47 replies to this topic

[Laurie]

I'm going to open this thread at risk of fanning the flames of last night's fire, but I think it's necessary.

In terms of the Scottish Football Forums, how do the members think we can work to avoid scenarios such as last night, where friction came to a head and it got to the point where members were complaining about the level of abuse and language that was being used.

First off, I want this thread to avoid mention of ANY specific members, or ANY specific incidents.

If I feel anyone is using it to continue petty squabbles or start goading others again, I'll simply delete your reply - not something that we'd ever usually do, but in this instance I think it would be necessary.

A couple of issues I'd like to bring up myself, and see what your thoughts on them are.

Language.

In terms of swearing, it has been condoned on the forum when it isn't abusive or directed at an individual, but is that maybe not enough? I'd like to think we can have a bit of banter and since we are all adults the odd bit of choice language doesn't seem that bad, but to avoid issues is it maybe necessary to have a censorship on the forum? I don't know how straightforward it would be for Craig, but some sort of system that I've seen on other forums that simply doesn't let you use swear words could be implemented.

Trolling.

One of the major issues is when people continually start threads, or continually comment on certain threads, with the sole focus of winding up other members. Again, to a degree I think a bit of banter is fine - I've had a bit of fun at the expense of some members, and some have had a bit of fun at my expense too. But there are a few scenarios when there is clearly no light-heartedness about it.

I've started closing a lot of threads, which isn't a great thing to have to do, but should more action be taken against it?

Punishment.

In terms of how complaints are dealt with, Craig generally deals with most of them, but the rest of us moderators occasionally deal with some too. I prefer to leave most things for Craig to make a final decision on, as he is the 'big boss' around here. I feel he is very objective and fair when it comes to it too. But what most members won't see is some of the action take. Personal messages are often sent in regards to certain issues, but there are not made public.

Would people like to see , maybe, 'sin bin' type punishments, in terms of short term bans imposed for breaking the forum rules?

As I've said, this thread is for an open, and democratic discussion on how we can take the forum forward. Last night was unacceptable, I'm sure we can all agree on that, and I'd like to hope we can avoid such things happening again.

So please give any thoughts or suggestions in here. I hate to speak so seriously about such things, but it does feel like the only way to refer to the things that were said.

As I say, I'll probably be EXTREMELY harsh on any posts in this thread that I feel are just stirring once again.

[black dog]

I have absolutely no problem with the 'majority' of Celtic or other teams fans on here & as you asked for specific members not to be named I'll go along with that. I can have a disagreement with almost anyone on here and they with me but I'd like to think there is no malice intended or taken. Banter? Love it, don't mind if if I'm slagged, if my team are slagged as I can also do a fair bit of slagging. However there is a wide line between threads that are started with the best of intentions which descend into arguments THAN threads which are SIMPLY set up by haters of a particular team for the sole purpose of STARTING arguments. I see no problems with juicy language as long as it isn't personal in a malicious way.

[Laurie]

black dog, on 19 February 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

I have absolutely no problem with the 'majority' of Celtic or other teams fans on here & as you asked for specific members not to be named I'll go along with that. I can have a disagreement with almost anyone on here and they with me but I'd like to think there is no malice intended or taken. Banter? Love it, don't mind if if I'm slagged, if my team are slagged as I can also do a fair bit of slagging. However there is a wide line between threads that are started with the best of intentions which descend into arguments THAN threads which are SIMPLY set up by haters of a particular team for the sole purpose of STARTING arguments. I see no problems with juicy language as long as it isn't personal in a malicious way.

I agree on the language front, but there are occasionally incidents when certain words are used, but not directly AT someone, but within a post which itself is quite abusive. We have received a number of complaints about language being used, so it's difficult to then gauge where the line is between acceptable and unacceptable swearing.

[robertkelly]

black dog, on 19 February 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

I have absolutely no problem with the 'majority' of Celtic or other teams fans on here & as you asked for specific members not to be named I'll go along with that. I can have a disagreement with almost anyone on here and they with me but I'd like to think there is no malice intended or taken. Banter? Love it, don't mind if if I'm slagged, if my team are slagged as I can also do a fair bit of slagging. However there is a wide line between threads that are started with the best of intentions which descend into arguments THAN threads which are SIMPLY set up by haters of a particular team for the sole purpose of STARTING arguments. I see no problems with juicy language as long as it isn't personal in a malicious way.

Couldn't agree more. Banter is great and a vital part of the forum. As black dog says though, there are folk on here who start or contribute to threads with the sole intention of pissing people off. That has to end.
To that end, let's take the lead from the sport we all enjoy and introduce a yellow and red card system.
First offence could be an official warning. If that's not heeded we move on to a yellow card which blocks you from the forum for a hour or so.
Red card would mean getting banned for 24 hours.
A permanent banning is still something which would be down to Craig and his merry band, but surely a couple of warnings would make folk think twice?

Just my thoughts.

With regards to swearing, we are all adults here. As long as it isn't directed at anyone I don't have a problem with it.

[Camshy]

black dog, on 19 February 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

I have absolutely no problem with the 'majority' of Celtic or other teams fans on here & as you asked for specific members not to be named I'll go along with that. I can have a disagreement with almost anyone on here and they with me but I'd like to think there is no malice intended or taken. Banter? Love it, don't mind if if I'm slagged, if my team are slagged as I can also do a fair bit of slagging. However there is a wide line between threads that are started with the best of intentions which descend into arguments THAN threads which are SIMPLY set up by haters of a particular team for the sole purpose of STARTING arguments. I see no problems with juicy language as long as it isn't personal in a malicious way.

I also agree with what Dog says and i since there is no "naming and shaming" (not that i would mention any one anyway) i have to point out that i have read a fair few posts and in no way is one person or group of people responsible for things going a little haywire at times, it takes two to tango and in most cases more two or three four hell i could keep going.
If someone starts a thread say on fruit and veg then i dont understand why others follow an argument from a previous thread onto that one and taking it off topic.....it only serves to antagonise people and that is wrong. No matter how you dress it up it is not banter.

Laurie you ask a few important questions and in most cases i think a little common sense would not go a miss.

Language - I usually dont swear on the forum and have no issue if someone else does but as you said when it used in a personal way then that is wrong. Swear filter on the forum? i really dont mind either way.
Trolling - Well that will always go on and that is the job for yourself JR Psyco and Craig to calm it down a bit when you see it happen.....look at last night for example, you said yourself you could sense things getting a little nasty as i could myself.
Punishment - Perhaps a little gag or sin bin, as i mentioned the day before Craig appointed the moderators, for one day or a certain amount of hours would help defuse any heated situation.
Knocking things in the head quickly im sure would help in keeping things less heated i feel, i must also point out that i do enjoy reading when some people have a different opinion as some very good and valid points can come out of certain arguments/debates , it is when they turn that i dont enjoy reading it so much.

[craig]

One thing I struggle with is keeping warnings etc behind closed doors. I do not think that it is appropriate to shout about warnings or bans, but this has led to me being accused of favouritism. I have been accused, privately and publicly, of condoning certain behaviour when the opposite is true, but because wont divulge a private warning, I cant confirm or deny my actions.

[Camshy]

craig, on 19 February 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

One thing I struggle with is keeping warnings etc behind closed doors. I do not think that it is appropriate to shout about warnings or bans, but this has led to me being accused of favouritism. I have been accused, privately and publicly, of condoning certain behaviour when the opposite is true, but because wont divulge a private warning, I cant confirm or deny my actions.

Craig i have no idea who you have warned or messaged in the past but you should certainly not worry about what people are saying, you are a fair minded person and all of your posts back that up.

[craig]

Camshy, on 19 February 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

Craig i have no idea who you have warned or messaged in the past but you should certainly not worry about what people are saying, you are a fair minded person and all of your posts back that up.

cheers camshy

[jimmy gomis]

I don't post on here as much as I used to, and took that decision as I had had enough of the ridiculous squabbling and name calling. I have no idea what happened last night, or what you are referring to, and quite frankly have no interest in it.

I'm actually not surprised it's still happening and feel sorry for Craig that, still, after all this time and previous debate on the subject in the past that it is still there. I have no idea why he bothers anymore.

You ask how to take the forum forward, Laurie. Is there any avenue available to go down that hasn't already been spoken about before? It seems like this will just go over old ground and actually seems a bit redundant. I was under the impression that there are rules already in place and punishments agreed on to fit the crimes. Craig shouldn't have to ask what should be done or ask for a debate on it, he should just do it and folk should have to live with it. Normal folk wouldn't have an issue with it.

Edited by jimmy gomis, 19 February 2012 - 01:15 PM.

[hoopz]

you have always been fair since i have been here anyway craig!

was only on for a wee while last night, just seen some of the stuff earlier on this morning, not good, hopefully people will learn from it and move on.

[Laurie]

jimmy gomis, on 19 February 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

I don't post on here as much as I used to, and took that decision as I had had enough of the ridiculous squabbling and name calling. I have no idea what happened last night, or what you are referring to, and quite frankly have no interest in it.

I'm actually not surprised it's still happening and feel sorry for Craig that, still, after all this time and previous debate on the subject in the past that it is still there. I have no idea why he bothers anymore.

You ask how to take the forum forward, Laurie. Is there any avenue available to go down that hasn't already been spoken about before? It seems like this will just go over old ground and actually seems a bit redundant. I was under the impression that there are rules already in place and punishments agreed on to fit the crimes. Craig shouldn't have to ask what should be done or ask for a debate on it, he should just do it and folk should have to live with it. Normal folk wouldn't have an issue with it.

I understand what you're saying, and myself and most others will always accept whatever rules or punishments that Craig puts in place.

The main reason I brought it up is the sheer number of complaints about things that we get, something I obviously didn't know about until I was made a moderator.

It's not a HUGE number, but I was surprised at how many things were brought up for things such as language and trolling.

Of course Craig calls the shots, but in the interests of some level of democracy I wanted to gather the thoughts of the members on the points above.

Apologies if it maybe seems like going over old ground again.

[jaybee1978]

I don't think there is any need for threats of violence and personal insults that should be left in the playground. I'm fed up of seeing constant arguments on here cause certain folk don't get on. I reckon some folk would be better off ignoring each other.

[sheeptastic]

At times could I have handled myself better on this forum? yes, at times have I known that certain comments may wind up certain members, yes I'll admit to that too. All that said I and several other members have had to bit our lips for too long, leave the last word to others and walk away often from provocation, yes it takes two to tango, and I myself apologise if by continuing arguments I have lessened the enjoyment of others on SFF (although I get the impression that some people like to watch the controversy, we are human after all!!!) At times I have felt the need to defend myself, and perhaps I could be less argumentative and lighten up, I would ask this question though, when someone has to continually explain their posts and then re-explain them to show there is no offence then surely that is at least in part due to the person who is reading them, there are many very fair posters on SFF that don't take immediate offence or assume the worst of intentions when someone posts, and I haven't even got onto the subject of cherry picking, or misrepresentation. I highlighted something like this was going to happen if the language directed at certain people was not cracked down on a few days ago, I take no satisfaction from being proved right, as it happens last night was one of my quieter nights. Lastly, certain comments last night left me feeling cold inside and I can only imagine how the couple of individuals who were targetted must be feeling today after all that, NOTHING justifies those sort of comments, I think clearly last night was the culmination of a traumatic week on and off the field and I do think alcohol has a part to play here, but certainly does in no way excuse what was said

[jimmy gomis]

Laurie, on 19 February 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

I understand what you're saying, and myself and most others will always accept whatever rules or punishments that Craig puts in place.

The main reason I brought it up is the sheer number of complaints about things that we get, something I obviously didn't know about until I was made a moderator.

It's not a HUGE number, but I was surprised at how many things were brought up for things such as language and trolling.

Of course Craig calls the shots, but in the interests of some level of democracy I wanted to gather the thoughts of the members on the points above.

Apologies if it maybe seems like going over old ground again.

Fair enough. Bet you wish you hadn't bothered being a moderator now - having to deal with such petty shit. Nursery teachers probably have an easier shift.

[craig]

jimmy gomis, on 19 February 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

Fair enough. Bet you wish you hadn't bothered being a moderator now - having to deal with such petty shit. Nursery teachers probably have an easier shift.

It was lucky Laurie was about as I wasn't in a fit state to sort things out last night

[black dog]

craig, on 19 February 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

It was lucky Laurie was about as I wasn't in a fit state to sort things out last night

Obviously 'Moderation' wizny your thing last night eh?.....

[Laurie]

jimmy gomis, on 19 February 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

Fair enough. Bet you wish you hadn't bothered being a moderator now - having to deal with such petty shit. Nursery teachers probably have an easier shift.

Well, in all honesty I'd rather NOT be a mod - and I was hesitant to accept the role when Craig asked me at first.

But he puts so much time, effort and money into the forum that I felt it would be good for a couple of us to maybe contribute a little bit and take some pressure off him now and then.

If Craig is available and online I'll generally just let him deal with any problems, but in situations like last night when Craig was out it was handy that I could step in to close a thread that was getting out of hand.

Edited by Laurie, 19 February 2012 - 02:34 PM.

[sheeptastic]

black dog, on 19 February 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

Obviously 'Moderation' wizny your thing last night eh?.....

dog's miffed he missed out on the controversy, we could have done with an old head last night to cool things down, well done to LAurie though

Edited by sheeptastic, 19 February 2012 - 02:34 PM.

[craig]

Laurie, on 19 February 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Well, in all honesty I'd rather NOT be a mod - and I was hesitant to accept the role when Craig asked me at first.

But he puts so much time, effort and money into the forum that I felt it would be good for a couple of us to maybe contribute a little bit and take some pressure off him now and then.

If Craig is available and online I'll generally just let him deal with any problems, but in situations like last night when Craig was out it was handy that I could step in to close a thread that was getting out of hand.

its not easy, especially when the role is fairly unique, with no training available.

sheeptastic, on 19 February 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

dog's miffed he missed out on the controversy, we could have done with an old head last night to cool things down, well done to LAurie though

aye, well done laurie for last night

[Laurie]

craig, on 19 February 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

its not easy, especially when the role is fairly unique, with no training available.

I expected an induction pack at least, or an employee handbook of some kind....