Double standards, soccer forum....

homer simpson

hi all,

I got an infraction a while back for implying a swear word when i say i implied it i used ú in the word, so didnt actully swear, i took the infraction on the chin after clarification on exactly what rule i broke (which was met with silence).

I have since seen and reported numourus posts where the person has blatently swear without trying to hide it, and not a thing has been done, i would like to know why, is it one rule for one ( fans who get away with these things) and another for everyone else?

just so they know to i am going to be reporting every post that i see a ú í being used to imply a swaer word now too, i have only reported if it has annoyed me up untill now but i will fill the report pages from now on.


Thanks.

Edit: just thought id add they are not all like that seems to be a few that just tend to ignore the reports sometimes, depending on the person....

Zaph

Just two small points you should note:

1. Providing links to the posts in question supports your argument far better than merely stating that X happened to me and not other people.

2. Infractions and bans have been handed out in the past to posters who have abused the Report Post function.

homer simpson

1. I have provided links in PM's ,when i got my infraction, with the mods but got no reply if i remember correctly one of the posts was a few posts below mines, yet no infraction, just would like it clarified as to why its seems to be different rules for different people

2. But if i am reporting posts that are doing the same thing i got infracted for surley i am right to report them am i not?

Xavi6

This is about getting around the swear filter riight? In what context were the words used?

Can you please post links here? This is the first I've heard of it.

P.S. The sweeping statement is your thread title contains unnecessary sensationalism.

homer simpson

The post was in relation to the man utd - man city match thread http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65448662#post65448662 My post was deleted, i basically Jammy Fú........Cú...... (not going to quote the exact phrase as i got an infraction, but i still have it in PM) for winning and they didnt deserve to win...... i was told it was reported as trolling? i thought trolling was something completly different too, but then told by the mod my infraction was for using the Cú... part of my post, like i said i took it on the chin, accepted that i shouldnt have said it, but since then ive seen a lot of people swearing openly on the SF i will go have a wee looksie see if i find any when i come back later.

Like i said though it seems to be some of the mods not all of tham, or maybe its more a case of some are stricter than other maybe? All im looking for is clarification as to why some posts get infractions some dont?


Edit on the 1 thread alone i found these http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65893980&postcount=33
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65901539&postcount=36

If you still need more proof i will look later...

Xavi6

Ok I can read the post and tbh it was just a bit OTT.

The reason it was deemed as trolling was because of the bit at the end that wasn't swearing.

I can post the comment here if you want and explain better as I know you can't see it now that it has been deleted.

Spiritoftheseventies

The swear filter is there to edit out the swear words. Some though put the U in italics and that as such is trying to get round the filter.

homer simpson

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

The swear filter is there to edit out the swear words. Some though put the U in italics and that as such is trying to get round the filter.

And whats your point? I'm not disputing my infraction in any way shape or form, what am i asking for is clarification as to why its seems to be applied in some cases but not in others....

Spiritoftheseventies

homer_simpson wrote: »

And whats your point? I'm not disputing my infraction in any way shape or form, what am i asking for is clarification as to why its seems to be applied in some cases but not in others....

I dont know really why that would be. All I know that if you put any letters in italics you are leaving yourself open to an infraction.
Regardless of who was caught and who wasnt Blanket reporting of posts would undermine you really and if you want my advice you should heed what Zaph says.

Zaph

homer_simpson wrote: »

2. But if i am reporting posts that are doing the same thing i got infracted for surley i am right to report them am i not?

Reporting posts is fine, and is much appreciated by all mods as it makes their jobs a lot easier. Threatening to "fill the report pages" is not, however. Unless they are all genuine report-worthy posts it will be seen as an abuse of the system and action may be taken. I was merely pointing this out before you embark on your crusade.

Zaph

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

I dont know really why that would be. All I know that if you put any letters in italics you are leaving yourself open to an infraction.
Regardless of who was caught and who wasnt Blanket reporting of posts would undermine you really and if you want my advice you should heed what Zaph says.

Please leave the moderation of the forum to the mods.

homer simpson

Zaph wrote: »

Reporting posts is fine, and is much appreciated by all mods as it makes their jobs a lot easier. Threatening to "fill the report pages" is not, however. Unless they are all genuine report-worthy posts it will be seen as an abuse of the system and action may be taken. I was merely pointing this out before you embark on your crusade.

I like that "embark on my crusade", prob the only thing me and christopher columbus have in commen :P.

Duely noted, i've just become annoyed by the, as i see it, double standards, i have pretty much figured it out in my own head, now.

Different mods see things differently one mod my impose an infraction another mightn't, and i suppose i might have been a little harsh on the poor guys, cos in soccer they had a lot to mod, and i'm sure they dont see every post. Also i know that it depends on the context that the "ú" is used too, Maybe someone could confirm the above for me, but i still do think it is a tad one sided at times i have even seen mods thanking "ú" filled posts.

Ssssooooo if people like me "embark on a (mini) crusade" to report mods of lagitimate charter breaching posts it mightn't be a bad thing just so long as i don't go all Captain Hook, and go crusade mad and report every silly little thing, could possablly be a good thing.


Either that or my vodka filled mind is typing gibberish on me again ?!? lol

Zaph

homer_simpson wrote: »

Different mods see things differently one mod my impose an infraction another mightn't, and i suppose i might have been a little harsh on the poor guys, cos in soccer they had a lot to mod, and i'm sure they dont see every post. Also i know that it depends on the context that the "ú" is used too, Maybe someone could confirm the above for me, but i still do think it is a tad one sided at times i have even seen mods thanking "ú" filled posts.

Contrary to popular belief, mods are human, and as such no two will see everything in the same way. We do try to maintain a certain level of consistency, but on a site this size, with the number of mods and user base we have, to have everything exactly the same across all forums is impossible. Now having had a look at the posts you linked to, I'd say the one essential difference between them is that your post referred to a team, and as such can be seen as inflammatory and is specifically banned in the Soccer forum charter. I believe the warning was given not for the swearing part, but for the bit after that. The other two posts refer to the FAI, which is not likely to cause a breach of the peace. It's a fine line though, and obviously different mods saw things differently.

homer_simpson wrote: »

Ssssooooo if people like me "embark on a (mini) crusade" to report mods of lagitimate charter breaching posts it mightn't be a bad thing just so long as i don't go all Captain Hook, and go crusade mad and report every silly little thing, could possablly be a good thing.

Absolutely, reporting posts is a good thing, and as I said, mods welcome it, but only where it's appropriate. A poster reporting ridiculous posts all over the shop ceases to be taken seriously very quickly and is generally seen as more of a pest than being helpful.

CHD

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

The swear filter is there to edit out the swear words. Some though put the U in italics and that as such is trying to get round the filter.

Can someone confirm this? This has blown my mind.

therecklessone

homer_simpson wrote: »

My post was deleted, i basically Jammy Fú........Cú...... (not going to quote the exact phrase as i got an infraction, but i still have it in PM) for winning and they didnt deserve to win...... i was told it was reported as trolling? i thought trolling was something completly different too, but then told by the mod my infraction was for using the Cú... part of my post

Xavi6 wrote: »

Ok I can read the post and tbh it was just a bit OTT.

The reason it was deemed as trolling was because of the bit at the end that wasn't swearing.

I can post the comment here if you want and explain better as I know you can't see it now that it has been deleted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this suggest that the infraction was issued for trolling rather than bypassing the swear filter in itself?

There has never been a prohibition on swearing in the soccer forum as long as I've been posting there, there is a rule regarding abuse of posters/fans/clubs/football personalities that takes use of language into account however.

Perhaps it's best to wait for Xavi to provide some more info on this, or homer to accept his offer in the quoted post above, before we get hung up on the mechanics of bypassing the swear filter and won't somebody please think of the children?

Xavi6

I don't think it's fair for me to speculate as to the exact reasons for the infraction as I didn't give it and don't know what PMs were exchanged between the mod who did give the infraction and the OP.

Spiritoftheseventies

CHD wrote: »

Can someone confirm this? This has blown my mind.

Its no secret really. You can print the word **** and it will be filtered out like here. But if you put it in with u in italics it isn't picked up. I don't do it myself as I don't see the point of going to that extra work of putting a letter in italics and in any case only swear to vent my frustrations occasionally. It's not an affectation and never use it as a term of abuse.

Peyton Manning

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Its no secret really. You cant print the word **** and it will be filtered out like here. But if you put it in with u in italics it isn't picked up. I don't do it myself as I dont see the point of going to that extra work of putting a letter in italics and in any case only swear to vent my frustrations. Never use it as a term of abuse.

Duh. Everybody knows how the swear filter works. Fix your sarcasm detector. That's not the issue that's being discussed here. It's why one user got banned for it, while others didn't. It is, yet again, another issue that doesn't concern you. You do know you don't have to reply to every thread in here dont you? The user was looking for clarification from a soccer mod, not you.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

The way I see it is you got infracted for calling United "Jammy fú**ing c**ts", which is abuse towards the United team/fans, not for swearing alone.

Iago

baz2009 wrote: »

The way I see it is you got infracted for calling United "Jammy fú**ing c**ts", which is abuse towards the United team/fans, not for swearing alone.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this in essence.

I've discussed this with you (homer_simpson) over PM and explained why you were infracted and others haven't been.

to provide complete clarification in case it still isn't clear.

Swearing is not against the forum charter. abusive language towards players/fans is against the forum charter You were infracted because the swear words you used were abusive towards a subset of players/fans. The other posts you reported (that I saw) weren't infracted because they were swear words such as "fcuk sake" or "I can't fcukin believe it" etc.

Now I've been offline for most of the weekend so this doesn't include any recently reported posts (if they are there) because I haven't got back up to speed yet.

homer simpson

Iago wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this in essence.

I've discussed this with you (homer_simpson) over PM and explained why you were infracted and others haven't been.

Sweet good god, saying you have used bold to highlight some stuff so shall I I AM IN NO WAY DISAGREEING WITH MY INFRACTION there are a few people posting here that seem to think that its the purpose of this thread its not......

the puepose of this thread is to figure out why in under god RECENTLY (Iago aimed at you, the two posts we discussed over PM had happened that same hour, and not recently) a lot of these posts with the ú in them to avoid the swear filter have not been infracted, when i have seen others infracted!!!!!!!

Please read through my post a few times before anyone else in here starts to say i got the infraction for "X" and i was right to get the infraction ect, I know why, and i know i was right it isnt the issue please leave the discussion to the issue of the thread.

So i take it that when the soccor mods that have posted here haven't agreed with my previous post, where i thought i had worked it out in my head, i therefore take it that my previous post is wrong then so??????


P.S. Anyone talking about my infraction (soley) will have their post reported for going off topic, and yes im a crabit, and yes i am hung over :pac:


Also i have just noticed that since i posted in here that my sig is too big and has been removed, so for questioning something someone has decided to nitpick and annoy me even more, jes some people are pathetic.....

Peyton Manning

homer_simpson wrote: »

Sweet good god, saying you have used bold to highlight some stuff so shall I I AM IN NO WAY DISAGREEING WITH MY INFRACTION there are a few people posting here that seem to think that its the purpose of this thread its not......

the puepose of this thread is to figure out why in under god RECENTLY (Iago aimed at you, the two posts we discussed over PM had happened that same hour, and not recently) a lot of these posts with the ú in them to avoid the swear filter have not been infracted, when i have seen others infracted!!!!!!!

Please read through my post a few times before anyone else in here starts to say i got the infraction for "X" and i was right to get the infraction ect, I know why, and i know i was right it isnt the issue please leave the discussion to the issue of the thread.

So i take it that when the soccor mods that have posted here haven't agreed with my previous post, where i thought i had worked it out in my head, i therefore take it that my previous post is wrong then so??????


P.S. Anyone talking about my infraction (soley) will have their post reported for going off topic, and yes im a crabit, and yes i am hung over :pac:


Also i have just noticed that since i posted in here that my sig is too big and has been removed, so for questioning something someone has decided to nitpick and annoy me even more, jes some people are pathetic.....

From what I understand, your infraction had absolutely nothing to do with avoiding the swear filter. It was for calling a club "jammy f*cking c*nts", which is abuse and therefore against the charter. The other people who avoided the swear filter did nothing that was against the charter. It's not that hard to understand.

As for your sig, take a look at the SIGPO thread. It was Spiritoftheseventies who reported your post.

Basically you can swear all you fúcking want once you don't use it as abuse towards players/teams/managers and other posters etc.

eg: Big Sam is a cúnt etc

I think I'm correct there?

CHD

rarnes1 wrote: »

eg: Big Sam is a cúnt etc

I think I'm correct there?

Nope, Big Sam is just misunderstood.

Seriously, yeah you have it I think.

Iago

homer_simpson wrote: »

the puepose of this thread is to figure out why in under god RECENTLY (Iago aimed at you, the two posts we discussed over PM had happened that same hour, and not recently) a lot of these posts with the ú in them to avoid the swear filter have not been infracted, when i have seen others infracted!!!!!!!

because the ú is irrelevant unless it's been done in a way that's abusive towards someone.

e.g. "for fúck sake" is fine, "that wánker" isn't

it's about the abusive content of a post as opposed to the swearing and getting around the swear filter.

therecklessone

IIRC, it was myself and LuckyLloyd who teased this out when we re worked the forum charter last summer:

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.

leninbenjamin

I have to say I find enforcement of this rule fairly erratic. Is it for language or is it for abuse? Because this can hardly be called abuse.

Dub13

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I have to say I find enforcement of this rule fairly erratic. Is it for language or is it for abuse? Because this can hardly be called abuse.

Its player abuse and unnecessary aswell,that term 'C*ntley C*nt' adds nothing to a otherwise well made point.

homer simpson

Archimedes wrote: »

From what I understand, your infraction had absolutely nothing to do with avoiding the swear filter. It was for calling a club "jammy f*cking c*nts", which is abuse and therefore against the charter. The other people who avoided the swear filter did nothing that was against the charter. It's not that hard to understand.

As for your sig, take a look at the SIGPO thread. It was Spiritoftheseventies who reported your post.

Okso the i also have another gripe, my signature was removed unfairly, in the OP of that thead you linked you are to receive a PM (copied from the OP) and then its posted to that thread you then have 48 hours to remove it as far as i can count its hasnt even been 24 hours i should have up untill 21.22 on monday evening to alter my sig should i not.

Spiritiftheseventies if your going to be going grassing on peoples sigs i suggest you do it the proper way by sending the person a PM as is outlined in the OP, have you sent all the people you reported PM's? or do you just do it to annoy people / lick up the mods *****? i would like my sig reinstated please, as i havn't saved the page where i got my flikr banner from? or even a pm with the link to it....


Edit can you also report people for back seat modding, just something i want to bear in mind for future referance as one person here seems to do it quite a bit.....

The Muppet

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I have to say I find enforcement of this rule fairly erratic. Is it for language or is it for abuse? Because this can hardly be called abuse.

It may not be seen as abuse on most forums here but Soccer is not or at least going back a few years where I assume this part of the charter stems from was not typical of most other forums.

Personally I wouldn't be offended by the op's comments but at one stage we did appear to have some of the most easily offended souls on the planet posting there. It's all a game really, I have been banned from soccer for saying somones post was idiotic and on another ocaasion for calling a user by their christian name. On the other hand I have been guilty in teh past of playing the same game.

Soccer is treated differently because if normal rules are applied it ceases to function in a way that is acceptable to the admins here.

The current soccer mods are doing a great job. Once you keep it civil you can say really whatever you want, which is as it should be, it hasn't always been that way.

OP you should retract your threat to report every post that uses colourful language as that's not the issue here.

The issue is that someone apparantly found your post abusive and a mod upheld that complaint, I think they both made a wrong call on that, other users will disagree with me and say the mod made the right call.

It's irrelvant really because mods are not going to get every call right , and if everyone that gets infracted follows your threatened course of action it will only damge the forum which IMO is now being run better than it ever has been in my time here. It would be a shame to see it go back to that game where users were constantly trying to get fellow users banned for little or no reason. The only way it works is if each incident is treated as unique otherwise you end up with a forum that is too sanitized and we've been there and nobody wanted that either.

Iago

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I have to say I find enforcement of this rule fairly erratic. Is it for language or is it for abuse? Because this can hardly be called abuse.

seriously? You don't think calling someone, anyone, a c*nt is abusive?

RasTa

The only thing the soccer forum needs is a crackdown on trolls in matchday threads. Instant 24 hour ban. An example of this could be say me posting "lol" after Liverpool lose a match, I should be hit with a ban straight away.

leninbenjamin

Dub13 wrote: »

Its player abuse and unnecessary aswell,that term 'C*ntley C*nt' adds nothing to a otherwise well made point.

Iago wrote: »

seriously? You don't think calling someone, anyone, a c*nt is abusive?

Ah come on, the rule is there to prevent flame wars and derailing threads. Was using that term to show my own personal dislike in a post praising him really going to cause that much consternation? I just think there's an argument the mods of the forum miss the bigger picture at times, but whatever, I'm sure you think the same of me...

edit: I actually meant to add more to my original post but hit submit instead of preview. In short I've received an infraction for calling Busquets a cheating ****. Fair enough. But I've also called him a cheat on plenty of other occasions, the difference being the use of ****. We see abuse of Pat Dolan on almost every match thread he commentates on that goes unpunished. Yet this gets infracted. My point being the infractions seem to be given as much for the use of obscenities as the actual intention to abuse the person question.

Plenty will disagree with me but in my opinion the enforcement of the rules just seems to lack common sense at times. It seems pedantic and systematic rather than really addressing the actual problems of incitement and deliberate trolling that is rampant throughout the forum.

Le King

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Ah come on, the rule is there to prevent flame wars and derailing threads. Was using that term to show my own personal dislike in a post praising him really going to cause that much consternation? I just think there's an argument the mods of the forum miss the bigger picture at times, but whatever, I'm sure you think the same of me...

edit: I actually meant to add more to my original post but hit submit instead of preview. In short I've received an infraction for calling Busquets a cheating ****. Fair enough. But I've also called him a cheat on plenty of other occasions, the difference being the use of ****. We see abuse of Pat Dolan on almost every match thread he commentates on that goes unpunished. Yet this gets infracted. My point being the infractions seem to be given as much for the use of obscenities as the actual intention to abuse the person question.

Plenty will disagree with me but in my opinion the enforcement of the rules just seems to lack common sense at times. It seems pedantic and systematic rather than really addressing the actual problems of incitement and deliberate trolling that is rampant throughout the forum.

Calling someone a cheater and calling someone a cheating **** are totally different things. One is far more serious and insulting than the other.

leninbenjamin

Osu wrote: »

Calling someone a cheater and calling someone a cheating **** are totally different things. One is far more serious and insulting than the other.

Fair enough, but I really don't see much difference between the two, you're basically saying the same thing (i.e. questioning the players integrity).

3hn2givr7mx1sc

But did you really need to add in the 'cúnt' part?
I've never seen anyone go as far as calling Pat Dolan a cúnt, annoying yes.

The Recliner

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Ah come on, the rule is there to prevent flame wars and derailing threads. Was using that term to show my own personal dislike in a post praising him really going to cause that much consternation? I just think there's an argument the mods of the forum miss the bigger picture at times, but whatever, I'm sure you think the same of me...

edit: I actually meant to add more to my original post but hit submit instead of preview. In short I've received an infraction for calling Busquets a cheating ****. Fair enough. But I've also called him a cheat on plenty of other occasions, the difference being the use of ****. We see abuse of Pat Dolan on almost every match thread he commentates on that goes unpunished. Yet this gets infracted. My point being the infractions seem to be given as much for the use of obscenities as the actual intention to abuse the person question.

Plenty will disagree with me but in my opinion the enforcement of the rules just seems to lack common sense at times. It seems pedantic and systematic rather than really addressing the actual problems of incitement and deliberate trolling that is rampant throughout the forum.

More than likely the posts that were actioned were reported and the others weren't

The Mods don't read every post espcially in a fast moving forum and probably just missed them

The Muppet

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Fair enough, but I really don't see much difference between the two, you're basically saying the same thing (i.e. questioning the players integrity).

If there's no difference why use the profanity? Of courses there's s difference. Questioning a players intregrity is not against the rules if worded properly.

5starpool

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Fair enough, but I really don't see much difference between the two, you're basically saying the same thing (i.e. questioning the players integrity).

I think the reason is that the emotive the language, then the more emotive the responses will be and things can get out of hand fairly quickly.

Mr. Presentable

homer_simpson wrote: »

what am i asking for is clarification as to why its seems to be applied in some cases but not in others....

I put it down to this.

The mods don't have time to read all the posts, so are depending to a degree on the posters to self moderate the forum by reporting troublesome posts. The problem for you lies in the fact that the soccer forum is infested with selectively thin-skinned people hovering over your post waiting for you to make a slip.

You know, the kind who quote you and post "goodbye". Joyful post reporters.

But if they were to remark similarly about your club you'd be man enough to ignore it, so you don't report it and the balance looks skewed.

pickarooney

There's a massive difference between calling someone a
'cünt'
'fat cünt'
'lucky cünt'

Similarly,
'bastard'
'black bastard'
'gorgeous bastard'

are in no way related in terms of abusiveness.

Anyone who would deny that is either a non-native speaker or acting in complete bad faith.

SugarHigh

Since it's not against the rules to bypass the swear filter why is it even ****ing there?

Serious question btw

Xavi6

SugarHigh wrote: »

Since it's not against the rules to bypass the swear filter why is it even ****ing there?

Serious question btw

Some forums don't allow you to bypass the swear filter and will actually infract/ban you for doing so.

I doubt it's possible to turn it off in individual forums.

SugarHigh

Xavi6 wrote: »

Some forums don't allow you to bypass the swear filter and will actually infract/ban you for doing so.

I doubt it's possible to turn it off in individual forums.

Fair enough I didn't know that.

Which forums btw and what's the reason compared to other forums.

Xavi6

SugarHigh wrote: »

Fair enough I didn't know that.

Which forums btw and what's the reason compared to other forums.

I'm pretty sure Animals & Pet Issues is one but you'll have to check the charter.

I guess they just want things to be friendly and civil.

randylonghorn

SugarHigh wrote: »

Which forums btw and what's the reason compared to other forums.

Animals and Pets is definitely one as it gets a lot of children viewing; other such forums which attract younger viewers; forums where the community of that forum feel that it simply does not accord well with the spirit of that forum ...

Actually, I would have said that the general culture of Boards frowns on excessive swearing, but that some forums are more tolerant ... rather than the other way round.

Please note however that that is a personal opinion, rather than based on any official pronouncement!

GLaDOS

randylonghorn wrote: »

Animals and Pets is definitely one as it gets a lot of children viewing; other such forums which attract younger viewers; forums where the community of that forum feel that it simply does not accord well with the spirit of that forum ...

Actually, I would have said that the general culture of Boards frowns on excessive swearing, but that some forums are more tolerant ... rather than the other way round.

Please note however that that is a personal opinion, rather than based on any official pronouncement!

I've never gotten a warning about swearing, guess I just hang round the rough areas of boards :cool:

randylonghorn

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I've never gotten a warning about swearing, guess I just hang round the rough areas of boards :cool:

I did say "excessive", I reckon most forums won't jump down your throat for the odd slip (if they did I'd be sitebanned long since! )

pickarooney

I don't consider it bad form in Creative Writing if it's part of a story or poem, FWIW.