Inconsistent and biased moderation in the soccer forum

bucketybuck

- The Manchester United thread remained one of the busiest threads on the board right throughout the tenure of David Moyes and Louis Van Gaal, seasons where United performed extremely poorly.

- The United thread remained very active right throughout the first 2 years of Mourinhos reign.

- Simple logic would suggest that discontent often generates far more discussion than success, after all you can you congratulate a team far quicker than you can explain where it went wrong. And it is also true that the current multi-sided Jose v Board v Players situation will by its nature have people taking different sides and in turn generating more combative discussion.

- Multiple long time posters have explicitly stated their reasons for walking away. Most of the discontent can be traced back to last summer and some very blatant examples of moderator bias being displayed, and then the feedback from that incident being completely ignored. Further bias has been observed on multiple occasions since that incident.

In short, certain people can pretend and claim that the problems highlighted are just a result of United doing poorly if they want, but really, who do they think they are fooling?

Hotblack Desiato

That's a complete load of nonsense Lloyd.

During the Moyes era and the end of the LVG era, traffic went UP not down. What's more likely to provoke discussion than the wheels falling off the wagon on the pitch and an imminent managerial sacking? Will he, won't he be sacked this week, who could replace him etc. etc. There were thousands of posts on exactly that.

Given that most MUFC fans, myself included, expect Jose to be gone before the end of the season it's oddly quiet in there. The reason for this is the rampant trolling, blatant misapplication of the rules and the consequent departure of many long-term posters.

pjohnson

Well the fact that posts asking about why the charter isn't actually followed says a lot about how effective this thread will be.

The_Kew_Tour

This suggestion that they're a balanced and fairness approach really is tosh.

It's apparent too that the Feedback thread every year is just another waste of time and a kinda of 'we care about you' gesture. Just don't bother with it if end result is same year after year.

If you want to pretend it's fair then by all means go ahead. I don't even bother reporting posts really what's the point. Same lads have been at it for years but because a few are pally pally with Mods they get away with it.

Sad thing is it's a minority that's driving away the majority

jaykay74

I notice the trolling of the thread at the weekend was ignored.

LuckyLloyd

There are over 6400 posts in the Utd superthread in a two month period. In the current context of boards.ie that is indicative of an extremely busy thread in the relative sense. But nonetheless, to accept the arguments put forth in this thread we have to ignore the following obvious explanations for discontent / lack of interest from formerly avid contributors:

• The club's declining fortunes - particularly in light of a "can't miss" managerial appointment failing
• The declining traffic on the website as a whole as people move onto other mediums / fail to be replaced by adequate amounts of new members
• A desire for an 'eye for an eye' following the demodding of a Utd fan in the summer

And instead say that, yes, there is biased moderation specifically against Utd fans on the forum even though other soccer forum moderators, C Mods and the Admin team have looked into the matter and - with access to reported posts / sanctions / conversations in mod forums / etc - concluded otherwise. Or if it's not "biased", it's deliberately "inconsistent" to the specific detriment of Utd fans.

Seems far fetched to me.

Liam McPoyle

@Lloyd

Some of your points have already been addressed in detail. Long term posters in the United thread have posted in here and elsewhere and said why they aren’t contributing any more. If you choose to dismiss those then that’s your prerogative, I’m certainly not going to waste my time trying to qualify what others have said just to satisfy you.

In relation to your “eye for an eye” comment.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if I started this thread in a week, a month or a year from now, the same argument would be trotted out. MrMac’s demodding provides a very convenient defence here and it gives admins something to hide behind rather than address what is clearly an issue for a lot of people. The questions I asked from the outset are as yet unanswered and most likely will remain unanswered, other than a fluffy, hand waving non answer.

You are questioning my motivations for this thread. What are your motivations for coming to the defence of fish? You are a long term poster on the soccer forum and a supporter of LFC. Fish is a long term poster on the soccer forum and also a supporter of LFC as well as being a mod of the soccer forum. Could it be that you are trying to protect fish as supporters of the same team and long term posters in the forum? Could it be that you want to keep an extra LFC mod on board because you know they will step on anyone that acts the prick in the LFC thread? Could it be that having someone that has the back of you and other LFC fans on the forum is in your own best interests?

See how easy it is to make things up in order to undermine someone’s credibility while equally questioning their motivations for doing something.

It's not biased. That has been debunked.

Some of the people that complain about trolling are the worst offenders. I seen it as recently as today, a poster moaning about 'visitor' fans in the thread when he himself blatently left a trolling comment in another thread at the weekend.

Going into another thread to troll should be a forum ban, regardless of who you supoort.

Liam McPoyle

RoboKlopp wrote: »

It's not biased. That has been debunked.

Some of the people that complain about trolling are the worst offenders. I seen it as recently as today, a poster moaning about 'visitor' fans in the thread when he himself blatently left a trolling comment in another thread at the weekend.

Going into another thread to troll should be a forum ban, regardless of who you supoort.

Hi roboklopp.

I don't follow.

What has been debunked exactly?

I'll say the same things to you as I said to Lloyd above because coincidently, the exact same pattern applies to you as it does to him.

What are your motivations for coming to the defence of fish? You are a long term poster on the soccer forum and a supporter of LFC. Fish is a long term poster on the soccer forum and also a supporter of LFC as well as being a mod of the soccer forum. Could it be that you are trying to protect fish as supporters of the same team and long term posters in the forum? Could it be that you want to keep an extra LFC mod on board because you know they will step on anyone that acts the prick in the LFC thread? Could it be that having someone that has the back of you and other LFC fans on the forum is in your own best interests?

I've yet to see you, Lloyd, Beasty, Mark or anyone else explain why Adolf Mourinho is card worthy and worthy enough of a card to be upheld at admin level but fraudiola is not even admonishment worthy.

Have you an opinion on that or is it just because?

The_Kew_Tour

Nothing has been "debunked"

Unless you're Stevie Wonder its quiet evident that alarming to see what gets carded and what does not.

Never complained about the few cards I have got but people get away with some awful BS.

Tom Mann Centuria

Not biased, but fuppin hell it's inconsistent.

Liam McPoyle

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Not biased, but fuppin hell it's inconsistent.

My final word on the matter Tom as this is clearly going nowhere fast.

One could argue the inconsistency line if it was a cross section of mods that had carded the posts highlighted. The fact is it was fish that carded United fans for the most minor of transgressions while other posters have not been carded for the same things. The same mod doing the same thing to the same demographic of posters is not inconsistency, it is bias.

Business Cat

Business Cat wrote: »

Hi roboklopp.

I don't follow.

What has been debunked exactly?

I'll say the same things to you as I said to Lloyd above because coincidently, the exact same pattern applies to you as it does to him.

What are your motivations for coming to the defence of fish? You are a long term poster on the soccer forum and a supporter of LFC. Fish is a long term poster on the soccer forum and also a supporter of LFC as well as being a mod of the soccer forum. Could it be that you are trying to protect fish as supporters of the same team and long term posters in the forum? Could it be that you want to keep an extra LFC mod on board because you know they will step on anyone that acts the prick in the LFC thread? Could it be that having someone that has the back of you and other LFC fans on the forum is in your own best interests?

I've yet to see you, Lloyd, Beasty, Mark or anyone else explain why Adolf Mourinho is card worthy and worthy enough of a card to be upheld at admin level but fraudiola is not even admonishment worthy.

Have you an opinion on that or is it just because?

Not defending anyone in particular. The card count by the mod you mention contains no bias.

I thinking the SF can be accused of of having inconsistent moderation on occasion, but tbh that's expected. It's fast moving and mods don't pre moderate every post. They won't see everything.

Regarding your specific post question I don't know why one was carded and not another. Ask in Dispute forum?

I mentioned above someone clearly trolled last night weekend in the Liverpool thread, no action taken. I seen yourself ignore Beastys mod instruction from October last week and post on thread about bias. No action taken.

If anything Business Cat maybe you have been getting away with a lot more than you think.

Rules are clearly set out, no idea why people can't follow them.

Liam McPoyle

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Not defending anyone in particular. The card count by the mod you mention contains no bias.

I thinking the SF can be accused of of having inconsistent moderation on occasion, but tbh that's expected. It's fast moving and mods don't pre moderate every post. They won't see everything.

Regarding your specific post question I don't know why one was carded and not another. Ask in Dispute forum?

I mentioned above someone clearly trolled last night weekend in the Liverpool thread, no action taken. I seen yourself ignore Beastys mod instruction from October last week and post on thread about bias. No action taken.

If anything Business Cat maybe you have been getting away with a lot more than you think.

Rules are clearly set out, no idea why people can't follow them.

The card count shows how poor the conduct of Liverpool fans in general has been rather than mods not showing bias tbh. I'm also not talking about unseen posts, that happens, I've given examples of posts that i personally reported that were not actioned by any mods that are comparative with posts by United fans that were carded by fish. He saw fit to card United fans for things that no other mod, himself included, saw fit to card non United fans for, ergo, bias against United fans by him.

Beasty

Business Cat wrote: »

The card count shows how poor the conduct of Liverpool fans in general has been rather than mods not showing bias tbh.

And this highlights why the forum is so difficult to mod. It's always someone else who's wrong. Maybe if posters recognised they are far from being saints (apologies to any Southampton fans) themselves the forum would not have so many issues

I will repeat what I've already said here. I have seen absolutely no evidence of biased modding (and yes we can all search for examples to show how "right" we must be). I fully accept the "charge" of inconsistent modding though.

Lord TSC

My two cents, for what its worth.

Whether you want to call in "inconsistency", whether you want to aim the blame at specific individuals, the fact of the matter is there's a large contingency of posters, specifically from the Man United superthread, who currently are extremely unhappy with the path the forum has gone in recent times. Whatever these frustrations are borne from, the fact remains that they've been engaged with in a very hostile, aggressive tone from the start, and I'm really not sure to what end.

With all due respect to everyone involved, people have now tried venting these frustrations through the numerous channels boards.ie offers; they've tried to talk about it in the annual feedback thread, tried to deal with it via private messages at various levels, and have tried opening a help desk thread. At every step of the way, the frustrations have been batted away with lazy and, to be frank, insulting responses.

How would you feel if you felt there was a genuine concern, and when you try to raise those frustrations, you're not just dismissed but scolded like a bold child, rather than have your frustrations respected like an adult? Dismissed as simply **** stirring, rather than someone who chooses to engage with this specific site when, to be frank, there's plenty of other options. And let's dismiss the idea that the decline in posting in the United thread is because of current form. While I'm certain that it doesn't help, the reality is that the discussions still continue. Be it Reddit, Twitter, Whatsapp or whatever else, the conversations are still happening. Just not on boards.ie.

From a completely personal stand point, my own drive to contribute to the United thread has been decimated in recent times. I was 8th top poster in the last superthread. 6th in the one before it. 4th in the one before that. That's not me blowing my own horn. It's simply pointing out how active I was in the past three 10,000 posts threads.

I'm currently 32nd in the current thread.

It's nothing to do with United's current form. I posted plenty during the Moyes and LVG era. I've stopped posting because it's just a toxic thread right now. There's multiple trolls allowed to soapbox all day, multiple opposition fans with two dozen warnings who still get in to cause problems constantly. Multiple people who vanish when things are going well but reappear to get digs in when things go wrong. You go in to try and discuss something and it's just the same troublemakers dominating the thread. There's no fostering any new discussions. There's no "moderating" of the discussions. And I'll stress, there's a difference between people who have differing opinions and people who have opinions designed to cause problems. There's users who are obviously differing in their thoughts to me, and there's users who are not there in good faith, aloud to run amok.

The thread is not in any way attractive to discuss anything in right now. And when you try and bring this up, and constantly just get slapped back down, told to shut up and not cause problems...why bother trying to contribute beyond that?

There's reached a boiling point now in the soccer forum. One that's probably been building for years. If boards.ie wants to stick fingers in ears and basically tell people they don't care any more, so be it. But be honest about why there's issues. Don't dismiss it as X or Y. You've got people posting quite frankly. Adults posting, genuinely and honestly. Don't dismiss their frustrations, don't try and say "Oh you're really pissed because....". At least do people the benefit of taking them at face value...

The SF was miles worse 7/8 years ago, completely toxic. Much nicer place to post in now. A few trouble makers were removed and a few others had their wings clipped at that time.

The forum has been relatively free from trouble the past month. It appears that many of the posters who cause issues aren't posting anymore, or maybe they are banned, no idea. Obviously. not referring to you Lord TSC.

Lord TSC

Hi RoboKlopp,

With the greatest of respect, I'm not sure how that post is constructive to the discussion at hand at all. This is not me saying you're not entitled to your opinion. Simply that when a group brings up frustrations with something, having another group coming in with a rhetoric of "Everything is fine, shut up!" does nothing for the discussion at hand.

There's two groups, clearly, involved here. So when you have multiple people in Group A saying there's a (perceived) issue and then multiple people in Group B trying to shut them down, then it only adds to the frustrations. Especially since, let's be honest, IF there was a biasness in favor of group B, then its unlikely Group B will say anything other than "Everything is great."

This was actually a massive problem with the last feedback thread too; Liverpool fans entering the topic with little intent but to shut down the conversation. I'll repeat what I said then too; The aforementioned attitudes of trying to dismiss or shut down any such discussions should really only come from the mods (admins, etc), NOT from other users . Fair play if you guys are happy with everything and don't feel the need to raise any further concerns at present, but stop trying to shut down everyone elses.

Ok, firstly there's nobody trying to shut down conversation, absolutely not me anyway. A balanced debate is required. Some people say the SF is a total mess, when in fact it's actually not too bad. It's far from perfect, but what forum is.

Everything will never be 100% fine with everyone. When Liverpool were doing really badly a number of years ago, and Utd were doing well the shoe was on the other foot. There were a ton of Liverpool fans complaining about biased moderation, and especially trolls infecting the thread. No doubt the feedback threads will confirm this.

From my limited time in the Utd thread it appears you have as many issues if not more with your own fans in the thread than opposition fans. There's currently issues with the Liverpool thread too btw, believe me. There has been for a while.

The current frustrations from some Utd fans appear to stem from a few things that have coincided in recent times.

- Demodding of 'their mod' for trolling. (correct decision)
- Poor performance of their team. (Let's face it, that's not going to last).

Problems posters and precieved bias has been banded about by both sets of fans for as long as I'm posting here.

Just another note, some posters always blaming 'the other side' doesn't wash, and doesn't help. There's always been issues both sides.

LuckyLloyd

The feedback in the thread in the summer and this witch hunt against T4TF both amount to the same thing: looking for reactionary changes to salve short term frustration or anger. This isn't about shutting down discussion or your point of view. I've posted on the soccer forum for 12 years and I just don't agree with you. We've been down these roads before. Your ideas are not novel or new. We don't need a long, detailed, explicit charter that leaves no room for moderator interpretation. Nor do we necessarily mods for each team. Indeed the last point shouldn't matter in the slightest.

In my opinion, what would actually help is open direct discussions about the posters and posts that are annoying people. There's far too much discussing around same all over the place. In the yearly feedback thread, in DR threads, in this thread - and on an ongoing basis in the soccer forum itself with constant snide references to "emotion". There's air to be released, blood to be let. The constant avoidance of that lets whatever grievances and incorrect perceptions to hang around like a bad smell.

Let's put it all on the table, name the names involved, quote the posts involved and have one good open hash out of everything that seems to be annoying people and actively ban the snide insinuations on such topics. That ought to sort a few things out once and for all.

pjohnson

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The feedback in the thread in the summer and this witch hunt against T4TF both amount to the same thing: looking for reactionary changes to salve short term frustration or anger. This isn't about shutting down discussion or your point of view. I've posted on the soccer forum for 12 years and I just don't agree with you. We've been down these roads before. Your ideas are not novel or new. We don't need a long, detailed, explicit charter that leaves no room for moderator interpretation. Nor do we necessarily mods for each team. Indeed the last point shouldn't matter in the slightest.

In my opinion, what would actually help is open direct discussions about the posters and posts that are annoying people. There's far too much discussing around same all over the place. In the yearly feedback thread, in DR threads, in this thread - and on an ongoing basis in the soccer forum itself with constant snide references to "emotion". There's air to be released, blood to be let. The constant avoidance of that lets whatever grievances and incorrect perceptions to hang around like a bad smell.

Let's put it all on the table, name the names involved, quote the posts involved and have one good open hash out of everything that seems to be annoying people and actively ban the snide insinuations on such topics. That ought to sort a few things out once and for all.

That was this years feedback thread. It made no difference in the slightest.

Lord TSC

So, it looks like the mods and admins have decided now to sit back and just let this turn into a United vs Liverpool squabble? Pool fans coming in, being allowed to derail the thread and change the nature of the discussion.

I'll reiterate what I said earlier; when a group of United fans come to those who run boards.ie (at various levels), and the response is a mixture of aggressive dismissal and then silence, what happens next? Trying to let a separate group of fans dismiss and derail this on their behalf is cowardly.

I worry the there's now a hope that the mod team can disregard this thread by trying to convince others "Oh look, there goes the United vs Liverpool squabbles again". Trying to paint this as some childish attempts at point scoring, rather than adults trying to confront an issue to improve it, for the betterment of the community. Especially with a United vs Pool match coming this weekend, you'd have thought there'd be an effort to deal with the issue quickly and efficiently, trying to get it dealt with by Sunday (as opposed to actively fanning the flames now).

The two accusations in retort to points made, to rebuke them again.

1. The lack of activity is because of poor form - Wrong. The conversations continue. Just not on boards.ie. The PLATFORM is the issue. Not the level of discussion. Or do ye think sites like /r/RedDevils are having the same barren spells of people not posting?

2. Its cause of Mac - Wrong. This, to be blunt, is a very easy, and very lazy, excuse to cover the issues. Its also an issue only one side has brought up. The issues being discussed are independent from Mac altogether, and is a lazy attempt at strawmaning a path out of this discussion.

But if the decision has been made to basically sit back and let Pool fans talk on behalf of the boards.ie team, then so be it.

United fans have tried to deal with this in the proper path this site lies out, and have been dismissed. There's still points raised and questions asked in the first few posts that have been ignored and sidestepped.

So as activity drops off a cliff in the United thread, at least be honest with yourselves when conducting the post-mortem. If the site treats its posters as disposable children, then said posters will find somewhere that actually treats them as respected adults.

Steve

Lord TSC wrote: »

So, it looks like the mods and admins have decided now to sit back and just let this turn into a United vs Liverpool squabble? Pool fans coming in, being allowed to derail the thread and change the nature of the discussion.

I'll reiterate what I said earlier; when a group of United fans come to those who run boards.ie (at various levels), and the response is a mixture of aggressive dismissal and then silence, what happens next? Trying to let a separate group of fans dismiss and derail this on their behalf is cowardly.

I worry the there's now a hope that the mod team can disregard this thread by trying to convince others "Oh look, there goes the United vs Liverpool squabbles again". Trying to paint this as some childish attempts at point scoring, rather than adults trying to confront an issue to improve it, for the betterment of the community. Especially with a United vs Pool match coming this weekend, you'd have thought there'd be an effort to deal with the issue quickly and efficiently, trying to get it dealt with by Sunday (as opposed to actively fanning the flames now).

The two accusations in retort to points made, to rebuke them again.

1. The lack of activity is because of poor form - Wrong. The conversations continue. Just not on boards.ie. The PLATFORM is the issue. Not the level of discussion. Or do ye think sites like /r/RedDevils are having the same barren spells of people not posting?

2. Its cause of Mac - Wrong. This, to be blunt, is a very easy, and very lazy, excuse to cover the issues. Its also an issue only one side has brought up. The issues being discussed are independent from Mac altogether, and is a lazy attempt at strawmaning a path out of this discussion.

But if the decision has been made to basically sit back and let Pool fans talk on behalf of the boards.ie team, then so be it.

United fans have tried to deal with this in the proper path this site lies out, and have been dismissed. There's still points raised and questions asked in the first few posts that have been ignored and sidestepped.

So as activity drops off a cliff in the United thread, at least be honest with yourselves when conducting the post-mortem. If the site treats its posters as disposable children, then said posters will find somewhere that actually treats them as respected adults.

Not at all true.

There is ongoing discussion between cmods and admins on how to fix this, we don't have an answer yet because it's an extremely hard nut to crack.

We are not sitting on our hands on this, and welcome any suggestions on how to fix the issue.

hullaballoo

As Steve says, the issues raised in this thread are being discussed with a view to finding some kind of resolution (or as close as we can).

The lack of further admin input isn't an indicator things are being ignored or anything in any way subversive. In fact, my experience of the site is that it usually means we're talking about it.

Not that I'm excusing the apparent radio silence here. One of us should have posted a holding message before now but better late than never.

Attacking Admins and Mods as you have, though TSC, is going a bit far. No problem with you making the point that no further engagement has been visible but it is totally off piste to read into that silence some kind of subversive intent on our part. It goes beyond acceptable, albeit robust, debate and crosses into mud-slinging.

Lord TSC

hullaballoo wrote: »

Attacking Admins and Mods as you have, though TSC, is going a bit far. No problem with you making the point that no further engagement has been visible but it is totally off piste to read into that silence some kind of subversive intent on our part. It goes beyond acceptable, albeit robust, debate and crosses into mud-slinging.

Hi Hullaballo, thanks for the response.

I apologize for "attacking" the mods.

At the same time, please appreciate how frustrating of an experience this has been in recent times. And I'm not talking days, or weeks, or even months.

When you try and raise these issues privately with an admin, and are dismissed immediately as a "trouble making **** stirrer" (despite being a member of the site for a decade and a contributing mod for a large part of it), and then try to use the Help Desk thread, only to continue to have harsh dismissals and derailments thrown at you, please appreciate the frustrations that can build. The discussions to date (not just this topic but over several) have set the tone, and I do apologize if it now feels as if it's gone harsh.

The fact is there's a large contingency of United fans, long term posters, who no longer feel the soccer forum is at all welcoming to facilitate genuine, good-faith discussions, and to feel as if the mods and admins are backing THAT sort of atmosphere with their responses can lead to frustrations bubbling up.

But it's good to hear that it's being discussed, which is more than has been acknowledged before now anyway. Thanks.

hullaballoo

brinty wrote: »

So basically you're now turning your attention to TSC who has in good faith tried to keep the thread on track despite multiple and seemingly coordinated attempts to derail by fans of Liverpool. I don't see TSC attacking anyone in his posts and as a former mod he's trying to help you as a team out but that is seemingly being ignored.

With the greatest respect, I think you missed both the point and the tone of my comment.

Nonetheless, it would be in everyone's interests if you don't involve yourself any further with that aspect of this thread.

hullaballoo

Lord TSC wrote: »

Hi Hullaballo, thanks for the response.

I apologize for "attacking" the mods.

At the same time, please appreciate how frustrating of an experience this has been in recent times. And I'm not talking days, or weeks, or even months.

When you try and raise these issues privately with an admin, and are dismissed immediately as a "trouble making **** stirrer" (despite being a member of the site for a decade and a contributing mod for a large part of it), and then try to use the Help Desk thread, only to continue to have harsh dismissals and derailments thrown at you, please appreciate the frustrations that can build. The discussions to date (not just this topic but over several) have set the tone, and I do apologize if it now feels as if it's gone harsh.

The fact is there's a large contingency of United fans, long term posters, who no longer feel the soccer forum is at all welcoming to facilitate genuine, good-faith discussions, and to feel as if the mods and admins are backing THAT sort of atmosphere with their responses can lead to frustrations bubbling up.

But it's good to hear that it's being discussed, which is more than has been acknowledged before now anyway. Thanks.

Thanks for the apology. I can understand it was borne out of frustration.

I can see that we need to move this issue along now and it may perhaps be best to call it a day on this thread, the views expressed to be considered and a resolution to be discussed.

I am never too keen on closing threads off, particular after an admin submission, so I will leave this open for further comments but I would ask that if anyone is considering commenting further that you do so with civility and, if possible, avoid repeating the detailed points already made herein.

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

Well I think Mick's stats above debunks the "biased" allegation, so let me turn to the inconsistency point

Just on this point, the sheer volume and numbers provided mean SFA in the grand scheme of things. It is the reasons behind the cards that matters most.

You can't argue that bias does not exist because X supporters were carded more than Y, if Y supporters are being held to different standards and being carded for more minor infractions.

LuckyLloyd

I'd like to clarify that I was not posting with an objective to "derail" discussion. It is important to note disagreement with what is posted here however and it is always necessary to remember that contributors to such threads as these are a minority of users. The vast majority of soccer forum posters don't care who's modding their forum or have any sense of history about the place. They're just in there chatting about football. They have no expectation that the place will be a certain way just for them.

Such a reminder may be irritating or uncomfortable, but it is what it is as they say.

Beasty

Just for everyone's information, I'm going to be keeping my eye on things in the forum particularly over the next couple of days (and that's not restricted to United and Liverpool, as Spurs fans can already attest to)

That may well mean a bit more "real-time" action, but it will also rely on posts being reported, and equally I don't want to be distracted by having ongoing debates with posters.

We continue to work on a longer term "solution" in terms of United in particular.

Liam McPoyle

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I'd like to clarify that I was not posting with an objective to "derail" discussion. It is important to note disagreement with what is posted here however and it is always necessary to remember that contributors to such threads as these are a minority of users. The vast majority of soccer forum posters don't care who's modding their forum or have any sense of history about the place. They're just in there chatting about football. They have no expectation that the place will be a certain way just for them.

Such a reminder may be irritating or uncomfortable, but it is what it is as they say.

Hi Luckylloyd.

You are trying to muddy the waters with this post and with previous ones. Not sure if you are completely missing the point of the thread or are just choosing to ignore it.

Myself or other united fans do not care who mods the forum. What we care about is that everyone is given a fair shake in terms of the standard of posting that is expected. If I break the rules then I expect to get carded. If I don't agree with it or think it's warranted I'll take it to the DRP and let the chips fall where they may. I also expect that everyone else be held to the same standard as I am but that is not the case currently. As mentioned, I have reported posts on a par with or worse than the ones I was carded for an no action was taken. Just last week there was a post "who is the biggest gobshyte" and naming Jose and a few other people. I didn't report it as I'm not personally offended by it but it's hard to fathom how it is not in breach of the charter and therefore card worthy, it is clearly abusive / insulting, there were mods reading and posting in the thread afterwards and the last I saw there was no action taken on it yet i get carded for "Small Frogba" because it was INTERPRETED as being a derisive comment on his nationality.

If I called Klopp a gobshyte on thread I wonder what would happen.

Who mods support is not an issue when they act fairly but when one group gets harsher treatment by one mod than other people get then it's difficult to swallow that there is no bias on show.

pjohnson

Beasty wrote: »

Just for everyone's information, I'm going to be keeping my eye on things in the forum particularly over the next couple of days (and that's not restricted to United and Liverpool, as Spurs fans can already attest to)

That may well mean a bit more "real-time" action, but it will also rely on posts being reported, and equally I don't want to be distracted by having ongoing debates with posters.

We continue to work on a longer term "solution" in terms of United in particular.

Thank you. Hopefully this can be a start.

y0ssar1an22

I'm finding this thread quite interesting. could the mods answer the following question please:

mangling a name for comedic effect is against the rules.

Yes or no, and if yes can we establish exactly what the punishment is?

Skylinehead

Business Cat wrote: »

Myself or other united fans do not care who mods the forum.

Well that's clearly not true, as history has shown.

Business Cat

Business Cat wrote: »

Who mods support is not an issue when they act fairly but when one group gets harsher treatment by one mod than other people get then it's difficult to swallow that there is no bias on show.

This is nonsense in my opinion. There is a Liverpool (it really is about Liverpool, right?) thread, started by and throlled by Manchester fans, but at a careful level (slip, slipped etc) where in to my know ledge none got called out. That suggested to me a hands off, not a bias. For me there is definite witch hunt in the past years by a group against a mod.

VW 1

Nixonbot, with respect, there have been many issues raised with regard to how United fans have been treated regarding harshness in terms of following the charter to the letter.

There hasn't been a single instance of a United fan mentioning the demodding of Mac as an issue, and it isn't an issue. Not one that is relevant to the point of this thread.

You're muddying the waters and either deliberately or unknowingly missing the point.

United fans don't want their own mod, they want to be treated in the same manner as other fans on the board.

Liam McPoyle

Nixonbot wrote: »

Well that's clearly not true, as history has shown.

I dont follow, care to elaborate?

Skylinehead

Business Cat wrote: »

I dont follow, care to elaborate?

Wasn't aimed at you sorry, but many fans got up in arms over the Mac thing, purely because he was a United-supporting mod.

Liam McPoyle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is nonsense in my opinion. There is a Liverpool (it really is about Liverpool, right?) thread, started by and throlled by Manchester fans, but at a careful level (slip, slipped etc) where in to my know ledge none got called out. That suggested to me a hands off, not a bias. For me there is definite witch hunt in the past years by a group against a mod.

Is there a rule about starting match threads for a team you don't support because correct me if I'm wrong, a Liverpool fan started a match thread for the City vs United game and another started one for the City vs Chelsea (iirc) game. Have you an issue with those too?

That's all moot anyway and only serves to move away from the issue at hand.

're your last sentence, a witch hunt lasting a number of years. I only became aware of fish over the last 12 months due to me getting and other United fans getting what I feel is special treatment from them. Are you saying that over the last number of years other people have raised concerns over the mod aswell? So a number of different posters, with no connection to eachother have had a problem with how one mod conducts themselves, but everyone else is in the wrong and the one common denominator is completely innocent of any malfeasance? That's a bit of a stretch, no?

Steve

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

could the mods answer the following question please:

mangling a name for comedic effect is against the rules.

Yes or no, and if yes can we establish exactly what the punishment is?

Actually, no.

Something like this is dealt with case by case and there isn't actually a practical way to pen a rule that covers them all.

I've dealt with a few in DRP and they have all had different parameters and different outcomes.

So, to reiterate, there is not a yes or no answer to that question, the only answer I can offer is 'it depends'.

The punishment is, and will always be, at the discretion of the mod and can be anything from a yellow card up to a permanent ban depending on prior history in the forum.

Good rule of thumb to not get sanctioned is to not do it in the first place.

Steve

Steve wrote: »

Good rule of thumb to not get sanctioned is to not do it in the first place.

This, and tbf 99% of posters do.

Liam McPoyle

Steve wrote: »

Actually, no.

Something like this is dealt with case by case and there isn't actually a practical way to pen a rule that covers them all.

I've dealt with a few in DRP and they have all had different parameters and different outcomes.

So, to reiterate, there is not a yes or no answer to that question, the only answer I can offer is 'it depends'.

The punishment is, and will always be, at the discretion of the mod and can be anything from a yellow card up to a permanent ban depending on prior history in the forum.

Good rule of thumb to not get sanctioned is to not do it in the first place.

Hi Steve.

Tom Mann Centuria made a post but it seems to have been deleted. I just want to reiterate what he said. There needs to be more clear cut rules applied as it's the ambiguity that is leading to problems. I take your point about not doing it in the first instance but in this instance I don't believe prevention is better than cure.

I'll use the two most comparable examples.

I referred to Jose as Adolf Mourinho and it was carded by fish. I appealed it and explained why I posted it ie to poke fun at the group of posters on the forum (non United fans) that were constantly digging at Jose. Beasty said he accepted there was no ill intent behind my post but the card was upheld just in case any one that didn't know I was a United fan saw it and thought it was kosher. I didn't and still don't agree with that but it is what it is.

Then there was the city fan that referred to Pep as "Fraudiola" in an effort to poke fun at those posters that had had digs at Pep after his average first season in charge. This was not carded.

Two people doing the EXACT same thing but one faces action and one doesn't.

A clear and defined rule needs to be applied and even more importantly it needs to be applied by the mods.

Im assuming fish was asked why he chose to take a hard line for certain things with United fans but not others?

Id be interested to hear what the response was.

If someone called me out publicly and made an accusation about me that I knew to be untrue then you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be front and centre defending myself. The complete radio silence from the mod in question and the dismissive, non answer responses from others illustrates to me that he and the powers that be see he has been abusing his mod privileges and that it's better to hide behind others and hope it blows over. Would that be about right?

Steve

Business Cat wrote: »

Hi Steve.
A clear and defined rule needs to be applied and even more importantly it needs to be applied by the mods.

Fair enough, could you propose the wording for such a rule?

What would the limits be?

For example (an historic one) would "We're all part of Jackies army" be a rule breach? if not why? who gets to decide on what level of 'name
mangling' is acceptable?

If your answer is 'the mods do' then we're back to square one.

Trigger

Steve wrote: »

Fair enough, could you propose the wording for such a rule?

What would the limits be?

For example (an historic one) would "We're all part of Jackies army" be a rule breach? if not why? who gets to decide on what level of 'name
mangling' is acceptable?

If your answer is 'the mods do' then we're back to square one.

The problem is that the context of such posts are not taken in to account for some users whereas they are taken in to account for others.

BC's examples above use the exact same context, basically defending the manager, they wasn't being used as an attack on the person in the way the likes of Maureen or fat sam etc are used.

These two posts, with the same context, resulted in 2 very different mod actions, one (Adolf Mourinho, used sarcastically by a pro Mourinho poster) was carded and upheld at the DPR level, basically in the DPR ot was stated that it was being upheld because they didnt want to set a precedent where this is allowed. Yet after this DPR a post "fraudiola" wasnt actioned, as far as I know the mods/cmods requested that the user give the context of the usage. No such leeway was given on the Adolf Mourinho post.

That does not just look like an inconsistency tbh

Liam McPoyle

Jackie is a widely accepted variant of Jack so in what world could it be construed as being abusive? It's the same as saying that calling David Moyes Dave is abusive, common sense has to prevail. The mods are in situ because they have shown common sense and have been a positive member of a forum before they were asked to mod, at least that's how it worked when I was modding.

Personally I would have thought that when a term is delivered in a non abusive manner then there should be no call for cards.

Now part of that is dependent on the mod team being active in the forum.

E.g, the City fan that posted fraudiola. Like I said to you when you asked why I reported it, I told you the poster was a city fan and it wasn't card worthy and a card rightly wasn't given, logic was applied.

But I was carded for Adolf Mourinho, logic was not applied by the mod, logic WAS accepted at admin level but was still not applied.

Imo a posters history is massively important in how cards are applied. I had been a huge supporter of Jose prior to the Adolf post but that was completely disregarded. That goes back to my point about mod activity. People can say other wise but I'd be fairly confident that most LFC fans and mods read the United thread daily and vice versa so a clear picture of a poster and their intentions is easy to form.

The unfortunate reality is that due to the heavy handed conduct of fish, the grey area that allows for logic and discretion has to be done away with because in the absence of any kind of explanation, logic and discretion is out the window when it comes to fish and United fans.

So to answer your question, I'd propose something along the lines of

"The altering / amending / deliberate mispelling or changing of an individual's name is in breach of the charter and is a card worthy offence"

It's a sorry day that we have reached this point of hand holding but when mods are allowed to run roughshod and selectively apply the rules then in the interest of fairness to all users, there isn't much choice.

Business Cat, you are focusing on a card above that you received, but it's been pointed out you've been very lucky with other posts that broke the forum rules.

There's a good chance inconsistent modding has saved you a ban. Or maybe they weren't reported.

RoboKlopp

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Business Cat, you are focusing on a card above that you received, but it's been pointed out you've been very lucky with other posts that broke the forum rules.

There's a good chance inconsistent modding has saved you a ban. Or maybe they weren't reported.

Not only are you one of this thread's top contributors (https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=2057931071) but at this point you have fully taken on the tone of a mod now.

Interesting.

VW 1

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Business Cat, you are focusing on a card above that you received, but it's been pointed out you've been very lucky with other posts that broke the forum rules.

There's a good chance inconsistent modding has saved you a ban. Or maybe they weren't reported.

The focus and point of the thread is inconsistency in moderation, hence pointing out these inconsistencies and looking for reasons, or trying to improve the underlying charter is relevant. If you feel aggrieved by BCs posts where he should have been banned, why not throw them up?

Liam McPoyle

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Business Cat, you are focusing on a card above that you received, but it's been pointed out you've been very lucky with other posts that broke the forum rules.

There's a good chance inconsistent modding has saved you a ban. Or maybe they weren't reported.

Hi roboklopp.

I don't believe you are a mod, cmod or admin so im not sure why you are persisting with posting in this thread. You don't think there is an issue with moderation, good for you, others do not agree. 're my post history, I'm just going to repeat what I said to Beasty

I'd be confident that if you went through my entire post history you would find other posts that could have been actioned and some that should have been actioned, not just in the soccer forum.

The same could be said for many other posters in the SF and across the site.

But that means absolutely nothing in the context of this thread. Not a single thing, because the fact remains that fish has targeted United fans and given them cards for things that other people have gotten away with scot-free

In any case, you are one of the last people that should be casting judgement on what others have posted in the SF given your own posting history.

Steve

Business Cat wrote: »

Jackie is a widely accepted variant of Jack so in what world could it be construed as being abusive? It's the same as saying that calling David Moyes Dave is abusive, common sense has to prevail.
...

So to answer your question, I'd propose something along the lines of

"The altering / amending / deliberate mispelling or changing of an individual's name is in breach of the charter and is a card worthy offence"

I'm actually more interested in a solution to this rather than an argument.

What you posted above is contradictory. Either there is discretion allowed or there is a rigid rule. Personally I don't think a rigid rule will work.