A bit harsh I would say

FlutterinBantam

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055477299

Original post

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58849279&postcount=8

My reply

I would have thought that was a fair reflection of opinion about that sort of behaviour in these times?

Got infracted for it.

Doctor DooM

You called someone a prick, you got infracted... Right call tbh, sure an infraction is just a slightly less friendly warning.

FlutterinBantam

Thing is I didn't call someone a prick.

I referred to "acting the prick".

Anyway it's no big deal but I just thought it was a tad harsh.

Anti

I think its a bit harsh tbh, telling someone to stop acting the prick is not akin to calling him a prick. Maybe the wording could have been different though.

oleras

SDooM wrote: »

You called someone a prick

No he didnt.

FlutterinBantam

Indeed... however it was the way I felt and I considered it before posting believe it or not:eek:

Immature or insensitive would have been better , I agree with you there.

Karl Hungus

Yeah, I think we could differentiate between calling someone a prick, and saying they're acting like one. It's like telling someone to cop on.

FlutterinBantam

Exactly, that's the way it was meant.

DeVore

and you are incapable of expressing that sentiment in an adult and civil manner??

DeV.

RoundyMooney

The point being, I think, that the chap was infracted (which, like it or not, is a sanction, however informal), for insulting another member, which he patently did not do.

I would put it down to simple error rather than any intentional harshness from the issuing mod.

FB has his moments, this is not one of them.

DeVore

And we wish FB a speedy return to mental well being after this most horrific of santioned beatings.

DeV.

RoundyMooney

Fairy snuff, so.

Doctor DooM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Thing is I didn't call someone a prick.

I referred to "acting the prick".

Anyway it's no big deal but I just thought it was a tad harsh.

My bad. Must quit speed reading.

Dr Galen

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Thing is I didn't call someone a prick.

I referred to "acting the prick".

Anyway it's no big deal but I just thought it was a tad harsh.

i think you summed it up there alright. A tad harsh is what it was. Alright its only an infraction but maybe FB is suffering here because of reputation. I know sometimes he can be a hard headed so and so and I've had run in's with him in the past, but fairs fair. Saying that though maybe said Mod just misead the post as SDoom did on this thread?

Boston

I now think less of FlutterinBantam

DeVore

Yeah, semantic hair-splitting and rhetoric-lawyering really works around here

DeV.

Rb

I can't say I was surprised to find this happened in AH tbh.

brendansmith

Rb wrote: »

I can't say I was surprised to find this happened in AH tbh.

Nor was I.

sceptre

RoundyMooney wrote: »

I would put it down to simple error rather than any intentional harshness from the issuing mod.

(Personal opinion below alert etc etc)
I wouldn't say it was harsh at all. You could try to make a case that the card could have been yellow instead but I'd have handed a card for it.

I've said to quite a few people lately when giving them yellows in particular (also reds but for similar offences at the same level mostly yellows) that while they may be dealing with what they consider to be an idiot and they may be dealing with someone I also reckon might be an idiot, they still don't get to imply that the person is an idiot. Or a prick. At least that's Politics/UL/Lit for you.

dr.bollocko

I felt that because of the ascerbic nature of the post and the fact that it was directed at the original poster an infraction was warranted.
I explained that in the PM to you Mr. Bantam.
I thought it was over the line but the difference is a semantic one and the argument even has me confused now to be honest.
I will open the floor to any co-mods C-mods or S-mods for an opinion and defer to that.

therecklessone

I think the OP acts like a prick all the time, and even I thought the infraction was a bit harsh.

dr.bollocko

OK yeah you guys are right. I have a mind of me own and having re-read it totally accept that I misread one thing for another.
I will get this infraction reversed and stop acting like a prick.
Apologies Mr. Bantam for the stain on the record. Will get it cleaned up now for you if you give me a few minutes.

FlutterinBantam

Fair play Doctor, I appreciate that,and kudos for saying it publicly.

I hope I won't come to your attention again.:p

Regards.

F. Bantam

tbh

poster asks a reasonable question, receives a reasonable answer from a reasonable mod and apologises for any hassle incurred.


what the fcuk is going on??!

DeVore

I've reversed it on the basis that Dr has reconsidered the case.

I'd ask that you (plural) refrain from using such phrases in future though, its a fine line between that and abuse and frankly, I'm not interested in tolerating people who walk it deliberately.

DeV.

DeVore

tbh wrote: »

poster asks a reasonable question, receives a reasonable answer from a reasonable mod and apologises for any hassle incurred.


what the fcuk is going on??!

There is a meteor on its way to Earth but I predict it will burn up in the atmosphere and land no bigger then the head of a chihuahua.

DeV.

RoundyMooney

Bollocko ranks even higher in my estimation now.

Kudos.

Ponster

An AH infraction over-turned?

An AH mod admitting to a mistake?

4 posts from Dev in the same feedback thread ???


It'll be rivers of blood next I bet (failing that rivers of lolcatz).

stovelid

Hey fun boys, get a room.

faceman

Theres alot of man love going on in here, im leaving through the back side door while I still can.

Rb

Was the post reported btw? Was somebody actually offended by it? How did this become an issue?

dr.bollocko

Nope not reported. I was just shooting from the hip like a mad man.
I'll do it again too most likely. You could be next. We'd best have a witch hunt.

Rb

Well, here's hoping the Community Manager curbs such shit moderation in the future.

tbh

Rb wrote: »

Well, here's hoping the Community Manager curbs such shit moderation in the future.

shame on you. That post makes you look really petty, man.

cornbb

Rb wrote: »

Well, here's hoping the Community Manager curbs such shit moderation in the future.

Let's hope they can cope with curbing such shit Feedback too :rolleyes:

Kiera

Rb wrote: »

Well, here's hoping the Community Manager curbs such shit moderation in the future.

Was wondering when the old Rb would show his ugly head.

Rb

tbh wrote: »

shame on you. That post makes you look really petty, man.

It's a pretty fair post as far as I'm concerned.

If people want to be ban/infraction/warning happy, they should be punished if/when they fuck up, particularly if it's recurring. As it is, it's either just laughed about or the mods defend eachother, or nothing is done.

So as I said, lets hope the CM sorts it out in the future, and bad mods are punished or removed more efficiently than as it is now and I've changed my stance to hoping that it's someone recruited externally, and not a Boardsie.

I don't see anything wrong with the suggestion anyway, I mean, if they're doing nothing wrong then surely there won't be an issue?

cornbb

Rb wrote: »

It's a pretty fair post as far as I'm concerned.

If people want to be ban/infraction/warning happy, they should be punished if/when they fuck up, particularly if it's recurring. As it is, it's either just laughed about or the mods defend eachother, or nothing is done.

So as I said, lets hope the CM sorts it out in the future, and bad mods are punished or removed more efficiently than as it is now and I've changed my stance to hoping that it's someone recruited externally, and not a Boardsie.

I don't see anything wrong with the suggestion anyway, I mean, if they're doing nothing wrong then surely there won't be an issue?

The mod in question publically worked things out in an extremely amicable fashion with the poster in question. All parties and observers are happy with the outcome, except for Rb who decides to holler about punishing "bad" mods. The mind boggles. What punishment would you propose? Docking his pay? Forty e-lashes of the lolcat-o-nine tails?

Rb

cornbb wrote: »

The mod in question publically worked things out in an extremely amicable fashion with the poster in question. All parties and observers are happy with the outcome, except for Rb who decides to holler about punishing "bad" mods. The mind boggles. What punishment would you propose? Docking his pay? Forty e-lashes of the lolcat-o-nine tails?

My point is that it shouldn't have happened in the first place. I don't particularly care about how it was resolved.

Ponster

Rb wrote: »

So as I said, lets hope the CM sorts it out in the future, and bad mods are punished or removed more efficiently than as it is now

One of the worst things I've ever seen posted on Boards.

Begin 'punishing' or removing mods because they infract someone by mistake then it's "goodbye mods" and goodbye Boards.ie

"Bad" mods should be instructed as to how to how they could look at things differently and treat matters in a different manner, not punished.

cornbb

Rb wrote: »

My point is that it shouldn't have happened in the first place. I don't particularly care about how it was resolved.

Doesn't the fact that it was resolved so civilly, with mutual respect, say far more about the people involved than the fact that it happened in the first place?

Flutt made a fair comment albeit with a bit of a harsh tongue. dr. bollocko didn't like his tone of voice so gave him a slap on the wrist. Flutt pointed out that it wasn't worthy of a wristslap, in his opinion. The matter was discussed civilly here and like a gent, dr. B. admitted that maybe he was a bit hasty. Flutt says "Fair play doc" and there is a bit of backslapping and mutual love, and then you come in on the tail end of things with snide and cynical comments about how sh*t the moderating in AH is.

If you really feel that the standard of moderating in AH is so bad that bad decisions need to be "punished" I'd love to see you start a thread of your own, rather than trying to score a few points against the AH mods in the dregs of this thread.

Rb

Ponster wrote: »

One of the worst things I've ever seen posted on Boards.

Lol.

Ponster wrote:

Begin 'punishing' or removing mods because they infract someone by mistake then it's "goodbye mods" and goodbye Boards.ie

"Bad" mods should be instructed as to how to how they could look at things differently and treat matters in a different manner, not punished.

Um, no. If a mod is doing a bad job of the task they've taken on, they should be gotten rid of.

DeV had a bit of a rant about ad block here before, well bad moderation do a lot more damage to advertising revenue than adblock ever will.

Boston

Dr bollocko would have easily stuck to his original decision like so many other moderators would have. Instead he re-evaluated the infraction and admitted making a mistake. He should be commended for his actions not berated.

The criteria by which a moderator is judged is not how often they mess up but rather the actions taken when they inevitably do mess up.

Rb

cornbb wrote: »

Doesn't the fact that it was resolved so civilly, with mutual respect, say far more about the people involved than the fact that it happened in the first place?

No.

cornbb wrote:

then you come in on the tail end of things with snide and cynical comments about how sh*t the moderating in AH is.

If you really feel that the standard of moderating in AH is so bad that bad decisions need to be "punished" I'd love to see you start a thread of your own, rather than trying to score a few points against the AH mods in the dregs of this thread.

Oh I'm not isolating it to AH, if there's bad moderation anywhere on the site it should be dealt with in a more stern manner than it currently is, as far as I'm concerned.

I really don't see why you're getting so worked up over the suggestion, relax.

Overheal

Do you have some other standing evidence that the good Doctor is unfit or unable to perform his duties as a Volunteer Moderator?

Dades

Rb wrote: »

I really don't see why you're getting so worked up over the suggestion, relax.

Ya seem to have got a bit worked up yerself. :pac:

cornbb

Rb wrote: »

Oh I'm not isolating it to AH, if there's bad moderation anywhere on the site it should be dealt with in a more stern manner than it currently is, as far as I'm concerned.

I totally agree with you. Mods shouldn't get away with bad modding. But in this case, given some helpful and mature feedback, the moderator in question re-evaluated his decision, which was a very mature and sensible move. Sign of a great mod, IMO.

Besides, I think the issue of long-term, low-level trolling across the site is a far greater one than bad moderation, would you agree?

I really don't see why you're getting so worked up over the suggestion, relax.

Dude, you're the one who's calling for de-modding, rolling heads and so forth. Just sayin...

Terry

Rb wrote: »

It's a pretty fair post as far as I'm concerned.

If people want to be ban/infraction/warning happy, they should be punished if/when they fuck up, particularly if it's recurring. As it is, it's either just laughed about or the mods defend eachother, or nothing is done.

So as I said, lets hope the CM sorts it out in the future, and bad mods are punished or removed more efficiently than as it is now and I've changed my stance to hoping that it's someone recruited externally, and not a Boardsie.

I don't see anything wrong with the suggestion anyway, I mean, if they're doing nothing wrong then surely there won't be an issue?

Whoever gets the job will certainly have their work cut out for them.

Rb

Boston wrote: »

Dr bollocko would have easily stuck to his original decision like so many other moderators would have. Instead he re-evaluated the infraction and admitted making a mistake. He should be commended for his actions not berated.

Indeed he did and fair play to him for doing so, where as you said yourself many other moderators would not but as I said, this type of issue should never have arisen in the first place.

Instead of "Act - re-evaluate if/when it's brought up - fix if 'necessary'" it really should be a case of evaluating the situation thoroughly, consulting another mod if the situation is very thin and then acting. Particularly in the big, user drawing fora like Poker, AH, Soccer etc. Afterall, these are the fora that will bring in users and advertising revenue are certainly the starting points for many users on the site.

I realise it's easier said than done, and that obviously not every decision should take a day, but as in not so clear-cut decisions more care should be taken (imo) as seeing mods going OTT on small things will only deter new users.

Then, as I initially said, mods/cmods/smods who are seen to be continually messing up should be removed as it's just not good for the admins (revenue) and the growth of the community.

Not to mention it's very fucking annoying

Overheal wrote: »

Do you have some other standing evidence that the good Doctor is unfit or unable to perform his duties as a Volunteer Moderator?

I don't mean to target Bollocko but his "and I'll probably do it again" comment set me off a little.

Dades wrote: »

Ya seem to have got a bit worked up yerself. :pac:

:pac:

cornbb wrote: »

I totally agree with you. Mods shouldn't get away with bad modding. But in this case, given some helpful and mature feedback, the moderator in question re-evaluated his decision, which was a very mature and sensible move. Sign of a great mod, IMO.

It's certainly a sign that he's considerably better than a lot of mods, but he's no Ruu

cornbb wrote:

Besides, I think the issue of long-term, low-level trolling across the site is a far greater one than bad moderation, would you agree?

No.

cornbb wrote:

Dude, you're the one who's calling for de-modding, rolling heads and so forth. Just sayin...

Yeah but I'm relaxed while doing so, you appear to be bashing the ol' keyboard in an attempt to get one over on me.:)

julep wrote: »

Whoever gets the job will certainly have their work cut out for them.

Indeed, and if they do a bad job of it they should be sacked too.

tbh

Rb wrote: »

My point is that it shouldn't have happened in the first place. I don't particularly care about how it was resolved.

I think we all got that anyway rb. Stating the obvious like that makes you look like the type of guy who doesn't have enough class to walk past a chance to get a sly dig in. And I know you're not that type of guy rb

javaboy

I see what you did there.