Looking for an impartial opinion

boardy

Any chance of a few comments on the following thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054890436

The reason why I was banned was explained by Amp but I believe that it had more to do with an earlier post that another mod had reported. Is this the case of a mod backing a mod and finding a reason to seek retribution? Or was an offence committed, and if so was it so egregious that it deserved a banning?

I know the thread is long but it should speak for itself.

pp_me129

I dont think there is anything bad with that but tell me wrong:D

Chinafoot

Is this you being 'civil' again?

Which leads me to a whole different subject matter altogether:
Are all ghostbusters angry?

So less of the personal attacks and concentrate on disputing the arguments put forth.

That is the first instance of personal abuse I saw....you started it. Psi said you were ignorant of the facts and didn't know what you were talking about. Thats not personal abuse and Amp pointed that out to you. Your "ghostbusters" comment was fairly childish

Amp told you to get back on topic and your next post was this:

boardy wrote:

I repeatedly used links and references in my argument throughout this thread. How many did you use? Not one.
Just because you are a qualified epidemiologist, it does not imply that you do not have to supply corroborating evidence.

Even though I mentioned (on a number of occasions) that I was repeating what was in the public domain, you still directed words/phrases like “ignorant, haven’t a clue, haven’t a notion” towards me. In your latest post you say that I “just enjoy scaremongering”. Where is your proof of this?

The whole ‘tone’ of your responses was confrontational and not at all conducive to an open debate where all of us could become more informed (which was the reason why I placed this thread in Humanities to begin with).

You deserved it to be honest.

Stark

I've read through the whole thread and the issue wasn't about personal abuse, it was about you pretty much trolling, scaremongering and dragging the thread round in circles when your arguments were disproved. You were given plenty of warning, a week's ban was fair.

amp

boardy wrote:

Any chance of a few comments on the following thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054890436

The reason why I was banned was explained by Amp but I believe that it had more to do with an earlier post that another mod had reported. Is this the case of a mod backing a mod and finding a reason to seek retribution? Or was an offence committed, and if so was it so egregious that it deserved a banning?

I know the thread is long but it should speak for itself.

Well I'm obviously very embaressed at being caught but I suspose I should make a full confession. Yes, the post was reported by my fellow mod, whom, because he/she is a moderator I felt the need to back him/her up by banning someone who obviously does not fear the moderators as he/she should do.

I am guilty of seeking to find retribution and revenge and only banned that guy who posted because I am in a bad mood and/or because I am a gay nazi robot who seeks to boost my fragile ego through the power of the interweb.

Or alternatively when I say "back on topic" I'm not kidding.

pisslips

But most people are incapable of participating in argument.
You shouldn't ban someone because they're ignorant.Not that I think you are,I don't know you at all.In fact non-sensical drivel is valid considering that you obviously realised that everyone is self-centred and self-gratified( or at least they should be), it's bein a long time since I've someone admit that they're wrong unless they're "cutting their losses".Argument is used in the search of truth, WHY THE **** DO PEOPLE ATTACH EMOTION TO IT(ie. ego,empathy)
whats that?, your right, how would one masterbate one's ego otherwise?!
Yes it would be boring, so if we're goin to write irrational drivel why not make it creative.How can you attach rules to something which in essence is bounded only by the number of combinations of words and tones and imagery one can use! And emoticons.

I was gonna say,"But why was he really banned", just for the irony.

amp

pisslips wrote:

But most people are incapable of participating in argument.
You shouldn't ban someone because they're ignorant.Not that I think you are,I don't know you at all.In fact non-sensical drivel is valid considering that you obviously realised that everyone is self-centred and self-gratified( or at least they should be), it's bein a long time since I've someone admit that they're wrong unless they're "cutting their losses".Argument is used in the search of truth, WHY THE **** DO PEOPLE ATTACH EMOTION TO IT(ie. ego,empathy)
whats that?, your right, how would one masterbate one's ego otherwise?!
Yes it would be boring, so if we're goin to write irrational drivel why not make it creative.How can you attach rules to something which in essence is bounded only by the number of combinations of words and tones and imagery one can use! And emoticons.

I was gonna say,"But why was he really banned", just for the irony.

No, when I say back on topic it isn't a suggestion.

pisslips

amp wrote:

No, when I say back on topic it isn't a suggestion.

hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
So, Say it;)

The Sweeper

You really are almost as stupid as your nick, aren't you.

pisslips

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

You really are almost as stupid as your nick, aren't you.

Almost but not quite.
Gang up on little old pissy will ye?!
Well I'm not goin to fight a losing battle.
You clearly are highly powerfull!
Someday I want to eminate your glory!
I retract, don't say it!

What have you become?!
This is my second last off topic comment.
luv u.

rsynnott

pisslips wrote:

But most people are incapable of participating in argument.
You shouldn't ban someone because they're ignorant.Not that I think you are,I don't know you at all.In fact non-sensical drivel is valid considering that you obviously realised that everyone is self-centred and self-gratified( or at least they should be), it's bein a long time since I've someone admit that they're wrong unless they're "cutting their losses".Argument is used in the search of truth, WHY THE **** DO PEOPLE ATTACH EMOTION TO IT(ie. ego,empathy)
whats that?, your right, how would one masterbate one's ego otherwise?!
Yes it would be boring, so if we're goin to write irrational drivel why not make it creative.How can you attach rules to something which in essence is bounded only by the number of combinations of words and tones and imagery one can use! And emoticons.

I was gonna say,"But why was he really banned", just for the irony.

And in English?

GuanYin

rsynnott wrote:

And in English?

Let me get this straight, you're encouraging him to post again?

boardy

Peachypants: Thanks for taking the time to read the thread.
Stark: I re-read the thread and could not find the “plenty of warning” part.

I don’t get it. I asked a mod for corroborating evidence of his opposing view. This was deemed off topic and I was banned.

And since I still don’t get it and since I probably will make the same mistake again, I am sending an email to an admin requesting that my account is deleted. This is not melodramatics – it is my only way to register a protest. Just to preempt the usual sarcastic response from Amp, I’m sure that boards will be better served without users like me.

Being banned is not the issue. The fact that Amp can go around denying freedom of expression for inappropriate reasons is. By the way, I would recommend that mods send a message to users when they are banned. I had no idea of the banning until I tried to access the thread.

It was a great pleasure to participate on some of the forums on boards. On other forums, the enjoyment is gone when you have to tip toe on topics because it’s like walking on eggshells because the finger is always on the banhammer. Banning is suitable for muppetry and abuse, not for conflict of views or nepotism.

GuanYin

boardy wrote:

Peachypants: Thanks for taking the time to read the thread.
Stark: I re-read the thread and could not find the “plenty of warning” part.

I don’t get it. I asked a mod for corroborating evidence of his opposing view. This was deemed off topic and I was banned.

And since I still don’t get it and since I probably will make the same mistake again, I am sending an email to an admin requesting that my account is deleted. This is not melodramatics – it is my only way to register a protest. Just to preempt the usual sarcastic response from Amp, I’m sure that boards will be better served without users like me.

Being banned is not the issue. The fact that Amp can go around denying freedom of expression for inappropriate reasons is. By the way, I would recommend that mods send a message to users when they are banned. I had no idea of the banning until I tried to access the thread.

It was a great pleasure to participate on some of the forums on boards. On other forums, the enjoyment is gone when you have to tip toe on topics because it’s like walking on eggshells because the finger is always on the banhammer. Banning is suitable for muppetry and abuse, not for conflict of views or nepotism.

A bit of toys out of the pram if you please?

For the record, I don't know amp and have had very few, if any dealings with him in the past. As far as humanaties is concerned, I'm another user, not a mod.

Regarding the thread, you succumbed to last word-itus. If you'd stuck to the topic at hand, rather than go down the "stop being mean to me route" then you wouldn't have this problem.

When you refused to debate the issue and starting having a go at me for being uncivil (for the record, I made no comment about you at all. I commented on your actions and knowledge of the subject, I don't know what kind of person you are) and avoided continuing the debate, then you got banned.

Had it been me, I probably wouldn't have banned you and in fact I was surprised when you were, but then again, you shouldn't ignore mod warnings in a forum - I suggest you just live and learn rather than bite your nose to spite your face..

Shabadu

Zaph0d

psi wrote:

The "when it happens " comment just shows how ignorant you are of the facts of the matter.

This could have been stated in a less insulting way. Poster states that s/he is not a native English speaker, and may not be aware that this type of sentence is always considered an insult.

The other poster took the bait so both deserved to be banned. The ban is 1 week and hardly worth complaining about.

Asok

The admins will not delete your account.
I can however ban it if thats what you want?

pisslips

what?!
Yeah, I'm not sure if he deserved the ban.
Why can't you let him go around in circles, how can you be angry just because he fails to accept the course of an argument.Why not just not reply to him?!

rsynnott

boardy wrote:

I am sending an email to an admin requesting that my account is deleted.

Hallelujah, praise the lord!

Gordon

Jaysis pisslips, go away.

Banned from Feedback.

amp

boardy wrote:

Peachypants: Thanks for taking the time to read the thread.
Stark: I re-read the thread and could not find the “plenty of warning” part.

Did you see the part where I said "back on topic"?

I don’t get it. I asked a mod for corroborating evidence of his opposing view. This was deemed off topic and I was banned.

No you didn't you stayed firmly off-topic and re-engaged with the tit for tat squabbling crap that was dominating the thread. I said the phrase "back on topic" which does not mean "please continue to argue with each other about what is and what is not personal abuse blah blah blah".

And since I still don’t get it and since I probably will make the same mistake again, I am sending an email to an admin requesting that my account is deleted. This is not melodramatics – it is my only way to register a protest. Just to preempt the usual sarcastic response from Amp, I’m sure that boards will be better served without users like me.

That's your business. If you got a parking fine I expect you would accuse the Garda responsible for nepotism because a fellow gard wanted to park there and would write a letter to Bertie Ahern revoking your citizenship. That sounds like an over the top response, but it's very similar to this situation.

Being banned is not the issue. The fact that Amp can go around denying freedom of expression for inappropriate reasons is.

I told you to get back on topic. You didn't. I banned you for a mere week. The end.

By the way, I would recommend that mods send a message to users when they are banned. I had no idea of the banning until I tried to access the thread.

Never. I've made my views on this quite clear.

It was a great pleasure to participate on some of the forums on boards. On other forums, the enjoyment is gone when you have to tip toe on topics because it’s like walking on eggshells because the finger is always on the banhammer. Banning is suitable for muppetry and abuse, not for conflict of views or nepotism.

You were banned because you did not get back on topic. You ignored my warning to get back on topic. It's quite simple to avoid being banned by me. Anyone with basic english skills can achieve this.

You were not banned for your viewpoints and you were not banned because Psi is a moderator you were banned because (let's try this in caps this time) YOU DID NOT GET BACK ON TOPIC.

BizMaker

amp wrote:

No you didn't you stayed firmly off-topic and re-engaged with the tit for tat squabbling crap that was dominating the thread.

If there was tit for tit squabbling crap, then why did you not ban both of them?
You appear to be selective in your banning.

After reading the thread, I thought that psi was nasty with a few of his comments. Irrespective of the fact that English is not his primary language, it should not be used as an excuse to talk like that. I looked at boardy’s post history to get an indication of his posting character. Even one of the admins said that he was a “genuinely helpful user”.

So it looks like a mod reported a non-mod poster, and then the poster gets banned.
Claiming that a poster did not get back to topic is a subjective interpretation. You had an axe to grind. And yes, believe it or not, some of us mere mortal posters have the cheek to question your actions and are not afraid to express ourselves on a public forum.

GuanYin

Please show me where I was nasty.

How is stating that someone is ignorant of a fact or facts nasty.

How is saying that someone hasn't a clue what they are talking about nasty.

Can you show me any point where I insulted the poster himself?

Gordon

BizMaker wrote:

You appear to be selective in your banning.

And you seem to be selective in your reading. Have you not read amps replies? Especially the bit in big letters?

amp

BizMaker wrote:

If there was tit for tit squabbling crap, then why did you not ban both of them?
You appear to be selective in your banning.

Yes indeed, I only banned the poster that failed to get back on topic.

After reading the thread, I thought that psi was nasty with a few of his comments. Irrespective of the fact that English is not his primary language, it should not be used as an excuse to talk like that. I looked at boardy’s post history to get an indication of his posting character. Even one of the admins said that he was a “genuinely helpful user”.

I didn't look at boardy's history. I just banned him for not getting back on topic.

So it looks like a mod reported a non-mod poster, and then the poster gets banned.
Claiming that a poster did not get back to topic is a subjective interpretation. You had an axe to grind.

Seeing as your so great at looking at poster histories, take a look at mine and show me how many axes I've ground. Do I have a history of taking the side of moderators or do I plainly not give a crap about the status of a user as long as they abide my the simple phrase "back on topic".

You and no one else will be able to prove that I am biased towards any user, because I am not. It's true that I don't ban many moderators and that's usually because they know that it's not a good idea to break the rules.

And yes, believe it or not, some of us mere mortal posters have the cheek to question your actions and are not afraid to express ourselves on a public forum.

Well done, and I am not afraid to defend myself against your and others baseless accusations. For you it's far, far easier to invent conspiracies and corruption scandals rather than face the simple fact that boardy was banned because s/he ignored my request to get back on topic and no other reason.

Where you from psi?:)

GuanYin

Deleted User wrote:

Where you from psi?:)

How would you react if I were to tell you I wasnt from Guildford after all, but from a small planet in the vicinity of Betelgeuse?

BizMaker

amp wrote:

You and no one else will be able to prove that I am biased towards any user, because I am not. It's true that I don't ban many moderators and that's usually because they know that it's not a good idea to break the rules.

Who are you trying to kid?

You issued your request to stay on topic. You banned boardy for his first comment after that request. However on the very next post by psi, he says

psi wrote:

My tone is only confrontational in your head.

How is that on topic?
It definitely shows bias and the only logical reason he was not banned is because the poster was a mod. Fine, you banned boardy. But you should have banned psi too.

A detached observer would see that a mod reported a user. Then that user gets banned but the mod who reported the poster is allowed to flaunt the rules.
At the end of the end, who gives a fcuk. Nothing changes. A user is banned but he decides to leave boards for good as a protest.
The mods involved are happy. Mission accomplished.

Zaph0d

psi wrote:

Please show me where I was nasty.

How is stating that someone is ignorant of a fact or facts nasty.

How is saying that someone hasn't a clue what they are talking about nasty.

Can you show me any point where I insulted the poster himself?

psi, you are talking rubbish. Just face the fact that you know nothing about the difference between an insult and an argument. That's the way it is and I can't say it any plainer. Why don't you go and read up something about logical fallacies? I am a qualified expert in logic and your comments just show how ignorant you are of the facts. You have no idea what you're talking about. you just don't have a clue, do you?

I'm only joking but if a poster is 'ignorant of the facts' then merely stating this is equivalent to saying 'you are wrong'. It is a dead end. It is not an argument. We learnt from psi that

• something boardy said 'just shows how ignorant [he is]'
• boardy hasn't a clue what he's talking about
• boardy hasn't a notion

What can I learn from these points about bird flu?

Calling someone ignorant is a way of avoiding debating an issue: the difference of opinion is supposedly due to one person's lack of education or knowledge. This is an ad hominem attack.

Asok

Zaph0d wrote:

I am a qualified expert in logic

Commander Spock?

GuanYin

Zaph0d wrote:

psi, you are talking rubbish. Just face the fact that you know nothing

I find that insulting. You are suggesting I know nothing and am stupid and ignorant.

Why would you comment on my intelligence?

about the difference between an insult and an argument.

Ohhh, now see how selective quoting can change the meaning of a phrase or comment?

:rolleyes:

That's the way it is and I can't say it any plainer. Why don't you go and read up something about logical fallacies? I am a qualified expert in logic and your comments just show how ignorant you are of the facts. You have no idea what you're talking about. you just don't have a clue, do you?

Pointless trolly nonsense.

If you actually read the thread, rather than went on this little bandwagon jumping fight the power crusade, you'd see that I actually did make points and comments, all of which were ignored.

I'm only joking but if a poster is 'ignorant of the facts' then merely stating this is equivalent to saying 'you are wrong'.

Agreed, but I did put forward a counter argument which was by and large ignored. As were points and analogies I tried to make, specifically regarding SARS.

Which was my point, if you want to enter a debate, you have to take both sides of the coin and weight them up, hear all arguments. You can't just stick to your guns and not take any more info in. I mean, it wasn't til the last few posts that I saw the Stohr reference, which was one line from an interview. That could have been twisted to mean anything.

The whole thread was based on what that one line and other opinions stemming from it *might* mean.

If you're going to say "we're all going to die from a disease" and then ignore any argument put forward about the nature of the disease and probability of the disease actually coming to humans, then Id say calling someone "ignorant of the facts" (as opposed to just ignorant) is justified. If you don't agree with this, please explain why?

It is a dead end. It is not an argument. We learnt from psi that

• something boardy said 'just shows how ignorant [he is]'
• boardy hasn't a clue what he's talking about
• boardy hasn't a notion

If you really feel thats all anyone learned about bird flu from my posts, how about we wager a one month site ban from the smods (if they agree) that I can go through my posts on that thread and come up with an equal number of points specifically relating to bird flu.

I mean, if you really feel you can back up that statement and that I made no points about bird flu?

What can I learn from these points about bird flu?

I bet we learned more than that, you're being selective again.

Care to take that wager?

Calling someone ignorant is a way of avoiding debating an issue: the difference of opinion is supposedly due to one person's lack of education or knowledge. This is an ad hominem attack.

Its not opinion, I made a great number of ignored points in the thread.

Selective reading seems to be contagious these days, perhaps we should be more worried about this than bird flu?

Beruthiel

psi wrote:

I If you really feel thats all anyone learned about bird flu from my posts, how about we wager a one month site ban from the smods (if they agree) that I can go through my posts on that thread and come up with an equal number of points specifically relating to bird flu.

you have an unfair advantage

amp

BizMaker wrote:

Who are you trying to kid?

You issued your request to stay on topic. You banned boardy for his first comment after that request. However on the very next post by psi, he says



How is that on topic?

Nice selective quoting there. You've left out all the parts that were actually on topic.

It definitely shows bias and the only logical reason he was not banned is because the poster was a mod. Fine, you banned boardy. But you should have banned psi too.

There are other logical reasons. Plenty of logical reasons. One being that boardy's post was off-topic in it's entirety and psi's wasn't. But that don't fit the conspiracy theory does it?

A detached observer would see that a mod reported a user. Then that user gets banned but the mod who reported the poster is allowed to flaunt the rules.

By detached observer you probably mean "someone who automatically assumes that all the moderators are mates who look after each other in a secret cabal intent on opressing all non-mods for their own nefarious purposes"

At the end of the end, who gives a fcuk. Nothing changes. A user is banned but he decides to leave boards for good as a protest.
The mods involved are happy. Mission accomplished.

I agree. A job well done. And if you think that guy I banned will be remembered as a martrye then I'd just like to say "hhahahahahah welcome to the internet"

Oh and I'd just like to add that I'm enjoying this thread immensely. You know you're doing a good job moderating Humanities when users start moaning about you on feedback. Maybe someday people will start calling for my banning as they did for my honourable predecessor.

rsynnott

Zaph0d wrote:

• something boardy said 'just shows how ignorant [he is]'
• boardy hasn't a clue what he's talking about
• boardy hasn't a notion

What can I learn from these points about bird flu?

You can, assuming you trust Amp, be warned to take boardy's remarks with a pinch of salt.

And really, boardy is, at points, talking about 'avian bird flu'.

GuanYin

Beruthiel wrote:

you have an unfair advantage

Maybe, I honestly haven't looke dback on the thread since reading his post.

But if he has the courage of his convictions then he will accept the challenge, otherwise retract his remarks, otherwise look like a complete fúckwit

Zaph0d

psi wrote:

If you actually read the thread, rather than went on this little bandwagon jumping fight the power crusade, you'd see that I actually did make points and comments, all of which were ignored.

You both made points, some with references, and the thread was fairly high quality apart from the sidelines into accusations of ignorance and ghostbusting. I don't agree that all of your points were ignored. He quoted you extensively. Sometimes in a debate the other poster chooses to answer some points and not others. You can always keep coming back to a point you feel is strong but ignored. Attacking the other poster does not help your case.

Which was my point, if you want to enter a debate, you have to take both sides of the coin and weight them up, hear all arguments. You can't just stick to your guns and not take any more info in. I mean, it wasn't til the last few posts that I saw the Stohr reference, which was one line from an interview. That could have been twisted to mean anything.

Very few posters admit to a change of opinion mid-thread. They are not obliged to.

The whole thread was based on what that one line and other opinions stemming from it *might* mean.

If you're going to say "we're all going to die from a disease" and then ignore any argument put forward about the nature of the disease and probability of the disease actually coming to humans, then Id say calling someone "ignorant of the facts" (as opposed to just ignorant) is justified. If you don't agree with this, please explain why?

The poster's position is that he is worried about the possibility of a bird flu pandemic. He backs this up with quotes from the WHO's website and the CDC's website that state that both of these agencies claim to be concerned about the risk of pandemic. These seem like reasonable points.

...I mean, if you really feel you can back up that statement and that I made no points about bird flu?

All I said was that we learnt nothing about bird flu from your comments about the OP's ignorance. These comments distract from your substantive points.

Telling a poster he hasn't a clue is destructive to a thread. It turns the focus from the subject matter to a playground fight. Most posters who believe they have been insulted will waste everyone's time defending their cyber honour. If you think the poster is ignorant of some fact then state that fact or link to it. There is no possible benefit for anyone reading the thread to have one poster tell the other that he hasn't a clue.

In this thread the OP asked for an opinion on whether he should have been banned and I'd say you both should have been.

BizMaker

psi wrote:

How is stating that someone is ignorant of a fact or facts nasty.

How is saying that someone hasn't a clue what they are talking about nasty.

It seems that you have a double standard. Looking at a similar thread over in the Biology and Medicine forum:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054889345

You did not call the poster ignornant on that thread or say that he hadn't a clue, or hadn't a notion of what he was talking about, even though he had the same concerns as boardy. Must be a different class of people over there in medicine and biology.

BizMaker

amp wrote:

Nice selective quoting there. You've left out all the parts that were actually on topic.

Oh right, so you are saying that a mod can be partially off topic and escape a ban (similar to being partially pregnant, I suppose).
Did you tell boardy that or are you making up the rules as you go along?

amp wrote:

I agree. A job well done. And if you think that guy I banned will be remembered as a martrye then I'd just like to say "hhahahahahah welcome to the internet"

Oh and I'd just like to add that I'm enjoying this thread immensely. You know you're doing a good job moderating Humanities when users start moaning about you on feedback. Maybe someday people will start calling for my banning as they did for my honourable predecessor.

Regarding the good job that you are doing on humanities, the first sticky on the forum gives us an indication of that: it tells us what we cannot talk about straight away. Good job. And I do not think that we need to talk about the perverse enjoyment that you seem to be getting from a thread about a user that you banned. The gloating exudes from your comments.

The most disappointing fact about the bird flu thread is that an informative discussion is now mute because of the banning.

GuanYin

Zaph0d wrote:

You both made points, some with references, and the thread was fairly high quality apart from the sidelines into accusations of ignorance and ghostbusting. I don't agree that all of your points were ignored. He quoted you extensively.

Actually he blatantly refused to answer my main point.

Attacking the other poster does not help your case.

I attacked the stance of his posts and knowledge of the area, not the poster.

The poster's position is that he is worried about the possibility of a bird flu pandemic. He backs this up with quotes from the WHO's website and the CDC's website that state that both of these agencies claim to be concerned about the risk of pandemic. These seem like reasonable points.

Thats not what I made my comment over. He specifically stated that H5N1 would become human transmissible. "when it happens". That was what I took exception to.

He took references he posted that clearly said "could", "might" and used the terms "will" in reference to them.

All I said was that we learnt nothing about bird flu from your comments about the OP's ignorance. These comments distract from your substantive points.

Your implication was that I merely said "you are wrong" and you specifically chose "points" that I made.
Where as that amounts to a small percentage of my actual posts. So you are biasing the whole contribution to a small factor to prove your point.

Grasping at straws.

Telling a poster he hasn't a clue is destructive to a thread. It turns the focus from the subject matter to a playground fight.

No, I stated why. He is very much inclined to feel worried, but if he insists on twisting, misquoting and stating things that he has no way of backing up, then I think its quite fair to say he is ignorant of the facts. But thats my opinon, much as saying he is "ignorant of the facts" is my opinon.

Most posters who believe they have been insulted will waste everyone's time defending their cyber honour. If you think the poster is ignorant of some fact then state that fact or link to it. There is no possible benefit for anyone reading the thread to have one poster tell the other that he hasn't a clue.

I stated the fact before he posted. his counter argument was to give his opinion as fact.

In this thread the OP asked for an opinion on whether he should have been banned and I'd say you both should have been.

Well thankfully, you're not the mod of humanaties so your opinon doesn't really amount to much.

The op asked for an opinion, and I gave it.

It was his statement that the disease is a certainty that I reacted to.

GuanYin

BizMaker wrote:

It seems that you have a double standard. Looking at a similar thread over in the Biology and Medicine forum:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054889345

You did not call the poster ignornant on that thread or say that he hadn't a clue, or hadn't a notion of what he was talking about, even though he had the same concerns as boardy. Must be a different class of people over there in medicine and biology.

Well for one thing, the poster on that thread doesn't state anywhere that the disease will definitely emerge, nor does that poster misquote and misrepresent any articles.

So, whats your point?

rsynnott

BizMaker wrote:

Regarding the good job that you are doing on humanities, the first sticky on the forum gives us an indication of that: it tells us what we cannot talk about straight away. Good job.

You haven't been around here very long, so you may not have seen why the traveller thread ban is necessary. They always degenerated into exactly the same nonsense.

amp

BizMaker wrote:

Oh right, so you are saying that a mod can be partially off topic and escape a ban (similar to being partially pregnant, I suppose).

No, psi mod status has nothing to do with this. Psi was partially on-topic and was responding to a post that was totally off-topic. I, unlike you, do not give a crap about a users status in Humanities. They're all users to me.

Did you tell boardy that or are you making up the rules as you go along?

I told him and yes, I do make up the rules as I go along. Usually I put those rules into the charter.

Regarding the good job that you are doing on humanities, the first sticky on the forum gives us an indication of that: it tells us what we cannot talk about straight away. Good job. And I do not think that we need to talk about the perverse enjoyment that you seem to be getting from a thread about a user that you banned. The gloating exudes from your comments.

Yes, I am touching myself right now, in a perverse way.

The most disappointing fact about the bird flu thread is that an informative discussion is now mute because of the banning.

I didn't stop anybody else from posting to it. Why don't you post some more informitive on-topic info to it and kick start it again?

BizMaker

psi wrote:

Well for one thing, the poster on that thread doesn't state anywhere that the disease will definitely emerge, nor does that poster misquote and misrepresent any articles.

So, whats your point?

You are really fighting a losing battle when you resort to lying. And you cannot use the “English is not my primary language” excuse anymore.
I had to go back and reread the thread again and nowhere did I see him say that “the disease will definitely emerge”. You are also saying that he misquoted and misrepresented articles. Just because he quoted statements that were not to your liking, it does not mean that he misquoted. And why did he have to talk about SARS if he didn’t want to? Just because the OP is not around anymore to defend himself, it does not mean that you are going to get away with skewing the “facts of the case”. I would encourage viewers of this thread to read the thread in question and not rely on psi’s interpretation.

Zaph0d wrote:

Telling a poster he hasn't a clue is destructive to a thread.

And off topic. If amp wants to be seen as a person with integrity he would ban psi too. It is warranted and it would rule out the favouritism bias seen by some observers.

Shabadu

This thread needs more RopeDrink.

GuanYin

BizMaker wrote:

You are really fighting a losing battle when you resort to lying. And you cannot use the “English is not my primary language” excuse anymore.

Where did I say it wasn't my primary language?

I had to go back and reread the thread again and nowhere did I see him say that “the disease will definitely emerge”. You are also saying that he misquoted and misrepresented articles.

Erm, I referenced it in the thread.

Just because he quoted statements that were not to your liking, it does not mean that he misquoted.

The articles he quoted are fine (except the last one which I think contains a quote out of context) he just conveniently changed the words "might" to "will" to suit his ends.

And why did he have to talk about SARS if he didn’t want to?

Explained in the thread.

Just because the OP is not around anymore to defend himself, it does not mean that you are going to get away with skewing the “facts of the case”. I would encourage viewers of this thread to read the thread in question and not rely on psi’s interpretation.

Where did I skew anything?
I hope they do read the thread

I hope the manage to get a better grasp of it than you did too

And off topic. If amp wants to be seen as a person with integrity he would ban psi too. It is warranted and it would rule out the favouritism bias seen by some observers.

If you were a person with any sense, you'd go away we don't always get whats right!

amp

BizMaker wrote:

And off topic. If amp wants to be seen as a person with integrity he would ban psi too. It is warranted and it would rule out the favouritism bias seen by some observers.

There's a wee flaw in your logic BizMaker. I don't want to be seen as a person with integrity. In fact, I think I'll make up a new rule and add it to the charter in Humanities.

"Moderators will always be treated with preferential treatment in this forum. Argue with them at your peril!"

What do you think?*







*I don't care what you think.

BizMaker

amp wrote:

There's a wee flaw in your logic BizMaker. I don't want to be seen as a person with integrity. In fact, I think I'll make up a new rule and add it to the charter in Humanities.

"Moderators will always be treated with preferential treatment in this forum. Argue with them at your peril!"

What do you think?*







*I don't care what you think.

And you don’t think that this is the dejure feeling that most posters have? Mods when posting as regular users can bring in-depth knowledge to a discussion. For example, psi has a suitable professional qualification and expertise to discuss the bird flu thread. It was unfortunate though that he tried to demean the other poster. It appeared that this was being carried out with impunity as demonstrated by the number of times he did it. He had no fear of retribution. Did this have something to do with his mod status.

Unfortunately this is the flaw with boards. You have a number of mods who act as if the forums are their own private playground or sandbox (as another mod called it). Some of these mods are lacking in people/social skills and follow the same mold (condescending, antagonistic etc) but the owners of boards.ie seem to put up with it in order to gain the free monitoring service. Without a doubt, there are some excellent mods out there but the actions of ‘the few’ are aired for all the public to see. Which is the reason why I do not post on here that often. But at least I have the pleasure of knowing that if/when they act like this in “real life”, there will be a consequence.
And it will catch up to them ………………… it always does.

GuanYin

BizMaker wrote:

And you don’t think that this is the dejure feeling that most posters have? Mods when posting as regular users can bring in-depth knowledge to a discussion.

All mods are regular users in every post outside the forum they moderate. Why is it so hard for you to get this into your head?

For example, in all the time I've used boards, I have maybe had oh, 5-10 direct interactions with amp. Of which I'm sure some were confrontational (although maybe not, I don't keep track).

*IF* amp were one to be biased, and tbh, I've never seen evidence of that, he'd have no cause to be biased towards me.

For example, psi has a suitable professional qualification and expertise to discuss the bird flu thread. It was unfortunate though that he tried to demean the other poster. It appeared that this was being carried out with impunity as demonstrated by the number of times he did it. He had no fear of retribution. Did this have something to do with his mod status.

You know, I was a category mod here for a while, before the introduction of smods. I was actually the first category mod on boards. I got busy and gave up all modding and ya know, it really didn't change my posting style.

If I was so comfortable in my modship, surely I'd simply have kept the cat mod, because, by your argument that would give my much more security....

Of course what you propose is a nonsene.

IS there a mod clique? Not at all. Many mods don't get on at all and there are quite a few disputes about how some of them run certain forums. Many of the mods here think I'm an absolute tit and I'm sure there are quite a few who would just *love* a reason to ban me. Are there mods who are mates. Yes, because through a shared interest many of the mods have gotten to know each other. Same happens with forum users here. Its a community.

Modding is a no-benefit voluntary task that has absolutely no perks whatsoever. People do it in there spare time as best they can. One guy, whose girlfriend is expecting a baby and is up to his tits in work and assignments is logging on from internet cafe's, just to keep up AND he ACTUALLY apologises for this. I think he's nuts for this, but you know, I've seen a few threads giving out about him and I think - wow, he really doesn't deserve that.

And you do the same thing, you come on accusing amp of favourtism etc etc and you know what in this situation YOU are ignorant of the facts.

I'm actually sitting here laughing to myself at how utterly stupid some boards users are.

Unfortunately this is the flaw with boards. You have a number of mods who act as if the forums are their own private playground or sandbox (as another mod called it).

Well seeing as all mods are normal users outside their own turf, then I don't see what you're referring to. Care to elaborate on this accusation.

Some of these mods are lacking in people/social skills

How could you know this? How do you know what any mod or user is like socially? From their posting style? Gimme a break. If I was to judge you by your posts, I'd be ensuring you get plastic cutlery at meal times, but I'm quite sure that in many aspects of life you're a reasonably balanced and intelligent person.

and follow the same mold (condescending, antagonistic etc) but the owners of boards.ie seem to put up with it in order to gain the free monitoring service.

The quite simply, don't post. If you don't like it, you don't have to be here.

Without a doubt, there are some excellent mods out there but the actions of ‘the few’ are aired for all the public to see. Which is the reason why I do not post on here that often.

So you don't interact in the community, but feel you're in a place to judge it?

But at least I have the pleasure of knowing that if/when they act like this in “real life”, there will be a consequence.
And it will catch up to them ………………… it always does.

That sounds like you're threathening amp.

For god sake its the internet you twat. Get a life

Asok

I have to say that reading this with the knowledge that Bizmaker and boardy have appeared on the same Ip on quite a few occasions makes me laugh

GuanYin

I suspected, but was getting too much fun of the stupidity to say

SITE BAN!!!!!

BizMaker

psi wrote:

That sounds like you're threathening amp.

For god sake its the internet you twat. Get a life

Then why don’t you report me too and get me banned (too).

So that’s how it works: accuse someone of threatening behaviour in order to distort the real issue. I was obviously talking about people lacking in social skills (as seen on boards) and then interacting with the public at large. You can tell a lot about a person by their posts.


And you can have the last word.