Moderating in Radio.

MrWalsh · 11-02-2015 6:32pm

The Hill Billy wrote: »

To be honest, you have been given good advice & clear explanations. That's the way it works. If you can't get it at this stage we will only end up going around in circles.

So the clear explanation is that zero tolerance is not always zero tolerance?

Gits_bone · 11-02-2015 6:33pm

The Hill Billy wrote: »

No, I am not saying any of that & have no idea how you managed to come to such a conclusion.

To be honest, you have been given good advice & clear explanations. That's the way it works. If you can't get it at this stage we will only end up going around in circles.

So much for being a community then.

K-9 · 11-02-2015 6:36pm

Gits_bone wrote: »

So much for being a community then.

Communities have bad members too!

Gits_bone · 11-02-2015 6:38pm

K-9 wrote: »

Communities have bad members too!

Everyone gets treated equally in a community.

MrWalsh · 11-02-2015 6:40pm

K-9 wrote: »

Communities have bad members too!

But you can't ban bad members from real life communities for saying things you don't like.

I think it's clear that gits_bone has raised a valid point and I don't think there has been any fair explanation given. A lot of distraction over various other bans etc.. And a lot of vague comments over moderator discretion. But no one comment that states zero tolerance means zero tolerance.

degrassinoel · 11-02-2015 6:57pm

Gits_bone wrote: »

I am not discussing bans in other forums, it's against rules. I have been notified of this by a poster in this thread. So I won't be replying to your posts.

Reading charters seems to be a pretty futile exercise seeing as mods don't actually moderate to it.

And once again this is about in general, not my case. Also perhaps I might not have been banned from MMA if other posters didn't keep commenting on how I was banned from soccer.

Not surprising to see mods stick together anyways. More than a few people have already commented their opinion on how this carry on shouldn't be tolerated.

lol Okay don't reply to my posts

Here's how i see it,

You registered four months ago, got banned from two forums for whatever reasons, now you've got an infraction in the radio forum that you want to dispute here instead of DRP, because you claim the radio mod is biased and the biased behaviour is sitewide from all mods even the ones that resolve disputes, so you wont dispute the infraction.

Are you certain this isn't your attitude conversing with other people and not mods being biased?

Gits_bone · 11-02-2015 7:02pm

degrassinoel wrote: »

lol Okay don't reply to my posts

Here's how i see it,

You registered four months ago, got banned from two forums for whatever reasons, now you've got an infraction in the radio forum that you want to dispute here instead of DRP, because you claim the radio mod is biased and the biased behaviour is sitewide from all mods even the ones that resolve disputes, so you wont dispute the infraction.

Are you certain this isn't your attitude conversing with other people and not mods being biased?

Where do I say I want to dispute my infraction?

degrassinoel · 11-02-2015 7:04pm

Gits_bone wrote: »

Where do I say I want to dispute my infraction?

You've been disputing the infraction since post #1 dude

Gits_bone · 11-02-2015 7:05pm

degrassinoel wrote: »

lol Okay don't reply to my posts

Here's how i see it,

You registered four months ago, got banned from two forums for whatever reasons, now you've got an infraction in the radio forum that you want to dispute here instead of DRP, because you claim the radio mod is biased and the biased behaviour is sitewide from all mods even the ones that resolve disputes, so you wont dispute the infraction.

Are you certain this isn't your attitude conversing with other people and not mods being biased?

It's funny how you judge me, more or less saying it's my attitude that has got me bans yet you came out with this last night in this thread.

No idea, and wouldnt care to speculate because i dont have all the facts from all the parties.

MrWalsh · 11-02-2015 7:07pm

degrassinoel wrote: »

You registered four months ago, got banned from two forums for whatever reasons, now you've got an infraction in the radio forum that you want to dispute here instead of DRP, because you claim the radio mod is biased and the biased behaviour is sitewide from all mods even the ones that resolve disputes, so you wont dispute the infraction.

I think the above is unfair.

The length of registration is irrelevant. The banning from other forums is irrelevant, although I find it suspicious that a moderator has posted this here:

An File wrote: »

Or it could be down to you being an absolute pain to put up with in Soccer, MMA and elsewhere beforehand.

And gits_bone patently ISNT disputing his infraction, he is simply seeking clarity on why moderation is not being followed as per the zero tolerance policy. He is entitled to ask that.

It does look as though there is bias. So perhaps an explanation saying why it isn't biased would clarify for all.

So far we've only got that zero tolerance isn't really zero tolerance.

degrassinoel · 11-02-2015 7:07pm

Gits_bone wrote: »

It's funny how you judge me, more or less saying it's my attitude that has got me bans yet you came out with this last night in this thread.

It's not funny at all, you've admitted being banned from soccer and someone mentioned you were banned from MMA too which you didn't deny.

degrassinoel · 11-02-2015 7:08pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

I think the above is unfair.

The length of registration is irrelevant. The banning from other forums is irrelevant, although I find it suspicious that a moderator has posted this here:

It's absolutely relevant given the short amount of time he's accrued his multiple infractions and bans across a string of forums.

MrWalsh · 11-02-2015 7:09pm

degrassinoel wrote: »

It's not funny at all, you've admitted being banned from soccer and someone mentioned you were banned from MMA too which you didn't deny.

So are you saying that bans in one forum influence a persons treatment in another?

Gits_bone · 11-02-2015 7:12pm

degrassinoel wrote: »

It's not funny at all, you've admitted being banned from soccer and someone mentioned you were banned from MMA too which you didn't deny.

You judged me without hearing all parties.
You won't judge a mod before "hearing from all parties".

The Hill Billy · 11-02-2015 7:19pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

So the clear explanation is that zero tolerance is not always zero tolerance?

Comments like that don't really help tbh.

The OP cites one instance. If he took the course of action I recommended it would probably be sorted by now & measures put in place to ensure that it wouldn't happen again.

MrWalsh · 11-02-2015 7:25pm

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Comments like that don't really help tbh.

The OP cites one instance. If he took the course of action I recommended it would probably be sorted by now & measures put in place to ensure that it wouldn't happen again.

Comments like that don't help what? I don't see any other clear explanation? Could you direct me to what I am missing?

weisses · 11-02-2015 7:31pm

The Hill Billy wrote: »

There've been 5 or 6 mods out of 600(?) who've posted in this thread.

Strangely enough none of the mods or c-mods form the radio forum replied here

degrassinoel · 11-02-2015 7:43pm

Gits_bone wrote: »

You judged me without hearing all parties.
You won't judge a mod before "hearing from all parties".

I've read several pages of your comments, enough to form an opinion. But you go ahead and see it whatever way you want to, i know i have.

The Hill Billy · 11-02-2015 8:02pm

weisses wrote: »

Strangely enough none of the mods or c-mods form the radio forum replied here

Because they may only pop in here occasionally. I am fed up saying it, but a PM to a CMod regarding the specific instance mentioned would get a quicker response.

Gits_bone · 11-02-2015 8:23pm

degrassinoel wrote: »

I've read several pages of your comments, enough to form an opinion. But you go ahead and see it whatever way you want to, i know i have.

EDIT: Nevermind. You have a chip on your shoulder and fail to see the point of the thread.

degrassinoel · 11-02-2015 8:28pm

Gits_bone wrote: »

EDIT: Nevermind. You have a chip on your shoulder and fail to see the point of the thread.

lol

Dades · 11-02-2015 9:17pm

MrWalsh wrote: »

And gits_bone patently ISNT disputing his infraction, he is simply seeking clarity on why moderation is not being followed as per the zero tolerance policy. He is entitled to ask that.

He did ask, and so far the suggestion is that the mod felt it harsh to ban someone for a month and used their discretion to instead infract and delete.

MrWalsh wrote: »

It does look as though there is bias. So perhaps an explanation saying why it isn't biased would clarify for all.

For there to be bias here, wouldn't the OP have had to have been banned under the zero tolerance policy, and the other party not?

Just because Gits_bone didn't get his pound of flesh doesn't make it bias. The mod simply chose a discretionary course of action which had probably nothing to do with the OP and everything to do with not really wanting to ban users where possible.

Nody · 11-02-2015 10:17pm

Actually the first notice I got of this thread was from Dades PM (thanks!) so great job by OP trying to create a one sided story (you did not even bother to PM myself as another mod in the forum for an opinion or flag this thread). Anyway, the 1 month was was specifically in follow up to the Mod warning I put in the thread which specifically related to someone posting "Hi Ray!" (or his wife who I can't recall on the top of my head atm). I banned 8 people for that in two days alone in that thread so your claims of one way bias are so funnily incorrect I'm not sure where to start on it. The ban was specifically increased (from 1 to 3 to 7 days by me and than to 30 by Hulla) because people did not get the message that it was not on and it kept cropping up even worse than usual and being off topic posting and most important disrupting with out any value to the thread. As for your posting style; these are examples from Radio on the first page alone from your profile search:

So you're admitting to being a troll?

Yellow carded

So you'll have no problem turning him off then.

Red carded as follow up to the yellow card earlier the same day

So it's ok for you to give out about Rays comments but you are happy to insult someone about their height? Says a lot..

No action but you attack the poster

If you're using the "I have a right to complain because it's tax payers money" then there's a whole pile of other things you should concentrate on.

Nice of you to leave out the rest of the story. Obviously a reason why he described him as round enough. i.e "I met this fella yesterday, round enough fella I must say...but he jumped over a wall 2 metres high".

But you'd rather make it out that D'arcy plainly judged a kid.

The response which was perfectly valid and clear did end up getting carded, why? Because it included an attack on Ray.

Do you start to see a trend here Git? Not only is your claims of bias fail badly because not only are "anti Ray" sentiments slammed way harder then in any other thread in the forum (30 days bans for Hi Presenter X), people are being carded etc. but you also tend to be involved in many of the ongoing issues in the thread. It's just as bad having rabit fanboys as rabid haters and contributions like above are really, really, disrupting the thread which is esp. annoying as you can behave just fine when you decide to.

As for the question of what gets deleted and what's not is once again down to mod styles; I tend to delete/edit posts and I know some of my fellow mods don't. Don't like we're not perfect robots doing everything exactly the same? Well tough luck.

darced · 11-02-2015 10:45pm

This post has been deleted.

Gits_bone · 12-02-2015 12:07am

Nody, thanks for replying. But once again the feedback has proven to be a waste of time. I PM'd the mod that deleted the post and told him to give his side of the story. But he hasn't turned up.

One way bias - maybe not for everyone but certainly in some cases. i.e this one.

As for the posts where I "attack" the poster. I did not attack the poster. That's a cop out. Saying that someone should concentrate on something else, that constitutes an attack on a poster now?

How is a comment about Ray D'arcys height a criticism of his show? And don't tell me "Maybe Ray has difficulty with heights" is anything but an insult to his height.

And as for your "Don't like we're not perfect robots doing everything exactly the same? Well tough luck" comment, well that pretty much confirms that mods can do whatever they like.

Deleting one post that was posted one minute later and leaving the other one up there? That's getting rid of evidence that the poster broke a rule. Don't try and con people off. It's not right and plenty of people in this thread agree with me.

hullaballoo · 12-02-2015 12:17am

I wonder would you object to me posting the PM exchange relevant to this thread?

I might have time at some stage tomorrow or Friday when I can reply in full.

Gits_bone · 12-02-2015 12:21am

hullaballoo wrote: »

I wonder would you object to me posting the PM exchange relevant to this thread?

I might have time at some stage tomorrow or Friday when I can reply in full.

Yes please. Post the PM's.

Once again failing to give a valid reason for deleting one post and not the other.

Calhoun · 12-02-2015 1:31am

Gits_bone wrote: »

And as for your "Don't like we're not perfect robots doing everything exactly the same? Well tough luck" comment, well that pretty much confirms that mods can do whatever they like.

Deleting one post that was posted one minute later and leaving the other one up there? That's getting rid of evidence that the poster broke a rule. Don't try and con people off. It's not right and plenty of people in this thread agree with me.

Regardless of the above these are pretty unfair comments, you seem to be trying to draw a picture of you being the poor victim and the big bad mods oppressing you.

As pointed out this is an internet forum, the mods are volunteers just trying to keep things civil and ensure the fanbois and haters dont mess things up too much.

Not everyone agrees with you or thinks that the mods are conning people, thats a fairly serious accusation and i would really consider making those kind of accusations against the volunteer team.

padd b1975 · 12-02-2015 1:54am

Dades wrote: »

Mods are spoken too if they don't hold to a higher standard of posting in other forums as well as their own, and removed if they don't take heed. A mod was removed last month in fact.

Interesting to see this being put on the record.

I've often seen posters being reminded that Mods are no different to any other poster when posting outside of the forum(s) they moderate.

Lovely Bloke · 12-02-2015 8:54am

I used to mod the Rugby Forum, and at the time we had Zero Tolerance on something (probably Munster/Leinster related) and each and every breach was handled the same way, long-term, short-term, friends or not.

to my mind, Zero tolerance subjects should only be implemented in very extreme circumstances - if each and every mention of a particular subject is going to cause a huge unwarranted amount of work for the mods then they are within their rights to make that subject "off limits" and harshly sanction anyone who mentions that subject.

But, if the mods then start to allow some people to actually mention that subject it makes a mockery of treating other people more harshly for mentioning that subject, and is totally unfair.

The very definition of Zero tolerance is that it's black and white. It is NOT ok to mention this subject, so don't bloody mention it. Or you'll be banned.