Sportsssssss banter/arguments

[e5]

I really really really really really don't see the need in all these measures being taken to ensure there is no arguments in the sports section. Since the complaints, you've slightly lightened up on the fact that arguing/banter is what makes sports a better discussion, as it gives each support the opportunity to put their view strongly across to the person they are talking to.

Seriously, if an argument breaks out, it's not like they're physically fighting, or doing something like drugs - It's an argument over the internet which is healthy when discussing sports, as like I said it gives people chance to voice their opinions of teams and the sports themselves! You seriously don't have to take such drastic measures and edit every single post which argues with another user about sports, it's just going to happen no matter what - It's sports, a competitive area in life, if not the most competitive in life and that's where arguments live for the majority of the time. On an on-line forum, nothing even professional, there's no actual need for all the serious actions being taken, it's not like any of this will or ever has been taken into real life in which someone's well-being is being put into question.

I know for a fact it's only been done so moderators and adminstrators look like they've got some sort of control and power over it's users and it's really not a good thing at all and just not necessary.

Same goes for the general moderation, just no need for the level of strictness, it doesn't make anyone look powerful at all, which is what you're ultimately trying to make yourselves look like. We're middle aged teens, not little kids that don't know right from wrong and are still learning the very basics of life >.>. "Oh stop causing arguments its naughty *slap bum*" "No swearing it's the wrong thing to do *slap bum*"

[Wyked]

here here, I agree with you fine sir.

[Joepetto]

wall of text, but moderators just like to prove they're higher in the 'food chain' than normal members.

[Wyked]

Do you feel it's the moderators or the super moderators that are most guilty of this?

[e5]

wall of text, but moderators just like to prove they're higher in the 'food chain' than normal members.
Which is basically what I mentioned towards to end :)

And super mods.

[Chippiewill]

I reckon the 'no arguments' rule should be scrapped for the sports forum and change the description for that forum to:

'Let the animals fight'

[The Professor]

What proof do you have that they're only doint it to look powerful? Does it not strike you that they might be doing it so the whole section doesn't constantly descend into flame wars and mindless insult fests? You know, doing their jobs...

Unfortunately that seems to be what everyone who moans about the moderation in that section wants, but as soon as it happens they all start moaning its out of control and people are trolling and the world isn't good enough. The mods really can't win!

Edit: I know nvr is kinda against the thing that chips suggested but it seems the only option to me!

[Hecktix]

Arguments provide a negative atmosphere on the forum which we do not want.

We accept the fact that discussion in the sports forums can get heated and we let it do so until it offends other members.

I don't know what you are talking about with the "measures to stop" arguments as nothing else is done in the sports forum different to other forums.

There were some banter rules the other day posted to prevent spamming, not arguing :)

[Immenseman]

I have to say that the moderation in that forum specifically is the worst moderation I have seen in my three years at Habbox. I feel the whole team in its entirety is half as good as it should be. I have never seen such a poor moderation department. I'm not going to name individuals as that wouldn't be fair. I have done that out of the public eye to retain what integrity I have left :P.

Under previous regimes the current standard of moderating would not have been acceptable. There are some moderators who have so many of their infractions reversed. However, rather than telling them their style of moderation is wrong they get a promotion to one of the most senior positions at Habbox, super moderator. To be quite frank, such people shouldn't even be moderators, let alone super moderators.

Back on topic, it's poor decision after poor decision in the sports forum. What on Earth happened to consistency... they had a system that had SUCCESSFULLY worked for 5 years, which is don't treat the forum any different to others. Then they start implementing sports bans, where the people are banned from the forum. Now, they crack down on banter. Talking about banter When I saw the new stickied thread that had been approved by Forum Management (not sure if that means much any more) I was astounded. They were openly admitting they didn't want banter...

Now for those of you who are unsure of what they're cracking down on, I will define banter for you.


Good humoured, playful, typically spontaneous conversation; To engage in banter or playful conversation; To play or do something amusing; To tease mildlyI suggest people check out the stickied thread in sports to see what I'm going on about if you're not aware. It'll give you a laugh if not anything else.

Right, so we're not allowed a bit of tongue in cheek humour any more? Why the hell not? Have you ever been to a sports game or even watched sports news?! You will see one of the fundamental things sports revolve around is banter. I could say to excellent2 "haha united lost to burnley, changed your tune about them now you've lost". I would be punished for this...

For those of you thinking, I'm exaggerating to create a vivid point, let me show you one of my posts which I was cautioned for. Not a warning, not a user-note but an infraction which ensured I was cautioned (no coincidence they chose the wrong punishment which would see me cautioned) http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6067623&postcount=5 now I have shown even an AGM this who scoffed at the decision. Yet the Forum Manager has labelled it and I quote "a personal attack". Let me define attack for you.
..

an offensive against an enemyFirstly, he's not an enemy because the latter part of the post I'm wishing him luck. However, I will PM certain people and make said point more unequivocal to them later.

Things have got gradually worse in the forum since they've started silly depleted plans on how to curb the forum. If it was treated like any other forum like it used to be there would be less trouble. That's a fact. The forum wasn't half as troublesome when the rules weren't being muddled with. There is a horrible friction between moderators and regular posters in the forum now, which has been created by moderators trying to get unnecessary change.

There is one case where there was an argument raging for days (why it wasn't closed is beyond me...) However, it had died down and in the past 24 hours there had been just two posts. Then an unnamed super moderator posted in there saying "please don't argue". I replied to this telling him what I've told you there. That it had died down and by posting it was actually more likely to ignite them again. He then edited my post and told me off for pointless posting... My post was in reply to his... let me quote the pointless posting rule...


A11. Do not post pointlessly – A pointless post has no relevance to the topic, any previous post or is meaningless (ghnrgher etc). A pointless thread either has no meaning, is something posted that is not true (e.g. false story in news and rumours) or a thread that doesn't prompt a discussion (eg. post the colour of socks you're wearing).My post was in reply to his, thus it wasn't a pointless post. When the moderators don't even know the rules themselves. How are we expected as just regular uses to follow them, especially when they're constantly changing.

Things won't be change because staff who can implement change want to people please and by pleasing those who actually post in sports means going against forum staff, something that unfortunately would never happen at Habbox any more.

Also, I'm disgusted in how management have reacted to these complaints about the forum. What happened to acknowledging complaints and trying to fix things... they seem to have "we're right, you're wrong" mentality. Something I know sierk would hate to see. However, the only person who would ensure such changes were made to meet evident common sense is no longer active.

You know things aren't right when you have to add at the end of the post this sort of message... *this is my opinion and if you want to pretend everything is alright, don't read it*

[Hecktix]

Actually Jake I think you'll find the stickied thread says banter is allowed as long as it's within a discussion thread.

This is just an attempt to remove the pointless threads which end up in users fighting.

I don't see why that is a crime :)

[GommeInc]

If arguments are banned then this forum should be closed down and the maker of the rule shot a few times in the back of the head. Heck, we're arguing now. I hate how ignorant some people are of the term "argument" and what it means. Seriously, some people DO need a slap and Immenseman (which his shiny new ring *giggles*) should be the one to slap them :@

[Immenseman]

The forum is called Sports, a thread which is a discussion on sports isn't pointless. There were around three created, yet you think it's a problematic forum and want to appear like you're taking action against troublesome users so you issue a warning PM... on the back of a few thread which in no means represents the whole forum. Ridiculous.

Ryan, I'd happily knock some sense into various people who are nothing short of clueless.

[Hecktix]

A lot of users complain about the atmosphere in the sports forums.

[xxMATTGxx]

I'm going to fully read the thread again but this bit came to my eyes.


Yet the Forum Manager has labelled it and I quote "a personal attack". Let me define attack for you.

If the so called Forum Manager, last time I checked was me? Thought that. Surely I would of reserved your infraction and remembered saying that to you? I checked my PMs, Msn and support tickets and have no evidence of me saying that to you regarding that infraction.

[Immenseman]

You didn't say it to me. You said it to someone else who has no interest in the situation thus wouldn't care. It's funny how you can even view that post and think it's fair. Yet I was called an attention seeker which is actually aimed at me yet said individual didn't get an infraction yet I get one for telling someone when it's their team, it's different. I think we need a new (Assistant) Forum Manager to ensure changes, regardless of controversy will be implemented rather than letting things slip any more. That's just my opinion.

[xxMATTGxx]

You didn't say it to me. You said it to someone else who has no interest in the situation thus wouldn't care. It's funny how you can even view that post and think it's fair. Yet I was called an attention seeker which is actually aimed at me yet said individual didn't get an infraction yet I get one for telling someone when it's their team, it's different. I think we need a new (Assistant) Forum Manager to ensure changes, regardless of controversy will be implemented rather than letting things slip any more. That's just my opinion.

Nevermind, found it.

[Geraint]

You can't have sports without banter. Everybody has to face it. You've just gotta take it on the chin and get on with it. Some people can give it but can't take it back. If you can give it, you've gotta be able to take it. If someone gives it to you, give it back. You argue about sport, we all do. You can argue for weeks on end about it and that's what make sport what it is. If people really take offence to some banter in a sports forum then, well....

If people start becoming personal then fair enough. If I was to say someone about one's family or one's appearance then fair enough, it shouldn't be said.

[Immenseman]

Exactly. At the end of the day we wouldn't bother posting throughout this thread if we didn't care about this specific forum. I will happily admit I enjoy coming on HabboxForum and I'm the most active poster on the whole forum. One of my favourite forums are sport, yet this tampering is creating such an awful atmosphere.

The friction between the moderation team and posters in said forum is really quite bad, because the forum is being singled out and we're basically being told what we can and can't post.

I've had a reassuring PM from an AGM telling me they will bring some things up in the AGM forum. At least I know my posts have been listened to and to some degree agreed with. I will happily swallow my posts that current management wouldn't consider other changes to aid the users should things happen. Dare I dream...

[adaym]

You can't have sports without banter. Everybody has to face it. You've just gotta take it on the chin and get on with it. Some people can give it but can't take it back. If you can give it, you've gotta be able to take it. If someone gives it to you, give it back. You argue about sport, we all do. You can argue for weeks on end about it and that's what make sport what it is. If people really take offence to some banter in a sports forum then, well....

If people start becoming personal then fair enough. If I was to say someone about one's family or one's appearance then fair enough, it shouldn't be said.

shut it sheep shagger

hi, right let me makes some points


i once again reccomend making a hxf council however you pick someone from each section to report back to whoever on what they think should be done say each month/two weeks/w.e and this way that person knows the ins and outs of that section. obviously there's one for sports, one for runescape and online games, one for console games. there could be a few but at least the community gets their say, right? loads of points could be brought up about members, ways to increase members/specific rules etcetcetc.
right, that's one idea. next one isn't an idea but i just think that you can't have a forum without arguments. a forum is a debate and a debate is an argument and that's what makes forums great. bare that in mind please.
sports is dominated by around 10 members. i use the word dominated losely but the same 10 or so members post their week in week out and i'm pretty sure it's the same for most forums so personal attacks won't happen (at least ones that are offensive) and if they are offensive the report button is there for a reason? yeah? i said to oli that if someone feels really offended by something then they should report it - otherwise they can't be that offended by it, can they?

that is all i have to say on the matter at the moment i will leave you to brew over the ideas and make a cup of tea telling us what u r planning to do. thank u very much for your time, i've been thyflux.

[Jack.Lfc]

Yeh the moderating is awful, we need someone like me, who knows the beautiful games to mod that section.

[Kardan]

Banter is fine in the sports forum, but then you get people who always take it a bit too far. I think the sports forum is the most poorly moderated section on the forum, which is saying something since the RuneScape and Spam forum used to be the worst ones.

And when I say 'sports' forum, I mean the football threads, there the only ones that seem to have problems, it's because of all the bloody rivalry that people can't calm down about :$

[adaym]

And when I say 'sports' forum, I mean the football threads, there the only ones that seem to have problems, it's because of all the bloody rivalry that people can't calm down about :$
hi, first of all thank you for your opinion but to be fair, it's a crap one. football is all about rivalries - infact, most sport is. that's what makes sport interesting and if you were a fan of any sport you would know :$:$:$

[Hecktix]

Banter is fine in the sports forum, but then you get people who always take it a bit too far. I think the sports forum is the most poorly moderated section on the forum, which is saying something since the RuneScape and Spam forum used to be the worst ones.

And when I say 'sports' forum, I mean the football threads, there the only ones that seem to have problems, it's because of all the bloody rivalry that people can't calm down about :$

Spam is very good at the moment. Sports is hard to moderate. We cant really win tbh because if we use impartial mods who arent into sport we get told we dont know what we're doing yet if we use mods who are into sport they get accused of being bias to their team? What can we do?

[Jack.Lfc]

Thats why i should be sports mod. :D

[Kardan]

hi, first of all thank you for your opinion but to be fair, it's a crap one. football is all about rivalries - infact, most sport is. that's what makes sport interesting and if you were a fan of any sport you would know :$:$:$

Rivalries is fine as long as it's banter, but when you get people accusing each other of this and that and at each others throats then it's a different matter :P

And I like how you have accused me of not being a fan of sports and such, that's how arguments start to brew in threads in the sports section, people accuse each other of this and that and it just builds up :P

And for your information, I am a fan of a sport, which has a rather close rivalry at the moment :P

And @ invincible: Yes, Spam is very good at the moment, I was just saying Spam used to be dreadful, then it was RuneScape now it's Sports... *Cough* Football *Cough*. And as for what you can do, I just think it's not strict enough personally, but you're right - the mods are pretty much in a lose lose suituation.

[Immenseman]

I'd be much happier to see Jack and Adam as sports moderators. They wouldn't be biased because they are respected members of the sports forum and are two of the most active users. Other sports users myself included, lBlue etc would be bias.

If the right people were picked that would be fine too. However, that makes far too much sense.

[adaym]

In which case you should know that banter exists in sports and it happens ALL the time. For examplar, I call ger a sheep shagger. that's banter cos he's from wales and supports cardiff etc. I call jake a southern farmer cos he's southern and lives on a farm but that's banter. i get called a yorkshire inbred with 8 fingers but idc cos' it's banter.

b-a-n-t-e-r. ho hey.

in response to jake's post - i don't want to be a moderator because A) i have a terrible record. that's about it.

[Kardan]

In which case you should know that banter exists in sports and it happens ALL the time. For examplar, I call ger a sheep shagger. that's banter cos he's from wales and supports cardiff etc. I call jake a southern farmer cos he's southern and lives on a farm but that's banter. i get called a yorkshire inbred with 8 fingers but idc cos' it's banter.

b-a-n-t-e-r. ho hey.

Yes, but just because it doesn't offend one person, doesn't mean it won't offend anyone else. And tbf, with football, anything would count as banter considering the sorts of things that are said in football stadiums anyway.

[Hecktix]

Jake: you are right but its hard to find people.

Adam: also right however what kardan said is also right. Person A could make a comment about a particular team which person B may not find offensive yet person C may be very offended. Some people are more personal about their football teams.

Kardan: you are looking at this the way we look at it, glad to see we arent alone. Not sure on the need to be stricter thing though.



I'd be much happier to see Jack and Adam as sports moderators. They wouldn't be biased because they are respected members of the sports forum and are two of the most active users. Other sports users myself included, lBlue etc would be bias.

If the right people were picked that would be fine too. However, that makes far too much sense.


In which case you should know that banter exists in sports and it happens ALL the time. For examplar, I call ger a sheep shagger. that's banter cos he's from wales and supports cardiff etc. I call jake a southern farmer cos he's southern and lives on a farm but that's banter. i get called a yorkshire inbred with 8 fingers but idc cos' it's banter.

b-a-n-t-e-r. ho hey.

in response to jake's post - i don't want to be a moderator because A) i have a terrible record. that's about it.


Yes, but just because it doesn't offend one person, doesn't mean it won't offend anyone else. And tbf, with football, anything would count as banter considering the sorts of things that are said in football stadiums anyway.

[adaym]

Person C is an idiot and shouldn't get involved.

[Geraint]

If people take offence to half the things said in the sports forum then god help them when they enter the real world and start experiencing things for themselves.

[Catzsy]

Jake: you are right but its hard to find people.

Adam: also right however what kardan said is also right. Person A could make a comment about a particular team which person B may not find offensive yet person C may be very offended. Some people are more personal about their football teams.

Kardan: you are looking at this the way we look at it, glad to see we arent alone. Not sure on the need to be stricter thing though.

But Oli, nobody should be warned or infracted for saying something about a football team surely? Everybody has a right to express their opinion on different teams/political parties but if somebody was saying something about the member thats different of course otherwise we would be getting back to the situation of a certain member a couple of years ago who got infracted for saying 'channel 4 was crap' - that was a classic.

Okay -examples ONLY:

1. Manchester City are crap.

2. Manchester City are crap and their players are all ******* idiots.


3. Manchester city are crap and their players are ******* idiots and you
are a ******* idiot for supporting them.

Only point 3 in my opinion would be worthy of any action because it is a personal attack on the member. Thats my view anyway. :)

[adaym]

I still see that as banter lol.

4. Man City are crap, your mum's a prostitute and you deserve to die for supporting them.

That's too far.

[Jack.Lfc]

People have been banned in the past for calling me a scouse 'something' and there getting banned for it, when i havnt reported them or nothing.

[Hecktix]

I agree with this Rosie. Comments like that are fine but when it comes to making threads solely to make bad comments about other peoples teams - this is where it goes too far.



But Oli, nobody should be warned or infracted for saying something about a football team surely? Everybody has a right to express their opinion on different teams/political parties but if somebody was saying something about the member thats different of course otherwise we would be getting back to the situation of a certain member a couple of years ago who got infracted for saying 'channel 4 was crap' - that was a classic.

Okay -examples ONLY:

1. Manchester City are crap.

2. Manchester City are crap and their players are all ******* idiots.


3. Manchester city are crap and their players are ******* idiots and you
are a ******* idiot for supporting them.

Only point 3 in my opinion would be worthy of any action because it is a personal attack on the member. Thats my view anyway. :)

[Immenseman]

So you think it's alright for someone to say "Manchester City are crap and their players are ******* idiots" yet this isn't...

http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6067623&postcount=5

[adaym]

yeah well you would oli because you agree with everything someone not from that section says.

vote change.

[Immenseman]

Just like to add. The threads he is talking about, aimed at other teams... there were about 3 created. Nothing major. That's why we have a team of moderators to close the threads and hand out sanctions to individuals involved rather than penalising the whole forum.

[Hecktix]

Just like to add. The threads he is talking about, aimed at other teams... there were about 3 created. Nothing major. That's why we have a team of moderators to close the threads and hand out sanctions to individuals involved rather than penalising the whole forum.

There were 7 threads across the forums. The users were sanctioned. However im for preventing sanctions tbh. So a post reminding users threads like that are unacceptable could help? I know at least 2 other mods that agree.

In reference to your infraction against that man city comment, man city isnt a member jake, ksoz is.

Accusatory, provocative posts aimed at another's person = posting to cause arguments.

[Chippiewill]

Person C is an idiot and shouldn't get involved.

Try telling that to Mod D :D

[xxMATTGxx]

I actually want to apologize because last night I read Jakes post wrong. When I read the personal attack bit it thought he meant the Moderator but after re-reading the msn chat, I know full well what he's on about. I don't have much time to write anything else regarding this. So I will come back to it.

[Immenseman]

There were 7 threads across the forums. The users were sanctioned. However im for preventing sanctions tbh. So a post reminding users threads like that are unacceptable could help? I know at least 2 other mods that agree.

In reference to your infraction against that man city comment, man city isnt a member jake, ksoz is.

Accusatory, provocative posts aimed at another's person = posting to cause arguments.

Which is exactly why I have a PM from said user saying he doesn't find it offensive in any way shape or form... :rolleyes:

[Hecktix]

Which is exactly why I have a PM from said user saying he doesn't find it offensive in any way shape or form... :rolleyes:

We cannot base infraction reversal on a user changing their mind.

Oh and nowhere in my explanation did it say a user needed to be offended for a posting to cause infraction.

I refuse to say anymore on the matter unless this takes the correct lines.

[GommeInc]

Isn't banter a grown up word for teasing? Calling someone else's mum a shlag, a prostitute and that all "x" supporters should be hung by their external sexual organs until they scream like giddy goats isn't banter :/

Banter is "You support 'x'? Are you stupid, I mean literally... Are you mad?! 'y' player is so lousy he wouldn't know how to pass a 'z' to 'a' if 'b' had anything to do with 'c'"

Banter is fine, and always has been. Some sports fans do tend to over-react in a humourous sort of way :P

[xxMATTGxx]

Which is exactly why I have a PM from said user saying he doesn't find it offensive in any way shape or form... :rolleyes:


We cannot base infraction reversal on a user changing their mind.

Oh and nowhere in my explanation did it say a user needed to be offended for a posting to cause infraction.

I refuse to say anymore on the matter unless this takes the correct lines.


I have read the reported post and was quite shocked on the comment to be honest. I no longer see why only Jakes post got an infraction when one of the other posts were exactly saying the same message but using different words. :S

[The Professor]

Isn't banter a grown up word for teasing? Calling someone else's mum a shlag, a prostitute and that all "x" supporters should be hung by their external sexual organs until they scream like giddy goats isn't banter :/

Banter is "You support 'x'? Are you stupid, I mean literally... Are you mad?! 'y' player is so lousy he wouldn't know how to pass a 'z' to 'a' if 'b' had anything to do with 'c'"

Banter is fine, and always has been. Some sports fans do tend to over-react in a humourous sort of way :P

Aye but some people just want to rip each others throats out for no apparent reason, with some arbitrary line representing "too far" which seems to move every 20 seconds depending on who's argument it suits!

[Immenseman]

Nice to know when Moderators make a mistake that they PM you with their apologies as has happened as a result of this thread. I'm not going to change my opinion because I get an apology from the Forum Manager and the Super Moderator in question because you shouldn't have to make such a fuss to get it reversed and be accused of personal attacks by management and subject to comments from super moderators such as and I quote "your name looks better in italics".

Over the last two months I have been cautioned twice. Both times after the caution had expired and I was able to complain (seeing as you can't when you're cautioned) the infraction was reversed. That's two weeks of being penalised for absolutely no reason, both by the same Super Moderator.

However, I take my hat off to them that both people who were in the wrong here sent me apologies and told me in unequivocal terms that it was an error of judgement. Stark contrast which from what was said last night on exactly the same topic.

In this instance an AGM had to punish a Super Moderator and spoke to both the FM and the SM (from what I gather) this shouldn't have to happen for them to realise they can't always be right and sometimes, however rare it may be, the user is in fact right.

[Hecktix]

I'm currently trying to persuade Matt to hire a 'Sports' moderator.

Someone who knows about football but wouldn't be bias.

Hard job but I have a couple of reccomendations, it's just hard to persuade Matt :P

It's gotta be worth a try using someone else who knows what they are talking about :)

@ Jake: If you'd PM'd Matt in the first place to get it reversed it'd have been done a lot quicker without any fuss.

[Immenseman]

However, he had labelled it a personal attack as this thread has confirmed so saw no point in doing that. He was unlikely to reverse an infraction on a post he accused me of attacking an individual.

[Kardan]

Person C is an idiot and shouldn't get involved.

And that would be an attack at me would it? Seeming as I'm the Person C. Thing is, you know that you can't get into trouble for it because you didn't name me, even though, to me, it's pretty obvious that was about me :$

Anyway, at what Catzsy said is right, Example 3 goes too far, but that's what seems to be going round the sports forum most of the time. Gomme has the right idea of things :)

[Catzsy]

I'm currently trying to persuade Matt to hire a 'Sports' moderator.

Someone who knows about football but wouldn't be bias.

Hard job but I have a couple of reccomendations, it's just hard to persuade Matt :P

It's gotta be worth a try using someone else who knows what they are talking about :)

@ Jake: If you'd PM'd Matt in the first place to get it reversed it'd have been done a lot quicker without any fuss.

My personal view is that someone heavily involved in a section is not always the one to moderate it especially as a new mod - it would be extremely difficult not to show bias and adds unecessary pressure on the individual as a lot of the members posting he/she will consider to be an e-friend and it would be up to the mod to take action if the rules are broken. I have seen this happen before. It's all down to common sense and as I have always said just because a post gets reported doesn't necessarily mean that the reporter is right - they could have many motives for doing it. If you read a post and have doubts that it breaks the rules then it is best left alone. In my experience it is these 50/50 situations where the infraction/warnings are reversed. Also when a post is reported the whole thread should be read to make sure that any action taken is even handed otherwise somebody could feel they are being targetted and this was not the intention just an error of not reading the thread. I give great kudos to Matt as he is one of the first Forum Managers who does not place a great emphasis on mod logs - he looks at the whole picture and should be commended for it.

[nvrspk4]

I think banter is fine.

I also think that the "sports forum" has taken it upon themselves to redefine banter - rather broadly.

I think Catzsy made a perfect example so I won't bother making one of my own - there is a point where you switch from joking to being rude, basically attacking them.

I think in certain situations moderators might overstep and misclassify an attack as banter, but usually those are pretty well dealt with in the appeals process.


Nice to know when Moderators make a mistake that they PM you with their apologies as has happened as a result of this thread. I'm not going to change my opinion because I get an apology from the Forum Manager and the Super Moderator in question because you shouldn't have to make such a fuss to get it reversed and be accused of personal attacks by management and subject to comments from super moderators such as and I quote "your name looks better in italics".

Over the last two months I have been cautioned twice. Both times after the caution had expired and I was able to complain (seeing as you can't when you're cautioned) the infraction was reversed. That's two weeks of being penalised for absolutely no reason, both by the same Super Moderator.

However, I take my hat off to them that both people who were in the wrong here sent me apologies and told me in unequivocal terms that it was an error of judgement. Stark contrast which from what was said last night on exactly the same topic.

In this instance an AGM had to punish a Super Moderator and spoke to both the FM and the SM (from what I gather) this shouldn't have to happen for them to realise they can't always be right and sometimes, however rare it may be, the user is in fact right.

1) You didn't *have* to make a fuss, you could have taken the correct avenues ;)

2) The name looks better in italics thing is, to me, an obvious joke.

3) You can appeal an infraction while you're cautioned, there's a section on the support system for that purpose.



However, he had labelled it a personal attack as this thread has confirmed so saw no point in doing that. He was unlikely to reverse an infraction on a post he accused me of attacking an individual.

He came to the understanding that he was wrong after understanding it. Had you chosen to use private channels, I daresay the interaction would have been a little less hostile and it would have been easier to fix the misunderstanding ;)

[Immenseman]

1) You didn't *have* to make a fuss, you could have taken the correct avenues ;)
When it constantly happens and I constantly go down such avenues it gets rather tiring when things aren't improving. You can check my own infraction record, see how many have been reversed. That's just mine, I dread to think what others look like.

This isn't like it's the first time it's happened it's like the 10th or something similar. When things are constantly bad you take an alternative route in the rather vain hope things might improve.


2) The name looks better in italics thing is, to me, an obvious joke.
Well it was aimed at me and I don't find it funny. If it was posted on the forum it would have been removed and the moderation in question dealt with upon my request.


3) You can appeal an infraction while you're cautioned, there's a section on the support system for that purpose.

He came to the understanding that he was wrong after understanding it. Had you chosen to use private channels, I daresay the interaction would have been a little less hostile and it would have been easier to fix the misunderstanding ;)

As I said in the thread I was told there was no point because all the Super Moderators agreed with the infraction, including the Forum Manager.

It took intervention from people in a more senior position to sort out my personal issue. Would everyone get this treatment? No. There are people out there who have to put up with awful infractions being given and the fact that the moderation team all discuss them on MSN there is often little hope in getting them removed.

Not in all cases, no. Some, yes. The moderation quite frankly isn't good enough since the new super moderators were chosen. You might think this is people just complaining yet I see thread after thread making complaints. Of course, nothing will be done. We're used to that.

[xxMATTGxx]

When it constantly happens and I constantly go down such avenues it gets rather tiring when things aren't improving. You can check my own infraction record, see how many have been reversed. That's just mine, I dread to think what others look like.

This isn't like it's the first time it's happened it's like the 10th or something similar. When things are constantly bad you take an alternative route in the rather vain hope things might improve.

Well it was aimed at me and I don't find it funny. If it was posted on the forum it would have been removed and the moderation in question dealt with upon my request.



As I said in the thread I was told there was no point because all the Super Moderators agreed with the infraction, including the Forum Manager.

It took intervention from people in a more senior position to sort out my personal issue. Would everyone get this treatment? No. There are people out there who have to put up with awful infractions being given and the fact that the moderation team all discuss them on MSN there is often little hope in getting them removed.

Not in all cases, no. Some, yes. The moderation quite frankly isn't good enough since the new super moderators were chosen. You might think this is people just complaining yet I see thread after thread making complaints. Of course, nothing will be done. We're used to that.

You could have still appealed the infraction even if everyone "did" agree. Why? Because it would of got a second look. When I looked at everything and decided it was unfair then I apologized for my misunderstanding from the start.


Your personal issue, the infraction?

[Immenseman]

You could have still appealed the infraction even if everyone "did" agree. Why? Because it would of got a second look. When I looked at everything and decided it was unfair then I apologized for my misunderstanding from the start.

That's the thing, that post doesn't need a second look. It was an awful decision. It's not like the post ever changed. When you say it's a worthy infraction then I don't see any hope in it getting reversed. I was going to appeal it that night, not through the thread or any forum staff because working with anyone related to the forum is never constructive for me.



Your personal issue, the infraction?yes.

[xxMATTGxx]

That's the thing, that post doesn't need a second look. It was an awful decision. It's not like the post ever changed. When you say it's a worthy infraction then I don't see any hope in it getting reversed. I was going to appeal it that night, not through the thread or any forum staff because working with anyone related to the forum is never constructive for me.




yes.

I wouldn't call it special treatment, although I don't know what treatment you are actually going on about.

[Immenseman]

Well what I mean is the fact an AGM sent me a PM without me sending them one that the infraction was unfair. My point was I don't think everyone would get a PM so would just have to put up with the forum staff team all siding together like happened in this case. Of course you wouldn't know because the PM wasn't sent to you... :S

[xxMATTGxx]

Well what I mean is the fact an AGM sent me a PM without me sending them one that the infraction was unfair. My point was I don't think everyone would get a PM so would just have to put up with the forum staff team all siding together like happened in this case. Of course you wouldn't know because the PM wasn't sent to you... :S

The whole forum team didn't even know about your infraction. If anyone above thought it was unfair, then fair enough. If they did PM me suggesting they think an infraction is unfair I would have still looked at it again.

If one of Moderators thinks it’s unfair and one of them thinks its fair, then there's a discussion and a final decision is made. The thread should have been looked at before the infraction was given due to the very similar posts above and below. If people have problems with infractions then they can appeal. If they still don't like the result, then they can appeal again and much greater view by other people will also be included before making it a final decision whether it is fair or not. Yes I must admit it was a problem with the Moderation at the time in that thread and also my mistake for not noticing it sooner and misunderstanding it.

[e5]

This threads now turned into the immenseman infractions discussion:rolleyes:. No offence jake because I love you :P

I want to get to the bottom of whats going to happen to the sports section; it's clearly no good as it is now, too many members are complaining, and even members that don't use the section regularly see a problem with it. Something needs to be done in favour of the majority.

[adaym]

And that would be an attack at me would it? Seeming as I'm the Person C. Thing is, you know that you can't get into trouble for it because you didn't name me, even though, to me, it's pretty obvious that was about me :$

Sorry I thought person C was a hypothetical.

[Hecktix]

This threads now turned into the immenseman infractions discussion:rolleyes:. No offence jake because I love you :P

I want to get to the bottom of whats going to happen to the sports section; it's clearly no good as it is now, too many members are complaining, and even members that don't use the section regularly see a problem with it. Something needs to be done in favour of the majority.

As nvrspk4 said, banter is fine but some of the sports members have redefined banter as something else.

I think we all need to agree on a specific definition of banter, I believe Jake posted one earlier that was reasonable.

[Immenseman]

The whole forum team didn't even know about your infraction. If anyone above thought it was unfair, then fair enough. If they did PM me suggesting they think an infraction is unfair I would have still looked at it again.

If one of Moderators thinks it’s unfair and one of them thinks its fair, then there's a discussion and a final decision is made. The thread should have been looked at before the infraction was given due to the very similar posts above and below. If people have problems with infractions then they can appeal. If they still don't like the result, then they can appeal again and much greater view by other people will also be included before making it a final decision whether it is fair or not. Yes I must admit it was a problem with the Moderation at the time in that thread and also my mistake for not noticing it sooner and misunderstanding it.

Forum team in the context I used it in is the Super Mods and yourself. All of which supposedly agreed about the infraction unless the super moderator who issued it knew it was wrong and was frightened it was going to be removed... :S

I know it's a mistake of the moderation team. Such mistakes shouldn't be so frequent, end of.


This threads now turned into the immenseman infractions discussion:rolleyes:. No offence jake because I love you :P

Which merely highlights how bad the moderation in said forum is.

At nvrs point about people in the sports forum re-defining the word banter. We haven't done so. There was a stickied thread telling us banter would be looked at closer now. It was a word used by your staff. We know the definition of the word. We know the moderation staff worded it wrongly, not us re-defining it... :rolleyes:

[e5]

Forum team in the context I used it in is the Super Mods and yourself. All of which supposedly agreed about the infraction unless the super moderator who issued it knew it was wrong and was frightened it was going to be removed... :S

I know it's a mistake of the moderation team. Such mistakes shouldn't be so frequent, end of.


Which merely highlights how bad the moderation in said forum is.

At nvrs point about people in the sports forum re-defining the word banter. We haven't done so. There was a stickied thread telling us banter would be looked at closer now. It was a word used by your staff. We know the definition of the word. We know the moderation staff worded it wrongly, not us re-defining it... :rolleyes:
True dat.