IMO Harsh Yellow card in Soccer Forum

amiable

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72050626#post72050626

Hi there please see link above where i received a warning IMO harshly.
I've PM'd the Mod in question and asked him to reconsider and look at it again and explained i didn't mean any harm.
I was hoping to have it reversed if possible.

I'm happy to discuss or provide any more info needed

Khannie

I've reviewed this with the mod. A couple of things:

He offered to get a consensus from the other mods. I think you should have gone with this before bringing it to DR.

In your PM exchange you said:

amiable wrote:

I never stated that Mr Warnock was a wanker i merely stated that was his nickname.

It's much of a muchness. I think a yellow is a fair application of the rules in this case so I wont be overturning.

amiable

Thanks 4 the Fish did offer so i asked another mod (Slick Ric) and he asked T4TF as he agreed it was harsh and would overturn if it were up to him but the T4TF refused so that goes against that offer hence i was adviced to bring it to dispute resolution as he was refusing to consider overturning it.

Hardly fair suggesting i was rushing to dispute resolution?
I tried to do it the right way all along.
There doesn't seem to be much resolution going on here.
Sorry to have wasted your time

Khannie

amiable wrote: »

Thanks 4 the Fish did offer so i asked another mod (Slick Ric) and he asked T4TF as he agreed it was harsh and would overturn if it were up to him but the T4TF refused so that goes against that offer hence i was adviced to bring it to dispute resolution as he was refusing to consider overturning it.

I'm a bit confused here. My understanding was that you were offered the option of having the soccer mods (as a group) examine the yellow but that you declined that option. Is that not accurate?

amiable wrote: »

Hardly fair suggesting i was rushing to dispute resolution?
I tried to do it the right way all along.
There doesn't seem to be much resolution going on here.
Sorry to have wasted your time

I may have misunderstood there. That's the impression that I got (it does happen).

So to give you a bit more detail since it might help: I believed what you said, but I took the mods points into consideration too. If he didn't apply the yellow card on this, there's little to stop someone else saying (for example) I heard that manager x is nicknamed <insert whatever the hell you want here>. It sets a precedent. Was it harsh? Perhaps a little given that I don't think you were calling the guy a wanker directly. Do I understand why the yellow card was upheld by the mod? Yes. Ultimately upholding your card means people can't go calling someone whiskey nose directly or indirectly and getting away with it.

I know it's not the answer you wanted, but I hope that helps somewhat.

amiable

Khannie wrote: »

I'm a bit confused here. My understanding was that you were offered the option of having the soccer mods (as a group) examine the yellow but that you declined that option. Is that not accurate?



I may have misunderstood there. That's the impression that I got (it does happen).

So to give you a bit more detail since it might help: I believed what you said, but I took the mods points into consideration too. If he didn't apply the yellow card on this, there's little to stop someone else saying (for example) I heard that manager x is nicknamed <insert whatever the hell you want here>. It sets a precedent. Was it harsh? Perhaps a little given that I don't think you were calling the guy a wanker directly. Do I understand why the yellow card was upheld by the mod? Yes. Ultimately upholding your card means people can't go calling someone whiskey nose directly or indirectly and getting away with it.

I know it's not the answer you wanted, but I hope that helps somewhat.

I PM'd Slick Ric. I asked him to approach T4TF as he agreed it was very harsh and not worthy of a yellow.
Slick informed me that T4TF was not willing to flex on it.So i thanked him for his efforts.
I don't think i ever directly declined the offer you mentioned.
He has also informed me he considers me a good poster and i contribute well to the forum.

I didn't go down this route lightly.
If i was acting the prick fair enough.
But i genuinely wasn't.

T4TF seemed to have a problem with the fact in my post i stated he was known as such a nickname for a long time AFAIK.

I was merely explaining to a confused poster why he's called such a nickname. And its not the literal meaning but cos his letters when rearranged spell it out.

I know for a fact he knows about the nickname and laughs it off.
I personally feel its overkill

amiable

Above is the first post i opened after my last reply in this thread.
An example of something worse IMO that seems to go unpunished

Khannie

amiable wrote: »

Above is the first post i opened after my last reply in this thread.
An example of something worse IMO that seems to go unpunished

This comes up quite a bit. That post hasn't been reported as far as I can see. The soccer forum is busy enough that the mods can't be expected to read every post. They're relying on people to report posts like that. Sometimes posts slip by that would otherwise be punished (I have reported that post and I fully expect it to be carded) because the posts go unreported.

amiable

Khannie wrote: »

This comes up quite a bit. That post hasn't been reported as far as I can see. The soccer forum is busy enough that the mods can't be expected to read every post. They're relying on people to report posts like that. Sometimes posts slip by that would otherwise be punished (I have reported that post and I fully expect it to be carded) because the posts go unreported.

Fair enough. I also saw one in the Liverpool thread that was potentially libellous.

I was just trying to highlight i guess how unfair i think what happened is.
I never called Mr Warnock anything but if you feel so strongly i'll leave it be.

Khannie

amiable wrote: »

Fair enough. I also saw one in the Liverpool thread that was potentially libellous.

I'd urge you to report stuff like that. It really does help out.

amiable wrote: »

I was just trying to highlight i guess how unfair i think what happened is.
I never called Mr Warnock anything but if you feel so strongly i'll leave it be.

I understand why you think it's unfair. I do see your side of things and it's not that I feel mad strongly about it, I just think it's a fair application of the rules. That's important for keeping things as easy as possible for the mods, especially at the moment. I hope you understand.

amiable

To be honest Khannie i don't understand.
It was extremely harsh IMO and we are goimg to have to agree to disagree.
Feel free to lock the thread as its probably run its course.:)

amiable

Can you look at post 5 in the thread in question and tell me where the fairness is?
Seriously the thread was supposed to be reviewed?

Khannie

Can you link me to the post? edit: I see it, but you can't any more as it's been dealt with. Like I said....stuff does slip under the radar. That's more or less unavoidable. If you bring stuff to the mods attention they will deal with it though.

amiable

Khannie wrote: »

Can you link me to the post?

Its since been deleted by the mods so i'm sorry but i can't.
I went through the thread last night and reported the posts that were referring to Mr Warnock by his nickname

The thread has since been cleaned up.

Khannie

Thanks for reporting the posts.

Admins: I think we're done here.

amiable

Khannie wrote: »

Thanks for reporting the posts.

Admins: I think we're done here.

Thanks for taking the time to look into it anyway Khannie:)

Khannie

No worries. Thanks for being reasonable throughout in the face of what you consider to be harsh treatment. Appreciate it.