Why do the Smods and mods, KEEP CONSISTINGLY AVOID THE C.T ISSUE.

mysterious

Are there any adults on this site, can they take issues on board and solve them without restorting to childishness and closing them. Its absaloutely hideous at this stage. I'm surprised after a number of complaints by numerous posters including myself, no one has the diplomacy cop on to handle it. Why do I have to point the obvious and make the obvious changes known.

There is already a dozen or so complaints, issues, reports that people are not happy the way C.T is going. As you all know I'm not happy about my treatment, but I guess boards.ie is supporting this behaviour and allowing this to reach crisis point. Why is this been ignored? Why are some mods that do not deserve to be mods still have their place breaking the charter.


It seems boards is getting into a habit of this, where they reach crisis point. Oh lets close this, ah lets close this, Smods comes in ah well we are sticking to the previous decision and brush it under the carpet. Only in Ireland only In Ireland... People are not happy, is blindness now an issue.


Well anyhooo onto the topic, We need a 3rd mod, and a mod that is not a skeptic and licking up to the skeptics all the time. How many people have asked for this suggestion. Why do the mods constantly ignore this, is there something wrong with plain english here. I'm a big fan of balance, anyone like this, I love it.


Please stop procasinating this issue. I know we Irish people have a awful habit of doing this. Can we break the cycle and sort the C.T forum NOW. Not yesterday not tomorrow, NOW.

I think this is sufficient and direct enough. Havent time to elaborate or check my spelling because I'm sick of the lack of action on this.

Have a nice day:)

WhiteWashMan

what is CT?

randylonghorn

WhiteWashMan wrote: »

what is CT?

Conspiracy theories.

You know, the "they're all out to get us!" forum ...

mysterious

Two mods acting like two children and still not able to deal with this in a serious constructive matter.

Keep it up guys, really showing up boards.ie and how it seems that mods are showing their true colours. In print.

Joke and childishness aside.

• balance brought to C.T
• 6th ofF it. Unless he sorts his goderator behavour and sorts his personal attacks and unbalanced moderations on posters. Which a few people has commented on already.
• Skeptic mod and C.t mod. caters for both sides of the sprectum
• Mods also apply to the charter.
• 3rd mod if 6th has his place retained

My personal complaint will be on helpdesk. Its going to be long, it might bring up the ratings on boards...:) Since so many people seem to be not happy with C.T at the mo.

Where are the SMods on this. Can this be resolved in this quarter of 2009, first week into june now, think we can resolve this. Whats this 10th complaint, 3rd of mine and 6 complaints by 5 other people. 2 complaints on C.T by one poster. Few visitor messages. 4 emails by four people also not happy about C.T and all the other previous feedback threads not to mention the helpdesk threats. I think i've missed more, but if I remember I will post it on here. Just forgot I even got feedback from other posters on other forums as they too have seen the threatment i've personally recieved on that forum. Infact despite my 6th month ban, its still talked about because genuine people can see this is a problem. I do hope the SMODS can now see whats going on here. Cus im disgusted with the lack of their contribution to making boards.ie more user friendly environment.

I do not think boards.ie should get an award. and this thread is down forever, to point exactly the reason why.

I think people are not happy. Can boards.ie actually acknowledge this, or do we need to bring specsavers into this aswell.

We need change. Can we do it,

randylonghorn

mysterious wrote: »

Two mods ... still not able to deal with this in a serious constructive matter.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US!!

Please note the forums which we deal with (underneath the avatar).

And if you don't want jokes on the "everyone is out to get us!" line perhaps you should avoid language like the following?

Smods comes in ah well we are sticking to the previous decision and brush it under the carpet.

Ludo

In fairness it is SO easy to see why people think there is a "moderator conspiracy".

See this thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055561046

A mod publishes PMs in a helpdesk thread. Now I have seen many users balled out of it in public for doing that but nothing is said to the mod for breaking the rules??? The mod in that thread made a decent call in revoking the ban but then dragged up the old thread seemingly just to show off when he banned the guy again. As the banned party said...basically trolling. Nothing said again.

Nerin

First off.there are no smods,they are admins. You can check the biki for more info.

Secondly,its understandably hard for anyone to take you seriously mysterious.
I've seen you attack people trying to help you,throw strops etc and its stuff like that that makes people not want to deal with you.
At this stage,i'd advise you to take a step back from boards,have a breather.

Maybe the forum format doesn't suit you? There are other ways you could spend your time,like a dedicated CT blog.

Wordpress looks great,and is easy to start up. You could have a look at the blogs and wikis forum for tips.

The boards faq also has great tips on how to be a better poster,and this might help you get your points across better.

Again,maybe boards isn't the best place for you,or maybe you need a step back for a moment.

orestes

Oh christ, not this again. I'm going back to bed, maybe when I wake up again this will have been a bad dream.

Rb

Don't bother battling the circle jerk, mysterious, it'll get you nowhere.

Time Magazine

Ludo wrote: »

In fairness it is SO easy to see why people think there is a "moderator conspiracy".

Cough.

Jazzy

The Economist wrote: »

Cough.

some guy got banned for pretty much doing that in soccer. he put spoiler tags around it.
its all very lol

humanji

Mysterious wrote:

* balance brought to C.T

There is balance. There are skeptics and theorists, both able to post what they want as long as they stick to the rules.

Mysterious wrote:

* 6th ofF it. Unless he sorts his goderator behavour and sorts his personal attacks and unbalanced moderations on posters. Which a few people has commented on already.

You have a grudge against him because he pulled you up on your constant breaking of the rules. This is what a mod does, there's no point crying about it because you were caught.

Mysterious wrote:

* Skeptic mod and C.t mod. caters for both sides of the sprectum

Being a skeptic of a theorist has nothing to do with being a mod. You've been told this many times before and have ignored it many times before.

Mysterious wrote:

* Mods also apply to the charter.

They do. If you've a problem with a post, you report it and a mod acts on it.

Mysterious wrote:

* 3rd mod if 6th has his place retained

There's no need for more mods as there is such a small user base and as said above, a mod being a skeptic or a theorist has nothing to do with them being a mod.

Time Magazine

The Help Desk and Feedback exist for discussing modding. This is why they exist. Discussing modding on any other forum is against the rules, for good reason.

Anyway, there's no mod conspiracy.

Beruthiel

mysterious
We have discussed this to death with you.
We are happy with how the CT forum is modded and we are happy with the mods.
You do not seem to understand the charter and to work within it's rules.
Read it again, get your head around it and abide by it.
Once you do that, there will no longer be a problem.
From where I'm standing, the problem here is you, not the way the CT forum is run.

BuffyBot

I'm not seeing anything new here that you haven't gone off about in previous threads, and been (quite rightly) corrected on.

However, if you're determined to ignore all those comments, that's your perogative. You can't expect us to keep listening.

I'm predicting this thread's shelf life will be short.

--amadeus--

Before LOLcats make thier appearance....

Moderators need to be able to agree jointly on a course of action in order to be able to make decisions harmoniously. They have to "get" how each other thinks so that one Mod making a decision can be pretty confident that the other mod(s) will agree with it.

In an *ahem* emotive and controversial area like CT if you choose 2 mods from different sides of teh fence then you end up with deadlock - pro-CT will make changes that are undone by the anti_CT mod and vice versa. They will be unable to agree on rules, policies, charters and the like. As a result moderation will be scattergun and erratic and no-one will benefit. If you have any doubt about this then think back to when a pro-CT'er was last mod of that forum and the chaos that followed. The mods in there seem - from an outsiders perspective - to be pretty fair and if they make decsions you don't like there is always Help Desk.

This website is set up for discussion and debate. You don't get debate if everyone agrees. Imagine soccer if it was all Liverpool fans:

"Torres is great, isn't he"
"Yea".
(End thread)

Wouldn't work well would it? People with different opinions discussing those opinions is what makes a discussion forum work. The A&A board has christians on it and Christianity has atheists. They get along with minimal censorship but I get the feeling that the pro CT side want a platform for thier ideas without any kind of critical comment. But the site doesn't work that way, so why should one side or the other be stifled in the CT forum?

seamus

mysterious, does this mean I can ignore the PM you sent to me 2 hours before you started this thread?

mysterious wrote: »

I'm surprised after a number of complaints by numerous posters including myself, no one has the diplomacy cop on to handle it. Why do I have to point the obvious and make the obvious changes known.

Just because someone makes a complaint, doesn't mean that changes are required. Not all complaints are valid, not all valid complaints can be rectified.

Why are some mods that do not deserve to be mods still have their place breaking the charter.

Links please.

We need a 3rd mod, and a mod that is not a skeptic and licking up to the skeptics all the time. How many people have asked for this suggestion. Why do the mods constantly ignore this, is there something wrong with plain english here. I'm a big fan of balance, anyone like this, I love it.

The viewpoint of the moderator is irrelevant. A moderator shouldn't moderate to suit their viewpoint, they should be impartial in their actions. They are permitted to have a viewpoint and to support whatever argument they like in a thread, but their moderation actions should be applied to all equally, regardless of the moderator's leanings. I complete reject your request to appoint a biased mod on the basis that they will be...well...biased.

We will appoint moderators as we see fit, on the basis of their suitability to moderate - to be fair and even-handed - and not on the basis of their willingness to be lenient to one particular standpoint.

I find it ironic that someone who invests so much time in discussing conspiracies and biased plots wishes to turn the CT forum into it's own little biased culture.

It's already been suggested to you that if you want a forum where your CT-biased views won't come under scrutiny, you can set up a private social group for yourself.

Time Magazine

seamus wrote: »

I complete reject your request to appoint a biased mod on the basis that they will be...well...biased.

We will appoint moderators as we see fit, on the basis of their suitability to moderate - to be fair and even-handed - and not on the basis of their willingness to be lenient to one particular standpoint.

I find it ironic that someone who invests so much time in discusses conspracies and biased plots wishes to turn the CT forum into it's own little biased culture.

Full of win.

AckwelFoley

A mod conspiracy in the conspiracy theory forum.

i think not. Too funny to be true

Doctor DooM

It's at times like these when I'm just stopping myself doing a google images search for "conspiracy cat".

Although, I guess, the nature of a conspiracy theorist is to see conspiracies everywhere. *shrugs*

nyarlothothep

Where are the cters in this thread?!

Mistake being made here, appointing a cter as mod doesn't necessarily entail conflict in moderating process. The previous ct mod, as strict but fair as he was, may not have suited the boards environment which led to all that hassle. But this does not apply to all cters.

A CT mod is the way to go for a fair and balanced culture. The CT mod will be expected to abide by the charter and moderate just the same as any other mod, but there is no more or less bias inthis than a skeptic being a mod, as a skeptic will show bias towards arguments which debunk CTs. One CT mod, that's all the CT community asks for.

AckwelFoley

I would gladly mod the ct forum.

id ban everyone.

access granted on acknowledgement thats its not a right one has to post there. Its a private forum, as with the rest of boards.ie, you will quit your moaning and jibba jabba and do as you are told. You dont like it. Try the lego forum

rule with iron fist.

you lot would beg for the return of the 6th.

Doctor DooM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Where are the cters in this thread?!

Mistake being made here, appointing a cter as mod doesn't necessarily entail conflict in moderating process. The previous ct mod, as strict but fair as he was, may not have suited the boards environment which led to all that hassle. But this does not apply to all cters.

A CT mod is the way to go for a fair and balanced culture. The CT mod will be expected to abide by the charter and moderate just the same as any other mod, but there is no more or less bias inthis than a skeptic being a mod, as a skeptic will show bias towards arguments which debunk CTs. One CT mod, that's all the CT community asks for.

Are the mods upholding the charter or is the charter biased or are the mods therefore in your eyes ignoring the charter? The above seems conflicting to me.

If the mods are showing bias and this is causing the issue, but you claim they are showing bias, surely amending the charter is the way to go.

Wasn't there a thread where the CT forum decided the new charter?

nyarlothothep

SDooM wrote: »

Are the mods upholding the charter or is the charter biased or are the mods therefore in your eyes ignoring the charter? The above seems conflicting to me.

If the mods are showing bias and this is causing the issue, but you claim they are showing bias, surely amending the charter is the way to go.

Wasn't there a thread where the CT forum decided the new charter?

Its about the atmosphere in the forum, I think a CT mod would reduce the us vs them tension which has developed. Obviously there should be as little bias as possible in the implementation of charter rules, I was referring to mods expressing their view points. For the record I don't think Mysterious should have been banned, he didn't cause any real problems.

humanji

Mysterious continually broke the rules and deserved the ban, just like anyone who does the same on any other of the forums.

Anyway, as said above, the mods views don't have anything to do with their moderation. If you feel that they are letting their personal beliefs get in the way of their moderation, then you report that and back it up with evidence.

The Recliner

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Its about the atmosphere in the forum, I think a CT mod would reduce the us vs them tension which has developed. Obviously there should be as little bias as possible in the implementation of charter rules, I was referring to mods expressing their view points. For the record I don't think Mysterious should have been banned, he didn't cause any real problems.

If there is already an atmosphere of CT'er Vs Skeptic in the forum do you not think that a Pro CT Mod would rile the skeptics up more

Surely they would question their bannings/infractions a bit more if they were banned by a Pro CT mod than by a skeptic-ish mod?

As said above though the modding should be impartial so the Pro CT Vs Skeptic Mod is kind of irrelevant unless you feel there has been clear bias shown

I read CT a good bit and to be honest I think the Modding is well handled

Penn

You broke the rules mysterious. I know because I was getting annoyed by it. You repeatedly argued with moderators in thread, both 6th and bonkey. You repeatedly made posts which did not belong on a conspiracy forum, and you were continuously making the natives restless. All this after just coming back from a month-long ban.

I can't believe you are still arguing about this. Your argument hasn't changed since you first started any of this, and all those points have repeatedly been discussed. The mods and admins are not going to change their minds. Not because there is a conspiracy. But because you are wrong. Plain and simple. Deal with it.

nyarlothothep

Popey wrote: »

If there is already an atmosphere of CT'er Vs Skeptic in the forum do you not think that a Pro CT Mod would rile the skeptics up more

Surely they would question their bannings/infractions a bit more if they were banned by a Pro CT mod than by a skeptic-ish mod?

As said above though the modding should be impartial so the Pro CT Vs Skeptic Mod is kind of irrelevant unless you feel there has been clear bias shown

I read CT a good bit and to be honest I think the Modding is well handled

well then why are the skeptics being pandered to and not the cters?

humanji

Where are they being pandered to?

4zn76tysfajdxp

snyper wrote: »

I would gladly mod the ct forum.

id ban everyone.

access granted on acknowledgement thats its not a right one has to post there. Its a private forum, as with the rest of boards.ie, you will quit your moaning and jibba jabba and do as you are told. You dont like it. Try the lego forum

rule with iron fist.

you lot would beg for the return of the 6th.

+1 for this suggestion. Of course we all know how well things went the last time snyper jokingly asked to mod a particular forum, so I can only trust that this will be a resounding success.

Enough of the belly achin'! Let us have some lovely music to sooth our temptuous hearts instead.

Sparks

How can you be a "pro-CT" mod? Or is the CT forum limited by charter to one particular CT?

6th

nyarlothothep wrote: »

well then why are the skeptics being pandered to and not the cters?

They aren't . Go compile a list of infractions handed out even in the last week. Also look at the amount of times I have had posts thanked by "CTers" when modding "skeptics".

The Recliner

nyarlothothep wrote: »

well then why are the skeptics being pandered to and not the cters?

You need people of opposing views or those with different ideas to your own to have debate, if everyone was of the same opinion you would end up with a circlejerk like what many accuse Feedback of being

If you don't want debate and instead want discussion of just likeminded people then as has been suggested before a private forum may be more useful

Examples of where Skeptics are being pandered to more than CT'ers might help your case

humanji wrote: »

Where are they being pandered to?

My question would be where is bias being shown against CT'ers?

Penn

Sparks wrote: »

How can you be a "pro-CT" mod? Or is the CT forum limited by charter to one particular CT?

No. Most theorists believe most theories. Most skeptics don't. There are some skeptics who believe certain CTs, there are some theorists who don't believe some CTs.

A pro-CT mod would be one who also believes most CTs

nyarlothothep

humanji wrote: »

Where are they being pandered to?

By the very absence of a ct mod out of fear that they might be offended

nyarlothothep

Popey wrote: »

You need people of opposing views or those with different ideas to your own to have debate, if everyone was of the same opinion you would end up with a circlejerk like what many accuse Feedback of being

If you don't want debate and instead want discussion of just likeminded people then as has been suggested before a private forum may be more useful

Examples of where Skeptics are being pandered to more than CT'ers might help your case



My question would be where is bias being shown against CT'ers?

Debate is a healthy component of the forum. I'm not arguing against that. All I'm saying is that having a ct mod would make things more equal.

6th

For the record many would concider me a CT mod.

The CTers dont like me, the Skeptics dont like me. Thats balance if ever I saw it!

Sparks

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

A pro-CT mod would be one who also believes most CTs

But don't most CTs contradict one another? I mean, Kennedy can't have been shot by the Secret Service, the CIA, the FBI, trained US Army snipers and the mob...

The Recliner

nyarlothothep wrote: »

By the very absence of a ct mod out of fear that they might be offended

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Debate is a healthy component of the forum. I'm not arguing against that. All I'm saying is that having a ct mod would make things more equal.

Or maybe the current situation is down to the last CT'er Mod not working out too well, not tarring all user with the same brush here just pointing out that there has been a CT'er mod in the past

Also where are things not equal, examples are needed if you want to get your point across

6th

For the record Mysterious clearly just doesnt want to follow any rules, 17 infractions on Boards so far.

4zn76tysfajdxp

6th wrote: »

The CTers dont like me, the Skeptics dont like me. Thats balance if ever I saw it!

I love you.

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

You broke the rules mysterious. I know because I was getting annoyed by it. You repeatedly argued with moderators in thread, both 6th and bonkey. You repeatedly made posts which did not belong on a conspiracy forum, and you were continuously making the natives restless. All this after just coming back from a month-long ban.

I can't believe you are still arguing about this. Your argument hasn't changed since you first started any of this, and all those points have repeatedly been discussed. The mods and admins are not going to change their minds. Not because there is a conspiracy. But because you are wrong. Plain and simple. Deal with it.

No i didn't:) How could I with a 6th month ban. I didnt get warning's and I never got infracted I got the direct ban from been attacked in the first place.. People were attacking me, I didn't break the rules. You got annoyed with me, because you dissagree with my views, I know this because you insulted me a few times... oh and you never got banned.

I can see why your defending 6th behaviour. I didn't argue with Bonkey, Infact I rarely got any attacks by Bonkey considering I was on there long before 6th arrived onto the scene. When Bonkey made the rules aware he said to all people and not have a biased attack against me.

Now leave it as that.

My issue is the unbalance on C.T... The mods and admins are going to have to start taking note of this, afterall we are the users of boards, who create the traffic on the forum. Many people are not satisfied with it, I dont understand why the Admnis are ignoring this.

You have two skeptic mods. We need one mod for each side for better balance and less one sided on the board.

Penn

Sparks wrote: »

But don't most CTs contradict one another? I mean, Kennedy can't have been shot by the Secret Service, the CIA, the FBI, trained US Army snipers and the mob...

Precisely my point. For example, they might point out something which goes against the official report and suggests that the Secret Service were in on it. Then they might point out another flaw in the official report that suggests Jewish people did it. Most theorists see some flaws in an official report and become interested in it, even if those flaws contradict each other.

Of course, this is just going by my own experiences and opinions of that board.

And back on topic, I don't think a 3rd mod, Pro-CT or anti-CT mod, is needed. As someone who regularly reads that board, I think Bonkey and 6th do a great job. And I'm saying this as a skeptic who has been banned by Bonkey and given a warning by 6th in the past.

mysterious

6th wrote: »

For the record Mysterious clearly just doesnt want to follow any rules, 17 infractions on Boards so far.

Most of them were from you:rolleyes: how many years have I been on here.

seamus

mysterious wrote: »

My issue is the unbalance on C.T... The mods and admins are going to have to start taking note of this, afterall we are the users of boards, who create the traffic on the forum. Many people are not satisfied with it, I dont understand why the Admnis are ignoring this.

Because nobody else really seems to think this is a problem. One person with an issue is not a reason to enact change.

By all accounts, I would consider 6th to be on the left-hand side of irrational, and bonkey has a mind more open than Jordan's legs.

You couldn't really get two more accomodating moderators for that forum IMO.

6th

mysterious wrote: »

Most of them were from you:rolleyes: how many years have I been on here.

Actually would you be surprised to know that of your 17 infractions that only 3 are from me?

6th

seamus wrote: »

I would consider 6th to be on the left-hand side of irrational

Thank you?

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

No i didn't:) How could with a 6th month ban. You got annoyed with me, cus you dissagree with my views, I know this because you insulted me a few times...

I can see why your defending 6th behaviour. I didn't argue with Bonkey, Infact I rarely got any attacks by Bonkey considering I was on there long before 6th arrived onto the scene. When Bonkey made the rules aware he said to all people and not have a biased attack against me.

Now leave it as that.

My issue is the unbalance on C.T... The mods and admins are going to have to start taking note of this, afterall we are the users of boards, who create the traffic on the forum. Many people are not satisfied with it, I dont understand why the Admnis are ignoring this.

You have two skeptic mods. We need one mod for each side for better balance and less one sided on the board.

You did argue with Bonkey. You were arguing with another poster about the fact that you edited your post, while you were claiming that you didn't. Bonkey said he could see the original message as a mod and said you had edited it. You repeatedly said you didn't. I don't have time to look for the thread now, but I'll try find it later. If I'm wrong, I apologise, but I remember seeing something like that.

Yes, I did insult you a few times, and got duly punished for doing so. Because the mods are fair. But I never once insulted you because I disagree with your views.

I'm not sure what you mean by "No i didn't:) How could with a 6th month ban." I'm talking about rules you broke which caused the 6 month ban.

mysterious

Popey wrote: »

You need people of opposing views or those with different ideas to your own to have debate, if everyone was of the same opinion you would end up with a circlejerk like what many accuse Feedback of being

If you don't want debate and instead want discussion of just likeminded people then as has been suggested before a private forum may be more useful

Examples of where Skeptics are being pandered to more than CT'ers might help your case



My question would be where is bias being shown against CT'ers?

No the problem is

Skeptics can hurl abuse and get championed by their views because the mods are also skeptics, meaning that they willl always back them up all the time.

The C.T and posters on the other side are left out to dry. If the C.T dissagrees with the skeptic mods, it can easily put the C.T cornered. The SKeptic mods dont see the problem with skeptics attacking the C.Ts. But when C.Ts attacks the skeptic, its goes horribly wrong.

I would be happy if there were a skeptic mod and C.T mod. Put the black and white on it, not the two of the one colour.

Why is this so hard for people to understand... 3 pages later...

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

You did argue with Bonkey. You were arguing with another poster about the fact that you edited your post, while you were claiming that you didn't. Bonkey said he could see the original message as a mod and said you had edited it. You repeatedly said you didn't. I don't have time to look for the thread now, but I'll try find it later. If I'm wrong, I apologise, but I remember seeing something like that.

Yes, I did insult you a few times, and got duly punished for doing so. Because the mods are fair. But I never once insulted you because I disagree with your views.

I'm not sure what you mean by "No i didn't:) How could with a 6th month ban." I'm talking about rules you broke which caused the 6 month ban.

Create a helpdesk thread about it I will be more than happy to debate it ther:)

mysterious

6th wrote: »

Actually would you be surprised to know that of your 17 infractions that only 3 are from me?

Cus you like banning..

And your new, and since I'm hardly even on C.Ts since you've been on the show, its surely something you like to do keep me off it, But of course Diogenes and meglome have more infractions on me for saying FAR WORSE things to me personally such as insulting my deaceased grandfather. I ve never thrown a personal insult of this nature about anyone on that forum, and you made the personal banning on me just like all the other posters have said. 6th we will create a helpdesk thread about it.

So instead of defendning your irrational behaviour we will take that too helpdesk.

I want this topic sorted.