Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Inconsistent and biased moderation in the soccer forum

13»

Comments

  • #102
    Bobeagleburger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,735 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not only are you one of this thread's top contributors (https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=2057931071) but at this point you have fully taken on the tone of a mod now.

    Interesting.

    Half the people in the top 10 aren't mods. Why single me out. I'm trying to add to the topic at least.
    VW 1 wrote: »
    The focus and point of the thread is inconsistency in moderation, hence pointing out these inconsistencies and looking for reasons, or trying to improve the underlying charter is relevant. If you feel aggrieved by BCs posts where he should have been banned, why not throw them up?

    Beasty alraedy has (first page I believe) where he highlighted posts made by B-Cat they weren't carded, but maybe should have been. That's all. Surely that fits under the inconsistent moderation banner too, or is it only inconsistent when it's a card?
    Business Cat wrote: »
    Hi roboklopp.

    I don't believe you are a mod, cmod or admin so im not sure why you are persisting with posting in this thread. You don't think there is an issue with moderation, good for you, others do not agree. 're my post history, I'm just going to repeat what I said to Beasty


    In any case, you are one of the last people that should be casting judgement on what others have posted in the SF given your own posting history.

    As Stu has already posted above, it's open to non mods. It's an interesting topic for a lot of SF posters.

    The reason others are posting in this thread is to agree/disagree or just to add to the topic. I think that's fair. I don't agree with your assertion that the moderation is biased.

    Re your last comment, c'mon it's not too bad. It was a Utd mod that carded me last though - PHB - :D.

    Anyway, I'm sure the admins and cmods have this under control. Good luck with the outcome.


  • #103
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,137 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Steve wrote: »
    I'm actually more interested in a solution to this rather than an argument.

    What you posted above is contradictory. Either there is discretion allowed or there is a rigid rule. Personally I don't think a rigid rule will work.

    Is it really that hard to just distinguish basic context?


  • #104
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,534 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    VW 1 wrote: »
    The focus and point of the thread is inconsistency in moderation, hence pointing out these inconsistencies and looking for reasons, or trying to improve the underlying charter is relevant. If you feel aggrieved by BCs posts where he should have been banned, why not throw them up?

    Well initially there was a large focus on perceived bias. I have indicated my own views on that and will not repeat them. Equally I have accept the point on inconsistency.

    I did spend quite a bit of time keeping my eye on things over the weekend, and have got to say I was pleasantly surprised at how constrained posters were. Yes of course Liverpool fans were jubilant at the result and performance behind it, and equally some of the United fans were largely resigned to what awaited on Sunday. However compared to prior matches both sets of fans were generally very well behaved

    There could of course be any number of reasons. Perhaps there was generally less posting, or possibly fewer of those who might look to troll in a low-level fashion are not as active as they once were. Equally posters may have known I was going to keep my eye on things and perhaps were a little more restrained. Whatever the reason though, it's a step in the right direction, and I will try to continue monitoring things for a while, and hope that no-one feels there was any inconsistency over the weekend.


  • #105
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    pjohnson wrote: »
    Is it really that hard to just distinguish basic context?

    No, it's not, but the proposed 'rule' would preclude taking that into account.


  • #106
    Liam McPoyle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,846 ✭✭✭✭Liam McPoyle


    Steve wrote: »
    I'm actually more interested in a solution to this rather than an argument.

    What you posted above is contradictory. Either there is discretion allowed or there is a rigid rule. Personally I don't think a rigid rule will work.

    Not sure how it's contradictory Steve? For clarity the opening paragraph was just answering your example of Jack and Jackie and saying in instances like that then common sense should trump all, examples like that are very easy to see though. I'm not trying to start an argument over it either, apologies if it came across that way.

    The problem with leaving it at the mods discretion is that interpretation varies from one mod to another. In clear cut things e.g. C**tiola or similar, it is clearly abusive and action would be taken but oftentimes it won't be as clear cut as that. That's where problems arise.


  • #107
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Business Cat wrote: »
    Not sure how it's contradictory Steve? For clarity the opening paragraph was just answering your example of Jack and Jackie and saying in instances like that then common sense should trump all, examples like that are very easy to see though. I'm not trying to start an argument over it either, apologies if it came across that way.

    The problem with leaving it at the mods discretion is that interpretation varies from one mod to another. In clear cut things e.g. C**tiola or similar, it is clearly abusive and action would be taken but oftentimes it won't be as clear cut as that. That's where problems arise.

    Again, I am in agreement with you. Common sense should certainly prevail.

    However, your argument that: "leaving it at the mods discretion is that interpretation varies from one mod to another" requires a rigid rule that mods cannot apply their "common sense" to and are required to apply the rule - to the letter - in every circumstance.

    That's just not workable. So we circle back to to the question: can a rule actually be penned that covers this or do we have to live with human mods making a call on it?

    It will never be perfect but it's what we have.


  • #108
    s3rtvdbwfj81ch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭s3rtvdbwfj81ch


    Steve wrote: »
    Again, I am in agreement with you. Common sense should certainly prevail.

    However, your argument that: "leaving it at the mods discretion is that interpretation varies from one mod to another" requires a rigid rule that mods cannot apply their "common sense" to and are required to apply the rule - to the letter - in every circumstance.

    That's just not workable. So we circle back to to the question: can a rule actually be penned that covers this or do we have to live with human mods making a call on it?

    It will never be perfect but it's what we have.

    This is a load of tosh

    as this proves


    Same mod, and some other admin saying that rules are black and white and summarily shutting down discussion of it,

    Boards has been tying itself in knots defending this moderator for years now.

    Which is it, rules are black and white, or they aren't - moderators can apply discretion or they can't - or some moderators can apply some discretion to some posts/users or they can't.

    It's clear as day what the response here is going to be, but it will be all kinds of fun to see what the admins response here is.

    Stick a pin in it, it's done.

    Such nonsense, time and again.


  • #109
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Agustin Rancid Zucchini wrote: »
    This is a load of tosh

    as this proves


    Same mod, and some other admin saying that rules are black and white and summarily shutting down discussion of it,

    Boards has been tying itself in knots defending this moderator for years now.

    Which is it, rules are black and white, or they aren't - moderators can apply discretion or they can't - or some moderators can apply some discretion to some posts/users or they can't.

    It's clear as day what the response here is going to be, but it will be all kinds of fun to see what the admins response here is.

    Stick a pin in it, it's done.

    Such nonsense, time and again.

    I am not sure where your point is? The poster made chat and got suspended for 24 hours like in the thread name.


  • #110
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Agustin Rancid Zucchini wrote: »
    This is a load of tosh

    as this proves


    Same mod, and some other admin saying that rules are black and white and summarily shutting down discussion of it,

    Boards has been tying itself in knots defending this moderator for years now.

    Which is it, rules are black and white, or they aren't - moderators can apply discretion or they can't - or some moderators can apply some discretion to some posts/users or they can't.

    It's clear as day what the response here is going to be, but it will be all kinds of fun to see what the admins response here is.

    Stick a pin in it, it's done.

    Such nonsense, time and again.
    My view on mod discretion is that they have discretion to let something slide if they see fit. This covers probably 90% of rule breaches on the site.

    If they choose to uphold the rules then so be it and I will test what was posted against the forum charter in a dispute.

    If there was no discretion allowed then the system would be unworkable and it would end up like 1984 only there would be an option to leave - which everyone would do.

    'This is a load of tosh' Have you a better suggestion as to how it should work?


  • #111
    Rayne Wooney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,136 ✭✭✭✭Rayne Wooney


    Very interesting thread indeed
    gstack166 wrote: »
    Depends on if it was before or after the incident with Slippy G.
    Beasty wrote: »
    I'll let everyone know - "Slippy G" has always been considered unacceptable and actioned accordingly, and if you continue discussing moderation here I'll ban you myself


    I knew there were examples of the phrase being used freely as I had seen them before, but in the exact same thread, always actioned accordingly? censoring the post probably does not help to quell the usage of said phrase either?


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,495 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    And is that discretion being applied impartially in the soccer forum, by all moderators?


  • #113
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Steve wrote: »
    My view on mod discretion is that they have discretion to let something slide if they see fit. This covers probably 90% of rule breaches on the site.

    If they choose to uphold the rules then so be it and I will test what was posted against the forum charter in a dispute.

    If there was no discretion allowed then the system would be unworkable and it would end up like 1984 only there would be an option to leave - which everyone would do.

    'This is a load of tosh' Have you a better suggestion as to how it should work?

    It gets confusing thought when you see posts from admins like this
    Beasty wrote: »
    I'll let everyone know - "Slippy G" has always been considered unacceptable and actioned accordingly, and if you continue discussing moderation here I'll ban you myself

    He is saying Slippy G has always been unacceptable which isn't the case as its only a recent enough slagging term, but no one was informed of its unacceptability through the charter at least and at what point was this decided?

    He is saying its 100% unacceptable no matter the user or usage and for me there as worse things to be said for eg Dippers but this doesn't get punished even when reported.

    So there is really no wonder about the confusion and when you get Admins more willing to ban people over the discussion of moderation (which tbf is against charter) then actual breakages or abuse or charter you end up with a confused user base at best

    So they really do need to clear up the situation in someway as I didn't know Slippy G was off the table no matter the context till now.


  • #114
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I think Talking Bread's case is very relevant to this thread. His OP from the DRP is interesting, especially the first paragraph...

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057941635

    Other mods upheld TB's ban "because charter" and it's therefore resolved in DRP, but it raises more questions for this thread which is related to mod bias and inconsistencies.

    Talking Bread was banned for the following comment which aimed to provide some context to the Andy Carroll tracksuit wedding photo…
    "It is his sister in law's wedding as well !! I initially thought it could have been a surprise fan thing! Or a wedding reception in London stadium that he was passing by and dragged into for the laugh! (you can rent areas in the stadium out for weddings)

    His wife is on one of those reality shows."
    Yep, that's technically chat, fair enough. But then look at the likes of this from October, specifically posts 8158 and 8159...

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108266192&postcount=8157

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108266349&postcount=8158

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108266692&postcount=8159

    Post 8158 is the very same contextual kind of post which Talking Bread got carded for, the user even forgot about the no chat rule just like TB did. The posters are there treating the thread like a general football thread, yet where are the cards or consistency there?

    Then there are the unnecessary comments which accompany some links, when do they become chat? Here are some examples below. Also, there is a rule about baiting in the OP...

    The likes of this comment definitely invites chat and/or provocation and there's no need for the poster's opinion in this specific thread: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108686270&postcount=8237

    What is the benefit to a comment like this but to provoke or bait? https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108269313&postcount=8161

    The humour thread was made for days like Mourinho's sacking, suggestions of creating a separate humour thread are redundant chat: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108913695&postcount=8305


    A lot of things go unpunished on there according to the OP rules. However, the rules only get applied in certain instances it seems .

    Now, are most of the above posts ruining the thread or making it worse? No, common sense should be applied and you would think it was. But then you read the details of TB's dispute and realise that it might not be a case of common sense, but at best large inconsistencies or at worst selective bias and a mod agenda. How is TB's post any more deserving of a card/ban than any of the other examples above?

    Some of these rules - like no chat in the humour thread and no calling someone a troll or WUM even if they clearly are (during a time when baiting and trolling is rife in the SF) - are just open to abuse and selective infraction by mods, and there is evidence in this thread of that happening. Some call the application of these rules 'discretion', but upon observation of about 12 months now many of us don't.

    WUMs are prevalent on the SF and fond of the United thread, but call one out during one of their raids and you'll get a card from Fish while his trolling comrade goes unpunished. Spelling errors are rife in today's social media communicative world, but if you misspell the wrong manager's name as a United fan, you get a card from Fish. Chat/commenting/baiting with impunity is something which happens in the humour thread as shown above, but do it very soon after having another dispute with Fish, and you're the one who gets a rare card for it.

    Those couple of rules can be abused by the mod, and then when the poster takes it to the DRP the other mods are able to point at the charter and say 'upheld, thread closed'. Unintentional from the other mods in DRP I'm sure, but it's the perfect confidence and supply arrangement going between them and Fish. For the users, it's a wholly broken system, a pointless hamster wheel and it's not fit for purpose.

    There are legit grievances here in this thread. No matter how happy we are or are not as United fans, these grievances will not go away once there are repeat occurrences. United posters in here I barely even talk to, others I've had more disagreements with than not, but yet here we all are finding the same common problems in the SF.


  • #115
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,534 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Rayne Wooney wrote: »
    Very interesting thread indeed

    I knew there were examples of the phrase being used freely as I had seen them before, but in the exact same thread, always actioned accordingly? censoring the post probably does not help to quell the usage of said phrase either?
    When reported it's been actioned:
    eg
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107107974&postcount=9881
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104605058&postcount=1528
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106605964&postcount=8271


  • #116
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,516 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I notice in this one

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106605964&postcount=8271

    the mod message makes reference as to where it is posted as making it obvious trolling

    So is there the same standard across all threads, or not? Or is a fan of club X granted more leniency to say things in the club X thread that they might not be in the club Y thread?

    Scrap the cap!



  • #117
    Baggly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    Did you report it? What do you want the soccer mods to do? Spend the morning searching the forum for a list of forbidden words?


  • #118
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,693 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    I have said this about the radio forum and I'll say it about the soccer forum - if you have a 'zero tolerance' approach to a particular breach, you must action it every time, no matter how harmless the breach is*. The whole point of a zero tolerance rule is that the mods have decided to give up discretion when it comes to that particular breach.

    There doesn't have to be a zero tolerance approach. However, if one is in place but not enforced 100% of the time it's just needlessly creating a rod for the mods' own backs.

    *and I am the poster mentioned regarding post 8158 in Stu Redman's post above. I'd guess my harmless post was never reported though.


  • #119
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,961 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Steve wrote: »
    My view on mod discretion is that they have discretion to let something slide if they see fit. This covers probably 90% of rule breaches on the site.

    If they choose to uphold the rules then so be it and I will test what was posted against the forum charter in a dispute.

    If there was no discretion allowed then the system would be unworkable and it would end up like 1984 only there would be an option to leave - which everyone would do.

    'This is a load of tosh' Have you a better suggestion as to how it should work?

    TBH, refusing to acknowledge the possibility that such discretion might be abused - especially in the context of such a “tribal” forum as soccer - is one hell of a head in the sand attitude.

    Is there really such a fear of acknowledging that sometimes mod appointments might end up shown to have been a bad choice?

    Nobody has suggested that discretion isn’t an important part of modding.
    Where problems can arise is where that discretion gets abused - as is the accusation of the OP. The core point of the OP wasn’t to call for discretion to be dropped, it was for what they perceived as a pattern of selective application and non-application of discretion to be looked at. No response has tried to address that point, instead focusing on either shifting the the goalposts or else simply attacking the OPs motivation.

    It’s a sad reflection of the culture within the powers that be on boards that even the mere suggestion that a mod might abuse their discretionary powers is immediately shouted down by multiple mods, cmods and admins; with not even the pretense of taking any claims seriously.
    The message is loud and clear - don’t dare question the mods, or else prepare to face the consequences.

    Might as well close back down the feedback forum to be honest - this thread, together with the re-emergence of the locking of any/all nevative feedback threads gives an insight into how any perceived criticisms will be taken.


  • #120
    Bobeagleburger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,735 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    Why do people feel the need to put childish names on players anyway. It's done to wind up others and deserves sanctioning every time.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Bobeagleburger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,735 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    Also, as predicted by a few people in the this thread, when results have picked up some self exiled posters have come back.


  • #122
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,403 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Good to see the rules lawyering has progressed onto matters of such grand import, like not being allowed to use a derogatory term of great wit like “Slippy G”.


  • #123
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,516 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Pter wrote: »
    Did you report it? What do you want the soccer mods to do? Spend the morning searching the forum for a list of forbidden words?

    No. It's the last link in the post above mine.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #124
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,534 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    blackwhite wrote: »
    TBH, refusing to acknowledge the possibility that such discretion might be abused - especially in the context of such a “tribal” forum as soccer - is one hell of a head in the sand attitude.

    Is there really such a fear of acknowledging that sometimes mod appointments might end up shown to have been a bad choice?
    You are choosing the wrong example with Soccer. Yes we have had to revisit certain mod appointments, but let's not resurrect that particular issue

    Now I spent many years as a Sports CMod. That involved regular interaction with all the Soccer mods in their dedicated forum. No-one will ever get every decision right. However if I felt I could contribute to discussion over possible actions, or indeed a potential reversal of a mod sanction, I would do so. And let's just get one other point over. If decisions are clearcut the mods will make them and action any appropriate sanction. Often they will not get to a thread some time afterwards because, TBH, for the big games they may well be engrossed in the match and only start reading reported posts until some time later. That may even be the following day, or if something is missed possibly on the back of someone re-reporting something

    However if unsure the mods will usually discuss it within the mod forum before acting. Hence you may see one specific mod acting, but it's possible that several mods have input into that decision

    The other thing those years of CModding made very clear to me was there was absolutely no intention of appearing biased in any way. The mod who has been referred to here probably actions as many Liverpool fans as he does United fans, but that is conveniently overlooked when a mob starts calling for his head

    As already indicated, I've actually started looking at the United thread, and TBH some of the things posters have been getting away with in that thread are unacceptable. I have therefore issued a number of in-thread warnings to get the discussion back on track. Of course United are winning again now, and an upturn of fortunes on the pitch usually reflects itself in the behaviour of certain forum regulars.

    Just to be clear I acted in a similar way in the Arsenal thread earlier this year, and before that it was the Liverpool thread. Both threads have improved significantly since, but arguably that's down to changes off the pitch and improvements on it. United were not doing well, no-one was closely looking at the thread, and a relatively small number of posters thought they could get away with stuff. When they get called out for it, someone heads over here to complain about mod bias. As I've already said numerous times in this thread, I accept a charge of inconsistency in modding the Soccer forum. I do not believe there is any bias though.


  • #125
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,495 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    RoboKlopp wrote: »
    Why do people feel the need to put childish names on players anyway. It's done to wind up others and deserves sanctioning every time.
    RoboKlopp wrote: »
    Also, as predicted by a few people in the this thread, when results have picked up some self exiled posters have come back.
    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Good to see the rules lawyering has progressed onto matters of such grand import, like not being allowed to use a derogatory term of great wit like “Slippy G”.

    Thread title: Inconsistent and biased moderation in the soccer forum.


  • #126
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,495 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    Beasty wrote: »
    As already indicated, I've actually started looking at the United thread, and TBH some of the things posters have been getting away with in that thread are unacceptable.

    The only thing you have seen is a group of posters who have had long standing concerns about the moderation be ignored. Some have left, others don't give a fig any more and react accordingly, none of this should be surprising.

    I see the OP has been banned, is this thread to be closed as well?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Trigger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,557 ✭✭✭✭Trigger


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    I see the OP has been banned, is this thread to be closed as well?

    From what I see in the Prison Forum, the OP was banned for something outside of the SF do should have no bearing on this thread, he is not permabanned so he will be back.


  • #128
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,534 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    The only thing you have seen is a group of posters who have had long standing concerns about the moderation be ignored. Some have left, others don't give a fig any more and react accordingly, none of this should be surprising.
    What I have seen is a small group of posters who have chosen not to follow the forum charter, and seem to have been getting away with that. And to be clear, they all know they have been getting away with it, which is why they are now complaining that things are being turned round.

    Any inconsistency has, I suspect, benefited United fans as much as fans of other teams. But rest assured, while I'm keeping my eyes on things over there I'll be happy to sanction fans from any club if it's warranted


  • #129
    Will I Am Not
    Registered Users Posts: 3,496 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    @Beasty
    This idea that nobody was keeping an eye on the United thread and the posters have been getting away with murder is nothing but misdirection.

    Liverpool fans are omnipresent in that thread, posters that don’t post there but are visible in their thanking of posts that are negative towards anything man united. If you step out of line in the superthread you are reported. It works both ways. To suggest that it was a free for all until you came along is preposterous and embarrassing to be honest.


  • #130
    Rayne Wooney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,136 ✭✭✭✭Rayne Wooney


    Will I Am Not wrote: »
    @Beasty
    This idea that nobody was keeping an eye on the United thread and the posters have been getting away with murder is nothing but misdirection.

    Liverpool fans are omnipresent in that thread, posters that don’t post there but are visible in their thanking of posts that are negative towards anything man united. If you step out of line in the superthread you are reported. It works both ways. To suggest that it was a free for all until you came along is preposterous and embarrassing to be honest.


    There is no point, a post I made that clearly shows a mod actioned simply because of a poster being who it was rather than the post itself didn’t even make it to this “help desk” thread.


  • #131
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,534 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Will I Am Not wrote: »
    @Beasty
    This idea that nobody was keeping an eye on the United thread and the posters have been getting away with murder is nothing but misdirection.

    Liverpool fans are omnipresent in that thread, posters that don’t post there but are visible in their thanking of posts that are negative towards anything man united. If you step out of line in the superthread you are reported. It works both ways. To suggest that it was a free for all until you came along is preposterous and embarrassing to be honest.
    Stuff that was getting reported was being actioned. A lot of stuff simply did not get reported. You will see from the numerous in-thread warnings I've already made there are a few areas where some posters were simply not following the charter, and yes I summise from that they have been doing so for some time


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    brinty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,333 ✭✭✭brinty


    Beasty wrote:
    Stuff that was getting reported was being actioned. A lot of stuff simply did not get reported. You will see from the numerous in-thread warnings I've already made there are a few areas where some posters were simply not following the charter, and yes I summise from that they have been doing so for some time


    You can only mean people questioning mod actions on thread as there has been virtually no other charter breaches over the last number of months, at least from United fans.

    So basically the situation is

    A) mod actions can't be questioned on thread

    B) mod actions can't be questioned in the annual forum feedback thread

    C) people that question mod actions in the help desk are basically told by an admin that it's all in their heads and that they're simply a bunch of malcontents with a hair up their hole over "their" mod being demodded

    So for all intents and purposes, the situation is don't question mod actions anywhere on the site.

    That's fair alright.


  • #133
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,534 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Right, here are the lies, damn lies and statistics

    I've gone back through the past 5 weeks of cards issued in the Soccer Forum - that's to the beginning of December. I appreciate this thread had already been started then, but it has taken a bit of time just to cover that period

    During that time 24 yellow cards have been issued. Of those 24 cards, 17 were issued to Liverpool fans, 3 to United fans and 4 to fans of 4 other premiership clubs

    Yes the mod in question issued all 3 "united" cards. But he also issued 6 against Liverpool fans. The others were issued by the other mods and me. In my view he accusations of bias by a Liverpool supporting mod against United fans have absolutely no standing. Equally such acquisitions could be thrown against the United fan who has issued cards during that period - 5 against Liverpool fans and none against United fans


  • #134
    Rayne Wooney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,136 ✭✭✭✭Rayne Wooney


    So 35% of the Liverpool cards and 100% of the United cards?


  • #135
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,534 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    brinty wrote: »
    You can only mean people questioning mod actions on thread as there has been virtually no other charter breaches over the last number of months, at least from United fans.
    Maybe you should go back and re-read all my in-thread warnings. None were about questioning mod actions in thread - I made it clear in each warning that posters should PM me with any queries. All but one of those warnings included commentary on terminology that is not acceptable, be that "slippy G", or indeed "arse" (as a reference to Arsenal)

    If you are saying there has been a lot of questioning of mod actions, I will have to take your word for it as I've only been focussing on the thread since this thread was started towards the end of November

    I can confirm mod actions cannot be challenged in thread. There are other avenues to deal with that, including PM'ing the mod, discussing it with a CMod, or indeed starting a thread in Help Desk

    When it comes to the annual Feedback thread, it is not intended to dissect individual mod actions. That does not mean that examples cannot be quoted to support a position. But if there's only one potential example, then there's equally not going to be anything to be gained by discussing it there as it's a general feedback on what's been happening and whether any changes are appropriate to forum rules


  • #136
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,534 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Rayne Wooney wrote: »
    So 35% of the Liverpool cards and 100% of the United cards?
    And???

    Seriously - you want to make something out of that:confused::confused::confused:

    OK I'll spell it out a bit more - twice as many to Liverpool fans (ie+100%). Does that make you feel any better?


  • #137
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So a thread opens with accusations of Moderation bias and you investigate the period after it opens only and come up with conclusion of no moderation bias. Would it not make more sense to look into before the thread started.
    And given you are looking into bias would it also not make sense to look into weather the cards were justified and not the actual number of cards per fan base. As you have already acknowledged posting numbers are way down from one set of the fan bases being discussed.

    Also I was recently informed that Mods/Admins can't action breaches of the charter once a game has finished and I was wondering if you could inform everyone which parts of the charter this specifically refers to or is it all of the charter?


  • #138
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,961 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Beasty wrote: »
    You are choosing the wrong example with Soccer. Yes we have had to revisit certain mod appointments, but let's not resurrect that particular issue

    Now I spent many years as a Sports CMod. That involved regular interaction with all the Soccer mods in their dedicated forum. No-one will ever get every decision right. However if I felt I could contribute to discussion over possible actions, or indeed a potential reversal of a mod sanction, I would do so. And let's just get one other point over. If decisions are clearcut the mods will make them and action any appropriate sanction. Often they will not get to a thread some time afterwards because, TBH, for the big games they may well be engrossed in the match and only start reading reported posts until some time later. That may even be the following day, or if something is missed possibly on the back of someone re-reporting something

    However if unsure the mods will usually discuss it within the mod forum before acting. Hence you may see one specific mod acting, but it's possible that several mods have input into that decision

    The other thing those years of CModding made very clear to me was there was absolutely no intention of appearing biased in any way. The mod who has been referred to here probably actions as many Liverpool fans as he does United fans, but that is conveniently overlooked when a mob starts calling for his head

    As already indicated, I've actually started looking at the United thread, and TBH some of the things posters have been getting away with in that thread are unacceptable. I have therefore issued a number of in-thread warnings to get the discussion back on track. Of course United are winning again now, and an upturn of fortunes on the pitch usually reflects itself in the behaviour of certain forum regulars.

    Just to be clear I acted in a similar way in the Arsenal thread earlier this year, and before that it was the Liverpool thread. Both threads have improved significantly since, but arguably that's down to changes off the pitch and improvements on it. United were not doing well, no-one was closely looking at the thread, and a relatively small number of posters thought they could get away with stuff. When they get called out for it, someone heads over here to complain about mod bias. As I've already said numerous times in this thread, I accept a charge of inconsistency in modding the Soccer forum. I do not believe there is any bias though.

    Beasty - with the greatest of respect - none of that actually addresses the concerns in the OP.

    Nobody is calling into question the behaviour of you as a mod.
    And how you avoided displaying bias or favouritism is Grady - but doesn’t mean that you should automatically assume that other mods won’t abuse the ability to use discretion.

    We’ve seen instances outside of the soccer forum where mods took advantage of their position based on personal bias - to assume that it couldn’t possibly happen in the sports section, based on your own experience of behaviing properly and honerably, comes across as more than a bit niaive.

    If someone came back and said they’d seen instances of the mod in question issueing sanctions to Liverpool fans which were extreme “letter of the law” sanctions (similar to how that mod has been documented on this thread as treading Man Utd fans) then that might be something to actually address or countermine the complaints in the OP.

    Instead the response is repeatedly deflecting from the actual complaint, and yet again trying to deflect it to blame Man Utd fans who aren’t happy with recent performances.

    The flat out refusal to even consider that a mod might abuse their ability to use discretion doesn’t paint a great picture TBH


  • #139
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,534 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So a thread opens with accusations of Moderation bias and you investigate the period after it opens only and come up with conclusion of no moderation bias. Would it not make more sense to look into before the thread started.
    OK, looking for the yellow cards issued by the mod in question for the month prior to this thread starting, in reverse order, and identifying the supported team

    Ireland
    Ireland
    United
    Liverpool
    United
    Liverpool
    Liverpool
    Liverpool
    Spurs
    United
    Liverpool

    5 x Liverpool versus 3 x United


  • #140
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,534 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Beasty - with the greatest of respect - none of that actually addresses the concerns in the OP.
    I was addressing your post. In doing so I was giving you the benefit of my own experience working with the mod team in question, and indeed the procedures they undertake before sanctioning anything that may be in a grey area

    I have addressed the OP extensively throughout this thread, but it seems whatever I say some people will not want to accept my own views that there is no bias

    Now we have a mod team comprising fans of Liverpool, Spurs, Chelsea, Arsenal, the LOI, and indeed one mod who probably favours United amongst Premiership teams. We have a CMod who is an Arsenal fan. We have Admins who are Leeds. Chelsea and United fans. I think one of us would notice bias if there genuinely was any. Yes we all make mistakes, yes there is definitely inconsistency which I am trying to help with by keeping my eye on the United thread.

    So what more do you want?

    Anyway it's off to bed for me now. Goodnight


  • #141
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,534 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Also I was recently informed that Mods/Admins can't action breaches of the charter once a game has finished and I was wondering if you could inform everyone which parts of the charter this specifically refers to or is it all of the charter?
    I'll just clear that one up while I'm here. There's no such rule


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,495 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    No bias, no problems, in fact the real issue is the bunch of fans who were complaining in the first place. Sounds about right to me.

    I genuinely believe this thread should be closed before it does any more harm.


  • #143
    brinty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,333 ✭✭✭brinty


    Beasty wrote: »
    Right, here are the lies, damn lies and statistics

    I've gone back through the past 5 weeks of cards issued in the Soccer Forum - that's to the beginning of December. I appreciate this thread had already been started then, but it has taken a bit of time just to cover that period

    During that time 24 yellow cards have been issued. Of those 24 cards, 17 were issued to Liverpool fans, 3 to United fans and 4 to fans of 4 other premiership clubs

    Yes the mod in question issued all 3 "united" cards. But he also issued 6 against Liverpool fans. The others were issued by the other mods and me. In my view he accusations of bias by a Liverpool supporting mod against United fans have absolutely no standing. Equally such acquisitions could be thrown against the United fan who has issued cards during that period - 5 against Liverpool fans and none against United fans

    So since the start of this thread?

    I wonder why? Possibly a reaction to mutiple posters calling out his bull****.

    Also, do you no find it strange that there are two Liverpool fans specifically posting in this thread and are doing there best to skew the topic? His local chums?

    Have you considered reviewing how many cards the mod in question issued prior to the thread being opened within a given window of maybe a year or something?

    The under the cover action going on is a tad bit obvious.


  • #144
    Bobeagleburger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,735 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    Beasty wrote: »
    Right, here are the lies, damn lies and statistics

    I've gone back through the past 5 weeks of cards issued in the Soccer Forum - that's to the beginning of December. I appreciate this thread had already been started then, but it has taken a bit of time just to cover that period

    During that time 24 yellow cards have been issued. Of those 24 cards, 17 were issued to Liverpool fans, 3 to United fans and 4 to fans of 4 other premiership clubs

    Yes the mod in question issued all 3 "united" cards. But he also issued 6 against Liverpool fans. The others were issued by the other mods and me. In my view he accusations of bias by a Liverpool supporting mod against United fans have absolutely no standing. Equally such acquisitions could be thrown against the United fan who has issued cards during that period - 5 against Liverpool fans and none against United fans

    This is the second set of stats in this thread that show that the accusation of bias is bogus.


  • #145
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,534 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    brinty wrote: »
    So since the start of this thread?

    I wonder why? Possibly a reaction to mutiple posters calling out his bull****.
    Please read my follow-up post - #139 above, which shows info concerning the mod for the month prior to this thread starting


  • #146
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    Perceptions of bias once embedded are not refutable to the offended even when refuted.

    Utd supporters are now looking for evidence to back up their contention and they'll find it because stuff gets through. It might be better to draw a line under this fruitless exercise and instigate a new rule - no opposition fans are allowed to post on dedicated club threads and that all cross club chat must be in the general Premier League thread which is ostensibly neutral ground.


  • #147
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,403 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Rayne Wooney wrote: »
    So 35% of the Liverpool cards and 100% of the United cards?

    This witch hunt has become embarrassingly transparent.

    How many different ways do you guys need to hear ‘we accept there’s some in deliberate inconsistency but it’s a known defect that’s difficult to eradicate without killing the forum’ and ‘we reject claims of bias’? You wanted an eye for an eye, you’ve given it a good shot - you’ve had various mods / Cmods / Admins genuinely look into this for you and give you your answer.

    There is no bias in modding from the remaining mod team, time to accept it.


  • #148
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,403 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    brinty wrote: »
    Also, do you no find it strange that there are two Liverpool fans specifically posting in this thread and are doing there best to skew the topic? His local chums?

    TRTF isn’t my closest chum, far from it! :) I’ve been carded a few times by him over the years. But he’s clearly not “biased” in his modding and never was. This isn’t a Liverpool / Utd thing for me: it’s a fundamental issue of how the forum is run generally. It is vital that calls to radically alter the running of the place borne out of petty motives be opposed. I’ve been using the forum for 12 years and I’d hope it’s there for 12 more. The charter we have is a function of a lot of experiments, failures, discussions, improvements over the years - ultimately a lot of effort and patience from the mod team.

    Don’t ruin the forum because a few people want vengeance (despite their protestations to the contrary). It’s too important.


  • #149
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,534 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    In defence of United fans generally, it's only a small number who seem to have issue. I've tried to explain things in this thread in a way that rebuts any "allegations". Unfortunately once it gets in someone's mind it can be difficult to displace such concerns. By keeping this thread open I had hoped that those "complaining" could get a better view of what goes on, and the information is in this thread if anyone wants further reassurance.

    Next year it will probably be fans of another team calling "foul", as that is a pattern I've seen around here over an extended period

    The mod in question has been in place for a very long time. When he saw some of the commentary in this thread he offered to step down, but I really don't want him to do that. He is far too much of an asset to the forum.

    I will though leave one final thought to those who have been complaining about him. Would any of you like to take the crap he and the other Soccer mods have to put up with? Seriously?

    Thread closed


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement