Soccer mods' unreasonable interventions

SectionF

Hello,

I'd like to register here my objection to the unreasonable and all-too-eager interventions by mods in the Soccer forum. I understand that all forums need moderation, and that football in particular can raise the temperature, but it is my belief that the mods are using these considerations to justify very heavy-handed treatment of posters.

I don't know if my raising the problem will give the mods pause for thought before they weigh in with their scissors next time, or instead add energy to their censoring impulse, but it's probably best to be honest about it. So here goes.

I have already raised the issues of arbitrary and inconsistent moderation, to the detriment of free expression, and without reference to any clear rule or policy, in relation to a discussion of support for Sunderland FC.

In the latest instance of little Hitlerism, in a thread highlighting Green Party involvement in planning issues affecting Drogheda United, a moderator has intervened to warn all and sundry off discussing politics, and threatening to lock the thread. It could be argued that football is inherently political (I certainly believe so) but, even if one disagrees with that, it is very difficult to discuss planning in Meath Co. Council and the actions of councillors, which have had a dramatic impact on the 2007 League of Ireland Champions, without discussing politics.

The subsequent passage in which this risible no-politics stance is challenged has been deleted, and the impression given that the mod in question was right to intervene, thus casting doubt on the validity of the discussion and those party to it. In anticipation of such gamesmanship, I saved the thread, so it is available to anyone who is interested.

Outside of PMs, responses to which vary from snippy to hostile, with threats of bans, is there some boards.ie-wide mechanism whereby we can ask mods in Soccer to lighten up? Or are we stuck with a digital version of 1950s, hierarchical Ireland, with laughably immature and stunted public debate thanks to the actions of a powerful elite who reckon they know best?

I am sorry if I seem to have a bee in my bonnet about this. I suppose one could say it's only the Internet, and therefore expect such daftness. But I do tend to take exception when someone, without good reason other than my not swooning over their brand of football, takes it upon themselves to tell me what to say and what to think.

therecklessone

SectionF wrote: »

In the latest instance of little Hitlerism

I resent that, and you do your argument no favours by choosing to attack the soccer moderators in such a way. I'll leave it to the SMods or Admins to deal with your complaint though, I'm happy to provide any info they require. For their benefit, the thread in question is here and I have exchanged a number of PMs with the OP which I'm willing to publish (with his permission of course) or forward on.

sceptre

OK, firstly the "little Hitlerism" reference puts your case at a disadvantage - it makes the whole thing look like you're out for an argument and not willing to listen to anything that doesn't agree with you. To save time, from my perspective, I'm assuming you're not out for an argument and that you're looking for rationality.

The way I read the thread (incidentally, providing a link to the thread makes it way easier to find it when you're making a complaint, not necessary but very useful), including the deleted posts, is that the mods are trying to avoid the thread degenerating into some big discussion on politics in general or how politicians are scammers or how one party is crooked or at best, the influence of politics on professional sport in this country (the latter part is a direct quote from one of the moderators' posts).

In the thread you've introduced the idea that the moderators are trying to stifle discussion of anything that might in any way include anything to do with politics at all, including Italian teams' political affiliations (the latter part of this is a direct quote from one of your posts). In that, you seem to be arguing against something that wasn't suggested.

Chunks of the discussion were deleted. The discussion on the mod decision shouldn't have been on the thread in the first place - the soccer rules state this and they should have been introduced to the Help Desk or Feedback in any case rather than the soccer thread. That's not just a soccer thing - it's a rule that exists on pretty much every forum on boards.ie.

I reckon you'd like some acknowledgement that it was a mod comment that first set off the side discussion. It was. That was an error by the mod. An error that the mod was satisfied to recognise as his.

I have no examples of the PMs you've cited - the ones with "responses to which vary from snippy to hostile, with threats of bans" so what I'd suggest is that you ask the individuals involved for an OK to post their PMs if you'd like them considered. Otherwise, if you consider a PM to be abusive, you have the option of reporting it - there's a "report" button on the PM when you receive it.

I can fully understand how people can sometimes think (or some people can often think) that the soccer forum is completely over moderated. It's quite easy for people to forget what the forum was like before it was closed though and why for a time it had to be closed and looked like it wasn't going to return. I'm sure all the soccer mods are fine with reasonable points put reasonably to them on areas where there's room for occasional relaxation. Two of the comments following the mod post in the thread were "Are you really that trigger-happy?" and "Is this guy for real?" though, which is hardly a reasonable gambit.

If I thought the soccer forum was over moderated (as it happens, I don't but that's by the by), I'd engage with the mods either by PM, specifically avoiding Hitler accusations and trigger-happy questions, or by starting a Feedback thread with reasonableness at its core, hoping to work with the mods rather than row against them. In this scenario, the crazies coming out of the closet and shouting "right on" wouldn't be your allies, they're the ones making it harder for reasonable discussion to develop at all as they're just increasing the signal to noise ratio when it comes to useful feedback the soccer mods get.

therecklessone

sceptre, I believe the PMs the OP referred to were from my exchange with him, as you can see I've offered to publish them in full (with his permission).

Dub13

Hello,

The Drogheda United thread was a case were the mod in question made a call and then reviewed his actions,IMO this is good moderation.The mod in question is a new mod to the soccer forum and is finding his feet.

This is not a major issue in my mind,LL tired to pre-empt the thread turning into a slate the greens thread and away from the issue at hand.A more experienced mod may have watched over the thread and then taken action when /if it got out of hand.We all live and learn and the thread is still going,no harm done IMO.

I don't think this one issue reflects the rest of the forum.

Your OP mentions 'interventions',you will need to post more examples before we could comment.I am not stone walling you here I don't know what threads you are taking about.

Dub13

LuckyLloyd

sceptre wrote: »

I reckon you'd like some acknowledgement that it was a mod comment that first set off the side discussion. It was. That was an error by the mod. An error that the mod was satisfied to recognise as his.

Yep, I have no problem with the fact that I made a mistake. But, as we do with any decisions we soccer mods are unsure of, I started a thread in the soccer mod's forum and asked for some advice. Upon receiving clarification that I was being too hasty and the thread should be allowed to remain open - I deleted all OT discussion so that people would be able to go in and discuss the original post as they saw fit.

Since that has been done, there have been a few on topic replies and a discussion on the subject has taken off.

So yes - I made an error, no doubt. But we corrected it and the thread is now alive and well.

GuanYin

Aside from anything else, I can move the political posts to the Politics forum if you so wish.

While you may find the actions unreasonable, the mods are simply trying to facilitate the smooth running of the forum, sometimes that may conflict with the wishes of certain individuals, however it is an unfortunate truth that you can't keep all of the people happy all of the time. And on that subject, while I understand you have certain opinions, discussion of soccer moderation in the soccer forum is not permitted. We clearly state you can take it outside the forum but not inside.

Now this is the third instance of you ignoring this rule inside of a week. It may not have been clear to you before but I believe it should be perfectly clear by now (it seems that you started the helpdesk thread so I suspect you know this is where you go to complain) I don't expect to see you challenge moderation of the soccer forum, in the soccer forum again.

SectionF wrote: »

But I do tend to take exception when someone, without good reason other than my not swooning over their brand of football, takes it upon themselves to tell me what to say and what to think.

The soccer forum is a private forum, upon gaining access to the forum you agreed, directly, to abide by the forum rules. If you don't wish to abide by the forum rules then you should no longer post in the forum.

We will, in future, facilitate a discussion or review of the forum with the users, however, you must understand that there is a process for this, logistically speaking, where all users can be made aware of any rule changes.

For now, you will just have to follow the charter as you agreed if you wish to remain posting in soccer.

SectionF

All right. There are now five moderators in this discussion, which I think tells a story in itself. I don't mind that: as you know, I think there is a fundamental principle at stake.
In the interests of efficiency and time management, I'm going to let this mature for a couple of hours in case anyone else wants to contribute, then I will respond to the points made.
I'm happy for the PMs to be included in the discussion if it is agreed that the deleted passages from the original thread, of which I have a copy, and which have been cited selectively here already, are also published in full.

LuckyLloyd

SectionF wrote: »

I'm happy for the PMs to be included in the discussion if it is agreed that the deleted passages from the original thread, of which I have a copy, and which have been cited selectively here already, are also published in full.

Eh, fine:

LuckyLloyd wrote:

If this thread strays too far towards politics or political comment it will be locked.

SectionF wrote:

What? It's about politics and a politician! Are you really that trigger-happy?

Anto McC wrote:

Is this guy for real? I tell you what, we'll all stop talking about football shall we? Seeing as a good portion of it is business. First on the agenda will be to delete any threads that talk of transfers as thats business talk at the end of the day, regardless of it's ties to football.

LuckyLloyd wrote:

Yes, I am very much for real.

Anto McC wrote:

I'm sorry if this seems an obvious question but i'm just trying to get my head around this. You want us to refrain from talking about politics and politicians in a thead in which a politican is directly involved, and in which his actions may or may not have helped nearly kill a football club?

SectionF wrote:

And you have a politician and politics in your sig.

Gimmick wrote:

If it was a political move to block the stadium, then the obvious dirction of the thread is going to be political.

LuckyLloyd wrote:

There is a politics forum on boards.ie. If there is to be a discussion of the effect of Green party policies on professional sport in this country, I'm not sure that such a discussion shouldn't be held there than here.

In anycase, one of two things will happen in a few hours:

- thread will be closed and everyone invited to move the discussion;
- I'm going to delete this little series of posts (started by me I will admit) and the thread can continue;

waiting to hear back from the other mods. Maybe I am wrong, you shall see soon...

EDIT: either way, I'm not attempting to be a twat, or stifle discussion or anything else. I'm just genuinely unsure as to whether where this thread is headed is somewhere that should be located on the soccer forum...

SectionF wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for moderation, but frankly this is like something out of Father Ted.
Are you really sure you want to ban all discussion involving politics and football, forever?
What about Italian teams' political affiliations? Brazilian? Greek? Serbian? What about Scottish teams? And what about the huge amount of politics around football in Britain? Are you seriously suggesting that these are off-limits?
You mentioned Google in another thread. Have you ever Googled 'politics and football'?
As far as I am concerned, football is deeply political. You may think it's all about Sky subscriptions and merchandise, but that is a political position too.

At this point, following discussion in the soccer mods forum, the OT posts above were deleted - as explained on thread by therecklessone.

SectionF wrote:

There was no off-topic discussion other than that introduced by a mod. I think that needs to be acknowledged.

Xavi6 wrote:

FFS who cares who did what? The thread is here now to be discussed. Any issues you have with the modding of the thread then complain the appropriate way.

Seriously, the mod made a mistake, corrected it and you're still not happy.

CiaranC wrote:

Has there been some decision taken by the moderators to deliberately scupper every thread SectionF posts or what?

Some of us are interested in the wider issues around football, and not just Ronaldos latest haircut or the latest news in some foreign league.

Bull**** tbh

I am satisfied that all of the above should have been deleted as they are not on topic as far as the thread title is concerned. I also have no problem admitting that my first post was a mistake, and that all of the above posts were spawned by it. Again, I made an error. We rectified it. The thread has continued normally over the last couple of days.

Also, you should realize that all of the above are soft deleted and available for review by my fellow soccer mods, higher ranking mods and the Admins themselves.

Beruthiel

SectionF wrote: »

All right. There are now five moderators in this discussion, which I think tells a story in itself..

SectionF
The Help Deck forum only allows Admins and Smods post here.
When there is a complaint regarding a particular forum, the Mods of that forum are given access in order to reply.
This is the proceedure of this forum.
So I'm not sure what you mean by saying you think their replies 'tell a sorry in itself'?
They are expected to reply after all...

therecklessone

Here is the full PM exchange between myself and SectionF, I've added in the relevant posts from the thread for the sake of context (in chronological order)

LuckyLloyd wrote:

On-thread, 21:06 (edited 21:08)

There is a politics forum on boards.ie. If there is to be a discussion of the effect of Green party policies on professional sport in this country, I'm not sure that such a discussion shouldn't be held there than here.

In anycase, one of two things will happen in a few hours:

- thread will be closed and everyone invited to move the discussion;
- I'm going to delete this little series of posts (started by me I will admit) and the thread can continue;

waiting to hear back from the other mods. Maybe I am wrong, you shall see soon...

EDIT: either way, I'm not attempting to be a twat, or stifle discussion or anything else. I'm just genuinely unsure as to whether where this thread is headed is somewhere that should be located on the soccer forum...

SectionF wrote:

On-thread, 21:22

Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for moderation, but frankly this is like something out of Father Ted.
Are you really sure you want to ban all discussion involving politics and football, forever?
What about Italian teams' political affiliations? Brazilian? Greek? Serbian? What about Scottish teams? And what about the huge amount of politics around football in Britain? Are you seriously suggesting that these are off-limits?
You mentioned Google in another thread. Have you ever Googled 'politics and football'?
As far as I am concerned, football is deeply political. You may think it's all about Sky subscriptions and merchandise, but that is a political position too.

Now it's clear from that exchange that SectionF should have known LL had admitted he might have been wrong to question the thread being posted, and that he was discussing the thread with us to see how it should move forward. It's also clear that SectionF had the opportunity to read LL's note that off-topic posts would be deleted if the thread was to continue, and that he had admitted the exchange was started by his first post

LuckyLloyd deleted the posts as he had promised at 21:24.

Following a question from another poster re. the disappearance of the off-topic posts, I posted the following:

therecklessone wrote: »

On-thread, 22:04

The off-topic discussion has been deleted [as Lloyd promised would happen] so that the thread topic can continue without distraction. Any problems, PM me to discuss.

I'd have thought it was clear from that post that the thread could continue, and that any poster who had a problem was invited to discuss the issue with me by PM. SectionF seems to have disagreed:

SectionF wrote:

On-thread, 00:01

There was no off-topic discussion other than that introduced by a mod. I think that needs to be acknowledged.

That is when I initiated my PM conversation with him, as follows:

therecklessone wrote:

By PM, 00:11

Hello,

You've clearly missed the hint in my last post in the above thread so I'll make myself quite clear now: if you have a problem with how the thread has developed then contact myself by PM and we can discuss it. Do not comment on moderating in-thread, in this case it is an attempt to drag a thread off-topic, and it's a topic that [you] argued passionately for the right to discuss so I'd expect you above all others to respect that.

If you have a problem with any of this and feel you cannot discuss the issue with me, then the Feedback or Helpdesk fora are available to air your grievance.

If you post on that thread again to question a mods decision I will issue you with an infraction for back-seat modding, and a ban for ignoring a moderator's warning.

Thank you, TRO.

Note: small additions in box brackets to correct grammar, and spelling mistake corrected in bold

SectionF wrote:

By PM, 10:06

My contribution to the thread clearly was not designed to drag a thread off-topic: it was the reverse, in response to an excitable mod who appears to be itching to get involved.
I have absolutely no problem with moderation provided it is fair, consistent and in keeping with clearly-stated rules. I will not accept amateur-hour modding and indeed will escalate it as an issue if I feel it is warranted, and I will be raising the deterioration in policy in the football forum of late.
The modding recently has become so over-exuberant that I have taken to recording threads in which there is any element of dissent or real debate.

therecklessone wrote:

By PM, 11:17

Your contribution added nothing to the topic that you wished to debate. You are entitled to an opinion just as every other poster is [mods included] but comment on moderation does not belong in-thread. Given that I have made that clear to you, I expect you to observe that section of the forum charter from this point onwards.

I cannot see how the point you made contributed to the topic, unless your intention was to score points over LuckyLloyd, which IMHO is rather petty.

By all means provide feedback on the performance of myself and my fellow mods, but please do so in the correct manner so as to allow yourself and other posters the opportunity to discuss football without distraction. I think that is a fair request to make, I hope you agree.

TRO

SectionF wrote:

By PM, 14:00

Well I've looked at the thread again and I don't think that, given his bizarre performance, since excised, LuckyLloyd's 'contribution' is accurately represented. He comes out smelling of roses, as if he intervened in some unsavoury dispute, whereas he was the one who caused it. A case of the cops investigating the cops...
I honestly am at a loss to know how to respond to other posters without inviting a similarly unwarranted intervention. I'll follow up when I have time.

therecklessone wrote:

By PM, 15:16

And I beg to differ. Lloyd's contribution doesn't need to be represented, unless for some reason you want to play a game of oneupmanship. The topic you introduced to the forum was being lost in the series of replies dealing with his actions, he posted saying that he was consulting his fellow mods about the thread and he would be deleting off-topic posts once that consultation had taken place. You should have been aware of that, since you posted a reply to him less than 20 minutes later. Funnily enough, there would be no mention of LuckyLloyd on the thread if it wasn't for CiaranC asking what had happened to the thread.

I don't understand your problem with continuing to post on the thread now tbh, it is clear that the topic has been given the green light, there is a valid debate to be had and the opportunity is there for you to advance your case. Where does the difficulty lie?

Incidently, we have received complaints re. the the thread title since it singles out the Green Party, when it appears the decision was taken by Meath County Council in it's entirety, and your own link mentions a Cllr Cuddy (who I believe is an Independent) in addition to the Green Cllr. I hope to get my hands on the current edition of the Village before I head into work tonight to read the article you've referenced, based on that I may choose to edit the thread title in the interests of fairness and accuracy.

Thank you.

I think it's also important to state for the record the visitors message SectionF left for Lucky Lloyd at 21:30 last night:

SectionF wrote:

Hello. I'd like to register a protest against your deleting of my posts. Frankly, I think that you are on a power trip akin to a bishop in 1950s Ireland. Can you please tell me what rules the posts have contravened?

SectionF

sceptre wrote: »

OK, firstly the "little Hitlerism" reference puts your case at a disadvantage - it makes the whole thing look like you're out for an argument and not willing to listen to anything that doesn't agree with you. To save time, from my perspective, I'm assuming you're not out for an argument and that you're looking for rationality.

I am seeking an argument, but in the best sense of the word. I wish to engage in a rational debate about the use of moderating powers in the Soccer forum. I think that conveniently selective umbrage is being taken at the term 'little Hitlerism', and that it is significant that you have chosen to open with this. It is not an ad hominem statement, referring as it does to the policy, and being shorthand for excessive and over-zealous bureaucratic rule enforcement. I used it quite deliberately. If my intention was merely to offend I would have called Lloyd or TRO a little Hitler, though I am sure they have been called worse, either in the Soccer forum or since they are football fans, at a match.

The way I read the thread (incidentally, providing a link to the thread makes it way easier to find it when you're making a complaint, not necessary but very useful), including the deleted posts, is that the mods are trying to avoid the thread degenerating into some big discussion on politics in general or how politicians are scammers or how one party is crooked or at best, the influence of politics on professional sport in this country (the latter part is a direct quote from one of the moderators' posts).

There was no suggestion of corruption, either in the OP or in the responses to it. Nor is there any sign of a trend towards such an accusation, which would indeed be a serious matter. There is no comment whatsoever on the politicians' motivation, and no specific or implied sentiment that he has acted improperly. The post addresses a policy decision and its effect without reference to the reasons for that decision.

I can see nothing wrong, and a lot that is right, about a specific thread growing, by design or serendipity, into a more general discussion about the undoubtedly large and not always benign influence of politics on professional or other sports in this country, in the EU and even globally. Similarly, the discussion could move to the influence of business and economics, or the philosophical dimensions of sport. I am mystified as to why anyone with a presumed interest in public debate would want to put limits on such a discussion, or see it as degeneration. If it produced a fork that might confuse, this could be dealt with in a moderate way by splitting the thread.

In the thread you've introduced the idea that the moderators are trying to stifle discussion of anything that might in any way include anything to do with politics at all, including Italian teams' political affiliations (the latter part of this is a direct quote from one of your posts). In that, you seem to be arguing against something that wasn't suggested.

I think this should be read in conjunction with Lloyd's own sweeping intervention. The Italian and other international scenarios are specific examples to illustrate his then position, as an illustration of its absurdity. I'm sure it would be perfectly plausible to see a post in the forum relating to such affiliations, for example, if someone had just read, and wanted to share opinions on Frankin Foer's How Football Explains the World', with chapters on 'the New Oligarchs' and 'the Discreet Charm of Bourgeois Nationalism'.

Chunks of the discussion were deleted. The discussion on the mod decision shouldn't have been on the thread in the first place - the soccer rules state this and they should have been introduced to the Help Desk or Feedback in any case rather than the soccer thread. That's not just a soccer thing - it's a rule that exists on pretty much every forum on boards.ie.

The off-topic discussion was initiated by a mod. I'm happy to abide by the rules when others do, and when mod privileges are validly exercised. If a mod cut a post or posts of mine and explained why this was being done, invoking an agreed principle or a rule of the forum or of the boards.ie environment, I would not post my objection in-thread.

I reckon you'd like some acknowledgement that it was a mod comment that first set off the side discussion. It was. That was an error by the mod. An error that the mod was satisfied to recognise as his.

Thank you for that. It wasn't recognised anywhere, other than privately, until now, and the thread as edited had given the impression that I had been involved in some sort of skulduggery.

I have no examples of the PMs you've cited - the ones with "responses to which vary from snippy to hostile, with threats of bans" so what I'd suggest is that you ask the individuals involved for an OK to post their PMs if you'd like them considered. Otherwise, if you consider a PM to be abusive, you have the option of reporting it - there's a "report" button on the PM when you receive it.

I am not claiming that mod PMs (since posted) are abusive. They are sharply worded, and unambiguously toned to remind the reader of the power relations in play (as are many of the public communications in the forum). I would suggest that, unless someone has actually transgressed in a serious way, and as they represent boards.ie, mod messages would benefit from some common-or-garden respect in their tone. One message (visitor rather than private, I think) responding to a request for an explanation was to the effect that the mod 'couldn't be arsed'.

I can fully understand how people can sometimes think (or some people can often think) that the soccer forum is completely over moderated. It's quite easy for people to forget what the forum was like before it was closed though and why for a time it had to be closed and looked like it wasn't going to return. I'm sure all the soccer mods are fine with reasonable points put reasonably to them on areas where there's room for occasional relaxation. Two of the comments following the mod post in the thread were "Are you really that trigger-happy?" and "Is this guy for real?" though, which is hardly a reasonable gambit.

Those responses, from different people, are proportionate to the actions of the mod. I think mods' actions and defences as I have seen them and experienced them so far display a limited awareness of the extremity of actually deleting someone's speech when it has not offended rules against racism etc. In my opinion, the mods are indeed trigger-happy and especially so when the discussion is contested, as it often is when an Irish football element is introduced.

Imagine someone talking in a hall, with a recorder running. Then someone else with an official uniform walks in, tells the speaker to stop talking about politics on pain of having a gag fitted, then goes to the recorder and presses Delete. I don't think the fact that this is happening online makes the scenario any less preposterous. In fact, given that the net is supposed by many to be a bulwark of unimpeded debate, it is all the more objectionable.

If I thought the soccer forum was over moderated (as it happens, I don't but that's by the by), I'd engage with the mods either by PM, specifically avoiding Hitler accusations and trigger-happy questions, or by starting a Feedback thread with reasonableness at its core, hoping to work with the mods rather than row against them. In this scenario, the crazies coming out of the closet and shouting "right on" wouldn't be your allies, they're the ones making it harder for reasonable discussion to develop at all as they're just increasing the signal to noise ratio when it comes to useful feedback the soccer mods get.

There are no crazies coming out of closets in my support. In fact, one of those who also objected to the moderation of the thread was a sensible poster who was taking a contrary view to his interpretation of my position. I wonder if all those who challenge erratic moderation are thought of in these terms.

I understand that the soccer forum, perhaps more than most others (which is part of what makes it most interesting) is in danger of descending into chaos. I think the answer to this is strong but disciplined action against clear offenders rather than the adoption of a posture based on arbitrary power that amounts to collective punishment. And I would also suggest that the (not so distant) history of censorship in this country and elsewhere tells us that the greater danger is that a small elite will want to have sway over what others say and think.

In all of this, apart from the general need for order in Soccer, I have yet to see a clear principle or a rule invoked to justify the actions of the mods. The only solid basis set forth is that by GY, in a post in this thread and also in the earlier Help Desk discussion concerning the Sunderland thread, which is that boards.ie is privately owned. It's my ball, so I make the rules.

Sceptre, I am interested to know if you share the belief that property rights ultimately determine the limits of what can and cannot be discussed in the valuable public forum that boards.ie has become.

Xavi6

I'm struggling to see the problem here.

Lloyd made an error of judgement. He corrected it and got the thread back on track.

Why is that not enough for some people? Why make a mountain out of a mole hill?

Unless you have a bigger issue with the forum as a whole and are just using this minor issue as ammunition for your argument.

SectionF

Are we at seven mods now?

Xavi6

SectionF wrote: »

Are we at seven mods now?

And what if we are? You have a problem with the soccer mods and the moderation of the forum. You expect us not to give our views?

Thanks for answering my above post by the way. Very selective of you.

therecklessone

SectionF wrote: »

Thank you for that. It wasn't recognised anywhere, other than privately, until now, and the thread as edited had given the impression that I had been involved in some sort of skulduggery.

And I still haven't seen you explain why you are so intent on that being publicly acknowledged, so in the absence of an answer from you I will continue to believe that you are interested in point scoring. I repeat my earlier statement, that is rather petty.

As for the latter part of that quote...it is nonsense. The editing of the thread does no such thing, indeed if your entire contribution to the thread was reinstated you would look far worse. As it is, all off-topic discussion was removed to allow the debate continue. Any other conclusion you come to is over-reach on your part. Indeed, the only public record of your deleted actions on the thread have been brought to light by your posting on this forum. Ironic...

SectionF wrote: »

I am not claiming that mod PMs (since posted) are abusive. They are sharply worded, and unambiguously toned to remind the reader of the power relations in play (as are many of the public communications in the forum).

And when I form an opinion that you are capable of debating your problems with the moderation of the forum in the correct manner, I will desist from warning you in such a stark manner. For clarity:

soccer forum charter wrote:

The mods of the forum are listed, no other user (bar SMODS and ADMINS) has moderation rights in the forum. As such we view interference in moderation as a breach of rules. If you have an issue with a post in this forum, the correct procedure is to use the report post function on the left of the post. If you post in thread, you will be viewed to be back-seat modding and may be cautioned.

Further:

soccer forum charter wrote:

We do not tolerate discussion of moderation, moderation of posts or reportable posts in thread.

I came to the conclusion that despite a clear indication on the thread that all comments re. moderation were to be addressed to me by PM that you were unwilling or unable to comply with that. That is why I chose to contact you by PM, in an effort to resolve the complaint with yourself and allow the topic that you introduced to the forum to be discussed unhindered.

My motivation is dealing with this thread from the start has been to allow the debate develop, your on-thread interventions interfered with that aim.

SectionF wrote: »

Are we at seven mods now?

No, we are at two SMods, who are responsible among other things for moderating this forum, and five soccer forum mods, who you have laid charges at the door of. I can think of no other reason for you to highlight the number of contributors to this thread (twice at my last count) other than to elicit a sympathetic response in the face of the nasty moderators all ganging up on you. If you choose to criticise myself and my fellow mods, I will demand a right to reply. I would hope that you would appreciate that simple concept given you are arguing for freedom of expression on boards.ie.

GuanYin

SectionF wrote: »

In all of this, apart from the general need for order in Soccer, I have yet to see a clear principle or a rule invoked to justify the actions of the mods. The only solid basis set forth is that by GY, in a post in this thread and also in the earlier Help Desk discussion concerning the Sunderland thread, which is that boards.ie is privately owned. It's my ball, so I make the rules.

Sceptre, I am interested to know if you share the belief that property rights ultimately determine the limits of what can and cannot be discussed in the valuable public forum that boards.ie has become.

As I am being referred to here, I just want to make things clear. This isn't a case of "you play by my rules" this is a case of we have rules set in place that we must ALL follow". I am not above any rule on this site and I follow the forum rules of every forum I post in. There are plenty of occasions where I would love to post in a forum like CT or BGRH and don't even get me started on PI against "their rules" but I stop, I think and I see that they are actually "our rules" put forward so that we can all benefit from the site. If that means that some threads in a forum fail my quality approval test and I am disgruntled, so be it, the site benefits as a whole.

But going a step further, there are plenty of occasions where I have typed a response in soccer or other forums I moderate (US Politics today as a matter of fact), read what I have written, realize that it is probably against the forum rules and deleted it. I must abide by the rules of the forum I moderate, just like the other mods. So no, there is no "play by my rules" there is simply play by the rules.

In many, many ways, you have an advantage, you really only have to be concerned with what you post. There is no altruism required for your membership of boards, you look at a forum from a point of view as to whether it meets your requirements or not. Hence, you can post in breach of a charter if you are willing to meet the consequences.

We're not afforded such a luxury, we sometimes must make calls we don't even really agree with. We have to sometimes ban people for making statements we agree with. I have to ignore the bad men who call me names or question my character based on an internet forum interaction and not respond in kind.

So to turn around and say you must lay by our rules, is a rather unfair charge. If anyone is restricted by the rules it is us. We must set an example, we must follow the spirit of the rules and not look for loopholes so we can abuse some faction we don't like under the guise of "free speech".

We don't always get it right, but when we don't, I like to think we hold our hands up. This has happened here. What is your point?

sceptre

SectionF wrote: »

the term 'little Hitlerism', and that it is significant that you have chosen to open with this.

It was meant to be significant. A quick "you can catch more flies with sugar" comment from me and then it was out of the way as far as I was concerned. I decided it important enough to mention it at the start.

I can see nothing wrong, and a lot that is right, about a specific thread growing, by design or serendipity, into a more general discussion about the undoubtedly large and not always benign influence of politics on professional or other sports in this country, in the EU and even globally.

Speaking generally, some threads end up that way. At that point, they're sometimes moved or locked based on the judgement of the moderators. I'm being simplistic here but bear in mind I'm speaking in a general sense - if noe of those threads were ever locked or moved, we might be as well off just having one big forum and calling it "everything".

Imagine someone talking in a hall, with a recorder running. Then someone else with an official uniform walks in, tells the speaker to stop talking about politics on pain of having a gag fitted, then goes to the recorder and presses Delete. I don't think the fact that this is happening online makes the scenario any less preposterous. In fact, given that the net is supposed by many to be a bulwark of unimpeded debate, it is all the more objectionable.

I'm pretty sure you'll definitely disagree on this one but that's a poor analogy. Imagine a group of people in a hall where they've all agreed that they'll be talking about X. A person walks in and says they want to talk about Y but that it's related to X. The guy entrusted with keeping the whole thing in order says that Y isn't something that they talk about in that group but there's another group down the hall where they talk about Y. Some of the people who talk about X in the X room also talk about Y in the Y room, sometimes even at the same time. The person insists that they want to talk about Y in room X, even though the assigned place for interrupting the discussion of X with criticism of the rules is actually in room Z up the stairs (where the Y people and the X people can also be, sometimes at the same time). I guess your scenario was catchier but it's half two and it's the best I can do this late.

Sceptre, I am interested to know if you share the belief that property rights ultimately determine the limits of what can and cannot be discussed in the valuable public forum that boards.ie has become.

That's an opener to a potentially very long discussion. Please forgive me for giving the very short version of my answer. Boards.ie isn't a public trust. The public use it, they're (and I mean "we're") welcome to use it but it's a private place like everywhere that isn't a public street or park. I can post here because the people who own the site don't have a problem with my posting here. If they decided they had a problem with my posting here and decided to remove my ability to post on the site, I'd be annoyed but ultimately it's their meeting room. User feedback always seems to be welcome (indeed, you're providing feedback in this thread) but as it's their meeting room it's their ultimate call on how, where, when and why it's run. I could set up my own meeting room in a matter of minutes if I wanted (actually, I used to have my own meeting room which I ran for a specific group which wasn't as potentially catchall as boards.ie). I haven't set up my own as I like this one. I own my posts, my words (I have certain rights and obligations from those words that no-one else has). As far as I'm concerned I'm responsible for those words. I don't own the virtual room I'm saying those words in though. The users as a whole make the site what it is, as a whole they make the site the resource what it is. That gives them as a group a significant interest in the site. It doesn't give them (including me) ownership rights over the site.

Yes, that's actually the short version. I guess the really short version would be that ultimately the people that pay the piper (directly pay for the hosting etc) call how the tune is to be played. Regardless of whether you think that's the way it should work (as it happens, I do), that's the way it works.

SectionF

sceptre wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you'll definitely disagree on this one but that's a poor analogy. Imagine a group of people in a hall where they've all agreed that they'll be talking about X. A person walks in and says they want to talk about Y but that it's related to X. The guy entrusted with keeping the whole thing in order says that Y isn't something that they talk about in that group but there's another group down the hall where they talk about Y. Some of the people who talk about X in the X room also talk about Y in the Y room, sometimes even at the same time. The person insists that they want to talk about Y in room X, even though the assigned place for interrupting the discussion of X with criticism of the rules is actually in room Z up the stairs (where the Y people and the X people can also be, sometimes at the same time).

That's fine, apart from your omission here of the detail that the official who is in charge of keeping order is the one who is, in fact, out of order. He is happy archly to interrupt and bat it out in room X, leading the discussion off topic, until he realises he is wrong, whereupon he tries to pretend that nothing happened, and other officials refer to his intervention as a constructive one. (When this is raised later, the complainant predictably is accused of point-scoring, completing the impenetrable loop of self-justification).

That's an opener to a potentially very long discussion. Please forgive me for giving the very short version of my answer. Boards.ie isn't a public trust. The public use it, they're (and I mean "we're") welcome to use it but it's a private place like everywhere that isn't a public street or park. I can post here because the people who own the site don't have a problem with my posting here. If they decided they had a problem with my posting here and decided to remove my ability to post on the site, I'd be annoyed but ultimately it's their meeting room. User feedback always seems to be welcome (indeed, you're providing feedback in this thread) but as it's their meeting room it's their ultimate call on how, where, when and why it's run. I could set up my own meeting room in a matter of minutes if I wanted (actually, I used to have my own meeting room which I ran for a specific group which wasn't as potentially catchall as boards.ie). I haven't set up my own as I like this one. I own my posts, my words (I have certain rights and obligations from those words that no-one else has). As far as I'm concerned I'm responsible for those words. I don't own the virtual room I'm saying those words in though. The users as a whole make the site what it is, as a whole they make the site the resource what it is. That gives them as a group a significant interest in the site. It doesn't give them (including me) ownership rights over the site.

Yes, that's actually the short version. I guess the really short version would be that ultimately the people that pay the piper (directly pay for the hosting etc) call how the tune is to be played. Regardless of whether you think that's the way it should work (as it happens, I do), that's the way it works.

Thank you for your clarity on this point. You refer to the group having a significant interest in the site, as it is they who make the discussion. But I'm afraid it makes for a rather impoverished vision of a forum for debate when, ultimately, any issue will be settled by narrow property ownership rather than an ethic of open dialogue. You say that posters own their words, but at the same time you are defending the removal of those words or the right to cut short debate.

You say that users here are not entitled to property ownership of boards.ie, where no one has claimed such ownership. I think one always has to accept legal and ethical limits to free speech (otherwise, for example, we would have to tolerate hate speech etc.), but those limits should be based on ethical principles rather than property.

Having the title deeds to the hall does not confer rights over the thoughts and expression of those who choose to use it as their forum, to the presumed economic benefit of the property owner. That is an extreme form of landlordism, a feudal system in which non-owners' opinions are tolerated until they become inconvenient or until officials find them sufficiently irksome to want to remove them.

You are saying is that it is a privilege to address an issue of public concern in (I think) the biggest online forum in Ireland. I think that the way the Soccer mods go about their business reflects that: they appear to operate on the notion that they are somehow in charge of a discussion to which people contribute only on sufferance.

It sounds obvious, but this discussion in itself is illustrative of how easily we lose sight of principles already established for centuries. Freedom of expression is not a privilege: it is a right.