Sportsssssss banter/arguments

[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

[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

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

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