Soccer Forum Feedback Thread 2015

MythicalMadMan · 10-06-2015 03:16PM

O ya if we could card people who read one superthread see their team mentioned and go back to their own and label a whole set of supporters obsessed.

Mainly cause its makes them look a bit silly.

Shanotheslayer · 10-06-2015 03:27PM

My biggest issue with the match thread is when reading something mid game, then the next 20 posts to scroll through are all

'goallllllllllllllllllllllllll' etc etc

Alas, we've all done it in a big game etc and I realize nothing can really be done about it

K-9 · 10-06-2015 03:36PM

adox wrote: »

Ah the humour thread is great. I love it. I dont get why people think it is trolling when pics a re posted in there that may not be acceptable in superthreads.

You arent allowed to reply in the humour thread as far as I know so you cant really be trolling, being that a troll is usually looking for a reaction.

Its called the Humour thread for a reason.

This very thread shows they do get a reaction, though this is the thread to discuss it.

In fairness if somebody is using a humour thread to indulge their obsessiveness about a rival club, well everybody will see through it. Some of the thanks might be more of the laughing at you variety than with you. Everybody is in on the joke really.

Washington Irving · 10-06-2015 06:11PM

dfx- wrote: »

The Humour Thread is also very popular among those who read the forum but may not post with over a million views - more than any of the Superthreads.

True, but probably mostly down to the humour thread being open for three years now while the main superthreads have been only going a few weeks/months.

darced · 10-06-2015 08:05PM

This post has been deleted.

BMMachine · 10-06-2015 11:29PM

so its the one thread that can break the site-wide rule of no trolling?

duffman13 · 10-06-2015 11:41PM

BMMachine wrote: »

so its the one thread that can break the site-wide rule of no trolling?

Ah seriously let it go. If you think that thread is trolling avoid it. It can be somewhat funny sometimes, a lot of them don't do it for me but it's worth scrolling through the crap to get the good stuff. It's not trolling to have a light hearted dig at someone doing poorly.

Every club is on the end of them over time. You did bring up a few in poor taste the other day that were trolling. Report them and let the mods do the work. If trolling posts are reported then the mods can act and over time we will reduce the number of planks blatantly trolling.

The Moldy Gowl · 10-06-2015 11:46PM

BMMachine wrote: »

so its the one thread that can break the site-wide rule of no trolling?

Report it to the admins or feedback or wherever so.
You won't get your answer here. But at least you won't be flogging your dead horse here.

Al Capwned · 11-06-2015 12:01AM

I joined here in 2011.
There has been a huge improvement in the quality of posters and the quality of modding in the intervening period imo.

A clamp down on blatantly obvious wum's and the continued contributions of some really good posters, right across the whole forum, have all been part of the reason for this.

i'm not sure if I'd change anything about the lot of it tbh, the humour thread is fine, the match threads are a bit mental but easily avoided, and the baiting between certain posters is being kept in check. The boards SF has escalated to probably the first port of call for all football news, opinions, commentaries and stories.....

For me, if it ain't broke.....

Washington Irving · 11-06-2015 12:32AM

The word trolling is being bandied about far too loosely in this thread.

bucketybuck · 11-06-2015 08:34AM

Washington Irving wrote: »

The word trolling is being bandied about far too loosely in this thread.

Agreed. The humor thread isn't trolling in any meaningful fashion, its just the message board equivalent of fans in the stadium chanting silly songs at each other.

Pro. F · 11-06-2015 10:20AM

8-10 wrote: »

So change the charter rule then! If it's ok to disregard that one then it's sending a message that the charter rules are flakey and open to interpretation. If you say something will not be tolerated then you have to follow through for the integrity of the charter.

If things have changed and it will now be tolerated, then remove it - simple.

I'd prefer it removed than enforced but I didn't think that was an option, all I'd say is that it can't work both ways - you can't make that statement in the charter and then not pull people up for doing it after agreeing to abide by the charter - makes no sense

I agree. The rule is a mess and needs to be removed:

Specific matches, major transfers and major news stories are not the purpose of superthreads. PLEASE keep this discussion to the Match Threads/Matchweek threads or discussion threads that are created. NO MATCH INCIDENT DISCUSSION WILL BE TOLERATED IN SUPERTHREADS.

The idea that no match discussion will be tolerated in the superthreads is obviously nonsense. The idea that major transfers or incidents should only be discussed in specifically designated threads is obviously nonsense. Yet this paragraph states these things explicitly.

The mods might say "Sure what's the problem, we use discretion", but that's not good enough. This is a rule which is creating a grey area rather than adding any clarity.

Mods and posters come and go all the time. Each new user has to interpret the charter, so it needs to be clear and logical. That paragraph fails on both counts.

Lucas Hood · 11-06-2015 10:34AM

Have to agree with that .scrap the rule completely or enforce it fully.

K-9 · 11-06-2015 10:45AM

I'd trust the mods discretion on it, after all as largely agreed, they are doing a good job.

As with many rules it's there as back up, if needed. If it's scrapped the opposite can happen and the ruled lawyers will say there's nothing in the charter and they'd have a point.

It is a rule that can't and isn't enforced to the lettef of the law, but is useful if threads are over lapping and super threads aren't fulfilling their purpose.

The Moldy Gowl · 11-06-2015 10:47AM

If you can't discuss match tactics or plays or incidents from previous matches on the thread during the week, the threads would die Monday to Thursday.

Lucas Hood · 11-06-2015 10:57AM

K-9 wrote: »

I'd trust the mods discretion on it, after all as largely agreed, they are doing a good job.

As with many rules it's there as back up, if needed. If it's scrapped the opposite can happen and the ruled lawyers will say there's nothing in the charter and they'd have a point.

It is a rule that can't and isn't enforced to the lettef of the law, but is useful if threads are over lapping and super threads aren't fulfilling their purpose.

Gav one of the mods is regularly discussing Chelsea games in their super threads. Him handing out warning/cards/bans for others doing the same is hypocritical.

Pro. F · 11-06-2015 11:00AM

K-9 wrote: »

I'd trust the mods discretion on it, after all as largely agreed, they are doing a good job.

As with many rules it's there as back up, if needed. If it's scrapped the opposite can happen and the ruled lawyers will say there's nothing in the charter and they'd have a point.

It is a rule that can't and isn't enforced to the lettef of the law, but is useful if threads are over lapping and super threads aren't fulfilling their purpose.

The rules lawyers already have an equally valid point that this part of the charter is constantly ignored by the mods. Nobody can currently get a card for match discussion in superthreads, because it wouldn't survive the DRP.

Trusting the mods is an extremely bad idea since the staff will always be changing.

GavRedKing · 11-06-2015 11:02AM

Lucas Hood wrote: »

Gav one of the mods is regularly discussing Chelsea games in their super threads. Him handing out warning/cards/bans for others doing the same is hypocritical.

Ive said it before, outside of Pool and Utd, nearly every other team has match discussion in their thread, Chelsea, Arsenal, City, Celtic, Villa etc etc.

I've also not seen anyone carded for breaching the rule in my years of modding the forum, that rule is more of an insurance on the forum IMO and is pretty much a last resort warning.

I'd say the best example I could give is think back to the Suarez v Evra incident, to stop discussion in both Pool and Utd superthreads we could say keep the discussion to either the match thread for the incident or more like, setup a specific thread to deal with the incident and as per the charter we'd have something to fall back on incase someone kicked up a fuss.

That rule is rarely enforced but it was also mentioned earlier in this feedback thread that for the other teams that dont setup a match thread, to setup an EPL weekly match thread, like the LOI games have and let everyone post in there if they wish, which IMO, is a good idea and one we should probably implement for the coming season.

Mickeroo · 11-06-2015 11:09AM

If there's no actual match thread then discussing the match in a relevant superthread doesn't actually breach the rule, this flies over a lot of people's heads it seems. The majority of matches don't generate enough interest to warrant their own thread this is why you often see match discussion in superthreads outside of Liverpool and United where their fan bases are so big even a pre season friendly will generate a decent amount of discussion.

K-9 · 11-06-2015 11:12AM

Lucas Hood wrote: »

Gav one of the mods is regularly discussing Chelsea games in their super threads. Him handing out warning/cards/bans for others doing the same is hypocritical.

Common sense would say Chelsea often wouldn't have a match thread do where else do they chat about it....

PhlegmyMoses · 11-06-2015 11:13AM

Instead of a blanket ban in the charter then, stick in a couple of lines that state that the mods reserve the right to move the discussion to the match thread if it begins to take over the superthread. Because it makes no sense for the 5 or 6 City fans or 10 or so Chelsea fans here (for example) to create a match thread for every game.

I think if you outright got rid of the ban, the match threads for United and Liverpool would be redundant as a decent number of posters seem to only want to engage with other members of the tribe and would just stick to the superthread instead.

If you want to discuss things with like-minded supporters only, away to a fan forum with you.

K-9 · 11-06-2015 11:13AM

Pro. F wrote: »

The rules lawyers already have an equally valid point that this part of the charter is constantly ignored by the mods. Nobody can currently get a card for match discussion in superthreads, because it wouldn't survive the DRP.

Trusting the mods is an extremely bad idea since the staff will always be changing.

You can't mod a forum by zero tolerance on every clause in a charter. In my forum we do it on maybe 2 particular things.

LuckyLloyd · 11-06-2015 11:14AM

People are really digging to find a major problem, kudos on the effort.

I'll be honest, this is the new 'club specific forums' idea. Weather the storm.

Mickeroo · 11-06-2015 11:15AM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

People are really digging to find a major problem, kudos on the effort.

I'll be honest, this is the new 'club specific forums' idea. Weather the storm.

Obligatory "Why do Tottenham have their own forum?" post :pac:

K-9 · 11-06-2015 11:17AM

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Instead of a blanket ban in the charter then, stick in a couple of lines that state that the mods reserve the right to move the discussion to the match thread if it begins to take over the superthread. Because it makes no sense for the 5 or 6 City fans or 10 or so Chelsea fans here (for example) to create a match thread for every game.

I think if you outright got rid of the ban, the match threads for United and Liverpool would be redundant as a decent number of posters seem to only want to engage with other members of the tribe and would just stick to the superthread instead.

If you want to discuss things with like-minded supporters only, away to a fan forum with you.

That's a good idea actually, though usually city chelses would have a thread. Something lije Chelses Everton might have discussions on the 2 superthreads but no mstch threaf. A neutral is more likely to post then than dip into a superthread.

Pro. F · 11-06-2015 11:18AM

Mickeroo wrote: »

If there's no actual match thread then discussing the match in a relevant superthread doesn't actually breach the rule, this flies over a lot of people's heads it seems. The majority of matches don't generate enough interest to warrant their own thread this is why you often see match discussion in superthreads outside of Liverpool and United where their fan bases are so big even a pre season friendly will generate a decent amount of discussion.

Discussing match incidents in superthreads is a breach of the rule:
"NO MATCH INCIDENT DISCUSSION WILL BE TOLERATED IN SUPERTHREADS."

How the mods are enforcing the rule and how it is written are two different things at the moment.

Pro. F · 11-06-2015 11:22AM

K-9 wrote: »

You can't mod a forum by zero tolerance on every clause in a charter. In my forum we do it on maybe 2 particular things.

I'm not asking for zero tolerance. I'm asking for a well written charter. The paragraph under discussion is a mess.

Pro. F · 11-06-2015 11:30AM

GavRedKing wrote: »

Ive said it before, outside of Pool and Utd, nearly every other team has match discussion in their thread, Chelsea, Arsenal, City, Celtic, Villa etc etc.

I've also not seen anyone carded for breaching the rule in my years of modding the forum, that rule is more of an insurance on the forum IMO and is pretty much a last resort warning.

I'd say the best example I could give is think back to the Suarez v Evra incident, to stop discussion in both Pool and Utd superthreads we could say keep the discussion to either the match thread for the incident or more like, setup a specific thread to deal with the incident and as per the charter we'd have something to fall back on incase someone kicked up a fuss.

That rule is rarely enforced but it was also mentioned earlier in this feedback thread that for the other teams that dont setup a match thread, to setup an EPL weekly match thread, like the LOI games have and let everyone post in there if they wish, which IMO, is a good idea and one we should probably implement for the coming season.

You don't need that insurance. If the mods decide that a particular topic needs to be contained in a particular thread then you are already empowered to make that happen, by the fact of being mods.

You think that the admins wouldn't have backed you mods up on the decision to keep all Suarez/Evra talk in one designated thread if this rule hadn't been in the charter? Seriously?

Requiring sloppily written rules in the charter to give you leeway to do what you would be doing anyway is just weakening the charter for no good reason.

bucketybuck · 11-06-2015 11:39AM

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I think if you outright got rid of the ban, the match threads for United and Liverpool would be redundant as a decent number of posters seem to only want to engage with other members of the tribe and would just stick to the superthread instead.

And again we have somebody insinuating that people who want to discuss issues in the superthread are just little scaredy cats who want to talk in an echo chamber and make snide remarks where other fans can't see them.

Once again, it ignores the fact that many posters prefer to have discussions in the superthread not because they want to limit the discussion, but because the match threads are actually anathema to discussion. They are fast moving low content chat boxes and are a horrible environment for discussion or debate.

I don't care what other fans join the discussion in a superthread, because at least there we can actually have a discussion.

dfx- · 11-06-2015 01:19PM

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Instead of a blanket ban in the charter then, stick in a couple of lines that state that the mods reserve the right to move the discussion to the match thread if it begins to take over the superthread. Because it makes no sense for the 5 or 6 City fans or 10 or so Chelsea fans here (for example) to create a match thread for every game.

I'd be in favour of this change, in terms of reserving the right. I absolutely agree with your reasoning.

In general, how do people like the charter as it is in terms of its length? Is it ok, not specific enough or do you want it to be condensed?

Soccer Forum Feedback Thread 2015

Comments