Fiosfan Banned for his Personal Opinion

Discussion in 'Customer Service' started by Bill Archer, Apr 23, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yoshou

    Yoshou Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think he’s talking from a purely PR position. If we moderators were actually interested in such things, we could have just dinged Fiosfan for this, then in a month or so when he makes another comment banned him then when no one was looking.
     
    barroldinho and JasonMa repped this.
  2. cwilke1

    cwilke1 Member

    Sep 1, 2006
    Glen Cove
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If a parent loses their temper in dealing with a petulant child, then sometimes the parenting's reasoning and discipline becomes inconsistent and does not make sense. It does not mean the child is right for acting childish, but the parent is still better off if they can control their own temper and not become overly authoritarian in making their parenting decisions.

    "If we moderators were actually interested in such things, we could have just dinged Fiosfan for this, then in a month or so when he makes another comment banned him then when no one was looking."

    I have a difficult time believing that Youshou that you have no personal biases and your moderating is 100% in pursuit of justice and fairness and has no concern whatsoever about public relations.
     
  3. Geneva

    Geneva LA for Life

    Feb 5, 2003
    Southern Cal
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    @cwilke1 I think your expectation of perfection in the manner of Fiosfan's dismissal is Monday morning quarterbacking. Our volunteer mods have explained their decision. Some have questioned it, but that doesn't make it wrong. You're never going to please everyone.
     
  4. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Maybe so, but that's a problem when 'PR' becomes more important than actually enforcing some rules and consequences.
     
  5. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Again, this avoids the question. The scenario was this:

    Fiosfan was asked to change his sig. Fiosfan refused. Fiosfan had a history of issues.

    Given that @cwilke1, what do you think the mods should have done at that point. No talk about how it shouldn't have gotten to that point or that the mods were incorrect in asking. Those actions had already happened and the mods were in the scenario I outlined. What should the mods have done at that point?
     
  6. barroldinho

    barroldinho Member+

    Man Utd and LA Galaxy
    England
    Aug 13, 2007
    Ex-pat in HB, CA
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    1) If they were getting complaints that somebody was using an antisemitic phrase as their sig, would it be good PR to let it slide and remain unchanged?

    2) The guy had over a year of repeated infractions and even in this case, there was apparently communication offering every opportunity to comply. That doesn't sound like a loss of temper or rash decision to me.
     
  7. cwilke1

    cwilke1 Member

    Sep 1, 2006
    Glen Cove
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think Youshou already said what the wiser way to proceed would have been. Let this slide or give him a minor ding.

    Watch him closely. Then when he says something truly racist, then give him the ban.

    Surely you are smart enough to realize that the moderators have great discretion as to when they can choose to ban someone and when to give minor punishment.
     
  8. cwilke1

    cwilke1 Member

    Sep 1, 2006
    Glen Cove
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So your point only is a good argument if you assume that it is without question antisemitic. There has been plenty of good arguments given that it is not antisemitic. I see no need to rehash that 11 page discussion again.

    Not good PR to let some fringe groups control what regular words mean for everyone else. That almost legitimizes those fringe groups.
     
  9. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Personally I think ignoring the moderators after repeated incidents merits higher than the mods looking the other way. Otherwise what;s the point of having moderators or rules?
     
    Namrog The Just and barroldinho repped this.
  10. GreatGonzo

    GreatGonzo Member+

    Jul 1, 1999
    NH
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    There really haven't been any good arguments in favor of how it's unreasonable to think that the signature could have been read as anti-Semitic. There have been a number of citations that demonstrate how the word globalist has been used in an anti-Semitic manner, with usage examples both in current time and going back to the 1920s. There have been numerous examples of how words / phrases have different meanings depending on context and tone. The "reasonable" people who are arguing against the ban have ignored those arguments and continue to argue along the lines of "I think words have a single definition and we should ignore how other people use them". Language simply doesn't work that way.
     
    song219, 2in10 and JasonMa repped this.
  11. Yoshou

    Yoshou Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    With regards to PR, why would I be worried about it? Many moderator actions are invisible and of the ones that are visible, only a handful get pushback. *shrug* Public reaction generally doesn’t factor in because there is almost never any..
     
    soccernutter repped this.
  12. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Funny how @Bill Archer started this thread, called people out for not admitting they wanted this, and then hasn't been back even when directly responded to by somebody who admits they complained about Fiosfan (namely, me).
     
    tomásbernal, Sounders78, Geneva and 2 others repped this.
  13. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 22, 2001
    Don't drink beer but like cheese
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There are three issues I think you are getting at here.
    1 - The reason for the red card (moderating)
    2 - The explanation for the red card (PR)
    3 - The ability to moderate impartially

    As for point 1, the context has been explained, and it has also been tacitly acknowledged that the term, alone, could be okay. But, strictly speaking, he was asked to modify a sig which had tones which could be antisemitic, and it was explained why, and it was stated to said poster that the mods were not accusing him of being antisemitic. In the strict sense, he was banned for failing to heed a mod warning. After having done so multiple times. Further, as has been noted in this thread, somebody who has an opposing political view of his was also banned from a forum for the same reasons - posting of politics and refusing to heed warnings.

    As for point 2, what you may not understand is that there are several of us mods who are posting her about the red card, and about the process of the red card, but we are not a corporate or political entity so we don't align talking points. As you may have noted, there is one mod who is disputing the interpreting of the language. We, as mods, want this. We want the discussion, and we often have it, as we very seldom hand out red cards. But it also means that when we discuss the why, we don't have a unified talking point, so PR can look disjointed. But as has been noted by several non-mods, the reason is present.

    As for point 3, it relates to point 2 in that we want a diversity of views. What we mods know is that there are a variety of views, social, political, economic, etc. on BS, and there will be times when a view takes a thread sideways. This is why we have a mod board so we can discuss as to what we see (as happened in the case in point) so that we try to act impartially. We are human, and we do our best to be impartial, be know we will make mistakes. But when we do make a mistake, it is usually on the side of caution, of not giving a red card or some other consequence. In general, and to use soccer again, our view is to let posters play the match fluidly. Sometimes is a boring match, sometimes it is a great match. Sometimes it is an easy match, other times is a rough. But we try as little as we can to interject. And, just like in a real match, when a red card is given, it is often controversial, and often viewed though some lens of incompetence. One of those lenses is partiality. And I will say, having been a mod for 12+ years, that the group we have now is very good having to manage, in places, a very difficult group. The moderating we do now is more difficult than it was when I started, or even 5 years ago. And, for the most part, it is done with a seriousness and a sense of professionalism - even though we are unpaid volunteers.
     
  14. barroldinho

    barroldinho Member+

    Man Utd and LA Galaxy
    England
    Aug 13, 2007
    Ex-pat in HB, CA
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    My point is only a good one if you get it.

    You raised the specter of it being bad PR. I just pointed out that it would be just as bad, if not worse, for moderators to receive reports of an ethnic slur and not at least investigate.

    The decision they arrived at has been well-explained.
     
  15. Ismitje

    Ismitje Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 30, 2000
    The Palouse
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This was chance about 40, a last straw sort of scenario. There is frankly no one I've tried to keep around before the final ban more astringently than Fiosfan, and I will concede that was a mistake. I argued to let him back in in early March most recently, and the other forum mods deferred to me. That and several others with the same poster are on me.

    After dozens of these interactions with the same poster over the years, I am very comfortable with this course of action.
     
    Sachsen, Sounders78, cwilke1 and 3 others repped this.
  16. 2in10

    2in10 Member

    Reno 1868 FC and Nevada Coyotes FC (UPSL)
    United States
    Jun 19, 2016
    Sparks, NV
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    As an ex-mod, kudos for giving more than enough chances to a member who was providing a popular thread.

    Being an unpaid mod is a very thankless job as seen by the responses of some of the posters. Team work is key when dealing with a complex situation as this and this team has nailed it.
     
  17. Namrog The Just

    Namrog The Just Member+

    L.A. Galaxy
    United States
    Jul 2, 2007
    Los Angeles, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Is that in Zurich this year? I don't know if I can make it as it looks like the dates might conflict with the Priory of Sion meeting in Clermont-Ferrand . Add in trying to get accommodations for the Bilderberg meeting on short notice and it's turning out to be a real headache.

    Ah well, at least the Trilateral Commission conference in Singapore was held in March, and the Illuminati usually get together at the end of summer. The Rosicrucians don't have a firm date yet, but I'm assuming it'll be held in the Fall again. I have to say the Bohemian Club retreat is generally the most enjoyable though (it's certainly the longest, as you well know). Regardless, I'll keep an "eye" out for you.


    [​IMG]
     
    Sachsen and Knave repped this.
  18. POdinCowtown

    POdinCowtown Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 15, 2002
    Columbus
    Right, but the post that got him banned wasn't political, it was his sig line in his daily news post. If he were banned for posting something offensive, that would be more defensible than banning him for his sig file.
     
  19. POdinCowtown

    POdinCowtown Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 15, 2002
    Columbus
    Sure, but the sig file (which is what drew the ban) attaches to his actual post. I don't know if it's possible to remove someone's ability to have a sig file or not but if the objection is to him not changing it, that would be a better solution imo.

    If you are saying he was posting antisemitic stuff, then ban him for that, not for having a sig file that contains a common word that some consider antisemitic.
     
  20. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    If you are trying to get people to think you are deliberately misrepresenting the moderators, it's working.
     
    jayd8888, 2in10, tomásbernal and 4 others repped this.
  21. POdinCowtown

    POdinCowtown Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 15, 2002
    Columbus
    Not really.

    The problem here is that BigSoccer seems to want to outsource definitions of what's offensive to Stormfront or Vox or the WashingtonPost. Why not just use the standard language filter or a neutral source like Dictionary.com? If someone says something unambiguously offensive across the spectrum, then apply punishment. If it's ambiguous or causes a split of opinion among the mods, then use Toronto_Soccer's excellent suggestion to let readers use the ignore feature. Less work for the mods and fewer complaints.
     
  22. POdinCowtown

    POdinCowtown Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 15, 2002
    Columbus
    Ok, feel free to correct me but the last post I saw from him was a daily news post. It had his sig in it which caused the ban. If he was banned for some other post in a different forum, please make that clear.
     
  23. POdinCowtown

    POdinCowtown Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 15, 2002
    Columbus
    Don't forget the Freemason's secret meeting. Oops
     
  24. POdinCowtown

    POdinCowtown Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 15, 2002
    Columbus
    He actually did change his sig. He just didn't remove the part that others complained about.

    He says he's not antisemitic. He obviously can't defend himself since he's banned. But whether resistance to moderators is bad behavior or not depends on whether the mods are in the right or not.

    I gave a troublesome poster on the Crew boards an increasing number of points for a series of infractions. He eventually got a card and couldn't post. But I didn't really want to stop him from posting, just to get him to comply with the TOS. He declined and the threads are worse for his absence, though I could do without the hate PMs he sends.
     
  25. Beau Dure

    Beau Dure Member+

    May 31, 2000
    Vienna, VA
    OK, folks, you asked for it. Here follows a musing on "bias" from someone who studied the topic in grad school and has worked in the dying field of professional journalism for the past 26 years (and if you're interested in this sort of thing, the best primer on the topic was written roughly 20 years ago: http://rhetorica.net/bias.htm )

    "Bias" is a pre-existing condition that leads someone to think a certain way and hold to that belief, sometimes despite the evidence. I'm biased toward the Washington Capitals. I should not be asked to referee my own sons' youth soccer games (what typically happens in those cases is that the referee overcompensates for such bias -- unless he's just a jerk).

    When the evidence logically points to a conclusion, that is not "bias."

    When the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world believe vaccines are good and greenhouse gases are speeding up climate change beyond our ability to easily adapt, you can gripe about their "bias," but you'd be wrong.

    When one side is lying and the other is not, pointing out the truth is not "bias."

    Related to this ...

    There is a difference between "disagreement" and "hate." On my most recent podcast (pardon the plug), Christian Lavers of U.S. Club Soccer and the ECNL talks about his disagreements with the Development Academy but says he learned long ago you can disagree with respect. That's "disagreement." Calling people "libtards" and "enemies of the state," then insisting on use of the word "globalist" when the problem is pointed out to you, is not "disagreement." It's hate.

    This isn't right and left. It's right and wrong.

    The moderators are right. The people crying about poor, victimized right-wingers -- all ignoring the facts stated repeatedly in this thread -- are wrong.

    I don't care if Knave wants to convert the country to Soviet-style central agricultural planning or if Ismitje wants to form an autonomous commune in which all the decisions of the director must be ratified by a simple majority in the case of simple internal matters but by a two-thirds majority in the case of constitutional matters. I don't care if Bill Archer, whom I consider a friend even though he has done the "drive-by fart" style of argument on my Facebook posts quite often, believes in a system of supreme executive power derived from a watery tart throwing a sword at you.

    I've been listening to right-wing whining about the media as long as I can remember. At my first job, we dealt with people who would throw the "liberal media" accusation at my Republican-voting sports editor because we didn't send reporters to middle-school lacrosse games.

    If 90 percent of the people who are most closely attenuated to the news are "liberal" by some survey's definition (maybe they believe in evolution or climate change or the utter failure of trickle-down economics or the prospect that some politicians are factually impaired), or if 90 percent of BigSoccer mods agree that someone's behavior was unacceptable, maybe it's worth asking why you're in the other 10 percent and whether your position is really as sound as you think.

    Every once in a while, you may be right. Maybe you HAVE found the hill to die on. But you won't do yourself any harm by asking yourself if you're sure.
     

Share This Page