nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Soccer

Shanotheslayer

Hi,

Firstly I'd like to awknowledge that I'm posting this prematurely as I'm awaiting mod confirmation on if the card is being upheld. I'm away for the next week and would be unable to copy paste the PMs.

I was carded for the following post.

''1) If you think Boomer is an insult I have some bad news for you

2) If you think it's possible to have an intelligent debate or argument with somebody who is a hypocrite within a few days. I also have some bad news for you.''

PM discussion is as follows

''

Moderator Note

This post and your previous one were needlessly patronising and condescending. Attack the post; not the poster. Please raise the standard of your future posts.''

My response :

''I'm sorry what?

Since when are either of those reasons against the charter?

I'll be appealing this. So let me know if you plan to rescind.

1) No insult was used

2) Increase the standard of my posting? Lol are you joking ? There's posters that get way with blatant trolling every day. Despite when I report them

3) I didn't attack the poster. It was said I couldn't have an intelligent debate. I quoted a poster contradicting himself and said it's not possible to do that if person is like that.

Thanks

''

Can this be reviewed? 'Boomer' is not an insult, it was said tongue in cheek as the poster originally stated he did not post in ''Hypteticals'' I quoted a post in which he created a hypetical. Which was blatant nonsense.

My follow up post which maybe the MOD missed was as follows

Persons post
Player awards are subjective and everyone is entitled to their opinion but around here if the opinion is different a certain few get quite upset about it.

My reply:

They absolutely are subjective and he is entitled to it. Nobody is getting upset, I asked a question and he responded with nonsense so in response I posted something at his level.

By all means think De Ligt was better but if poster is going to say ' I don't deal with hypoteticals, but what he meant to say was '' I don't deal in hypoteticals where it will say something positive about Liverpool' If you want to talk about childishness address that moreso.

Also I'm not sure why we're even having this discussion. It's 3rd party stuff.

In response to the Hazard post - Good call,forgot he won the EL

If saying the words 'I have some bad news for you' is condescending and card worthy might as well post nothing. Half the forum is condescending at times
along borderline trolling and nothing is done.

Thanks.

Kind Regards,

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Steve

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Can this be reviewed?

Indeed it can but you need to discuss it with the mod first.

If you are away for a week, so be it. Post back when you have done so and we'll take a look.

Shanotheslayer

Steve wrote: »

Indeed it can but you need to discuss it with the mod first.

If you are away for a week, so be it. Post back when you have done so and we'll take a look.

Mod got back to me. He is not removing the infraction.

Steve

OK, Thanks for that.

I'll get in touch with the mod and discuss their reasoning behind the card.

Steve

Hi Shanotheslayer, I've heard back from the mod concerned.

You were carded for this post:

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

1) If you think Boomer is an insult I have some bad news for you

2) If you think it's possible to have an intelligent debate or argument with somebody who is a hypocrite within a few days. I also have some bad news for you.

Which was preceded by you instigating the spat with this post:

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Ok Boomer

According to the internet, where we are residing in the context of this dispute, the following seems to be a good definition.

wikipedia wrote:

The phrase "OK Boomer" is a pejorative retort used to dismiss or mock perceived narrow-minded, outdated, negatively-judgemental, or condescending attitudes of older people, particularly baby boomers.

The mod's comments to me on it included:
"Ok Boomer is at best a patronising remark. I consider it along the lines of calling someone a snowflake or similar. While initially those kind of remarks were not that bad, the most recent connotations associated with their usage are not particularly good."

As regards the forum rules, the mods opinion is that this was directed at another poster and not at their opinion.
This breaches both the abuse and trolling rules and I agree with that summation.

I'm not seeing any reason to overturn the mod decision in this case and am upholding it.

Per DRP rules, you may appeal my decision to admin if you wish, please let me know.

Shanotheslayer

Hi,

So by that logic the card should be applied to ok boomer and not the following post?

I was carded for being condescending and patronising. This is not against the charter.

If you wish to charge the card reason by all means do so and I can appeal that reason.

As far as I'm concerned condescending and patronising is not a breach of the charter.

Steve

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Hi,

So by that logic the card should be applied to ok boomer and not the following post?

I was carded for being condescending and patronising. This is not against the charter.

If you wish to charge the card reason by all means do so and I can appeal that reason.

As far as I'm concerned condescending and patronising is not a breach of the charter.

You were carded for an accumulation of the two posts, it happened to get applied to the latter one.

The semantics are not up for debate, what you posted was perceived as a rule breach, I reviewed it, got both sides of the story and made my decision.

Finally, please refer to this in the SF rules:

The moderators will not only be looking at the word of the charter when reviewing posts but at the spirit in which a post or a number of posts are made.

Please advise if you wish to appeal.

Shanotheslayer

Yeh I'll appeal please.

What you deem semantics is not semantics at all. It's either a rule breach and 'boomer' is considered "personal abuse" or it's not. The "Spirit" of the post was said tongue in cheek as if you look at the previous post it had a :pac: emoji in it. So if you want to consider spirit into the equation then that should be considered.

Had I said " Ok Boomer :pac: " the spirit" of the post is changed?

As I said before. Condescending and patronising are not a breach. If that's the case I'd start reporting half the posts.

Steve

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

As I said before. Condescending and patronising are not a breach.

That's your opinion, mine differs and so does the soccer mods.

I shall flag this for an admin to look at.

Shanotheslayer

Steve wrote: »

That's your opinion, mine differs and so does the soccer mods.

I shall flag this for an admin to look at.

No problem thanks!

Beasty

I'll have a look, but it may be tomorrow before I get a chance to look at the background

Shanotheslayer

Beasty wrote: »

I'll have a look, but it may be tomorrow before I get a chance to look at the background

No worries.

Beasty

It was made clear that the card was issued in the context of both posts. Of course the mod could have issued 2 cards in light of that, but only issued the one. Which post it was issued against is irrelevant if the mod makes it clear (as in this case) that it was for an accumulation of posts

Hence going back to that first post, what did you mean by "OK boomer"

Just to add something else - being condescending and/or patronising would be considered uncivil anywhere on the site. It does not have to be spelled out in any individual charter. The Site FAQs state:
"Comment on the post not the poster"

Shanotheslayer

Beasty wrote: »

It was made clear that the card was issued in the context of both posts. Of course the mod could have issued 2 cards in light of that, but only issued the one. Which post it was issued against is irrelevant if the mod makes it clear (as in this case) that it was for an accumulation of posts

Hence going back to that first post, what did you mean by "OK boomer"

Just to add something else - being condescending and/or patronising would be considered uncivil anywhere on the site. It does not have to be spelled out in any individual charter. The Site FAQs state:
"Comment on the post not the poster"

Beasty, as a user of the soccer forum. You know full well condescending/patronising/sarcasm is used daily and no cards are ever issued.

As said previously had I said "OK Boomer :pac:" would this have been OK? Because of the "Spirit" of the post.

In regards to your part of the post about having to be spelled out in the charter, I'll think you'll find that 90% of the After Hours post are condescending or patronising and it's never considered "Uncivil"

As I've said previously I fail to see what part of the charter I broke. Is it " attack the post not the poster"? So the word "boomer" is the insult?

Could have issued 2 cards? For what exactly? You mention context again for those 2 posts yet fail to regonize the post previous or the post after. So take that context as a whole.

Beasty

I know full well what's permitted in the Soccer forum. You overstepped the mark. It may be that others have got away with similar stuff, but that does not make it acceptable

I'm upholding the card

Shanotheslayer

Beasty wrote: »

I know full well what's permitted in the Soccer forum. You overstepped the mark. It may be that others have got away with similar stuff, but that does not make it acceptable

I'm upholding the card

Fantastic consistency.