Is there an clique on boards.ie who are immune to the rules?

Gandalf23

I was going to start a "help desk" thread about this, but I'll post here in "feedback" because I'd genuinely like to hear the community response to this issue.

We've already established that its ok for an Admin to indulge in personal abuse. Fair enough, the site belongs to the Admins and they can do whatever they please and cannot be banned/infracted.

But should others be immune from the general rules of boards.ie? If so, why is this allowed? Should not the rules of the site be applied equally to everyone? I've heard it said many many times on this site that mods are just regular users outside the forms they moderate and are subject to the rules of those forums. But is this really true or are some people here members of a clique to whom the rules do not apply?

An example of this is contained in another active feedback thread. A user called another poster a "****ing moron", and nothing seems to have been done about this (I'm open to correction on this). I've seen others banned and infracted for a LOT LOT less than this.

So, over to the community to discuss.

And just to add, the last time I started a thread like this I got a lot of personal abuse and attacks. I'm asking a genuine question and looking to start a genuine debate/discussion. Please, if you feel like contributing to this thread refrain from personal abuse and try to look at my question objectively. Objective feedback is what makes this community stronger, and sometimes it takes a real friend (not a "yes" man fanboi) to tell someone something they need to hear. This could be a good starting point for the new community manager, and I am genuinely interested in what the community has to say about this.

4zn76tysfajdxp

You can't ban someone who's quitting.

Gandalf23

Rhett Modern Chalk wrote: »

You can't ban someone who's quitting.

You can actually.

Latchy

Yup, he felt strongly enough to leave a parting shot at the poster in question, in that link although he may have being joking .

Mr Magnolia

Those posters are members here a lot longer than you or I so I wouldn't presume to know enough about the situation personally.

If the person 'abused' doesn't report the post then I don't see a problem with those 2 linked examples. Maybe they received the perceived 'abuse' and thought ' you know what, I am a cnut', who knows.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Gandalf23 wrote: »

You can actually.

Well yeah, you can, but it would be pointless.

Sully

Amp wasnt being abusive he was joking about. It wasnt meant to be taken seriously and anybody reading his posts should have got that.

If there is a clique, can somebody send me the details?! Id like to be part of any immunity going around danke.

Sherifu

Support your local clique.

There are people that know each other in RL here and it may change the way things are handled slightly. (imo)

Yavvy

There are exceptions that prove the rule perhaps ?

But I wouldn't question the integrity of the Boards admins and managers. If anything they have proved their integrity time and time again

Ron DMC

Sully wrote: »

If there is a clique, can somebody send me the details?! Id like to be part of any immunity going around danke.

I'm afraid it's a lot more exclusive than that Sully.

No one will PM you details on the clique, it doesn't work that way.

When and if you have shown yourself to be worthy, you will be contacted with details on how to become on of the elite.

Until then, you will need to wait with baited breath.

Kiera

#1 - The first rule of the clique is, you do not talk about the clique.
#2 - The second rule of the clique is, you DO NOT talk about the clique.

Bascially the Admins can do/say what they like. It's their site. Amp doesnt give a crap because he wants out anyway. Do you have anymore examples? Those two were pretty poor.

6th

I'm thinking of starting my own.

Hobart

Sully wrote: »

Well both amp and DeV are admins of the site.. Well amp *was*. Plus he wasnt being abusive he was joking about. It wasnt meant to be taken seriously and anybody reading his posts should have got that.

If there is a clique, can somebody send me the details?! Id like to be part of any immunity going around danke.

amp was never an admin.

Latchy

Once you become part of the clique you wish you had not .You cease to have any individuality ,which makes you unique in the first place

Gandalf23

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

If the person 'abused' doesn't report the post then I don't see a problem with those 2 linked examples. Maybe they received the perceived 'abuse' and thought ' you know what, I am a cnut', who knows.

Sully wrote: »

Well both amp and DeV are admins of the site.. Well amp *was*. Plus he wasnt being abusive he was joking about. It wasnt meant to be taken seriously and anybody reading his posts should have got that.

Are you guys really saying that it isn't personal abuse unless the "abused" person reports it!!???!!!

Thats the first time I've heard that one!

Is that the policy you guys adopt for personal abuse on the forums you mod?

I have seen many mods argue the exact opposite of that. There is a good example in the soccer feedback thread currently in feedback where a poster in receipt of "abuse" stated explicitly that he did not get abused but the abuser was still banned.

R0ot

There is no clique move along... :pac:

Sully

Hobart wrote: »

amp was never an admin.

oops. Dont know why I said that.

seamus

Gandalf23 wrote: »

But should others be immune from the general rules of boards.ie? If so, why is this allowed? Should not the rules of the site be applied equally to everyone?

Mostly. But then at the same time it is justified to take someone's past into account when taking action. If a poster has a long history on a board of being gruff and confrontational and generally stirring **** eventually pisses the mod off enough, they may be banned, without having done anything specific. Another poster, who's been continually helpful and a decent poster, loses the rag at the aforementioned troll and fires an outburst at him on the thread. Yet he gets an infraction.
On the face of it, the latter "offence" is more serious than the former. But the real point of moderation at all is to act in the best interests of the site/board; it's not to punish users and apply rules.

Hence rules should be applied in a way which best serves the interests of discussion, which doesn't mean that every incident must be treated equally.

But is this really true or are some people here members of a clique to whom the rules do not apply?

No. Aside from the admins, there's no-one who doesn't have to stick by the rules. Are more "seasoned" posters able to skirt the rules more than newer posters? I'd say so. But that's because it's a natural function of any kind of community - those with more respect within the community will be forgiven their transgression more readily than those who are unknown, purely because they have served the community well in the past, and will continue to do so.
Can that be amended? I don't know. I don't think it's a problem - people don't become respected posters by acting the tit, so it doesn't come up all that often.

An example of this is contained in another active feedback thread. A user called another poster a "****ing moron", and nothing seems to have been done about this (I'm open to correction on this).

On that particular post, the tone of it is more-or-less light-hearted and the poster it was directed at even thanked the post, indicating that perhaps they knew eachother, or in any case it wasn't taken as an insult or any kind of personal attack. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that there was no malice or offence intended in that post.

Again, looking at the canon of, "What's best for the site/forum", if everyone is laughing about a post and it's clear that there's been no offence or foul, then what purpose would banning or infracting accomplish?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sully

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Are you guys really saying that it isn't personal abuse unless the "abused" person reports it!!???!!!

Thats the first time I've heard that one!

Is that the policy you guys adopt for personal abuse on the forums you mod?

I have seen many mods argue the exact opposite of that. There is a good example in the soccer feedback thread currently in feedback where a poster in receipt of "abuse" stated explicitly that he did not get abused but the abuser was still banned.

No, thats not what I meant. Personally I think anybody who gives personal abuse should be spoken to but it depends entirely on the case.

FlutterinBantam

Of course there is a clique.

Anybody with a modicum of intelligence could see that.

Certain posters had immunity, and the Cuckoo's Nest was rife,I say rife, with cliquery and snide personal remarks from people who mistakenly believed themselves to be on a superior intellectual level to the ordinary user.

The departing incumbent was one of the worst offenders, one has only to read the rant posted and the number of times "idiot" is mentioned to form that opinion.

Then the usual circlejerk formed to defend the indefensible.

Same names same posts.

What they wanted was a showcase for their"talents" and "wit" with real names inserted to discourage the hesitant noob, and give the impression of an inner sanctum and intellectual dexterity which the ordinary Joe could only stare at open mouthed and gawp in "admiration"


Epic epic fail:cool:

Gandalf23

Thank you Seamus.

That was a truly excellent reply as usual.

Gandalf23

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I tend to agree with you there donegalfella. I think there is no excuse for abuse, and tends to have A "lowest common dominator" effect.

I liked the following post from Beru ... sort of sums it all up for me.

cornbb

I think you're right, there is a bit of a clique. Its not official or anything, its just that once someone has been around here for long enough they either tend to

a) get banned cause they can't behave themselves
b) get bored of the place and only drop in occasionally or never come back, or
c) really get into it, learn how things really work around here and get 10,000 posts, a modship and implied clique membership. This means they also tend to get the benefit of the doubt more often than a new member that people don't know very well.

Its not a big conspiracy or anything, its just a natural byproduct of a growing community.

Having said that no-one should be above the rules of the site, everyone should be subject to the same rules re. personal abuse etc. As for DeV, he is above the rules of course but I'm surprised to hear him say that to a user.

Latchy

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Of course there is a clique.

Anybody with a modicum of intelligence could see that.

Certain posters had immunity, and the Cuckoo's Nest was rife,I say rife, with cliquery and snide personal remarks from people who mistakenly believed themselves to be on a superior intellectual level to the ordinary user.

The departing incumbent was one of the worst offenders, one has only to read the rant posted and the number of times "idiot" is mentioned to form that opinion.

Then the usual circlejerk formed to defend the indefensible.

Same names same posts.

What they wanted was a showcase for their"talents" and "wit" with real names inserted to discourage the hesitant noob, and give the impression of an inner sanctum and intellectual dexterity which the ordinary Joe could only stare at open mouthed and gawp in "admiration"


Epic epic fail:cool:

Epic indeed . I am thinking of many other of posters who could have wrote that ,word for word, except the bit for the ordianry joe who wouldnt really be that intrested ( to much) in the inner sanctions or admiration of any cliques ,should they exist .:cool:




Just a humble opinon

Earthhorse

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In theory you are correct but in practise people are human beings. They will occasionally lash out at other users in an abusive manner. If they're a valued member of the community it shouldn't be the end of the world.

Insect Overlord

I just finished reading the Amp thread. Starting a Feedback thread based on another Feedback thread (especially that one) = FAIL.

Yes, there are rules, personal abuse ruins 99.9% of threads, but I think everybody knew that something very different was going on in that particular thread.

Gandalf23

An File wrote: »

Starting a Feedback thread based on another Feedback thread (especially that one) = FAIL.

Your feedback on this feedback thread which is based on another feedback thread = EPIC FAIL

The Recliner

Personally I think DeV as owner of the site is perfectly entitled to give someone who is using the site for free a bollocking if they block revenue generating ads

I am fairly sure in another thread he admitted his regret for flying off the handle a bit

On the Cliuqe thing I don't think one exists and don't care if one does, it is just another aspect of the community and doesn't affect most people one little bit

Gandalf23

Earthhorse wrote: »

In theory you are correct but in practise people are human beings. They will occasionally lash out at other users in an abusive manner.

But then they should be banned/infracted no?

Thats why there is a general "no abuse" rule across boards.ie.

Earthhorse

Gandalf23 wrote: »

But then they should be banned/infracted no?

Thats why there is a general "no abuse" rule across boards.ie.

Not in the example you quoted unless Chong reported the post.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ludo

Sully wrote: »

Amp wasnt being abusive he was joking about. It wasnt meant to be taken seriously and anybody reading his posts should have got that.

I believe this thread in feedback disproves this assertion. It was a humourous post (which nearly everyone got) which resulted in 15 people being banned from the soccer forum.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055463825

gandalf

Gandalf23 wrote: »

But then they should be banned/infracted no?

Thats why there is a general "no abuse" rule across boards.ie.

To the letter of the law he should have been disciplined but the smods or admins may have decided why bother if he is quitting.

TBH I would have banned him for the original thread because I got a splitting headache after I tried to read it !!!

Earthhorse

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's so occasional as to be unremarkable in my opinion. I've rarely witnessed it.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, I doubt we'll come to agreement on that in this thread but in my opinion part of being an adult is not being precious about using swear words where applicable or being afraid to call a spade a spade.

Dades

Let me tell you something, pendejo.

You pull any of your crazy **** with us, you flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, stick it up your ass and pull the fcuking trigger till it goes... "clique".

gandalf

LOL Dades Nobody ****s with the Jesus

Nevyn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't think it is with impunity I do think it is more to do with context which
some people may not be aware of which is just part of being a member of what had grown into a collection of communities here rather then just one big community.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hypocrisy or free will ?

I have been running that gauntlet and considering that argument of late myself with having well racked up 3 bans in two weeks.

I have to play by the rules in forums that I mod but I am not restricted in how
I express myself in other forums as long as I accept the consequences of my actions.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Cos not every post is about the growth model and revenue some times it is about shíts and giggles.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

People are not perfect, mods are people.

Gandalf23

Earthhorse wrote: »

Not in the example you quoted unless Chong reported the post.

Two mods have also said this (see above). I think this is a silly precedent, and I've heard the exact opposite argued for many many times. Have a read of the soccer thread just under this one in feedback to see the exact opposite being argued by many mods.

Insect Overlord

Ludo wrote: »

I believe this thread in feedback disproves this assertion. It was a humourous post (which nearly everyone got) which resulted in 15 people being banned from the soccer forum.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055463825

Every forum has a different feel/atmosphere about it among its regular users, but the soccer forum has to be modded more strictly than others because of the way things got way out of hand a few years ago.

Earthhorse

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Two mods have also said this (see above). I think this is a silly precedent, and I've heard the exact opposite argued for many many times. Have a read of the soccer thread just under this one in feedback to see the exact opposite being argued by many mods.

An File wrote: »

Every forum has a different feel/atmosphere about it among its regular users, but the soccer forum has to be modded more strictly than others because of the way things got way out of hand a few years ago.

What he said. Though, having read the original post in that Soccer thread I thought it was sailing close to the wind. I wouldn't worry too much about precedents; what we're looking for is a system in which people can use their judgement.

Daithi McGee

Gandalf23 wrote: »

But should others be immune from the general rules of boards.ie? If so, why is this allowed? Should not the rules of the site be applied equally to everyone? I've heard it said many many times on this site that mods are just regular users outside the forms they moderate and are subject to the rules of those forums. But is this really true or are some people here members of a clique to whom the rules do not apply?
.

I am a clique. Sorry for any hassle bosco.

:pac:

Gandalf23

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Hypocrisy or free will?

Hypocrisy.

And I've said it many times.

I was personally abused by a mod in feedback a few months ago. The mod was infracted, but he said he was glad he gave me personal abuse and the infraction was worth it. How can that mod have any moral authority when he bans someone in any of his forums for personal abuse. Its the worst kind of mealy mouthed double standards, and sets a very bad example for the forum and the site as a whole.

Thaedydal wrote: »

I have to play by the rules in forums that I mod but I am not restricted in how
I express myself in other forums as long as I accept the consequences of my actions.

Accepted.

But do you think all users should be treated in a similar manner or that some should be immune from the site rules and able to abuse with no consequences?

Keano

Boards Clique = Priory of Sion

Earthhorse

Gandalf23 wrote: »

But do you think all users should be treated in a similar manner or that some should be immune from the site rules and able to abuse with no consequences?

They are treated in a similar manner - their past behaviour, the context of the thread and the content of their post was all taken into account. What you want is a hard a fast rule that is applied without context and, well, I don't.

Gandalf23

Earthhorse wrote: »

They are treated in a similar manner

Eh, no they haven't.

They have been treated in totally different ways.

Have you been paying attention?

Earthhorse wrote: »

What you want is a hard a fast rule that is applied without context and, well, I don't.

I'd appreciate if you could support that assertion by linking to where I said that.

Or did you just imagine I said that?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Gandalf23 wrote: »

How can that mod have any moral authority when he bans someone in any of his forums for personal abuse.

Mods aren't moral authorities. They are charged with keeping the peace on a specific forum. They're caretakers, not authorities.

Its the worst kind of mealy mouthed double standards, and sets a very bad example for the forum and the site as a whole.

With respect, it's only a double standard if the moderator believes that he shouldn't be infracted.

Earthhorse

Gandalf23 wrote: »

They have been treated in totally different ways.

Have you been paying attention?

Have you. I already explained how they were treated similarly; if you care to come back to me on that I'll listen.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

I'd appreciate if you could support that assertion by linking to where I said that.

Well, it seems to be what you want - the same outcome every time. What do you want then, spell it out for me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Daithi McGee

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Hypocrisy.

And I've said it many times.

I was personally abused by a mod in feedback a few months ago. The mod was infracted, but he said he was glad he gave me personal abuse and the infraction was worth it. How can that mod have any moral authority when he bans someone in any of his forums for personal abuse. Its the worst kind of mealy mouthed double standards, and sets a very bad example for the forum and the site as a whole.




Accepted.

But do you think all users should be treated in a similar manner or that some should be immune from the site rules and able to abuse with no consequences?

I am not replying to what I quoted from you Gandalf23 but life is full of hypocrisy. You can get cliques anywhere, work for example. Boards cannot help if cliques form nor can they admit to dealing with everyone in the exact same manner, I'd imagine They do try though and that is probably the best part.

Were they really a shower or cnuts (not that you are saying that or even suggesting it) I'd say we would have seen it by now. In fact they are very reasonable and very tolerant people. Way more than about 90% of boards. I pulled that 90% out of my ass by the way. But they are people too and let him who has not sinned chuck the first rock, at me if you like.

I had a better point but I can't remember it