oscarBravo's "infractions" and impartiality

mike65 · 09-07-2008 2:27pm

Well OB one might wonder sometimes.

Mike.

lostexpectation · 09-07-2008 5:13pm

DeVore wrote: »

They are warnings of unacceptible behaviour. I would have thought they have fairly clear labels. They are lesser rebukes then a ban and more obvious to the user then a post on a thread that they have just behaved unacceptibly.

They also will auto ban a user who accumulates 10 of them in a short (~days) space of time. This allows a consensus of mods to ban a user if there isnt an SMod/Admin around, in cases of fairly serious emergency. I dont believe this has happened yet.

There is no appeals process because they simply dont have much of a consequence.

DeV.

so now officially you are saying mods can never be wrong.

for example i got an infraction for insulting another member when i said somebody 'wasn't very public minded' when he gave out about buses. i mean wtf?

they should be detailed faq on them on the boards.ie site itself and linked in an obvious place. infact a site wide sticky should be put up explaining what infractions are to reintroduce them so people know what the hell they are.

do they have different points levels ?

ans still no way of users to bring complaints against mods and be treated seriously.

SimpleSam06 · 09-07-2008 5:14pm

Bambi wrote: »

I have a problem with this approach to moderation

Hmm. I have to say I was very much surprised when I saw oB's posts in that thread, I've never seen anything like it in any other forum. The mod in question seemed to lead in with complaints about the user not replying to his posts, and then treating the apparently polite and civil responses very shortly indeed, before hinting heavily that the user might be sitebanned.

I wouldn't mind so much but I found the user's posts very interesting and informative, as well as on-topic. As anyone who knows my posts on boards will testify, I've no fear of "vigorous" discussion, but I'm not attempting such here. I was honestly taken aback, if I was that user I would have felt frankly intimidated.

What were the names of the four other user accounts this user was banned under?

oscarBravo · 09-07-2008 5:34pm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Hmm. I have to say I was very much surprised when I saw oB's posts in that thread, I've never seen anything like it in any other forum. The mod in question seemed to lead in with complaints about the user not replying to his posts, and then treating the apparently polite and civil responses very shortly indeed, before hinting heavily that the user might be sitebanned.

I wouldn't mind so much but I found the user's posts very interesting and informative, as well as on-topic. As anyone who knows my posts on boards will testify, I've no fear of "vigorous" discussion, but I'm not attempting such here. I was honestly taken aback, if I was that user I would have felt frankly intimidated.

What were the names of the four other user accounts this user was banned under?

Is it me, or are skins around here getting incredibly thin?

First, this thread is started to complain about the permanent psychological scars I've inflicted by having the nerve to actually wield the blunt-force instrument of an infraction on someone. Dubya's invasion of Iraq pales into insignificance by comparison.

But wait: it gets worse. Not content with my massacre of innocent bystanders with depleted uranium infractions, I was actually short in my replies to someone. The humanity!

De-modded? I should be locked up for life. Won't someone think of the children?

SimpleSam06 · 09-07-2008 5:54pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I was actually short in my replies to someone. The humanity!

That and the whole belabouring them about the head and face with suspicions of their eligibility for a siteban. I mean seriously, ban them and have done with it, or take it to PM, don't use it as an instrument to shut them up, especially when they actually seem to be contributing.

oscarBravo wrote: »

De-modded? I should be locked up for life. Won't someone think of the children?

In fairness, I didn't say anything about demodding. I'm a relative newcomer to politics, so I'm not sure how things roll over there yet, I've just never seen anything like that in the other forums I frequently hang around in (Property, Galway, AH, stammering, zombies and feedback). Once again, I'm not looking for conflict, if thats how things go in Politics, then thats the way it is - posters don't set the rules, they just play the game.

oscarBravo · 09-07-2008 6:07pm

I agree with you that I should have just banned him.

SimpleSam06 · 09-07-2008 6:11pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I agree with you that I should have just banned him.

Do you recall any of the usernames he was previously banned under, I wouldn't mind having a gander at them?

oscarBravo · 09-07-2008 7:15pm

Yes, I remember them all, and when you're an admin or an S-mod I'll give you the information you need to second-guess my moderating.

I notice my irony was lost on you.

SimpleSam06 · 09-07-2008 8:06pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, I remember them all, and when you're an admin or an S-mod I'll give you the information you need to second-guess my moderating.

And what a day that will be. Although given that I'll be withdrawing the phenomenally addictive yet flavourless narcotics that I've been lacing DeVore's weetabix with tomorrow evening, I'll talk to you on Tuesday. Until then, our nameless soap box orators shall have to remain so.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I notice my irony was lost on you.

No, I just wanted to see if I'd get sitebanned for ignoring part of your post.

DeVore · 09-07-2008 8:27pm

I have a limited amount of time in my day that I can investigate sh*t. If the OP is getting infracted all the time and it lead to him being banned I would look but frankly, if I investigated every infraction I'd never sleep. So I wont and since the op isnt banned I guess he hasnt been infracted too often for his delicate soul.

This thread has 24 hours to live.

DeV.

paddybar · 09-07-2008 10:49pm

I,m relativly new to boards(which I love btw)and having viewed a lot of feedback it seems to me the op has a reasonable point and instead of addressing this dev has basically said f.u and supported the mod even though to most unbiased opinion he was in the wrong.I would bet that if the op was as snotty as the mod that sort of behavior would not be tolerated.We all know its not a democracy but how about a sense of fair play.

mike65 · 09-07-2008 11:02pm

paddybar You may want to check out the likes of thumped or p45rant quite soon.

Mike.

DeVore · 09-07-2008 11:25pm

paddybar wrote: »

I,m relativly new to boards(which I love btw)and having viewed a lot of feedback it seems to me the op has a reasonable point and instead of addressing this dev has basically said f.u and supported the mod even though to most unbiased opinion he was in the wrong.I would bet that if the op was as snotty as the mod that sort of behavior would not be tolerated.We all know its not a democracy but how about a sense of fair play.

I'm sorry, I must have explained myself badly or you may not have read my previous posts on this thread.

I have already reviewed and consider this case and I support the mod in this case.

The conversation moved onto infractions in general when I was asked to explain them and I made a flippant comment about stopping people complaining about being infracted (which is pretty much the same as the Mod posting directly after the user in the thread, except that its traceable by other mods, its slightly more private and a bunch of them in a short time gets the user site banned until its reviewed by an admin).

So, I then explained WHY I wont be investigating one off infractions (which I wont). I will investigate any abuse of the infraction system but clearly, and despite the OP's assertions to the contrary, that isnt the case here.

By all means consider other sites, with other methods of Moderation. They are many and varied and will suit some people better then here, but don't arrive in May, and suddenly accuse me of bias mate. You dont know me from Adam.

DeV.

marco murphy · 10-07-2008 1:57am

DeVore wrote: »

They are warnings of unacceptible behaviour. I would have thought they have fairly clear labels. They are lesser rebukes then a ban and more obvious to the user then a post on a thread that they have just behaved unacceptibly.

They also will auto ban a user who accumulates 10 of them in a short (~days) space of time. This allows a consensus of mods to ban a user if there isnt an SMod/Admin around, in cases of fairly serious emergency. I dont believe this has happened yet.

There is no appeals process because they simply dont have much of a consequence.

DeV.

I would say they are there to keep a record more than anything else. If it comes to deciding ban or not to ban the record is there for all the infractions recieved. And +1, they are not a ban.

It would be more of a worry if the OP was banned for the ''offences'' and ''Naughtyness''.

lostexpectation · 10-07-2008 3:31am

DeVore wrote: »

I have a limited amount of time in my day that I can investigate sh*t. If the OP is getting infracted all the time and it lead to him being banned I would look but frankly, if I investigated every infraction I'd never sleep. So I wont and since the op isnt banned I guess he hasnt been infracted too often for his delicate soul.

This thread has 24 hours to live.

DeV.

wouldn't explaining boards.ie infractions in general save you a lot of time if that your only concern?

GuanYin · 10-07-2008 7:09am

Infractions serve an important purpose in keeping track of troublemakers.

I see it as a simple process

Red card infraction with a ban.

Yellow card with a warning.

They certainly help me decide if someone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

paddybar · 10-07-2008 8:42am

DeVore wrote: »

I'm sorry, I must have explained myself badly or you may not have read my previous posts on this thread.

I have already reviewed and consider this case and I support the mod in this case.

The conversation moved onto infractions in general when I was asked to explain them and I made a flippant comment about stopping people complaining about being infracted (which is pretty much the same as the Mod posting directly after the user in the thread, except that its traceable by other mods, its slightly more private and a bunch of them in a short time gets the user site banned until its reviewed by an admin).

So, I then explained WHY I wont be investigating one off infractions (which I wont). I will investigate any abuse of the infraction system but clearly, and despite the OP's assertions to the contrary, that isnt the case here.

By all means consider other sites, with other methods of Moderation. They are many and varied and will suit some people better then here, but don't arrive in May, and suddenly accuse me of bias mate. You dont know me from Adam.

DeV.

A fair point.I did come in late on this but my comments were shaped by ob's snide (it seemed to me)attitude towards simplesam making a reasonable point in a reasonable manner.having re-read the whole post (and realising who you are*trembles in fear from your almighty wrath*)I shall now slink away and have myself flogged by midgets in bikini's using live haddock

mike65 · 10-07-2008 10:41am

Learning quickly.

Mike.

DeVore · 10-07-2008 12:20pm

Midgets in kilts pls.

DeV.
ps: LostExpectation, I DID explain them , on this thread. Read back.

Cabaal · 10-07-2008 12:23pm

thread locked soon hopefully

paddybar · 10-07-2008 12:57pm

DeVore wrote: »

Midgets in kilts pls.

DeV.
ps: LostExpectation, I DID explain them , on this thread. Read back.

as You speak it,so shall it be O Almighty One

Steve · 10-07-2008 1:14pm

paddybar wrote: »

as You speak it,so shall it be O Almighty One

Lickass.

/runs

paddybar · 10-07-2008 1:21pm

SteveC wrote: »

Lickass.

/runs

when I come out of hiding(after the plastic surgery)I'll get you for that

Tar.Aldarion · 10-07-2008 3:22pm

DeVore · 10-07-2008 3:33pm

Murphy's Corollary to Godwin's Law: As a thread tends towards lolcats, its value tends towards zero.

DeV.

Bob the Builder · 10-07-2008 3:42pm

DeVore wrote: »

Murphy's Corollary to Godwin's Law: As a thread tends towards lolcats, its value tends towards zero.

DeV.

don't kill the thread yet, still four and a half hours left to live.:pac:

javaboy · 10-07-2008 3:44pm

nevf wrote: »

don't kill the thread yet, still four and a half hours left to live.:pac:

It would be a mercy killing imo.

Tar.Aldarion · 10-07-2008 5:02pm

DeVore wrote: »

Murphy's Corollary to Godwin's Law: As a thread tends towards lolcats, its value tends towards zero.

DeV.

I'd better up the standard of this thread fast!

lostexpectation · 11-07-2008 6:41am

DeVore wrote: »

Midgets in kilts pls.

DeV.
ps: LostExpectation, I DID explain them , on this thread. Read back.

yes in this thread but you need to put a detailed explanation where its easily found.

--

so infractions can lead to bans but you can't appeal them.

so again mods can never be wrong.

Maximilian · 11-07-2008 11:50am

All that there is left now for this thread is pics.

oscarBravo's "infractions" and impartiality

Comments