Rugby Forum Mod

Aidric

I wish to complain about the modding of Ruggie Bear in the Rugby forum. He seems happy to employ double standards when it come to the issue of Ronan O Gara. I am well aware of the fact that this is a contintious issue but people should still be allowed post their views within the boundaries without fear of censure.
A posted posted the following this evening:

O'Gara is a disgracefull call. Nearly enough to put me off even watching the Irish team.

I replied with:

Christ above, where do you even begin with such misguided vitriol?

The post was thanked 5 times so there was obviously other posters who agreed with my sentiment.
However, RB thought it was worth deleting without reason. I PM'd him to ask why and got a dismissive response accusing me of flamebaiting. I sent a further PM questioning double standards but surprisingly that wasn't answered.
Am I to take it that it's ok to have a pop at O Gara's selection in strong terms by a certain poster, whose post wasn't edited or deleted, yet when I reply my post is deleted for perceived flamebaiting? If Jackass's original post wasn't flamebaiting then I don't know what is.

Trojan

i have reviewed the incident.

As you say, Jackass's comment is potentially flame-bait. The main difference is that you posted yours after a moderator warning specifically about flame-baiting - Jackass's comment was prior to that warning. In this case, a double standard is not being applied.

--

In reviewing your user history, it is also clear that you have a very chequered background when it comes to the rugby forum. This does not help your claim of unfair treatment in the slightest.

Aidric

You say his post is potential flame bait yet it wasn't infracted or commented on by the mod in question. Mine was just straight up deleted.
For the record I didn't even see the mod warning before posting my reply. I logged on saw this comment and hit reply straight away.
I accept I've had a few infractions on the rugby forum over time. That doesn't mean double standards should be applied when I outlined my case clearly in my OP.
I have found this mod to be ignorant and dismissive in his PM's and I don't expect that to change anytime soon, I guess that's just his manner.
By complete contrast I had occasion to PM another rugby mod, Toomevara, on a separate matter over the weekend. He replied with a well mannered and constructive reply and thanked me for my input. It's nice to know some mods have a bit of tact about them.

Beruthiel

Aidric wrote: »

You say his post is potential flame bait yet it wasn't infracted or commented on by the mod in question.

The mod warning would have covered that.

Mine was just straight up deleted.

Because it was after the warning.

For the record I didn't even see the mod warning before posting my reply.

Your problem, not the Mods.

Aidric

Beruthiel wrote: »

Your problem, not the Mods.

Charming, thanks for your input. I've had my say on this matter now, this particular mod's vendetta will continue I'm sure. I just wanted to bring it to wider attention because he has a habit of ignoring PM's.

Trojan

There is one single big problem on the Rugby forum and that is the extremely bad blood between Munster and Leinster fans. This has become a much bigger deal in the last 12 months. This often erupts as a Ronan O'Gara vs Johnny Sexton debate. This continuous disruption damages conversation and inconviences other Rugby forum users who are frustrated that it's impossible to discuss very important issues with descending into tit for tat nonsense.

Both sides on this debate are passionate and often vitriolic or aggressive. When such things are obvious, mod decisions are clear, and never questioned. However, some Rugby forum users are more careful - they troll and snipe from the boundaries of the forum charter and entice their opponents into crossing the line in retaliation.

It's very difficult to moderate because any time the mods act on such trolling, the user can then play the unfair treatment card because their single post looks ok out of context. It's only when you look at the bigger picture, and especially take note of a user's history, that things become clearer. (So yes, a user's history *does* have a bearing on this and every case.)

The Rugby mods have started to impose progressively longer ban periods for repeated offences of trolling. I agree with this policy, although I would suggest that after several repeat offences, they simply ban the user permanently to save all parties time and grief.

In response to a very recent incident of this nature I posted:

Trojan wrote: »

[...]I think a public reply might be useful for other folks who think this is a case of [Rugby] mods persecuting innocent users.
[...]

I have reviewed the posts you linked, as well as the related Feedback/HelpDesk threads.

I do not believe that you have been unfairly targetted by the mods. I think the mods are clearly tired of people consistently trolling and sniping at opposition fans and you have been flagged as one such. Yes, there are plenty of others - but as any rugby ref would say - "let the officials deal with it - do not take retaliation into your own hands".

I would suggest that you are taking both the forum and your bans too seriously. Take a break for a week or two and try not to get baited back into Munster-Leinster tit for tat battles when you come back, regardless of how innocuous or innocent you think your own comments might be.

I would say similar to Aidric in this thread.

Aidric wrote: »

I've had my say on this matter now, this particular mod's vendetta will continue I'm sure. I just wanted to bring it to wider attention because he has a habit of ignoring PM's.

Aidric, I don't believe this mod has a personal vendetta against you. I do believe that you are one of a small group of Rugby forum users who is consciously or unconsciously trolling.

Our volunteer Rugby mods are busy because the forum has become more and more popular over time. We have added more mods to the forum to help cope with the workload.

Even so, the mods cannot and should not have to spend hours putting together huge numbers of posts from a user's history to justify their case (like this post here). This is not a court of law - it's a privately owned website for people to discuss topics within our guidelines. We will enforce those guidelines as fairly as possible, but we will not tolerate people violating the spirit of the law while remaining within the letter of the law.