Lack of common sense in the soccer forum.

Blatter

I'm starting this thread to highlight what I feel to be a distinct lack of common sense in moderating on the SF. While this is undoubtedly a difficult forum to moderate, there are decisions being made that appear to be adding to the problems rather than taking them away. There have been numerous poster who have become disillusioned with the forum in recent times and I have a feeling that the lack of common sense in the moderation is a contributing factor to this.

There was a case a few weeks ago involving myself when I was infracted for abuse despite the fact I was clearly joking(The guy who I 'abused' thanked my post along with around another 15 people) Anyway the mod that handed me the infraction, acknowledged it was a joke but refused to overturn the infraction. I then contacted another mod(who I won't name) and he agreed that the infraction was unfair. Eventually a compromise was reached whereas if I delete the post, the infraction will be removed. That inferred I shouldn't have posted what I did in the first place which left me disillusioned, and I was annoyed that I had to challenge such a ridiculous infraction in the first place.( I will go into detail about the infraction if requested, but I won't now as it's not my intention to make this about me, it's just an example that I'm using)

This is another example from a few months ago, where I feel common sense should have clearly have been used.

I was also very surprised at this infraction also a few weeks ago.

And again, on Sunday, 7 or 8 posters were banned for a month because a mod used the charted to the letter of the law, when it could have been handled much, much better. See the various threads in dispute resolution for back round.



My intention is not to single out moderators or start some kind of witch hunt but only to start a conversation about more common sense ways in which certain issue coud be dealt with which could lead to less disillusionment amongst posters, less work for moderators and less threads clogging up DR.

A few of those bans handed out were ridiculous imo. The charter is not set in stone, that's why we talk about "the people factor" in modding. Bad call.

What to do? I don't know. I would issue 1 day bans for breaking that particular rule, a month is way too long.

El Weirdo

Blatter wrote: »

This is another example from a few months ago, where I feel common sense should have clearly have been used.

This example was absolutely ridiculous. I remember that thread and amiable had only answered another poster who had asked why Neil Warnock was nicknamed Colin.

IIRC there were several previous posts on that thread that had called him worse and could be considered actual abuse as per the charter but nothing was done about them until I saw the DRP thread and decided to report them myself. I think amiable also reported them. Even then, the posts were only deleted and it seems that there were no other warnings handed out.

flahavaj

I'm involved in one of the cases Blatter quoted in DR at the moment so it would be unfair to the mod and CMod in question to comment on that until its fully resolved.

As a general comment though, the OP has a very good point. Obviously rules are rules but at the same time commone sense could easily have been apkied in the other cases mentioned. Amiable in particular was very harshly treated and I've yet to see anyone except the mod who infracted him who thinks this was fair and just infraction. The fact that amiable dealt with the matter in such a,well, amiable manner is a testament to him and furthers the impression that he's not the type of lad to make a maliciously abusive post. It all goes back to common sense and the lack if it being used in certain cases.

Anothe general observation would be that we are losing so many good posters at the moment on the forum. Mods not using a small bit of common sense is only accelerating this. We have good posters getting punished on needless technicalities and others seemingly allowed to post any kind of bullsh*t they please.

K-9

flahavaj wrote: »

Mods not using a small bit of common sense is only accelerating this. We have good posters getting punished on needless technicalities and others seemingly allowed to post any kind of bullsh*t they please.

I think a slap on the wrist and a mod warning would have sufficed on the superthread, just don't do this again, or next poster to post about the match, gets a month ban type warning.

On the other hand, there's 3/4 posters acting the mick on match threads that should know better.

The don't be a dick rule doesn't seem to be enforced, particularly on match threads.

tbh

I've said this before in another thread, but the problem is that the mods hands are tied by the 5% of posters who believe that their right of expression is greater than any rules or charter.

You will have threads - could be a liverpool thread say, but it applies to any other club, and indeed, any other topic.

95% of the posters are chatting away and can have a bit of banter back and forth - nothing major. Then you get some clown who'll think it's hilarious to post something about bin-dippers, or Whiskey-nose, or how tubridy is a piece of sh1t or whatever.

This annoys everybody else, and they either report the post (25%) or take it on themselves to address the post (75%) and the thread moves from the original topic and now becomes a competition to see who can shout the loudest.

Mods step in, and people start saying "where in the charter does it say that I can't call <player> a scumbag?"

Mods then have to add this to the charter to prevent further carnage.

two months later a poster makes a gentle jibe about a player, and the mods see that no malice was intended, and do nothing. On the same day, someone calls another player a fat prick, and the mods infract him. The second poster goes to the DRP and says "why was I infracted for this, and poster 1 wasn't infracted for his post?"

Mods now have no choice - they can either address every case of abuse, even when they don't have a problem with it themselves, or none.

It's part and parcel of posting in an internet forum chaps.

One of the examples in the OP where the OP says common sense should have been used:

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

I mean - come on. As someone with experience of modding a forum, common sense tells me that if you allow that, you'll never be taken seriously again.

"I didn't say that Suarez was a racist piece of sh1t [he's not by the way ], I merely said that some people think that]

"I didn't say that tbh constantly talks through his arse, I just said that I can see why people would say that"


Most regular posters of the soccer forum never get infracted or banned. Every single one that does can be pointed to a specific rule in the charter that they broke - it's not up to the mods to decide the intentions of a poster who breaks the charter, it's up to the users not to break the charter in the first place.

Otis Driftwood

The bed has been made but now people are complaining about having to lie in it.

Id put the SF as the hardest one to mod on boards,even ahead of AH at this stage.

The addition of various things to the charter is because some posters on there act like children.

Football should be about banter.Stuff like Sir Whiskey Nose,Fat Sam,Fat Frank etc is harmless slagging in my estimation but some posters get up on/have gotten up on their high horse about it so anything like that results in an infraction.

If certain posters didnt act so bloody precious this wouldnt be an issue I feel.

Of course when its stuff like using Hillsborough or Munich in a derogatory manner then the book should be thrown at the guilty party but calling someone fat,stupid etc is,in my humble opinion is a non issue.

The soccer forum mods are damned if they do and damned if they dont.
:rolleyes:

pickarooney

What a bunch of bull**** to ban someone for a month for saying 'nice goal'. Have a bit of cop-on. Do you not realise that this sort of petty, needly rubbish is just going to turn good posters against the mods and the forum and generate loads of needless dispute resolution and bad feeling? If I were in the CMods' position, I'd be very pissed off with having to deal with a half-dozen DRP threads because mods are throwing around insane bans on a whim. Please, have some respect for the people who have to clean up your mess - I'm sure they've better things to do with their time than to mediate on these non-issues.

Handsome Bob

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

If certain posters didnt act so bloody precious this wouldnt be an issue I feel.

That's not the problem in my humble opinion. Look at the forum and you'll find that there are still plenty of posters who manage to walk the line in their banter and winding up of other posters. And that's grand, I think we all engage in a little bit of that, but we use our common sense and don't overstep things.

Chances are that for those infracted, they probably know that their post is risky. If in doubt don't post. I have sympathy with the likes of amiable, but he left himself open with that post about Warnock.

El Weirdo

Handsome Bob wrote: »

I have sympathy with the likes of amiable, but he left himself open with that post about Warnock.

As open as those who actually abused him in the same thread? Did any of those get warned?

I got the feeling that the mods just deleted all the posts just to get it out of the way after they had been reported. A bit of consistency would've been nice on that occasion.

Handsome Bob

El Weirdo wrote: »

As open as those who actually abused him in the same thread? Did any of those get warned?

Well I didn't know about that. To answer your question, I'd hope so.

adox

I too am one of the posters banned for one month for posting in the Superthread when the match thread was locked at the weekend. My post was in reply to Flahs " nice goal by Fletch, surely too late" and my reply was " it is, and dont call me Shirley".

Now for that exchange myself and Flah recieved one month bans under the new rule. I`m fully aware of the new rule but really my interpretation of it was that it was brought in to try and stop any muppetry exchanges that had taken place in match threads, forcing the match threads to be closed, to be continued on elsewhere. Neither myself or Flah(and others who got the same ban) were involved in any of the crap that went on that day that led to the thread being closed. I personally think it was a ridiculous decision to ban myself and others for our posts and is taking the letter of the law to the extreme, so much so that I`m going to take an extended leave from posting in the soccer forum(not just the one month ban I am serving).

With regard to the infraction that Blatter received for his joke post, it was in reply to another poster who initiated it and was a piss take on an exchange that myself and Mr Alan had on the same thread. I took it in the spirit it was meant, taking the piss out of both myself and Mr Alan. It was practically a carbon copy of what Mr Alan posted(but wasn’t joking). If someones going to get infracted for that, or it cant be seen in the context that it was meant then I really do wonder about the standard of modding overall in the soccer forum.

I can only begin to imagine how difficult the modding job is and I realize it’s a voluntary thing. Ive had little or no dealing with mods in my time on boards over the years, as I tend not to get involved in anything that can lead to infractions but the combination of my ban(which I have had a couple of days to digest and not give a knee jerk reaction to)and similar bans to others, along with some other seemingly petty infractions to other posters, while a lot of **** storms seem to go unpunished in the Super threads/match threads has left me disillusioned with the forum as a whole and Ive completely lost my appetite to take part in the forum.

I hope something can be done to bring both sides closer together in the long term and a lot of these issues can be sorted to both parties benefit. Its something that probably has been brewing over the last few weeks and I applaud the OP for bringing the subject up.

mike65

tbh

that was very nearly a excellent post, you fell down on the Colin Wanker bit though. Some people may not know that Neil Warnock can be re-arranged into that nickname and so wondered about the reference to "Colin", clarifying that little mystery should not incur any sort of sanction.

amiable

tbh wrote: »

I've said this before in another thread, but the problem is that the mods hands are tied by the 5% of posters who believe that their right of expression is greater than any rules or charter.

You will have threads - could be a liverpool thread say, but it applies to any other club, and indeed, any other topic.

95% of the posters are chatting away and can have a bit of banter back and forth - nothing major. Then you get some clown who'll think it's hilarious to post something about bin-dippers, or Whiskey-nose, or how tubridy is a piece of sh1t or whatever.

This annoys everybody else, and they either report the post (25%) or take it on themselves to address the post (75%) and the thread moves from the original topic and now becomes a competition to see who can shout the loudest.

Mods step in, and people start saying "where in the charter does it say that I can't call <player> a scumbag?"

Mods then have to add this to the charter to prevent further carnage.

two months later a poster makes a gentle jibe about a player, and the mods see that no malice was intended, and do nothing. On the same day, someone calls another player a fat prick, and the mods infract him. The second poster goes to the DRP and says "why was I infracted for this, and poster 1 wasn't infracted for his post?"

Mods now have no choice - they can either address every case of abuse, even when they don't have a problem with it themselves, or none.

It's part and parcel of posting in an internet forum chaps.

One of the examples in the OP where the OP says common sense should have been used:



I mean - come on. As someone with experience of modding a forum, common sense tells me that if you allow that, you'll never be taken seriously again.

"I didn't say that Suarez was a racist piece of sh1t [he's not by the way ], I merely said that some people think that]

"I didn't say that tbh constantly talks through his arse, I just said that I can see why people would say that"


Most regular posters of the soccer forum never get infracted or banned. Every single one that does can be pointed to a specific rule in the charter that they broke - it's not up to the mods to decide the intentions of a poster who breaks the charter, it's up to the users not to break the charter in the first place.

You took one line from all my posts.
Selective quoting there on your part i feel.

There were several grossly worse posts than mine on the thread that went unpunished.

Somebody asked a direct question why Neil Warnock has a certain nickname.
I merely explained why.
It's not that difficult to understand.

IMO the mod just dug their heels in and refused to budge even though i had the support of other mods(which the mod in question said if i got support from other mods he would reverse the infraction but when i got the support changed his mind)

Blatter

tbh wrote: »

I've said this before in another thread, but the problem is that the mods hands are tied by the 5% of posters who believe that their right of expression is greater than any rules or charter.

You will have threads - could be a liverpool thread say, but it applies to any other club, and indeed, any other topic.

95% of the posters are chatting away and can have a bit of banter back and forth - nothing major. Then you get some clown who'll think it's hilarious to post something about bin-dippers, or Whiskey-nose, or how tubridy is a piece of sh1t or whatever.

This annoys everybody else, and they either report the post (25%) or take it on themselves to address the post (75%) and the thread moves from the original topic and now becomes a competition to see who can shout the loudest.

Mods step in, and people start saying "where in the charter does it say that I can't call <player> a scumbag?"

Mods then have to add this to the charter to prevent further carnage.

two months later a poster makes a gentle jibe about a player, and the mods see that no malice was intended, and do nothing. On the same day, someone calls another player a fat prick, and the mods infract him. The second poster goes to the DRP and says "why was I infracted for this, and poster 1 wasn't infracted for his post?"

Mods now have no choice - they can either address every case of abuse, even when they don't have a problem with it themselves, or none.

It's part and parcel of posting in an internet forum chaps.

Thanks for taking your time to post your 2c, much appreciated.

But I have to say, I disagree with the part I have bolded above. I think abuse can be addressed in individual cases.

For me, it would be very simple. A mod could ask themselves two questions when they see something that could be construed as abuse;

1 - Was it the posters intention to incite a negative reaction/annoy other members of the forum with said abuse?

2 - Did the said abuse actually cause trouble or did it have the potential to?

If the answer is yes to either of those questions, infract the post.

If the answer is no to both of those questions(which it often is), use some common sense and don't hand out the infraction.

You mention that certain posters will appeal their infraction(that they were rightfully given) and point to another post that contains abuse and ask 'why wasn't that infracted?'

Tell them that it was judged that the answer to either(or both) question number 1 or question number 2 above was yes, and the case they cited, the answers were no, hence no infraction.

I'll use the example from the OP;

dahat wrote: »

My dad always said.......what would you expect from a pig only a grunt.........

That was in reference to the 'Tevez refuses to play' thread.

Now, did dahat intend to incite trouble in that thread? No

Did dahat actually cause trouble or could he have potentially have caused trouble in that thread? No

Therefore, don't give an infraction.


Those who use the terms whiskey nose, fat Spanish waiter etc. are going to incite some members of the forum(I personally wouldn't be offended), so then infract them.

---

It's just really infuriating to see people getting infracted on such technicalities when it could be avoided.

People will be afraid and won't engage in light hearted, cutting edge banter when they see people getting infracted for such ridiculous things, and the forum suffers as a result.


Aside from that issue, I just found the one month ban for saying 'nice goal' etc. in the super thread (after the match thread was closed) incredible.

The rule was obviously brought in to stop whatever nonsense that caused the match thread to close in the first place, filtering into the superthreads.

I don't see why the rule isn't something along the lines of 'those who were contributing to the nonsense in the match thread and continue to do so in the superthread after the match thread is locked, get a 1 month ban.'

Again, it just boils down to introducing a bit of common sense.

tbh wrote: »

One of the examples in the OP where the OP says common sense should have been used:



I mean - come on. As someone with experience of modding a forum, common sense tells me that if you allow that, you'll never be taken seriously again.

"I didn't say that Suarez was a racist piece of sh1t [he's not by the way ], I merely said that some people think that]

"I didn't say that tbh constantly talks through his arse, I just said that I can see why people would say that"


Most regular posters of the soccer forum never get infracted or banned. Every single one that does can be pointed to a specific rule in the charter that they broke - it's not up to the mods to decide the intentions of a poster who breaks the charter, it's up to the users not to break the charter in the first place.

The analogies you gave for amiable's infraction are wide of the mark as already explained by Mike and amiable himself.

It was another nonsense infraction where a bit of common sense could have been introduced.

The most disappointing aspect of that infraction was the fact the mod dug his heels in despite clearly being wrong.

The Muppet

Users and Mods who can't tell the difference between banter and abuse have no place in the soccer forum, there is a huge difference.

Admins/Mods should cop on and stop pandering to the complainers , Rivalry/Banter is very much part of being a soccer supporter and can not be modded out of it.

It's a pity the forum has slipped back to this position because it had moved away from it for a few years and was much the better for it IMO.

Being banned for posting "Good Goal" in a team thread is surely not in keeping with the spirit of the rule it broke and the very fact that such a post did break a rule in the soccer forum at all tells you that there is something seriously wrong with the rules.

There are other examples of some seriously flawed Modding/admin decisions made on the soccer forum , No warning Perm bans for users with no recent infractions being an obvious one which smacks of censorship and favouitism IMO but that's for another day perhaps.

Xavi6

Banning posters for finding an alternative to a locked match thread (for an ongoing game) is a joke.

I've received a PM from another poster who fell foul of the same poxy rule and I had a good chuckle at the stupidity of it.

That thread should never have been temporarily locked anyway, as I said in a reported post at the time.

amiable

I just noticed that the 1 month bans handed out at the weekend have been reduced to 2 week bans.

Future bans for the same offence will be 1 week bans.

I still believe personally that is unfair

tbh

amiable wrote: »

You took one line from all my posts.
Selective quoting there on your part i feel.

unintentional - I can see how, given the context, it was a bad example to use on my part.

baddebt

Blatter wrote: »

I'm starting this thread to highlight what I feel to be a distinct lack of common sense in moderating on the SF. While this is undoubtedly a difficult forum to moderate, there are decisions being made that appear to be adding to the problems rather than taking them away. There have been numerous poster who have become disillusioned with the forum in recent times and I have a feeling that the lack of common sense in the moderation is a contributing factor to this.

There was a case a few weeks ago involving myself when I was infracted for abuse despite the fact I was clearly joking(The guy who I 'abused' thanked my post along with around another 15 people) Anyway the mod that handed me the infraction, acknowledged it was a joke but refused to overturn the infraction. I then contacted another mod(who I won't name) and he agreed that the infraction was unfair. Eventually a compromise was reached whereas if I delete the post, the infraction will be removed. That inferred I shouldn't have posted what I did in the first place which left me disillusioned, and I was annoyed that I had to challenge such a ridiculous infraction in the first place.( I will go into detail about the infraction if requested, but I won't now as it's not my intention to make this about me, it's just an example that I'm using)

This is another example from a few months ago, where I feel common sense should have clearly have been used.

I was also very surprised at this infraction also a few weeks ago.

And again, on Sunday, 7 or 8 posters were banned for a month because a mod used the charted to the letter of the law, when it could have been handled much, much better. See the various threads in dispute resolution for back round.



My intention is not to single out moderators or start some kind of witch hunt but only to start a conversation about more common sense ways in which certain issue coud be dealt with which could lead to less disillusionment amongst posters, less work for moderators and less threads clogging up DR.

I got ban for a month before even getting in , I'm at work I don't really have time to read the charter .....................I think we should get in with a charter , and if we then break the charter rules we can be banned , i think its fair ,
since the ban I just have not bothered to even try

LoLth

baddebt wrote: »

I got ban for a month before even getting in , I'm at work I don't really have time to read the charter .....................I think we should get in with a charter , and if we then break the charter rules we can be banned , i think its fair ,
since the ban I just have not bothered to even try

and yet, many users can manage to get access without any issue.

How did you get banned? I cant see any posts made by you in the access request forum or any reference to a ban anywhere...

---

tbh's post is quite accurate in its description of how things progress for moderators. When you have to account, precisely, for every action and any leeway is pointed at as "lack of consistency" the mods hands can end up tied and common sense has to take a back seat. The letter of the charter is forced to take precedence over the spirit of what it was put in place to protect.

@theMuppet :

There are other examples of some seriously flawed Modding/admin decisions made on the soccer forum , No warning Perm bans for users with no recent infractions being an obvious one which smacks of censorship and favouitism IMO but that's for another day perhaps

and if the permabans werent given the admins would be accused of pandering to the troublemakers and making life impossible for the mods by letting consistent low level trolling slide by unpunished. This is currently being discussed in another feedback thread. your opinion and any further discussion would be welcome there.

@blatter:

For me, it would be very simple. A mod could ask themselves two questions when they see something that could be construed as abuse;

1 - Was it the posters intention to incite a negative reaction/annoy other members of the forum with said abuse?

2 - Did the said abuse actually cause trouble or did it have the potential to?

problem with this is you now have infractions/bans based on mod opinion alone and that makes each decision more subject to discussion which means a mod has to spend longer justifying their actions and explaining every step of their thought process for each and every decision. If users accepted a mods decision and trusted that the reason they give is the truth and not some vendetta then the mods could use common sense without needing a charter to back them up 100%. Mods are stuck in the middle, make a judgement call and they have to explain it to the user, then they have to explain it to the cmod/admins - thats the price of transparency and DRP etc etc - and unfortunately this is a lot easier and more efficient to do if the mod sometimes has to put aside their own opinion in favour of the charter.

The Muppet

LoLth wrote: »

@theMuppet :


and if the permabans werent given the admins would be accused of pandering to the troublemakers and making life impossible for the mods by letting consistent low level trolling slide by unpunished. This is currently being discussed in another feedback thread. your opinion and any further discussion would be welcome there.

Low level Trolling ? what exactly is that?

What is the point in putting in place a process of warning, infracting and then banning users if it not applicable to all users? Who choses which users are subject to which set of rules?

amacachi

I fell foul of the ridiculous rule a while back and the mod who banned me stopped replying after a couple of perfectly civil PMs. I'm sure now that certain posters have been affected that there's a much better chance of something changing though.

Mickeroo

I found the rules about not talking about a match on the team thread quite odd, I found myself doing it once or twice without realising, thankfully i think that was before the rule change where it became a bannable offence.

In all honesty the match threads are too fast moving for a proper discussion, I don't see why the fans of a particular team shouldn't be able to talk about the match on the team thread where they can have a proper discussion about tactics, team selection,who's playing well etc. all in addition to the actual match thread. The match threads are rubbish for actual discussion, you have to trawl through pages of "LOL @ United" etc to find a meaningful post, more often than not you miss replies to your own posts and things like that. I don't see why supporters can't hop back and over between match threads and team threads on match day. Just my 2cents.

Now I'm not the most regular poster on there so maybe its just me but just thought I'd say.

amacachi

Mickeroo wrote: »

I found the rules about not talking about a match on the team thread quite odd, I found myself doing it once or twice without realising, thankfully i think that was before the rule change where it became a bannable offence.

In all honesty the match threads are too fast moving for a proper discussion, I don't see why the fans of a particular team shouldn't be able to talk about the match on the team thread where they can have a proper discussion about tactics, team selection,who's playing well etc. all in addition to the actual match thread. The match threads are rubbish for actual discussion, you have to trawl through pages of "LOL @ United" etc to find a meaningful post, more often than not you miss replies to your own posts and things like that. I don't see why supporters can't hop back and over between match threads and team threads on match day. Just my 2cents.

Now I'm not the most regular poster on there so maybe its just me but just thought I'd say.

The one month ban applied only when the match thread has been locked.

amiable

amiable wrote: »

I just noticed that the 1 month bans handed out at the weekend have been reduced to 2 week bans.

Future bans for the same offence will be 1 week bans.

I still believe personally that is unfair

Even a week is too long. 1 day to 3 days for repeated behaviour.

---

We don't want automatic mods, but human mods in pretty much all the forums for this reason and it's pretty well site-wide that Forum Charters are there for guidelines. Why does soccer seem to be different?

Frisbee

You guys crack me up.

Pleading for common sense and that the letter of the law doesn't always have to be strictly adhered to.

Yet I count three seperate posters on this thread who in the past few months have PM'd me after reporting a post to make sure the post was actioned because the poster in question was annoying them with what they were saying and by the letter of the law should be infracted.

The same people here who are crying out for common sense etc are the same people who in 6 months will be saying that people aren't being infracted despite the fact they are breaking rules.

So we apply common sense and keep the rules loose - Moanfest
We apply the rules to the letter of the law with no leniency - Moanfest

I often try and use common sense and apply as much leeway as I can without just letting people off scott free with doing what they want. Usually I'll try give a yellow card instead of a red whenever I can. But then you do that and you have people PMing you asking why this person was treated this way when 18 months ago (I shít you not someone actually trawled back through 18 months of posts a few weeks back to find a similair case that was acted upon differently) someone else got off with a lighter punishment.

I even said to flah when I was PMing him about that month ban that it was a lot considering he wasn't one of the original protagonists to having the thread closed. But someone reported all those posts that clearly broke the rules. Since, I've agreed with the CMods to cut everyones ban in half and reduce the rule from a month to two weeks from here on out. But I suppose that isn't common sense....

Deleted User wrote: »

Why does soccer seem to be different?

Because of the four forums I(ve) Mod(ded) Soccer has the most petulant and quick to anger users.

The Muppet

Frisbee wrote: »

You guys crack me up.

Pleading for common sense and that the letter of the law doesn't always have to be strictly adhered to.

.......


Because of the four forums I(ve) Mod(ded) Soccer has the most petulant and quick to anger users.

Tell them to grow up and stop wasting your time with their petty complaints, you do know it's mostly a point scoring exercise? This sort of nonsense has happened before and had lagely been eradicated, weak moderation is the cause of the problem , pandering to the few who feign indignation at the slightest thing. Mods should know better than to play into their hands.

flahavaj

The number of mods from other fora as well as former soccer mods who agree about the ridiculousness of Sunday's svents is interesting and quite telling.

flahavaj

LoLth wrote: »

problem with this is you now have infractions/bans based on mod opinion alone and that makes each decision more subject to discussion which means a mod has to spend longer justifying their actions and explaining every step of their thought process for each and every decision. If users accepted a mods decision and trusted that the reason they give is the truth and not some vendetta then the mods could use common sense without needing a charter to back them up 100%. Mods are stuck in the middle, make a judgement call and they have to explain it to the user, then they have to explain it to the cmod/admins - thats the price of transparency and DRP etc etc - and unfortunately this is a lot easier and more efficient to do if the mod sometimes has to put aside their own opinion in favour of the charter.

As opposed to the ludicrous situation on the DR forum at the moment when you have rigid adherence to the ruls by a mod leading to both a mod and CMod having to discuss and defend a decision several times over in the one place? There are times when common sense is clearly the easiest option all round - for both users and authority figures. I'm sure Dub13 will never admit it but the current situation that exists there must be a right pain in his hole and one that could easily have been avoided.

DOC09UNAM

flahavaj wrote: »

The number of mods from other fora as well as former soccer mods who agree about the ridiculousness of Sunday's svents is interesting and quite telling.

What are they to do though, they made the rule to stop people being dicks in the match thread, the fact the thread was locked should have been enough to stop people posting but it wasn't...

That said, the fact someone went and reported all those harmless comments is the most ridiculous part of it.

flahavaj

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

What are they to do though, they made the rule to stop people being dicks in the match thread, the fact the thread was locked should have been enough to stop people posting but it wasn't...

If the goal pf the rule is to stop people being dicks then the comon sense approach would be to punish people who continue to be d*cks in other threads. People saying "nice goal" does no harm to the smooth running of the forum whatsoever. Its a needless apllication of the rule.

That said, the fact someone went and reported all those harmless comments is the most ridiculous part of it.

The fact that that is being used to justify the bannings is worse tbh.

DOC09UNAM

flahavaj wrote: »

If the goal pf the rule is to stop people being dicks then the comon sens approach would be to punish people who continue to be d*cks in other threads. People saying "nice goal" does no har to teh smooth running of the forum whatsoever.

To be honest, I do agree with you, they are very silly things to get a banning over, but the rule is there.

The fact that that is being used to justify the bannings is worse tbh.

I just find it petty that someone would report posts such as "good goal", but by reporting them, they put the mods on the spot, and they can either ban people as the rule says, or do nothing.

If they did nothing, we'd still have a feedback thread, just a different person creating it, for the opposite reason.

flahavaj

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

To be honest, I do agree with you, they are very silly things to get a banning over, but the rule is there.

Not al rules need to be applied blindly all the time.

I just find it petty that someone would report posts such as "good goal", but by reporting them, they put the mods on the spot, and they can either ban people as the rule says, or do nothing.

A simple on-thread warning could have sufficed on this occasion surely in the circumstances - the mod appears to have acted (and saves himself a sh*t storm down the line), Pedantic Pete sees that something has been done and the users know that the rule is to be obeyed in future - without a month long ban.

If they did nothing, we'd still have a feedback thread, just a different person creating it, for the opposite reason.

That would mean them revealing themselves as the indiviual petty enough to report all those posts though...........:pac:

Insect Overlord

I've given up on the Soccer forum at this stage, apart from the odd match thread.

Why? Because so many obvious trolls are given total leeway to post total rubbish. They ruin the match threads by winding up one set of supporters or the other. They post inflammatory and inaccurate material in the club mega-threads. They wind good posters up until they snap, and then stand back and survey their damage with pride.

And it's the good posters who suffer. I can't mention specifics (rules is rules) but the patterns I get to see in the Reported Posts forum are very telling. A huge portion of the posts that get brought to attention in there are reported by the trolls, the WUMs and the bullies.

I've decided to give up reading my club's mega-thread. I used to read it a few times a week, catch up with all the news, gossip and educated opinion, but it's too much effort to read it now. The trolls get on-thread warnings. The decent, passionate fans get infractions and bans for telling the trolls where to go.

And then something like this happens, when totally disproportionate bans are handed out to long-term, regular posters. People who enjoy the forum because they get to talk about football/soccer. The posters who enjoy the forum because it's their out-let for trolling are (by and large) still posting there.

Month-long bans for chatting about a goal? Rubbish.
Personal abuse in PI wouldn't get a ban that long.
It's beyond draconian, especially when viewed in the light of pointless on-thread warnings for persistent wind-up merchants.
Cutting two weeks off the bans as some kind of token gesture, as if it's some great favour being done, is not the solution.

/rant

flahavaj

It would be interesting also to hear what punishment was meted out to those who derailed the Match Thread in the first place? Lets not forget they're the ones that really gave the mods a tough day last Sunday and are the ones who can truly be said to have caused the whole situation in the forst place? Any of them currently serving a one month, or even a two or one week ban? Not likely.

Were they dealt with with an on-thread warning and if so could the few of us who carried on a harmless converation on the quality of Darren Fletcher's goal not have been afforded the same level of moderation?

Where's the sense in using a rule dsigned to stop people acting the dick to harshly peanlise people who had no part in said acting the dick, while those who actually were acting the dick receive lesser punishments (if any)?

amiable

I'd also like to know what happened all the posts in this thread that were deleted and if they were infracted?

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



I won't lie. I reported posts in this thread after my infraction in this thread.

K-9

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

What are they to do though, they made the rule to stop people being dicks in the match thread, the fact the thread was locked should have been enough to stop people posting but it wasn't...

True, I always knew match discussion wasn't allowed during match time in super threads.

That said, the fact someone went and reported all those harmless comments is the most ridiculous part of it.

Indeed, I didn't see any harm in the comments, a stern warning from a mod would have sufficed.

The problem is if a rival team supporter sees another set of fans getting away with something.......................... That's the pettiness of many soccer fans!

Blatter

LoLth wrote: »

@blatter:


problem with this is you now have infractions/bans based on mod opinion alone and that makes each decision more subject to discussion which means a mod has to spend longer justifying their actions and explaining every step of their thought process for each and every decision. If users accepted a mods decision and trusted that the reason they give is the truth and not some vendetta then the mods could use common sense without needing a charter to back them up 100%. Mods are stuck in the middle, make a judgement call and they have to explain it to the user, then they have to explain it to the cmod/admins - thats the price of transparency and DRP etc etc - and unfortunately this is a lot easier and more efficient to do if the mod sometimes has to put aside their own opinion in favour of the charter.

I would say the amount of time that is consumed with posters arguing against infractions/bans that could have so easily been dealt with using a bit of common sense, wouldn't be far off the extra time it would take for the mods to implement the common sense in the first place.

The difference is, the forum would be a much better place if the latter was implemented.


Pretty much nobody agrees with the bans handed out to the several users on Sunday afternoon. It was beyond farcical to use the charter to the letter of the law and hand out such an extreme punishment.

---

On another note, just a query about one of the mods.

I have not seen eZe^ post in months. I don't think I've ever seen a mod note from him and it must also be a few months at this stage when I saw the last infraction handed out by him.

Maybe he does a lot of work behind the scenes, maybe he does some work that I just don't see. Maybe he has informed people that he won't be around much for an extended period? I don't know, I guess that's why I'm asking.

I don't personally have a problem with eZe^ by any means, but if there is a mod that hasn't been actively modding for some time now without explanation, maybe somebody else should be given the role?

DOC09UNAM

K-9 wrote: »

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

What are they to do though, they made the rule to stop people being dicks in the match thread, the fact the thread was locked should have been enough to stop people posting but it wasn't...

True, I always knew match discussion wasn't allowed during match time in super threads.

That said, the fact someone went and reported all those harmless comments is the most ridiculous part of it.

Indeed, I didn't see any harm in the comments, a stern warning from a mod would have sufficed.

The problem is if a rival team supporter sees another set of fans getting away with something.......................... That's the pettiness of many soccer fans!

But the thing is, it was both united and city fans reported, so it wasn't even a rivalry thing, just someone being a bit of a nob.

El Weirdo

amiable wrote: »

I'd also like to know what happened all the posts in this thread that were deleted and if they were infracted?

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

+1

K-9

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

But the thing is, it was both united and city fans reported, so it wasn't even a rivalry thing, just someone being a bit of a nob.

Ah right, didn't know City fans had posted in the United superthread during that time.

I don't know, I thought mods often ignored reported posts as there are loads of petty reports! Maybe I'm missing something.

DOC09UNAM

K-9 wrote: »

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

But the thing is, it was both united and city fans reported, so it wasn't even a rivalry thing, just someone being a bit of a nob.

Ah right, didn't know City fans had posted in the United superthread during that time.

I don't know, I thought mods often ignored reported posts as there are loads of petty reports! Maybe I'm missing something.

Nah, think it was fluffy, and she posted in the city thread, so someone went actively looking for the posts to report them.

Frisbee

flahavaj wrote: »

As opposed to the ludicrous situation on the DR forum at the moment when you have rigid adherence to the ruls by a mod leading to both a mod and CMod having to discuss and defend a decision several times over in the one place?

Except for the fact that I cut all your bans in half and in future the ban for breaking said rule will be even less.

I'd love for you to tell me how that is rigid adherence.

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Nah, think it was fluffy, and she posted in the city thread, so someone went actively looking for the posts to report them.

Correct. Said person has also posted in this thread giving out about the rule being ridiculous

This is a big proble in the SF atm. Someone gets infracted and then actively goes and combs through threads they don't eve post in and probably would never even have read in order to report more posts. All it is is pure pettieness...

amacachi

Frisbee wrote: »

Correct. Said person has also posted in this thread giving out about the rule being ridiculous

Rules is rules.

amiable

Frisbee wrote: »

Except for the fact that I cut all your bans in half and in future the ban for breaking said rule will be even less.

I'd love for you to tell me how that is rigid adherence.



Correct. Said person has also posted in this thread giving out about the rule being ridiculous

This is a big proble in the SF atm. Someone gets infracted and then actively goes and combs through threads they don't eve post in and probably would never even have read in order to report more posts. All it is is pure pettieness...

I think Flah meant rigid in the enforcement of the rule not the punishment dished out.
For what it's worth, 2 weeks is still way too much imo.


Also, so now you are encouraging people not to report posts?(for the record it wasn't me that reported the posts)

Also you mention pettiness of reporting posts, I seem to remember you threatening to trawl through everyone of my posts to ensure i get enough infractions.

I was actively encouraged after what i deem a ridiculous infraction by a Cat Mod to report all posts i thought were against the charter and to follow them up.

Frisbee

amiable wrote: »

I think Flah meant rigid in the enforcement of the rule not the punishment dished out.
For what it's worth, 2 weeks is still way too much imo.

But yet when we don't enforce another rule rigidly we'll have the same people who are calling out for common sense and leeway within the rules giving out because something they don't like is happening. We have to be even across the board.

amiable wrote: »

Also, so now you are encouraging people not to report posts?(for the record it wasn't me that reported the posts)

I'm not encouraging people not to report posts. Reporting posts is fine. But it's 15 minutes after you've infracted someone and all of a sudden you get 12 reported posts from them in threads they never ever post in is where the pettiness comes from.

amiable wrote: »

Also you mention pettiness of reporting posts, I seem to remember you threatening to trawl through everyone of my posts to ensure i get enough infractions.

EDIT: Think I've just found the PM I reckon you're referring to. Here's what I said:

Frisbee wrote:

Hey,

I've looked through that thread for signs of backseat modding and if I'm going to take a stance on that you'll be receiving another two infractions which will you see get a ban from the forum for a month or so.

So I was trying to save everyone a bit hassle and you a ban. I'll get on it now though.

So here you are in this thread crying for Mods to use a bit of common sense.

Yet just a few months ago when it didn't effect you, you were giving out to me that I wasn't applying the letter of the law to other people.

You'll also notice that I applied common sense there and no-one was infracted.

Either you're all for common sense or you want the rules applied strictly. You can't pick and choose your stance depending on whether or not it is going to effect you.

El Weirdo

Frisbee wrote: »

We have to be even across the board.

If this is the case, tell us what happened to the posters that directly called Neil Warnock a wanker in the thread where amiable was infracted.

Frisbee

From what I can see amiable and one other were infracted as well as someone else infracted for referring to Ferguson as Whiskey Nose.

fwiw I wouldn't have given an infraction for amiables post there tbh.

amiable

Frisbee wrote: »

But yet when we don't enforce another rule rigidly we'll have the same people who are calling out for common sense and leeway within the rules giving out because something they don't like is happening. We have to be even across the board.



I'm not encouraging people not to report posts. Reporting posts is fine. But it's 15 minutes after you've infracted someone and all of a sudden you get 12 reported posts from them in threads they never ever post in is where the pettiness comes from.



EDIT: Think I've just found the PM I reckon you're referring to. Here's what I said:



So here you are in this thread crying for Mods to use a bit of common sense.

Yet just a few months ago when it didn't effect you, you were giving out to me that I wasn't applying the letter of the law to other people.

You'll also notice that I applied common sense there and no-one was infracted.

Either you're all for common sense or you want the rules applied strictly. You can't pick and choose your stance depending on whether or not it is going to effect you.

I actually want common sense but seeing as some mods were not willing to show it IMO i wanted consistency hence my PM to you.
It's actually not that difficult to understand

Also it's not total bollocks like your original post declared before your edit.
I have no reason to lie on here.
I've accepted infractions in the past from you with no fuss.
The Carefree one springs to mind

FWIW i don't think i've personally trawled through threads i don't normally post in looking for posts to report.
I did report posts i normally wouldn't have bothered reporting after my infraction

amiable

Frisbee wrote: »

From what I can see amiable and one other were infracted as well as someone else infracted for referring to Ferguson as Whiskey Nose.

fwiw I wouldn't have given an infraction for amiables post there tbh.

Are you able to tell us why the other posts were just deleted without being infracted?

The Cat Mod told me in no uncertain words the other posts most certainly should be infracted.

I was encouraged by mods from other forums to get an Admin to look into it as i had an excellent case.

Yet it seems one Mod of the soccer forum dug their heels in while several others thought the infraction was OTT