairness i always seen those mod warning posts in the thread titles, but i couldnt click it? and i wasnt bothered going through 50 pages to try and find it ( if theres a faster way to do it please let me know ) maybe the majority of people had this problem also?

Another thing is where as people are getting card etc for talking about a player in a match discussion thread, but not regarding the game itself, but the player in general. I think rules like that are absolute nonsence tbh. You should know yourself when to lock those threads judging from the posts, and the respective posters would just go back to there own News/Supporters thread on there respective club

Anyway bottom line is you cant expect seasoned soccer fans to behave in such a way as the charter has outlined it, well you can, but expect every second or third poster to be banned

i agree with all of this post but most especially the part in bold.
the idea of title warnings is great but in practice would it be possible to put them as a bold part of the OP or something that makes it more accessible to posters?

Xavi6

nuxxx wrote: »

Dont ban people for simple banter but do for personal abuse, thats the line i would take on it. And i dont mean personal abuse as in, Stephen Ireland is a backstabber, but personal abuse to other posters. Soccer is everything about opinion and you as much as everyone knows how money/greed etc runs the games(being a man city fan and all:rolleyes:)

See the little dig you put in brackets there? That's the sort of rubbish that causes problems in the forum and leads to the rules we have. It was unnecessary to add to your post but you did it anyway to fire in a cheap shot. Own worst enemy tbh, and it's unfortunate that the majority have to suffer because of it.

DeVore

Perhaps some *constructive* feedback about soccer might be helpful. Or do you all think things would be fine without this rule?

Perhaps we should ask the users of Soccer what they think? Or maybe we need a two-speed soccer approach with different approachs to this issue and let people vote with their browsers?

I dunno... I dont read soccer but there seems to be a lot of "complaint" without a lot of "constructive suggestion". Thats why I ruled his "not feedback" before.

DeV.

Xavi6

Just to add, I think that the suggestion of adding a link in the OP to the mod noted post is a great idea and some really good feedback. I'll be sure to do it in future anyway.

Ludo

nuxxx wrote: »

Dont ban people for simple banter but do for personal abuse, thats the line i would take on it. And i dont mean personal abuse as in, Stephen Ireland is a backstabber, but personal abuse to other posters. Soccer is everything about opinion and you as much as everyone knows how money/greed etc runs the games(being a man city fan and all:rolleyes:)

SNIP

Another thing is where as people are getting card etc for talking about a player in a match discussion thread, but not regarding the game itself, but the player in general. I think rules like that are absolute nonsence tbh. You should know yourself when to lock those threads judging from the posts, and the respective posters would just go back to there own News/Supporters thread on there respective club

Anyway bottom line is you cant expect seasoned soccer fans to behave in such a way as the charter has outlined it, well you can, but expect every second or third poster to be banned

That is feedback...and good feedback as well. Banter should be allowed. Not every reported post needs action. If someone says Liverpoo or West Sham that does not need to be acted on. It is banter for god sake. Xavi pointed out the comment about him being a Man City fan is the kind of rubbish that starts trouble. Well it is crap if that sort of a comment gets reported and worse again it it results in a ban. Serial reporters should be spoken to and told to lighten up. If people cant take very light banter then they should not talk about soccer. However, personal abuse (of other posters) should result in an immediate and very lenghty ban.

I don't post on the soccer forum because of the rules but I read it regularly. I honestly believe that the moderators are now so entrenched in their views that they are not open to any form of new moderating styles. They have a siege mentality which is unfortunate but is also human nature. The only options taken seem to be to increase bans all the time and clamp down on the slightest remark.

I honestly believe if the rules were relaxed to allow discussion with banter then the soccer forum would be a lot better place for it. Of course there would be teething problems but it would work itself out quickly enough.

tbh

craiginireland wrote: »

I have to agree fully with this. I got a ban for saying I thought a player on the team i support played so bad he deserves Donkey status.

This is just constructive criticism .

really? Calling a player a donkey is "constructive criticism"? Do you actually know what "Constructive criticism" is?

therecklessone

nuxxx wrote: »

I think some people do over step the line sometimes in that forum, but ffs getting banned for saying manure or chuckling at fat frank is just ridiculous, thats what soccer is mainly about imo, the banter

I'd love to agree.

I'd like to think this post of yours counts as banter, it was reported as trolling...see the problem? One man's banter is another man's trolling on the forum, especially when it comes to Liverpool and Man Utd.

Everybody seems to want a bit of banter on Soccer, right up until it's banter about their team, and then they start wailing.

Another wonderful example of the nature of the forum is this: if an argument develops between fans of two clubs (club A and club , and they both say or do something in breach of the charter, we will get reported posts but we've found fans of club A will only report the fan of club B, and vice versa. I have challenged users on this and they've laughed it off, how is that contributing to a decent and vibrant forum?

I've said it countless times, if everyone was a little slower to give offence and a lot slower to take offence the forum would be a much better place.

nuxxx wrote: »

The older system was much better imo

What older system? It's clear that a good many users are not aware of the rules, so what system that people have no knowledge of do you think we should use? Cos if we revert to infractions accumulating to result in a long ban we'll have countless people on here claiming they've been banned unfairly, and half their infractions weren't deserved. At what point do people start to pay attention to the fact that a mod has provided them with warnings?

witnessmenow wrote: »

I made a complaint about the warnings in thread titles before

Take for example the liverpool thread
8228 posts, title suggests i go look at post no 7748. No link to this warning on the first post of the thread.

Is there a secret way of getting to this post that i dont know about?

We've taken that on board and will try to update the OP, but it is worth pointing out: warnings are just reminders that we provide to people of the forum rules, if people can't be arsed reading the rules and then give up on reading a warning because it's too hard to find, what else are they not prepared to do? It will be interesting to see how many people continue to ignore on-thread warnings in the future if we change that the way you've suggested.

At what point are users going to take responsibility for their own actions?

nuxxx wrote: »

Dont ban people for simple banter but do for personal abuse, thats the line i would take on it. And i dont mean personal abuse as in, Stephen Ireland is a backstabber, but personal abuse to other posters. Soccer is everything about opinion and you as much as everyone knows how money/greed etc runs the games(being a man city fan and all:rolleyes:)

Stop aiming at your foot there...

nuxxx wrote: »

Another thing is where as people are getting card etc for talking about a player in a match discussion thread, but not regarding the game itself, but the player in general. I think rules like that are absolute nonsence tbh. You should know yourself when to lock those threads judging from the posts, and the respective posters would just go back to there own News/Supporters thread on there respective club.

So what your saying is rather than deal with people who cannot post on-topic we should close the thread to the detriment of those who wish to continue discussing an individual match? We maintain a strict line on off-topic discussion because in the past it was found that discussion of matches were creeping into team threads and because fans felt they "owned" their own thread they responded aggressively to any criticism of their players from a particular match. Match threads provide a neutral ground for discussion of an individual game, and we attempt to keep the discussion on-topic so that they can remain so.

Despite that, I'm not aware of many instances were posters have been infracted for off-topic posting (unless it was after warnings were issued), my usual response is to delete any off-topic posts, or move them to a new/existing thread.

It is interesting you suggest we should close threads when we know it is time to do so, when we actually do that we get criticised for closing them and allowing disruptive posters have their way. Can we win either way?

Kirnsy wrote: »

let's face it though very few people on any forum reads the charter more than once, it's not just a soccer thing. Why not have an announcement when implementing a rule change? it feels like it was sneaked in, in the hope of catching people out. which it has done.

We spent four weeks consulting users on the new charter, when we closed off that period we kept them updated on how we were progressing with it. We announced it's implementation at the start of August. How much more notice do people really need?

As for announcing the new punishment, we put it as a sticky which clearly asked users to read it. Every time I log into boards and there's a new thread it shows in a different colour to indicate new posts, I presume the same applies to you? So we have a sticky thread, titled "****PLEASE READ**** Forum update from the mod team 13/10/09", which would have shown up as a new thread, and somehow we're accused of sneaking something in? Do we really think that an Announcement would have made all the difference? The evidence to date suggests people don't read anything we post up.

We have not changed any rules, we have merely changed how we respond to breaches of the rule which has always been an option:

Policy on Bans and Infractions

1. Minor offence (See list) will result in a yellow card infraction and may incur a ban. Repeat offences may result in a red card infraction and/or a ban of increasing length.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61404706&postcount=7

Kirnsy wrote: »

what's your personal opinion on it at the moment? is it contributing to better discussion and a more enjoyable forum for all? have there been many people caught by it and has it had its desired effect?

The most obvious example of it working is that we removed about 10 people who were causing various levels of trouble on the Liverpool-United match thread and as a result it is still open...most threads usually last about 12 hours after a game.

I also believe it has prompted a good few people to sit up and pay attention to the fact that there are rules and guidelines on which the forum operates.

Anyone who thinks we dream these rules up to throw our weight around is mistaken...I spent all day yesterday answering PMs, responding to Feedback and Help Desk, approving access requests (another rule that I'm challenged on regularly) and responding to reported posts...I could have been in work earning bank holiday pay, or I could have made use of my leave day to study. I don't enjoy banning anybody, and if people followed the advice I gave earlier the forum would be a much better place to post.

therecklessone

Ludo wrote: »

I honestly believe if the rules were relaxed to allow discussion with banter then the soccer forum would be a lot better place for it. Of course there would be teething problems but it would work itself out quickly enough.

The last time unrestricted banter was allowed on the forum it lead to this:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=153311

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=152971

Comments like Steven Gerrard is a scumbag and Alex Ferguson is a whisky-nosed cúnt rapidly escalate to "Ludo is a scumbag" and "therecklessone is a cúnt". Past experience tells us that.

tallaght01

It's a bizarre rule alright, and some good people have been/will be banned because of it.

I don't have access to the soccer forum, but I'm a big soccer fan and read it all the time

Major problem there is mods expect the users to act like kids, and come down on them very hard, even if they're decent users. This is a major problem in the so-called "contentious" forums on boards.

Troublemakers should be banned, and decent people should be left alone to have a bit of banter.

I think sherifu was right when he said the GY modding style days need to be let go. IN general if, you treat people like adults, they'll behave that way. There will be exceptions. So get rid of them.

If you need more mods, get them. But there has to be common sense.

Ludo

therecklessone wrote: »

The last time unrestricted banter was allowed on the forum it lead to this:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=153311

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=152971

Comments like Steven Gerrard is a scumbag and Alex Ferguson is a whisky-nosed cúnt rapidly escalate to "Ludo is a scumbag" and "therecklessone is a cúnt". Past experience tells us that.

I'm sorry but to me that is simple to solve. Ban them immediately and permanently. Pretty soon people will stop the personal insults as the people who are doing it will be banned and others will know better. Anyway...Tallaght01s reply above covers what I think about the forum.

Also recklessone...your avatar shows the attitude that seems to have taken hold of the soccer mods. The fact you have that under your name shows me that there is a problem.

Sherifu

DeVore wrote: »

Perhaps some *constructive* feedback about soccer might be helpful. Or do you all think things would be fine without this rule?

Things were fine in my opinion. But I am only one. If only we could have gotten more peoples opinions somehow.

If this new rule was the best idea they could come up with then i'm afraid for the future of the forum. There have been many fine suggestions in this thread already, possibly soccers best feedback thread ever? One suggestion even already taken onboard by a mod. This is what happens when you ask the posters. The soccer forum exists for its users and not to be bent to the will of the mods. Des has made a valid point about some silly rules in the charter. When you take a warning for them it's one thing, when you turn that into a 7 day ban it becomes something so far over the top it's not funny. If the punishment fits the crime usually people fall in line.

When you have a case like this the soccer posters are one of the best to jump up and object and are to be commended for it. Even if the waters were muddied in the past with personal attacks and seething resentment. This time it's not the case. I think the mods are doing a fine job for the most part but how they got together and decided this was a good idea is beyond me.

As I have said to TRO in private there are ways of doing things, ways to work with the forum but this isn't it. Perhaps it's a siege mentality, I don't know. I'm on the outside. Only the mod team know their reasons for this rule.

I'm sure it was done with good intentions but i've no sympathy for the plight of Xavi6 & Iago above if this is the way things are going. You may talk about the behaviour of some users but this behaviour from mods isn't much better.

You took a shortcut to bring in the rule and you took a shortcut in making the rule. If I may borrow Zaph's analogy "taking a sledgehammer to crack a peanut".

DeVore wrote: »

Perhaps we should ask the users of Soccer what they think? Or maybe we need a two-speed soccer approach with different approachs to this issue and let people vote with their browsers?

Of course this is what should have been done. When I asked TRO about this the answer was "we did not think it appropriate to look for validation from the members" which is galling.

DeVore wrote: »

I dunno... I dont read soccer but there seems to be a lot of "complaint" without a lot of "constructive suggestion". Thats why I ruled his "not feedback" before.
DeV.

I think I covered "constructive suggestion" above in my ramblings. Suggestions in this thread include:

1. Tweaking the yellow card numbers before getting a red
2. Putting major rule changes to the forum before throwing them in mid-season
3. Using an announcement instead of a buried sticky & a discussion thread would be good.
4. Linking to mod warnings in the first post, please yes. The current system of hunting for the post yourself is not too good.
5. Scrap this new rule, it's not a very bright one.

Thanks for leaving this thread open. I should have framed my one better. Guess I was still bitter. I thought I wasn't when I started typing. :mad:

therecklessone

Ludo wrote: »

Also recklessone...your avatar shows the attitude that seems to have taken hold of the soccer mods. The fact you have that under your name shows me that there is a problem.

Hang on, you argue for more banter on the forum yet jump on my tagline? It's a joke ffs.

Goes along way towards showing why the forum doesn't need more banter.

tallaght01

therecklessone wrote: »

Hang on, you argue for more banter on the forum yet jump on my tagline? It's a joke ffs.

Goes along way towards showing why the forum doesn't need more banter.

Well, to turn that around on you...why are you allowed some banter that the people who are banned too easily might think is in poor taste. BUt the users aren't allowed any banter?

therecklessone

Sherifu wrote: »

Putting major rule changes to the forum before throwing them in mid-season

For the last time:

This is not a rule change. The rules are exactly the same, all that has changed is the response to a breach of the rules

Ludo

therecklessone wrote: »

Hang on, you argue for more banter on the forum yet jump on my tagline? It's a joke ffs.

Goes along way towards showing why the forum doesn't need more banter.

I'm sorry, but you as a moderator are a voice of authority on the forum which hands out lenghty bans for the most trivial stuff. As a moderator there should be responsibility and not a tagline which seems to delight in the banning side of moderating which should only be a minor part ot if. Maybe you see it as light hearted but to me it does actually show the siege mentality that has taken hold. We will agree to disagree I guess.

therecklessone

tallaght01 wrote: »

Well, to turn that around on you...why are you allowed some banter that the people who are banned too easily might think is in poor taste. BUt the users aren't allowed any banter?

Jesus H...

I will alter the tagline if it pleases the masses.

The Recliner

Most of the problems in the Soccer forum are with the users not the Mods as far as I can see

People are too quick to take offense

People confuse abuse with banter, one is acceptable the other isn't

The simple fact is that the rules are there and the Mods are just enforcing them, if people are still getting banned after they have been made aware of the rules then they only have themseleves to blame

You could argue that the rule is the problem but personally I don't think it is, if people can't respect the rules of the forum and obey them then they deserve to be banned

tallaght01

therecklessone wrote: »

Jesus H...

I will alter the tagline if it pleases the masses.

I don';t give a flying mickey what you do with, or say in, your tagline.

But I just think it's hypocritical because you would rarely accept

therecklessone wrote: »

It's a joke ffs.

.

as an excuse from a user if they offended someone.

therecklessone

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don';t give a flying mickey what you do with, or say in, your tagline.

But I just think it's hypocritical because you would rarely accept

as an excuse from a user if they offended someone.

There is nothing hypocritical at all.

There is a difference between a persons behaviour on-forum and off it, and while we do take action against anyone who deliberately uses signatures (as an example) to rile up other soccer users we accept that people have a profile on boards outside of the soccer forum, and allow them to express themselves as they see fit, off forum.

This is the first complaint I have received about the tag, it is now gone.

craiginireland

tbh wrote: »

really? Calling a player a donkey is "constructive criticism"? Do you actually know what "Constructive criticism" is?

If you read my post correctly you will have noticed that not in any way shape or form was I referring to Distan in a constructive way ( I doubt he uses boards tbh) The criticism was my statement after that

BuffyBot

Enough about tag lines - people read way too much into that kind of stuff.

DeV's already made it clear: let's have some constructive, useful feedback and suggestions about alternative ways of moderating soccer. Who knows, someone might even crack the magic formula..

Handsome Bob

I have a new thing now where I ignore those who I know are nothing more than trolls. It took me a while to realise it but seriously, engaging these posters is utterly futile. I think if everyone did the same thing then the Soccer Forum would be fine. There's nothing wrong with it, it just has a slight infestation of baitors who are the best at what they do.