Posting general statements about posters

Spiritoftheseventies

Okay was talking about this with one of the admins on the help desk who suggested I should post here.
I have been concerned with the behaviour of posters who make sweeping statements on posters without any real evidence to back it up.
As was noted on a thread here today, mud occassionally sticks. I would like to see posters refraining from such generalities and that posts of this nature be removed.

AckwelFoley

Changes in Human behaviour is not included within the bounds of feedforward.

General comments are made all the time. I think Dev is a decent sort of chap, that is a general statment that however is bound by my experience with him, his wife might think hes an asshole

General statments dont seem to cause a problem if they are complementary..

General statments are just that.. General. Unless they are going to cause boards.ie legal difficulties or infringe on the rules of the forums i dont think there is alot that can be done about it

Gordon

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Okay was talking about this with one of the admins on the help desk who suggested I should post here.
I have been concerned with the behaviour of posters who make sweeping statements on posters without any real evidence to back it up.

Have you got any examples, I'm not sure what you mean.

AckwelFoley

Gordon wrote: »

Have you got any examples, I'm not sure what you mean.

The OP wasnt being specific, he/she was just talking in "general" :pac:




..sorry OP only kidding

Spiritoftheseventies

Gordon wrote: »

Have you got any examples, I'm not sure what you mean.

For example poster might say something like "all you do is complete absolute tripe all the time" "or you shouldn't post on the internet". Statements like these that for most part are just blatant generalities.
I was encouraged to put this post up by another admin so assume its not a problem.

AckwelFoley

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

For example poster might say something like "all you do is complete absolute tripe all the time" "or you shouldn't post on the internet". Statements like these that for most part are just blatant generalities.
I was encouraged to put this post up by another admin so assume its not a problem.

Those statments are subjective, based on opinions

I understand what you are saying but you cant enforce manners. Granted sometimes depending on the forum, there are people that would be worthy of such comments, i being one of them when i have a high blood alochol level and access to the internet.

Spiritoftheseventies

snyper wrote: »

Those statments are subjective, based on opinions

I understand what you are saying but you cant enforce manners. Granted sometimes depending on the forum, there are people that would be worthy of such comments, i being one of them when i have a high blood alochol level and access to the internet.

Agree some posters can get a bit animated and thats understandable but my argument is that since there is actually no real foundation to their statement they should be removed.
Just annoys me how some posters (mods included) post such absolute statements and get away with it most of the time.

AckwelFoley

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Agree some posters can get a bit animated and thats understandable but my argument is that since there is actually no real foundation to their statement they should be removed.
Just annoys me how some posters (mods included) post such absolute statements and get away with it most of the time.

I avoid political discussion with people particularly on the internet. To hear things like "all politicians are corrupt" "developers and bankers ruined this country(including causing volcano eruptions)" irritates me greatly.

To be general is to make a statment without specifics, due to lack of knowledge, lack of understanding or misinterpretation.

The only solution to curbing generalisations is for the generalisations to be wholly innacurate, thereby making the person that made the statment look foolish.

If i said to you that this thread is stupid, i would be making a statment based on my opinion, i can be full sure that most people wouldnt think that this thread is stupid and therefore making myself look foolish whether i was aware of it or not.

Sweeping generalisation about things, situations or people can be annoying, particularly if the statment is not complemintary or is innacurate, but i think it is impossible to expect it to be regulated without pre modding every post.

I dont like it when people make generalisations about certain things either, but as i said earlier, unless it breaks a forum charter by attacking a poster, or perhaps being racist i think there is really nothing that can be done.

Steve

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

For example poster might say something like "all you do is complete absolute tripe all the time" "or you shouldn't post on the internet". Statements like these that for most part are just blatant generalities.
I was encouraged to put this post up by another admin so assume its not a problem.

Posts like that are pretty clearly directed at a poster and how they post, it's not an attempt to argue their point.

Worst case: IMO, that would be in breach of site guidelines (attack the post and not the poster).

Best case: it could be an innocent, understandable in some cases, response to someone deliberately trolling.

The local forum / site rules generally cover this type of behaviour and mods make calls based on their understanding of how the rules apply - I don't see how a blanket 'remove these posts' policy could realistically work for this.

Overheal

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

For example poster might say something like "all you do is complete absolute tripe all the time" "or you shouldn't post on the internet". Statements like these that for most part are just blatant generalities.
I was encouraged to put this post up by another admin so assume its not a problem.

For the most part those comments arent allowed by my understanding. You're saying you've seen instances where this was allowed, here?

Both examples you give are analogous to saying "You're an idiot" or "Go outside and play Hide and Go Fcuk Yourself"

Spiritoftheseventies

Overheal wrote: »

For the most part those comments arent allowed by my understanding. You're saying you've seen instances where this was allowed, here?

Both examples you give are analogous to saying "You're an idiot" or "Go outside and play Hide and Go Fcuk Yourself"

Didnt say in every case posters got away with it but some of the time they do. For instance this is most recent example that occurred tonight

Honestly, 90% of your posts have to wind ups

.

example of posters just coming out with sweeping statements like that. Incredibly annoying and just serves to bump a thread.

Steve

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

For instance this is most recent example that occurred tonight

Honestly, 90% of your posts have to wind ups

example of posters just coming out with sweeping statements like that. Incredibly annoying and just serves to bump a thread

I would think that it would depend on the local rules and the poster at whom it was directed and their history where it was posted as to whether that would be allowed.

I'm really trying to be non specific - as is the purpose here - in saying that and trying to think of it as a sitewide policy issue. Yes at some point it will become a sitewide issue if the recipient is being told the same thing across multiple forums.

Unless, of course, someone said it about Snyper in which case it would be perfectly valid :pac:

Spiritoftheseventies

Steve wrote: »

I would think that it would depend on the local rules and the poster at whom it was directed and their history where it was posted as to whether that would be allowed.

I'm really trying to be non specific - as is the purpose here - in saying that and trying to think of it as a sitewide policy issue. Yes at some point it will become a sitewide issue if the recipient is being told the same thing across multiple forums.

Unless, of course, someone said it about Snyper in which case it would be perfectly valid :pac:

To be fair it generally tends to happen on the one forum. You can report all you want but mods simply are not going to act on all of them. Merely trying to raise an issue where posters come out with statements which to me are a bit disingenious IMO

Steve

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

To be fair it generally tends to happen on the one forum. You can report all you want but mods simply are not going to act on all of them. Merely trying to raise an issue where posters come out with statements which to me are a bit disingenious IMO

Would that not make this more of a feedback issue then?

Actually, maybe not.. specifics are frowned upon there.. helpdesk then? no, you've tried that and were sent here. I'm confused now.

Overheal

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

To be fair it generally tends to happen on the one forum. You can report all you want but mods simply are not going to act on all of them. Merely trying to raise an issue where posters come out with statements which to me are a bit disingenious IMO

Well the Moderators are not omnipotent by a long stretch and they won't be able in many cases (especially high traffic fora) to act on each and every offense, nor do so in a consistent manner.

At some point, its the User's Responsibility to act appropriately with the privileges they have been given, to post/contribute. An example: If Tom posts an insult/snide offensive comment about Bork, Bork reports it. The Mod may or may not act on this. What does Bork do? He can (ideally) Ignore the comment, or engage the comment in a mature, upheld manner; or, Bork can sink to the level of the offense ("Well if the mods aren't doing anything it must be ok then right?!?!" [incorrect assumption]) and proceed to return a volley across the port bow of Tom. At this point a Mod notices a direct conflict brewing and steps in: you have a 50% chance at this point of being the one disciplined.

I guess what Im getting at is it is not the Directive of the Moderator to protect users from all forms of scrutiny. It's impractical to rise to the defense of every disagreement, or to demand citation on every personally held opinion. Especially I've noticed, a moderator is far, far less likely to step in if you try and get your digs in; they are more than happy to allow two users to settle their own differences like adults if it can be had. Its disingenuous in many cases, to report a user's post, and then still get embattled with that user, rather than stepping off.

Allowing for the limitations of the Moderators; its your Responsibility as a user to guard yourself a bit. For instance, if I worried about every snide remark or opinion that had been thrown out of my way ("In before Overheal"?) - well, I'd be a wreck. Eventually you just need to call a spade a spade; recognize that many of these statements are unfounded or misleading, (or have becoming in-jokes) and there's no point in worrying about them all that much. If you get into trouble doing this though, Report the post so a moderator can review it and step back.

Spiritoftheseventies

Overheal wrote: »

Well the Moderators are not omnipotent by a long stretch and they won't be able in many cases (especially high traffic fora) to act on each and every offense, nor do so in a consistent manner.

At some point, its the User's Responsibility to act appropriately with the privileges they have been given, to post/contribute. An example: If Tom posts an insult/snide offensive comment about Bork, Bork reports it. The Mod may or may not act on this. What does Bork do? He can (ideally) Ignore the comment, or engage the comment in a mature, upheld manner; or, Bork can sink to the level of the offense ("Well if the mods aren't doing anything it must be ok then right?!?!" [incorrect assumption]) and proceed to return a volley across the port bow of Tom. At this point a Mod notices a direct conflict brewing and steps in: you have a 50% chance at this point of being the one disciplined.

I guess what Im getting at is it is not the Directive of the Moderator to protect users from all forms of scrutiny. It's impractical to rise to the defense of every disagreement, or to demand citation on every personally held opinion. Especially I've noticed, a moderator is far, far less likely to step in if you try and get your digs in; they are more than happy to allow two users to settle their own differences like adults if it can be had. Its disingenuous in many cases, to report a user's post, and then still get embattled with that user, rather than stepping off.

Allowing for the limitations of the Moderators; its your Responsibility as a user to guard yourself a bit. For instance, if I worried about every snide remark or opinion that had been thrown out of my way ("In before Overheal"?) - well, I'd be a wreck. Eventually you just need to call a spade a spade; recognize that many of these statements are unfounded or misleading, (or have becoming in-jokes) and there's no point in worrying about them all that much. If you get into trouble doing this though, Report the post so a moderator can review it and step back.

I agree with this but again what Im going back to is the fact that posters get away lightly for the most part for comments.
Its the easiest thing in the world to come up a with a statement like "You always post crap" and then retreat into the background again as some posters tend to so.
These "hit and run" tactics seem to be deliberate tactics IMO. I had one poster (a mod on another forum by the way) who makes the odd contribution on a particular thread in forum come out with statement
"1,224 of those posts are complete bollocks, to be exact".
In reference to my post count on that thread.
No attempt was made by poster to back that up. Just another general sweeping statement aimed at getting a quick dig in.
This is what annoys me.

bonkey

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Didnt say in every case posters got away with it but some of the time they do. For instance this is most recent example that occurred tonight

.

example of posters just coming out with sweeping statements like that. Incredibly annoying and just serves to bump a thread.

Without going into specifics....do you check to see if those posts are covered by the charter of the forum and/or boards' sitewide guidelines?

(The example you give is out of context. It could be innoccuous, but it probably isn't....and probably falls foul of this or this part of the guidelines....even if there's nothing in the forum-specific charter to cover it.

Perhaps a more important question is whether or not you reported the posts. I'm not having a go at you, but over the years, I've been pretty-constantly amazed at how often people complain that something isn't acceptable but don't report it.

The reason that its important (to me) is because as a moderator, I rely on people reporting posts for two reasons. It draws my attention to the post...ensuring I don't miss it. In addition, it lets me know that someone finds it unacceptable, which can help make my mind up on "borderline" cases.

Its also important for another reason. We have a system and all-too-often people don't use the system, but also suggest that we need to change/fix it. Surely, the first step is to use the system, then see how it can be improved.

Now...maybe you did report these posts. If that's the case, then it could be that the moderator(s) in question or the forum(s) in question have a higher tolerance-level then you do....that their cut-off on what is acceptable is different to yours. In a case like this, its hard to say that there's a problem that can be fixed...because no matter where we draw th elines, someone will want them drawn elsewhere.

tl;dr We have a system which should already cover these cases. If its not being used, the question we need to ask is why, and not what to change. If it is being used, the question we need to ask is whether or not there's really a problem.

Spiritoftheseventies

bonkey wrote: »

Without going into specifics....do you check to see if those posts are covered by the charter of the forum and/or boards' sitewide guidelines?

(The example you give is out of context. It could be innoccuous, but it probably isn't....and probably falls foul of this or this part of the guidelines....even if there's nothing in the forum-specific charter to cover it.

Perhaps a more important question is whether or not you reported the posts. I'm not having a go at you, but over the years, I've been pretty-constantly amazed at how often people complain that something isn't acceptable but don't report it.

The reason that its important (to me) is because as a moderator, I rely on people reporting posts for two reasons. It draws my attention to the post...ensuring I don't miss it. In addition, it lets me know that someone finds it unacceptable, which can help make my mind up on "borderline" cases.

Its also important for another reason. We have a system and all-too-often people don't use the system, but also suggest that we need to change/fix it. Surely, the first step is to use the system, then see how it can be improved.

Now...maybe you did report these posts. If that's the case, then it could be that the moderator(s) in question or the forum(s) in question have a higher tolerance-level then you do....that their cut-off on what is acceptable is different to yours. In a case like this, its hard to say that there's a problem that can be fixed...because no matter where we draw th elines, someone will want them drawn elsewhere.

tl;dr We have a system which should already cover these cases. If its not being used, the question we need to ask is why, and not what to change. If it is being used, the question we need to ask is whether or not there's really a problem.

Yeah reported one of the posts and nothing seems to have been done about it. This was two days ago. I could take on this poster online but Im pretty sure I wouldnt be allowed because it would derail thread and its something I dont want to do.

Nevyn

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Yeah reported one of the posts and nothing seems to have been done about it. This was two days ago. I could take on this poster online but Im pretty sure I wouldnt be allowed because it would derail thread and its something I dont want to do.

That my friend is why the thunderdrome was invented so you could call someone out and have it out with them.

LuckyLloyd

Spiritoftheseventies, at a certain point surely you should conclude that it's you, not them that are the issue? Here is some genuine and well meaning advice: you need a much thicker skin mate. You post high volume, on a wide variety of football subjects, and sometimes make points that are controversial / out of left field. That is your prerogative. But if you decide to venture forth the idea that Mourinho may move to Newcastle, you have to accept that there is likely to be a few dismissive / snide comments heading your way as a result.

In terms of broader stroke policy for this or any website, I would suggest that it is right and fair that everyone is entitled to hold and voice their opinion. But very incorrect to assume that every such opinion should be free of challenge and treated as equally valid / useful.

So just let it slide off you a bit more, you know what I mean? If I had a euro for every time a post of mine was ignored / shredded / ridiculed or illicited negative or niggly comments...

Spiritoftheseventies

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Spiritoftheseventies, at a certain point surely you should conclude that it's you, not them that are the issue? Here is some genuine and well meaning advice: you need a much thicker skin mate. You post high volume, on a wide variety of football subjects, and sometimes make points that are controversial / out of left field. That is your prerogative. But if you decide to venture forth the idea that Mourinho may move to Newcastle, you have to accept that there is likely to be a few dismissive / snide comments heading your way as a result.

In terms of broader stroke policy for this or any website, I would suggest that it is right and fair that everyone is entitled to hold and voice their opinion. But very incorrect to assume that every such opinion should be free of challenge and treated as equally valid / useful.

So just let it slide off you a bit more, you know what I mean? If I had a euro for every time a post of mine was ignored / shredded / ridiculed or illicited negative or niggly comments...

I appreciate the post LL but again its the absoluteness of their statements that annoys me.
I have nothing about people debating a certain post and I do it myself with others. But when others come out with stuff I have highlighted above it just really gets under my skin.
Again why is it always the same forum as well.

Nevyn

Spiritoftheseventies why not just add them to your ignore list?

Spiritoftheseventies

Thaedydal wrote: »

Spiritoftheseventies why not just add them to your ignore list?

If only it was that simple. Dont see that being the issue. If one of the founding principles of the charter is to debate the poster not the poster I just wonder why that is not being adhered to. Yeah the SF operates under slightly different rules in terms of how posts post but still think its far easier for mods and posters to tell poster to grow a thicker skin than for mods to occassionally enforce a rule that is set in stone.
And to refer to another point made by LL it isnt just me. Saw another poster who was pretty ganged up in another thread a few weeks back. Yeah poster didnt take a very popular view but again I think there needs to be a bit more leeway given by posters some of whom r'aison d'etre seems to be to focus in on the negative of one poster without ever giving them credit for any good posts they have made.

Overheal

Well, why do you allow it to get under your skin? Comments made by anonymous pseudonyms on an internet forum?

Also in my experience, I am not above forming a negative opinion of users, or making statements about them. What usually happens is a user will try an state an observation or opinion as an immutable fact. Then what happens is other people come along and poke at that. Several things can happen. Usually, a poster when under scrutiny of his words will renege or withdraw a comment, or at the very least openly admit they could be mistaken. In other cases a poster will continue to insist they are correct. And its that user who often draws the most pressure.

If you're constantly drawing negative attention, you need to check yourself. Are you making intractible arguments? Are you giving yourself room to admit that you may be wrong? Are you speaking in Absolutes? Those are things you need to look out for. If you leave no breathing space in your arguing style for people to disagree with you or counter your argument; well, they're just going to knock you down when left without a direct alternative.

Spiritoftheseventies

Overheal wrote: »

Well, why do you allow it to get under your skin? Comments made by anonymous pseudonyms on an internet forum?

Also in my experience, I am not above forming a negative opinion of users, or making statements about them. What usually happens is a user will try an state an observation or opinion as an immutable fact. Then what happens is other people come along and poke at that. Several things can happen. Usually, a poster when under scrutiny of his words will renege or withdraw a comment, or at the very least openly admit they could be mistaken. In other cases a poster will continue to insist they are correct. And its that user who often draws the most pressure.

If you're constantly drawing negative attention, you need to check yourself. Are you making intractible arguments? Are you giving yourself room to admit that you may be wrong? Are you speaking in Absolutes? Those are things you need to look out for. If you leave no breathing space in your arguing style for people to disagree with you or counter your argument; well, they're just going to knock you down when left without a direct alternative.

Never said I was constantly drawing negative attention. I said I get a bit of grief on that forum but use other forums as well without any bother.
This is what Im talking about. I bring up problems on one forum and all of a sudden its about my posting problems on all forums.
Again annoying.

Overheal

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Never said I was constantly drawing negative attention. I said I get a bit of grief on that forum but use other forums as well without any bother.
This is what Im talking about. I bring up problems on one forum and all of a sudden its about my posting problems on all forums.
Again annoying.

Well Im sorry if I've gotten the wrong impression, then.

Spiritoftheseventies

Basically Overheal Im saying its not relevant to bring up a posters previous posts. You debate the post. That should be the bottom line.

Overheal

Well, thats already existing site policy. With that said, Im not sure what Feedforward can do here, or what you are looking for.

If you are saying, as you are, that this is specific to one forum, then this belongs in Feedback.

Nevyn

If this is a specific complaint in one forum then report posts, report, report and if you think the mods are not taking action contact the cat mods on it.

Spiritoftheseventies

Thaedydal wrote: »

If this is a specific complaint in one forum then report posts, report, report and if you think the mods are not taking action contact the cat mods on it.

Really im blue in the face taking it to the various mods, c mods. Its an ongoing problem and not just with me as was illustrated in previous posts.
Would be great if something was done about it in the long term. Dont see what the big problem in what I am bringing up here.
Maybe the rules need to be stricter on this. Like i said no reason to bring up a posters past posting history.
The post is being debated not the poster. Its straight forward enough but some just dont seem to be able to grasp with what is a simple enought concept

tbh

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Really im blue in the face taking it to the various mods, c mods.

if you've brought it to mods and cmods and they've done nothing about it, maybe it's just something you're going to have to deal with. Maybe it's just you who thinks it's a problem.

K-9

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Really im blue in the face taking it to the various mods, c mods. Its an ongoing problem and not just with me as was illustrated in previous posts.
Would be great if something was done about it in the long term. Dont see what the big problem in what I am bringing up here.
Maybe the rules need to be stricter on this. Like i said no reason to bring up a posters past posting history.
The post is being debated not the poster. Its straight forward enough but some just dont seem to be able to grasp with what is a simple enought concept

SOS, you have to expect an element of banter on the soccer board. It's part of being a supporter of a club.

I made a comment on the Liverpool game thread tonight at a poster who has history on Liverpool threads. It could have been construed as a personal attack on a poster, it wasn't, it was firmly tongue in cheek. Ironically, you thanked it.

The soccer board has posters from different clubs who often never see eye to eye on topics, hell, even posters from the same clubs don't see eye to see. You need a "thick skin" to post on it in that respect.

Overheal

Soccer Forum Charter:

ABUSE: Prejudice will not be tolerated, in any form. Outbursts of personal abuse be it directed at other board members or at non-boards persons, famous or otherwise, is strictly prohibited. We reserve the right to edit/move/delete such posts as we see fit and issue bans and/or infractions to the poster of such. The basic rule is keeping it civil; you can have friendly banter without resorting to personal abuse. For more detail on mod policy on abuse, see below.

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 neccesary.

Backseat Modding: If you believe a post is in breach of the charter then you should report it, and move on. If you engage the poster on his/her breach of the charter you risk infraction for back-seat modding.

Examples of back-seat modding include:

* Calling someone a troll
* Telling a poster not to post in a thread, or they should post elsewhere
* Telling a poster you have reported their post (effectively accusing them of a breach of the charter)
* Commenting on a breach of charter


This list is not exhaustive, and mod discretion may be applied in cases where the intent is judged to be helpful (for example, telling another user they should use spoiler tags for score updates, and showing them how to do so).

The rule of thumb should always be to leave moderation to the mods.

It seems like Backseat modding, imho, if other users are declaring your posts to be windups, or comment on your posts being wind-ups.

But most especially something sticks out at me policy-wise that I would not mind asking the Soccer Mods to have a deliberation on, and thats that the Personal Abuse Policy feels... incomplete. It focuses on name-calling and doesnt really get into any other forms of abuse. Namely, and particularly to Spiritoftheseventies (just to nip the issue in the bud), Ad Hominem Attacks.

Just some food for thought: the politics charter

3. Reporting & Moderation

If you have a problem with a post, USE THE REPORT POST FUNCTION. Do not respond to the post in question.

If they agree with the complaint, moderators may edit/delete any reported post. Moderators will review all complaints and act at their discretion.

Moderators may also edit/delete any post/thread which in their opinion breaks the rules, whether it was reported or not.

When an argument breaks out, we will not care who started it. It takes at least two people to have an argument, and both sides will be dealt with appropriately.

Moderators may warn individuals of unacceptable behaviour, but not on a repetitive basis and if the situation warrants, users may be banned without warning. Repeated infractions will result in bans.

The moderators will not discuss their moderating in the Politics threads. If you wish to discuss moderation, there is one specific thread to do so here. This is the only thread in this forum where moderation may be discussed. If you wish to discuss an issue with a moderator privately or directly, either PM the moderators, or take it to the Helpdesk forum.


4. Civility

Every poster is entitled to their opinion - whether it is ill-informed or not.

NEVER attack a poster. Attack the content of their post. (You can tell someone that their opinion is based on incomplete or incorrect information, but do not call them an idiot.)

Humour is not unreasonable, but please bear in mind that the written word conveys less information than the spoken. What you mean in jest may be taken seriously.

Also, bear in mind that this is not a comedy forum - so keep it to a reasonable and relevant amount.

Putting a smiley at the end of an insult does not make it ok.

Keep your language civil, particularly when referring to other posters.

While good-natured abuse will be tolerated to a certain level, it is ultimately the moderator's decision as to when abuse steps over the line. Please bear this in mind.

If you are going to level allegations of lying at another poster, please be willing to prove that they are lying - that they deliberately intend to deceive. Simply calling someone a liar is not acceptable.

Allegations of trollery will not be accepted in-thread - they will be viewed as simply another form of personal attack, and dealt with accordingly. If you believe someone is trolling, and object, then report them as per "Reporting & Moderation above.

This forum is for discussion and debate, so again, we will not tolerate soapboxing. If you are here to "shout everyone down" with your opinions, we will see you as a negative contributor to the forum and may ban you.

Theres certain policies that need to be made uniform throughout the site in both practice and language. And, The Trustees are going to work on that, in due course.

K-9

Overheal wrote: »

Soccer Forum Charter:

It seems like Backseat modding, imho, if other users are declaring your posts to be windups, or comment on your posts being wind-ups.

But most especially something sticks out at me policy-wise that I would not mind asking the Soccer Mods to have a deliberation on, and thats that the Personal Abuse Policy feels... incomplete. It focuses on name-calling and doesnt really get into any other forms of abuse. Namely, and particularly to Spiritoftheseventies (just to nip the issue in the bud), Ad Hominem Attacks.

Just some food for thought: the politics charter



Theres certain policies that need to be made uniform throughout the site in both practice and language. And, The Trustees are going to work on that, in due course.

Yes, but you can't expect the same rules regarding civility eg. in Soccer as in Politics.

Overheal

No, obviously its a different atmosphere. But I think things like personally abuse can be universally defined, once you allow for Common Sense and Context.

tbh

Overheal wrote: »

No, obviously its a different atmosphere. But I think things like personally abuse can be universally defined, once you allow for Common Sense and Context.

once you define what abuse is, you remove the ability to apply common sense and context

K-9

tbh wrote: »

once you define what abuse is, you remove the ability to apply common sense and context

I can see where Overheal is coming from, with an homogeneous policy, the problem is, different categories aren't homogeneous and never will be, Thank God.

Overheal

Hmm.. all good points.

Well at any rate, I think personally, speaking as Joe User, the Soccer Forum's abuse policy looks like its due for a lookaround.

tbh

K-9 wrote: »

I can see where Overheal is coming from,
.

oh for sure, but otoh, all the charter does is tell people what they can get away with. for 90% of the users of the site, no charter is necessary - it's written for the 10% who don't care about it anyway.

Overheal

tbh wrote: »

oh for sure, but otoh, all the charter does is tell people what they can get away with. for 90% of the users of the site, no charter is necessary - it's written for the 10% who don't care about it anyway.

But currently one of those things that 10% of people can get away with is Ad Hominems

tbh

Overheal wrote: »

But currently one of those things that 10% of people can get away with is Ad Hominems

ok, fair point - but the mods can deal with that if they think it's a problem. However if we make it a site-wide rule that it's not allowed, they have to deal with it, even if dealing with it would be disproportionate.

K-9

Overheal wrote: »

But currently one of those things that 10% of people can get away with is Ad Hominems

Again, depends on the board.

Soccer, if its slagging, why not? I'd be liberal on it as it is the Soccer board. Posters have to give and take and give the benefit of the doubt. Part of the fun of the Soccer board is interaction between different club supporters so overall, it ads to the board.

Politics, Nope, you shouldn't get away with it. I'd be very hard line on it. Far too much ranting and raving IMO!

Both require judgement calls, but of a different variety.

In summary, leave each board with its own charter, barring the obvious.

K-9

Overheal wrote: »

Hmm.. all good points.

Well at any rate, I think personally, speaking as Joe User, the Soccer Forum's abuse policy looks like its due for a lookaround.

It seems to be working well though. Very few feedback or Help desk threads compared to a year or even 6 months ago.

That speaks volumes.

The soccer community has been over this on numerous occassions before, causing many a 30 page thread. It seems to be getting a long grand now, all things considered. No point fixing what isn't broken.

Xavi6

Ok Overheal, you asked for input from a Soccer mod so I'l give my opinion (and it's mine alone. I don't speak for the others).

SOTS imo does not 'get' the forum. We wind each other up, we have a laugh, but it still boils down to Football = Serious Business.

If someone posts something outlandish (i.e. SOTS latest effort about Mourinho taking over at Newcastle) then they will be called on it, and rightly so. Like it or not, your posts form your persona. If you constantly post crap then that's just unfortunate.

I will happily admit to being someone who has told SOTS to grow a thicker skin, for his own sake as much as anything else. You have to be able to take a bit of a ribbing from other fans, it's part of the tribalism of the game.

Btw SOTS, you can fire accusations all you want but I have examples of you thanking posts that were just as 'bad' as the ones you are giving out about here. It works both ways.

We deal with straight up personal abuse when it happens. No one calls another posts a dickhead or a wanker or whatever and gets away with it. If someone says "All you do is talk shit" then that is not imo personal abuse. You made the noose for yourself through your posting history.

In an ideal world each post would be taken at face value but, unfortunately for you, it doesn't work like that.

These are the parameters we have operated within since I've been a mod on the forum, and I don't see any reason to change them, so maybe it's not just the place for you.

Spiritoftheseventies

Xavi6 wrote: »

Ok Overheal, you asked for input from a Soccer mod so I'l give my opinion (and it's mine alone. I don't speak for the others).

SOTS imo does not 'get' the forum. We wind each other up, we have a laugh, but it still boils down to Football = Serious Business.

If someone posts something outlandish (i.e. SOTS latest effort about Mourinho taking over at Newcastle) then they will be called on it, and rightly so. Like it or not, your posts form your persona. If you constantly post crap then that's just unfortunate.

I will happily admit to being someone who has told SOTS to grow a thicker skin, for his own sake as much as anything else. You have to be able to take a bit of a ribbing from other fans, it's part of the tribalism of the game.

Btw SOTS, you can fire accusations all you want but I have examples of you thanking posts that were just as 'bad' as the ones you are giving out about here. It works both ways.

We deal with straight up personal abuse when it happens. No one calls another posts a dickhead or a wanker or whatever and gets away with it. If someone says "All you do is talk shit" then that is not imo personal abuse. You made the noose for yourself through your posting history.

In an ideal world each post would be taken at face value but, unfortunately for you, it doesn't work like that.

These are the parameters we have operated within since I've been a mod on the forum, and I don't see any reason to change them, so maybe it's not just the place for you.

To clear this up. For the most part I enjoy posting on SF. Its a great information tool and it keeps me in touch with the going ons of my club. And there have been some great debates within pool thread which I have contributed to along with other posters there.
But even as we speak getting stuff like "If you constantly post crap".
Xavi you admitted on another thread you dont read all the pages on threads so how can you say that.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64732140&postcount=202
It seems as if there is the a dogged resistance to improving the situation on SF.
Will agree with another poster that for most part situation has improved.
But for mods to put up a thread on How are we driving and yet to be adverse to any real criticism doesnt add up.

Nevyn

Can this be moved to feedback please as it's not feedforward material.

Spiritoftheseventies

Thaedydal wrote: »

Can this be moved to feedback please as it's not feedforward material.

No problem with that. But maybe consider tightening the enforcement on "debating the post not the poster". Its a fairly important part of the charter IMO>

Overheal

Thaedydal wrote: »

Can this be moved to feedback please as it's not feedforward material.

Done. This is less about the policy of the site but the policy of one forum: Soccer.

Frisbee

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Xavi you admitted on another thread you dont read all the pages on threads so how can you say that.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64732140&postcount=202
It seems as if there is the a dogged resistance to improving the situation on SF.

SOTS you don't have to read every page of every thread to get an idea on a poster etc. Do you really expect Mods to read every single post that happens in their forum? That's more than a full time job.

I know I don't I read threads in AF and Non-Drinkers as much as I can, but there will always posts that slip under then gaze of the Mods.

If you have a problem report it. But just because you have a problem with a post doesn't mean that the Mod views it as such, so action won't always be taken.

5starpool

It is often best to just call a spade a spade.

SOTS, half the time I just think your account is a deliberate attempt to wind everyone else up, and your recent posts on Mourinho for Newcastle, and thinking those Lucas tweets were actually him are just two of the latest reasons for thinking that. You are also increasing the likelyhood of people not valuing your opinions by starting a thread in feedback every few days about being victimised, when it could mostly be sorted out by just engaging more in the banter, appreciating when your opinion may be seens as left field, and realising that the soccer forum works the way it does and all posters that want to post there should, for their own good, try to fit in with the soccer forum, not make it fit into what you want it to be.

The Recliner

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

No problem with that. But maybe consider tightening the enforcement on "debating the post not the poster". Its a fairly important part of the charter IMO>

This has been bugging me for ages

The phrase is "Attack the post not the poster" if you want a rule/guideline changed you can't just put your own spin on it

However it is a site guideline and an important one I agree, it generally doesn't form part of charters as it is assumed in most forums but some forums like The Thunderdome and others can and do ignore it

As has been indicated by Xavi the soccer forum allows some leeway in this regard, I don't see this changing and don't think it needs to change so you are just going to have to get used to it