Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

oscarBravo's "infractions" and impartiality

Options
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    SlabMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 462 ✭✭SlabMurphy


    javaboy wrote: »
    This old chestnut? When will people learn? There are an awful lot of mods here. I doubt most of them know each other in real life and a lot of them don't even like each other.

    What do you want instead? Mods automatically disagreeing with each other?

    IRLConor gave a reason behind his opinion instead of just saying "I agree with the mod".
    javaboy never implied that what he wanted was " Mods automatically disagreeing with each other? " What he has brought attention to is that in the discussion its been practically a case of " more mods automatically agreeing with mods, " which has mostly been the case with the majority of the responces from mods in this thread.
    IRLConor wrote: »
    I suspect that the "basis for the annoyance" is a combination of the strict rules in Politics and the fact that oscarBravo enforces those rules quite carefully. In many other forums you can get away with pushing the boundaries of the rules but not much gets past the Politics mods. This is a very good thing IMO. Without their strict modding the Politics forum would implode under the weight of the resulting insults, soapboxing and general nonsense that are kept out at the moment. I don't think anyone wants the Politics forum to turn into a second Thunderdome.

    As for the two examples that SlabMurphy provided, the first was for this post by gurramok and the second was for this post by lostexpectation. The former was an infraction and the latter was only a warning. As far as I can see, both fell foul of this part of the rules:


    They broke the rules, they got slapped for it. I don't see how any reasonable person could argue with that.

    " the strict rules in Politics the fact that oscarBravo enforces those rules quite carefully " :rolleyes:


    " As for the two examples that SlabMurphy provided, the first was for this post by gurramok and the second was for this post by lostexpectation. The former was an infraction and the latter was only a warning. " Wrong, the latter wasn't a " only a warning ". According to post #63 by lostexpectation he got an infraction for allegedly insulting you when he said you 'wasn't very public minded'.
    IRLConor wrote: »
    There's a little leeway needed when moderating.

    For example, if I were to say:

    "Stop trolling or I'll ban you"

    to a blatant troll, then by your strict definition of the rules that's not allowed since I'm attacking the poster but I don't think it's unreasonable to do that in that case.

    If the posts had looked like this:



    would it be OK? (Bearing in mind that both versions say the same thing, i.e. "Grow up or f*** off")


    If you cannot admit the obvious hypocrisy and blatant wrongness in giving out infractions to people under the guise of allegedly insulting another member for saying in an EU debate... 'Good grief, you haven't a clue' or saying to you 'wasn't very public minded' when you gave out about buses and than going on to calling someone a xenophobe because he is critical of the policies of the British govt, I’m not going to waste my time going around in circles with the likes of ya.


  • Options
    #153
    SlabMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 462 ✭✭SlabMurphy


    auerillo wrote: »
    I find the modorator oscar bravo to be aggressive and confrontational. Rather than engaging in discussion he seems to prefer to issue veiled threats and, when asked to explain what he means, doesn’t do so. Despite claiming that I "soap boxed", he never replied to my request above. Its not a good way to moderate anything and sometimes it seems to be his intention to goad and provoke me, and others, into intemperate responses. I think the politics threads are less interesting places due to his excessive zeal and aggressive attitude.

    I agree with Bambi that it is this type of approach to moderation which I find aggressive, unnecessarily confrontational, unfriendly and seems to be designed to provoke or bait a member into a response which would then leave the moderator able to claim justification for a ban.

    Glad to see the OP back on topic. Totally agree with all the above. I'll be the first to admit that I am no angel on the threads and can fly off the hook, but he is indeed " aggressive, unnecessarily confrontational, unfriendly and seems to be designed to provoke or bait a member into a response which would then leave the moderator able to claim justification for a ban." Particularily against republicans as dlopnef has pointed out. - "You're not fit for moderation OB as you cannot fufil your position in an unbiased manner. I'm not going to discuss this further with you, because you'll launch a personal attack on me yet again and I'm not in the mood to continue entertaining attack on Republicans. Why is it that every single Republican I speak to about boards.ie mentions your name OB? I can't be the only one on here that feels they are being singled out by you. There's no smoke without fire. You dislike Republicans and it shows in your moderating. "

    As I said I am no angel but isn't it a great irony that a so called 'moderator' is probably one of the worst offenders on the politics forum and demeans the entire board as a result. He is not by any means fit for the moderation of a forum on politics.


  • Options
    #154
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    124k576.gif


  • Options
    #155
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,055 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    gurramok wrote: »
    So why the secrecy then?

    It would be handy to see what constitutes infractions so other posters could learn for future reference on whats acceptable and it would prove that outside the mods view that OB is not biased.
    We know whats acceptable for bannings but for infractions, some are ludicrous :)

    You're asking the wrong person. Send an email to the guys who make vBulletin and ask them.


  • Options
    #156
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    You're asking the wrong person. Send an email to the guys who make vBulletin and ask them.

    It ain't that hard.

    A mod could just edit or reply to a post by saying 'infraction sent for insulting behaviour' as such.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,055 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    gurramok wrote: »
    It ain't that hard.

    A mod could just edit or reply to a post by saying 'infraction sent for insulting behaviour' as such.
    Meh, they could and personally I think they should but they don't have to.


  • Options
    #158
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    SlabMurphy wrote: »
    " As for the two examples that SlabMurphy provided, the first was for this post by gurramok and the second was for this post by lostexpectation. The former was an infraction and the latter was only a warning. " Wrong, the latter wasn't a " only a warning ". According to post #63 by lostexpectation he got an infraction for allegedly insulting you when he said you 'wasn't very public minded'.

    Well, I went back to check on the post and it has a yellow card beside it, not a red. Warning, not infraction.
    SlabMurphy wrote: »
    If you cannot admit the obvious hypocrisy and blatant wrongness in giving out infractions to people under the guise of allegedly insulting another member for saying in an EU debate... 'Good grief, you haven't a clue' or saying to you 'wasn't very public minded' when you gave out about buses and than going on to calling someone a xenophobe because he is critical of the policies of the British govt, I’m not going to waste my time going around in circles with the likes of ya.

    He didn't call the poster a xenophobe. He called the poster's post xenophobic. The former would be attacking the poster, the latter attacking the post.

    See the difference?


  • Options
    #159
    javaboy
    Registered Users Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    SlabMurphy wrote: »
    javaboylostexpectation never implied that what he wanted was " Mods automatically disagreeing with each other? " What he has brought attention to is that in the discussion its been practically a case of " more mods automatically agreeing with mods, " which has mostly been the case with the majority of the responces from mods in this thread.

    I assume you meant to say lostexpectation instead of javaboy there. Anyway the post that lostexpectation decided to quote in order to draw attention to the "mods agreeing with mods" idea was one by IRLConor in which he actually explained his reasoning before agreeing.

    That's why I questioned whether he just wants mods to automatically disagree with each other. He just seems to have a problem with mods agreeing with each other even if they provide their reasoning. You can't win.


  • Options
    #160
    Simplicity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 318 ✭✭Simplicity


    Rb or Rb_Ie wanted to kill an unborn child.

    Google spiders will do the rest,

    White lines.... don't do them.


  • Options
    #161
    javaboy
    Registered Users Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    Simplicity wrote: »
    Rb or Rb_Ie wanted to kill an unborn child.

    Google spiders will do the rest,

    White lines.... don't do them.

    Is this some crap from the Thunderdome that should have stayed in the Thunderdome?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Simplicity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 318 ✭✭Simplicity


    javaboy wrote: »
    Is this some crap from the Thunderdome that should have stayed in the Thunderdome?


    I dunno. You tell me?


  • Options
    #163
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    saying somebody is "not very public minded".is an ATTACK?

    i was dealing with his point I was talking about his thoughts on his travel vs the mass public. that was directly relate to the point, my words were just so tame,
    i think oscarbravo was just in bad mood that day? i don't know.

    anyway my problem is with the lack of appeal, the lack of regulation of the mods, and lack of explanation of infractions.


  • Options
    #164
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    somewhere above devore said if a mod keep getting complaints then he will pay attention to it and then elsewhere he's said aslong as he gets complaints saying in thing and then others saying the opposite and then he fine and he chortles to himself about it.

    contradictory

    the politics forum on boards is still a wasteland, how long are they gonna leave it like that?

    there is one person getting many complaints maybe he should step himself down. les headaches for him less headaches for us.


  • Options
    #165
    Bob the Builder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,919 ✭✭✭Bob the Builder


    Simplicity wrote: »
    Rb or Rb_Ie wanted to kill an unborn child.

    Google spiders will do the rest,

    White lines.... don't do them.
    That was a long time ago, and it should stay where it is, in a dusty old closet in the TT. leave it there.
    javaboy wrote: »
    Is this some crap from the Thunderdome that should have stayed in the Thunderdome?
    yes. the thunderdome is a completely different ball game and by that I mean it should stay in it's own corner.


    as for oB, i can't disagree with most of his infractions. there's always one or two that are borderline, but for the third time i've said it, is the attitude required to keep that 'dumbass magnet' named 'politics' forum clean


  • Options
    #166
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    saying somebody is "not very public minded".is an ATTACK?

    You were passing comment on my supposed attitude towards public transport* rather than dealing with the content of my posts.

    It doesn't need to be abuse to be personal.

    And again, you only got a warning, not even an infraction. It's the tiniest of tiny moderator actions. Why anyone would whine about it is beyond me.



    * and being utterly wrong in the process too


  • Options
    #167
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,818 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    this has stopped being about Nazi-Baby hasnt it?


  • Options
    #168
    javaboy
    Registered Users Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    Overheal wrote: »
    this has stopped being about Nazi-Baby hasnt it?

    I think it's about Google Spiders now. They have Google Earth so the Google Spiders know where you live! :eek:

    I for one welcome yada yada yada


  • Options
    #169
    Bob the Builder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,919 ✭✭✭Bob the Builder


    javaboy wrote: »
    I think it's about Google Spiders now. They have Google Earth so the Google Spiders know where you live! :eek:

    I for one welcome yada yada yada
    wait till pighead comes - then it shall be spiderpig.

    they can then just ask the pigs where you live....

    it's all the same really...


  • Options
    #170
    javaboy
    Registered Users Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    nevf wrote: »
    wait till pighead comes - then it shall be spiderpig.

    they can then just ask the pigs where you live....

    it's all the same really...

    Spiderpig? As if! That is so 2007.


  • Options
    #171
    Steve
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Overheal wrote: »
    this has stopped being about Nazi-Baby hasnt it?

    Nazi bzby gotz-
    banned5.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    SlabMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 462 ✭✭SlabMurphy


    javaboy wrote: »
    I assume you meant to say lostexpectation instead of javaboy there. Anyway the post that lostexpectation decided to quote in order to draw attention to the "mods agreeing with mods" idea was one by IRLConor in which he actually explained his reasoning before agreeing.

    That's why I questioned whether he just wants mods to automatically disagree with each other. He just seems to have a problem with mods agreeing with each other even if they provide their reasoning. You can't win.

    Fair enough and a thousand apologies for the misquote to yourself and lostexpectation.


  • Options
    #173
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,158 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    RDM_83 wrote: »
    Having being reading the politics boards for a month or two now I would agree with slabmurphy, does seem to be an anything goes attitude towards posts about Shinners.
    BS. I've been banned twice from Politics for telling Shinners what I think of their support for murderers.

    Nothing else to add to this thread other than to tell you you're wrong.


  • Options
    #174
    Esel
    Registered Users Posts: 22,030 ✭✭✭✭Esel


    oB has just won an all-expenses paid trip to Ballybinaby. :eek: There were no other entrants, btw.

    Turn right at Hackballscross.

    Not your ornery onager



  • Options
    #175
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Sleepy wrote: »
    BS. I've been banned twice from Politics for telling Shinners what I think of their support for murderers.

    Nothing else to add to this thread other than to tell you you're wrong.

    Given that your conviction rate is probably way below the amount of times you commited the offence I'd say you're offering proof to the contrary :pac:


    this thread should be stickayed


  • Options
    #176
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Bambi wrote: »
    this thread should be stickayed
    Why?


  • Options
    #177
    Brendan777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31 ✭Brendan777


    Hi
    I think its quite obvious that Oscar is a little internet dictator. I had disagreement about Lisbon with him yesterday and he closed the tread. In truth I kicked his ass big time in the discussion, I know Lisbon well and he couldnt bully me into accepting his opinions. He is a sad powerless creature. I joined this forum a short while ago, I shall not be back again as its complete nonsense having such an obviously disabled individual as a moderator.

    Bye

    Brendan


  • Options
    #178
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    There was not much of a discussion there tbh and most of it revolved around "your research".


  • Options
    #179
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,818 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    maybe we should leave politics and all politic subfora unmoderated for a period of one week and see how it goes :rolleyes:

    Brendan you almost won me until you used a term like "I kicked his ass" - its meant to be an engaging, intellectual debate, not a sparring match. this is not fox.


  • Options
    #180
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,960 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Brendan777 wrote: »
    Hi
    I think its quite obvious that Oscar is a little internet dictator. I had disagreement about Lisbon with him yesterday and he closed the tread. In truth I kicked his ass big time in the discussion, I know Lisbon well and he couldnt bully me into accepting his opinions. He is a sad powerless creature. I joined this forum a short while ago, I shall not be back again as its complete nonsense having such an obviously disabled individual as a moderator.

    Bye

    Brendan
    I don't think you had even read the charter and you were just engaging in a non-sensical rant.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Brendan777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31 ✭Brendan777


    I tired my best to have a discussion with both Oscar and Tim and all I recieved was abusive and childish PMs. Also my interest is not in winning people over, its in constructive political discussion. However, ive said this before nad I shall say it again, it seems to me that a lot of members of this forum (Oscar and Tim are prime examples) are more interested in point scoring than in learning, debating, discussing. It is rather frustrating when in the attempt to have a discussion a petty power hungry individual closes the thread and then proceeds to send condensending and abusive PMs to your inbox.

    So Overheal if my descent into the language of the petty offended you I apologise. It was not my intention to offend.

    However if anyone is interested in creating a mature thread where these issues can be discussed in a respectful and intelligent manner please let me know. I would be most interested in conversing is such an environment.


    Regards


    Brendan


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement