that basically sums it up from me. People are free to say what they need to say. The rest of us will just bump obnoxious threads as an example of how not to do it. Threads like that are necessary from time to time, and i think its healthy to do it. Especially after matches as pivotal as the one that just happened. and also agree merging of threads is also completely appropriate.
i always felt most of my yellow cards are exaggerated, but assuming i was wrong. i have seen many many posts with personal attacks, some of them really racists and really bad, somehow those people never get a red card for the bad things they said, not even a yellow card. pretty soon i will take a break, a little tired of the same people running this forum, letting their friends to zhit on others while giving good dudes like me a hard time. im going to sleep, good night brodas.
Doesn't one have to be thirteen in order to open a BigSoccer account? Or at least claim to be thirteen? In any case, I honestly don't care what young kids will think encountering naughty words here on BS: I can't imagine any eight-year-old would have any interest in Fire Bradley Thread #478-15c, so I doubt it's a big problem. I had an incredibly sheltered childhood before the internet--one street over from a Norman Rockwell painting--and I knew all the usual words and what they meant by the time I was six. I'd used them all several thousand times when swapping jokes with my friends by age seven. If they're old enough to type and tall enough to see the monitor, kids have heard and used those words already. I personally have different standards for what's offensive. I admire a well deployed curse word, whereas I never admire rudeness, stupidity, or the smug refusal to pay attention. I'm way more worried about kids emulating those last three than about their repeating words that BS might turn into asterisks. (Slurs against races, sexual orientations, etc. are different than mere curse words to me precisely because they're rudeness et al dialed up to 11.) Last and most: grown-ups deserve their spaces too, even if it's only the spaces where they get to act childishly. I don't think we should childproof bars, and I don't think we should sanitize discussion boards. Even if that means we have to read naughty words or--my bugaboo--semi-belligerent drivel. But, even though I oppose sanitizing this particular forum, I wouldn't mind a little cleaning-up. So I'll add my voice to the chorus of people who'd like to see useless threads closed a bit more ruthlessly and repetitive threads closed or merged more aggressively. Both would eliminate the clutter and the clusterasterisking that can be problematic 'round these parts.
Recently these forums have been pretty bad. It is hard to join in on discussions when there are countless threads all discussing the most pointless topics. I think there should be some more strictness on new threads created. Most of the threads I see are all the same. It just makes these forums way to disorganized and hard to navigate. I would also like it if the mods would cut down on the personal attacks. Sometimes it is necessary but I don't think users should be warned if they say something like you are acting stupid or moronic because some users on here can get way out of hand. Trolling needs to stop completely. I come on here to discuss US soccer, not to be trolled. I hate it when someone tries to purposely get me mad when I am just trying to express my opinion. Overall I like how the forums are currently set up, but someone needs to monitor the threads being created. Since the gold cup finale, there has been pages of silly threads. Some threads are actually very good and deserve to be discussed but others are just there to bash certain players.
for the most part i think the moderation is fine. I really only frequent, Yanks abroad, and the US National team. I have no idea what other threads are for. i don't think you should allow the cultural/racist/immigration talk junk that surrounds every game with Mexico or discussion of the Mexican national team. For far too many people soccer is a way to bludgeon people with their own patriotism. Which i think is sad because i saw a thread about race in soccer go like 80 pages without many out line comments. Which shows people can talk and be respectful on very difficult subjects. Like there's a difference between intelligently discussing a soccer topic related to ethnicity and being racist against. The first should be fine and encouraged. Like it's a valid discussion to talk about bringing latino communities into the u.s. soccer umbrella when they've often been ignored or excluded. That's different then ranting about Mexicans and border security. I think mild attacks like you're a moron i think are borderline but i think it's ok. i wouldn't be upset if you said it's name calling and should be deleted. But more then that i think shouldn't be tolerated. It should be fine to say i disagree with you or i think you're wrong. But name calling is pointless. I firmly believe you should allow differences of opinion. If people are having a spirited respectful discussion that should be allowed. it's good. Get's people thinking and thinking about new ideas about the game. When it goes from adult respectful debate to internet 12 year old nerd web fight that i think it becomes a problem. As for threads getting off topic. I think it's a judgement call. If the discussion is semi-intellegent or informative i think you let it go with gentle prodding like "He don't forget to bring it back on topic guys."
I'd agree sort of, but an example of a thread where this conflicts is a few weeks back on MLS General there was thread about MLS teams considering training in Tuscon, Arizona. Some posters on that thread quickly used the thread to call anyone who supported the Arizona Immigration Law racists, and that MLS should boycott Arizona. Predictably, some of these posters who agree with the law or the principal of the law responded graciously and some ungraciously. That thread initially spun out of control until there was some moderating done. Several of these posters on that thread and some of the related ones in USA men were not and are not "using soccer as a way to bludgeon their patriotism onto others". There are people here on Bigsoccer with socially unacceptable opinions and beliefs who attack others. There are also a lot of individuals on here who have mainstream opinions and beliefs that are maligned and shouted down by other posters, and the lack of quick moderation action sometimes to remind people to leave politics out creates a window for everyone on both sides of issues to get nasty with each other. That's why I think there needs to be some type of protocol for how USA men gets moderated in the immediate hours after a USA loss. People need to have the chance to cool down a bit.
Just be sure that if you change the standards for this particular forum you let us know ahead of time. Changing the rules before discussing and telling us you are changing the rules seems a little silly. Lord knows what could happen.
I'm in favor of light moderation in the forum - moving threads, merging threads, allowing "garden variety 'you're a moron' posts", etc..., but when a thread starts with calling one of our players "a pretentious, spoiled little prick," while offering no points of discussion nothing good will come of it except exposing the OP as a jerk. Discussion is not needed - that type of thread can/ should be ended right away.
Yea, it is in your face, it shocked me the first time I saw it on espn. Then I realized you have to be blunt to get the point across to some people. Why resort to using a slur when there are so many other words that might better describe your thoughts? ie.. Feminine, Effete, Effeminate...ect..ect It's not being P.C. it's being respectful of others.
Well said. I didn't know it was on ESPN...I figured it was FOX because the lady at the end is on Glee I think.
It might have been Fox, I thought it was ESPN but could not swear. I've seen it a few times and each time it kinda sets me back a moment. It's funny PSA's can take risks other things can't.
Yeah, think that is within the bounds laid down for that forum. Irony is not inherently problematic. The post responds to issues raised in the thread and it does so without attacking other posters. You may feel that the quality of the argument is poor (or not) but that's for posters to address, not the mods. But it's not a straightforward call, because context matters. For example, let's say I'm arguing a point in a thread in N and A and instead of engaging points other posters have made against my position I respond ironically in a way that simply repeats my original stance. negabungadiri: No way Edu should have started over Mike in that game. For one thing, he wasn't even playing for his club. Poster A: But by that time Edu was back in the lineup for Rangers and starting pretty regularly. negabungadiri: Oh yeah, Edu's world class [lather, rinse, repeat often enough to piss Poster A off] That's more likely to be considered a problem in N and A because it seems more designed to disrupt than engage. Other things that get taken into account: is Poster A's fuse shorter than it ought to be? Does negabungadiri pull that kind of shit often?
Over the top "irony" is not analysis. It's exactly the sort of post that seizes upon the lowest point of a thread and drags it farther down. An inability to ignore bad posts is one of the greatest problems in otherwise good threads. By allowing lampooning of such posts you do nothing positive to keep discussions at good levels. You might as well not have any distinction between N&A and USA Men if you do not have the courage or time to moderate them differently.
No personal attacks. That's about it. Most of us are older and are unaffected by it, but I wouldn't want anything to happen in these threads that might scare away new/younger fans of the game who have opinions and questions and would like to share them. We might not all agree with each other, but life would be completely static and boring as hell without different opinions and very opinionated people.
Just to be clear, I wasn't endorsing the post or the content, heck I disagree with his/her point. I was only saying it was in context of the subject being discussed, didn't attack others and didn't start his own thread. Question, what if he had made every point directly, the same positoins but without using irony, would that be ok?
Well, stripped of "irony" the post amounts to this: Replacing Bradley isn't guaranteed to fix everything. Which I suppose is a post worth making. Much like, rain is wet.
I actually agree with your assessment. It wasn't a great post but it didn't break any board rules IMHO.
I actually gave reputation to that poster. I thought it was funny, but that has also been my problem with N&A. People take their own arguments too seriously and forget to have fun. As a poster who has made me laugh out loud many times, I hope you get out of that yellow and get back to making these boards more entertaining!
No, it would not have been the same. Saying something is "quite gay" is not the same as saying we look like "retards". One is a handicapped individual (and I would never insult someone who can't defend themselves) and the other is an adjective. I don't think we need to go down the road where every little thing that might be slightly offensive to *someone* is flagged...it's the friggin internet...otherwise simple phrases like calling the midwest "flyover country" can be insulting to someone just as well.