Banned from soccer

nullzero

I have been banned from the soccer forum by a moderator who is a Liverpool supporter for engaging in a civil discussion with another Liverpool supporter.

This type of moderation is deplorable and I feel the moderator needs to be reigned in immediately.

nullzero

I wish to appeal all the cards received in the soccer forum over the time cited by the moderator.

The last two before this one were ridiculous in nature, I was carded for an exchange with another fan who agreed my being banned was ridiculous. The one before that was also extremely OTT. I have to dig back to the last card but I will post in course.

nullzero

This cannot be resolved with moderator, they are being obstinate and sarcasticly wished me luck with dispute resolution.

Beasty

You had the opportunity to challenge earlier yellows, and resultant bans, at the time they were issued. If you were genuinely concerned at that time, why did you not appeal the 2 week ban you got then? To try and appeal those over 6 months later is unreasonable

I note your comments that you attempted to resolve this directly with the mod, and will alert the CMods to this thread

nullzero

Beasty wrote: »

You had the opportunity to challenge earlier yellows, and resultant bans, at the time they were issued. If you were genuinely concerned at that time, why did you not appeal the 2 week ban you got then? To try and appeal those over 6 months later is unreasonable

I note your comments that you attempted to resolve this directly with the mod, and will alert the CMods to this thread

As the bans were relatively brief I went through them without feeling too upset. I agree that it is pushing things to raise those issues now, but they were extremely daft bans that have added up with todays situation make for a bigger problem.

For one of those issues I have PM's from the person I supposedly "insulted" saying that the reaction was OTT.

Anyway, thanks for your time.

Steve

Hi I'll take a look.

Per your opening statement -
"I have been banned from the soccer forum by a moderator who is a Liverpool supporter for engaging in a civil discussion with another Liverpool supporter."

Please point me to to the said "civil discussion" and send on any pms relating to this matter that you exchanged with the mod.

I am not going to entertain previous actions, you moved on, didn't complain and continued to post in soccer so I don't see them as relevant.

nullzero

Steve wrote: »

Hi I'll take a look.

Per your opening statement -
"I have been banned from the soccer forum by a moderator who is a Liverpool supporter for engaging in a civil discussion with another Liverpool supporter."

Please point me to to the said "civil discussion" and send on any pms relating to this matter that you exchanged with the mod.

I am not going to entertain previous actions, you moved on, didn't complain and continued to post in soccer so I don't see them as relevant.

The moderator deleted the post that he sanctioned me for. I asked him why and he didn't respond to that question.

His argument is that I was back seat modding when I wasn't attempting to imply the other poster needed to be disciplined in any way. I merely engaged in a conversation with them when they were posting in a completely hypocritical manner. I never stated that they should be punished by the moderation staff or that I would choose to punish them myself.

The poster in question, according to the moderator received a thread ban (of which I wasn't aware) from the United thread for continously posting in a provocative manner.
They then posted in the Liverpool thread stating that United fans are all small minded, small time etc... I happened to see this and just thought I'd engage in some banter/discussion about what he was saying in relation to this previous comments.
I was respectful to him, and I was respectful to Liverpool. At least one other Liverpool supporter stated that his behaviour in the United thread was OTT and that they couldn't defend him as a fellow Liverpool supporter in light of what he had said there.

Ultimately I feel the accusation of back seat modding is way to harsh. I merely stated a fact, the poster was winding people up and their attempt to take the moral high ground wasn't legitimate.
It was simple banter between opposing fans. We all get reminded of things we've said previously when we're being hypocritical, that isn't back seat modding.

The mod stated that he would be sending the PM's on yesterday. I'm not sure if he did this or not.

Steve

Hi, I need some evidence that you attempted to resolve this with the mod first and they refused per DRP.

Please post the pm's and replies here or forward them to me.

Cheers.

Steve

nullzero wrote: »

His argument is that I was back seat modding

According to what I can see, the warning leading to the ban was "Accusations of trolling are in breach of the charter."

Can you please clarify what you are appealing as well.

nullzero

Steve wrote: »

According to what I can see, the warning leading to the ban was "Accusations of trolling are in breach of the charter."

Can you please clarify what you are appealing as well.

I'm appealing the notion that I was accusing the poster in question of trolling, or engaging in back seat modding.
I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of his posting in the face of what he had been saying previously. I at no point questioned the validity of him being allowed to do so.

Pointing out how somebody is contradicting themselves isn't accusing them of being a troll, it's a part of having a discussion. We're all adults here, surely we can all understand that there are shades of grey and not simply black and white.

If I had posted saying that the poster was trolling and should be punished I wouldn't have a leg to stand on here, but that isn't what I said.
People regularly remind each other of things they've said in the soccer forum and across the site in general, it's part of what makes being a member of the site engaging.

I wasn't accusing the poster of anything, I wasn't proposing they should be censored, I wasn't being disrespectful or abusive.
The mistake I made was to point out blatant hypocrisy from a Liverpool fan in the Liverpool thread whilst a Liverpool fan was moderating.

Steve

Your post was:

You don't agree with that?

Just look through your posting history, you're the one constantly in there sewing the seeds of doom for United and talking about how Liverpool are "doing things the right way" and talking about small mindedness from United fans.

Just get over yourself Lloyd, you're a complete wind up merchant, and you have the nerve to attempt to take the moral high ground when the boot is on the other foot.

You seem to have an agenda here - " blatant hypocrisy from a Liverpool fan in the Liverpool thread whilst a Liverpool fan was moderating." , not going to happen.

One more chance to demonstrate that the mod did not follow procedure. Thanks.

nullzero

Steve wrote: »

Your post was:




You seem to have an agenda here - " blatant hypocrisy from a Liverpool fan in the Liverpool thread whilst a Liverpool fan was moderating." , not going to happen.

One more chance to demonstrate that the mod did not follow procedure. Thanks.

I haven't been abusive to anyone, I haven't engaged in back seat modding, I haven't accused anyone of trolling.
I pointed out somebody being a hypocrit, I've had it happen to me before and it's something I have had to accept.

I don't agree with the assertion that I was engaging in what I was accused of.

Are you telling me that it is not acceptable to remind another user of things they've said?

If you think I have an agenda because I'm pointing out a bias I and other users have encountered on the soccer forum then there isn't much I can do to change your perception of me or what I'm saying.

Ultimately, my perceived agenda aside, is it accurate to say that I was engaged in back seat modding? This is what I was told I received the ban for. As for the moderators procedural accuracy after the point of the alleged back seat modding, that is an issue for site staff, I can only comment as I have done repeatedly on the accusation made against me, that I was back seat modding, which I have clearly demonstrated that I was not engaging in.

Steve

nullzero wrote: »

I haven't been abusive to anyone

I haven't engaged in back seat modding

I'm not looking at either of those

nullzero wrote:

I haven't accused anyone of trolling

I pointed out somebody being a hypocrit, I've had it happen to me before and it's something I have had to accept.

I don't agree with the assertion that I was engaging in what I was accused of.

Are you telling me that it is not acceptable to remind another user of things they've said?

In certain circumstances it can be done , but mostly it's disruptive and does not contribute positively to any discussion.

Again, I'll ask you one more time to provide me with some evidence that you tried to resolve this per the process or I will simply dismiss this appeal.

nullzero wrote: »

If you think I have an agenda because I'm pointing out a bias I and other users have encountered on the soccer forum then there isn't much I can do to change your perception of me or what I'm saying.

Ultimately, my perceived agenda aside, is it accurate to say that I was engaged in back seat modding? This is what I was told I received the ban for. As for the moderators procedural accuracy after the point of the alleged back seat modding, that is an issue for site staff, I can only comment as I have done repeatedly on the accusation made against me, that I was back seat modding, which I have clearly demonstrated that I was not engaging in.

Not relevant to this appeal. There are clearly defined ways you can raise these points.

nullzero

Steve wrote: »

I'm not looking at either of those



In certain circumstances it can be done , but mostly it's disruptive and does not contribute positively to any discussion.

Again, I'll ask you one more time to provide me with some evidence that you tried to resolve this per the process or I will simply dismiss this appeal.



Not relevant to this appeal. There are clearly defined ways you can raise these points.

I was banned for back seat modding.

Can my actions be seen to be back seat modding?

I spoke to the moderator who made it clear that he was not interested in entertaining any discussion on the subject. He stated he was sharing the PM's we exchanged with the relevant admins, did this happen? If not I can forward them to you.

Is this the process you are speaking of?
Is there some other process of which I am not aware?

At the moment I'm confused by what you are saying to me.

If you state clearly whether you believe my actions were in line with the moderators perception of them, I might be able to understand what's going on here.

As things stand I am being issued an ultimatum that I'm currently unable to comply with because I don't fully understand it.

nullzero

"It is in this part of the charter.

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

Examples of back-seat modding include:

Calling someone a troll"

The above is taken from a PM the moderator sent me, explaining to me that I was engaging in back seat modding, which I was banned for.
You previously stated that you weren't looking at the issue of back seat modding, unfortunately it is the crux of the argument.

nullzero

"If that is the game you are playing then as I said, I will not overturn and your best chance is DRP. Our conversations are now complete on this topic, I have notified admins to expect your DRP and will be sharing all PMs in line with the DRP process."

That is the PM I received which stated the full PM conversation would be shared. If this hasn't happened, let me know and I'll send them on.

Steve

To be crystal clear,

I need you to send me the pm's you had with the mod so I can compare them with what the mod said happened.

I don't expect there to be a difference - sometimes there is and that means one side of the appeal is not being 100% honest.

Once I get that out of the way, I can then move on to removing either sides opinion and focus on the remaining facts.

Please send me your record of the pm's.

If you deleted them, no problem, just say so.

nullzero

I've forwarded them to you.

Steve

Thanks, I didn't get through them all today, will hopefully do so tomorrow.

nullzero

Steve wrote: »

Thanks, I didn't get through them all today, will hopefully do so tomorrow.

No problem.

nullzero

I sent on the PM's as requested seven days ago. Has any progress been made in this time?

Beasty

Sorry nullzero, but Steve's not been online for over 4 days. If he does not get back in the next 24 hours I'll either get one of the other CMods to look at this or do so myself

nullzero

Beasty wrote: »

Sorry nullzero, but Steve's not been online for over 4 days. If he does not get back in the next 24 hours I'll either get one of the other CMods to look at this or do so myself

Thanks, much appreciated.

Beasty

Still no sign of Steve, so I have had a look at this.
The post you were carded for

You don't agree with that?

Just look through your posting history, you're the one constantly in there sewing the seeds of doom for United and talking about how Liverpool are "doing things the right way" and talking about small mindedness from United fans.

Just get over yourself Lloyd, you're a complete wind up merchant, and you have the nerve to attempt to take the moral high ground when the boot is on the other foot.

You are accusing another poster of being a "complete wind-up merchant". That's basically saying the other poster is a troll. And in turn that's back-seat modding, and indeed the forum charter states

Frisbee wrote: »

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

Examples of back-seat modding include:

• Calling someone a troll.
• Telling a poster not to post in a thread, or they should post elsewhere
• Telling a poster you have reported their post (effectively accusing them of a breach of the charter)
• Commenting on a breach of charter
• Informing a user that you have/will be putting them on your ignore list. Advising others to do the same.

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

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

This is a clear breach of charter and I can find no fault in the mod's approach here. I am therefore upholding the card. The ban follows automatically under the forum totting up process

If you wish to make any further representations then fire ahead. As I'm acting in the CMod capacity here, you have the right to appeal my decision, and another Admin can then review this

Thanks

nullzero

Beasty wrote: »

Still no sign of Steve, so I have had a look at this.
The post you were carded for

You are accusing another poster of being a "complete wind-up merchant". That's basically saying the other poster is a troll. And in turn that's back-seat modding, and indeed the forum charter states


This is a clear breach of charter and I can find no fault in the mod's approach here. I am therefore upholding the card. The ban follows automatically under the forum totting up process

If you wish to make any further representations then fire ahead. As I'm acting in the CMod capacity here, you have the right to appeal my decision, and another Admin can then review this

Thanks

Firstly, thank you for dealing with this issue.

I think I'm only wasting my own time here.

I have stated that I was not accusing the other poster of being a troll.
If you want to read my explanation and continue to appropriate what I said as meaning that I was calling them a troll there's little point in me repeating myself.

My experience with this process has been,from my perspective, confusing.

The moderator who issued the ban informed me that he had sent all relevant PM's on to the relevant admins which I can only assume wasn't something that happened (was it expected I might change the content of the messages or did he not send everything required? Was this a test of honour, a means of seeing if I would attempt to lie to curry favour?)

The issues I raised about the context of what I said weren't addressed, so we've reached a conclusion where I have expressed what the intentions of the post in question were which I can only assume to appropriated as lies and pressed ahead with your own interpretation.

As a result of this I can only conclude that the appeal was a waste of my time (having to copy and paste a series of PM's for seemingly no reason) to send on to somebody who didn't manage to respond (I understand he hasn't been here for four days, but he had three others days of being online after receiving them to scan over them).

The issues I raised about a pro Liverpool attitude on the forum is something I stand by.
I can appreciate certain issues shouldn't be made light of (Hillsborough, Munich Air disaster etc...) but if the word "slip" is used in a manner that is deemed to be derogatory towards Liverpool fans (referencing Steven Gerrard slipping and losing the league title a few years ago), action is taken, its a big no no.

The moderator who issued the ban has a reputation amongst forum users as being extremely pro Liverpool and as being keen to clamp down particularly harshly on United fans, especially those who make the mistake of veering on the Liverpool thread.

Ultimately I have to accept the decision. When the ban expires I'll go back to mostly just reading the forum threads and only posting in the United super thread and match threads.
Clearly the soccer forum has become a place where civilised discussion can at any time be seen as breaching its rules and isn't worth expressing opinions on or attempting to engage with people whose opinions differ from your own in.

Again thanks for your time, I wanted to reiterate my feelings towards how this situation was dealt with, it was a long winded self indulgent rant I agree but one I felt justified in writing.

Take care of yourself, all the best.

nullzero

Lastly, I think it would be a good idea to update the soccer charter to include a glossary of words and terms that are out of bounds rather than relying on interpretation going forward.

hullaballoo

Do you wish to have Beasty's decision reviewed by another administrator?

Beasty

Unfortunately the nature of the Soccer forum is that even if I overturned this on the basis of what you claim was your intent we would then find this term being used regularly with the defence that it was allowed in the DRP

Equally it is simply not possible to cover all angles in the forum charter. As I'm sure you are well aware there is an obsession at present with posters sometimes trying to claim a simple typo is "mangling a name for comedic effect". There has to be some discretion, as there are plenty of regulars in that forum that try to twist every decision in the DRP to their advantage

Either way though, a "WUM" in the Soccer forum will always be considered a troll. Hence it's quite clear that anyone reading your post is likely to draw the conclusion you were accusing the other user of being a troll. That is explicitly prohibited in the charter as quoted above

As I have already explained you are free to seek a further opinion from another Admin. My knowledge of and involvement in issues surrounding the Soccer forum can be seen as both an advantage and a disadvantage. I know most of the tricks, and equally I will support the mods when they clamp down on certain behaviour. Another Admin looking at this with fresh eyes could adopt a different position. The right to a further appeal is part of the DRP and you can request this if you wish

EDIT: Apologies but hullaballoo posted as I was drafting this reply. I will now withdraw from the process pending your decision on whether you wish to appeal further

nullzero

hullaballoo wrote: »

Do you wish to have Beasty's decision reviewed by another administrator?

Considering what Beasty has said below it appears that it would be a waste of time, owing mostly to any possible positive outcome for me setting an unwanted precedent for Soccer forum DRP cases in the future.

Am I correct in saying that?

nullzero

Do these threads not usually get locked and marked as resolved?

dudara

You haven’t answered clearly if you want an Admin review or not. It would be great if you can give a Yes/No answer. Thanks

nullzero

dudara wrote: »

You haven’t answered clearly if you want an Admin review or not. It would be great if you can give a Yes/No answer. Thanks

Why is there a necessity for me to reply clearly when the question I posed wasn't answered?

It was spelt out to me that any positive outcome for me would result in an unwelcome precedent being set for future dispute resolutions from the soccer forum. What I took from that was that any review would reach the same conclusion, I asked was that correct and the question wasn't answered.

If there is a chance that I am incorrect in saying the review would reach the same conclusion then I'd happily ask for a review.

As it stands all I can do is assume that what I said is correct, and therefore a review would be pointless.

I feel I've been hard done by, but I'm not going to waste anyone's time in asking for a review to be carried out that isn't worth wasting time on.

I appreciate you don't want to set an unwelcome precedent and there is no scope for my ban being overturned, I'd just like you (collectively) to tell me straight (if my assumption is correct) that the review isn't worthwhile in light of the precedent issue that was previously raised.

I honestly thought this thread was going to be locked, that's the only reason I posted as I thought someone had forgotten to do that.

dudara

Any review carried out will be independent, that’s all I can promise you.

I can’t promise any result, as the review hasn’t yet been carried out.

nullzero

dudara wrote: »

Any review carried out will be independent, that’s all I can promise you.

I can’t promise any result, as the review hasn’t yet been carried out.

I'm not expecting anything to be promised to me, I'm not that entitled.

I understand that the review would independent, but surely the issue of precedent would weigh heavily on anyone carrying it out. If that is going to be an issue then the review would simply be wasting the admins time.

dudara

Do you want an Admin review or not? If you do not answer in the affirmative, I will close this thread and mark as resolved. You’ve have several offers from two different admins at this stage.

nullzero

dudara wrote: »

Do you want an Admin review or not? If you do not answer in the affirmative, I will close this thread and mark as resolved. You’ve have several offers from two different admins at this stage.

Yes, fire ahead. I'm kind of curious to see what the outcome will be.

dudara

I’ll take on the review, but it will be a day or two before I can sit down properly to look into it. Hope that’s OK?

nullzero

dudara wrote: »

I’ll take on the review, but it will be a day or two before I can sit down properly to look into it. Hope that’s OK?

No problem at all.
My only concern is that it isn't a waste of your time.
Thanks for taking it on and for your efforts to come as well as your time thus far.

nullzero

The below post was made in the Liverpool thread on
12/05/2019 23:45

I'm posting this here as it references "wumming" which I am told is seen as back seat modding(in this case not referencing an individual but a perceived group of people, which is within the remit of a moderators duties).
I am curious to see if any action is taken against this post, in the Liverpool thread by a Liverpool fan. As I cannot access the forum whilst logged in I cannot report it.
I felt it was relevant, even in a tangential manner to my own situation.

Avatar for klose
klose
Registered User
You'd be wasting oxygen/key strokes/brain cells etc engaging anybody who holds the notion that we bottled the league, its obvious wumming and the best part is you know its coming from behind extremely gritted teeth.

For ourselves, well what a great season league wise, disappointing to finish on 97 and not win it but City where just that fraction better than us and you have to hold your hands up and congratulate them.

So another three weeks untill the main event, our record after breaks away aint pretty we seem beyond sluggish and seem like a team that needs to play every 3-4 days so a three week break is far from ideal but hey spurs are in the exact same position.

Up the reds, season ain't over yet!"

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057977444/312

dudara

Apologies for the delay in getting to this. Life has been quite busy recently.

I don't understand why you posted the above last post. It is not relevant to your appeal. The DRP process focusses solely on your appeal, and the actions of others are not relevant here.

I've had a look at your post in the Soccer forum, and I have to admit that at first glance it didn't appear too bad. But part of the appeal review process is to look at the forum rules and norms in order to determine if the sanction was appropriate.

In your case, there is a clear charter section on the topic of back seat modding, and your post falls squarely into that category. Your post is a very clear callout on another poster's motives. That is back-seat modding and therefore a breach of the charter. When you suspect someone's motives, the standard process in the Soccer forum (and on Boards in general) is to use the Report Post function.

Can you understand why I have come to this conclusion, and can you offer any defense or mitigating factors that I should consider before I conclude on this? I am offering you this chance because I am well aware of the implications on you should I choose to uphold the card (and hence ban).

nullzero

dudara wrote: »

Apologies for the delay in getting to this. Life has been quite busy recently.

I don't understand why you posted the above last post. It is not relevant to your appeal. The DRP process focusses solely on your appeal, and the actions of others are not relevant here.

I've had a look at your post in the Soccer forum, and I have to admit that at first glance it didn't appear too bad. But part of the appeal review process is to look at the forum rules and norms in order to determine if the sanction was appropriate.

In your case, there is a clear charter section on the topic of back seat modding, and your post falls squarely into that category. Your post is a very clear callout on another poster's motives. That is back-seat modding and therefore a breach of the charter. When you suspect someone's motives, the standard process in the Soccer forum (and on Boards in general) is to use the Report Post function.

Can you understand why I have come to this conclusion, and can you offer any defense or mitigating factors that I should consider before I conclude on this? I am offering you this chance because I am well aware of the implications on you should I choose to uphold the card (and hence ban).

I maintain that what I said was not intended as back seat modding.
I would never assume to engage in such behaviour and dislike being labelled as having engaged in it.
However as the rules allow for this interpretation to be made I really don't see how I can hope to change anyone's mind.

The post I made displayed somebody using the same terminology that I did and not receiving any sanction. I am currently banned from the forum and as such could not report it.
The reason I posted it was to show how there is an uneven use of the charter on that forum.
It is relevant to my appeal inasmuch as it highlights how I have been censored for saying something that somebody else has been allowed to get away with.

To be honest, this whole process has shown me that the soccer forum is somewhere where any sort of debate amongst people with opposing opinions is futile, particularly if you aren't a supporter of the club the most active(seemingly) moderator supports. This hasn't been an isolated incident, and my appeal against my older bans wasn't entertained (which is fair enough) but those bans were laughable. I can appreciate people can get heated in soccer discussions, but I don't engage in abuse, I feel that the forum is little more than a collection of echo Chambers at this stage.

I appreciate you taking the time to look over it for me, thanks again.