Unbalanced modding in AH

Intothesea

Hello folks. I registered a straightforward dislike of atheist antagonisers in threads in a thread asking for stuff you dislike in After Hours, and of course someone moved to antagonise instantly along the Christian/Atheist B.S. axis. In the heel of the hunt I'm banned for three days and the other isn't. I don't think it's too fair or too balanced, maybe a little overly harsh. TIA.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055774253&page=5

AlmightyCushion

You two were told to cut it out, the other listened, you didn't. Hence why you got banned and they didn't.

Intothesea

I absorbed the warning to stay on topic, which I'm pretty sure I did, no? Also, at that point I was stating my case, and open to discussion as is fair -- not deliberate antagonization, in which case the other party is at least as responsible as myself, I would think.

AlmightyCushion

Intothesea wrote: »

I absorbed the warning to stay on topic, which I'm pretty sure I did, no?

No ye were having a petty quabble and taking digs at each other. After frada left a warning mike listened, you didn't and continued the quabble and digs.

Intothesea

Okay so, I take it that pointing out unfair antagonisation by atheists is less acceptable than unfair antagonisation by atheists. The deliberate nature of the other's effort made for the squabble, which I was still on-topic for. Thank you.

AlmightyCushion

Intothesea wrote: »

Okay so, I take it that pointing out unfair antagonisation by atheists is less acceptable than unfair antagonisation by atheists. The deliberate nature of the other's effort made for the squabble, which I was still on-topic for. Thank you.

No neither are acceptable but they stopped when told you didn't. If you had stopped when you were told then you wouldn't be banned.

Intothesea

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

No neither are acceptable but they stopped when told you didn't. If you had stopped when you were told then you wouldn't be banned.

Fair enough, ultimately. But what irks me is that people can get away with antagonising apparently religious people without batting an eyelid -- it amounts to harassment, people being pushed around because they write something that appears to have religious content or leanings. It's ironic that I complain about this tendency and then get slapped for responding to the antagonisation I'm complaining about :pac:

AlmightyCushion

Intothesea wrote: »

Fair enough, ultimately. But what irks me is that people can get away with antagonising apparently religious people without batting an eyelid

That warning was aimed at you and mike. If it was aimed at both of you, how is that not batting an eyelid.

Intothesea wrote: »

It's ironic that I complain about this tendency and then get slapped for responding to the antagonisation I'm complaining about :pac:

There's nothing ironic about it. The two of ye were antagonising each other and were told to cut it out. You didn't, they did.

Intothesea

But the initial mod warning wasn't to the other for deliberate antagonisation, which in my opinion makes better sense (in the case where there isn't an inherent bias against religious or apparently religious people). I hope I'm making myself clear. In either case, I'm out. Thanks again.

Intothesea

Actually, one other issue that I think is slightly unfair is members of the same moderating group as the one the original problem arose in defending the actions of what effectively is a clique member. I say this because the response here so far amounts to an insistence that it's fair for a moderator to warn three times but only ban on one side as apparently suits.

Why can't I reply without the prior agreement of a moderator all of sudden? Are my criticisms not to be answered?

In that case, my answer to the statement below is:

I don't think my point is discreditable or misunderstandable because the word 'clique' is used, since it's effective and all I think it's a pretty obvious error to let any other moderator apart from the specific one involved from any particular group reply to a raised issue.

Gordon

Moved from Feedback.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what your latest issue is regarding 'clique members' etc, not sure how this point applies for the situation you are talking about.

Intothesea

I don't think my point is discreditable or misunderstandable because the word 'clique' is used, since it's effective and all I think it's a pretty obvious error to let any other moderator apart from the specific one involved from any particular group to reply to a raised issue.

Intothesea

Now my replies have to be okayed? That says quite an amount about how open the system is to valid criticism, no?

Okay, thanks for that Gordon

Gordon

Intothesea wrote: »

I don't think my point is discreditable or misunderstandable because the word 'clique' is used, since it's effective and all I think it's a pretty obvious error to let any other moderator apart from the specific one involved from any particular group to reply to a raised issue.

I don't understand what you mean, and why you are winking at me. However, if this is regarding Almighty Cushion: he is the Category Moderator for the Recreation category that Afterhours lies within. Are you talking about Almighty Cushion? Can you clarify your concern if you aren't talking about Almighty Cushion, because I still don't understand the complaint.

Intothesea wrote: »

Now my replies have to be okayed? That says quite an amount about how open the system is to valid criticism, no?

Not in my opinion. Replies on Helpdesk are premoderated at the moment.

Intothesea

Gordon wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean, and why you are winking at me.

I'm not winking at you, I'm acknowledging the fixation on the word 'clique' to put me in the frame of typical AH complainant.

However, if this is regarding Almighty Cushion: he is the Category Moderator for the Recreation category that Afterhours lies within. Are you talking about Almighty Cushion? Can you clarify your concern if you aren't talking about Almighty Cushion, because I still don't understand the complaint.

Regardless, he moderates AH and as such is not as unbiased as he could be, which to my mind is a mod from at least a non-related forum, cat mod or no.

Not in my opinion. Replies on Helpdesk are premoderated at the moment.

Thank you, I didn't know that.

Gordon

Intothesea wrote: »

I'm not winking at you, I'm acknowledging the fixation on the word 'clique' to put me in the frame of typical AH complainant.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, sorry, but if it has something to do with your concern, can you please clarify what you mean and how it has bearing on your concern.

Regardless, he moderates AH and as such is not as unbiased as he could be, which to my mind is a mod from at least a non-related mod, cat mod or no.

I see, so you think that Almighty Cushion is biased because he mods Afterhours and is the Cmod for the category? Well, that's a fair enough concern. However, I have complete faith in Almighty Cushions unbiased approach when it comes to putting his CMod hat on, he is a fantastic CMod. This has never been an issue in my opinion, and I don't think it ever will be.

However, if you are wanting an Admin opinion on your case I've looked at what happened and I agree with the Mod and CMod in this instance. Two people were warned, it continued, a final warning happened, and then you had to get the last word in so you got banned. Not much more to it tbh.

What would you think should have happened instead?

Intothesea

Maybe a no toleration of deliberate antagonisation along the Christian/Atheist axis (as in OP) when an honest observation was made -- followed by a specific warning of intent to ban along the lines of "if anyone says anything after this it's ban time" -- given that the mod warned multiple times before banning how can anyone know when it's going to occur

As for AlmightyCushion's modding capabilities, well, no complaints there. My issue is with relative position in the structure.

Anyway, thanks for your time Gordon.

Gordon

Intothesea wrote: »

Maybe a no toleration of deliberate antagonisation along the Christian/Atheist axis (as in OP) when an honest observation was made -- followed by a specific warning of intent to ban along the lines of "if anyone says anything after this it's ban time"

Do we have to lay on the heavies to get people to keep on topic though? If we do this it'll be like a police state, and Afterhours is the last place you want to feel like that, it's a naturally free flowing forum, the Mods do their best to keep people in the rules, while not trying to sound like they are being Bad Cop. Why should there be different no-toleration just for people that believe in god and people that don't? Should we have different no-tolerance for people that believe in football club A and football club B also?

-- given that the mod warned multiple times before banning how can anyone know when it's going to occur

The mod warned you both with a very light warning, a well placed textual nudge to get you atheist/non-atheist to stay on topic. This warning was not taken into account completely, so the Mod had to make the warning clearer and final by stating "Last Warning". General rule of thumb - if the mod says last warning, final warning, no more warnings, warning finality and variations thereof: there will be bannings if you don't take heed of the final warning. That's two chances, pretty fair and not exactly heavy handed.

As for AlmightyCushion's modding capabilities, well, no complaints there. My issue is with relative position in the structure.

You've lost me again, you're happy with the way he mods and cmods, but there is an issue with him being a mod?

Anyway, thanks for your time Gordon.

No prob

Intothesea

Gordon wrote: »

Do we have to lay on the heavies to get people to keep on topic though? If we do this it'll be like a police state, and Afterhours is the last place you want to feel like that, it's a naturally free flowing forum, the Mods do their best to keep people in the rules, while not trying to sound like they are being Bad Cop. Why should there be different no-toleration just for people that believe in god and people that don't? Should we have different no-tolerance for people that believe in football club A and football club B also?

Well, I think this is an interesting one -- for the very reason that I brought up originally, and that is that people coincidentally grazing off religious language or expressions (i.e. not professing any sort of orientation in any overt way) can get rough treatment from devout Atheists on the board, by means of unfunny sarcasm and other totally unwarranted statements that over time could amount to bullying. When this happens it is of course 100% off topic but I've never seen a moderator call anyone on it. This was the basis for my complaint on-thread, anyway. I think there should be no antagonisation tolerated for this kind of stuff, unless of course a religious person or atheist tries to force their opinions down others' throats etc.

The mod warned you both with a very light warning, a well placed textual nudge to get you atheist/non-atheist to stay on topic. This warning was not taken into account completely, so the Mod had to make the warning clearer and final by stating "Last Warning". General rule of thumb - if the mod says last warning, final warning, no more warnings, warning finality and variations thereof: there will be bannings if you don't take heed of the final warning. That's two chances, pretty fair and not exactly heavy handed.

In all the flux the mod warning posts are screened out unless the word 'ban' is mentioned -- this was my experience anyway -- as might happen when you're cheesed off with someone messing with you deliberately -- which is why I think the ban was a little unbalanced.

You've lost me again, you're happy with the way he mods and cmods, but there is an issue with him being a mod?

I'm not happy with the fielding of the topic originally on the basis that the moderator belongs directly to the group about which I'm complaining.

Gordon

Intothesea wrote: »

Well, I think this is an interesting one -- for the very reason that I brought up originally, and that is that people coincidentally grazing off religious language or expressions (i.e. not professing any sort of orientation in any overt way) can get rough treatment from devout Atheists on the board, by means of unfunny sarcasm and other totally unwarranted statements that over time could amount to bullying. When this happens it is of course 100% off topic but I've never seen a moderator call anyone on it. This was the basis for my complaint on-thread, anyway. I think there should be no antagonisation tolerated for this kind of stuff, unless of course a religious person or atheist tries to force their opinions down others' throats etc.

In that case, the correct procedure is to report the posts, not complain on-thread.

In all the flux the mod warning posts are screened out unless the word 'ban' is mentioned -- this was my experience anyway -- as might happen when you're cheesed off with someone messing with you deliberately -- which is why I think the ban was a little unbalanced.

Best thing, if you're cheesed off with someone, go away and come back after a while. However, in future you'll know now to read the mods posts, not just filter out what they say unless they mention the word 'ban'.

I'm not happy with the fielding of the topic originally on the basis that the moderator belongs directly to the group about which I'm complaining.

This is why I have taken over the complaint and dealt with your issue.

Hope that helps.

Intothesea

Gordon wrote: »

In that case, the correct procedure is to report the posts, not complain on-thread.

But, but.....the thread was about your complaints!!

Best thing, if you're cheesed off with someone, go away and come back after a while. However, in future you'll know now to read the mods posts, not just filter out what they say unless they mention the word 'ban'.

Ah, easier said than done when you perceive a multitude of not-quite-fairnesses, but I will try.

This is why I have taken over the complaint and dealt with your issue.

Hope that helps.

It does. Thank you.