Inconsistent modding by Javaboy

shamblertine

I'd like to make a complaint about this mod. In the thread in AH "Cowen reiterates Guantanamo detainee offer ", on page 3 of the thread, Iamxavier made the following insulting and aggressive comment:

"Says who? You? And you are? GTFO. "

The user it was aimed at bill_ashmount, responded by saying:

"And who are you? Clown. "

Iamxavier then did some back seat modding by saying "enjoy you're ban." This proves his original comment was clearly intended to provoke bill_ashmount and he couldn't contain his delight when he got such a response.

No I personally think neither user should of been banned for this, but Javaboy went and banned bill_ashmount, and for some bizarre reason didn't ban Iamxavier despite him being the agressor and his comment being more insulting than bill's comment.

So what possible reason is there for banning bill and not banning Iamxavier?

Beruthiel

Could you please post links to what you are complaining about?

shamblertine

I can't provde links as I was banned from AH by Javaboy for complaining about this incident in the thread itself, but its in After Hours in the thread titled "Cowen reiterates Guantanamo detainee offer "" and the posts in question are on page 3.

Beruthiel

You can log out and then get access to the Forum.

shamblertine

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055527478&page=3

javaboy

shamblertine wrote: »

I'd like to make a complaint about this mod. In the thread in AH "Cowen reiterates Guantanamo detainee offer ", on page 3 of the thread, Iamxavier made the following insulting and aggressive comment:

"Says who? You? And you are? GTFO. "

The user it was aimed at bill_ashmount, responded by saying:

"And who are you? Clown. "

Iamxavier then did some back seat modding by saying "enjoy you're ban." This proves his original comment was clearly intended to provoke bill_ashmount and he couldn't contain his delight when he got such a response.

No I personally think neither user should of been banned for this, but Javaboy went and banned bill_ashmount, and for some bizarre reason didn't ban Iamxavier despite him being the agressor and his comment being more insulting than bill's comment.

So what possible reason is there for banning bill and not banning Iamxavier?

bill_ashmount was banned because calling another user a clown is personal abuse. Whether he was provoked or not does not excuse that.

Iamxavier wasn't banned because he did not actually break the rules. Telling another user to GTFO is rude but not abusive. However Iamxavier has been warned privately.

Regarding the back seat moderation, it is generally not something that we issue bans for in After Hours unless it is excessive.

shamblertine

javaboy wrote: »

bill_ashmount was banned because calling another user a clown is personal abuse. Whether he was provoked or not does not excuse that.

In provoking and baiting him, Iamxavier was clearly trolling and last time I checked this was a banable offense.

javaboy wrote: »

Iamxavier wasn't banned because he did not actually break the rules. Telling another user to GTFO is rude but not abusive. However Iamxavier has been warned privately.

He said: "Says who? You? And you are?" This is clearly implying bill is a nobody and is therefore personal abuse. As is telling someone to GTFO. It doesn't matter what way you try and spin this, its personal abuse and is worse than calling someone a clown.

javaboy wrote: »

Regarding the back seat moderation, it is generally not something that we issue bans for in After Hours unless it is excessive.

So Iamxavier is not banned for implying and insinuating that you should ban bill, yet I get banned for asking why Iamxavier wasn't banned along with bill, yeah thats fair and balanced alright :rolleyes:

javaboy

shamblertine wrote: »

In provoking and baiting him, Iamxavier was clearly trolling and last time I checked this was a banable offense.

Having an abrasive posting style is not always trolling. It's far less clear cut than personal abuse. But as I said, Iamxavier was warned privately.

He said: "Says who? You? And you are?" This is clearly implying bill is a nobody and is therefore personal abuse.

In your opinion. If we were to treat that and similar remarks as personal abuse, After Hours would consist of myself and the other moderators sitting around on our own wondering where everybody is.

As is telling someone to GTFO. It doesn't matter what way you try and spin this, its personal abuse and is worse than calling someone a clown.

In your opinion. In my opinion, "GTFO" is like saying "go away" but with ruder language. It's rude but it's not personal abuse.

So Iamxavier is not banned for implying and insinuating that you should ban bill, yet I get banned for asking why Iamxavier wasn't banned along with bill, yeah thats fair and balanced alright :rolleyes:

As I said, we're not usually strict on back seat modding in After Hours unless it's excessive or dragging a thread wildly off topic.

shamblertine

javaboy wrote: »

Having an abrasive posting style is not always trolling. It's far less clear cut than personal abuse. But as I said, Iamxavier was warned privately.

Abrasive style? Yeah nice one, it's obvious it was trolling and certainly personal abuse, no matter how much you try and deny it.

javaboy wrote: »

In your opinion. If we were to treat that and similar remarks as personal abuse, After Hours would consist of myself and the other moderators sitting around on our own wondering where everybody is.

If you were to treat everyone like you treated bill and me, it would consist of moderators only as well.

javaboy wrote: »

In your opinion. In my opinion, "GTFO" is like saying "go away" but with ruder language. It's rude but it's not personal abuse.

You obviously going to try and claim that to make your actions seem more reasonable, but we all know the truth. Telling someone to GTFO is offensive and personal abuse, no two ways about it.

javaboy wrote: »

As I said, we're not usually strict on back seat modding in After Hours unless it's excessive or dragging a thread wildly off topic.

Funny how you seem to change the goalposts to suit your own agenda. I'll remember that its ok to incinuate that someone should be banned as long as its only done once in a thread.

Can someone other than Javaboy look at this complaint please? If I make a complaint about someone I don't want the complaint dealt with by the person who the complaint is against.

BuffyBot

I have, and perhaps I'm very dense but I don't see where you are coming from at all here.

How you can be offended on someone else's behalf confuses me for a start. Secondly, context is everything in moderation - you seem to be looking for consistancy where there is very often fluidity. Not everything and/or everyone will merit the same sanctions due to context.

shamblertine

BuffyBot wrote: »

I have, and perhaps I'm very dense but I don't see where you are coming from at all here.

How you can be offended on someone else's behalf confuses me for a start. Secondly, context is everything in moderation - you seem to be looking for consistancy where there is very often fluidity. Not everything and/or everyone will merit the same sanctions due to context.

I'm bringing this up because I've been on the wrong end of biased and inconsistent decisions by mods before.

Iamxavier clearly deserved the sanctions when comparing his comments to bills, as he was the instigator and aggressor in that argument, and his comments were more offensive than bills. Its a no brainer.

BuffyBot

shamblertine wrote: »

I'm bringing this up because I've been on the wrong end of biased and inconsistent decisions by mods before.

Iamxavier clearly deserved the sanctions when comparing his comments to bills, as he was the instigator and aggressor in that argument, and his comments were more offensive than bills. Its a no brainer.

Again, you are trying to apply a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem that doesn't necessarily work with it.

javaboy has already pointed out that the other party was dealt with in the manner that they saw fit at the time. I think that, in the context of this situation, action was taken. It may be action that you might not agree with, but unfortunately not everyone can be pleased by every moderation decision.

shamblertine

BuffyBot wrote: »

Again, you are trying to apply a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem that doesn't necessarily work with it.

javaboy has already pointed out that the other party was dealt with in the manner that they saw fit at the time. I think that, in the context of this situation, action was taken. It may be action that you might not agree with, but unfortunately not everyone can be pleased by every moderation decision.

I'm not applying a one size fits all, I'm simply saying what Iamxavier said was worse than what bill said, its not subjective its just a plain fact, therefore if bill is banned, Iamxavier must at the very least be banned too.

Calling someone a clown is just about the least offensive "insult" you can say to someone, implying someone is a nobody and tell them to f off is a lot more offensive.

Its clear in this case that javaboy is either friendly with Iamxavier or else he didn't agree to the points bill was making in that thread and used his comment as a very weak excuse to ban him. Have a look at it and you'll see javaboy basically banned everyone who made points for one side of the argument.

I know mods and SMods don't ever admit that other mods are wrong in what they did, but this is the clearest case of mod biasness that you'll see.

javaboy

shamblertine wrote: »

Its clear in this case that javaboy is either friendly with Iamxavier or else he didn't agree to the points bill was making in that thread and used his comment as a very weak excuse to ban him. Have a look at it and you'll see javaboy basically banned everyone who made points for one side of the argument.

I said I'd stay out of this thread but I have to refute these two points. Firstly, no I am not friendly with Iamxavier. And even if I was, it would not influence my moderating. Secondly, I didn't express my opinion on the issue. You have no idea what it is and I certainly would not let it influence my moderating decisions.

I've looked back through the thread and while everyone I banned may have been on one side of the argument, that does not mean I banned everyone who was on that side of the argument. I counted at least nine posters who were against the proposal but who weren't banned.

shamblertine

javaboy wrote: »

I said I'd stay out of this thread but I have to refute these two points. Firstly, no I am not friendly with Iamxavier. And even if I was, it would not influence my moderating. Secondly, I didn't express my opinion on the issue. You have no idea what it is and I certainly would not let it influence my moderating decisions.

Well of course you're going to say that. You're hardly going to come on here and admit to being biased.

javaboy wrote: »

I've looked back through the thread and while everyone I banned may have been on one side of the argument, that does not mean I banned everyone who was on that side of the argument. I counted at least nine posters who were against the proposal but who weren't banned.

9 posters not banned, thats really something.

Beruthiel

shamblertine wrote: »

Well of course you're going to say that. You're hardly going to come on here and admit to being biased.

Alright. Enough. Javaboy is doing the best he can under the Charter and rules.
He is not being biased as you put it.
You've said your piece.
Neither of us agree with you.

shamblertine

That is a lie and a cop out. This kind of thing slides by all the time without anyone taking any action and acknowledging there was an abuse of mod powers. I'm sick of it, its time someone took a stand. Can an admin please look at this?

Beruthiel

I am an Admin.

There has been no abuse of power.
If action was required, I would take it.

shamblertine

Why doesn't it say you are an admin? Anyway I want someone higher up to look at it, you're too close with mods and smods to make an independant judgement.

Beruthiel

It will say I am an Admin within a few days.
There is no one 'higher up'
I am close to nobody and I'm quite capable of giving an independent opinion.
Just because you don't like my opinion, doesn't mean I haven't given the right one.

shamblertine

It doesn't mean you've made the right decision either. Are you saying there is no one with higher authority on this site than you?

Beruthiel

That is correct.

Might I suggest that in the future, if you think there is a comment against the charter, report it so a Mod can look at it.

shamblertine

I did report it. If theres no one higher than you then I'd like to make a complaint to the owners, can you give me their contact details (in a pm if you don't want to give it out in the thread).

BuffyBot

I think Beruthiel was pretty clear.

We're sorry that you're not happy. However, it is the way these things will pan out sometimes, and not every user will be happy with every desicion that's made. You've had the point of view from the moderator involved, and from those who make the final call. It hasn't gone your way on this occasion. We'd like you to be happy, but we're realistic - this is the final call, and it didn't agree with your point of view.

So, to sum it up, no, there is nothing more we can do for you. If you cannot come to some sort of agreement within yourself to accept this judgement and the moderation which has taken place on that particular forum, then I suggest that you just not frequent After Hours. There are many other forums on the site which you may find more to your taste.

I'm going to close this thread now, as there seems little more to be gained from it.