oscarBravo's "infractions" and impartiality

SlabMurphy

I suppose this post will get me a permanent ban, but nevertheless in the interests of positive criticism it has to be said. I have received from oscarBravo alone even though their are 4 other moderators on the forum 3 infractions from my Friday's posts. The other moderators - sceptre, Scraggs, GuanYin, Moriarty - don't find anything wrong with my posts, but extradinarily oscarBravo cann't find anything right with them. I would have thought that a moderators role like a referee in a match should be impartial and try and leave his political bias aside, but this seems not the case with oscarBravo. Anyway, here is the isssues he has found me to be worthy of an infraction, even though they are direct replies to issues/statements made by others. Surely to God the individual who raised the off topic should possibly ( coincidental and related points can more than help to compare or illustrate an issue as far as I'm concerned ) be the one to recive the infraction and not the person replying to their comment. BTW oscar, did Fratton Fred who raised the statements/issues also recieve infractions ?? Odds on I will be banned permantely, but undoutably I think most of the readers will now know oscarBrao's ' Impartiality ' . :rolleyes:

Anyway folks, here is the 'infractions' apparently I'm guilty of :rolleyes: Note that the reason I have been given the infractions by oscarBravo is " Being Naughty " which is an obviously open ended excuse to censor anyone who does'nt confirm with oscar's viewpoint. Maybe Fratton Fred isn't the only one with the hump from other forums


You have received an infraction at boards.ie.
Reason: Being Naughty
Originally Posted by Fratton Fred
"Someone called Slab murphy condeming someone for opening an arms factory "

And my reply - " I'm 100% for arms factories for clandestine military organisations replying to british terrorism and thuggery But whan you get a hypocrite who spent his whole life caliming to be a pacifist and then he goes and proudly opens up an arms factory that contribute to dropping bombs on defendceless children in Iraq, Afghanistan, the West Bank etc the reason I made the point is to show the total hypocisy of Hume. "

You have received an infraction at boards.ie.
Reason: Being Naughty
Originally Posted by Fratton Fred Britain has a constitution, its just a lot older and a lot more complex than the Irish one. One badly misjudged war in Iraq does not make a country a war monger though.

And my reply - " Britan has been invovled in more than just one misjudged war and is undoubtably one of the world's worst war mongers so long as it's against smaller numbers, a third world country or alongside America. To quote a good old friend of yours ( and mine )
India 1945 - 1948, Palestine 1945 - 1948, Mayala 1948 - 1960, Korea 1950 - 1953, Kenya, 1955 - 1959, Cyprus 1952 - 1960 , Aden 1955 - 1967, Suez 1956, the Six Counties 1969 - 1994, Malvina's 1982, Afghanistan and Iraq at present. "

mike65

/pulls up a chair and opens crisps

Mike.

Fratton Fred

mike65 wrote: »

/pulls up a chair and opens crisps

Mike.

Probably not worth getting too comfy...:D

The_Minister

Firstly, you should have posted this in Feedback.

Secondly, the other mods not commenting on your posts merely means that OB got their first.

Thirdly: "OB!! OB!!, Mike won't share his popcorn!"

mike65

Clearly this should be on Feedback (then we can have a lolcat too)

Mike.

oscarBravo

Moved from Politics. mike65, share your snacks with the other children.

SlabMurphy, you received an infraction for calling Juhn Hume "Uncle Tom", which is blatant trolling, and two for posting off-topic after I'd pointed out that you had gone off-topic.

I'll let the other moderators speak for themselves, if they want to.

Otacon

Well that was over quickly!

CHD

Dyr

interesting that this thread is here. i was about to create a new one on a similar subject, so while on the subject off topic posts

taken from:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055313521&page=13

oscarBravo wrote: »

On a more general note, I was bringing your attention to the fact that you remind me a lot of someone that I had to ban from this forum under four separate guises for a similar soapboxing style.

I have a problem with this approach to moderation

a) The guy is being asked to prove that he is not somebody else, how he can do that is beyond me.

b) OB appears to be baiting the poster into responding which leaves them in danger of being banned for questioning a mods decision or going OT even though its the mod who has initiated it.


c) It's smacks of smear tactics. if OB has suspicions about the the poster then confirm or deny it and then take it to PM, airing it public seems very suspsect to me.

oscarBravo

Bambi wrote: »

a) The guy is being asked to prove that he is not somebody else, how he can do that is beyond me.

I didn't ask him anything of the kind.

b) OB appears to be baiting the poster into responding which leaves them in danger of being banned for questioning a mods decision or going OT even though its the mod who has initiated it.

oB was letting the poster know that I knew that he was guilty of re-registering to evade a forum ban four times, and warning him not to repeat the tactics that got him banned in the first place.

c) It's smacks of smear tactics. if OB has suspicions about the the poster then confirm or deny it and then take it to PM, airing it public seems very suspsect to me.

I'm sorry I've offended you. I'll check with you in future before making any moderating decisions, k?

Marcus.Aurelius

Having read over the OP's posts, I can't really see any big issue with his posts, apart from some slightly trollish posts, but I don't see anything really all that big, he's a bit impetuous and brash, and oB was right to warn and infract you for ignoring his moderator warning.

Then again, infractions are obviously not as big a deal as bannings, so you should probably be pleased.

EDIT: Mike, where are my crisps?

Maximilian

Glad I don't moderate the Politics forum. Tough gig.

Edit: As correctly pointed out, Mike65 is refusing to share his crisps.

Hobbes

My post not directly related to OP.

Bambi wrote: »

I have a problem with this approach to moderation

Mods have tools to determine if someone is an alternate account, not to mention writing style.

btw, it is not uncommon to receive a number of infractions in one go. Normally I leave the Islam forum now to run itself (the muslim mods do a fine job). I normally go in when it starts getting into a mess and start backtracking infractions.

After 2-3 though I tend to ban to save the persons account.

GuanYin

We could just not give the posters a chance and have them sitebanned from the minute we spot them.

Then they can't start threads complaining.

Bob the Builder

GuanYin wrote: »

We could just not give the posters a chance and have them sitebanned from the minute we spot them.

Then they can't start threads complaining.

that would just take the fun out of it...

Keano

GuanYin wrote: »

We could just not give the posters a chance and have them sitebanned from the minute we spot them.

Then they can't start threads complaining.

Might save me a lot of visits to Feedback

Sully

GuanYin wrote: »

Then they can't start threads complaining.

Yes they can - Prison.

SlabMurphy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Moved from Politics. mike65, share your snacks with the other children.

SlabMurphy, you received an infraction for calling Juhn Hume "Uncle Tom", which is blatant trolling, and two for posting off-topic after I'd pointed out that you had gone off-topic.

I'll let the other moderators speak for themselves, if they want to.

" you received an infraction for calling Juhn Hume "Uncle Tom", which is blatant trolling " Jayus, have you ever heard of political satire ??...... if I called George Bush a big girls blouse you'd undoubtably call it abusive and derogatory language. If I called Brian Cowen "Biffo" I suppose that would be rascist and abusive behaviour towards Offfaly people. If I called Gerry Adams a two faced turncoat..................that would be ok wouldn't it

DeVore

I think I'm going to outlaw complaints about infractions.

Perhaps we should rename them "wrist slaps" or "purple nurples".

Btw, I didnt read anything positive in the OP, despite promises to the contrary and also Mike is still not sharing his crisps.

DeV.

Marcus.Aurelius

DeVore wrote: »

...and also Mike is still not sharing his crisps.

At last, someone gets the big issue at hand!

GuanYin

I think they mean mike isn't sharing his chips

Jules

GuanYin wrote: »

We could just not give the posters a chance and have them sitebanned from the minute we spot them.

Then they can't start threads complaining.

Great Idea!

mike65

I ate the bloody lot. Smokey bacon with sauerkraut.

Mike.

is_that_so

Just as well you didn't share so.

GuanYin

SlabMurphy wrote: »

I have received from oscarBravo alone even though their are 4 other moderators on the forum 3 infractions from my Friday's posts. The other moderators - sceptre, Scraggs, GuanYin, Moriarty - don't find anything wrong with my posts

By the way, I agree with OB's evaluation of your post. Just because I didn't PM you directly doesn't mean I don't agree. Don't pretend to second guess my stance.

Overheal

Maybe politics should have a User-Minimum of 50 posts before they are allowed to contribute in there? Im not suggesting anything like the soccer forum method but just so mods can view past posts of the user and see what kind of person they are.

Boston

Attica!

lostexpectation

DeVore wrote: »

I think I'm going to outlaw complaints about infractions.

Perhaps we should rename them "wrist slaps" or "purple nurples".

DeV.

perhaps you could give a detailed explaination of what infractions are, wand their appeal process, we cos we havn't had since they suddenly appeared last year.

lostexpectation

lostexpectation wrote: »

perhaps you could give a detailed explaination of what infractions are, wand their appeal process, we cos we havn't had since they suddenly appeared last year.

Ah Just google infraction.
Theres a wiki article on it iirc.
Infractions are a tool to point out something that a poster shouldn't be doing-It's as simple as that.
Modding teams are teams for ease of moderating.
1 mod might be around more often on a particular day or week than another mod so you are going to see more activity from the mod that is around.

It would be unusual for a mod to act in a way that would be disagreed with by their co mod.
They are both helping the same ship to sail properly.

DeVore

They are warnings of unacceptible behaviour. I would have thought they have fairly clear labels. They are lesser rebukes then a ban and more obvious to the user then a post on a thread that they have just behaved unacceptibly.

They also will auto ban a user who accumulates 10 of them in a short (~days) space of time. This allows a consensus of mods to ban a user if there isnt an SMod/Admin around, in cases of fairly serious emergency. I dont believe this has happened yet.

There is no appeals process because they simply dont have much of a consequence.

DeV.

Meh

Steve

lostexpectation wrote: »

perhaps you could give a detailed explaination of what infractions are, wand their appeal process, we cos we havn't had since they suddenly appeared last year.

Think of them as penalty points on your profile.

They expire after 10 days (I think).

IRLConor

DeVore wrote: »

I think I'm going to outlaw complaints about infractions.

Perhaps hand out infractions for those complaints?

SteveC

SteveC wrote: »

Think of them as penalty points on your profile.

They expire after 10 days (I think).

So if a person recieves 5 infractions in a given week, that could merit an automatic siteban? Unless thats the way it is

DeVore

It takes 10, afaicr.

DeV.

Karl Hungus

Deleted User wrote: »

So if a person recieves 5 infractions in a given week, that could merit an automatic siteban? Unless thats the way it is

It takes 10 infractions, and the automatic siteban only lasts 7 days.

Steve

Deleted User wrote: »

So if a person recieves 5 infractions in a given week, that could merit an automatic siteban? Unless thats the way it is

I don't know, I'm not a mod, I'm just repeating what I read about it. Did ye not get an instruction manual with the C&H.

Overheal

has anyone ever gotten 5 infractions in 10 days?

IRLConor

Overheal wrote: »

has anyone ever gotten 5 infractions in 10 days?

Yes.

delly

*runs in panting*

ok......

*inhales*

I'm back from the shop, and since we've cleared up the whole infraction thing and what they are, i'll empty my bag.

*bag is tipped upside down on table*

Ok, I have a tub of sour cream Pringles, Tayto premium crisps, some Phileas Fogg nachos and some microwave popcorn. I also managed to snare some chilli and garlic dip.

So, dig in folks!

oscarBravo

Dude? Jelly beans?

Where are my jelly beans?

Dyr

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't ask him anything of the kind. oB was letting the poster know that I knew that he was guilty of re-registering to evade a forum ban four times, and warning him not to repeat the tactics that got him banned in the first place. I'm sorry I've offended you. I'll check with you in future before making any moderating decisions, k?

Not wanting to back seat mod, but re regging is an insta-ban offence, ne? Why not just hit the ban stick?

I'm not offended, i'd just like you to keep it in yer PM's, people dont be needing to see that thing in debates on europe.


Anyone any hunky dorys? Sour cream?

delly

Sorry folks, Dev only had a tenner and insisted I brought back change.

Dyr

He not let you keep the change? typical :pac:

oscarBravo

Bambi wrote: »

Not wanting to back seat mod, but re regging is an insta-ban offence, ne? Why not just hit the ban stick?

It's a judgement call. There's the faintest possibility he might contribute something to the debate.

I'm not offended, i'd just like you to keep it in yer PM's, people dont be needing to see that thing in debates on europe.

Sometimes moderation is done in private, sometimes in public. That's a judgement call too.

Anyone any hunky dorys? Sour cream?

Jelly beans, dammit!

Dyr

I had jellybeans yesterday, they were stupid mini ones though, more jelly foetuses you might say

Wreck

Bambi wrote: »

I had jellybeans yesterday, they were stupid mini ones though, more jelly foetuses you might say

Mmm, jellied foetuses.

paddybar

Bambi wrote: »

I had jellybeans yesterday, they were stupid mini ones though, more jelly foetuses you might say

or jellybabies maybe?

RDM_83

Having being reading the politics boards for a month or two now I would agree with slabmurphy, does seem to be an anything goes attitude towards posts about Shinners.
btw nothing but respect for John Hume (taught in my old school, goes to the pub near my folks house, one of the few people that had the people of NI's interests really to heart) but seriously an infraction for calling him Uncle Tom :eek:

ps how come feedback threads always go so off topic, who mods the mods?

delly

RDM_83 wrote: »

ps how come feedback threads always go so off topic, who mods the mods?

Whats it got to do with mods? Mods are just regular members outside of the forums they mod. Feedback is looked after by the admins.

humanji

RDM_83 wrote: »

ps how come feedback threads always go so off topic, who mods the mods?

Batman?