A discussion about Moderating

mike65

I've been reading this complaint which was seperated from its origins and stuck on the Help Desk, auerlio noted that the thread has been sidelined as no-one other than certain mods and the admins can chip in (with all that implies), so would it be remiss to have that thread moved to Feedback to allow a more inclusive dicussion?

Or would that be rather optimistic on my part?

Mike

Nevyn

Noise to signal ratio is a problem on this forum and it it is seriously complaint that warrants being investigated then the helpdesk is where it should be.

orestes

It's none of our business tbh. It's not a discussion about moderation, it is a discussion about the moderation of a single forum, and all of the people concerned can contribute to it there. I'd imagine the reason it is there is so that we can't respond, and therefore randomers can't ruin the discussion

humanji

Pity. It could do with a few lolcats.

seamus

Specific issue: Help Desk

General suggestion: Feedback

Insect Overlord

On the general topic of moderating, specific to a particular poster over the last few days, why is it that some trolls are permitted to continue posting long after they have been found out?

It looks like some of the mods are actually enjoying the ridiculousness of the situation in After Hours at the moment, with Twitching Anus being the centre of attention. Am I right in thinking they're just leaving his threads open for sport at this stage? Or have I misread the whole situation? (the latter could be likely, knowing me...)

Nevyn

If you have a problem with a post report it.

Karl Hungus

mike65 wrote: »

auerlio noted that the thread has been sidelined as no-one other than certain mods and the admins can chip in (with all that implies), so would it be remiss to have that thread moved to Feedback to allow a more inclusive dicussion?

Someone's complaining that only the smods and admins can chip in, but when these kinds of threads are posted in Feedback, then people complain that everyone is chipping in. I think the situation is simply that people are going to find fault with the way things are done reguardless, even if the recourse is changed, as it has been. Quite frankly, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

leninbenjamin

I don't like the Help desk system myself, although it is far improved on the feedback system. how about creating a system whereby lay-people can request access to specific help-desk threads where they feel they can make a constructive contribution? could even go with something like the PI model where the posts must get moderator approval or something. just a thought.

AlmightyCushion

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I don't like the Help desk system myself, although it is far improved on the feedback system. how about creating a system whereby lay-people can request access to specific help-desk threads where they feel they can make a constructive contribution? could even go with something like the PI model where the posts must get moderator approval or something. just a thought.

That would be a disaster to be honest, the smods would have pms from every gobshíte requesting access to every thread just so they can post their +1 to someones post. Then when they decided not to allow someone access to a thread, that person would start a helpdesk/feedback thread complaining about the smods being biased against them and not letting them have their say etc.

auerillo

mike65 wrote: »

I've been reading this complaint which was seperated from its origins and stuck on the Help Desk, auerlio noted that the thread has been sidelined as no-one other than certain mods and the admins can chip in (with all that implies), so would it be remiss to have that thread moved to Feedback to allow a more inclusive dicussion?

Or would that be rather optimistic on my part?

Mike

I've just noticed this thread and am the author of the original post, which I posted in the politics thread, and which the moderator Oscar bravo moved, unilaterally, to the help desk.

Funnily enough, I didn't realise that no one else was allowed to post there until i started to be contacted by guys who wanted to post there to add evidence to my argument, but who were not allowed to do so.

Initially, i thought this was outrageous, but after I've thought about it and also after reading Seamus' reply to another thread like this one, which he closed, I understand the difference between Feedback & help desk, and think when an issue is serious and requires thought, it is perhaps better to not allow multiple posters to come in and add their "+1" or comments which take from or dilute to issue at hand. ( Just look at the feedback threads on similar issues which have strayed a long way from the original point which became obscure and lost).

My objective is to bring to the attention of the members of the site a certain problem which has been experienced by a number of people, (I know of at least 30 who have experienced the same problem, which probably means there are a lot more about whom I would have no knowledge), and on mature reflection I think the best way to do that is through the help desk as the problem is not diluted by lots of other posters, and can remain specific and to the point.

Lets hope now those in authority will take the point on board, and work to resolve it!

Bob the Builder

That was a well constructed post auerillo.

I believe that the decision to move to the Help Desk was the right move. Whilst I see where everyone is coming from, I agree with Mr. Hungus when he says we'll disagree no matter what....

Nevyn

If others are helping you with your case and providing you links then why don't you use them ?

ShakeAndBake

Thaedydal wrote: »

If others are helping you with your case and providing you links then why don't you use them ?

Perhaps auerillo can handle it and is using the help provided.

Just here to add the helpdesk system seems to be working really well and feedback had been cleaned up beyond belief. Well done smods.

:pac:

Overheal

Well as suggested in yonder thread Gandalf although a politics mod in name still seemed to have gone and PM'd Vexxorg asking for permission to respond to that help desk thread. That seems a lot easier to control than an open forum for a specific question. If you reallyu feel you have something substantial to contribute than PM an Admin or something. But I'm sure most of your submissions could be added if you PM'd the plaintiff so he could add it into his own next post.

VH

fair play to auerillo - in there battling it out against 3 or 4 mods on his own with no support

somebody impartial and with authority - bit like a judge - needs to come in an stamp a ruling on the whole thing - auerillo is very convincing and the mods are a bit repititive spinning the old party line

humanji

VH wrote: »

fair play to auerillo - in there battling it out against 3 or 4 mods on his own with no support

somebody impartial and with authority - bit like a judge - needs to come in an stamp a ruling on the whole thing - auerillo is very convincing and the mods are a bit repititive spinning the old party line

The mods are repetitive? If you read the thread you'll see that Auerillo really is talking shìte. Someone who has a different opinion to his also happens to be the mod who caught him breaking the rules. Auerillo sees this as someone bullying him. I'm sure most people would see it as someone breaking the rules and being in a strop because they didn't get away with it.

seamus

VH wrote: »

fair play to auerillo - in there battling it out against 3 or 4 mods on his own with no support

somebody impartial and with authority - bit like a judge - needs to come in an stamp a ruling on the whole thing - auerillo is very convincing and the mods are a bit repititive spinning the old party line

I've already made an impartial ruling and auerillo has accepted it.

auerillo, like many Politics posters, like nothing more than to argue and argue and argue, even if all they're doing is rehashing the same argument over and over and over and not actually making any progress. He may be eloquent and have good literacy skills, but that doesn't give him more weight.

auerillo

humanji wrote: »

The mods are repetitive? If you read the thread you'll see that Auerillo really is talking shìte. Someone who has a different opinion to his also happens to be the mod who caught him breaking the rules. Auerillo sees this as someone bullying him. I'm sure most people would see it as someone breaking the rules and being in a strop because they didn't get away with it.

I wasn't aware that I had broken any rules, so I have no idea to what you refer. I do consider guys who are rude, who threaten others in public and who are aggressive and confrontational to be bullying. As none of us contribute to the politics threads any more (I tried to recently and realised immediately it was a mistake), it seems unclear why you should decide that all those guys should say what they have said because "Someone who has a different opinion to his also happens to be the mod who caught him breaking the rules". It doesn't make any sense why all those guys should say that, and appears illogical.

seamus wrote: »

I've already made an impartial ruling and auerillo has accepted it.

auerillo, like many Politics posters, like nothing more than to argue and argue and argue, even if all they're doing is rehashing the same argument over and over and over and not actually making any progress. He may be eloquent and have good literacy skills, but that doesn't give him more weight.

Actually , I wasn't aware you had made a ruling. In any case, all I have done is to quote the opinions of other members, and a ruling can't validate or invalidate their opinions.

Some keep saying that i am making an argument. I am not. I am quoting the opinions of other menbers, in addition to which I have my own opinion.

All I am asking for was someone senior to have a quiet word with the one guy all these members claim is the reason they no longer post in the politics threads. If your ruling is to prevent someone senior from having a word, that's your ruling and, its not my place to accept or reject it. it's your decision.

Mind you, it does see there is a disproportionate number of members holding what is largely the same opinion about the individual in question. In your experience, do other mods get the same volume of members expressing what is, largely the same opinion, leading them to ceasing to contribute to threads?

And, if not, why do you think that all these members hold that opinion?

Fysh

auerillo wrote: »

I wasn't aware that I had broken any rules, so I have no idea to what you refer. I do consider guys who are rude, who threaten others in public and who are aggressive and confrontational to be bullying.

I may be wrong, but in the Helpdesk thread that was created for this I didn't see you actually provide specific posts which you considered to be bullying. You stated that you felt the mod in question was a bully, which is a legitimate complaint - but I don't think you've backed up the complaint with any specific posts or threads in which the behaviour is demonstrated. (I am aware of the various posts you cited related to a previous complaint, but since that complaint was not upheld I would consider those posts to be irrelevant to your current complaint).

Stating that other people feel they've been bullied out of the forum doesn't help and is irrelevant - if the mod in question has bullied people, there must be proof of it somewhere and that's what needs to be shown. You, as the complainant, have to provide the basis of the complaint. If you can't do that (eg because threads/posts you're thinking of have been deleted/moved) then provide as much detail as you can of them and request that one of the admins check them out.

auerillo wrote: »

All I am asking for was someone senior to have a quiet word with the one guy all these members claim is the reason they no longer post in the politics threads. If your ruling is to prevent someone senior from having a word, that's your ruling and, its not my place to accept or reject it. it's your decision.

Mind you, it does see there is a disproportionate number of members holding what is largely the same opinion about the individual in question. In your experience, do other mods get the same volume of members expressing what is, largely the same opinion, leading them to ceasing to contribute to threads?

And, if not, why do you think that all these members hold that opinion?

It is worth pointing out that Feedback has, in the past, seen many Politics threads which showed that several people who've posted there appeared to think that the rules didn't apply to them. Witness the fiasco concerning whether people could refer to Bertie Ahern as a liar, for example. In that context (a forum specifically built around forthright discussion and likely to involve people with diametrically-opposed viewpoints on a regula basis) I can see the reasons for a moderator taking a more public approach to warnings/infractions/bannings, on the basis that it would hopefully serve as a constant reminder to everyone that the rules are there and not to be ignored. It's not hard to see how such behaviour could be construed as bullying, and thus such complaints should be addressed seriously - however, they can only be investigated adequately if the pertinent evidence is provided, because the very nature of the forum and some of those who post there is such that accusations without substantiating evidence must be considered suspect.

humanji

auerillo wrote: »

I wasn't aware that I had broken any rules, so I have no idea to what you refer. I do consider guys who are rude, who threaten others in public and who are aggressive and confrontational to be bullying. As none of us contribute to the politics threads any more (I tried to recently and realised immediately it was a mistake), it seems unclear why you should decide that all those guys should say what they have said because "Someone who has a different opinion to his also happens to be the mod who caught him breaking the rules". It doesn't make any sense why all those guys should say that, and appears illogical.

Look at all the people you said have complained and are no longer posting in the Politics forum. Look how many of them broke rules and were either warned, infracted or banned for this. Look how many of them refused to admit that they did anything wrong. Look how many of them claim Oscar Bravo is a bully and abusing his position. And finally, look how many of them had been warned, infracted or banned by Oscar Bravo.

Now, can you honestly say that they are ALL complaining for the right reasons?

Also, you've been asked several times to point out where you feel OB has crossed the line and provided nothing but links where the admins have found nothing wrong.

You imply he's rude. Is that really such a problem? Besides, Has he really been rude, or has he just been abrupt and to the point with those who refuse to enter into debate?

You imply he threaten others in public. Did he? You do realise that that's a fairly heafty claim to make if you can't back it up?

And then you go on about being aggressive and confrontational. No more than anyone else, I'd say.

As has been said before, OB can be short and brunt. But he treats every user in Politics the same. If ANYONE crosses the line he'll call them on it. It just so happens that those who have opposing opinions to OB claim that he has an agenda.

To be honest, the only one I can see who is bullying is you. You didn't get your way and you've picked out someone to take it out on. If your claims were valid, it'd be easy to pick out thousands of examples. You've yet to provide any. It'd be easier for people to see you side of the story if you'd actually tell it instead of hinting at it.

seamus

All I am asking for was someone senior to have a quiet word with the one guy all these members claim is the reason they no longer post in the politics threads. If your ruling is to prevent someone senior from having a word, that's your ruling and, its not my place to accept or reject it. it's your decision.

Someone senior can have a word if they wish. The decision (by me) is that a word is not necessary. "Stop being so blunt" isn't something I'm going to say to any moderator any time soon.

Mind you, it does see there is a disproportionate number of members holding what is largely the same opinion about the individual in question. In your experience, do other mods get the same volume of members expressing what is, largely the same opinion, leading them to ceasing to contribute to threads?

When they've all been in violation of the charter or otherwise been banned or infracted for breaking the rules, then yes we do often see a whole rash of posters giving out about being abused or bullied by a single moderator based on their viewpoint. It's usually because they have broken the rules but refuse to accept it or refuse to believe that it was no-one else's fault.

Why have all of these people only contacted you in private? I'm sure if thanks was turned on in the helpdesk, your posts would be littered with thanks, but without any of these other aggrieved users actually contributing their 2c through another thread or on here. Why? Perhaps they know that oB was probably justified, but are hoping that if you fight the good fight, they'll somehow benefit. Some of them claim that they can't win, but that's their problem. I've got no interest in this issue. I will call out bad moderating where it exists.

It's a little like demonstrations. Messages can be correct, but very often in demonstrations, you'll have people who are disruptive and don't want to play within the rules, even when they have a valid reason for demonstrating. They get dragged off the street by the cops, handled roughly where they're resisting arrest, and then a week later there are fifty complaints lodged about abuse of power by the cops or claims that they were being targetted because of their viewpoint.
Is this evidence that there is a problem with the way that the cops handled the situation, or is it more likely evidence that people who consistently fail to abide by the rules are more likely to complain when the rules are applied to them?

Now, I'm not trying to compare anyone on the forum to a crusty tree-hugger, however it is an interesting dynamic.

amp (now sadly no longer a moderator), ran what I now see as a very interesting experiment on one forum. The title of the thread was "Post here to get banned". Everyone who posted on the thread (with the exception of Admins and Smods), was banned. amp was consistent, and didn't miss a single one. A massive number of people complained about the banning, citing various reasons why the ban wasn't justified or why it wasn't their fault (they didn't know), and plenty even accused amp of personal biase and bullying for banning them. The concept of the thread couldn't have been simpler, and yet for some reason, some people refused to accept that they got banned purely and completely, 100% through their own actions.

VH

I think that's a good idea there Seamus, in that someone very senior should have a say. Who would be as impartial as possible, considering it's impossible for someone with an vested interest in the whole system to actually be impartial? auerillo maybe could share his views on it?

auerillo has made convincing arguments to me, and has 4 mods arguing against him with the usual "proove it" lines, and even though he's provided enough proof for me it gets balled up ans shoved back at him.

My 2c worth of feedback.

Fysh

VH wrote: »

auerillo has made convincing arguments to me, and has 4 mods arguing against him with the usual "proove it" lines, and even though he's provided enough proof for me it gets balled up ans shoved back at him.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not taking a stance either way - my post was pointing out that I think any allegation of bullying should be taken seriously and the evidence looked at. As far as I can see, aurellio hasn't yet pointed to any specific posts of OscarBravo's in which the alleged bullying behaviour has occured, so nobody can really comment in a useful way.

That said, if his comments remain generalised and non-specific allegations of bullying, then the possibility that the accusation cannot be backed up with evidence (ie it is false, and possibly although not necessarily malicious) will have to be considered and appropriate action taken.

Fysh

i-bloodhound wrote: »

Fysh, could I ask, if you were the accuser and someone you believed was being a bully and all the other things the moderator in question is being accussed of, what proof you believe should be provided to demonstrate that bullying did occur? What particular content would you look for to back up your claims and expect to be taken seriously?

I would either:

a) link to existing posts/threads where the behaviour was displayed, where relevant pointing out where exactly the moderator in question was exhibiting this behaviour, or

b) in the case that posts/threads had been deleted or edited after the event to hide the occurence of such behaviour, provide thread titles, approximate dates/times of posting, and the names of the posters concerned to the best of my ability and ask that an admin review the contents of those posts.

I haven't come to any conclusion one way or the other. It's quite possible that case b) applies to aurellio, in which case this should be made clear either here or in the Helpdesk thread - at which point an admin's involvement will be required. However, if case b) doesn't apply then aurellio should be providing specific examples that can be objectively analysed, rather than making non-specific comments. The only posts cited thus far appear to be from a discussion of a previous complaint which was dismissed - thus, those posts are irrelevant.

Edited to add:

Either I'm going mad, or the post I was replying to has disappeared. Hmmm.

seamus

Fysh wrote: »

I haven't come to any conclusion one way or the other. It's quite possible that case b) applies to aurellio, in which case this should be made clear either here or in the Helpdesk thread - at which point an admin's involvement will be required.

Actually, we can see removed & edited posts, and I don't think there was anything relevant removed.

Either I'm going mad, or the post I was replying to has disappeared. Hmmm.

Yes it has. Because regardless of your response, he won't be happy.

Fysh

seamus wrote: »

Actually, we can see removed & edited posts, and I don't think there was anything relevant removed.
Yes it has. Because regardless of your response, he won't be happy.

Thanks for the clarification, wasn't sure if it was only Admins who could see an individual post's history. Also good to know I'm not going mad, I was starting to worry that trying to be reasonable and helpful in Feedback had pushed me over the edge

krpc

seamus wrote: »

Actually, we can see removed & edited posts, and I don't think there was anything relevant removed.
Yes it has. Because regardless of your response, he won't be happy.

:rolleyes:

krpc

Fysh wrote: »

I would either:

a) link to existing posts/threads where the behaviour was displayed, where relevant pointing out where exactly the moderator in question was exhibiting this behaviour, or

b) in the case that posts/threads had been deleted or edited after the event to hide the occurence of such behaviour, provide thread titles, approximate dates/times of posting, and the names of the posters concerned to the best of my ability and ask that an admin review the contents of those posts.

I haven't come to any conclusion one way or the other. It's quite possible that case b) applies to aurellio, in which case this should be made clear either here or in the Helpdesk thread - at which point an admin's involvement will be required. However, if case b) doesn't apply then aurellio should be providing specific examples that can be objectively analysed, rather than making non-specific comments. The only posts cited thus far appear to be from a discussion of a previous complaint which was dismissed - thus, those posts are irrelevant.

Edited to add:

Either I'm going mad, or the post I was replying to has disappeared. Hmmm.

Thanks for the response, Fysh. It was much appreciated

seamus

i-bloodhound wrote: »

:rolleyes:

It might interest you to know that I can see your edit notes (you know the box that says, "Reason for deleting"?). What I said is pretty accurate.

If you had left that box empty I would have said nothing.

krpc

seamus wrote: »

It might interest you to know that I can see your edit notes (you know the box that says, "Reason for deleting"?). What I said is pretty accurate.

If you had left that box empty I would have said nothing.

seamus, I am not particularly bothered to be honest. I had already PM'ed Fysh to inform him/her why the post in question was removed so no big deal to me.

Bob the Builder

seamus wrote: »

It might interest you to know that I can see your edit notes (you know the box that says, "Reason for deleting"?). What I said is pretty accurate.

If you had left that box empty I would have said nothing.

This is why they tell you at school not to fight the powwa.

FlutterinBantam

seamus wrote: »

amp (now sadly no longer a moderator), ran what I now see as a very interesting experiment on one forum. The title of the thread was "Post here to get banned". Everyone who posted on the thread (with the exception of Admins and Smods), was banned. amp was consistent, and didn't miss a single one. A massive number of people complained about the banning, citing various reasons why the ban wasn't justified or why it wasn't their fault (they didn't know), and plenty even accused amp of personal biase and bullying for banning them. The concept of the thread couldn't have been simpler, and yet for some reason, some people refused to accept that they got banned purely and completely, 100% through their own actions.

Totally and utterly incorrect Seamus.

I'm really surprised you would come up with this.

Jezza posted several times in that thread and was not banned.

There were others but the facts are there.

Gandalf23

I’m going to contribute to this because I was quoted in the original helpdesk thread. I want to make it clear that I am not accusing anyone of bullying, but I do stand by what I said in the quoted post in the helpdesk thread.

The single most important thing is that serious complaints of bullying must be taken absolutely seriously and be thoroughly investigated, and (even more importantly) be seen to be thoroughly investigated. I’m not saying all complaints should be investigated, but this seems to be a complaint that warrants a deeper look.

Has that happened in this instance?

Anyone who has ever been subject to bullying will know that in most cases bullying is usually denied. It is thus very very difficult to prove … this is something Auerillo is finding out. Just because it is difficult to prove does not mean there is no bullying. Bullying often operates in a cumulative fashion similar to the drip drip approach and individual incidents may, when taken in isolation, seem trivial. But it is still bullying.

I have to admit I am disappointed by Seamas’ reaction to these accusations against OB. I believe there is (at the very least) a case to be investigated against OB. Was there an investigation of the claims made by Auerillo? Were Auerillo’s claims even considered seriously? To quote Seamas directly “The decision (by me) is that a word is not necessary” This answer saddened me, as I would consider Seamus as probably the most fair minded, articulate, and decent mod on boards.ie.

As I said above, the most important thing is that serious complaints of bullying must be taken absolutely seriously and be thoroughly investigated. There must also be the perception of fairness and such cases should be seen to be thoroughly investigated.

People reading this will make up their own minds whether or not this has happened in this case.

Bob the Builder

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Totally and utterly incorrect Seamus.

I'm really surprised you would come up with this.

Jezza posted several times in that thread and was not banned.

There were others but the facts are there.

Yah Seamus, good point, but as for consistency, there was none. Some posted there no problem at all, and were completely allowed to bypass the system.

and yeah, sure amp was a great mod in his day, but towards the end, I didn't find him that great at all.

seamus

Gandalf23 wrote: »

As I said above, the most important thing is that serious complaints of bullying must be taken absolutely seriously and be thoroughly investigated. There must also be the perception of fairness and such cases should be seen to be thoroughly investigated.

There were two threads posted and a whole heap of links supplied in both.

I looked through them all and failed to find anything which would indicate that the claim of "bullying" had grounds. The accusation is equally as serious for the accused as it is for the accuser, so believe me I don't treat it lightly.

I have no idea what else you would expect me to do. Police all of oscarBravo's posts just to make sure he's staying in line, even though he hasn't done anything? Suggest that he be "suspended", just in case?

I have satisfied myself that there's nothing there. With all due respect to the rest of the site, I don't have satisfy anyone else. If someone doesn't regard my investigation as impartial or thorough enough, they can conduct their own. The posts and the links are there for you to read. Go ahead.

I'm not going to go writing a report on the "findings" of any "investigation", even though my responses on the help desk thread were pretty much that anyway.

Seriously, I've done the leg work, I've taken the complaints seriously and I've responded. What else do you want?

Yah Seamus, good point, but as for consistency, there was none. Some posted there no problem at all, and were completely allowed to bypass the system.

Lies.

auerillo

[

Fysh wrote: »

… aurellio hasn't yet pointed to any specific posts of OscarBravo's in which the alleged bullying behaviour has occured, so nobody can really comment in a useful way… if his comments remain generalised and non-specific allegations of bullying, … but in the Helpdesk thread that was created for this I didn't see you actually provide specific posts which you considered to be bullying. You stated that you felt the mod in question was a bully, which is a legitimate…Stating that other people feel they've been bullied out of the forum doesn't help and is irrelevant … You, as the complainant, have to provide the basis of the complaint.

Fysh wrote: »

Speaking only for myself, I'm not taking a stance either way - my post was pointing out that I think any allegation of bullying should be taken seriously and the evidence looked at. As far as I can see, aurellio hasn't yet pointed to any specific posts of OscarBravo's in which the alleged bullying behaviour has occured, so nobody can really comment in a useful way.

That said, if his comments remain generalised and non-specific allegations of bullying,

I am not sure why this isn’t clear, as I’ve corrected it a number of times by now. I am not making a complaint that OB is a bully. While I may, indeed, consider him to be so, that is not what I am complaining about.

For complete clarity I would like to state the following;

The purpose of the thread, which OB moved to the help desk, is to point out that a number of members on this forum have stated, in writing, that they no longer contribute to the politics forum directly due to what they have said they perceive to be OB’s behaviour.

What got my attention was that I, also, had decided this for myself after what I considered to be the rude, aggressive, combatitive behaviour by OB towards me, and I wondered how many others had come to the same conclusion.

humanji wrote: »

Look at all the people you said have complained and are no longer posting in the Politics forum. Look how many of them broke rules and were either warned, infracted or banned for this. Look how many of them refused to admit that they did anything wrong. Look how many of them claim Oscar Bravo is a bully and abusing his position. And finally, look how many of them had been warned, infracted or banned by Oscar Bravo.

Now, can you honestly say that they are ALL complaining for the right reasons?

.

The answer to this is that I really have no idea, and have not looked at any of the above. I’m sure it’s interesting, but it’s not relevant to what I am talking about which is explained above. I can no more honestly say that they were ALL complaining for the right reasons, any more that you can, presumably, say they were ALL complaining for the wrong reasons.

seamus wrote: »

Someone senior can have a word if they wish. The decision (by me) is that a word is not necessary. "Stop being so blunt" isn't something I'm going to say to any moderator any time soon.
Why have all of these people only contacted you in private?. Because regardless of your response, he won't be happy.

“blunt” is, of course , semantics. But it doesn’t take from the evidence, in their own words, that a lot of members consider OB so “blunt” that they have said they will no longer engage with him and no longer participate in the forums where he is involved.

All these people have not all contacted me in private, but stated their views in public forums, on www.boards.ie. A few guys did contact me in private when they saw the thread, and I also reproduced a sample of their opinions, verbatim, in the help desk thread. I did not edit or alter what they said in any way, and copy and pasted directly their opinions.

Seamus, Luckily, I am blessed with a happy disposition and am not waiting for a reply here to make me happy!

What does concern me are the attempts to dismiss all these members opinions by so many different means, (including shooting the messenger!), rather than actually considering if they might have a point, or even having a quiet word with a few of the more reliable of them to enquire further.

In any business, it is thought less than 5% of dissatisfied customers make a complaint, and the remaining 95% don’t bother to complain and just vote with their feet. Why should www.boards.ie be any different?

By any measure, OB seems to generate many more similar opinions to the ones I reproduced, when compared to any moderator I have seen on boards. And this isn’t just in the last few weeks, but seems to be a fairly consistent theme here over time.

If it was one or two troublemakers, then one can understand it not being taken seriously. But to any independent observer, there is a pattern here, and a lot of members complaining, and the common person is OB. As far as I am aware, this happens with no other moderator although is a fairly consistent pattern with members voicing their opinions that OB is rude, etc etc that they no longer post in his threads as a direct result of that.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

The single most important thing is that serious complaints of bullying must be taken absolutely seriously and be thoroughly investigated, and (even more importantly) be seen to be thoroughly investigated..

Again, I am not making a charge of bullying against OB, I am merely bring together statements made by various members that they consider his behaviour to be unacceptable, and that they consider his behaviour to be so unacceptable that they no longer post in the threads or engage with him, and letting everyone else make up their own minds on the matter.

If www.boards.ie considers that the matter should be investigated, then they can contact some or all of these people to investigate further, or not, as they deem fit. Individual members can make up their minds on the evidence.

Karl Hungus

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Bullying often operates in a cumulative fashion similar to the drip drip approach and individual incidents may, when taken in isolation, seem trivial. But it is still bullying.

Now, certainly it's true that individual incidents may seem trivial, but when the person making the accusation is flatting refusing to cite any incident at all, even after repeatedly being asked to, it really does damage their argument. I'm not saying you're wrong, or that this case isn't without merit, but after reading the thread on Help Desk, auerillo just comes across as being evasive.

What exactly is Seamus supposed to do, go through every single one of OscarBravo's posts with careful scrutiny? Investigation needs a starting point, it needs points of reference. You don't tell the police that a murder has happened and demand they solve it, without telling them where to find the body. If anyone is serious about making a complaint then they need to provide links and/or cite incidents, otherwise it's just not feasible to investigate.

People making these kinds of acusations need to get serious, and either provide the required evidence or drop the issue. Repeatedly demanding over and over that something needs to be done, while being completely evasive, is bringing us nowhere.

Bob the Builder

seamus wrote: »

Lies.

Trust you to say that. Amp's friendships with all the SMods and Admins meant that he could do no wrong.

He abused people outright, and nobody ever said anything to him, because he was 'in' with all those people who had a say.

Boston

auerillo: I'm not saying you post a load drivel, I'm just bringing together the opinions of every one else and presenting them in a nice format.

nevf: Your wrong. I'm not going to get into the history of amp but it certainly wasn't the case that he was never reprimanded. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

auerillo

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Now, certainly it's true that individual incidents may seem trivial, but when the person making the accusation is flatting refusing to cite any incident at all, even after repeatedly being asked to, it really does damage their argument. I'm not saying you're wrong, or that this case isn't without merit, but after reading the thread on Help Desk, auerillo just comes across as being evasive.

.

I can refer you to my post above this one where I outline that i am not complaining about bullying, therefore to expect me to produce example of something I am not complaining about is ridiculous. Indeed, i am making no "accusation" at all, despit you claiming I am. Can you read the post above to understand what the point of what i am saying?

"I am not sure why this isn’t clear, as I’ve corrected it a number of times by now. I am not making a complaint that OB is a bully. While I may, indeed, consider him to be so, that is not what I am complaining about.

For complete clarity I would like to state the following;

The purpose of the thread, which OB moved to the help desk, is to point out that a number of members on this forum have stated, in writing, that they no longer contribute to the politics forum directly due to what they have said they perceive to be OB’s behaviour. "

Boston wrote: »

auerillo: I'm not saying you post a load drivel, I'm just bringing together the opinions of every one else and presenting them in a nice format.

The difference bewteen us is that I do not make pejorative comments about you, and I produce the evidence, in the form of quotes of what I claim the other people said.

If you are really saying you consider it drivel that the other poeple didn't say what i claim they said, then I suggest you check the threads where the quotes come from. .

Boston

I'm not saying it, other people are. I'm just the medium through which other peoples opinions flow.

Bob the Builder

Boston wrote: »

nevf: Your wrong. I'm not going to get into the history of amp but it certainly wasn't the case that he was never reprimanded. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Fair enough, but whenever there was a thread about amp in Feedback, I always remember the smods/admins jumping in and defending him to the hilt. I saw another thread about another CMod about a month ago, and when he was being fed to the lions there was no authority to be seen at all.

As for consistency in the cuckoo's nest, i advise Seamus to have a look back over that thread, and he will see that not "every single poster" was reprimanded for banning in the extreme stupidity filter. So in terms of "Lies", whilst I wouldn't call the post that seamus made "Lies", i certainly wouldn't say that all his statements are correct.

seamus

nevf wrote: »

As for consistency in the cuckoo's nest, i advise Seamus to have a look back over that thread, and he will see that not "every single poster" was reprimanded for banning in the extreme stupidity filter. So in terms of "Lies", whilst I wouldn't call the post that seamus made "Lies", i certainly wouldn't say that all his statements are correct.

Tell you what; Go through that thread and find me people who weren't banned and who aren't (or weren't at the time) admins, smods or mods of the cuckoo's nest. Link to their posts. Thx.

Yes, I was probably a bit off in saying he was "consistent", as I'm sure there were times when he managed to miss one or two. He never intentionally banned someone due to that thread just cos he didn't like them though. Even though loads of people claimed he did.

Fysh

auerillo wrote: »

I am not sure why this isn’t clear, as I’ve corrected it a number of times by now. I am not making a complaint that OB is a bully. While I may, indeed, consider him to be so, that is not what I am complaining about.

For complete clarity I would like to state the following;

The purpose of the thread, which OB moved to the help desk, is to point out that a number of members on this forum have stated, in writing, that they no longer contribute to the politics forum directly due to what they have said they perceive to be OB’s behaviour.

What got my attention was that I, also, had decided this for myself after what I considered to be the rude, aggressive, combatitive behaviour by OB towards me, and I wondered how many others had come to the same conclusion.

Thank you for the clarification. I'm going to drop all discussion of OscarBravo being a bully and state that, as per your comments above, OscarBravo is not a bully, nor does auerillo's complaint relate to bullying in any way. Do you agree with this statement? (Yes or no answer please, there are too much handwavey generalisations in this thread as it is)

auerillo wrote: »

“blunt” is, of course , semantics. But it doesn’t take from the evidence, in their own words, that a lot of members consider OB so “blunt” that they have said they will no longer engage with him and no longer participate in the forums where he is involved.

"Blunt" is no more semantics than "I am not making a complaint that OB is a bully. While I may, indeed, consider him to be so, that is not what I am complaining about".

More pertinently, the "evidence" you refer to is that people won't post in Politics because of OscarBravo. There is evidence in the form of various Feedback threads to show that there are quite a lot of people who believe that they should be allowed to flout clearly-delineated rules when they post in Politics. Here are some old examples taken from another thread about the moderation of Politics to give you some idea of what I mean:

"But I thought I was allowed to slag off politicians in here"

"Damnit, I want to say that he's a liar! Change the damn rules so that I can say he's a liar!"

"If I insult a political party publicly and then privately apologise afterwards, that makes it ok, right?"

"Why can't I just quote promotional material from other sites and insult people who disagree with me?"

The above (and they aren't the only examples) threads show that this mentality of making a complaint without necessarily having legitimate grounds is present in enough posters that complaints cannot be simply taken at face value. Thus, we cannot discuss OscarBravo's behaviour as a possible negative influence on the Politics forum without specific examples of the behaviour in question, preferably involving those posters who claim to no longer feel welcome in Politics due to this behaviour.

auerillo wrote: »

In any business, it is thought less than 5% of dissatisfied customers make a complaint, and the remaining 95% don’t bother to complain and just vote with their feet. Why should www.boards.ie be any different?

I repeat: complaints of this kind specifically concerning Politics can't just be taken at face value (and please note I'm saying that as someone who neither posts there nor moderates it, I just have an interest in how often feedback threads on the subject come up). If your complaint is legitimate, then you will be able to show clear examples of the behaviour you are dissatisfied with.

auerillo wrote: »

By any measure, OB seems to generate many more similar opinions to the ones I reproduced, when compared to any moderator I have seen on boards. And this isn’t just in the last few weeks, but seems to be a fairly consistent theme here over time.

My experience as a non-Politics poster is that someone is almost always complaining about at least one of the Politics mods. Aside from which the different sections of boards receive different traffic volumes, and different subjects have differing probabilities of attracting the kind of heated discussions which tend to go hand in hand with moderators stepping in and those moderated subsequently complaining. The fact that OscarBravo gets more complaints than, say, me for his moderation is meaningless - there's no boards-wide standard for moderation, nor could there be.

auerillo wrote: »

Again, I am not making a charge of bullying against OB, I am merely bring together statements made by various members that they consider his behaviour to be unacceptable, and that they consider his behaviour to be so unacceptable that they no longer post in the threads or engage with him, and letting everyone else make up their own minds on the matter.

Can we have some examples please? It's getting really tedious reading posts from you that shout "FIRE!" while then being coy as to the severity and location of the blaze in question, and you're already well past the point of being compared to the boy who cried wolf...

FlutterinBantam

Boston wrote: »

auerillo: I'm not saying you post a load drivel, I'm just bringing together the opinions of every one else and presenting them in a nice format.

nevf: Your wrong. I'm not going to get into the history of amp but it certainly wasn't the case that he was never reprimanded. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Boston ,you seem to have some kind of super modship over the show here.

It may be self appointed or not, I don't know or care

Just answer one question if you can.

Did Jezza post in "Post here and be banned" thread in TCN and not be banned????
Yes or No

humanji

auerillo wrote: »

The answer to this is that I really have no idea, and have not looked at any of the above. I’m sure it’s interesting, but it’s not relevant to what I am talking about which is explained above. I can no more honestly say that they were ALL complaining for the right reasons, any more that you can, presumably, say they were ALL complaining for the wrong reasons.

Eh, it's a list of people you came up with to try and bolster your opinion. Wouldn't that make it relevant to you? Your claim is that OB is the cause of many people leaving the forum. My point is that when you investigate who these people are, you see that they're not all squeeky clean and in the majority of cases will have something against OB, the person and not just OB, the mod.

No evidence has been shown to support the claims of bullying, but links have been provided (by yourself) which have already been investigated by the powers that be and OB has been cleared of wrongdoing. The most that can be said is that OB is like the majority of other politics posters, in that he stands up for his beliefs and questions those who's opinions differ from him. Just like you do. He just doesn't have time for those who don't back up anything they say, hence why he appears rude to you.

Making outrageous claims on the Politics forum and not backing them up is against the Charter. So why should he sit back and let people away with it?

Karl Hungus

auerillo wrote: »

Can you read the post above to understand what the point of what i am saying?

Yes, you're being a weasle.

'Not making a complaint' when it suits, sidetracking the discussion, muddying the waters, and pissing on discourse. If you weren't making a complaint, then why even bother to gather together quotes from other people? You're just stringing together other people's quotes in order to stick it to OscarBravo, making the implication, but not actually saying it directly.

Honestly, you're like someone who'll mumble something snarky at someone, but when they ask what you've just said, you innocently go "hmm? I didn't say anything! " I can see why OscarBravo would be blunt with you...

I'm done, don't have the patience for this.

Gandalf23

seamus wrote: »

There were two threads posted and a whole heap of links supplied in both.

I looked through them all and failed to find anything which would indicate that the claim of "bullying" had grounds. The accusation is equally as serious for the accused as it is for the accuser, so believe me I don't treat it lightly.

I have no idea what else you would expect me to do. Police all of oscarBravo's posts just to make sure he's staying in line, even though he hasn't done anything? Suggest that he be "suspended", just in case?

I have satisfied myself that there's nothing there. With all due respect to the rest of the site, I don't have satisfy anyone else. If someone doesn't regard my investigation as impartial or thorough enough, they can conduct their own. The posts and the links are there for you to read. Go ahead.

I'm not going to go writing a report on the "findings" of any "investigation", even though my responses on the help desk thread were pretty much that anyway.

Seriously, I've done the leg work, I've taken the complaints seriously and I've responded. What else do you want?

Ok, I accept that, and I trust your opinion and judgment because of the immense respect I have for you as a mod.

But you have to accept this is an unsatisfactory outcome for all concerned.

The problem with this current system as highlighted by this and the other threads is that there is now a lingering perception that;
(a) accusations (of bullying or otherwise) are not investigated in a fair and robust manner, and
(b) OB has been accused of fairly serious stuff and has not been fully cleared.

Thats an unfair outcome on two grounds ... neither side is happy. The outcome is very unfair on both OB and auerillo (especially OB imho as his reputation has been dragged through the mud).

I suggest two things;
1. That some formal system be put in place that investigates serious claims/accusations. Perhaps the feedback mods could be given this task. The system should ensure that any investigation is conducted in a fair, robust, consistent, and transparent manner. Only claims that are presented in a clear and courteous way with supporting material should be considered. Examples would be the Pighead feedback thread and the auerillo thread.
2. Anyone considering making an accusation of any type against a mod should have evidence to support their claim. If bullying is happening, the accuser should collect evidence over time and perhaps contact Seamus directly instead of starting a thread about it, or confronting the mod directly.


I for one trust Seamus and his judgment. But the current way accusations like this are treated could definitely be improved. Feedback was changed for the better ... time to change this for the better.

FlutterinBantam

I trust Seamus too, thats why I was so surprised about his comments about Amp, and the lack of answers to my direct questions.

Still trust him as a good guy.

auerillo

Fysh wrote: »

Thank you for the clarification. I'm going to drop all discussion of OscarBravo being a bully and state that, as per your comments above, OscarBravo is not a bully, nor does auerillo's complaint relate to bullying in any way. Do you agree with this statement? (Yes or no answer please, there are too much handwavey generalisations in this thread as it is)..

I don’t agree with it. I have already said I consider him to be a bully, but it’s not something I want to complain about. Does that clarify?

Fysh wrote: »

"Blunt" is no more semantics than "I am not making a complaint that OB is a bully. While I may, indeed, consider him to be so, that is not what I am complaining about".

...

I can’t agree. Blunt is semantics, in that it is often claimed by people who are bullies. It’s a well known irregular verb, I am blunt, he is a bully, etc.

I understand your point although also point out that it is impossible to examine the opinions of a number of people who say they no longer post in the politics threads, due to his behaviour, without coming to that conclusion. However, to come to that conclusion is not to say that’s what I am complaining about.

Fysh wrote: »

More pertinently, the "evidence" you refer to is that people won't post in Politics because of OscarBravo. There is evidence in the form of various Feedback threads to show that there are quite a lot of people who believe that they should be allowed to flout clearly-delineated rules when they post in Politics. Here are some old examples taken from another thread about the moderation of Politics to give you some idea of what I mean:

"But I thought I was allowed to slag off politicians in here"

"Damnit, I want to say that he's a liar! Change the damn rules so that I can say he's a liar!"

"If I insult a political party publicly and then privately apologise afterwards, that makes it ok, right?"

"Why can't I just quote promotional material from other sites and insult people who disagree with me?"

The above (and they aren't the only examples) threads show that this mentality of making a complaint without necessarily having legitimate grounds is present in enough posters that complaints cannot be simply taken at face value. Thus, we cannot discuss OscarBravo's behaviour as a possible negative influence on the Politics forum without specific examples of the behaviour in question, preferably involving those posters who claim to no longer feel welcome in Politics due to this behaviour.



..

I agree, which is why I suggested someone in authority investigate from the more reliable of those who have made the statements that they no longer post in the politics threads due to OB’s behaviour.

If you are expecting me to speak on their behalf, as to why they have come to this decision, then I have to say I really don’t know their reasons. In some cases they have given links, but wouldn’t it be better to have someone in authority to ask them directly, rather than asking me?

Where, perhaps, we differ is that I don’t automatically think their reasons must be illigitimate just because there are some in the politics threads who believe that they should be allowed to flout clearly-delineated rules. That’s why I suggested the more reliable of those who have stated they no longer post in the politics threads might be asked, so www.boards.ie can avoid those who believe that they should be allowed to flout clearly-delineated rules.

Fysh wrote: »

I repeat: complaints of this kind specifically concerning Politics can't just be taken at face value (and please note I'm saying that as someone who neither posts there nor moderates it, I just have an interest in how often feedback threads on the subject come up). If your complaint is legitimate, then you will be able to show clear examples of the behaviour you are dissatisfied with...

Its up to each of the members here, who have followed the threads, to decide for themselves whether or not they can take what other members say at face value.

If, for example, a member like simplesam06, who has contributed more than 3000 posts and, as far as one can tell, seems to be a valued member of www.boards.ie says ““I have to say I was very much surprised when I saw oB's posts in that thread, I've never seen anything like it in any other forum. The mod in question seemed to lead in with complaints about the user not replying to his posts, and then treating the apparently polite and civil responses very shortly indeed, before hinting heavily that the user might be sitebanned”, are you saying you can’t take anything he says at face value?

Or how about dlonfep who, with over 7000 posts, must carry some weight, said “I would also add that OB is not fit to moderate. He labelled me as Xenophobic and a terrorist supporter, when I am neither of which. I addressed him in a private message to discuss it and avoid cluttering the thread, and all he had to say is that he didn't want to talk about it. He is a moderator and if he makes such accusations, then he should at least allow me to discuss it with him.”

Or do you think it worth following up with members like that, especially in light of the sheer number of members who do seem to hold a similar opinion. Even OB himself says he is “tired” responding to those who hold similar opinions?

Fysh wrote: »

Can we have some examples please? It's getting really tedious reading posts from you that shout "FIRE!" while then being coy as to the severity and location of the blaze in question, and you're already well past the point of being compared to the boy who cried wolf...

I can only repeat that I am not qualified to speak on behalf of why others feel OB's behaviour has led them to the conclusions it has, and only they can tell you why.

In the meantime, we all make up their own minds on whether we believe all, or any, of the members who have said that they consider OB's behaviour to be unacceptable are doing so because they genuinely believe it, or because they enjoy making mischief.