Mod gets annoyed, gives out infraction details, then locks thread...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056031716

I have no issue whatsoever with the mod. I know it's a hard job. But think the reaction is a bit disproportionate.

I make a point, he follows it with a post about swearing and abuse. When I and one other poster point out that I did nothing of the sort, he discloses that he gave me an infraction a couple of weeks back. Is this standard?

Either way, it's no real biggie. But after disclosing my infraction history, which I would have thought was personal to a poster (I could be completely wrong in that) he takes to saying the thread is not about me, despite his efforts to make it so. In the meantime a third poster suggests that his attitude is a 'massive overreaction', which prompts a tirade and posts littered with lectures about his lengthy experience in dispute resolution mixed with references like 'FFS', '*sigh*' and ':mad:'.

Anyway, I respond by observing some of the foregoing, and finishing by an appeal to get back on topic. This prompts another lecture and a thread closure.

Maybe I am entirely wrong, it wouldn't be the first time! But is it not a tad heavy handed? Thanks for any feedback.

uberwolf

this reads like it was cut out of another thread. Can I have a link to that thread?

Here you go...

I could be reading the whole thing wrong, but all I wanted to do was discuss quad bikes, not the mods vast experience of conflict resolution. Furthermore, I'm not sure the whole writing in caps lock and use of swearing abbreviations and angry emoticons really helps when going on about this boards rules on etiquette and how to respect each other!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056032036

oscarBravo

I've moved this from the Help Desk, as it looks like a Dispute Resolution issue to me, and it will make communication easier.

Step 1 above refers to issues 'with a ban or infraction'.

I have neither tbh. I did receive an infraction a few weeks back from the mod, but he was implementing standard Boards policy. I'm not seeking to change that at all. I am confining my query to the manner in which the initial linked thread developed.

oscarBravo

Accepted, but it's still a dispute between a poster and a moderator, and I can't see a compelling reason not to use this mechanism to resolve it.

Evil Phil

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056031716

I make a point, he follows it with a post about swearing and abuse. When I and one other poster point out that I did nothing of the sort...

Please demonstrate to me where I accused of swearing and abuse? Can you provide a link to that thread or those posts please? I gotten annoyed because in-spite of repeatedly telling you I accused you of no such thing you've ignored me and insisted that I did.

As far as the rest of the discussion is concerned all I've been doing is making sure that everybody behaved themselves as the discussions were crossing the lines. I will continue to do so. That is all I have to say on the matter.

Evil Phil

Evil Phil wrote: »

Please demonstrate to me where I accused of swearing and abuse?

I think that defence is a bit on the very weak side tbh.

I posted, and the very next post was from you and referred to 'personal abuse, name calling, and threats of violence', and within 2 sentences (and still in the same post) specifically named me. Were you really talking about such offences in the abstract? You surely would at least accept now that it may have been wiser to specify within that post that you were not accusing me of those offences. If, for example, I littered my posts with criticisms of modding and included your name, would you think that fine if I then explained that I was actually talking about a completely different mod on a completely different forum, or modding in the abstract, and it was not about you at all?

Furthermore, of course, that was only one of the issues raised. After specifically naming me, you seemed to suggest that somehow the problem was my self indulgence in thinking that 'it's all about me'. Well in fairness your posts seemed to be. And other posters thought as much.

There is also the use of caps, angry emoticons, "*sigh*" etc. I trust you did not mean to appear condescending or dismissive, but you did.

Finally, of course, you locked the whole thread. After making the last post. In which you concede that you were getting annoyed. Which is exactly what I said appeared to be happening!

Evil Phil wrote: »

That is all I have to say on the matter.

For clarification, are you saying that that post was your only contribution and you don't intend addressing what I say above at all? You have what I believe is a poor defence to one issue, and you don't bother with the rest at all, but that's that?

I know I can't compel you to answer, and heck this isn't Matlock working a courtroom, but would have thought one of the points about this procedure is that it envisages that at least mods will fully engage with it anyway.

Evil Phil

Were you really talking about such offences in the abstract?

Yes I was. As I've said, since the outset, I wasn't accusing you. If you won't accept that there's nothing more I can do.

I'm now leaving this to the sport category mods to deal with.

uberwolf

Conor74 - on first read I agreed with you.

In the broader scheme though Evil Phil is dealing with an issue which obviously causes great contention in the forum, and there appears to be some resistance to allowing the discussion happen at all.

Your original post was not appropriate to the thread, running contrary to the forum announcement. It did raise the spectre of clashes - hence I presume everyones attention once again being drawn to the rules by which such clashes are guided. Thereafter everyone gets a little verbose and the bloating thread is stripped down.

uberwolf

Thank you for considering the matter and for the reasoning. You will appreciate that I do not necessarily agree with same, but I appreciate the time you have taken herein.

I would refer to one line of the above, where you say...

uberwolf wrote: »

Your original post was not appropriate to the thread, running contrary to the forum announcement.

I am puzzled as I cannot see this argument put forward by Evil Phil, either in the thread itself or here. I do not want to paraphrase him, but it seems to me that he has argued that the reference to swearing and abuse was a general reference and not specific to me, and does not contend that my post was contrary to the forum announcement. Can I take it that there were no submissions or communications made other than as appear here?

I do not accept that the line 'thereafter everyone gets a little verbose' is an entirely accurate summary of the issues, or adequately deals with the remaining points I raised, but again I appreciate that you have made your decision.

Had I known a decision was imminent I would have made one other point, which is that the same mod subsequently referred to me by name on another thread here, involving another poster entirely with his own complaint, and claims I and that poster have taken the 'high moral ground'. You will note one of my complaints was that Evil Phil persists in referring to me - now apparently even in threads that have nothing to do with me - while making comments along the lines that I shouldn't think the world revolves around me. I find that completely inappropriate.

I don't want to bump a thread, and I appreciate that you have plenty to do on this site (and it's not the Supreme Court) but for clarification is this the end of the matter as regards the CMod, or are you considering my post above? Just not sure where I stand in terms of the process.

Is that it?

A second "that's all I have to say on the matter"?

I'm not sure I'm getting the whole "dispute resolution" feel from this process, one could be forgiven for thinking it's more of a "give a reason then clam up"!

Anyway, obviously enough, I request an Admin investigation.

uberwolf

or perhaps you could allow for the fact that there are other things occupying the time of the volunteer mods and CMods. I have continued to look into this, and am trying to form my thoughts. Concisely.

edit: I've to confess I hadn't seen your post from yesterday morning.

uberwolf

uberwolf wrote: »

or perhaps you could allow for the fact that there are other things occupying the time of the volunteer mods and CMods.

Apologies. Tbh, I am in no huge rush, and fully appreciate that you and all mods have other things to do. I'm in no rush, a few days is fine - prob won't be on here till Monday again - my last post was because I thought that was that was the end of the matter, I wasn't trying to pressurise a response.

uberwolf

Deleted User wrote: »

I am puzzled as I cannot see this argument put forward by Evil Phil, either in the thread itself or here. I do not want to paraphrase him, but it seems to me that he has argued that the reference to swearing and abuse was a general reference and not specific to me, and does not contend that my post was contrary to the forum announcement. Can I take it that there were no submissions or communications made other than as appear here?

Firstly, there were no other submissions or communications.
He has stated in the original thread that the warning was intended as an all purpose. I'm sure he would agree that he might have made that clearer.

Deleted User wrote: »

Had I known a decision was imminent I would have made one other point, which is that the same mod subsequently referred to me by name on another thread here, involving another poster entirely with his own complaint, and claims I and that poster have taken the 'high moral ground'. You will note one of my complaints was that Evil Phil persists in referring to me - now apparently even in threads that have nothing to do with me - while making comments along the lines that I shouldn't think the world revolves around me. I find that completely inappropriate.

That I can see, you haven't asked for a decision. There is nothing to undo as such.

As far as I can see there is a forum wide annoucement saying that quad biking discussion is to be allowed in the forum, and the manner of that discussion is subject to the normal rules of engagement.

You raised the issue of whether it should be discussed or not. Evil Phil seeks to remind everyone what the rules of engagement are. There appears to be a history of threads on the issue descending into mudslinging and debating the legitimacy of QB discussion. Avoiding exactly that descent was why Evil Phil asked that everyone remain on topic.

You then questioned moderating in thread. Which is something I would have banned you for. Evil Phil showed a little more restraint.

The thread then appeared to return in the direction of discussing what your post, now a thread, wanted. Unfortunately here you refuse to let it go. Undoing the benefit of what was reasonable moderating by EP.

Having been granted a platform, you persisted in questioning moderator action in thread and derailing your own thread. Principally because you refused to accept EP when he said his original warning wasn't aimed exclusively at you. Did he get annoyed? yes. When persistent requests to let it go went unheeded.

Thread was locked because it was going nowhere. That wasn't heavyhanded.
No one was banned, infracted. That wasn't heavyhanded.

Could it all have been dealt with more calmly? Probably.

This should have been handled by PM before referral to this forum - long discussions about moderation in thread are not useful, and further OP if and when you refer this onwards for admin review, could you clarify what your complaint is.

uberwolf

uberwolf wrote: »

Firstly, there were no other submissions or communications.

Thank you for that.

I appreciate that it does not apply to you, but I have suggested elsewhere that it might help this process if it complainants were assured that no communications would take place, if it were part of the charter.

uberwolf wrote: »

if and when you refer this onwards for admin review, could you clarify what your complaint is.

How does one go about doing this?

Thank you for considering the matter.

Asiaprod

Deleted User wrote: »

How does one go about doing this?

Thank you for considering the matter.

Just post here that you would like an Admin to review your issue and clarify your complaint.

Asiaprod

Asiaprod wrote: »

Just post here that you would like an Admin to review your issue and clarify your complaint.

I would like Admin to review the issues. My complaints are

1. I think the mod acted incorrectly in listing a number of offences and naming me, yet subsequently claiming he was not referring to me at all and merely talking about offences in the abstract.

2. I think if a mod refers to a poster by name in a post listing offences, he should at least specify when he is not accusing the named poster of wrongdoing.

3. I think the mod acted incorrectly by defending the foregoing with a 'it's not all about you' routine, yet at the same time making it all about me, referring to me specifically by name and making accusations even in threads that had nothing to do with me and on which I could not comment. It is provocative.

4. I think it is further provocative when a mod refers to one's infraction history by way of a putdown or warning.

5. I think it incorrect and inappropriate for a mod to resort to "*sigh*" and angry emoticons, caps lock and "FFS" while linking rules referring to respect for other posters.

6. I think it incorrect and inappropriate for a mod to be evidently annoyed and concede that they are annoyed, yet decide to make one last long point before closing the thread.

7. Finally, I should also point out that I believe that the CMod uses reasoning which was not advanced by the Mod, namely that I posted in breach of the Forum Charter. Remarkably, the Forum Charter was edited on the 13th September, on the very same day as my post which gave rise to this dispute. Given the importance of that charter now, as far as the CMod's reasoning is concerned, if it is to form the basis of the Admin's decision I think the timing of that amendment and the nature of that amendment is important and would seek clarification of same.

In considering the foregoing, I would point out by way of supporting evidence that other posters also thought the reaction of the mod was inappropriate. I appreciate that of itself does not make the mod wrong.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

I would like Admin to review the issues. My complaints are

1. I think the mod acted incorrectly in listing a number of offences and naming me, yet subsequently claiming he was not referring to me at all and merely talking about offences in the abstract.

2. I think if a mod refers to a poster by name in a post listing offences, he should at least specify when he is not accusing the named poster of wrongdoing.

3. I think the mod acted incorrectly by defending the foregoing with a 'it's not all about you' routine, yet at the same time making it all about me, referring to me specifically by name and making accusations even in threads that had nothing to do with me and on which I could not comment. It is provocative.

4. I think it is further provocative when a mod refers to one's infraction history by way of a putdown or warning.

5. I think it incorrect and inappropriate for a mod to resort to "*sigh*" and angry emoticons, caps lock and "FFS" while linking rules referring to respect for other posters.

6. I think it incorrect and inappropriate for a mod to be evidently annoyed and concede that they are annoyed, yet decide to make one last long point before closing the thread.

7. Finally, I should also point out that I believe that the CMod uses reasoning which was not advanced by the Mod, namely that I posted in breach of the Forum Charter. Remarkably, the Forum Charter was edited on the 13th September, on the very same day as my post which gave rise to this dispute. Given the importance of that charter now, as far as the CMod's reasoning is concerned, if it is to form the basis of the Admin's decision I think the timing of that amendment and the nature of that amendment is important and would seek clarification of same.

In considering the foregoing, I would point out by way of supporting evidence that other posters also thought the reaction of the mod was inappropriate. I appreciate that of itself does not make the mod wrong.

With respect, I'm unclear what action you would like an admin to take.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

With respect, I'm unclear what action you would like an admin to take.

Resolve the dispute!

What is the range of actions available?

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Resolve the dispute!

What is the range of actions available?

Normally a dispute involves an actual moderator action, which can be either upheld or overturned. In this case, the moderator didn't actually take any action - there was no warning, no infraction, no ban.

The category moderator has already agreed that the moderator could have expressed himself more calmly. Beyond that, what would you have me do?

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Normally a dispute involves an actual moderator action, which can be either upheld or overturned.

I put this thread on another site and it was transferred in here though. I didn't seek out the Dispute Resolution Procedure, so if it doesn't have any remedies to address this particular situation I'm not sure that I know what to do.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The category moderator has already agreed that the moderator could have expressed himself more calmly. Beyond that, what would you have me do?

I guess perhaps comment one way or the other on each of the points I raised above? Not trying to prescribe your actions, but in the absence of an obvious remedy that might be one.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

I put this thread on another site and it was transferred in here though. I didn't seek out the Dispute Resolution Procedure, so if it doesn't have any remedies to address this particular situation I'm not sure that I know what to do.

True, I moved it to here from the Help Desk. What outcome did you hope for when posting there?

I guess perhaps comment one way or the other on each of the points I raised above? Not trying to prescribe your actions, but in the absence of an obvious remedy that might be one.

The first two points have been addressed, before the issue was brought here in the first place. As for the rest, it seems to me that (a) the mod could have phrased things a little less wearily (although any moderator who has to deal with a contentious issue a lot has my sympathy), and (b) you could do with being a little less sensitive about it.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

you could do with being a little less sensitive about it.

Thank you for considering the matter. Though I would point out that there appeared to be 3 sensitive souls on the thread, as the only other contributors concurred with me. I guess we were just all out of step with Evil Phil!

I didn't think at the outset that this procedure would be so...predictable. With hindsight I think the bit where, after my thread was placed in here, I was asked what could be done was the most amusing part. As Evil Phil with his experience in dispute resolution would no doubt agree, it's unusual for the Mediator/ Conciliator/ Arbitrator to shrug his shoulders and ask the complainant what can be done!

It may not be a matter for this thread, but I have suggested elsewhere that there be some tally kept of how many disputes are "resolved" with criticism of the mod.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

With hindsight I think the bit where, after my thread was placed in here, I was asked what could be done was the most amusing part. As Evil Phil with his experience in dispute resolution would no doubt agree, it's unusual for the Mediator/ Conciliator/ Arbitrator to shrug his shoulders and ask the complainant what can be done!

Clearly you haven't achieved your desired outcome from this process, but since I still have no idea what it was you actually wanted, that's likely to remain the case.

Evil Phil

So from the Admins' point of view does this mean that while not Conor74's issues have not been resolved this dispute has reached a conclusion?

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I still have no idea what it was you actually wanted, that's likely to remain the case.

Just simple confirmation that, as all the posters on the thread said, the mod called it wrong.

There were a couple of moments when there was almost a concession made that he wasn't 100% right...

uberwolf wrote: »

I'm sure he would agree that he might have made that clearer....
Could it all have been dealt with more calmly? Probably.

and your own reference to his 'weary' responses.

But they were so couched in ifs, buts and provisos and 'it was your fault anyway', or the amusing 'we may only process complaints that may be resolved by lifting an infraction or ban', that it was no concession at all.

I did hope that certain issues, like the unexplained changing of the forum charter, or bypassing the swear filter, or making accusations and naming me on a thread in which I could not even respond, would just be deemed inappropriate in their own right, and not glossed over.

As a result of an matter being raised here, was a Mod ever deemed to be incorrect or sanctioned in any way? A mod in another thread here refers to balance on both sides - is 'ee 'avin' a giraffe?!!

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Just simple confirmation that, as all the posters on the thread said, the mod called it wrong.

Called what wrong, exactly?

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. You seem to feel that you have been in some way grievously wronged by Evil Phil. I don't see it that way.

You seem to be extrapolating the fact that I'm not going to reprimand a voluntary moderator for some imagined slight against you into a larger mod/admin conspiracy. You're not the first to think so, and you won't be the last.

Unless there's something fundamental that I'm missing here, I can't see a compelling reason to expend any more time and energy on this issue.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. You seem to feel that you have been in some way grievously wronged by Evil Phil.

With the greatest respect, you really should not bother with a dispute resolution process at all if people who use it are then accused of making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, it's all relative, and of course none of this is that important compared to the crisis in Darfur. I have not been grieviously wronged by Evil Phil, and it is wrong to suggest I made that point at all, for example he has not physically harmed me in any way. But I think he modded a thread badly, and in fact it was you who told me to put it on here.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You seem to be extrapolating the fact that I'm not going to reprimand a voluntary moderator for some imagined slight against you into a larger mod/admin conspiracy. You're not the first to think so, and you won't be the last.

I'm reading this and seeing 'the answer to your question is no, no mod has ever been held to be wrong after this process'.

Thank you for the window dressing. It was mildly interesting. But lest you think I am making a mountain out of a molehill, I mean interesting as an exercise in confirming what I kinda thought at the outset as opposed to interesting like some new theory on the Law of Relativity.

Evil Phil

Deleted User wrote: »

But I think he modded a thread badly ...

In hindsight I should have dealt with that particular thread/post in a more appropriate manner. What that manner would be is beyond the scope of this discussion and off topic.

Does that resolve this for you?