Soccer Forum Feedback Thread 2015

12-06-2015 04:54PM

Also blatant "x-player is a <swearword>/other slur" posts should be treated with more harshly along with warnings for those thanking such posts. The last year or two such posts were occurring, and would just be followed by a mod warning and the blatant rule-breaking led to no actual punishment.

Pro. F · 12-06-2015 04:55PM

alchemist33 wrote: »

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.

There isn't a blanket ban on nicknames, it's only derogatory nicknames that aren't allowed.

GavRedKing · 12-06-2015 04:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

One rules I'd like introduced is that the first person who mentions or alludes to both United and Liverpool in a match thread not involving them, or a transfer thread involving only other teams should get an instant ban. So annoying following a somewhat interesting discussion for a few dozen posts, coming back the next day to see another posts and they turn out to be about United making Ronaldo the second best player in the world/"our year"/Suarez etc.

What happens the second or third person to mention Pool v Utd?

Given they represent the two best supported English sides in Ireland the fans have the majority share on Boards, theyre bound to reguarly clash.

All we can do is try manage it and hope as adults, the posters dont drag every discussion into a Pool v Utd debate, sometimes its easier said than done though.

duffman13 · 12-06-2015 04:57PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Also blatant "x-player is a <swearword>/other slur" posts should be treated with more harshly along with warnings for those thanking such posts. The last year or two such posts were occurring, and would just be followed by a mod warning and the blatant rule-breaking led to no actual punishment.

I agree at the first bit however thanking a post can sometimes be a poster thanking the fact there is a yellow card or red card on it not the actual content of the post.

5starpool · 12-06-2015 04:58PM

Deleted User wrote: »

One rules I'd like introduced is that the first person who mentions or alludes to both United and Liverpool in a match thread not involving them, or a transfer thread involving only other teams should get an instant ban. So annoying following a somewhat interesting discussion for a few dozen posts, coming back the next day to see another posts and they turn out to be about United making Ronaldo the second best player in the world/"our year"/Suarez etc.

That would be a horrible rule. I agree that quite a few threads get derailed in this way but there are times when it's very relevant so having a blanket ban on it would be ridiculous.

K-9 · 12-06-2015 05:00PM

Deleted User wrote: »

One rules I'd like introduced is that the first person who mentions or alludes to both United and Liverpool in a match thread not involving them, or a transfer thread involving only other teams should get an instant ban. So annoying following a somewhat interesting discussion for a few dozen posts, coming back the next day to see another posts and they turn out to be about United making Ronaldo the second best player in the world/"our year"/Suarez etc.

It has got to the stage it's pointless comparing tne 2 because of:

1) A few fan boys from both clubs who make it near impossible and
2) A few sensitive souls from others who don't seem to want any discussion on it, a bit unrealistically.

12-06-2015 05:18PM

GavRedKing wrote: »

What happens the second or third person to mention Pool v Utd?

Given they represent the two best supported English sides in Ireland the fans have the majority share on Boards, theyre bound to reguarly clash.

All we can do is try manage it and hope as adults, the posters dont drag every discussion into a Pool v Utd debate, sometimes its easier said than done though.

Where the mods are too slow to nip it in the bud just dole out cards. :P

5starpool wrote: »

That would be a horrible rule. I agree that quite a few threads get derailed in this way but there are times when it's very relevant so having a blanket ban on it would be ridiculous.

K-9 wrote: »

It has got to the stage it's pointless comparing tne 2 because of:

1) A few fan boys from both clubs who make it near impossible and
2) A few sensitive souls from others who don't seem to want any discussion on it, a bit unrealistically.

So because there's greater numbers of people (rather than Chelsea/Arsenal fans) who want to derail a thread then it's fine?

Absolute blanket ban I understand probably isn't suitable, but when it gets to the stage of a match or round thread involving neither side it's pretty stupid. Or when a mod has to post a warning about the bickering, by that stage the thread's already been destroyed.

Pro. F · 12-06-2015 05:25PM

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.

A principle based charter isn't practical. There are many unusual rules in the soccer forum and they are all there because they have been found to work over the years. Doing away with those rules and expecting the mods to be able to figure it out for themselves would be a disaster imo.

The reason derogatory nicknames get a yellow is because they always cause trouble and because the "banter" they engender is rubbish and easily found in every other football forum.

As others have said "heat of the moment" is a poor excuse and I'd be against it being considered valid.

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.

It explicitly says in the SF charter that personal abuse of posters is a red card offence.

Pro. F · 12-06-2015 05:29PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Also blatant "x-player is a <swearword>/other slur" posts should be treated with more harshly along with warnings for those thanking such posts. The last year or two such posts were occurring, and would just be followed by a mod warning and the blatant rule-breaking led to no actual punishment.

I'd say that is simply a poor call by the mod. The charter is clear that "x-player is a <swearword>/other slur" is a yellow card.

12-06-2015 05:39PM

Pro. F wrote: »

I'd say that is simply a poor call by the mod. The charter is clear that "x-player is a <swearword>/other slur" is a yellow card.

I know the charter is clear, it just seems to be a common shortcut they like to take, especially when a few people have done it after something controversial.

Pro. F · 12-06-2015 05:42PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I know the charter is clear, it just seems to be a common shortcut they like to take, especially when a few people have done it after something controversial.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of that the rare time I've seen it happen.

Al Capwned · 12-06-2015 06:06PM

TheDoc wrote: »

.......
I've had some pretty horrible experiences in other forums, and one in particular that involved face to face meetings with Boards reps, but all in all I think this forum is very well run, and there seems to genuine common sense in place. In instances I've received infractions, warnings or cards, the mods involved have been good to explain the situation, and happy enough to respond to any queries I have.

Spill.
Go on....

Shanotheslayer · 12-06-2015 06:37PM

Give Liverpoool fans their own forum and give United fans there's and we'd have half the problems :pac:

K-9 · 12-06-2015 06:47PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Where the mods are too slow to nip it in the bud just dole out cards. :P

Er no, I just gave reasons why its difficult to have any discussion on it. Somebody can make a perfectly valid comparison and the "not another pool united argument" comes in, just as bad as the dick waving.

So because there's greater numbers of people (rather than Chelsea/Arsenal fans) who want to derail a thread then it's fine?

Absolute blanket ban I understand probably isn't suitable, but when it gets to the stage of a match or round thread involving neither side it's pretty stupid. Or when a mod has to post a warning about the bickering, by that stage the thread's already been destroyed.

That sounds reasonable, repeated offenders warned and banned would be fine by me.

Beasty · 12-06-2015 08:04PM

One thing on the totting up process. There are some posters who have racked up more than 1 six month ban in their time here. The rules say they need to reapply for access after 6 months, but in practice that rarely happens as the ban is automatically lifted

In my view a permaban should be issued if they have reached the specified threshold, and they would need to show they have reformed their behaviour (via their posting elsewhere on the site) before being considered for "parole". However anyone who has already had one such ban should be issued with a permaban without parole if they continue with their prior behaviour (and anyone re-regging to try and avoid any of these thresholds should be denied access or if they have somehow managed to evade being spotted they should expect a ban to come their way) - it would not have to await getting another 6 yellows before such a ban is issued - anyone who has had a 6+ month ban should consider themselves under licence and the mods could then issue a permaban for any further blatant rule breaches

Pro. F · 13-06-2015 09:27AM

Beasty wrote: »

One thing on the totting up process. There are some posters who have racked up more than 1 six month ban in their time here. The rules say they need to reapply for access after 6 months, but in practice that rarely happens as the ban is automatically lifted

In my view a permaban should be issued if they have reached the specified threshold, and they would need to show they have reformed their behaviour (via their posting elsewhere on the site) before being considered for "parole". However anyone who has already had one such ban should be issued with a permaban without parole if they continue with their prior behaviour (and anyone re-regging to try and avoid any of these thresholds should be denied access or if they have somehow managed to evade being spotted they should expect a ban to come their way) - it would not have to await getting another 6 yellows before such a ban is issued - anyone who has had a 6+ month ban should consider themselves under licence and the mods could then issue a permaban for any further blatant rule breaches

This is already covered in the charter:

A user who wishes to come back to the forum after a 6 infraction ban.

1) User applies through the soccer access forum with a special application (to be confirmed in the near future, before anyone who is due to come back is up for re-admittance).
2) Forum mods (and Cmods where the mods request it) will discuss the request and a response will be written on the application thread.
3) If the user is re-admitted, it is under the condition that if they get one infraction in the next three months they will be permanently banned. After the 3 month probation period they are considered full members of the forum once more.

LuckyLloyd · 13-06-2015 09:27AM

Yeah, just enforce the charter as far as that suggestion is concerned.

Pro. F · 13-06-2015 10:29AM

There's a problem with the cross-thread baiting rule as it's been implemented imo. Here's the two mentions from the charter:

Cross thread baiting/flaming may also be regarded as a form of trolling as well as being an attempt to threadspoil.

Crossthread baiting/flaming is regarded as an attempt at threadspoiling across a number of threads and will be treated as such.

As I remember it, this rule was requested by the posters in order to prevent a particular scenario. Namely, where posters would quote and respond to posts from rival fans in a thread other than the one where the original post was made. That resulted in the original post being slagged off while the original poster wouldn't get a chance to defend themselves.

In practice the rule has been used by mods to prohibit jokes about rival teams in superthreads and there have been plenty of yellows handed out for it. The users never requested or agreed to this new ban on jokes about rival teams in superthreads.

I suggest the cross-thread baiting rule be re-written like this:

Cross-thread baiting (ie quoting and responding antagonistically to a post in a thread other than the original, so that the original poster is denied the chance to defend themselves) is regarded as a form of flaming and will be treated as such.

That's a bit wordy, so maybe somebody can make it more concise while still covering all the points.

Will I Amnt · 13-06-2015 10:31AM

Pro. F wrote: »

There's a problem with the cross-thread baiting rule as it's been implemented imo. Here's the two mentions from the charter:

As I remember it, this rule was requested by the posters in order to prevent a particular scenario. Namely, where posters would quote and respond to posts from rival fans in a thread other than the one where the original post was made. That resulted in the original post being slagged off while the original poster wouldn't get a chance to defend themselves.

In practice the rule has been used by mods to prohibit jokes about rival teams in superthreads and there have been plenty of yellows handed out for it. The users never requested or agreed to this new ban on jokes about rival teams in superthreads.

I suggest the cross-thread baiting rule be re-written like this:

That's a bit wordy, so maybe somebody can make it more concise while still covering all the points.

I suggested that in the last feedback thread and many agreed, the rules that were brought in are nothing like what I was suggesting.

Donnielighto · 13-06-2015 02:54PM

Been reading back skipped some pages. What exactly is the issue with chelski? The only thing it does is reference the owners nationality, not exactly horrific.

One other thing I've seen mentioned is names and phrases not getting carded if they aren't reported, can mods card if they see it but it hasn't been reported?

Lord TSC · 13-06-2015 03:33PM

Donnielighto wrote: »

Been reading back skipped some pages. What exactly is the issue with chelski? The only thing it does is reference the owners nationality, not exactly horrific.

One other thing I've seen mentioned is names and phrases not getting carded if they aren't reported, can mods card if they see it but it hasn't been reported?

Chelski was in the charter before I became a mod, so don't quite know, but would imagine it's because it's a term used by non-fans to take a shot at the club? Would imagine it only ever is used in a derogatory way.

As for the second, yes, mods can card without reported posts (and often do), but we will often miss non-reported posts as we can't read everything posted. In certain threads, we would rely heavily on reported posts as we might not see offending posts otherwise.

Panthro · 13-06-2015 04:10PM

I'd hold Chelski in the same way as I'd regard Lolerpool and Manure.
Rather Juvenile.

Crann na Beatha · 13-06-2015 04:37PM

This post has been deleted.

Caovyn Lineah · 13-06-2015 09:27PM

Can anything be done about blatantly berating a poster in the hope he/she will react and therefore get a card or a ban?

Pro. F · 13-06-2015 09:45PM

Caovyn Lineah wrote: »

Can anything be done about blatantly berating a poster in the hope he/she will react and therefore get a card or a ban?

From the charter:

9. In the case of abuse, should the abuse be a result of provocation, no matter how mild, the initiator will receive a yellow card infraction. Should the initiator be deemed to have purposefully provoked a user in order to report them, the mod may issue a red card infraction (ie. we will examine abuse and if the abuse was provoked, both parties will be sanctioned).

dfx- · 14-06-2015 01:59AM

Donnielighto wrote: »

Been reading back skipped some pages. What exactly is the issue with chelski? The only thing it does is reference the owners nationality, not exactly horrific.

One other thing I've seen mentioned is names and phrases not getting carded if they aren't reported, can mods card if they see it but it hasn't been reported?

Yes, absolutely they are carded if they are seen from our own browsing etc. Reporting means they are more likely to be seen quicker.

On Chelski, it was introduced last year amongst a long feedsback thread discussion over the nature of the abuse rule and the interwoven trolling rule.

SlickRic · 14-06-2015 08:18AM

I'd just like to point out one other thing, especially in Superthreads.

It'd help the mods too if there was less condescending bullshít. Talk to each other the way you wouldn't mind being talked to. It's fairly simple.

Far too many times in superthreads, a couple of personalities will dominate, squabble, and ruin it for everyone. Then a mod has to come in, clean it up, and make the thread readable again.

Also, the ignore function is amazing. Don't forget to use it. Just because you don't like a post, doesn't necessarily mean it's trolling. If a poster gets up your nose, do yourself a favour, ignore them.

Life's too short, and it's only the Internet.

Lovely Bloke · 14-06-2015 10:49AM

Ignore function is a joke when imbeciles quote trolls

LiamoSail · 14-06-2015 10:57AM

United & Liverpool references in the humor thread should be banned.

There's not a single one that's funny enough to justify the series of unfunny tit for tat ****e that inevitably follows any United/Liverpool reference. It's always the same few that wreck an otherwise excellent thread

LiamoSail · 14-06-2015 10:59AM

On a separate point, what's the issue with Man Yoo?

As far as I can see it's just phonetic, and commonly used in Ireland, outside of those who mix in online super fan circles.

Am I missing something here?

Soccer Forum Feedback Thread 2015

Comments