Puns

[Eminence Grise]

Sssh. I figured as much, but you're weakening the argument!

[dahamsta]

Users: Mods are allowed to set local rules, to the forum or even the thread. If it's stated as a rule for that forum, or thread, it's a rule. If it's a silly rule, it can be appealed, but not in the way this thread started. So let's continue focusing on appealing the rule please, and not attacking the mod.

Tets: While I agree with you that silly threads can be annoying and/or disruptive when they drag on, it's clear users want more leeway here. Do you have a suggestion for a way in which that can be accommodated? We've had free-for-all threads on Foot.ie before, including ones that called me every name under the sun. :)

(I'm not saying player threads should be free-for-alls BTW, they shouldn't. Just that there must be a way to accommodate people in some way.)

[SkStu]

So what exactly was wrong with my opening post?

[Eminence Grise]

So let's continue focusing on appealing the rule please, and not attacking the mod.

Like this post? (https://foot.ie/threads/253457-Puns?p=2030021&viewfull=1#post2030021)

[Eminence Grise]

So what exactly was wrong with my opening post?

I give it 9/10.

If you'd started with 'Aloud or not' I'd have given you full marks.

[pineapple stu]

I think given tets is posting elsewhere, he's now ignoring this thread and the various - quite reasonable - requests to change the current rule (although I don't really like to legitimise it like that).

I think that's very bad form.

[Mr A]

FWIW there are times when I enjoy a load of puns in a thread and other times when they are annoying and you just want to read actual posts about the subject. Can see both sides of this TBH.

[osarusan]

I'm against opening the forum and having to skip 24 new posts all based around the fact that a player's name, or surname, sounds like something else. Towell, Harness, Sammon, etc, to get to something approaching a discussion or news.

Just scroll past the stuff you don't want to read like the rest of us do.

These puns only pop up once in a blue moon anyway. It's not like they are disrupting an otherwise active and healthy thread and getting in the way of loads of other posts. There hadn't been a post on the Sammon thread in what, 5 months, and at Sammon's goal-scoring rate, there probably won't be another for quite a while either. The Towell thread hasn't had a single post since 9th of June 2019.

Is it really that much of a deal to just let it slide?

Does it give you any pause for thought that you seem to be the only one that is so bothered by it?

[tetsujin1979]

I think given tets is posting elsewhere, he's now ignoring this thread and the various - quite reasonable - requests to change the current rule (although I don't really like to legitimise it like that).

I think that's very bad form.
haven't been ignoring it at all, I just haven't replied.

I still think my way is the best - a day where you can post any puns you want, and then we all move on with our lives

[John83]

haven't been ignoring it at all, I just haven't replied.

I still think my way is the best - a day where you can post any puns you want, and then we all move on with our lives
You haven't addressed the overwhelming disagreement of the posters with you on this - could we even find one person agreeing with you if we trawled through the whole thread?

I would also argue you did not communicate effectively in the Sammon thread. "One day" was the entirety of your post, and it might as well have been whale song - I certainly had no idea that this was a mod warning and seem not to have been alone in that.

[tetsujin1979]

I thought it was obvious after the last time this came up

[Eminence Grise]

Total BS and an abuse of your role of moderator. You've shown no willingness to be flexible on this, or find a reasonable solution. It's pitiful that you're so intransigent - and for what? The silliest, pettiest of reasons. You don't like puns. Give me strength. What's next on the humorous banned list? Malapropisms? Spoonerisms? One-liners and quips?

Put it to a vote and see if the majority support your one day rule.

Christ almighty. This was a fun place once - cool dog's awesome adventures, the crossword thread, the one sentence story thread that seemed to have Roddy Collins as a punchline on every page, the Termonbarry references.... There was even a jokes thread. The last post on Cool Dog was over two years ago!! Bonnie stumped us all on the crossword thread six years ago!! (Any chance you might give us the answer, BS?) What does that tell us about where this place is going?

[pineapple stu]

haven't been ignoring it at all, I just haven't replied.
That's kind of the definition of "ignoring" to be honest.


I still think my way is the best
I agree with EG on this - this is an abuse of moderator power. Almost everyone on the thread is against you on this. It's not your forum. "My way is the best" is not acceptable when no-one else wants your way.

Yet you repeatedly refuse to engage in conversation about this. It really shows a remarkable lack of respect for the rest of us.

[DeLorean]

Users: Mods are allowed to set local rules, to the forum or even the thread. If it's stated as a rule for that forum, or thread, it's a rule. If it's a silly rule, it can be appealed

I'd like to appeal that rule that allows mods make up silly rules. I don't see the need for it. There is a comprehensive list of foot.ie rules that cover personal abuse, staying on topic, etc. Clearly a certain amount of discretion is required and no two mods will be the exact same, but to actually have the power to create rules within forums or threads on a whim, based on their own personal preference in this case, is a step too far.

It'd be no harm to reiterate the point that this is nothing personal. I think I speak for everybody when I say Tets is well liked and respected, and the great work he does both here and beyond is really appreciated. He obviously feels backed into a corner now so isn't willing to give an inch, but in my opinion this should have never been allowed happen in the first place. I don't think anybody knew mods had the authority to make up new rules as they see fit.

I can't really understand why a compromise was even suggested either, as honourable as the intentions were. It's one person against basically everybody else (who cared enough to contribute anyway). Compromises and happy mediums should be saved for close-run conflicts.

[Eminence Grise]

As I see it, the options are:


The thread can be moved – RAM suggested to his LoI threads;
Another moderator can take over just this thread;
The thread carries on as most posters want it, with puns allowed. We’re looking at a player at the end of his career: the last five years show how little activity there’s been, and how little there’s likely to be. Meanwhile we try to avoid obvious puns that have been done to death. Up the game, lads – nets, scales, streams and the like are the low hanging fruit of punning. (Maybe they come in punnets…?)


Are there any other suggestions? Should it be put to a vote? Or can we reach an agreement?


I suggested this a week ago... I don't think any of us saw it dragging on like this when it could have been resolved so easily in so many ways, and a compromise would have given everybody a win. As for Tets' lustre? I'm afraid that for me some of the sheen has worn off. And I hate saying that.

[Edit] I second your call for an appeal, DeLorean.

[passinginterest]

For what it's worth, I've no major issue with a 24 hour limit for puns in certain threads, even though I don't think it's needed. The main issue was the 'one day' post wasn't particularly clear at all, I also interpreted it as "one day this will stop happening" rather than one day to post puns. For the sake of clarity, if the rule was implemented, there should be a clear post from the moderator in the thread stating "puns will be allowed for 24 hours on this thread from the time of this post, any posted later will be deleted".

[dahamsta]

Ye know I hate it when I have to make decisions! Where's the actual rule posted? What is it exactly?

[Eminence Grise]

Looks to be this slice of vagueness (https://foot.ie/threads/144052-Conor-Sammon?p=2015283&viewfull=1#post2015283).

[CraftyToePoke]

The main issue was the 'one day' post wasn't particularly clear at all

Disagree that this was the main issue, it wasn't. And anyway has since been comfortably surpassed by how Tets has chosen to handle this.

[Mr A]

Let's try to be fair here. Looking after a busy forum is a very difficult pundertaking.

[nigel-harps1954]

I thought it was obvious after the last time this came up

Genuinely, I thought you meant it as a "one day, I won't have to see puns".

Wasn't actually aware of the one day rule, which is a little bit extreme, and takes away from the fun to be honest.

[dahamsta]

Ok, so the rule isn't very clear. Can we make and publish a rule everyone agrees with, and stick to it? Because I agree with tets that there needs to be a limit.

[pineapple stu]

Suggest abolish the rule entirely for the moment and see what happens? I'd say outside the Sammon thread - his career is coming to a close anyway - any puns will quickly die out. But you'd get a view as to the extent of the issue - if it is an issue - that way

[John83]

Ok, so the rule isn't very clear. Can we make and publish a rule everyone agrees with, and stick to it? Because I agree with tets that there needs to be a limit.
Pineapple's suggestion sounds practical to me.

By way of an alternative: Puns are always acceptable providing they are in an on-topic post. Where a sequence of posts containing only a pun and no on-topic contribution are interfering with a discussion, the mod can place a very limited temporary ban on puns, e.g. one day. This will be indicated by posting "One day" in the thread. (Or "Mod warning: posts containing a pun and no contribution to the conversation are banned for 24 hours and will be deleted." Whichever is clearer.)

My intention there is as follows: If someone works a pun into an on-topic post, the conversation continues and kudos to the wordsmith. If there is no other discussion, there's nothing to interfere with and a string of puns is better than dead air. Only if someone is trying to converse, and it's getting lost in lots of non-contributing pun posts, is there any real justification for an intervention. This is likely a pretty rare eventuality, and therefore I still prefer pineapple's suggestion.

[CraftyToePoke]

I agree with Pineapple, pun away, if it becomes an actual problem rather than a mod using being a mod to tailor the forum to their own personal likes / dislikes then revisit it and apply some criteria. I say this because whatever reasonable sensible rule might be applied, the puns thus far wouldn't have over stepped anyway it in all probability.

[DeLorean]

I say this because whatever reasonable sensible rule might be applied, the puns thus far wouldn't have over stepped anyway it in all probability.

This is the crucial point. We would need to establish if the pun usage up until now has ever exceeded a reasonable limit. It's the view of almost everybody here that it hasn't. Therefore, we can make a rule for rule sake, but if it's a rule so harsh that it would have interfered with the pun making up until now, then it's not going to be accepted by the majority anyway. So, basically, what Crafty says - if it becomes an actual problem, revisit.

[EAFC_rdfl]

Total BS and an abuse of your role of moderator. You've shown no willingness to be flexible on this, or find a reasonable solution. It's pitiful that you're so intransigent - and for what? The silliest, pettiest of reasons. You don't like puns. Give me strength. What's next on the humorous banned list? Malapropisms? Spoonerisms? One-liners and quips?

Put it to a vote and see if the majority support your one day rule.

Christ almighty. This was a fun place once - cool dog's awesome adventures, the crossword thread, the one sentence story thread that seemed to have Roddy Collins as a punchline on every page, the Termonbarry references.... There was even a jokes thread. The last post on Cool Dog was over two years ago!! Bonnie stumped us all on the crossword thread six years ago!! (Any chance you might give us the answer, BS?) What does that tell us about where this place is going?

It's a real pity that the Cool dog thread froze, maybe he was just too cool in the end up

[dahamsta]

1. Stop personalising the subject. The mod is entitled to an opinion too.
2. Everyone here is not everyone on the forum. How many people have actually posted in this thread, a half dozen?
3. The moderator is clearly not happy with a free for all. Come up with a compromise or the rule will be formalised as-is.

Generally speaking, grow up ffs. Ye sound like spoiled teenagers the lot of ye.

[DeLorean]

I think you'll find that only the spoiled teenagers have offered anything in the way of a compromise. Your mod appears unwilling.


I still think my way is the best - a day where you can post any puns you want, and then we all move on with our lives

[SkStu]

1. Stop personalising the subject. The mod is entitled to an opinion too.
2. Everyone here is not everyone on the forum. How many people have actually posted in this thread, a half dozen?
3. The moderator is clearly not happy with a free for all. Come up with a compromise or the rule will be formalised as-is.

Generally speaking, grow up ffs. Ye sound like spoiled teenagers the lot of ye.

14 different posters posted in this thread. An additional 5 posters didn't post but indicated their "thanks" of a post that was relating to the use of puns. So 19. Of the 19, only 2 have indicated a problem with the use of puns - yourself and the moderator. There is no evidence put forward that anybody - except the moderator - has ever complained about the use of puns before. The only problem is the one was actually created by having a (terrible) rule. Therefore, why is a compromise necessary?

PineappleStu has suggested a very reasonable experiment to see if the use of puns actually is a problem for the broader foot.ie population that may not have seen this thread. Wouldn't that experiment be a logical first step before trying to determine an appropriate countermeasure or rule?

[CraftyToePoke]

I can see how this is tedious to deal with, but equally isn't it Tets refusal to engage in any way with the compromises already offered, or thus far to engage with your own suggestion a compromise be found, is the root cause here ? & he's a continued period of the silence away from getting his rule made permanent ? Surely that's not how it should play out. The mod opinion was sought, several times.

Tets, would you like to offer any contribution on dahamsta post above please ?

[nigel-harps1954]

24 hours might be a bit over the top. Here's my suggestion:

I'd suggest imposing a 3 day rule, because let's face it, the forum isn't quite as active as it used to be and would hardly go above 5 or 6 pun-posts. If the post count exceeds a reasonable number in a row within that timeframe of three days, then the mod would be within his remit to firstly give a warning, and secondly, if not adhered to, delete posts and/or deal with the individual posters who acted beyond warning accordingly.

[John83]

Generally speaking, grow up ffs. Ye sound like spoiled teenagers the lot of ye.
A large fraction of the active posters made a reasonable request to stop an arbitrary and irritating interference from a mod whose reaction to this perfectly reasonable request amounts to little more than a raspberry. This has dragged on for days. How about telling Tets to grow up, ffs?

Or as he might put it, "one day".

EDIT: I know I've harped on about that, but it's not remotely acceptable that he thinks that was an adequate message.

[pineapple stu]

3. The moderator is clearly not happy with a free for all. Come up with a compromise or the rule will be formalised as-is.
We have come up with a compromise.

But it's hard to agree a compromise while one side says "No, my way's best", and then ignores the thread.

[osarusan]

We should all be asking ourselves...what would Johnser Keane do?

[Stuttgart88]

Generally speaking, grow up ffs. Ye sound like spoiled teenagers the lot of ye.That's not fair. THEY started it!

[paul_oshea]

We have come up with a compromise.

But it's hard to agree a compromise while one side says "No, my way's best", and then ignores the thread.

We need a new GFA. If it worked up North it can work down(on) here.

[dahamsta]

You haven't come up with a compromise. You've come up with "there's more of us and we want it our way". Offer a compromise.

Tets, you need to weigh in ASAP -- they're engaging at least, you're not. Offer a compromise.

[CraftyToePoke]

I think three different posters have offered comprises. Despite a fairly unanimous belief there isn't need for one. It requires discourse, or as your post suggests, can we agree one ourselves without Tets involvement and apply it ?

[DeLorean]

Yes, compromises were clearly suggested, and ignored. None of these fit the "there's more of us and we want it our way" description at all.


Look in all seriousness - if Tets hates puns that much move the Conor Sammon thread to LOI section where I'm the mod and you can Pun away in there without any Punishment. I know its only a bit of craic but if Tets is that set against it and he's the only person taking time out to moderate in there then I think we should come to some solution.


How about this, a page limit on pun posts, say four per page or something similar. If you're about to pun, check the page, if the limit is already reached, keep your powder dry and make a sensible contribution till a new page on the thread ? Protects from over fishing, keeps the stock healthy, no one loses, no one wins. Something for everyone.


We need a solution, not finger-pointing: Tets doesn’t need to apologise or rationalise his dislike of puns. In every other thread he’s a good, even-handed moderator and I think we all respect him for that.

As I see it, the options are:


The thread can be moved – RAM suggested to his LoI threads;
Another moderator can take over just this thread;


Are there any other suggestions? Should it be put to a vote? Or can we reach an agreement?


Pineapple's suggestion sounds practical to me.

By way of an alternative: Puns are always acceptable providing they are in an on-topic post. Where a sequence of posts containing only a pun and no on-topic contribution are interfering with a discussion, the mod can place a very limited temporary ban on puns, e.g. one day. This will be indicated by posting "One day" in the thread. (Or "Mod warning: posts containing a pun and no contribution to the conversation are banned for 24 hours and will be deleted." Whichever is clearer.)

My intention there is as follows: If someone works a pun into an on-topic post, the conversation continues and kudos to the wordsmith. If there is no other discussion, there's nothing to interfere with and a string of puns is better than dead air. Only if someone is trying to converse, and it's getting lost in lots of non-contributing pun posts, is there any real justification for an intervention. This is likely a pretty rare eventuality, and therefore I still prefer pineapple's suggestion.


24 hours might be a bit over the top. Here's my suggestion:

I'd suggest imposing a 3 day rule, because let's face it, the forum isn't quite as active as it used to be and would hardly go above 5 or 6 pun-posts. If the post count exceeds a reasonable number in a row within that timeframe of three days, then the mod would be within his remit to firstly give a warning, and secondly, if not adhered to, delete posts and/or deal with the individual posters who acted beyond warning accordingly.

[Eminence Grise]

I think, collectively, we're blue in the face offering compromises and olive branches, and having them ignored or thrown back in our faces.

There are enough suggestions above (thanks DeLorean!) that can be tidied into proposals and voted on.

[nigel-harps1954]

I was starting to think nobody was seeing my post to be honest..

[CraftyToePoke]

Ok, how about a poll, in the Ireland section so all can see it over a period of time. Poll to contain - no puns allowed / pun away / tets one day rule (in the continuing and particularly disappointing circumstances of his silence, what option is there ? ) / Or similar.

Suggest also a pun free zone while this is carried out, and resolved in accordance with the present edict.

[SkStu]

Ok, how about a poll, in the Ireland section so all can see it over a period of time. Poll to contain - no puns allowed / pun away / tets one day rule (in the continuing and particularly disappointing circumstances of his silence, what option is there ? ) / Or similar.

Suggest also a pun free zone while this is carried out, and resolved in accordance with the present edict.

I like that idea. Democracy dies in darkness. And Tets has gone dark. Put it to the punters in the Ireland forum for a week and let the people have their say.

[dahamsta]

Apologies, I came late to this thread, and frankly I'm tired of it, it's ridiculous. I also love good puns, and hate weak puns, or drawn-out pun threads; in my experience, there are rarely funny puns beyond the first 2 or 3. But how do you moderate that? Mods are voluntary, they have jobs and lives.

I'll think on this over the weekend. Which is ridiculous in and of itself.

[pineapple stu]

Apologies, I came late to this thread, and frankly I'm tired of it, it's ridiculous. I also love good puns, and hate weak puns, or drawn-out pun threads; in my experience, there are rarely funny puns beyond the first 2 or 3. But how do you moderate that? Mods are voluntary, they have jobs and lives.
I can agree with most of that. I don't think there's a huge gulf here. And while I get that mods have to set rules (I've done it myself when I was a mod here), tets' approach here has been really disappointing. It's a real "**** you" to the rest of the posters, and is why the thread is rumbling on.

There's a number of suggestions there. My own is based on the idea that we don't even know if the level of puns is a problem.

[SkStu]

Apologies, I came late to this thread, and frankly I'm tired of it, it's ridiculous. I also love good puns, and hate weak puns, or drawn-out pun threads; in my experience, there are rarely funny puns beyond the first 2 or 3. But how do you moderate that? Mods are voluntary, they have jobs and lives.

That's partly what i was getting at in my opening posts - mods shouldn't have to waste their time moderating things that aren't really problems. Their energy and effort should be saved for the things that posters are making complaints about or where there is negative tensions being created by dialogue. The rule that had been implemented was fairly unilateral and nobody else has ever really identified it as a problem. All things considered, a poll as suggested by CTP might be the fairest way to proceed with this in my opinion.

[tetsujin1979]

bit busy at the moment
Create a poll with the options outlined above by DeLorean, I'll abide by the results

[DeLorean]

Okay, dissecting that post these are the options:

1 - Move the Conor Sammon thread to LOI section (Real ale Madrid)
2 - Pun limit of four per page (Crafty Toe Poke)
3 - Another mod takes over the Conor Sammon thread (Eminence Green)
4 - Pun away, but revisit if it becomes a bigger issue (Pineapple Stu)
5 - If puns are interfering with a discussion, the mod can place a very limited temporary ban on puns (John83)
6 - 3 day rule. If puns exceed a reasonable amount, Mod can issue warning and temporary ban (Nigel Harps)
7 - One Day Rule (Tets)


Is that okay? I take it Tets isn't actually running the poll. Do you mind doing it, John83, with your new permissions on the Ireland forum?

[nigel-harps1954]

8. Conor Sammon retires and puts this whole fishy episode to the bottom of Davey Jones locker.