Soccer Forum Feedback Thread 2015

LuckyLloyd · 08-06-2015 1:46pm

BMMachine wrote: »

so yes, its okay to troll as long as its in the humour thread is what you are saying?

and you should "thicken your skin" if you are being trolled there. Does the same "thicken your skin" rule apply to all the other threads as well? Why isn't that in the charter?
One of the pics posted there is from YNFA - a website / hub with the purpose of trolling Liverpool fans. Yet its not trolling if posted on boards?
unwritten rules and unclear definitions - "oh its ok to post that there but not here and here"

I have opened that thread a handful of times in the past due to it being referenced in the Liverpool discussion thread. It's moronic generally but if that's what people enjoy let them have at it. You can't be trolled if you never open it and therefore don't see anything posted in it!!

danrua01 · 08-06-2015 1:47pm

BMMachine wrote: »

so yes, its okay to troll as long as its in the humour thread is what you are saying?

and you should "thicken your skin" if you are being trolled there. Does the same "thicken your skin" rule apply to all the other threads as well? Why isn't that in the charter?
One of the pics posted there is from YNFA - a website / hub with the purpose of trolling Liverpool fans. Yet its not trolling if posted on boards?
unwritten rules and unclear definitions - "oh its ok to post that there but not here and here"

I think everyone knows what the humour thread contains. Something happens in football, someone pokes fun at it. Noone's being targeted. If you take offense at a picture that's taking the piss out of a team you support, yes, you should "thicken your skin".

It's within the context of a humour thread... With everything posted in there some people will find it humorous, and others won't.

Lord TSC · 08-06-2015 1:48pm

BMMachine wrote: »

so yes, its okay to troll as long as its in the humour thread is what you are saying?

Just a quick check; did you report those posts?

Something I've come to realise over my last year here is that more often than not, people say "what about this post?" but don't ever report it. Mods aren't psychic, and we don't read every single post.

One of those pictures was only just recently reported, and yeah, I'll be deleting it now in line with the rules laid out in thread. But a lot of the time, mods rely on reported posts so if posts aren't reported, they may not be on our radars quickly.

BMMachine · 08-06-2015 1:49pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I have opened that thread a handful of times in the past due to it being referenced in the Liverpool discussion thread. It's moronic generally but if that's what people enjoy let them have at it. You can't be trolled if you never open it and therefore don't see anything posted in it!!

fine and dandy, but its the anomaly where trolling is allowed and we are meant to just 'know' that?

Lovely Bloke · 08-06-2015 1:51pm

zerks wrote: »

What I'd like to see clarified is the issue of phrases etc. which having been used widely in the forum suddenly being deemed offensive and cards being handed out without warning for using well worn terms.

I know why you are saying this, and yeah, the situation was bizarre to say the least.

It's pretty shítty of the mods to deem a particular phrase cardable one day, when there are demonstrable examples of that same phrase going unchecked in the very same thread on multiple previous occasions, in pretty much the exact same context.

It makes it impossible for the CMod to arbitrate sensibly too, because while something may seem like it might deserve a card (and in such cases it's probably correct that the CMod come down on the side of the Mod), it's unfair on the poster in question to suddenly be carded for a phrase that his peers are using without sanction, especially if it leads to a ban.

You get into the realm of mindreading, and telling a poster what they meant, when there's no actual way to know.

For those who don't know, Zerks used a nickname for a player that people had been using on the forum for a number of months - and found himself carded for it. He went to DRP and the CMod sided with the Mods (fair enough imo), but he rightfully pointed out the multiple other instances of the nickname being used, and those instances receiving no sanctions.

A better solution would have been to rescind the card, then make an announcement that from this point onwards that nickname will now not be tolerated - because up to that point it was being tolerated.

I KNOW the charter pretty much says "no nicknames", but nicknames are used all the time, with no sanction.

It sucks to be the one who uses the nickname at the time when the tide turns against it, with no prior warning, and find yourself trying to use the "Well he did it too" defense in DRP. Because it's a defense that never holds up, and rightfully so, but it's a pretty bad way of modding.

"Yeah well, it's not ok now, even though it was ok last week and we are using you as an example".

Buford T. Justice XIX · 08-06-2015 1:55pm

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

I know why you are saying this, and yeah, the situation was bizarre to say the least.

It's pretty shítty of the mods to deem a particular phrase cardable one day, when there are demonstrable examples of that same phrase going unchecked in the very same thread on multiple previous occasions, in pretty much the exact same context.

It makes it impossible for the CMod to arbitrate sensibly too, because while something may seem like it might deserve a card (and in such cases it's probably correct that the CMod come down on the side of the Mod), it's unfair on the poster in question to suddenly be carded for a phrase that his peers are were using without sanction, especially if it leads to a ban.

You get into the realm of mindreading, and telling a poster what they meant, when there's no actual way to know.

For those who don't know, Zerks used a nickname for a player that people had been using on the forum for a number of months - and found himself carded for it. He went to DRP and the CMod sided with the Mods (fair enough imo), but he rightfully pointed out the multiple other instances of the nickname being used, and those instances receiving no sanctions.

A better solution would have been to rescind the card, then make an announcement that from this point onwards that nickname will now not be tolerated - because up to that point it was being tolerated.

I KNOW the charter pretty much says "no nicknames", but nicknames are used all the time, with no sanction.

It sucks to be the one who uses the nickname at the time when the tide turns against it, with no prior warning, and find yourself trying to use the "Well he did it too" defense in DRP. Because it's a defense that never holds up, and rightfully so, but it's a pretty bad way of modding.

"Yeah well, it's not ok now, even though it was ok last week and we are using you as an example".

FYP to reflect a more accurate recap of the situation.

8-10 · 08-06-2015 1:55pm

This rule from the charter should be enforced a lot better:

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.

Despite the charter stating in capital letters that match incident discussion is not tolerated in Superthreads, I very regularly (and I mean weekly) see the discussion of goals, penalty decisions, red cards etc etc discussed in the Superthreads which are reserved for more general discussions.

I would hope in 2015/16 that we see a lot more cards for posters ignoring this very obvious and basic rule, as my own feeling is that the Mods were lax on this in 2014/15 particularly when it regarded mentioning match incidents while a game was actually going on and while a match thread exists. But even if the match is over, this still should not be tolerated, we all agreed to abide by the charter so incidents should completely drop out of the Superthreads.

pmasterson95 · 08-06-2015 1:56pm

BMMachine wrote: »

so yes, its okay to troll as long as its in the humour thread is what you are saying?

and you should "thicken your skin" if you are being trolled there. Does the same "thicken your skin" rule apply to all the other threads as well? Why isn't that in the charter?
One of the pics posted there is from YNFA - a website / hub with the purpose of trolling Liverpool fans. Yet its not trolling if posted on boards?
unwritten rules and unclear definitions - "oh its ok to post that there but not here and here"

The humour thread has a fairly comprehensive mod note in the OP. Maybe the humour is just not for you? And please are you going to try to claim that no Manchester/Newcastle United fans were "trolled" (using your apparent very loose definition of the term) in that thread.
Its not that unclear the rules.
The humour thread is designed as a humour thread for ALL boardsies and can poke fun at ANY team. If you cannot accept your club being poked fun at then perhaps you should stay in one of the superthreads designated to your club. The superthreads are designed to house discussion for your team therefore they are less likely (unless you can poke fun at your own misfortune) to have people taking humour from current misfortunes as all fans would be suffering.

Is that actually confusing?

brevity · 08-06-2015 1:58pm

BMMachine wrote: »

fine and dandy, but its the anomaly where trolling is allowed and we are meant to just 'know' that?

I've often thought of the soccer forum as a bit like a prison. There are different cliques and no one integrates. If someone makes a comment about your clique then you have to retaliate. If you see someone breaking the rules you keep quiet or you will get shivved in the showers.

The humor thread is like the play ground, **** goes down but the screws mods allow it.

Will I Amnt · 08-06-2015 1:58pm

8-10 wrote: »

This rule from the charter should be enforced a lot better:

Despite the charter stating in capital letters that match incident discussion is not tolerated in Superthreads, I very regularly (and I mean weekly) see the discussion of goals, penalty decisions, red cards etc etc discussed in the Superthreads which are reserved for more general discussions.

I would hope in 2015/16 that we see a lot more cards for posters ignoring this very obvious and basic rule, as my own feeling is that the Mods were lax on this in 2014/15 particularly when it regarded mentioning match incidents while a game was actually going on and while a match thread exists. But even if the match is over, this still should not be tolerated, we all agreed to abide by the charter so incidents should completely drop out of the Superthreads.

That is the most ridiculous rule in the charter and it's rightly forgotten about. Some match threads are locked on the same day the match took place, you can't just stop the discussion completely.

5starpool · 08-06-2015 1:59pm

8-10 wrote: »

This rule from the charter should be enforced a lot better:

Despite the charter stating in capital letters that match incident discussion is not tolerated in Superthreads, I very regularly (and I mean weekly) see the discussion of goals, penalty decisions, red cards etc etc discussed in the Superthreads which are reserved for more general discussions.

I would hope in 2015/16 that we see a lot more cards for posters ignoring this very obvious and basic rule, as my own feeling is that the Mods were lax on this in 2014/15 particularly when it regarded mentioning match incidents while a game was actually going on and while a match thread exists. But even if the match is over, this still should not be tolerated, we all agreed to abide by the charter so incidents should completely drop out of the Superthreads.

I relaly hope this doesn't become the case. While I think it's fine that match talk when a game is on should be in the match thread, discussing part of a game or an incident in the main thread afterwards is fine. I know when match threads were introduced forst there was a long period where people got silly cards for things and it was far too strict. Warnings to generally keep match stuff in the relevant threads are fine on occasion, but in the main it's not an issue for me.

Cantona's Collars · 08-06-2015 1:59pm

The whole thing about phrases suddenly being card offenses ends up with posters looking like school kids in DRP with the argument of "he said it first,and him,and him but now I'm in trouble."

If an incident leads to a nickname being widely used,why would it suddenly become offensive?

If mods suddenly decide that a phrase or nickname is to be no longer used then make it publicly known never mind handing out cards because a certain few posters hit report after consulting with each other first.

Lovely Bloke · 08-06-2015 2:00pm

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

FYP to reflect a more accurate recap of the situation.

Incorrect, up to the point in time when his use of the phrase became the sanctioned one people were presently using the term.

It may have stopped since, and that's cool, but it's totally bogus to card a fella for using a term that others have used and not gotten carded - especially when those other uses of the term are in the same thread and same general context - without first telling everyone to stop using the term, and that from that point onwards the term is now cardable.

Even though the charter makes it clear that such nicknames are taboo, once the mods start allowing a certain term to go unchecked they are tacitly allowing it as an exception - it is not kosher to then start handing out cards for that term without first stating that it is no longer allowed.

adox · 08-06-2015 2:02pm

8-10 wrote: »

This rule from the charter should be enforced a lot better:

Despite the charter stating in capital letters that match incident discussion is not tolerated in Superthreads, I very regularly (and I mean weekly) see the discussion of goals, penalty decisions, red cards etc etc discussed in the Superthreads which are reserved for more general discussions.

I would hope in 2015/16 that we see a lot more cards for posters ignoring this very obvious and basic rule, as my own feeling is that the Mods were lax on this in 2014/15 particularly when it regarded mentioning match incidents while a game was actually going on and while a match thread exists. But even if the match is over, this still should not be tolerated, we all agreed to abide by the charter so incidents should completely drop out of the Superthreads.

Well thats a rule I would like to see changed so you can discuss games on Superthreads.

Match threads are more often than not a cluster**** and I avoid them most of the time.

Hell even the CL final match thread which I took part in, descended into the usual Liverrpool vs Man Utd tripe.

O personally would love to be able to discuss an ongoing match in the teams Superthread, clear of those skating the line of trolling(and there are many).

pmasterson95 · 08-06-2015 2:05pm

Actually for matches maybe next year establish a thread for the 6-7 "smaller matches" that can go on during a match week? The big teams get the individual match thread but sometimes the likes of Palace vs. Everton could turn into a cracking fmgame but there was never a thread for those matches?

brevity · 08-06-2015 2:06pm

There has to be some analysis of the match in the super-threads afterwards imo. Otherwise there is very little to talk about.

GavRedKing · 08-06-2015 2:09pm

8-10 wrote: »

This rule from the charter should be enforced a lot better:

Despite the charter stating in capital letters that match incident discussion is not tolerated in Superthreads, I very regularly (and I mean weekly) see the discussion of goals, penalty decisions, red cards etc etc discussed in the Superthreads which are reserved for more general discussions.

I would hope in 2015/16 that we see a lot more cards for posters ignoring this very obvious and basic rule, as my own feeling is that the Mods were lax on this in 2014/15 particularly when it regarded mentioning match incidents while a game was actually going on and while a match thread exists. But even if the match is over, this still should not be tolerated, we all agreed to abide by the charter so incidents should completely drop out of the Superthreads.

Right off the top of my head I cant count the amount of superthreads that post about matches weekly. Utd and Pool make up the majority of fnas and as such have the largest base of fnas to engage in threads. They reguarly start match threads even if the game isnt on TV and theyre playing someone like Leicester, for example. However, if you replace Pool with Chelsea, Arsenal, City or any other subset of fnas that post here, they wont start a match thread for a non-TV game against a lowly team and sometimes match posts go into their own superthreads.

I've no issue with it anyway, a typical Utd or Pool match will get a few hundred posts, the other teams wont have that scope for certain games and most fans wont want to start a match thread.

GavRedKing · 08-06-2015 2:11pm

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Actually for matches maybe next year establish a thread for the 6-7 "smaller matches" that can go on during a match week? The big teams get the individual match thread but sometimes the likes of Palace vs. Everton could turn into a cracking fmgame but there was never a thread for those matches?

I've no issue with a thread being started like "EPL Match week 1" and keeping general talk for games that dont have a thread or for people to treat is as a place for all EPL discussion that week.

Cantona's Collars · 08-06-2015 2:13pm

brevity wrote: »

There has to be some analysis of the match in the super-threads afterwards imo. Otherwise there is very little to talk about.

If you look into the 2 big threads on match days,you'll find nearly as much discussion there while the game is on as you would in the match thread,certain posters prefer to do that as it avoids the hassle of the niggling that can go on in the match thread.

Regarding the match threads for lesser supported teams,it's easy enough to start a thread for those fixtures and have it all encompassing for said games just as Gav said.It happens in the Fantasy EPL thread where all games are discussed as they happen,not on the same scale as the Soccer forum but it's done.

danrua01 · 08-06-2015 2:15pm

Match threads, etc:

Would it be feasible to have a reddit style Match Thread, then a Post-Match Thread?

Bobeagleburger · 08-06-2015 2:25pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The humour thread is a great containment space. Leave it as is.

Agreed.

It beats having the trolls post stuff in superthreads

BMMachine · 08-06-2015 2:27pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

Agreed.

It beats having the trolls post stuff in superthreads

I know this sounds crazy, but what about no trolling at all?

Buford T. Justice XIX · 08-06-2015 2:29pm

adox wrote: »

Well thats a rule I would like to see changed so you can discuss games on Superthreads.

Match threads are more often than not a cluster**** and I avoid them most of the time.

Hell even the CL final match thread which I took part in, descended into the usual Liverrpool vs Man Utd tripe.

O personally would love to be able to discuss an ongoing match in the teams Superthread, clear of those skating the line of trolling(and there are many).

X1000.

Match threads are best avoided for the most part. The few times i venture in there is on occasions where i cannot get updates any other way and i quickly regret it.

And also +1 on Liverpool v ManU, if we were discussing politics here then it would also turn into Liverpool v ManU.

Not everything in life is a reflection of that rivalry.

8-10 · 08-06-2015 2:33pm

GavRedKing wrote: »

However, if you replace Pool with Chelsea, Arsenal, City or any other subset of fnas that post here, they wont start a match thread for a non-TV game against a lowly team and sometimes match posts go into their own superthreads.

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

The Moldy Gowl · 08-06-2015 2:35pm

BMMachine wrote: »

I know this sounds crazy, but what about no trolling at all?

Would you stop. It's humour on current events.
It's barely trolling.

MagicIRL · 08-06-2015 2:36pm

Trolling is just a buzzword. Nothing posted on boards.ie is ever genuinely trolling. Look at the humour thread; a lot of posts this season have been aimed at Liverpool and the antics of the fans last season. It's not trolling, it's having a laugh.

efb · 08-06-2015 2:40pm

MagicIRL wrote: »

Trolling is just a buzzword. Nothing posted on boards.ie is ever genuinely trolling. Look at the humour thread; a lot of posts this season have been aimed at Liverpool and the antics of the fans last season. It's not trolling, it's having a laugh.

Depends how one defines trolling ©

pmasterson95 · 08-06-2015 2:42pm

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Would you stop. It's humour on current events.
It's barely trolling.

I'm sure when United missed CL he was more than happy to laugh at them. Now that its Liverpool in the firing line its ah stop bullying us. The thread reflects who evers failing the most. If your sensitive and your teams failing dont go there.

Knex* · 08-06-2015 2:44pm

Tbh, if I thought there was a post where Zerks was congratulating Ronaldo last year, I'd have screenshot it and posted it right under the Suarez thing.

Its fair game.

I'd wager the majority of Liverpool fans loved that thread last year, and this year not so much. United, the opposite.

Bobeagleburger · 08-06-2015 2:46pm

BMMachine wrote: »

I know this sounds crazy, but what about no trolling at all?

It's not really trolling though. It's a bit of humour. You'll get the odd person that will step out of line and the mods sort it.

Trust me the humour thread is a godsend. All those pics used to be posted in superthreads which in turn caused bickering etc.

Bobeagleburger · 08-06-2015 2:56pm

zerks wrote: »

The whole thing about phrases suddenly being card offenses ends up with posters looking like school kids in DRP with the argument of "he said it first,and him,and him but now I'm in trouble."

If an incident leads to a nickname being widely used,why would it suddenly become offensive?

If mods suddenly decide that a phrase or nickname is to be no longer used then make it publicly known never mind handing out cards because a certain few posters hit report after consulting with each other first.

It's context I guess and depends where it's said.

If someone is being a dick they deserve what they get tbh. If they disagree let them go to drp and challenge it.

The humour thread is there for a reason.

To add to this : Chelski from last season is a good example. It was used a fair bit but added to the banned list as it's having a dig whether it's childish or not.

Darkglasses · 08-06-2015 3:00pm

I don't read this forum much anymore, but from the outside it seems 100x better than 12 months ago. Well done everyone.

Liam O · 08-06-2015 3:07pm

I think opposition match thread bans could be handed out to one or 2 who come in at the same point every single one of them and make a statement to just rile everyone up. I know the names now so it's easier and the touch site doesn't show ignored posters. I'm sure it happens in non-united match threads too which I rarely read but there's definitely one or two who come in every time there's even a 50-50 incident and start spouting shìt clearly designed to do nothing other than fan the flames.

I'd agree that it's the least problematic the forum has been since I started reading/posting.

Crann na Beatha · 08-06-2015 3:07pm

This post has been deleted.

Crann na Beatha · 08-06-2015 3:09pm

This post has been deleted.

Cantona's Collars · 08-06-2015 3:21pm

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Would you stop. It's humour on current events.
It's barely trolling.

Offended for the sake of it,that's the joy of it here at times.

5starpool · 08-06-2015 3:21pm

JT26 wrote: »

One thing I wana ask is abusing the thank system still against the charter? for example a poster posts which gets carded and posters thank it is what i mean

There was a big issue involving this years ago which I won't detail, but from what I can tell the answering is generally no, but obviously there is still discretion on the part of the mods if they see fit as well.

For example, if I called Suarez a cúnt and 5 people thanked it I'd get a card but they wouldn't, but if I threatened to kill you and went on a massive rant about how/why I was going to and 5 people thanked it, then as well as me getting banned (and possibly arrested!) those that thanked it might get banned too, although I'm not sure on that one. Bit of an extreme example though, and for the record I am not intending to kill you

BMMachine · 08-06-2015 3:21pm

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I'm sure when United missed CL he was more than happy to laugh at them. Now that its Liverpool in the firing line its ah stop bullying us. The thread reflects who evers failing the most. If your sensitive and your teams failing dont go there.

no im pretty sure I wasn't. In fact, I thought the same thing that I do now, that its cheap pops and lowbrow trolling. But however, its good to generalise to make your point seem more relevant even if it is based on ideas you have just made up in your head.

At the end of the day, it is trolling, it seems to be the designated trolling thread. Should that not be in the charter then? "no trolling except for the humour thread where trolling is actually allowed"

zerks wrote: »

Offended for the sake of it,that's the joy of it here at times.

says one of the main guys who trolls that thread. sorry am I allowed to say that? I get confused, I was accused of being a troll, reported the post and nothing happened, so is it okay if I do it here?

Bobeagleburger · 08-06-2015 3:23pm

Liam O wrote: »

I think opposition match thread bans could be handed out to one or 2 who come in at the same point every single one of them and make a statement to just rile everyone up. I know the names now so it's easier and the touch site doesn't show ignored posters. I'm sure it happens in non-united match threads too which I rarely read but there's definitely one or two who come in every time there's even a 50-50 incident and start spouting shìt clearly designed to do nothing other than fan the flames.

I'd agree that it's the least problematic the forum has been since I started reading/posting.

By spouting ****e what do you mean though?

If it's trolling the mod do a good job of keeping it under wraps.

I think we all know a few names that like to cause issues in match threads. They've most likely picked up cards though.

SantryRed · 08-06-2015 3:45pm

I think outside of the two main teams, a lot of matches are being discussed within superthreads, and it makes it a hell of a lot harder for a neutral to post there. At that point, there's no point in creating a match thread because all the discussion will be occurring in the superthread. The Newcastle and Chelsea superthreads are two examples of this happening on what I think is a consistent basis.

Turtyturd · 08-06-2015 3:51pm

Might be more of a site wide issue but the drp process needs some kind of overhaul. The inconsistency of the moderating is an acceptable defence but mods shoot that down and say they are discussing only the carded post, yet often drag other posts in for their argument.

Even worse is that there are often cases where a two week ban has expired by the time a mod has responded. I know the volunteer line will be trotted out but I think people would expect it to be sorted in two weeks.

Why is there no system in place for genuine complaints about moderation? There's been an issue between one group of fans and a mod since a few weeks after the last feedback thread and when a few posters tried to raise it they got trumped up bans and the threads were locked.

Inconsistent moderation is the other main one. The nickname thing is a perfect example; Chelski, Maureen, you're getting a yellow card...Spuds, Sally, Brenda all seem to be acceptable or occasionally cardable.

Liam O · 08-06-2015 3:56pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

By spouting ****e what do you mean though?

If it's trolling the mod do a good job of keeping it under wraps.

I think we all know a few names that like to cause issues in match threads. They've most likely picked up cards though.

Ah rarnes you (and the rest of your accounts

) know the way it works. Blanket statements not backed up by what's actually happened and when called on it will just move onto the next thing without engaging with the discussion. It's hard to talk about without getting too specific.

greendom · 08-06-2015 3:58pm

Why is there so much sensitivity over jokey names which are used extensively elsewhere ?

Crann na Beatha · 08-06-2015 4:06pm

This post has been deleted.

Will I Amnt · 08-06-2015 4:09pm

greendom wrote: »

Why is there so much sensitivity over jokey names which are used extensively elsewhere ?

I was never really into using them myself bar the Slippy G one, just thought it was funny, but it's hard to believe people get offended by these names.

Bobeagleburger · 08-06-2015 4:17pm

greendom wrote: »

Why is there so much sensitivity over jokey names which are used extensively elsewhere ?

Where does it stop though.

You either ban names or let them all be used. The latter will cause more headaches.

Why use them at all. Smacks of childishness tbh

GavRedKing · 08-06-2015 4:19pm

Turtyturd wrote: »

Inconsistent moderation is the other main one. The nickname thing is a perfect example; Chelski, Maureen, you're getting a yellow card...Spuds, Sally, Brenda all seem to be acceptable or occasionally cardable.

Whos Sally?

And Spuds, I dont think anyone has an issue with that TBH, never seen it reported.

Ive found 172 mentions of Maureen in the forum and 31 for Brenda. Anyone calling a manager a female version of his own name or a variation of it is cringe worthy.

Off the top of my head I cant think of anyone being reported for saying Brenda though, if they had been, theyed be carded. So if it isnt reported how do we combat it?

Unless we search everyday for offensive words and slang, which isnt viable.

greendom wrote: »

Why is there so much sensitivity over jokey names which are used extensively elsewhere ?

I'd assume the majority of people here being adults wouldnt have to resort to childish names but it isnt the case. I think Brenda, Maureen etc is stupid and its only going to wind people up, so when used, their purpose is clear. While not really sensitive to it, I'd prefer for adults to get on with it and not have to resort to such terms.

Liam McPoyle · 08-06-2015 4:21pm

Will I Amnt wrote: »

I was never really into using them myself bar the Slippy G one, just thought it was funny, but it's hard to believe people get offended by these names.

The worst thing about that is that it was posted in the United thread, not the LFC thread or an LFC match thread, if it had been in one of those then one could argue a reason for it been cardable but it wasn't. It was a complete over reaction and clearly who ever reported the post was goin out of their way to try and get another poster in bother. Poor show all round.

Bobeagleburger · 08-06-2015 4:24pm

Business Cat wrote: »

The worst thing about that is that it was posted in the United thread, not the LFC thread or an LFC match thread, if it had been in one of those then one could argue a reason for it been cardable but it wasn't. It was a complete over reaction and clearly who ever reported the post was goin out of their way to try and get another poster in bother. Poor show all round.

Hold on, this is all about someone's personal dispute?

I though they weren't allowed on this feedback. It happens every year and drags it off topic.

Drp is the place for whoever it was surely. And maybe to grow up and be an adult as Gav says?

Mickeroo · 08-06-2015 4:34pm

Business Cat wrote: »

The worst thing about that is that it was posted in the United thread, not the LFC thread or an LFC match thread, if it had been in one of those then one could argue a reason for it been cardable but it wasn't. It was a complete over reaction and clearly who ever reported the post was goin out of their way to try and get another poster in bother. Poor show all round.

It being the United thread is irrelevant. The superthreads are not a separate entity from the wider forum, they are open for everyone to post in despite the cliques that form. If Liverpool fans had responded to that post in the united thread there would have been a hissy fit from the united fans despite the fact it would have been a direct result of a petty dig from an actual united fan. Either childish nicknames are allowed or they aren't, you can't have it both ways.

Soccer Forum Feedback Thread 2015

Comments