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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Moderating in Radio.

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    Orion wrote: »
    Correct - you're entitled to ask. But that's all your entitled to. The most any boss would (or should) tell you it's being dealt with. Anything else is none of your business.

    Boy ohh Boy look at the attitude

    I suggest you ask your BOSS to remove the "report post" function.

    At this stage it seems better to have a go at another poster and take the red or yellow .... For some just to piss of the boss.

    You want me to salute you as well when i sign out ?


  • Options
    #33
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    You see that's the problem. The moderator is always right. How can this be? They can't always be right.

    You're not seeing the facts - you're seeing the moderator doing the right thing.

    Not true at all but if you are publicly having a go at a moderator you expect to take a little bit of push back.

    In this instance you are far from the wounded innocent, you have a hand in how this played out but you dont want to talk about that. You only want the action of others to be under scrutiny.


  • Options
    #34
    Gits_bone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Gits_bone


    Harry Angstrom wrote: »
    Wow, talk about a one-sided argument here. I made a comment regarding the Ray D'Arcy show, which I am perfectly entitled to do, and which had nothing to do with the OP. This Gits person then proceeded to give a response (directed at me) akin to the "if you don't like it, don't listen to it" variety, which, funnily enough is also a matter which will be treated with zero tolerance:

    3. No more "if you don't like x, then y". No more. People have to listen to the radio in work, people are entitled to listen to something they don't like. People are entitled to discuss that here. People are entitled to criticise, especially public personas, once this doesn't transcend into abuse.

    After I responded, this guy Gits, replied "Bad Move", a bit of back-seat modding there, which is also not allowed. It was obvious that this guy was going to report my post in order to see that I would be banned.

    This Gits person doesn't seem to realise that the Ray D'Arcy thread is not a hagiographical piece. People are fully entitled to give their opinion of the show - be it positive or negative feedback.

    Don't comment on the deleted post then?

    Explain how your post got deleted?

    I'm also allowed to defend ray D'arcy.


  • Options
    #35
    Gits_bone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Gits_bone


    Calhoun wrote: »
    Not true at all but if you are publicly having a go at a moderator you expect to take a little bit of push back.

    In this instance you are far from the wounded innocent, you have a hand in how this played out but you dont want to talk about that. You only want the action of others to be under scrutiny.

    He told me "reply very slowly". A threat that he'd ban me. He probably won't even comment on the thread without consulting with an admin first.


  • Options
    #36
    Harry Angstrom
    Registered Users Posts: 19,351 ✭✭✭✭Harry Angstrom


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    I'm also allowed to defend ray D'arcy.

    And I'm also allowed to criticise his show without you butting in with a "If you don't like it, don't listen to it"-type reply.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Gits_bone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Gits_bone


    Harry Angstrom wrote: »
    And I'm also allowed to criticise his show without you butting in with a "If you don't like it, don't listen to it"-type reply.

    Of which I got infracted for yes? You see where I'm going with this?


  • Options
    #38
    Harry Angstrom
    Registered Users Posts: 19,351 ✭✭✭✭Harry Angstrom


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    Of which I got infracted for yes? You see where I'm going with this?

    And I also got infracted, so what's your problem?


  • Options
    #39
    Gits_bone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Gits_bone


    Harry Angstrom wrote: »
    And I also got infracted, so what's your problem?

    Read the OP of the thread again.


  • Options
    #40
    Harry Angstrom
    Registered Users Posts: 19,351 ✭✭✭✭Harry Angstrom


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    Read the OP of the thread again.

    I don't need to.


  • Options
    #41
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    weisses wrote: »
    Boy ohh Boy look at the attitude

    I suggest you ask your BOSS to remove the "report post" function.

    At this stage it seems better to have a go at another poster and take the red or yellow .... For some just to piss of the boss.

    You want me to salute you as well when i sign out ?

    What attitude exactly? If you report a post you also don't get a summary of what action was taken as a result of the report. The report post button is there for posters to flag posts that may be actionable. Why would we remove it? I'm not trying to be antagonistic despite what you think. The OP has been given valid advice and is ignoring it in favour of stirring the pot. I don't know the details of this issue apart from this thread - nor do I need to. I don't know if the mod is singling him out or not (I do doubt he is but whatever). His problem is about a card he got and he wants to ensure that somebody else is equally punished. Apart from that alone being juvenile if he doesn't take it to a CMod we're just going around in circles here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    darced
    Registered Users Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭darced


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #43
    Gits_bone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Gits_bone


    Orion wrote: »
    What attitude exactly? If you report a post you also don't get a summary of what action was taken as a result of the report. The report post button is there for posters to flag posts that may be actionable. Why would we remove it? I'm not trying to be antagonistic despite what you think. The OP has been given valid advice and is ignoring it in favour of stirring the pot. I don't know the details of this issue apart from this thread - nor do I need to. I don't know if the mod is singling him out or not (I do doubt he is but whatever). His problem is about a card he got and he wants to ensure that somebody else is equally punished. Apart from that alone being juvenile if he doesn't take it to a CMod we're just going around in circles here.

    Yes. Wanting fair treatment is juvenile.

    Sounds like you're advocating deleting posts of favoured posters to ensure they are not banned?

    There is no valid reason why my post was left there when the other post - deserving of a one month ban - was deleted.

    What explanation do you have?

    It drags the thread off topic leaving it there? Does leaving mine there not also drag it off topic?

    It's pretty clear what is happening here. Other posters are favoured.

    Also why do "doubt" he is singling me out? Do you believe all mods are fair on the site? No matter what it is there's always bad eggs.

    And it seems to be like this singling out posters for differential treatment isn't something that is frowned upon.


  • Options
    #44
    The Hill Billy
    Registered Users Posts: 22,746 ✭✭✭✭The Hill Billy


    I think that it is unfair to imply that the mod is a "bad egg" based on the single incident that you mention. I would, again, encourage you to discuss this with a CMod & ask that they look into this matter for you & give you their feedback.


  • Options
    #45
    Gits_bone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Gits_bone


    This is not a single incident, it happens often. This is just so clear cut it's a good example. That's why I posted here. Also going to a CMod runs the risk of them defending a mod. People need to be made aware of this type of behaviour.


  • Options
    #46
    Lovely Bloke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,748 ✭✭✭✭Lovely Bloke


    If there is a "Zero Tolerance" piece in the charter, that really removes the "Mod Discretion" thing, otherwise what's the point of stating that something has a "Zero Tolerance" stance, when the reality is "Zero Tolerance for some, miniature american flags for others"?

    A post that fell afoul of the stated "Zero Tolerance" rule was deleted, presumably by a mod, then that same poster was free to post later in the thread.

    That is not "Zero Tolerance" by any stretch, so either the charter should be amended, or everyone should be treated equally.


  • Options
    #47
    The Hill Billy
    Registered Users Posts: 22,746 ✭✭✭✭The Hill Billy


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    This is not a single incident, it happens often. This is just so clear cut it's a good example. That's why I posted here. Also going to a CMod runs the risk of them defending a mod. People need to be made aware of this type of behaviour.

    If this is an ongoing issue - you should try to provide examples to support your case.

    Sure, the CMod will defend the mod if they acted appropriately. However, they will also discuss the matter with the mod & work with them to resolve any issues if & when they come to light.

    With regards to your comment "People need to be made aware of this type of behaviour" - I really feel that discussing this directly with a CMod would get you better results & direct action being taken. Posting here as a 'heads-up' to other posters can descend into tit-for-tat nit-picking on minutae, & loses focus on the crux of the matter which would be best dealt with by a direct approach to the people who can take direct action to resolve this.

    @BC - I agree. Either it is Zero Tolerance or it is not.


  • Options
    #48
    Harry Angstrom
    Registered Users Posts: 19,351 ✭✭✭✭Harry Angstrom


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    This is not a single incident, it happens often. This is just so clear cut it's a good example. That's why I posted here.

    You really are playing the martyr here. You didn't like it that people were criticising the Ray D'Arcy Show so you set up your own Ray D'Arcy appreciation thread, and you didn't expect it to be deleted???
    By the way, if D'Arcy talks about exercise, healthy eating, his kids etc on his show, then ipso facto, these topics ARE fair game for discussion and it's not up to you to decide that they're not. You seem to go out of your way to antagonise anybody who comes on the thread and posts anything any way negative about the show and let's face it, he gave his critics plenty of ammunition after his first week on air. I would refer you again to this:

    3. No more "if you don't like x, then y". No more. People have to listen to the radio in work, people are entitled to listen to something they don't like. People are entitled to discuss that here. People are entitled to criticise, especially public personas, once this doesn't transcend into abuse.


  • Options
    #49
    Gits_bone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Gits_bone


    EDIT: Can't discuss.


  • Options
    #50
    Gits_bone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Gits_bone


    Harry Angstrom wrote: »
    You really are playing the martyr here. You didn't like it that people were criticising the Ray D'Arcy Show so you set up your own Ray D'Arcy appreciation thread, and you didn't expect it to be deleted???
    By the way, if D'Arcy talks about exercise, healthy eating, his kids etc on his show, then ipso facto, these topics ARE fair game for discussion and it's not up to you to decide that they're not. You seem to go out of your way to antagonise anybody who comes on the thread and posts anything any way negative about the show and let's face it, he gave his critics plenty of ammunition after his first week on air. I would refer you again to this:

    3. No more "if you don't like x, then y". No more. People have to listen to the radio in work, people are entitled to listen to something they don't like. People are entitled to discuss that here. People are entitled to criticise, especially public personas, once this doesn't transcend into abuse.

    No I can accept criticism of his show but what is not acceptable is a thread of ray d'arcy bashing. Are these examples criticism of his show or a mob of people with a plain dislike for d'arcy? It's the same thing every day - running - buttons - sugar - mammies around the kitchen - sigh. Repetitive nonsense that adds nothing to the thread and ensures topics of the show can't be discussed.

    Has rays 50 shades obsession been reignited yet?
    Ray is obsessed with the health of the nation of the nation so he will prescribe plenty of running for the child, ending up with a half marathon for fun for the child when he reaches Rays target weight.

    Tbh, Ray has a number of recurring themes which will be aired at length.
    It's safe to assume that Ray's kids will never be of the "round" variety. His idea of a treat for them is probably giving them an extra spoon of porridge for breakfast or an extra lettuce leaf for lunch.
    And that ladies and gentleman is Ray Darcy's core demographic.
    Judgemental, pontificating idealists.
    How long before he mentions the war..
    Well, no opening lecture or speel today - so Ray must be learning on the job Haven't heard Jenny since either, which is grand. Maybe though she needs to get him to do 500 lines each evening -

    'My email is ray@rte.ie'
    'My email is ray@rte.ie'
    'My email is ray@rte.ie'
    'My email is ray@rte.ie'
    'My email is ray@rte.ie'
    'My email is ray@rte.ie'
    "Tears are streaming down my face" - Check.

    Just waiting on the "dancing around the kitchen with my 3 year old" for the full house.
    January was spent getting used to the buttons and new text number & email address
    Okay then, well in the ad Ray is portrayed as being clinical at using the controls and moves swiftly between callers without making a mistake... So instead of me giving out about the false and disingenuous content used for the ad, how about I change my complaint to false advertising instead...


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94212353&postcount=482

    How can this one be explained? A poster admits to posting comments to get a reaction out of me and I'm the one infractioned? Fair treatment?


  • Options
    #51
    Harry Angstrom
    Registered Users Posts: 19,351 ✭✭✭✭Harry Angstrom


    I'm done with this. You're banned from the Soccer forum for 3 months. You come on to the Radio forum and you're trying to get people banned. That tells me all I need to know. Cheerio.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Gits_bone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Gits_bone


    Harry Angstrom wrote: »
    I'm done with this. You're banned from the Soccer forum for 3 months. You come on to the Radio forum and you're trying to get people banned. That tells me all I need to know. Cheerio.

    How was I trying to get people banned? By defending a show I like? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #53
    Gits_bone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Gits_bone


    EDIT: Can't discuss.


  • Options
    #54
    Will I Amnt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,222 ✭✭✭✭Will I Amnt


    Gits_bone wrote: »
    Also worth noting I am banned for 3 months from the soccer forum for getting 3 yellow cards in the first few months of having access. 2 yellow cards were given to me for the one post..issued one minute apart.

    Also worth noting you can't discuss topics in Feedback from fora that you are banned from. Just a heads up.


  • Options
    #55
    Gits_bone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭Gits_bone


    Will I Amnt wrote: »
    Also worth noting you can't discuss topics in Feedback from fora that you are banned from. Just a heads up.

    Didn't know this. Thank you!


  • Options
    #56
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    Harry Angstrom wrote: »
    I'm done with this. You're banned from the Soccer forum for 3 months. You come on to the Radio forum and you're trying to get people banned. That tells me all I need to know. Cheerio.


    Did you post this ?
    Are you Ray D'arcys PR agent or a director of RTE Radio 1?

    If yes then you don't need his assistance to get you banned

    if No

    Then i Get your point


  • Options
    #57
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Gits_bone, either keep this thread about feedback on the poor level of posting in certain Radio threads, or take up your individual complaint in the DR forum.

    There's a process if you have an issue with moderation when you have received a card or a ban - rather than having the public judge without access to the PMs or deleted threads that are needed to see the full picture.

    That said, on a more general note, there is a question over whether mods have their hands tied when a charter states a "no tolerance" policy on certain behavior. My first instinct is that such a policy exists primarily to give mods the backing to take strong action when they need to, but that the option to issue a lessor punishment should still be available.

    Mods shouldn't sweep transgressions under the carpet but issuing an infraction rather than a ban for a bit of handbags isn't bad moderation IMO.


  • Options
    #58
    Lovely Bloke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,748 ✭✭✭✭Lovely Bloke


    So, is that an Admin posting or a personal opinion, because if a Zero Tolerance line in a charter in fact means Not Really Zero Tolerance Only If We Feel Like It, then what is the point of including it in the first place.

    Look Dades, I'm not wanting to have a pop at you personally here, but you ARE the Admin who's dropped in to give some insight, but that post is pretty much stating that no matter what a charter says, if it suits a mod they can do the complete opposite and they'll get backing from the Admins, because, you know - "moderator discretion".

    It means normal users are now on pretty dodgy territory, and not knowing what is and is not punishable in what ways.

    If moderators decide they have favourites, or posters they decide to be less tolerant toward this post from you is essentially telling them that's cool, that it's ok to behave that way because of "moderator discretion".

    At no point before, up til now, has any Admin said that "Zero Tolerance is not really Zero Tolerance" - and therefore, even though it's none of my business how some other user is treated, it can still leave a pretty sour taste in the mouth if I get banned for something and the post left up as an "example to others", while some other dude who the Mod took a liking to doesn't get banned for pretty much the same thing, the post is conveniently deleted so nobody else can see it and question why the treatment was different, then that other poster is happily posting away after the Moderator has taken action.

    That absolutely IS the business of the aggrieved party, and there IS an obligation on the incumbent powers to explain that position, as to why some people are treated differently in what is quite clearly stated to be a Zero Tolerance charter breach.


  • Options
    #59
    Saipanne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭Saipanne


    Baldy Conscience wrote: »
    So, is that an Admin posting or a personal opinion, because if a Zero Tolerance line in a charter in fact means Not Really Zero Tolerance Only If We Feel Like It, then what is the point of including it in the first place.

    Look Dades, I'm not wanting to have a pop at you personally here, but you ARE the Admin who's dropped in to give some insight, but that post is pretty much stating that no matter what a charter says, if it suits a mod they can do the complete opposite and they'll get backing from the Admins, because, you know - "moderator discretion".

    It means normal users are now on pretty dodgy territory, and not knowing what is and is not punishable in what ways.

    If moderators decides they have favourites, or posters they decide to be less tolerant toward this post from you is essentially telling them that's cool, that it's ok to behave that way because of "moderator discretion".

    At no point before, up til now, has any Admin said that "Zero Tolerance is not really Zero Tolerance" - and therefore, even though it's none of my business how some other user is treated, it can still leave a pretty sour taste in the mouth if I get banned for something and the post left up as an "example to others", while some other dude who the Mod took a liking to doesn't get banned for pretty much the same thing, the post is conveniently deleted so nobody else can see it and question why the treatment was different, the that other poster is happily posting away after the Moderator has taken action.

    That absolutely IS the business of the aggrieved party, and there IS an obligation on the incumbent powers to explain that position, as to why some people are treated differently in what is quite clearly stated to be a Zero Tolerance charter breach.

    Spot on. The whole situation stinks, to be honest. Yet another case of wagon circling.


  • Options
    #60
    El Guapo!
    Registered Users Posts: 12,427 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    Some people take the Internet way too seriously.
    It's an Internet message board. Just do your own thing and don't worry what happens with other people. Jesus.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,267 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Charter of the forum I moderate mentions an automatic one-week ban for back seat moderation. I've only very rarely imposed it, but it's nice to have there as an indicator of how seriously we take it and to point to as the likely consequence of a second infringement.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement