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

Moderation in Atheism & Agnosticism Thread

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    An File wrote: »
    So you started a thread in the forum that's intended for feedback with site-wide relevance, all because of one incident in one busy thread in one forum that you've never used before. It wasn't a pattern of behaviour that you observed over time. It wasn't something that could be of major importance to 1100 other forums on the site.

    Why didn't you just report the problem post?

    This is a bit harsh. S/he only became aware of A&A's own feedback thread after the fact. Yes, it could have been posted elsewhere, possibly even a private mod forum. It's easy to see why it was it was posted here though. The forum is titled 'feedback' and, to be fair, not all the threads posted here are of major importance to 1,100 other forums on the site.

    Regarding reporting the post? No it doesn't appear it was. Still doesn't change the fact though that OP felt it was important issue to highlight. Which is the very essence of feedback.


  • Options
    #123
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,053 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    An File wrote: »
    So you started a thread in the forum that's intended for feedback with site-wide relevance, all because of one incident in one busy thread in one forum that you've never used before. It wasn't a pattern of behaviour that you observed over time. It wasn't something that could be of major importance to 1100 other forums on the site.

    Why didn't you just report the problem post?
    Complain to the very people I have a problem about?
    That hardly seems logical, might be an old element of bias on their part, no?

    Continuing the unbiased moderation in that thread, any particular reason why the Mod Turtwig decided to merge a bunch of unrelated posts of mine into 2 epic posts?
    No one else was treated in this way, then again most everyone else was in violent, backslapping agreement with "the prevailing viewpoint".
    If you wanted to dilute my points just go ahead and delete them and be done with it.


  • Options
    #124
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Em, merging is just housekeeping. You treble posted. I do it all the time for several posters. It's justs so posters don't have to scroll past 2 or more posts by the same user. Just put them all into the one post. By doing so it ensures that if you move to the next page on a thread you're not encountering posts by the same user again, all the posts, or now a single post, is now on the one page. It's just housekeeping nothing more.


  • Options
    #125
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,053 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Em, merging is just housekeeping. I do it all the time for several posters. It's justs so posters don't have to scroll past 2 or more posts by the same user. Just put them all into the one post. By doing so it ensures that if you move to the next page on the thread you're encountering posts by the same user again, all the post, or post, is now in the one place. It's just housekeeping nothing more.

    And yet within a page of my posts I can find multiple, consecutive posts by oh I dunno, vibe666 for example that you didnt merge. Just little old not agreeing with everyone else me.


    In any case, if I post them in separate posts its because I want to. Its because they are unrelated and answering/making different points.
    Whats the problem with reading two different posts by the same user?


  • Options
    #126
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    GreeBo wrote: »
    And yet within a page of my posts I can find multiple, consecutive posts by oh I dunno, vibe666 for example that you didnt merge. Just little old not agreeing with everyone else me.


    In any case, if I post them in separate posts its because I want to. Its because they are unrelated and answering/making different points.
    Whats the problem with reading two different posts by the same user?

    Two different posts by the same user is usually left alone. When it gets to 3 or more I merge. Two consecutive posts are mostly left be because it doesn't stand out and the mods simply don't notice it. By all means point out the ones I missed and I'll merge them.

    As for the problem, it's an eyesore. It's more than possible to refer to several individual posters within the one post. If everybody responds to each individual posting they're replying to by starting a new post the thread would be cluttered with several consecutive posts by each poster. There's a reason why multiquote function exists. Otherwise, it would be a lot of effort to follow the actual flow of discussion with the thread. Making all your points within one post is more succinct and accessible.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,053 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Two different posts by the same user is usually left alone. When it gets to 3 or more I merge. Two consecutive posts are mostly left be because it doesn't stand out and the mods simply don't notice it. By all means point out the ones I missed and I'll merge them.

    As for the problem, it's an eyesore. It's more than possible to refer to several individual posters within the one post. If everybody responds to each individual posting they're replying to by starting a new post the thread would be cluttered with several consecutive posts by each poster. There's a reason why multiquote function exists. Otherwise, it would be a lot of effort to follow the actual flow of discussion with the thread. Making all your points within one post is more succinct and accessible.

    So now the little post delimiter line is making threads inaccessible?
    Ridiculous.
    If I logged in as a different user and posted them suddenly its different?
    Perhaps you need to give more credit to the posters in your forum.

    I know all about multi-quote thanks.
    But if Im replying to specific, individual, unrelated posts then Im choosing to do it individually. Why on earth you would take it upon yourself to merge my posts is beyond me and imo completely over steps your boundaries as a mod.
    Will you be spell checking my posts next?


  • Options
    #128
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    (As it happens we do correct spell checks in thread titles. )

    Merging occurs for two reasons: aesthetics and performance.
    It's an eyesore having to see multiple posts by the one user when they could have posted the same content in the one thread. Do a poll of general boardsies and I suspect the majority would prefer multi-posts to be merged.
    If everyone multi posted the hamsters would revolt and we'd have threads reaching their 10,000 post limit far far sooner.

    The place where most merging occurs in A&A are the megathreads and treble/quadrupled/more posts. It's particularly important for megathreads because we'd be closing them a helluva of a lot sooner. Many posters understand this too, they use touch devices and don't really mind that we merge all their posts.

    In all my series of merging posts you're the first poster to have a quibble over it. I apologise for the inconvenience and cannot emphasise enough it was not an attempt to dilute your points. There isn't a mod or forum conspiracy against you. :(


  • Options
    #129
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,053 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Turtwig wrote: »
    (As it happens we do correct spell checks in thread titles. )

    Merging occurs for two reasons: aesthetics and performance.
    It's an eyesore having to see multiple posts by the one user when they could have posted the same content in the one thread. Do a poll of general boardsies and I suspect the majority would prefer multi-posts to be merged.
    If everyone multi posted the hamsters would revolt and we'd have threads reaching their 10,000 post limit far far sooner.

    The place where most merging occurs in A&A are the megathreads and treble/quadrupled/more posts. It's particularly important for megathreads because we'd be closing them a helluva of a lot sooner. Many posters understand this too, they use touch devices and don't really mind that we merge all their posts.

    In all my series of merging posts you're the first poster to have a quibble over it. I apologise for the inconvenience and cannot emphasise enough it was not an attempt to dilute your points. There isn't a mod or forum conspiracy against you. :(

    I highly doubt that thread is going to get anywhere near the 10k post limit on a thread.

    The post will be the same size, it has the same content so Im not sure what performance gains you are reaching for.

    Aesthetics is another red herring, the posts are unrelated, by merging them you are making it pretty likely that someone will read the first response and miss the rest. Form over function.


  • Options
    #130
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    So they are all against you then Greebo?

    Any merit your OP had, and any constructive discussion that might have emanated from it, have been wiped out by your subsequent descent into blathering paranoia. Nice one.


  • Options
    #131
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,053 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    drkpower wrote: »
    So they are all against you then Greebo?

    Any merit your OP had, and any constructive discussion that might have emanated from it, have been wiped out by your subsequent descent into blathering paranoia. Nice one.

    Any opportunity for constructive discussion was unfortunately probably lost when the mods and admins of the forum decided to turn this thread into a discussion about unrelated topics despite several appeals not to.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Any opportunity for constructive discussion was unfortunately lost when the mods and admins of the forum decided to turn this thread into a discussion about unrelated topics despite several appeals not to.

    Following them down the same road was hardly the appropriate response if you truly wanted to engage in constructive discussion of the issue that YOU raised.

    For what it's worth, and to perhaps bring the thread back on topic, my own view is that there are issues with the moderation in AA. There does seem to be a subtle 'ganging up' on those with an opposing viewpoint. It is very rarely blatant, but it is there in a subtle way. There seems to be an awful habit by forum regulars, and moderators, to start discussing biscuits (and other confectionary...) mid debate. While some find this funny, I'm sure, it is actually quite insidious. Because it really is a veiled way of dismissing the opposing view, in a way that is plausibly deniable. The moderators are often the ringleaders of this particular 'tactic'.

    On the face of it, the moderation is quite lenient. And often, you will get people of an opposing view storming into a thread looking for a fight. And I don't have much sympathy for them. But from time to time a reasonable poster of an opposing view is sidelined by a subtle combination of forum regulars and moderators. I'm not going to drag out multiple examples, and maybe I am wrong, but I suspect quite a few people - forum regulars and others - know what I am talking about. Or maybe not!

    But the thread you have referred to is not an example of what I am talking about.


  • Options
    #133
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    drkpower wrote: »
    Following them down the same road was hardly the appropriate response if you truly wanted to engage in constructive discussion of the issue that YOU raised.

    For what it's worth, and to perhaps bring the thread back on topic, my own view is that there are issues with the moderation in AA. There does seem to be a subtle 'ganging up' on those with an opposing viewpoint. It is very rarely blatant, but it is there in a subtle way. There seems to be an awful habit by forum regulars, and moderators, to start discussing biscuits (and other confectionary...) mid debate. While some find this funny, I'm sure, it is actually quite insidious. Because it really is a veiled way of dismissing the opposing view, in a way that is plausibly deniable. The moderators are often the ringleaders of this particular 'tactic'.

    On the face of it, the moderation is quite lenient. And often, you will get people of an opposing view storming into a thread looking for a fight. And I don't have much sympathy for them. But from time to time a reasonable poster of an opposing view is sidelined by a subtle combination of forum regulars and moderators. I'm not going to drag out multiple examples, and maybe I am wrong, but I suspect quite a few people - forum regulars and others - know what I am talking about. Or maybe not!

    But the thread you have referred to is not an example of what I am talking about.

    In fairness to the biscuits, they only tend to be brought out when someone is obviously just trying to troll with a thread like "Seeing all the proof God exists how are you an atheist?"


  • Options
    #134
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,053 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    drkpower wrote: »
    Following them down the same road was hardly the appropriate response if you truly wanted to engage in constructive discussion of the issue that YOU raised.

    For what it's worth, and to perhaps bring the thread back on topic, my own view is that there are issues with the moderation in AA. There does seem to be a subtle 'ganging up' on those with an opposing viewpoint. It is very rarely blatant, but it is there in a subtle way. There seems to be an awful habit by forum regulars, and moderators, to start discussing biscuits (and other confectionary...) mid debate. While some find this funny, I'm sure, it is actually quite insidious. Because it really is a veiled way of dismissing the opposing view, in a way that is plausibly deniable. The moderators are often the ringleaders of this particular 'tactic'.

    On the face of it, the moderation is quite lenient. And often, you will get people of an opposing view storming into a thread looking for a fight. And I don't have much sympathy for them. But from time to time a reasonable poster of an opposing view is sidelined by a subtle combination of forum regulars and moderators. I'm not going to drag out multiple examples, and maybe I am wrong, but I suspect quite a few people - forum regulars and others - know what I am talking about. Or maybe not!

    But the thread you have referred to is not an example of what I am talking about.
    everything i postd about was related to moderators actions.

    this particular thread actually did descend into discussion about home baking.


  • Options
    #135
    bajer101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭bajer101


    As the OP in the thread in question I think it is a bit ironic that GreeBo is complaining about how the Mods in A&A didn't take out the big hammer against Mods from other forums. IMO, if GreeBo wasn't a Mod from a different forum he would have been told to fúck right off a long time ago. His/her postings in a forum/thread that he supposedly has no interest in have long since lost any semblance of reasoned debate about the topic and have instead descended into trying to prove a point. I had to put GreeBo on my ignore list as the posts were just frighteningly self serving and IMO did not contribute to the discussion in any way.


  • Options
    #136
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    GreeBo wrote: »
    this particular thread actually did descend into discussion about home baking.

    I can actually believe that :D Was it about biscuits in particular? That's their go-to when the banality of wanton nescience becomes too much even for their hubris. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #137
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Hey,

    I feel that the Moderation (and Admin) posting in this thread isnt at all un-biased.

    It comes across firmly that the Admin and Mods in question feel one way and that clearly bleeds into their posting (both as mods and posters)
    I have no issue with their posts as regular posters, but when posting as an authority I think its wrong to be on one side of the argument or another.

    The treatment of one poster (who it seems decided to rage-quit) was pretty bad.
    Only this one poster was warned yet others (including mods of other fora) continued in exactly the same vein without a mention.
    Warning


    Condescending much?

    Is this an Admin warning or a poster?
    Its back seat modding if its a poster yet no action by the mods.

    Personal attack by admin?

    Ignored attack

    I dont think thats a good standard of unbiased moderation tbh.

    Greebi, given your words and deeds, essentially calling the op a liar and endlessly debating a point solely of your own imagination's creation, the so called problem you are citing is of your own creation, and your responsibility. The A&A mods have been extremely constrained regarding sanctioning your behaviour in thread, and is of a far higher standard than on other sub-fora of boards.ie or boards elsewhere on the internet.

    Given your continued refusal to behave in an acceptable manner or debate on the issue in the thread, I am personally (as a simple user) highly doubtful of your suitability as a moderator, as your behaviour goes far beyond somebody allowing their annoyance to get the better of them, into somebody engaging in a vendetta against another poster they disagree with.


  • Options
    #138
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,280 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    catallus wrote: »
    I can actually believe that :D Was it about biscuits in particular? That's their go-to when the banality of wanton nescience becomes too much even for their hubris. :rolleyes:

    The forum charter states the following:
    Users currently serving a ban from a forum with a duration over 1 month are not allowed to post on feedback threads concerning that forum.

    As you are currently permanently banned from Atheism & Agnosticism I have to ask you to cease posting in this thread. Should you continue to post in this thread I'm afraid your access to Feedback will be removed.


  • Options
    #139
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Greebi, given your words and deeds, essentially calling the op a liar and endlessly debating a point solely of your own imagination's creation, the so called problem you are citing is of your own creation, and your responsibility. The A&A mods have been extremely constrained regarding sanctioning your behaviour in thread, and is of a far higher standard than on other sub-fora of boards.ie or boards elsewhere on the internet.

    Given your continued refusal to behave in an acceptable manner or debate on the issue in the thread, I am personally (as a simple user) highly doubtful of your suitability as a moderator, as your behaviour goes far beyond somebody allowing their annoyance to get the better of them, into somebody engaging in a vendetta against another poster they disagree with.

    I guess thats why your not a mod or an admin because you dont really see how they mod in there own forums and as a user the buck doesn't stop with you in terms of deciding who is and is not a mod.

    Anyone looking in can see something fairly wrong with the thread, and when you compare it with other places people do have a right to ask why is it allowed happen in A&A but not elsewhere.

    You being the only user infracted on that thread shouldnt throw stones about suitability on anything.


  • Options
    #140
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,053 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    bajer101 wrote: »
    As the OP in the thread in question I think it is a bit ironic that GreeBo is complaining about how the Mods in A&A didn't take out the big hammer against Mods from other forums. IMO, if GreeBo wasn't a Mod from a different forum he would have been told to fúck right off a long time ago. His/her postings in a forum/thread that he supposedly has no interest in have long since lost any semblance of reasoned debate about the topic and have instead descended into trying to prove a point. I had to put GreeBo on my ignore list as the posts were just frighteningly self serving and IMO did not contribute to the discussion in any way.
    Sooo you agree the moderation is biased towards moderators then?
    I'm having a discussion on that thread about a point another poster brought up, feel free to stay out of it.


  • Options
    #141
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,053 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Greebi, given your words and deeds, essentially calling the op a liar and endlessly debating a point solely of your own imagination's creation, the so called problem you are citing is of your own creation, and your responsibility. The A&A mods have been extremely constrained regarding sanctioning your behaviour in thread, and is of a far higher standard than on other sub-fora of boards.ie or boards elsewhere on the internet.

    Given your continued refusal to behave in an acceptable manner or debate on the issue in the thread, I am personally (as a simple user) highly doubtful of your suitability as a moderator, as your behaviour goes far beyond somebody allowing their annoyance to get the better of them, into somebody engaging in a vendetta against another poster they disagree with.

    Ok I'm not going to let this bull**** go unaddressed.
    Where did I call anyone a liar at any time.
    Retract that now please.
    who is my vendetta against exactly?what credible motive can you provide for such a vendetta? what evidence do you have of said vendetta?
    Making, defending and standing over my point is just that.
    Questioning my suitability as a mod is clearly a personal attack.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Nodin wrote: »
    .....and by some of the usual suspects (and some close associates), at least two of which have disciplinary records in A&A as long as ones arm.

    Nodin, if you have issues with my posts then report them. My issue with A&A is on the public record and as Dades has said, I had a legitimate grievance which was sorted and is now in the past. There has been no issue since so please stop acting like a school hall monitor. PM me if you have issues with this.


  • Options
    #143
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    This is correct and the problem here stems from the fact that a Moderator took it on himself to reveal publicly these stats in an effort to discredit my point of view. I have not seen this done before by Mods in other forums. There doesn't seem to be a rule about this but at best it was careless and at worst it was malicious.


  • Options
    #144
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    In fairness to the biscuits, they only tend to be brought out when someone is obviously just trying to troll with a thread like "Seeing all the proof God exists how are you an atheist?"
    Like all fora on boards there is a cliquey aspect to A&A. As such, there are inside meme's, elevator gate, pineapple pizza, and biscuits to name but a few.

    Biscuits originated some where in this thread.

    Nowadays, it's used for blatant driveby posting hit and runs, threads where the thread is seemingly dead and other non topics, or occasions where things are getting heated and posters try to calm themselves down again by discussing biscuits. (Or taking pictures of an object their holding in front of the comptuer! I cant' find it but this occur in the abortion thread I think. These things are nice too as it helps keep an emotive topic such as abortion the same as chatting with someone while you're sipping a nice cup of hot chocolate or tea.)

    In some cases, threads, with no real purpose are just let find their own lives as something. Case in the point : "wrong forum thread." and aposter looking for a mode of travel to legoland. (The latter found it's life before mods even spotted it. :o)

    In other cases blatant attempts at trolling give rise to their own, ahem, topics.
    Have you been awared yet?

    The above naturally will be off putting for some, but that's the trade off with any community. You can't really have one otherwise. That said, I hope the forum is amiable to most posters. It's never going to be amiable to any opinion or belief. That's the overiding theme of the forum: no idea or belief is sacred.
    bajer101 wrote: »
    As the OP in the thread in question I think it is a bit ironic that GreeBo is complaining about how the Mods in A&A didn't take out the big hammer against Mods from other forums. IMO, if GreeBo wasn't a Mod from a different forum he would have been told to fúck right off a long time ago. His/her postings in a forum/thread that he supposedly has no interest in have long since lost any semblance of reasoned debate about the topic and have instead descended into trying to prove a point. I had to put GreeBo on my ignore list as the posts were just frighteningly self serving and IMO did not contribute to the discussion in any way.

    Mod or poster, Greebo wouldn't have been told to fck right off either literally or figuratively. That's not how the fora operates.
    jank wrote: »
    This is correct and the problem here stems from the fact that a Moderator took it on himself to reveal publicly these stats in an effort to discredit my point of view. I have not seen this done before by Mods in other forums. There doesn't seem to be a rule about this but at best it was careless and at worst it was malicious.

    It happens ALOT in feedback threads in the feeedback forum. Just browse around a few threads here. I don't agree with it either but c'est la vie.


  • Options
    #145
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Turtwig wrote: »
    It happens ALOT in feedback threads in the feeedback forum. Just browse around a few threads here. I don't agree with it either but c'est la vie.

    How about in normal everyday threads?


  • Options
    #146
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,717 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Spear wrote: »
    This isn't correct. While there may be a common convention sitewide of mods using bold text, it's not a requirement. Bold text does not automatically mean it's a mod statement, nor does its abscence mean it's not a mod statement.

    yeah but its so simple to add bold, that frankly it should be


  • Options
    #147
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,053 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Overheal wrote: »
    yeah but its so simple to add bold, that frankly it should be

    Also if a mod/admin doesnt post in bold can someone comment/disagree and it not be arguing with a mod?

    How do you differentiate between the mod/admin posting and a regular poster if the mod/admin regularly contributes to forum?

    Not differentiating allows a mod/admin to fire off something and later decide how it was meant, that doesnt seem like a very fair way of doing things.


  • Options
    #148
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Also if a mod/admin doesnt post in bold can someone comment/disagree and it not be arguing with a mod?

    How do you differentiate between the mod/admin posting and a regular poster if the mod/admin regularly contributes to forum?

    Not differentiating allows a mod/admin to fire off something and later decide how it was meant, that doesnt seem like a very fair way of doing things.
    But you originally referred to the post as back-seat moderating (how exactly does a mod back-seat mod their own forum(s):confused:) so it must have been clear enough even though it wasn't bolded.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #149
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Also if a mod/admin doesnt post in bold can someone comment/disagree and it not be arguing with a mod?

    How do you differentiate between the mod/admin posting and a regular poster if the mod/admin regularly contributes to forum?

    Not differentiating allows a mod/admin to fire off something and later decide how it was meant, that doesn't seem like a very fair way of doing things.

    If you are unhappy about inconsistency's about use of bold text for mod warnings/comments then in all fairness perhaps you should bring the topic up in the Mod forum requesting mod/admin input and look for it made a rule across the site?

    Or if you want site user input then start a feedback thread with a non specific AA related title as the title for this thread will likely result in very few uninterested people in the AA forum reading it and seeing your concerns about bold text.

    Its clearly something that bothers you in one thread in a forum you yourself have said you have no interest, I'm amazed it hasn't bothered you in any of the other forums on the site before now.

    The whole bold text may or may not be used is not a specific thing to the AA forum by any means, it varys per mod.

    You yourself appear to have not been consistent with bold text in your mod posts, for example:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90900603&postcount=307
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90900532&postcount=305
    Are you talking as a user or as mod?

    I'm not getting at you, you're human after all and that means mistakes can happen, its easy to forget to Bold abit of text,
    I'm sure I've also done it from time to time as well when I post as a mod as I generally use bold text myself.


  • Options
    #150
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,053 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Cabaal wrote: »
    If you are unhappy about inconsistency's about use of bold text for mod warnings/comments then in all fairness perhaps you should bring the topic up in the Mod forum requesting mod/admin input and look for it made a rule across the site?

    Or if you want site user input then start a feedback thread with a non specific AA related title as the title for this thread will likely result in very few uninterested people in the AA forum reading it and seeing your concerns about bold text.

    Its clearly something that bothers you in one thread in a forum you yourself have said you have no interest, I'm amazed it hasn't bothered you in any of the other forums on the site before now.
    The issue was with mods and admins being treated differently. An Admin posting as both an authority figure and as a poster with no way to tell the difference is part of this issue.
    Dades wrote: »
    Don't take the bait people... be better than that.
    Dades wrote: »

    "Weathering. Championing minority rights since 2012".

    Cabaal wrote:
    The whole bold text may or may not be used is not a specific thing to the AA forum by any means, it varys per mod.

    You yourself appear to have not been consistent with bold text in your mod posts, for example:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90900603&postcount=307
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90900532&postcount=305
    Are you talking as a user or as mod?

    I'm not getting at you, you're human after all and that means mistakes can happen, its easy to forget to Bold abit of text,
    I'm sure I've also done it from time to time as well when I post as a mod as I generally use bold text myself.

    First one is the forum feedback thread, everything I say in there is as a moderator.
    Second one is me, as a human, apologising.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,053 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    SW wrote: »
    But you originally referred to the post as back-seat moderating (how exactly does a mod back-seat mod their own forum(s):confused:) so it must have been clear enough even though it wasn't bolded.

    As above, its an admin posting in the thread.
    They post as a regular user and as an authority figure with no way to differentiate.
    Dades wrote: »
    Don't take the bait people... be better than that.
    Is this a personal opinion or a moderator action?
    Can I dispute it without being accused or arguing with a mod?
    Dades wrote: »

    "Weathering. Championing minority rights since 2012".
    This is attacking a poster. Again, can I dispute this or is this an authority opinion that I cant question?

    Posts like above mean that a regular Joe Soap user sees "special" treatment of certain posters. Its only going to enforce the idea of a members only clique.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement