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 Forum Feedback Thread 2015

GavRedKing

I'll be opening this properly on Monday for everyone to have their say and it will remain open for a week, hopefully we'll have some positive inputs and good ideas for changes etc.

As always, standard Feedback rules apply (which will be posted on Monday).

So anything thats good or bad that ye want to raise, make a note of it for Monday.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

adox

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.

I have only 1 yellow card to my name in 10 years on the forum and that was for ever so briefly referring to an ongoing Utd match in the Superthread when the match thread was temporarily locked. It was in a reply to someone else who posted(and was also carded) something along the lines of " Surely Nani wasnt........."

My reply was " he was, and dont call me surely"

Obviously meant as a joke, but the card was upheld with a reduced ban(maybe two weeks form a month).

Obviously most feel hard done by cards they receive but I think its a perfect example of what is wrong with the rule and taking the letter of the law to the extreme.

The other poster has since closed his account and hasnt been back(afaik).

Mickeroo

adox wrote: »

I have only 1 yellow card to my name in 10 years on the forum and that was for ever so briefly referring to an ongoing Utd match in the Superthread when the match thread was temporarily locked. It was in a reply to someone else who posted(and was also carded) something along the lines of " Surely Nani wasnt........."

My reply was " he was, and dont call me surely"

Obviously meant as a joke, but the card was upheld with a reduced ban(maybe two weeks form a month).

Obviously most feel hard done by cards they receive but I think its a perfect example of what is wrong with the rule and taking the letter of the law to the extreme.

The other poster has since closed his account and hasnt been back(afaik).

Just looking at it there, you didn't get a card and that ban was the result of a rule that isn't in the charter any more, not the rule that's currently being discussed. This is the rule you were banned under:

Due to the recent amount of hostility and aggression displayed in matchday threads as well as giving people infractions/bannings for stepping out of line if there are too many people dragging the thread of course it will be locked mid-game for at least 5 minutes, maybe more at the Mods discretion.

Anyone who proceeds to take match thread to a new thread, their respective club Superthread or the general weekend thread will receive an immediate one month ban.

adox

Mickeroo wrote: »

Just looking at it there, you didn't get a card and that ban was the result of a rule that isn't in the charter any more, not the rule that's currently being discussed. This is the rule you were banned under:

Ah ok cheers Mick.

Pro. F

dfx- wrote: »

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?

One problem with the length of the charter for me is the amendment posts at the bottom of it. They need to be integrated into the charter properly imo. The same for the copyright stuff which has it's own thread, that needs to be condensed and put into the charter.

Also, the links in the first charter post don't work.

GavRedKing

Pro. F wrote: »

One problem with the length of the charter for me is the amendment posts at the bottom of it. They need to be integrated into the charter properly imo. The same for the copyright stuff which has it's own thread, that needs to be condensed and put into the charter.

Also, the links in the first charter post don't work.

I just checked all the links in the 1st post and they all worked except the link to the off topic thread, which I have now fixed.

The rest of your post is interesting though, a more stream lined charter might be something that we have to look at and to include the piece on copyright material, the rule has been in place for a good 9/10 months at this stage and could be taken off as sticky and included in the main charter.

Pro. F

GavRedKing wrote: »

I just checked all the links in the 1st post and they all worked except the link to the off topic thread, which I have now fixed.

Strange, none of them work for me and they haven't done for years. No biggie.

[Deleted User]

Were people carded recently for talking about games in a superthread?

Never seen any mention of it all season until this thread.

efb

My understanding was, when a match thread is created- no more match discussion in super thread- didn't seem that difficult.

I think once there was an Arsenal Bolton match thread created- it was bare.

efb

Fair play to the mods though - a near impossible job

Paully D

No need for any changes IMO. The way things are going now is fine. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

Is it just me that didn't even realise this bollocks about talking about games in superthreads etc was an issue?

Beasty

Would be interested in feedback on the following concerning the charter

It's prescriptive and as a result very long. That also reflects the way changes have been introduced over the years often on the back of these feedback threads.

What's the general view on the way it is now? I personally think it could be cut down quite a lot if we move to a more "principle" based set of rules. So, using the abuse rule as an example. That is policed quite vigorously and has resulted in some posters getting carded for heat of the moment comments on players of the team they support. Equally some of the nicknames are often used as banter with no malicious intent. However under the rules a yellow usually follows. My suggestion would be to try to look at intent rather than the letter of the rule. I appreciate though that this would leave a lot more potential of differing views which in turn could make my job in the DRP more difficult.

If we were to move this way it may result in fewer yellows. In parallel though I would like to see more reds and possibly outright bans for any blatantly abusive or trolling posts/posters.

That may also need another look at the totting up process. I don't want to get too deeply into that though until we see whether there is any consensus for the sort of changes I have outlined above.

5starpool

Beasty wrote: »

Would be interested in feedback on the following concerning the charter

It's prescriptive and as a result very long. That also reflects the way changes have been introduced over the years often on the back of these feedback threads.

What's the general view on the way it is now? I personally think it could be cut down quite a lot if we move to a more "principle" based set of rules. So, using the abuse rule as an example. That is policed quite vigorously and has resulted in some posters getting carded for heat of the moment comments on players of the team they support. Equally some of the nicknames are often used as banter with no malicious intent. However under the rules a yellow usually follows. My suggestion would be to try to look at intent rather than the letter of the rule. I appreciate though that this would leave a lot more potential of differing views which in turn could make my job in the DRP more difficult.

If we were to move this way it may result in fewer yellows. In parallel though I would like to see more reds and possibly outright bans for any blatantly abusive or trolling posts/posters.

That may also need another look at the totting up process. I don't want to get too deeply into that though until we see whether there is any consensus for the sort of changes I have outlined above.

I've been saying for years, less rules, more mod judgement calls. Some rules are needed of course, but the more there are the less they are read.

Kerrigooney

Beasty wrote: »

Would be interested in feedback on the following concerning the charter

It's prescriptive and as a result very long. That also reflects the way changes have been introduced over the years often on the back of these feedback threads.

What's the general view on the way it is now? I personally think it could be cut down quite a lot if we move to a more "principle" based set of rules. So, using the abuse rule as an example. That is policed quite vigorously and has resulted in some posters getting carded for heat of the moment comments on players of the team they support. Equally some of the nicknames are often used as banter with no malicious intent. However under the rules a yellow usually follows. My suggestion would be to try to look at intent rather than the letter of the rule. I appreciate though that this would leave a lot more potential of differing views which in turn could make my job in the DRP more difficult.

If we were to move this way it may result in fewer yellows. In parallel though I would like to see more reds and possibly outright bans for any blatantly abusive or trolling posts/posters.

That may also need another look at the totting up process. I don't want to get too deeply into that though until we see whether there is any consensus for the sort of changes I have outlined above.

Why would you want less yellows but more reds? Something doesn't feel right about this.

Al Capwned

I would assume the less yellows would be because of the not-yet-proposed amendment letting the mods use their judgement on me calling Rooney a thick c**t in the United thread because he missed a chance say, but with no real intent. A gentle warning might be the answer instead of a yellow.

The more reds would be as a result of yourself, Kerrigooney, coming into the United thread and calling Rooney a useless c**t because he missed the same chance. Repeats of that sort of stuff could result in more reds.

__

Not that you would do such a thing of course, but I can see the point.

Panthro

I think mod judgement calls leaves the poor scallywags open to a helluva lot of unnecessary pm back and forth bickering.
They're volunteers after all, they don't need that shyte. (Surprised to see a Cat Mod put out the idea in all honesty)
A clear set of rules and its up to us lot to stick by them or face the wrath of the nearest Mod.
/my 2 cents

[Deleted User]

What's wrong with cards for heat of the moment posts though?

If you had time to type it out you had time to think about what you were going to say.

The vast majority of posters that have received a card for this will hold up their hand and move on.

Beasty

Kerrigooney wrote: »

Why would you want less yellows but more reds? Something doesn't feel right about this.

A lot of things that often get a yellow here (such as blatant trolling and personal abuse towards other users) would usually attract a red or ban elsewhere on the site.

[Deleted User]

Beasty wrote: »

A lot of things that often get a yellow here (such as blatant trolling and personal abuse towards other users) would usually attract a red or ban elsewhere on the site.

2 acts of trolling should be a permanent ban imo.

Kerrigooney

Al Capwned wrote: »

I would assume the less yellows would be because of the not-yet-proposed amendment letting the mods use their judgement on me calling Rooney a thick c**t in the United thread because he missed a chance say, but with no real intent. A gentle warning might be the answer instead of a yellow.

The more reds would be as a result of yourself, Kerrigooney, coming into the United thread and calling Rooney a useless c**t because he missed the same chance. Repeats of that sort of stuff could result in more reds.

__

Not that you would do such a thing of course, but I can see the point.

I see where you're coming from but it still doesn't sit well with me. It gives the mods too much power. Yes I'm paranoid and do love a good conspiricy theory.

Al Capwned

rarnes1 wrote: »

What's wrong with cards for heat of the moment posts though?

If you had time to type it out you had time to think about what you were going to say.

The vast majority of posters that have received a card for this will hold up their hand and move on.

Yep - I called Evra a c**t a couple seasons ago and rightly got a yellow for it - I think i have one more for a similar thing in my time on boards.

Kerrigooney wrote: »

I see where you're coming from but it still doesn't sit well with me. It gives the mods too much power. Yes I'm paranoid and do love a good conspiricy theory.

I would agree that it shouldn't change - my post above was only to demonstrate my understanding of that-which-has-not-been-proposed-just-yet.

Will I Amnt

Personally abusing another poster should always be a red imo.

Beasty

Panthro wrote: »

(Surprised to see a Cat Mod put out the idea in all honesty)

It's something I'd like to see discussed. It certainly does not mean this is the way we will go, but I don't recall any recent discussion over the "special" status of the forum within the site other than when it was opened up to everyone for the World Cup last year.

You guys are the regulars here and see a lot of the stuff that goes on. I don't post much within the forum but do discuss things with the Soccer mods a lot. I personally think there has been a big improvement across the forum over the last year and would like to build on this. I think this is the sort of thing you guys can hopefully give a bit of thought to and provide your own feedback on. If after proper debate the consensus is to stay as is, that's absolutely fine with me, but let's at least have the discussion.

Winston Payne

Strongly opposed to leeway over nicknames. Leaves the door open for muppetry. One standard, vigorously enforced. Clear, fair, consistent.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Turtyturd

Kerrigooney wrote: »

I see where you're coming from but it still doesn't sit well with me. It gives the mods too much power. Yes I'm paranoid and do love a good conspiricy theory.

Spot on.

It will also create more inconsistency. Using the abuse example most mods will apply it correctly but there will always be instances where 1 or 2 will take offence if it applies to their team, or let it go dependent on the poster.

We have seen people banned this season for starting a feedback thread and having a negative posting style, dunno if they are against the charter but increasing the agency mods have to ban posters isn't the way to go.

alchemist33

It's hard to have a blanket ban on nicknames without taking intent into consideration. For instance, I've seen Chelsea fans call their goalkeeper T-BO. Nobody's trying to insult anyone with that and it's almost a term of endearment. Stuff like "scholsey", as simple as it seems, is also a nickname and is not going to get abused by anyone.
By contrast, Maureen or Brenda is probably used as an insult, even if its not much of an insult. Yes, I know this means a continuation of the eternal battle between consistency and "common sense", but if mods adhere to having absolutely no nicknames, it's too proscriptive for me. They'll usually be able to tell the difference between posts intended as insults and those that aren't.

Darkglasses

Panthro wrote: »

I think mod judgement calls leaves the poor scallywags open to a helluva lot of unnecessary pm back and forth bickering.

100 times this. It's easy to say make a judgement call nearly every time, but then you have to justify yourself to somebody every time. Having charter rules to point to means there's a workable balance.

K-9

Panthro wrote: »

I think mod judgement calls leaves the poor scallywags open to a helluva lot of unnecessary pm back and forth bickering.
They're volunteers after all, they don't need that shyte. (Surprised to see a Cat Mod put out the idea in all honesty)
A clear set of rules and its up to us lot to stick by them or face the wrath of the nearest Mod.
/my 2 cents

They'd probably need a totting up thread for those people who have s habit of spur of the moment abusive comments, 3 or 4 of them isn't really a slip of the tongue anymore!

Usually with pm's you kind of know the ones that are going nowhere after 2 or 3 and it's best to let our betters Give their say.

duffman13

Being honest I think we are looking for problems where they don't exist. Potentially revamping the charter and creating more judgement calls would be something I would possibly advocate if the forum was running very smoothly with the current charter..

It could be cleaned and condensed but other than that I really don't see any value in a shift change. I agree with Will around a red card for poster abuse though. It's really petty and unnecessary