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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
double standards
Options
-
04-06-2019 12:02pm#1why is there yellows given out for some abuse and not all??
i got a yellow for saying
"bale seems like a tosser" and got a 3 month ban
this post doesnt even get a yellow...
"You’d think all out to finish strong but 5 points from the last 6 games, whilst chasing a champions league spot, madness. And yes Pogba is a fung virus an absolute waste of skin."
here is a post in liverpool thread, along the lines of my post but no yellow
post #4763 in liverpool thread
"I'd be surprised if Liverpool went for him. He seems like a complete knob. Could be good, could be Balotelli. Reckon he might be on his way to Bayern. FC Hollywood would be a good fit him. They're looking to replace Robben and Ribery too."0
Comments
-
Report the posts. They might not have been seen by a moderator.
Moderator: Non Drinkers Group & Grand Theft Auto
0 -
I have reported posts, there was plenty of them as well and they didnt get yellows. Seems to be hit and miss, thats where my issue is0
-
I have reported posts, there was plenty of them as well and they didnt get yellows. Seems to be hit and miss, thats where my issue is
Report them & let the moderators deal with them.
It’s impossible to know what the outcome of any post you report will be but at least you know it has received some sort of moderator attention. Whether the reported poster gets a ‘lifetime ban’ or ‘no action required’ (or anything in between) is nothing to do with you. You have reported what you believe is wrong, your responsibility ends there.
Let the moderators deal with it.Moderator: Non Drinkers Group & Grand Theft Auto
0 -
For what it's worth I have also reported that post in the Liverpool thread and reason been is because I wanted clarification on bangkok getting a yellow for something so minor and resulting in a ban but same things along with many others been ignored in other threads.
I sent off mickeroo a pm to clarify also as mickeroo was dealing with bangkoks thread in drp and stated his offence on its on was pretty much a clear cut yellow but got no reply so maybe everyone was just missing everything who knows.
Now you may say that as long as he reports it that's his job done but there has been complaints about biased moderation in football forums for past year or more and I think it's at the stage now where people have to question some of these decisions somewhere because feedback thread is been overrun and no one listens to anything.
All due respects to bangkok he aint even a poster I get along with we pretty much clash over everything but I know exactly where he is coming from on this and I don't think I'm the only one that feels this way.0 -
Unless you're a mod, you shouldn't be able to see who has a yellow or not too afaik so just because you think someone doesn't, doesn't make it true0
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 70306
On this specific point, yellows (and reds) are visible to all as long as the post is not deleted. Not only that, but clicking on the yellow (by a non-mod) does allow a poster to see more information, including the mod who issued the card and the reason given for itUnless you're a mod, you shouldn't be able to see who has a yellow or not too afaik so just because you think someone doesn't, doesn't make it true
Bans are not visible to non-mods0 -
Consistency is consistently the issue, needs to be discussed, yet again in soccer feedback imo, whenever that thread gets going.
Oh well, give me an easy life and a peaceful death.
0 -
The soccer feedback thread is largely pointless. There will be no such thing as perfectly consistent moderation with a forum such as soccer and the number of moderators who are each their own person who interpret and view things in their own way. They are human.
The clearer cases could and should be handled a lot better but there is perceptions, on both sides now (some moderators, some users) of bias and of unfair dealing. This bad blood doesn't help matters.
To look at this specific incident, if a mod has come to the conclusion that something, i.e. Bangkoks post is cut and dried than surely that mod should action an almost identical post when it is brought to their attention whether or not another mod has marked it nothing to see here or not?
If something is clear cut actionable it should be acted upon regardless of user or mod. As I said it will never be perfect, everyone would surely accept that but the strive to improve should always be there. To try to leave bias at the door as much as possible, on both sides. Unconscious bias is a tough one to get rid of totally but efforts can be made to reduce the effects."People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."
0 -
Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »Consistency is consistently the issue, needs to be discussed, yet again in soccer feedback imo, whenever that thread gets going.
yep.
All i want is a bit of clarification. Is abusing a player a yellow or not because if it is every post of someone abusing a player should be a yellow. cant be just whatever the mod feels like at the time0 -
All abuse of players/managers should be a yellow card offence per the soccer forum charter. Abuse of users is a Red card offences.Minor Offences (including but not limited to):
Abuse of players.
Threadspoiling
Flamebaiting in threads.
Debating moderation in threads.
Mild flaming or trolling.
Provocation.
Derailing or off topic posting in super threads.
Accusing a member of trolling/being a troll
Misuse of the Reported Post system
Back-seat moderation
Abusing through the thanks system (thanking abusive posts)
Major Offences (including but not limited to):
Blatant or deliberate breach of charter.
Misuse of tagging system
Abuse of users.
Flaming
Trolling
Breaking a boards.ie rule
The problem in the SF, and across Boards as a whole is the level of consistency in moderation and implementation of the charters, and while we cannot expect mods to be on at all times due to having real lives we should expect that the report post feature is looked at and actioned if deemed in breach, when they do come on be it a couple of hours/days later. One problem seems to be that as the mods have not been active for a couple of days that the conversations have passed and the threads have moved on so they seem to leave the posts from this time unactioned.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 70306
As the person who issued the relevant yellow here, I'll just make some comments about what actually happened.
The OP attempted to challenge the card (and resultant ban) via PM. At no time did he acknowledge that he had been abusive towards the player. Yes he brought up examples of inconsistency.
I would have considered lifting the card (and ban) if they had acknowledged their attempt to suggest it was not abusive was essentially rules lawyering, and accepted it was abusive. However the OP brought the discussion to a halt when he indicated he considered there was no point in discussing it further and that he would see me in 3 months
Again I acknowledge the inconsistency here, but the OP did have an opportunity to get me to overturn the card which, in my view, he spurned
If he were to re-engage with me (via PM) I would consider any further representations he wishes to make.0 -
As the person who issued the relevant yellow here, I'll just make some comments about what actually happened.
The OP attempted to challenge the card (and resultant ban) via PM. At no time did he acknowledge that he had been abusive towards the player. Yes he brought up examples of inconsistency.
I would have considered lifting the card (and ban) if they had acknowledged their attempt to suggest it was not abusive was essentially rules lawyering, and accepted it was abusive. However the OP brought the discussion to a halt when he indicated he considered there was no point in discussing it further and that he would see me in 3 months
Again I acknowledge the inconsistency here, but the OP did have an opportunity to get me to overturn the card which, in my view, he spurned
If he were to re-engage with me (via PM) I would consider any further representations he wishes to make.
Why should a yellow card be overturned if the user acknowledges that it was abusive? Surely that would leave the whole charter open to abuse? Abuse of anyone be it players, managers, people or users should be one of the clear cut and properly enforced aspects of the charter, start actioning that properly and the SF will be a whole lot better for it0 -
Why should a yellow card be overturned if the user acknowledges that it was abusive? Surely that would leave the whole charter open to abuse? Abuse of anyone be it players, managers, people or users should be one of the clear cut and properly enforced aspects of the charter, start actioning that properly and the SF will be a whole lot better for it
Agree 100%.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 70306
It's a fair question. Arguably it was on the milder side of abuse, but strictly under forum rules it would be a yellowWhy should a yellow card be overturned if the user acknowledges that it was abusive? Surely that would leave the whole charter open to abuse? Abuse of anyone be it players, managers, people or users should be one of the clear cut and properly enforced aspects of the charter, start actioning that properly and the SF will be a whole lot better for it
There was some discussion in a recent Soccer forum feedback thread about relaxing the abuse rules in "heat of the moment" situations, involving players of a team being supported by the player. Indeed that was agreed, I think in the last feedback thread (possibly the one before that)
That was not the case here, and what I was really thinking about was allowing the poster some slack if he had acknowledged his comments did breach forum rules and agreed to take more care going forward. I was conscious that similar comments had not been actioned elsewhere in the forum (and I did not want to open that can of worms as in the Soccer forum some posters are prone to go back over extended period to try and get other posters in trouble)0 -
It's a fair question. Arguably it was on the milder side of abuse, but strictly under forum rules it would be a yellow
There was some discussion in a recent Soccer forum feedback thread about relaxing the abuse rules in "heat of the moment" situations, involving players of a team being supported by the player. Indeed that was agreed, I think in the last feedback thread (possibly the one before that)
That was not the case here, and what I was really thinking about was allowing the poster some slack if he had acknowledged his comments did breach forum rules and agreed to take more care going forward. I was conscious that similar comments had not been actioned elsewhere in the forum (and I did not want to open that can of worms as in the Soccer forum some posters are prone to go back over extended period to try and get other posters in trouble)
But what about all the unactioned posts exactly the same as Bangkok’s that haven’t been actioned? All the mods just missed those even different posters have stated they did report them at different times?0 -
It's a fair question. Arguably it was on the milder side of abuse, but strictly under forum rules it would be a yellow
There was some discussion in a recent Soccer forum feedback thread about relaxing the abuse rules in "heat of the moment" situations, involving players of a team being supported by the player. Indeed that was agreed, I think in the last feedback thread (possibly the one before that)
That was not the case here, and what I was really thinking about was allowing the poster some slack if he had acknowledged his comments did breach forum rules and agreed to take more care going forward. I was conscious that similar comments had not been actioned elsewhere in the forum (and I did not want to open that can of worms as in the Soccer forum some posters are prone to go back over extended period to try and get other posters in trouble)
Surely you, as admin along with Cmods, should be asking the question as to why the mods decided not to action the post linked in the OP which is basically the exact same as Bangkoks and was made after bangkoks yellow card. There were mods posting around that time in the SF and on that thread. Was this "selectively" missed?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 70306
As I have already alluded to, I would probably have rescinded the card if the OP had approached his "challenge" differently (and there is evidence of this in my discussions with CMods at the time which the CMods and other Admins can see).
Once he took it to the DRP it fell out of my hands, although he could still approach me directly via PM if he wishes (as I have already stated above)
As it was, he has a very poor record in the forum and indeed had already suffered a thread ban issued by myself in a prior United thread (if I had carded him then, he would still have been subject to lengthy bans under the totting up process, hence on that occasion he benefited from "mod discretion")
Of course I could go back and start carding those other posts he mentions, but equally if I take the relevant poster's records into account it may well be that I draw a different conclusion. If I overlay the fact that I would have been prepared to rescind the card and the posters prior record it would look pretty petty if I went back carding those posts, and indeed exacerbate claims of double standards0 -
As I have already alluded to, I would probably have rescinded the card if the OP had approached his "challenge" differently (and there is evidence of this in my discussions with CMods at the time which the CMods and other Admins can see).
Once he took it to the DRP it fell out of my hands, although he could still approach me directly via PM if he wishes (as I have already stated above)
As it was, he has a very poor record in the forum and indeed had already suffered a thread ban issued by myself in a prior United thread (if I had carded him then, he would still have been subject to lengthy bans under the totting up process, hence on that occasion he benefited from "mod discretion")
Of course I could go back and start carding those other posts he mentions, but equally if I take the relevant poster's records into account it may well be that I draw a different conclusion. If I overlay the fact that I would have been prepared to rescind the card and the posters prior record it would look pretty petty if I went back carding those posts, and indeed exacerbate claims of double standards
When looking at cases of abuse,(other than those you have previously stated as heat of the moment, I dont agree with those but that's a different discussion) there should be no need to be looking into posters records. A person on a discussion forum posting abuse of a footballer, manager or user, should without a doubt be reprimanded. Its giving leeway that brings the level of discussion down. The soccer forum is a broken place at the best of times, and posts with abuse have no place on a discussion forum at all, as I said earlier, simply enforcing this rule properly will straight away raise the level of posts and make the SF a better place as a whole0 -
Join Date:Posts: 70306
But where do you draw the line?
What is someone says a player is a "plonker" or "fool"
What if it's a reference to an administrator, such as John Delaney? Maybe a police official?
I was certainly applying the letter in this particular case, but if someone has not picked up a card in 20 years and 20,000 posts on the account, should I card them for something like that? I exercised discretion in favour of the OP when applying a thread ban rather than a card earlier in the season. Should someone who regularly stirs things up be allowed to continually get discretion applied?
It's quite interesting looking at the reported posts in Soccer, as we see quite regularly accusations of mod bias - about equal numbers from United and Liverpool fans heading over to the other thread and saying if something "like that" had been posted by a fan of the other team it would have been actioned essentially attempting to bait mods into action
Having said all that, the rules were introduced on the back of forum-user feedback. There is a long history of annual feedback threads in the Soccer forum and maybe this is something that should be discussed there.
The underlying issue raised by the OP of what he described as "double standards" but I personally would refer to as "inconsistency" is certainly something that can and should be looked at in this thread. I admit to having diverted the thread a little as I wanted to explain my own actions - something I could not do in the DRP as the acting mod. However once the OP's example was raised in this thread I felt it appropriate to put some context to those actions
I do also accept (and have done so a number of times in Feedback and Help Desk threads) there is inconsistency in modding. I started to get actively involved on the back of "accusations" there was no "United" mod and Liverpool fans were getting away with more than United fans could. I have acted against fans of both clubs, as have the other Soccer mods. Unfortunately things do get missed/drop through the cracks even when reported and I accept it is something we need to address within the forum0 -
But where do you draw the line?
What is someone says a player is a "plonker" or "fool"
What if it's a reference to an administrator, such as John Delaney? Maybe a police official?
I was certainly applying the letter in this particular case, but if someone has not picked up a card in 20 years and 20,000 posts on the account, should I card them for something like that? I exercised discretion in favour of the OP when applying a thread ban rather than a card earlier in the season. Should someone who regularly stirs things up be allowed to continually get discretion applied?
It's quite interesting looking at the reported posts in Soccer, as we see quite regularly accusations of mod bias - about equal numbers from United and Liverpool fans heading over to the other thread and saying if something "like that" had been posted by a fan of the other team it would have been actioned essentially attempting to bait mods into action
Having said all that, the rules were introduced on the back of forum-user feedback. There is a long history of annual feedback threads in the Soccer forum and maybe this is something that should be discussed there.
The underlying issue raised by the OP of what he described as "double standards" but I personally would refer to as "inconsistency" is certainly something that can and should be looked at in this thread. I admit to having diverted the thread a little as I wanted to explain my own actions - something I could not do in the DRP as the acting mod. However once the OP's example was raised in this thread I felt it appropriate to put some context to those actions
I do also accept (and have done so a number of times in Feedback and Help Desk threads) there is inconsistency in modding. I started to get actively involved on the back of "accusations" there was no "United" mod and Liverpool fans were getting away with more than United fans could. I have acted against fans of both clubs, as have the other Soccer mods. Unfortunately things do get missed/drop through the cracks even when reported and I accept it is something we need to address within the forum
how exactly do i stir things up?!
By defending Pogba when he is getting abuse left right and centre?
By defending Shaw when some was saying he was fat?
Also my "abuse" of Bale i still dont feel was abuse.
I said, IF bale said he would stay at madrid and just play golf then he seems like a tosser.
i did not just come out and say "he is a tosser"
i think its 2 completely different things and wasnt worthy of a yellow card.0 -
Advertisement
-
But where do you draw the line?
What is someone says a player is a "plonker" or "fool"
What if it's a reference to an administrator, such as John Delaney? Maybe a police official?
I was certainly applying the letter in this particular case, but if someone has not picked up a card in 20 years and 20,000 posts on the account, should I card them for something like that? I exercised discretion in favour of the OP when applying a thread ban rather than a card earlier in the season. Should someone who regularly stirs things up be allowed to continually get discretion applied?
It's quite interesting looking at the reported posts in Soccer, as we see quite regularly accusations of mod bias - about equal numbers from United and Liverpool fans heading over to the other thread and saying if something "like that" had been posted by a fan of the other team it would have been actioned essentially attempting to bait mods into action
Having said all that, the rules were introduced on the back of forum-user feedback. There is a long history of annual feedback threads in the Soccer forum and maybe this is something that should be discussed there.
The underlying issue raised by the OP of what he described as "double standards" but I personally would refer to as "inconsistency" is certainly something that can and should be looked at in this thread. I admit to having diverted the thread a little as I wanted to explain my own actions - something I could not do in the DRP as the acting mod. However once the OP's example was raised in this thread I felt it appropriate to put some context to those actions
I do also accept (and have done so a number of times in Feedback and Help Desk threads) there is inconsistency in modding. I started to get actively involved on the back of "accusations" there was no "United" mod and Liverpool fans were getting away with more than United fans could. I have acted against fans of both clubs, as have the other Soccer mods. Unfortunately things do get missed/drop through the cracks even when reported and I accept it is something we need to address within the forum
There were numerous suggestions made in last seasons feedback thread on the SF, I personally have PM'd you along with Cmods as to where the update on the feedback thread was, I was told that they would get on it and post it ASAP, low and behold, here we are, at the end of the season and waiting on the current feedback thread to start( which is already late) yet we still have yet to get answers and updates from last seasons.
I'll ask you this, why should the users, think that anything will come of this seasons? I have contributed to various Feedback threads on the SF over the years, as a previous owner and admin of a gaming website/forum, I have plenty of suggestions and ideas, but why would I post them? They are just going to be ignored again.0 -
As I have already alluded to, I would probably have rescinded the card if the OP had approached his "challenge" differently (and there is evidence of this in my discussions with CMods at the time which the CMods and other Admins can see).
Once he took it to the DRP it fell out of my hands, although he could still approach me directly via PM if he wishes (as I have already stated above)
As it was, he has a very poor record in the forum and indeed had already suffered a thread ban issued by myself in a prior United thread (if I had carded him then, he would still have been subject to lengthy bans under the totting up process, hence on that occasion he benefited from "mod discretion")
Of course I could go back and start carding those other posts he mentions, but equally if I take the relevant poster's records into account it may well be that I draw a different conclusion. If I overlay the fact that I would have been prepared to rescind the card and the posters prior record it would look pretty petty if I went back carding those posts, and indeed exacerbate claims of double standards
Funnily enough - if mods consistently let the same posters away with repeated charter breaches because of their "good" record - their record remains "good" in perpetuity and they'll never actually be sanctioned.
The Soccer forum already has a process for incremental sanctions for repeat offenders. The whole point of this was to try and remove the scope for accusations of special treatment in a forum that is, by its nature, incredibly tribal.
Allowing flagrant rule breaches by some, and sanctioning the same behaviour from others makes a mockery of the Soccer forum charter TBH.0 -
Assuming they WILL deal with it.TherapyBoy wrote: »Report them & let the moderators deal with them.
It’s impossible to know what the outcome of any post you report will be but at least you know it has received some sort of moderator attention. Whether the reported poster gets a ‘lifetime ban’ or ‘no action required’ (or anything in between) is nothing to do with you. You have reported what you believe is wrong, your responsibility ends there.
Let the moderators deal with it.0 -
I was certainly applying the letter in this particular case, but if someone has not picked up a card in 20 years and 20,000 posts on the account, should I card them for something like that?
That's a ridiculous question as far as I'm concerned.
Yes of course, if they have broken the rules.
Remember when there was a phrase going around "you are not your postcount"? Seems to no longer be the case.
This just allows low-level trolls to continually skirt or step over the line without sanction, and the longer they escape sanction the less likely they are to be sanctioned because of their "good record".
You couldn't make this up, tbh.Life ain't always empty.
0 -
But where do you draw the line?
What is someone says a player is a "plonker" or "fool"
What if it's a reference to an administrator, such as John Delaney? Maybe a police official?
I was certainly applying the letter in this particular case, but if someone has not picked up a card in 20 years and 20,000 posts on the account, should I card them for something like that? I exercised discretion in favour of the OP when applying a thread ban rather than a card earlier in the season. Should someone who regularly stirs things up be allowed to continually get discretion applied?
It's quite interesting looking at the reported posts in Soccer, as we see quite regularly accusations of mod bias - about equal numbers from United and Liverpool fans heading over to the other thread and saying if something "like that" had been posted by a fan of the other team it would have been actioned essentially attempting to bait mods into action
Having said all that, the rules were introduced on the back of forum-user feedback. There is a long history of annual feedback threads in the Soccer forum and maybe this is something that should be discussed there.
The underlying issue raised by the OP of what he described as "double standards" but I personally would refer to as "inconsistency" is certainly something that can and should be looked at in this thread. I admit to having diverted the thread a little as I wanted to explain my own actions - something I could not do in the DRP as the acting mod. However once the OP's example was raised in this thread I felt it appropriate to put some context to those actions
I do also accept (and have done so a number of times in Feedback and Help Desk threads) there is inconsistency in modding. I started to get actively involved on the back of "accusations" there was no "United" mod and Liverpool fans were getting away with more than United fans could. I have acted against fans of both clubs, as have the other Soccer mods. Unfortunately things do get missed/drop through the cracks even when reported and I accept it is something we need to address within the forum
It seems you are quite used to acting on discretion. To answer your question above, would the truthfullness of what is said have any regard on what is being said? If someone was called a tyrant, and acting like a tyrant, would this still be deemed an insult?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement