Consistency or lack thereof

Iago

Ok, so I figured this thread would probably start up sooner or later. I decided to start it because I have no stake in the event whatsoever and therefore I can give an unbiased and neutral view.

A user has just been banned from this forum for insinuating that the reason Paul Scholes is always forced to travel with the United Reserves for cup matches may be because he is red headed, the actual term used was ginger..as in Ali G "Is it 'cos I is black?" I personally thought it was an off the cuff remark that was fairly harmless. Certainly if I was redheaded I wouldn't have taken offence at it, that may be due to a thick skin or thick head on my part but there you go

The reason for the banning is that the charter states that there will be a zero tolerance policy for abusive/racist comments about other users and/or players...from that point of view I agree with the banning. After all if we let ginger slide then next it will be black, then it will be brit and so on and so forth..However in the same forum I have seen players described as horseface and Shrek for example, and indeed worse without similar action being taken. The charter also states that if a user is banned permenantly for whatever reason then the two users who sponsored the original request will also be banned as a result.

The mod in question has admitted that they are using their judgement to ignore the horseface quotes for now, with a banning if it is used again, and to also not ban the two sponsors in question, both decisions I believe show common sense.

My only question is one that is very close to the hearts of all posters on the Soccer Forum, where is the consistency? if you are going to adopt a policy and stick to it then that's fine, it's when you move the goalposts and only apply the policy when it suits you that you run into problems with users and what is and isn't allowed and what is and isn't acceptable.

My personal opinion is that BolBill was not being abusive, was not inciting others to be abusive and the ban was a bit harsh. There are far worse posts on a daily basis that are likely to cause conflict but go unpunished in here. Just to clarify I don't know who BolBill is, just that I know I would feel very harshly done by if I was in his position. Moderating is difficult at the best of times and probably in this forum more than most, but consistency and common sense in decision making would certainly make the road easier I'm sure. If zero tolerance is the policy, that's fine just be sure that it's enforced in all cases rather than with the moderators discretion.

therecklessone

Jaysus, that's a bit harsh!

Far be it from me to question the mods decision making process, but does this mean that calling Peter Crouch a lanky streak of pi*s is a bannable offence now?

If it was a racist remark I'd support the decision 100%, but as a ginger I'm actually more offended by the suggestion that "ginger" is abusive at all.

The Rooster

I dont think Ginger is an insult. So the banning is a nonsense IMO.

Calling somebody baldy is a little worse, but I still dont think its an insult or racist, its just a fact. "that baldy ref in Italy who's name I cant think of" would surely not be worth banning.

I would have said giving player's nicknames that are not racist is fine too. "Shrek and Donkey" is very funny. I wouldnt call RuudVan "horseface" as I think thats over the line, but I have called him "VanHorsie" which is less a direct insult, but a good nickname (IMO!).

Is it any more of an insult to call Wayne Rooney "shrek" than Jason McAteer "trigger"? Personally I think both are fine. Just nicknames that are not abusive or racist.

BKtje

Hmmz seems over the top to me.

woosaysdan

the banning was a bit harsh and could of been avoided by maybe editing his post or removing it!!! imo it wasnt meant to be racist or abusive in any way it was just a joke reply!!! but the mod in question did say that he was going to take a strict ruling on these kind of comments so lets wait and see how strict he takes them before condemning his decisions

mayordenis

well thats a ****in joke if he had of said something along the lines of i hate all red headed people and i hope they get banned from football mabe justifiable but this is a shambles. if this is the way its going then you must ban all abuse full stop oh and remember this is a football forum a little mild hearthed heckling should be tolerated. now racism is a disgrace, calling someone donkey faced is not racist. and whoever said this wasnt being racist he was implying that scholes had been left out on racial reasons. if i was to inform you that hitler killed people because they are jewish does that make me a racist???????

LegacyUser

take it to feedback. this is not about football.

woosaysdan

or even better take it to the thunderdome!!!

Boro

"Outbursts of personal abuse/racism etc, be it directed at other board members or at Sports people will not be tolerated."

We need to look at what is actually abusive, and what is not. I dont think that calling someone 'ginger' impugns on the ginger race in anyway, nor that it is offensive. I have been called ginger myself many times before (im not!) but never been offended. As someone else said, its only when you combine it with another term such as 'you ginger t**t' etc, is when it becomes offensive - and even then its not the gingerness, or lack of, that is causing the insult.

Personally, i think Talla is taking a way too strict line on this - you have gone too PC mate! But the rules are the rules, and if its going to be enforced once, then it should be enforced all the time. Just hope there arent more bannings for insults/abuse that arent actually insults/abuse.

The Rooster

cheesie, talla said another thread could be opened in this forum on the issue.

boro, I dont know what they're talking about. You're definitely strawberry blonde

Draupnir

sure gandalf knows Alex Ferguson as Sir Alco, alcoholism is no joke, and in this PC mad clamp down zone, could and should be a bannable offense if consistency is to be the norm

talla

In fairness I did say a thread could be opened here or feedback. In regards to the banning, theres nothing wrong with calling someone ginger, but as i've stated in the context it was used its wrong. If he was trying to be funny, then take it to the humour forum. In fairness Bolbill could have been banned for a number of things and has contributed nothing to the forum, there has been several complaints received about his posts before, he had already been warned previously about his one line off topic replies (the reason he was previously banned by another mod). I wont be changing my mind on this but I will leave the thread open for a couple of hours longer so people can express their views. Again if anyone ever has a problem about something posted in any thread, use the report link function.

Draupnir

the context it was used in? there was no context at all. total over reaction and now this context excuse is being used to hide the fact that I reckon you realise you were a bit heavy handed talla.

dont get me wrong, i think your the fairest of the mods in general but this particular banning is a bit harsh.

on the other hand, great to see someone being banned for slagging United players for a change. at least Arsenal have no ginger players or the place would be empty!

Iago

I didn't start this thread to criticise the decision, more to point out that consistency is often the key to success in these situations. If you apply the same rules to everybody then nobody can complain. Abuse someone, you're banned, make a racist comment, you're banned. Doesn't matter if you're here 3 hours or 3 years. Very Simple, very effective and very clear. Everybody knows where they stand.

I think the problem stems from what you define as abusive..

maybe it's because he's ginger
maybe it's because he's a ginger twat
maybe it's because he's a twat
maybe it's because he's a loser and nobody likes him

of these do they all deserve a banning, are they particularily abusive/racist? Some of them are and some aren't in my opinion, but my opinion could be vastly different to somebody elses opinion, doesn't mean either of us is wrong. That's the beauty of opinions, we can each have our own without any of us necessarily (sp) being wrong. Without clear definitions we can't tell whether or not BolBill was being funny, abusive or maybe just trolling...

talla wrote:

In fairness Bolbill could have been banned for a number of things and has contributed nothing to the forum, there has been several complaints received about his posts before, he had already been warned previously about his one line off topic replies (the reason he was previously banned by another mod).

From this it seems to me that perhaps the mods were waiting for an excuse to ban BolBill, a bit like sending Al Capone down for Tax evasion because that's all they could get him on Not that I would accuse anyone of that..and I'm sure that if BolBill hasn't been contributing and has been causing problems then maybe the soccer forum will be a better place without him. Again, clear definitions and punishment would remove the need to even have this thread imho.

SteM

Sure Scholes is known as the ginger prince to United fans!

If you're going to ban Bolbill then fair enough, but this wasn't this thing to do it over imho.

EKRIUQ

B-K-DzR wrote:

Hmmz seems over the top to me.

This remains me of the time I got banned for saying "cricket is crap", and that was on the satellite board!!!. Bolbills comment was an observation of the obvious and Scholes is known for being called a XXXXX . If it was all out abuse or bad language then a permanent ban may be appropriate but in this case the sentance does not fit the crime.

talla

Draupnir wrote:

the context it was used in? there was no context at all. total over reaction and now this context excuse is being used to hide the fact that I reckon you realise you were a bit heavy handed talla.

Em no I've said from the beginning that it was the context in which it was used, its not an excuse that being dragged out now. Again the original quote was from eirebhoy "BTW, why does Scholes always have to travel with the reserve teams in cup games?", Bolbill reply was "may be its 'cause he's a ginger ". As i've already stated in the previous thread it would not be ok to say "maybe it because hes black or a chink(substitute whatever word you want to use). If someone turned around and said that a person didnt get the job because hes ginger again thats wrong, to me what Bolbill said is the same. I personally found it offensive. It may have been a joke etc but this thread wasnt the place for it. Iago theres no problem with what you are saying, a lot of it makes sense. Again I will state there is nothing wrong with pointing out someone is ginger. TippTopp, he was not given a permanent ban for the comment, he was given a permanent ban as this is his second time being banned in a month. If this was his first offence, it would have been a week long ban.

bizmark

Go on the pc police :rolleyes:

WhiteWashMan

i think banning paul scholes for being a ginger is an excellent thing.
in fact, i would much prefer if all gingers were banned, not only from this site, but from this site!

but even if the moderators made a mistake, then hey, what about it?
i mean, its not as if a mistake is ever made at old trafford.......... (*cough* spurs 1, utd 0*cough*)

we just have to move along now please....

Boro

Does this mean now, that for instance - calling Pires a diver - would be considered personal abuse? Or calling Bergkamp 'that blondie' is a bannable insult? Or as someone else mentioned, 'that baldy ref in italy'?

Where does it stop?

As i've already stated in the previous thread it would not be ok to say "maybe it because hes black or a chink(substitute whatever word you want to use).

Purple? Blonde? Tall? Ferrari-owning? Curry-Eater? Farts a lot? Doesnt like the rest of the squad? Short? Wears womens underwear? Used to collect Eagle comics?

In fairness theres a lot of things that could finish off that sentence, and to assume that the structure of that sentence is going to automatically imply abuse, even though a non-harmful word (ginger) was used, is slightly stretching it.

To prevent misunderstandings - why dont you set out a list of forbidden words? Then no-one can argue.

jank

From this it seems to me that perhaps the mods were waiting for an excuse to ban BolBill, a bit like sending Al Capone down for Tax evasion because that's all they could get him on Not that I would accuse anyone of that..and I'm sure that if BolBill hasn't been contributing and has been causing problems then maybe the soccer forum will be a better place without him. Again, clear definitions and punishment would remove the need to even have this thread imho

Very harsh imo too but what can you do boards.ie isnt a democarcy (its a privilage) and what the mods do is un-controlable.


However I think those that sponsored him should be let back in ASAP

talla

just to clarify jank, i havent banned the sponsors, one of them has actually posted in this thread

_blank_

I'd have to agree with the consistency thing, but I have already stated that in the thread where the banning took place.

I was shocked by it to say the least, so I took the trouble to have a look at BolBill's previous posts.

Fact : He got access on 1/12/04

Fact : He has been banned once already

Fact : Second banning in a month = permaban

Now to me, it seems that he was being a nuisance, one line replies that lend nothing to civil discussion of the topic at hand, we can do without that kind of behaviour.

Another thing too, it is posts like the one s/he made that make the various post United game threads slide in to the mire that is ABU -v- United flamewars we have seen of late.

I find the "Horseface" and "Shrek" comments not so much offensive, but they are there to annoy fans of the club said players play for.

for example :

"Horseface at it again" contains a double attack on the player, and is there to rile the United fans two-fold, and they will find themselves defending a player, and dragged in to a flamewar.

What would be better would be "van Nistelrooy accused of diving once more".

Some people can understand "banter", and I have engaged in it myself, especially with other eL fans, with my own CVFC comment, also the $h€£$ thing. It is taken as it is meant - pure banter. Do I now have to review this, I don't think so, as I never remember an eL thread descend in to petty name calling or flamewar.

I think the banning was more of a warning to us all, that any comment that could possibly lead to a flamewar will not be tolerated, as should be the case.

jank

I agree with what you say seansouth but such a harsh line might lead to a stagnation of banter because posters will be "afriad" to say anything bordering on funny or controversial and may lead to users not posting here anymore.

Remember everything has its positives and negatives.

Also it seems to me that there is very little new blood on this board, maybe we should give newbies break but while making sure that they know the rules.

No new blood in this board will lead to a dull soccer board.

Just my 2 cents

_blank_

By the way, fair play to you talla. There's not many Mods who would actively encourage discussion on a banning they have made.

kida

I think it was for the word that was after implied Ginger that got talla going. ('cause he's a ginger ????) I first read that as Ginger C***.

mayordenis

kida no need to put the same reply in 2 threads

talla

kida wrote:

I think it was for the word that was after implied Ginger that got talla going. ('cause he's a ginger ????) I first read that as Ginger C***.

At last someone finally gets what i was referring to !!

Bateman

Bad language is sometimes useful in illustrating a point, is ANYONE on this board really offended by asterisks?

kida

I thought it was obvious.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2272801#post2272801

Assume referring to United as manc scum again will be dealt with.

The Muppet

kida wrote:

I thought it was obvious.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2272801#post2272801

Assume referring to United as manc scum again will be dealt with.

I,m with Kida on this one. the term used was "Ginger ???? " and we can all figure out what the Question Marks stand for. That's in breach of the charter and merited a one week ban. The permanent ban was because this was the Bolbills second ban and he had recieved warnings for other posts and his signature since the first one. Some consistancy is needed as the Scum comment went unpunished recently despite it being reported, I assume that will not happen again.

Under the rules Talla was right to do as he did , now whether those rules right or not for the socccer forum is a different debate but I think we all agree it is more civilised here because of them.

talla

The Muppet wrote:

I,m with Kida on this one. the term used was "Ginger ???? " and we can all figure out what the Question Marks stand for. That's in breach of the charter and merited a one week ban. The permanent ban was because this was the Bolbills second ban and he had recieved warnings for other posts and his signature since the first one. Some consistancy is needed as the Scum comment went unpunished recently despite it being reported, I assume that will not happen again.

Under the rules Talla was right to do as he did , now whether those rules right or not for the socccer forum is a different debate but I think we all agree it is more civilised here because of them.

Has been dealt with. I've given people a chance to voice their opinions, now i'm closing this thread.