Unfair and inconsistant moderation on Politics thread

T runner

Hi there,

I have a problem with the moderation on the Fintan O'Toole thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056104800The moderator left a post on this thread stating that all discussion of gender quotas (point six of O'Tooles petition) had to cease.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69346409&postcount=48
This was directly after this post by me.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69345603&postcount=47in response to this post
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69344260&postcount=46When I asked the moderator about it he said he had received a complaint.
As this happenned over a very few minutes i have to assume that the person who posted post no 46 was the one who complained about post no 47.
I would like to make the following observations:

In one of his posts he claims that people are only signing the petition "despite point 6".
This is false (check O'Tooles site) and I felt it only fair that the petition should nit be misrepresented thus.
In post no 46 the poster actually talks at lenght about gender quotas.
Of the 47 posts on this site a massive 30 have related directly to point 6 and gender quotas.
This poster has posted several times about gender quotas already in this thread. Why is he complaining now?
The poster in post 46 directly implicated me with "the gender quotas thread". The moderator immediately gave the reason of the closing of "the gender quota" thread as a reason why discussion of gender quotas was now forbidden in this thread. He also claimed incorrectly that the gender quotas thread was closed due to it getting "completely out of hand". (The actual reason given on the relevant thread was "run its course" which means something different)
The modertaor has thus given the clear impression that I have been trying to derail the thread.
He has taken a complaint about discussing gender quotas from a poster who has discussed it several times on the thread! He has misquoted the reaosn another thread was closed(posssibly misinformed by said poster here).

I would like to seee the following.
Point 6 is part of FOTs petition. The majority of posts on that thread relate to it. Banning discussing it means the issues of the petition of greatest concerns to board users are censored from discussion.
Perhaps if it was stated that any discussion of gender quotas should be kept within reason?
Also I would like it phrases where it doesnt imply that I am to blame. (which according to the moderator I am not).

This may sound like nit picking but this user has got me banned before. I eventually demonstrated that he had been deliberately baiting which secured him the same ban.
This baiting has continued onto the gender quota thread by continuous use of personalised adjectives like "sexist", "delusional", "idiotic","embicilic" etc. Experienced moderators will know that persistant use of these personal adjectives are in fact an attack on the poster. I will take it uo seperately but Im giving ye background. You will also notince some bating in the first and last sentence of post 46.

I feel he has hood-winked an inexperienced moderator here.

T runner

Two more posts on that thread complaining about gender quotas and women politicians. No moderation and not suprisingly, no complaints. Whats going on????

nesf

You were derailing the thread with a straw man argument which is really not welcome in the Politics forum. You also in your first post in that thread proceeded to accuse everyone who disagreed with you as not understanding the subject.

Honestly you were lucky he found it first not I, I'd have given you an infraction for that kind of carry on. Learn to argue properly, don't undermine other users by accusing them of not understanding something without bothering to show how they don't understand it and don't argue against straw men.

nesf

T runner wrote: »

Two more posts on that thread complaining about gender quotas and women politicians. No moderation and not suprisingly, no complaints. Whats going on????

They referenced point 6, they did not engage in trying to start a debate about gender quotas. Big difference.

Scofflaw

To be fair, I remember the occasion T runner is talking about, and the other poster was indeed baiting on that occasion. On this occasion, he's also being a bit personal, but on the other hand, T runner's opening post pretty much stuck its finger in everybody's eye.

I'd agree that kotj's point could have been more explicit - he's not trying to say "no discussion of gender quotas", he's saying "don't turn this thread into a discussion of gender quotas", which is, I think, something that needed to be said, between T runner's opening salvo and the other poster's response.

What exactly are you looking for here, though, T runner? There's neither a ban nor an infraction, and nothing worth handing either out over. Are you looking for the moderator to amend his post to be more explicit? I'm sure we can ask, if that's the case - but otherwise, I can't see what's supposed to happen here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

T runner

nesf wrote: »

You were derailing the thread with a straw man argument which is really not welcome in the Politics forum. You also in your first post in that thread proceeded to accuse everyone who disagreed with you as not understanding the subject.

(The moderator originally said I was not derailing the thread, now you are saying I am. What is the official line here? This is more inconsistency.)

Firstly I dont see the strawman argument that you are taking about.
There were some posts arguing extensively against point 6 which clearly used strawman arguments.

And what about that posters false assertion that people were signing the petition despite point 6?

Socondly, I claimed referenced "many" posters and certainly not all who disagreed with me.

Honestly you were lucky he found it first not I, I'd have given you an infraction for that kind of carry on. Learn to argue properly, don't undermine other users by accusing them of not understanding something without bothering to show how they don't understand it and don't argue against straw men.

Learn how to argue properly? But Nesf why dont you have an issue with people who dismissed point 6 as "crap", "ridiculous" , "PC bull****", etc etc. Will you tell them to argue properly. And they have crudely dismissed others arguments for gender quotas without explaining themselves either.

Is it not safe for me too assume that a user who uses analysis like " a load of crap" has not analysed the situation in depth? He has not bothered to give an explanation for his crude dismissal of point 6 yet this is required of me?

And finally, on another thread time and time again a particular poster used strawman arguments against me. There was absolutley no intervention by any moderator. Sevaral times on that thread a user (The _Corinthian) continuosly used personal adjectives like "sexist", "idiotic", "imbicilic", "delusional". Although he has technically attacked the posts not the poster an experienced moderator should recognise this tactic as nothing more than ad hominem attack. Again no protection.
There was one mod interjection on the thread. When i informed i would not continue a debate with a user becuase i felt he was continually using strawmen, I was ordered by the moderator to continue my debate with him.
Another case of an inexperineced MOd being hodwinked by a veteran poster.

nesf wrote: »

They referenced point 6, they did not engage in trying to start a debate about gender quotas. Big difference.

Atleast 7 of the posts up until yesterday wetre discussing gender quotas including the 2, I replied to:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69292706&postcount=19

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69299178&postcount=41

Notice the fist line of the opening post

I don't want to derail this conversation too much, but #6 is coming under serious fire on this thread so I suppose someone has to do this

.

I couldnt agree more.

Nesf, several posts including mine discussed gender quotas. The final post i relied to discussed it in lenght before he complained about me discussing it.

Why are you signalling me out above this poster.

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be fair, I remember the occasion T runner is talking about, and the other poster was indeed baiting on that occasion. On this occasion, he's also being a bit personal, but on the other hand, T runner's opening post pretty much stuck its finger in everybody's eye.

Fair enough, I agree, although i felt the continuous ciriticism of point 6 as "crap" "sexist" "PC rubbish" is sticking it in the eyes of people who actually bother to find out if point six might work or not, both those for it and against it.

I'd agree that kotj's point could have been more explicit - he's not trying to say "no discussion of gender quotas", he's saying "don't turn this thread into a discussion of gender quotas", which is, I think, something that needed to be said, between T runner's opening salvo and the other poster's response.

What exactly are you looking for here, though, T runner? There's neither a ban nor an infraction, and nothing worth handing either out over. Are you looking for the moderator to amend his post to be more explicit? I'm sure we can ask, if that's the case - but otherwise, I can't see what's supposed to happen here. cordially,
Scofflaw

I would like the moderation to be clear in this case and fair, the post should be amended. Between The -Corinthians accussations of me (of derailing the thread by discussing quotas while discussing them indepthly in the same post!!) and the subsequent moderation i alone look culpable.

If as you say its a mixture between The C and me then both of us should be named in teh amended moderation.

Scofflaw

I don't see why either of you need to be named in the amended moderation notice? It's a general warning, after all, and there are others who might equally turn the thread into a discussion of the gender quotas in particular as opposed to the petition as a whole. Currently neither of you are named, and I personally would have read the notice as applying to The Corinthian as well as you, given that he - as you point out - also discusses it in depth in a way that's clearly a response to your post.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

T runner wrote: »

Why are you signalling me out above this poster.

Because they're merely giving their opinion on the topic. You're misrepresenting all other posters in the thread and trying to paint them into a corner while setting up a straw man to argue against. Again, a large difference.

If you'd had simply given your opinion there'd not have been a problem, instead you attacked all other poster's by saying they didn't understand the topic. Etc.

T runner

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't see why either of you need to be named in the amended moderation notice? It's a general warning, after all, and there are others who might equally turn the thread into a discussion of the gender quotas in particular as opposed to the petition as a whole. Currently neither of you are named, and I personally would have read the notice as applying to The Corinthian as well as you, given that he - as you point out - also discusses it in depth in a way that's clearly a response to your post.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Just to be clear, the first in depth discussion of gender quotas comes from Corinthian responding to a relatively short post from me to another poster. After I respnd to him he complains.

The way the moderation looks at present is that I have derailed the thread.
The Corinthian uses back seat moderation to suggest thus and the moderators post confirms it. The moderator even has admitted "it seems to look that way". That is my problem, the moderation makes it looks like I am culpable.

Perhaps if the post said clearly that too much discussion both for and against quotas is frowned upon. I am not happy with teh current situation where i am initially implicated by The Corinthians moderation and this seems to be confirmed by the moderators input.

Also there are two posts since mine which ridicule women politicians. What has this to do with Fintan O'Tooles petition? Where is the moderation now?
I have no doubt that if I replied to one of these posts with a long list of corrupt male politicians I would receive a ban. I dont see fairness on the moderation of this thread and others.

T runner

nesf wrote: »

Because they're merely giving their opinion on the topic. You're misrepresenting all other posters in the thread and trying to paint them into a corner while setting up a straw man to argue against. Again, a large difference.

If you'd had simply given your opinion there'd not have been a problem, instead you attacked all other poster's by saying they didn't understand the topic. Etc.

Firstly I said that in context of my post in reply to that poster. A different post entirely.
You accused me of discussing gender quotas while others only referred to them. I pointed out that the other poster was infact discussing quotas as were otehrs on that thread. My question remains: why have you singled me out for "discussing" quotas when others have been doing it? Is this not unfair.

Again i have not attacked all other posters. My reference was to "many" posters. Saying I misrepresented "all other posters" is actually misrepresenting me.

Any criticism of the back seat moderation by The_Corinthian in his post to me?

nesf

T runner wrote: »

Firstly I said that in context of my post in reply to that poster. A different post entirely.
You accused me of discussing gender quotas while others only referred to them. I pointed out that the other poster was infact discussing quotas as were otehrs on that thread. My question remains: why have you singled me out for "discussing" quotas when others have been doing it? Is this not unfair.

Again i have not attacked all other posters. My reference was to "many" posters. Saying I misrepresented "all other posters" is actually misrepresenting me.

Any criticism of the back seat moderation by The_Corinthian in his post to me?

Again, you're not listening to me. I'm telling you what was wrong with your post that caused you to be warned. If you don't want warnings don't act like you did in that post. Whatever happened after that post is irrelevant to that warning.

Don't concern yourself with other posters focus on correcting the problems in your posts.

I'm done with this thread at this point.

T runner

nesf wrote: »

Again, you're not listening to me. I'm telling you what was wrong with your post that caused you to be warned. If you don't want warnings don't act like you did in that post. I'm done with this thread at this point.

Its you who are not listening. I have NOT received a warning for any post on that thread.

The MOD post on the thread certainly gives the impression of a warning to me but that is not the case. That is why i want it altered.

Whatever happened after that post is irrelevant to that warning.

As the warning is a general one, then I must assume that posts after it wh ich appear to break that warning are infact relevant to that warning.

Don't concern yourself with other posters focus on correcting the problems in your posts.

That is the whole point: the only person who thought there was a problem with my posts was The _Corinthian. The moderator did not yet for any reader of that thread his post appears to implicate me (by referring to the gender quota thread as The Corinthian) did.

As you have been under the mistaken impression that i gort a warning I cant really see any of your points as relevant. Which is disappointing as I have taken time to engage with you assuming you would familiarise yourself with the disagreement.

Scofflaw

T runner wrote: »

Its you who are not listening. I have NOT received a warning for any post on that thread.

The MOD post on the thread certainly gives the impression of a warning to me but that is not the case. That is why i want it altered.

Nesf is, I think, referring to the warning post rather than a yellow card.

T runner wrote: »

As the warning is a general one, then I must assume that posts after it wh ich appear to break that warning are infact relevant to that warning.

Not really - if they don't pull the thread off-topic into a discussion of gender quotas - and they don't - they're not really relevant.

T runner wrote: »

That is the whole point: the only person who thought there was a problem with my posts was The _Corinthian. The moderator did not yet for any reader of that thread his post appears to implicate me (by referring to the gender quota thread as The Corinthian) did.

As you have been under the mistaken impression that i gort a warning I cant really see any of your points as relevant. Which is disappointing as I have taken time to engage with you assuming you would familiarise yourself with the disagreement.

And my problem here is that while I agree with you to some extent, I don't see the mod's warning as likely to be seen as referring to you in particular.

However, what I'm going to do here is delete the warning entirely, but request that you don't drag the thread into a gender quotas thread rather than a more general thread about the petition. I can see from your further post there that you're already doing that, and I can also see that The Corinthian has not engaged in any further personalisation, so for the moment I don't see that anything further can be done or needs to be done.

cordially,
Scofflaw

T runner

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nesf is, I think, referring to the warning post rather than a yellow card.



Not really - if they don't pull the thread off-topic into a discussion of gender quotas - and they don't - they're not really relevant.



And my problem here is that while I agree with you to some extent, I don't see the mod's warning as likely to be seen as referring to you in particular.

However, what I'm going to do here is delete the warning entirely, but request that you don't drag the thread into a gender quotas thread rather than a more general thread about the petition. I can see from your further post there that you're already doing that, and I can also see that The Corinthian has not engaged in any further personalisation, so for the moment I don't see that anything further can be done or needs to be done.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thankyou