Overbearing?

Jazzy

was reading after hours when i spotted this -

julep wrote: »

kawasaki's?

meboloxitis wrote: »

It's dub code for pakistani's

julep wrote: »

Ahh. I see.
That's a fairly racist remark.
Banned.

Da Bounca wrote: »

Joke?

julep wrote: »

No.

If you have a problem with that, take it to the help desk.

Da Bounca wrote: »

If I have a problem with your jump down the throat attitude, do I also take that to the help desk?

julep wrote: »

Also banned.

then the following thread in helpdesk -
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055474770

i know its hard to be a mod, especially in a busy forum like after hours but at the same time it doesnt seem that some mods realise its human beings they are talking to. wat i see above is an abrasive attitude and a threatening nature to a poster who asked a fairly simple question.
he was banned for "argueing" but as far as i can see that is only the personal opinion of the mod in question. i see a reaction from a poster to be told to go elsewhere and yes, its a human reaction. you take that line with ppl wat do you think you are going to get back?

it seems to be implying that by being banned for "argueing" that its someone banning for personal reasons which isnt in the rules / guidelines. its the case of a mod using a personal opinion against their unbiased moderator opinion which does not equal out.

the problem as i see it is that moderating becomes a paranoid pursuit. the stick is used first and the threat of the stick then lingers over anything any mod posts. it creates a complete imbalance in discussion or potential debate. yes, i know dabounca in real life and hes probably one of the nicest people you could ever meet, but regardless of that there seems to be a complete imbalance as how you can actually talk with a moderator as they dont seem to treat ppl like humans, rather accounts that will potentially break rules.

modding seems to be seen as a privilege by some, to be able to always have this higher level of posting and ability on a forum. its a pretty sickening attitude as it creates a complete imbalance on wat are meant to be fair and even and well moderated forums.

overbearing? maybe the wrong word. over sensitive seems to suit better. respect reflects itself on people, if you dont give any and treat ppl with disregard then how can ppl respect you, never mind your position.

Jazzy

Kiera wrote: »

Terry told him to take it to Helpdesk and DaBounca fought back on thread (which is against the site rules) so he also got banned. I dont see the problem here?

he didnt "fight back". he responded as anyone would when told where to go. think about it, if terry had just said "yeah, i think kawasaki's can be counted as a form of racism due to its dismissive and isolating suggestion of a certain group of ppl" then there would be no issue.
but he chose the path of telling someone where to go when all they were looking for is a reason for an original infraction. and the wording of terrys original banning could have looked a little misleading.

sure it spells everything out:
"Thats a fairly racist remark.
banned"

but due to the nature of speaking in text and the nature of the after hours forum it would be very easy to mistake that as sarcasm. again, a bit more reasoning wouldnt have gone astray... instead what we find is a non-chalant attitude and an overwhelming air of "i know im right here because it says so beneath my nick", which is personal, which is something mods shouldnt be doing

hullaballoo

Was this thread really needed when it's been adequately run through over on the Help Desk? The user broke the rules of the forum and was banned for it. There's no problem there.

javaboy

Look there's a rule in place about questioning moderator decisions on thread. It's a global rule on Boards AFAIK. You have every right to question every single decision a mod makes but you do it by PM, Feedback or Help Desk. It really is as simple as that.

It doesn't matter whether Terry was right or wrong, that thread wasn't the right place to question the decision and you're all here long enough to know that by know.

Terry

Right, so you know Da Bounca.
So because you know him, you decided to test my reaction to this post in AH:

Jazzy wrote: »

a little sensitive arent we? he was only asking a question. no need for the threatening attitude.


when working in IMC cinema in dun laoighre i once had to break open a toilet door to find a junkie passed out having shat herself

If you check, you will see that I have no replied to that post.
Had I seen this thread before I replied to the other one, I would have banned you for trolling, because that's exactly what you were doing there.


I sufggest you read the AH charter.
It sepcifically states that there is to be no arguing on thread with a moderator.

AH Charter wrote:

Arguing with a moderator
- Do not argue with a moderator in a thread after they have given a warning or a ban etc. If you have an issue with a moderator's action then PM the mod in question. They will discuss it with you. You can then, if unsatisfied with the PM route, take things to Feedback.

Giving cheek or attitude to a moderator will get you banned.

Do not under any circumstances complain about a mod on this forum. Do it either on PM or in Feedback.

I've emboldened the relevant part there.
Now we have this:

Da Bounca wrote:

If I have a problem with your jump down the throat attitude, do I also take that to the help desk?

There's also a bit of personal abuse in there, but I'll overlook that for the time being.

Through mediation with seamus I have reduced the ban from 7 to 4 days.

In relation to the statement questioning my reasons for being a moderator here; I do it because I enjoy using the site and I can give something back to the site by helping to moderate it.
In no way do I see myself as some almighty authourity. I'm merely a janitor tasked mostly with cleaning up threads, removing spam and banning the odd person every so often. Any moderator who sees themself as anything more than that is overestimating their power.

You say that your friend in a nice person. I don't doubt it but I treat every single person, from new members right up to the owners, in the same way.
I've said it many times here and I'll say again that if an Admin was to break a rule in AH, I would request they not post there for x amount of time (I don't have the ability to ban them).


Note for other Smods: seamus did suggest this be taken up in feedback.

dr.bollocko

The first was banned for racism. "Kawasaki's" FFS. Is that supposed to be funny or something? What was the point of that throw-away little dig? The other for questioning and abusing a mod.
I am sure that if there was a USB hugging machine invented that Terry would have reached out across cyberspace and wrapped them both in huggles and love after the chastisement to ensure they grow up to be big boys but technology has only come so far.

Jazzy

julep wrote: »

Right, so you know Da Bounca.
So because you know him, you decided to test my reaction to this post in AH:



If you check, you will see that I have no replied to that post.
Had I seen this thread before I replied to the other one, I would have banned you for trolling, because that's exactly what you were doing there.

no i posted that and then left it. sum1 suggested to me to start a feedback thread, so i did. stick first tho....

terry wrote:

There's also a bit of personal abuse in there, but I'll overlook that for the time being.

you're so kind.
wat kind of reaction where u expecting? are u so blunt to everyone that you cant see that your attitude to dabounca might have been reflected back?


what im saying is dont be non-chalant and just ban because you can. look at wat ppl (in this case dabounca) might have been asking before taking that decision and telling them where to go. respect reflects itself and you didnt treat dabounca with respect when you told him where to go. an answer giving your reasons would have stopped all this wouldnt it? and it wouldnt have taken long at all, a sentence or 2. instead we have 2 threads and a jamboree

Terry

Jazzy wrote: »

he didnt "fight back". he responded as anyone would when told where to go. think about it, if terry had just said "yeah, i think kawasaki's can be counted as a form of racism due to its dismissive and isolating suggestion of a certain group of ppl" then there would be no issue.
but he chose the path of telling someone where to go when all they were looking for is a reason for an original infraction. and the wording of terrys original banning could have looked a little misleading.

sure it spells everything out:
"Thats a fairly racist remark.
banned"

Nobody said he fought back. He questioned my moderating on thread and did so in a snide way.

As for the post in which I stated that I had banned someone, I don't feel the need to pull out a thesaurus every time I ban someone.
Most of the time I'll just post the one word.

I asked the OP what he had meant by the use of the word "Kawasaki" as I suspected it may have been a ricist term.
He confirmed it was a racist term, so I banned him.
I think my post was quite clear and concise. There really is no need for a novella when you ban someone.

but due to the nature of speaking in text and the nature of the after hours forum it would be very easy to mistake that as sarcasm. again, a bit more reasoning wouldnt have gone astray... instead what we find is a non-chalant attitude and an overwhelming air of "i know im right here because it says so beneath my nick", which is personal, which is something mods shouldnt be doing

I'm not always right.
I've made countless mistakes, but I was right this time.
I stand by my decision.

Funky wrote: »

Pretty sure that could be considered colloquial language rather than racism, something similar to Cockney talk. I didn't know what it meant when I first read it, neither did the mod, so yes how very offensive.

Rhyming slang or not, a racist term is just that.

I know After Hours is busy and is probably a tough job moderating, but that's no excuse to act like this in my opinion. Bit of respect goes a long way, especially in moderating.

Respect is a two way street.
I gave Da Bounca the option of taking his complaint to the help desk. He chose to ignore that and ignore the rules of the forum.

javaboy

Jazzy wrote: »

no i posted that and then left it. sum1 suggested to me to start a feedback thran answer giving your reasons would have stopped all this wouldnt it? and it wouldnt have taken long at all, a sentence or 2. instead we have 2 threads and a jamboree

Yes he could have explained the reasoning and so on and yes dabounca would have been happier and nobody would have been banned and it would all have been rosy.... but the thread would have been dragged further off topic. Not such a big loss in that individual case but that's why the rule is there. Just look at the old Feedback ban appeal threads. You'd basically have that transplanted into somebody's thread.

It's not the way things are done here. There's a very clear rule in the charter in AH and most other forums about it. dabounca broke that rule and got banned.

Da Bounca

I broke no rule.

julep's words look like he was joking. He was too blunt in telling me it was not a joke. I was too blunt in telling him he didn't have a nice attitude.
I was banned.

So. What was i banned for? Arguing.
Plain and simple, there was no argument. Therefore the ban should be lifted.

The ban is for the opinion I expressed about julep's attitude. Not questioning his actions, which by the way are highly dubious in themselves.

javaboy

Da Bounca wrote: »

I broke no rule.

julep's words look like he was joking. He was too blunt in telling me it was not a joke. I was too blunt in telling him he didn't have a nice attitude.
I was banned.

So. What was i banned for? Arguing.
Plain and simple, there was no argument. Therefore the ban should be lifted.

The ban is for the opinion I expressed about julep's attitude. Not questioning his actions, which by the way are highly dubious in themselves.

Terry quoted this bit from the AH charter earlier:

Giving cheek or attitude to a moderator will get you banned.

You broke that rule at the very least.

Terry

Da Bounca wrote: »

I broke no rule.

julep's words look like he was joking. He was too blunt in telling me it was not a joke. I was too blunt in telling him he didn't have a nice attitude.
I was banned.

So. What was i banned for? Arguing.
Plain and simple, there was no argument. Therefore the ban should be lifted.

The ban is for the opinion I expressed about julep's attitude. Not questioning his actions, which by the way are highly dubious in themselves.

I've been through this with you via countless PMs. I have explained the reason behind the ban.
I have told you that I will not be lifting the ban.
I offered a compromise, but you decided that it wasn't good enough.
Once again, I will not be lifting the ban.

Funky wrote: »

The OP obviously didn't consider it racist, I don't consider it racist either after knowing what it means because I can't see anything offensive in it. Would it not have made more sense to edit his post to Pakistanis and send him a little PM explaining that though this might be how he speaks that incase this somehow does offend someone to refrain from using language like this.

Seems a tad more reasonable than "oh that's what it means, banned".

I very much doubt the OP goes into work and says something along the lines of 'are many of your kawasaki family over here?'
Every single racist remark I see on AH gets a ban. There are absolutely no exceptions.

Terry

tallaght01 wrote: »

should we not be banning people AFTER they get a warning?

Though I don't know if Da_Bouncer is a serial troublemaker. Or the guy who used the "K word".

I'm not familiar with either user.

Da Bounca was asked to take any problems to the help desk. That's warning enough in my eyes.
See above for action taken on racist remarks.

Jazzy

julep wrote: »

Nobody said he fought back. He questioned my moderating on thread and did so in a snide way.

he was told to buzz off to a different forum to get an answer to a question u didnt even know he was asking (are you being sarcastic or not). wat do you expect from people?

terry wrote:

As for the post in which I stated that I had banned someone, I don't feel the need to pull out a thesaurus every time I ban someone.
Most of the time I'll just post the one word.

and do u not see how that can be considered frustrating and can cause problems such as this? a bit of clarity wouldnt have gone astray. to only use one word in reasoning is very smug, no matter wat way u look at it.
im not saying pull out a thesaurus, thats an exaggeration to the point im making in order to debunk my arguement, im saying be a bit more clear and remember that its people you are dealing with, no accounts. respect is reflected.

sure it all looks black and white and i was expecting the united front appraoch, as is the way on boards. but i think the mods here are blankly disregarding wat im saying in order to look at the issue in the blackest and whitest terms they can. again that seems to be a "when it suits" issue. it was a term you had never heard before, and neither had dabounca. this therefore is a bit of a grey area isnt it? and when asked about your language and tone (using only one word, a technique not uncommon to yourself it seems), u told dabounca where to go. you could have just written one line on explaining why you thought this new word was racist, but no, you chose to follow the rules exactly and de-humanise proceedings. its almost like you were looking to moderate instead of talking and discussing.. which is all these forums are about.

sure the thread would have gone OT for maybe 1 or 2 posts but thats it. there was no need to be so stringent and anal.

dr.bollocko

Racism and racist remarks get you banned from AH. No warnings.
The incitement to troll or take a topic and run with it is too much and can happen too quickly for us to edit a post all nicely, pm a user "please dont do it again LOLZORS". You have seen the charter. This is in breach. The user has been banned.

Terry

tallaght01 wrote: »

To be absolutely honest with you Terry, it didn't look like a "warning". It looked like you didn't like the guy. It was one of those situations where you both looked bad, but he's the one who gets banned.

Although I personally don't regard "kawasaki" as racist, and don't think most people would either, I can see where you're coming from with that. But maybe a quick edit of the post, as I'm not really sure the OP was being intentionally racist.

But the second one just looked spiteful. Though you have to run the forum as you see fit, but it just looked bad.

As I said, I don't tolerate any racist remarks in AH.
I'll tell you now in all honesty that I really don't care if the user thought he was being racist or not. It could be that he's an idiot. I don't know this, but we don't ban people for being idiots.
I can't read people's minds, so I have no idea where they are coming from when they post something like that. He could turn around and tell me that he didn't realise it was racist, but I've seen too many trolls and racists use that line to be fooled by it any more. As a result of this, I issue blanket bans on any racist posts.

Jazzy wrote: »

he was told to buzz off to a different forum to get an answer to a question u didnt even know he was asking (are you being sarcastic or not). wat do you expect from people?

No. He was not told to buzz off.
He was told where to take any questions or complaints about moderating decisions.
It's a standard line and one I use quite often.

and do u not see how that can be considered frustrating and can cause problems such as this? a bit of clarity wouldnt have gone astray. to only use one word in reasoning is very smug, no matter wat way u look at it.
im not saying pull out a thesaurus, thats an exaggeration to the point im making in order to debunk my arguement, im saying be a bit more clear and remember that its people you are dealing with, no accounts. respect is reflected.

sure it all looks black and white and i was expecting the united front appraoch, as is the way on boards. but i think the mods here are blankly disregarding wat im saying in order to look at the issue in the blackest and whitest terms they can. again that seems to be a "when it suits" issue. it was a term you had never heard before, and neither had dabounca. this therefore is a bit of a grey area isnt it? and when asked about your language and tone (using only one word, a technique not uncommon to yourself it seems), u told dabounca where to go. you could have just written one line on explaining why you thought this new word was racist, but no, you chose to follow the rules exactly and de-humanise proceedings. its almost like you were looking to moderate instead of talking and discussing.. which is all these forums are about.

sure the thread would have gone OT for maybe 1 or 2 posts but thats it. there was no need to be so stringent and anal.

I don't know what to tell you.
I was quite clear in what I wrote on that thread.
If I say someone is banned, then they are banned.
If I suggest someone take their grievances to the help desk, then that's exactly what I mean.
I don't mince my words.

As for the united front thing, well I'm fighting a battle here against three people here, two of whom are friends.
I have not asked anyone to back me up here. I'm quite capable of fighting my own battles.
If other people was to give their feedback on the situation, then so be it, whichever side they take.

tallaght01 wrote: »

Are either of these users such a threat to the fabric of AH that they need to be banned from it?

Yes.
It's very rare that someone is banned for arguing on thread with a moderator. It's a disruptive thing and if one person is seen to get away with it, then it will just end up with everyone doing the same thing.
This is not to be read as me making an example of Da Bounca. Merely nipping it in the bud before it gets out of hand.

Yet again, the other person was banned for a racist remark. This is something not tolerated in AH.

If you think that you can't carry out the appropriate actions to deal with posters in time, then get more mods.

There's always such a hand shandy session when an AH modship comes up for grabs that you'd have no bother fgetting some of the kids on board.

We have enough mods in AH for the time being.
If we feel that we need more, then we will discuss it with the Cmod and take things from there.

Da Bounca

julep you have repeatedly told me that I argued with you. It's obvious I didn't, you just have to read the post. What is also obvious is that it was my remark about your attitude that got me banned, not for any other reason.

You stopped contact via PM without discussion, so this countless PM malarky is a spin on the truth. I have had to discuss the matter with another moderator.

The fact that kawasaki isn't a racist remark is besides the point. Or maybe that should be the real topic...
My point is, that you banned me for not liking your attitude and voicing this opinion, and that is not moderating, that is using your power for a personal reason. That is not allowed.

Further, the man you labelled a racist got a ban for 4 days. The ban you gave me was for 7 days. That also shows that it was for personal reasons as who would give a ban for arguing 7 days and one for racism 4 days? Did I also mention, I didn't argue?

If a person, anyone, including the moderators of boards is rude to me for no apparent reason, you are damn right they will get snappy words returned to them. I don't think this can be categorised as giving cheek or attitude as it is a reaction to julep's inital actions.

julep you say respect is a two way street, I agree. Your actions do not match your words though. You immediately treated me with no respect, nor did you show any sign of respect for the thread or OP's banning. You say that I responded to you in a snide way, well what do you expect when you behave in the manner you did. Actions have consequences, and you didn't think yours through.

As I said to you in PM, this ban is still in place because you are stubborn and don't want to lose face.

Beruthiel

Jazzy wrote: »

overbearing? maybe the wrong word. over sensitive seems to suit better. respect reflects itself on people, if you dont give any and treat ppl with disregard then how can ppl respect you, never mind your position.

Terry was voted Mod of the Year by the users of this site a couple of months ago.
We can assume from that, that he has the respect of a lot of people here.

This thread is moved to the Help Desk.

Jazzy

julep wrote: »

No. He was not told to buzz off.
He was told where to take any questions or complaints about moderating decisions.
It's a standard line and one I use quite often.

he was told where to go. u couldnt humanise yourself even for a second to explain why this phrase neither of you knew was racist, or even that you were being serious? you offered little explanation and reacted in a knee-jerk fashion to being asked if it were a joke and then banned him when u got an appropriately human reaction from dabounca back.

this is my point, boards isnt for robots and you have to understand that there is human elements as to what is going on. you seem far too internetted and boardsed out of it to seem to understand that. everything is cut and paste and when a grey area does come up your first instinct is to moderate and ban instead of looking at things 50/50. sure, you may be right to ban the OP but can you not see the grey area? and if not, how are you a mod?

terry wrote:

As for the united front thing, well I'm fighting a battle here against three people here, two of whom are friends.

the united front thing is basically something that happens all the time. its common practice for forums from here to timbucktoo for mods to put on the same face and back each other up. wat i have seen here from the other after hours mods is black & white jargon which isnt actually addressing anything i am saying. its all the same "well the rules say......" which is a very nice way of ppl giving the appearance of being right without having to think deeper or further.

think about it. if u had been human for that minute or 2 and just gone "well this term neither me or you knew about is racist because of x,y & z" then there wouldnt be this kufuffle. you werent human tho, u were looking to moderate.. and that isnt necessary all the time. a case of over-moderating and hence the title of this thread - overbearing.

Beruthiel wrote: »

Terry was voted Mod of the Year by the users of this site a couple of months ago.
We can assume from that, that he has the respect of a lot of people here.

means nothing really in the context of wat this thread is about. its not about the ability to mod, more so to know when to be a human

Jazzy

this isnt a helpdesk issue. i dont need help.
its a feedback thread. it shouldnt have been moved

Beruthiel

Feedback is for comments on the site.
Help Desk is for complaints.

seamus

FWIW, I told anyone who had a problem with julep's general attitude to go to Feedback.

However, Jazzy does seem to have decided to focus on one particular issue rather than any kind of general issue.

Jazzy

the general issue i am commenting on is that mods need to know when to mod and when to be human. the example in this thread is a good representation of exactly what i am talking about. the exact same thing also happens in the soccer forum, on which i post frequently. it is a general issue and not anything specific. thats why i posted in feedback in the first place.

the specific incident in this thread is and can be applied to all forums. sure if the mod of the year can be called into question on this, then surely it would be feedback on boards.ie as a whole ?

Jazzy

so nothing then. deadly