Feedback & Suggestions: PDF Soccer League Operations

Anthony Jackson2 said:I think I already covered this in the 🤷 thread.

Basically—just so there’s no confusion—I closed it so I could clean things up in peace. If I try to delete three posts here, five more pop up that need deleting. Not interested in doing Sisyphus's job.

And you think people are actually going to read those posts later on? 🤷

Especially when you end up with ten pages of garbage piled up in like half an hour?

Sure—except out of those ten pages, there are maybe seven posts actually worth reading if you have the patience, which nobody does.

Following that logic, we might as well fire most of the mods and just keep a couple around to handle the reports.

Wouldn't it be more effective if we handed out bans for trolling on Reddit instead of just deleting posts? Even if you only target the ones who start the flame wars. Right now, you delete the content, but the trolls don't even blink—they just keep going like nothing happened. It’s a waste of time if we actually want to make this subreddit a constructive place.

Let's get one thing straight: I'm not talking about punishing people for harmless banter. Anyone can tell the difference between a little joke and someone intentionally trolling just to provoke others.

Why the hell did you delete my post about FDR 😕

Just give me the red cards and leave us alone, don't go deleting things... 🙂

Take a look at the last few pages for some examples—maybe you'll finally get the hang of it.

I'm getting pretty close to just starting to share the actual cards—though I'll probably delete the posts after.

Look, deleting stuff doesn't really accomplish much anyway, especially at a time like this—right after the games wrap up and everything is blowing up. First off, if you think that specific post was unnecessary, it was written during a total dead zone when absolutely nothing was happening. And second, dropping it right now, when everyone is flooding this thread, means honestly? Nobody is even going to notice it or bother reading it later once the dust settles.

Anthony Jackson2 said:Take a look at the last few pages for some examples—maybe you'll finally get the hang of it.

I'm getting pretty close to just starting to share the actual cards—though I'll probably delete the posts after.

I suggest you start by just sharing the screenshots to act as "reference examples"—obviously, you’d only flag the posts that actually reply to them. After that, you can just go ahead and ban/delete everything. Otherwise, like you said yourself, you're just stuck doing Sisyphus's work.

We really need stricter penalties for posts like those from Pierce and his crowd. Look, debate is one thing—banter is fine—but personal vendettas and outright insults should be sanctioned much more heavily...🙂

Dabi, that's just your take—I've stated mine and I’m sticking to it.

Morgan Williams, your suggestion is interesting, and sounds good on paper—but it's just not doable. If a post stays on topic, whether it's flagged or not, I can't stop people from replying to it—and if they give a solid response, I can't just ban them for it. One decent reply usually triggers thirty off-topic posts, and if I started banning everyone for that, I wouldn't have anyone left to write the damn reports.

As for you, Richard Morales79, you know perfectly well how the reporting process works. When I hand out bans, I don't just target insults—I clear everything. Honestly, if I were handing out bans like candy, you'd probably be grayed out by now—so I don't see the point in complaining. Besides, I'm not a fan of calling out specific names as examples, even when you're right. But hey, that's just my view.

We could easily turn this into a more productive conversation. Leaving posts up with red "EDIT" labels claiming they’re just spam, ignoring them entirely, or deleting replies without flagging them—it’s all unnecessary. Usually, you flag the spam first, then once half the thread turns gray, things settle down quickly. This whole discussion is just losing its point.

@Anthony Jackson2, can you just DM me the ban notice? Even if you deleted the post, replying to someone you just banned is basically just feeding the trolls—you might as well slap them with a ban for that too, especially when it's clearly just bait. Or like what @Morgan Williams said, just issue the ban and wipe the post.

But then you can't actually see who gave what to whom. There’s zero transparency here.

And now, Anthony Jackson2, you've just gone ahead and deleted everything—the useful stuff along with the junk, in my opinion.

Deleting stuff doesn't change a damn thing 🙂

David Anderson72 said:But then you can't actually see who gave what to whom. There’s zero transparency here.

And now, Anthony Jackson2, you've just gone ahead and deleted everything—the useful stuff along with the junk, in my opinion.

honestly, it shouldn't even matter. a moderator isn't here to audit everyone else's business. you only need to worry about your own record.

Exactly—it's obvious to the people who actually need to see it (the mods and admins), unless you're arguing that others won't know where the line is drawn—but my sense is you all know fine well, you just choose not to follow it.

Regarding the Example, I’ve said this once and I’ll say it again: how that thread turns out is entirely up to you, specifically whether posts end up being nuked en masse or not. Even if a discussion eventually settles into something constructive, if the first 15 posts are nothing but pure trolling, I have no choice but to wipe the whole thing from the start.

So, please—just refrain from engaging with obvious trolls. If there's actually a point worth discussing buried in their nonsense, pull that point out (don't quote them!) and start a fresh thread on the actual topic.

Walter Grant5 said:honestly, it shouldn't even matter. a moderator isn't here to audit everyone else's business. you only need to worry about your own record.

That automatically creates grounds to question a moderator's impartiality. Especially when we know the case is specific and the moderator happens to be a fan of one of the teams. In the real world, we call that a conflict of interest.

Man, I’m telling you, Anthony Jackson2 is definitely getting a red card for this one, especially since he’s the guy I’ve shared some of my absolute best moments with on this site. Like, seriously, what kind of baseless accusations of bias are we even talking about here? ☕

Alright, but how is anyone supposed to know that? What’s stopping him from doing whatever he wants? He could easily decide to hand out warnings to certain people while letting others off the hook, even if they deserve them just as much. How is anyone—other than himself, the admin, or the super-mods (who, let's be honest, likely don't have the interest, the time, or the inclination)—going to audit which posts he's flagging or deleting?

If anyone thinks they’re being treated unfairly, go ahead and complain. But let's be clear: issuing bans is the only way to shut down the trolls.

Does every driver in Chicago need to know you were cruising at 81 miles/h before the cops pulled you over and handed you a ticket? No. They don't. But that sting is usually enough to make you think twice next time. If we just flagged your posts and told you to stop, it wouldn't do much to change your behavior.

Alright, now you're just exaggerating—throwing around claims of moderator bias without a formal complaint feels like a cheap attempt at discrediting people.

There’s an actual appeals thread on the forum, and if you truly believe a penalty was unfair, either the mod or the admin will look into it. It’s literally three clicks of a mouse—hardly a monumental task. Besides, managing this stuff is their job and they get paid for it, so the whole "they don't care and won't help" angle just doesn't fly.

So, let's end the bickering here. If anyone actually has constructive suggestions for improving the threads or the system, those are more than welcome.