Airsoft Charter Overhaul

Inari

Right folks,

I had suggested on the ‘Feedback’ thread that a complete overhaul of the Forum Charter be done now, and it got the go ahead from Steve. So I’m posting what I would do if I were to change it all right now – if you disagree with anything, please say so, and say why. If you agree with what I’ve said, then please say so. The more voices we have, the more accurate our views are upon review by the moderators. Please post all rules and guidelines you believe should be in the charter.

Inari’s Proposed Charter:

Site Guidelines (Adapted to Airsoft Sub-Forum)
- Be Civil to one another; whether user, moderator or admin, whether you like them or not – remain civil. You do not have to get along, but you cannot abuse. Any personal abuse (Direct & Clear insults), whether in Private Messages, User Comments, or in the Forum will not be tolerated. Breaking this rule will result in an infraction, or in the case of personal abuse, an instant temporary ban. Repeated neglect of this rule will result in a permanent ban.

- Comment on the Post, not the Poster. Ad hominem fallacies do nothing for your point, and only cause flame wars to erupt. Avoid making it personal, no matter how heated things may get. Getting personal in an aggressive manner will result in an infraction. Repeated negligence of this rule will result in a temporary ban.

- Be Like Thumper – if you don’t have anything constructive to say, then maybe it’s not worth getting involved in the discussion. There is nothing wrong with friendly banter (it must be clear and contextualised so as not to be confused with Personal Abuse).

- Freedom of Speech – you have the freedom of speech; you have the choice to post/say whatever you want to say, and the consequences of what comes with it. If what you say is in breach of the rules outlined in the forum charter, then you can expect infractions/bans to arise.

- Post in Good Taste – Airsoft is a game of make-believe, and can be a lot of fun with the immersive nature of many games. However please try and remember that war is a sensitive topic


Rules:
- No Personal Attacks/Abuse. This is not to be confused with friendly goading, and poking fun – but any banter etc must be made clear. It is the responsibility of the poster to ensure that his post cannot be misconstrued to Personal Abuse.

- No Flaming/Trolling. If you wish to post in jest, you must make sure that it is clear and contextualise – if it is unclear, then it will be considered as flaming/trolling.

- Use proper grammar, punctuation and spelling where possible – text speak (txt spk) and leet speak (l337 5p3ak) are not permitted. Avoid typing all in CAPS LOCK – it is difficult to read, and will result in infractions. The obvious exception are where posts include Text/L33t speak/Caps Lock, but do not consist entirely of it – context, as always, is everything.

- Discussion of anything illegal is NOT permitted, under any circumstances. This includes many Airsoft specific issues such as, but not limited to; the use of Irish issue DPM, Nightvision Scopes, unlicensed firearms, lasers outside of the legal guidelines (<5 milli-watts, inside the frequencies of 630 – 680nm), skirmishing on anything other than official sites etc

- When discussing Airsoft, please refrain from using the words ‘Airgun’, ‘Pellet Gun’, and ‘Weapon’ – these are not the same thing. Airsoft guns should be referred to by type (AEG, GBB, NBB & Spring), as RIF/Replicas (replica imitation firearms), or their real steel counterparts. Repeated negligence for these subtle differences will result in infractions and temporary bans – we are representing the sport/hobby of Airsoft, and as such we want to portray it right.

- Discussion of Airsoft devices operating above 1j is limited for the use of outside of Ireland, and must comply with the rules/laws of the country/region in question. The legal limit of an Airsoft device in Ireland is 1 Joule (which equates to 328fps with a 0.2g BB), and as such discussion of domestic Airsoft must comply. If this rule is broken it will result in an infraction, and repeated neglect of this rule will result in a permanent ban.

- Pyrotechnics are illegal for use in Ireland unlicensed, and discussion of which is not allowed. Discussion about pyrotechnics anywhere they are legal for use (licensed sites, different regions/countries etc) is fine.

- Keep threads on topic – if they do not fit in with the category/forum, then find an area where is suitable.

- No Spam – Spam threads are by definition useless, and will be locked/deleted as such. People who spam will be infracted and/or banned. Repeated offenders will be perma-banned


Sites & Retailers
- Free advertising is not allowed on Boards.ie – if you wish to advertise your Airsoft Business (site, shop, club etc), there is a service available at the cost of a monthly subscription. The cost is dependent on the nature of your business.

- Advertising of your business is limited to the Retailers and Sites subcategories. Please refrain from shilling/plugging your business on other areas of the site. As always, context is everything – if someone is asking directly about stock etc, you may direct them to your thread in the appropriate subcategory. Keep in mind that if your goal is not to help the individual, then you’re plugging your business, which is not allowed outside of the appropriate section.

- If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact a member of staff.


Adverts Rules
- No selling of anything illegal, as currently defined by law in Republic of Ireland e.g. lasers outside of the legal limits (<5 milli-watts, and between 630 – 680nm), Irish issue DPM etc

- The selling of Airsoft devices is limited to devices currently operating under 1 joule. Attempts at selling, or purchasing a device over the legal limit will result in a temporary ban. Repeated attempts will warrant a permanent ban. To purchase an Airsoft device you must be at least 16 years old, as per the Criminal Justice Act 2009

9D.—
(2) On and after the date of commencement of section 40 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 it is an offence for a person to sell a realistic imitation firearm to a person under the age of 16 years.

- If you are selling an item, an asking price MUST be listed. Failure to post an asking price will result in an infraction. Repeated offenders will be banned

- Ads must be marked clearly; For Sale, For Trade, Wanted, or combinations of the aforementioned. Repeated disregard for this rule will result in infractions

- No off-thread dealing; deal must be agreed on thread before any exchange of money/contact details takes place. Off-thread dealing will result in a temporary ban…repeated breaking of this rule will result in a permanent ban

- No Auctioneering – all offending parties will be infracted and/or temporarily banned

- No Commercial Selling or Profiteering; guilty parties will be temporarily banned. Repeat offenders will be permanently banned

- If an item is for sale, an asking price must be posted – failure to do so will result in an infraction. Continued failure to adhere to this rule will result in a temporary ban, with further abuse of this rule leading to a permanent ban

- The first person to offer the asking price has first refusal

- The asking price can go down, not up – it is the last price the seller has requested for the item


Moderators (Application of the Rules, Course of Action etc)
- If you break any of the rules, you are liable for infractions/temporary bans. It is not always possible to catch every instance of rule-breaking, so please do not confuse this with you being targeted. If you break the rules, you are risking the recourse – if you feel you are being hard done by then you should contact the Moderator in question. If the situation remains unresolved, move to the next link in the chain i.e. Category Moderators, or Administrators.

- If you notice any rules being broken, instances of personal abuse etc, then click the report post button (red & white triangle) and let the moderators handle it from there – do not back seat moderate.

- There are varying degrees of severity in the rules; different rules carry different punishments/recourses/consequences. Generally speaking, you will be warned and infracted before you are banned – if you persist in breaking the rules, then you will be banned. If you feel your punishment/recourse is unjust, then contact the mod in question, a C-Mod, or an admin to review your case.


So there you have it. They are the changes I would make - there is some difference, but not a whole lot. But I am a believer in the subtle change. I am very tired now - there is more that's necessary, but as I said...if it were me, this is what I would do right now

Shiva

Thanks Inari, thats a great post, and you obviously put some thought into it.

However, mush as I agree the charter needs an overhaul, I dont think simply rewriting the rules is going to change anything. The problem lies with the moderation. We're painting the living room while the kitchen burns down.

The moderation team needs an overhaul, otherwise theres no point.

Stercus Accidit

There needs to be a set of guidlines for the moderators too, in fact thats where the problem lies, the users are leaving, not breaking rules.

We have been lucky up until now with decent mods but thats it, luck, you cant rely on that in future or now, there need to be clear rules for moderation, not random bannings and interferance, and a protection of the users interests.

Inari

So post the guidelines that you think moderators should follow

Anything we post here is the code of conduct and rules for the Airsoft sub forum, so don't hold back. Anything said will be reviewed and it may make a positive change happen.

In my time as a moderator, I have never ever seen guidelines given to the mod/admin. Instead it is left to the individual to find their method - this, more often than not, results in deplorable moderation. The way I see a moderator is:

- Moderators do not have opinions; users do. If you want to post your opinion on the matter, you are posting as a user. Do not muddy the water

- Moderators are impartial. No sides are to be taken; mediate the situation, and apply the most reasonable course of action.

- Where rules are broken, take into consideration the context of what was said and apply suitable reprimand (Infractions, Temporary Ban, Permanent Ban).

- Personal abuse is not tolerated on Boards. Anyone who is consistently abusing another member of Boards should be banned temporarily. Further abuse will result in a permanent ban. For first time offenders a warning or infraction will suffice. Take care not to confuse friendly banter with personal abuse - you must take into consideration the context in which something was said. It is the users responsibility to make their intent clear, and it is the moderators job to try to interpret the intent - punishment is based on intent

- When a thread goes off topic, as a moderator (i.e. no opinions) instruct the thread to get back on topic. If it continues to stray off topic, lock the thread, clean it up, and re-open. Threads should be allowed to simply run their course, which does not end in 'Locked'

- When posting as a moderator, ensure that you do not get personal. Moderators found to be abusing power by getting personal, targeting specific people etc will be infracted. If this occurs three times within a period of 6 months, a moderator will be disbarred.

- When posting as a user you are subject to the rules just as anyone else is. You should exemplify the rules, to serve as an example. However, should you step out of line, another moderator should reprimand you just the same. There is no 'Above the law' - same rules for everybody.

This is once again my opinion. As before, please post any agreements, disagreements, opinions, other suggestions etc

Genghiz Cohen

I always wondered why it was not left up to the person who comments are directed at to decide if they were offensive.

Some people have thicker skins than others, someone could call me a smelly bollocks and I probably wouldn't have an issue with it, it would change my opinion of the person but I wouldn't go cry in the corner or anything.

KonFusion

Inari wrote: »

So post the guidelines that you think moderators should follow

Just want to clarify that there is already quite a large set of guidelines given to mods when they become forum moderators, including a dispute resolution process, a very comprehensive 'How-To' guide, a mod charter, and many other resources which I'm sure have all been carefully edited and updated since boards.ie's inception.

Stercus Accidit

KonFusion wrote: »

Just want to clarify that there is already quite a large set of guidelines given to mods when they become forum moderators, including a dispute resolution process, a very comprehensive 'How-To' guide, a mod charter, and many other resources which I'm sure have all been carefully edited and updated since boards.ie's inception.

Is that publicly viewable?

Lemming

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Is that publicly viewable?

Not that I'm aware; nor should it be IMO. What should be clearly visible is a "how-to" dispute resolution FAQ for users tailored to giving an idea of what the their responsibilities are and what the mods are; and an obligatory link to begin said resolution process.


As for Inari's suggested revisions; I would leave the adverts area alone (not out of personal bias as I have none either way now) because it works. There is little bullsh*t that goes on and those rules have evolved over far, far, farrrrrrrr longer than the airsoft adverts forum was ever in existence or airsoft legal in Ireland. The rules aren't there to constrain your ability to trade, they are there to keep everything fair and protect all parties involved from unscrupulous users.

On the notion of abuse; we either tolerate it (and allow first timers slide) or we don't. End of. If we start to tolerate it, you will see trolls using that little get out clause to create new accounts on a continuous basis just to stir sh*t. So I would contest any sort of infraction or warning for abuse. Boards.ie policy has forever been that abuse is abuse and it is not tolerated.

Where something skirts the lines, by all means infract since that's what the infraction system was in part created to do - deal with borderline cases; Not act as banning-without-banning. I have personally encountered outcry for banning someone for abuse then have a third party (of whom it wasn't their business) bleating on about how "shurrrr it should only be an infraction for abuse" or words to that effect. As I've said, we either draw a line in the sand, or we start to risk treading down the path of unmoderated newsgroups in terms of user behaviour. And nobody wants to go there. Really, you don't.

On the notion of abuse and "friendly banter", the proposal that moderators be held accountable - and some user will want mods hung for this, ostensibly after being handed a justifiable ban most likely - for users inability to make their "intentions" clear when throwing out abuse is also unworkable. Boards.ie exists by way of text-based medium. That means that there is no inflection of tone in ones voice, no body language, no physical gestures that would otherwise belie a person's intention with words. Instead we have only words to go on, and as much as I would agree that mods should be "mindful" (and that's a very wooly figure of speech to apply), users also need to wake the motherf*cking hell up and take responsibility for their own words/conduct & accept that they may get banned for calling someone x, y, or z that would be considered derogitory. Even when one tries to claim context; context is not always possible to apply. For example:

User A wrote:

I think rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb nothing malicious at all

User B (Friend of A, taking the p1ss) wrote:

C*ckbite

How is a mod meant to interpret something like that? It's not a strawman argument since the above has happened more than once, and indeed within the last six weeks.

I don't have a solution to "friendly banter" other than that users think before they post. This isn't your local pub, or your mate's house on a friday night after a few beers and the XBox.

Inari

@Lemming: Just to clarify what I meant about moderators being held accountable for banter:
- Users need to make their intent clear; if it is unclear that is the fault of the user

- Moderators need to attempt to contextualise what has been said. To look back at the thread and see if it is just out of the blue and offensive, without any indication of friendly intent. If that is the case, then it is the fault of the user; simple as.

Rhinocharge

A Cyber bullying Policy wouldn't go astray either.

hoplite

Lemming wrote: »

users also need to wake the motherf*cking hell up and take responsibility for their own words/conduct & accept that they may get banned for calling someone x, y, or z that would be considered derogitory.

@ Lemming don't you find it ironic that you are making the point on how difficult it is to judge abusive posts between users in a thread and yet you use the language above in your own post?

Lemming

hoplite wrote: »

@ Lemming don't you find it ironic that you are making the point on how difficult it is to judge abusive posts between users in a thread and yet you use the language above in your own post?

Eh, exactly where have I been abusive to someone? Please, point out the person(s) that I have insulted. So no, it's not ironic. What is ironic is that you've chosen to focus on the most pathetic thing in order to attack the poster and not the message.

Swearing in itself is not abusive. Language is language, and you do not need to swear in order to insult someone. For example;

• "I think mid-caps are f*cking sh*te".
• "People need to cop the f*ck on and calm down over [insert this week's outrage in the media]".
• "I think anyone who uses hi-caps is a f*cking spa".
• "Only someone clearly inept and unable to hit a barn door would recommend using hi-caps".
• "Anyone using hi-caps is beneath contempt."

So, tell me ... which of the above comments is not (to make a point) "f*cking" abusive hoplite?

Steve

Point made Lemming - any chance you could turn the colour down on how you make it, ta.

Lemming

Steve wrote: »

Point made Lemming - any chance you could turn the colour down on how you make it, ta.

With apologies to hi-cap users everywhere for being used to make a point

hoplite

Steve wrote: »

Point made Lemming - any chance you could turn the colour down on how you make it, ta.

What point was made there Steve? We disapprove of txt speak but can throw profanity around in a constructive thread to make a point? As long as we stick an * somewhere in the word then thats cool. I call bullsh*t.

Steve

hoplite wrote: »

What point was made there Steve? We disapprove of txt speak but can throw profanity around in a constructive thread to make a point? As long as we stick an * somewhere in the word then thats cool. I call bullsh*t.

The point is this:
If the post is directed at an individual then it's deemed personal abuse. It the post is a general statement that happens to include a (perhaps unnecessary) colourful metaphor then it's not personal abuse.

I've asked Lemming to tone down said metaphors.

Now, on with the thread - if you wish further clarification, my pm inbox awaits.

Danin

As I mentioned in the other thread and Steve touched on briefly, I'd like to recommend a protocol be put in place that if a newly appointed moderator clearly does not work out in the role, then there is a way for that person to be relinquished of their position, in a dignified manner

be it a grooming/trial period, were by at the end of it they are assessed by their peers(existing mods&admin) and given feedback or asked to step down graciously (exactly like airsoft where there should never be a stigma attached to being hit and likewise being asked to step down after a trial period it just means it didn't work out)

I think this is a way in which the community would then not feel lumbered with a disfunctioning mod and a lot of frustration and angst would be avoided.

Lemming

Danin wrote: »

As I mentioned in the other thread and Steve touched on briefly, I'd like to recommend a protocol be put in place that if a newly appointed moderator clearly does not work out in the role, then there is a way for that person to be relinquished of their position, in a dignified manner

Whilst I'll not disagree with your suggestion Danin, what defines "clearly does not work out"? Is there a metric that might be applied?

If one were to go trawl through feedback & helpdesk; you'll encounter a thread complaining about most moderators on the airsoft forums by someone or other (save perhaps kdouglas the lucky chap :P ) edit: he does have one. Moderation is not - by its inherent nature - a popular thing to do and someone somewhere is always going to be disgruntled.

Airsoft Reloded

Lemming wrote: »

Whilst I'll not disagree with your suggestion Danin, what defines "clearly does not work out"? Is there a metric that might be applied?

If one were to go trawl through feedback & helpdesk; you'll encounter a thread complaining about most moderators on the airsoft forums by someone or other (save perhaps kdouglas the lucky chap :P ) edit: he does have one. Moderation is not - by its inherent nature - a popular thing to do and someone somewhere is always going to be disgruntled.

We'd all agree with you there and fair play to those who make the effort but would you not agree that when the entire community is in agreement over a certain mod that it is an obvious next step?

Lemming

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

We'd all agree with you there and fair play to those who make the effort but would you not agree that when the entire community is in agreement over a certain mod that it is an obvious next step?

Not necessarily an obvious next step but I certainly wouldn't rule it out as it all very much depends on circumstance. Appearances can be deceptive after all and what may seem like "the community" might turn out to be one particular circle of users and it'll just "seem" like everyone's making noise (as has happened in the past).

I do believe that where mods genuinely are falling down they should be allowed the good grace to take note rather than calling for the hangman's noose so to speak. Whilst it is desirable to discourage poor judgement calls (consistent or not) - mods are users too and ergo fallible - you don't want a situation where mods are afraid to make moderator decisions either. To do so is to invite paralysis of the forums.

Vents

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

We'd all agree with you there and fair play to those who make the effort but would you not agree that when the entire community is in agreement over a certain mod that it is an obvious next step?

I would have to question this part of the post. Mainly for one fact. I am part of this community and I don't remember sharing my thoughts on the subject with anyone.

Now, if you could provide factual consensus on the subject I feel you would have grounds for some sort of action.

I feel the above post is a little inaccurate.



...........and what Lemming said..........

Danin

Lemming wrote: »

Whilst I'll not disagree with your suggestion Danin, what defines "clearly does not work out"? Is there a metric that might be applied?.

I'd say that this would be an internal review consisting of experienced Mods and Admin staff and it would allow them the flexibility to ask someone to step down the same way as any other working position functions with a trial period. Sometimes someone ticks all the boxes on paper but in practice they don't work out.

Sorry if I didn't make this clear in my first post Lemming, I meant it to be taken in the context of a totally internal admin perspective and nothing to do with the general public forums likes or dislikes.

I hope this clears things up a bit

Danin

Sorry just one more thing I hope no one thinks my suggestion was geared towards any existing mod, it honestly wasn't it was just something I wanted to suggest with regards to change of protocol moving forward in the future, if a revision was made.

Airsoft Reloded

What part of the post is inaccurate? I never said the whole community is in agreement, I asked what if they were.

Thats a fair point Lemming, so in your opinion is there anything that can be done, both as an ex-mod, a visitor and a player?

Vents wrote: »

I would have to question this part of the post. Mainly for one fact. I am part of this community and I don't remember sharing my thoughts on the subject with anyone.

Now, if you could provide factual consensus on the subject I feel you would have grounds for some sort of action.

I feel the above post is a little inaccurate.



...........and what Lemming said..........

Dogwatch

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

We'd all agree with you there and fair play to those who make the effort but would you not agree that when the entire community is in agreement over a certain mod that it is an obvious next step?

In my opinion the entire community do not agree with you. A small vocal minority have decided that someone does not agree with them and have decided unilaterally that this moderator is unsuitable.

Please do not make all emcompassing statements on my behalf.

Airsoft Reloded

Dogwatch wrote: »

In my opinion the entire community do not agree with you. A small vocal minority have decided that someone does not agree with them and have decided unilaterally that this moderator is unsuitable.

Please do not make all emcompassing statements on my behalf.

See above dude :rolleyes:

Why not let the sites/retailers/event organisers mod their own thread (Obviously with no power to ban or suspend people) with one Boards mod overseeing . Your not allowed to say anything negative on any of those threads so its not like you'll get a lot of posts deleted that the mods wouldn't do anyway. This would free up mods for the main forum and that would limit the need for new mods.

I don't know if that has been said before but it would allow the experienced mods to be the ones on the main forum and perhaps limit (if even slightly) some of these issues? And what Danin said.

Dogwatch

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

See above dude :rolleyes:

Why not let the sites/retailers/event organisers mod their own thread (Obviously with no power to ban or suspend people) with one Boards mod overseeing . Your not allowed to say anything negative on any of those threads so its not like you'll get a lot of posts deleted that the mods wouldn't do anyway. This would free up mods for the main forum and that would limit the need for new mods.

I don't know if that has been said before but it would allow the experienced mods to be the ones on the main forum and perhaps limit (if even slightly) some of these issues? And what Danin said.

I do not see the the problem as a moderator problem.

I think the problem lies with the content of posts which then require moderation because the poster is too quick to hit the submit key or has other issues which should not be placed on a public forum.

As has been noted in other threads, other entities read and note the content of the forums and it behoves us( the users) to maintain a high standard.

Those among us who are unwilling or unable to maintain these standards should, in my opinion, be moderated.

Airsoft Reloded

But its a forum..... People are going to say what they think (in their own style) and very regularly disagree. I get what your saying though, its not a community forum problem its a community problem and the problem with that is the only way to sort it out is with more moderation which is seen (by a lot of people apparently) as the issue in the first place.

Dogwatch wrote: »

I do not see the the problem as a moderator problem.

I think the problem lies with the content of posts which then require moderation because the poster is too quick to hit the submit key or has other issues which should not be placed on a public forum.

As has been noted in other threads, other entities read and note the content of the forums and it behoves us( the users) to maintain a high standard.

Those among us who are unwilling or unable to maintain these standards should, in my opinion, be moderated.

Lemming

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

Thats a fair point Lemming, so in your opinion is there anything that can be done, both as an ex-mod, a visitor and a player?

There is already an internal process for mod review. I know of it but I was not ever privy to its workings other than that site employees and admins (maybe smods too)? would examine circumstances around a particular moderator's name cropping up an awful lot. How much is "an awful lot" I couldn't tell you. Mods have been removed in the past; this isn't an alien concept to boards.ie, but you need to consider whether or not those screaming from the rooftops are being reasonable and justified in their demands.

Beyond that I don't have any "Step 1,2,3" regarding resolution. Smarter and more experienced people than I have figured that one out already so attempting to re-invent the wheel is a moot exercise IMO.

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

Why not let the sites/retailers/event organisers mod their own thread (Obviously with no power to ban or suspend people) with one Boards mod overseeing. Your not allowed to say anything negative on any of those threads so its not like you'll get a lot of posts deleted that the mods wouldn't do anyway. This would free up mods for the main forum and that would limit the need for new mods.

I don't know if that has been said before but it would allow the experienced mods to be the ones on the main forum and perhaps limit (if even slightly) some of these issues? And what Danin said.

The sites/retailers/organisers would be herded into either the biz category, or hosted. If nobody here has ever heard of those categories, then I would suggest you all pause for reflection first before asking for the above.

But regardless of the above, I don't think it would solve anything tbh as the sites/retailers/organisers threads are not a problem for the most part. And the issue of users own behaviour has still not been addressed.

Dogwatch

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

But its a forum..... People are going to say what they think (in their own style) and very regularly disagree. I get what your saying though, its not a community forum problem its a community problem and the problem with that is the only way to sort it out is with more moderation which is seen (by a lot of people apparently) as the issue in the first place.

Again I have to disagree with you.

If the users of the forum maintain the standard as laid down by the admins, then the moderators are out of a job. when the boundaries are continually pushed, the moderators are overwhelmed with complaints and need help.

If you want less moderators and moderation just behave and abide by the various boards charters.

It might be better if we all took time out and re read the charters just to remind ourselves of the type of behaviour that is required.

As an aside I have noticed that since the C Mods and Admins visited our little world that the standard of behaviour has improved.

( I am sure we will find somthing to agree about soon:D:D)

J.D.R

On the topic of the charter change, would there be an addition in the policy of "Thanking" posts?

More often than not, if two users are having an argument a heated discussion on a thread, people will start to subtly pick sides by thanking one individuals posts, even if they are deemed to be personal abuse. I cannot think of any specific example, but I'm sure everyone can think of a thread where an argument arrises and when it turns into the multi quote round of tit for tat people start to thank questionable posts.

Would there be a policy to cut back on this subtle form of bullying?

Lemming

J.D.R wrote: »

On the topic of the charter change, would there be an addition in the policy of "Thanking" posts?

More often than not, if two users are having an argument a heated discussion on a thread, people will start to subtly pick sides by thanking one individuals posts, even if they are deemed to be personal abuse. I cannot think of any specific example, but I'm sure everyone can think of a thread where an argument arrises and when it turns into the multi quote round of tit for tat people start to thank questionable posts.

Would there be a policy to cut back on this subtle form of bullying?

I alluded to this in a post in the feedback thread. It is exceptionally difficult to govern IMO, and you need to show a specific behavioural pattern over an extended period of time to prove any notions of bullying.

All the same, it's something that the admins should be made aware of so that they might be able to tackle the issue from a higher policy level.

Vents

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

What part of the post is inaccurate? I never said the whole community is in agreement, I asked what if they were.

Thats a fair point Lemming, so in your opinion is there anything that can be done, both as an ex-mod, a visitor and a player?

Airsoft Reloded wrote:

We'd all agree with you there and fair play to those who make the effort but would you not agree that when the entire community is in agreement over a certain mod that it is an obvious next step?

I Found the above to be inaccurate because it suggests (to me at least) that you have the support of the entire community. Which you don't.

As you said, you didn't mean it that way and were only speculating on a potential course of action if community consensus were ever reached on the subject

Inari

The issue with Thank-bullying would come under Steve's (Rhinocharge) suggestion of the implementation of a cyberbullying policy.

What would peoples opinions be on the merging of "Airsoft Questions" and "Airsoft Technical" - there seems to be too many sub-categories, which means people don't frequent the whole site too much. There are not too many differences between the two, so they could probably merged to good effect.

Airsoft Reloded

I agree with you completely but my point is that it will never happen, the reason we have rules, law, admins, mods e.t.c. is because you can't expect the rules to be follow ed so that is kind of a non issue do you not think? (Just to keep it going with you )

Dogwatch wrote: »

Again I have to disagree with you.

If the users of the forum maintain the standard as laid down by the admins, then the moderators are out of a job. when the boundaries are continually pushed, the moderators are overwhelmed with complaints and need help.

If you want less moderators and moderation just behave and abide by the various boards charters.

It might be better if we all took time out and re read the charters just to remind ourselves of the type of behaviour that is required.

As an aside I have noticed that since the C Mods and Admins visited our little world that the standard of behaviour has improved.

( I am sure we will find somthing to agree about soon:D:D)

Dogwatch

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

I agree with you completely but my point is that it will never happen, the reason we have rules, law, admins, mods e.t.c. is because you can't expect the rules to be follow ed so that is kind of a non issue do you not think? (Just to keep it going with you )

Yes, I agree it will not happen, so when the rules are broken, punishment will be meted out to the transgressor. If it is you, dont whinge about it as the rules are there and quite clear.

(MY GOD I am agreeing with you.:D:D I need to lie down and call my nurse}

MagicIRL

Lemming wrote: »

Eh, exactly where have I been abusive to someone? Please, point out the person(s) that I have insulted. So no, it's not ironic. What is ironic is that you've chosen to focus on the most pathetic thing in order to attack the poster and not the... snip

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056091414

Lemming

MagicIRL wrote: »

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056091414

And that has what to do with anything posted in this thread? ...

Hoplite's original post (and my response) was all within direct reference to posts on this thread. But if you feel the need to go trawl TEH 1NT0RW3BZ in order to sling mud, you go right ahead MagicIRL. And I'll ask you, where in that linked thread, did I actually throw abuse at someone? So yeah, go back to your drawing board because that's a -1 for effort.

MagicIRL

Aww, Don't shed a tear simply because you got cocky enough to exclaim, unrelated to the topic at hand, that you never made an absuvie post towards another player.

That whole topic is a malicious mudslinging fight that you should be ashamed off. And this is why the Airsoft forum needs to change.

Leftyflip

Ah fer feck sake, please lads this isn't the place, they're propsing charter changes here, not this, I'm actually getting sick of all thi shíte, it's the same thing everyday now on Boards, I'm now only using this for a few airsoft threads and the pwetty girls thread...

CaptainPrice

Since were getting threads merged I propose we just have 2

Airsoft arguments
And adverts/arguments

Since that's all that ever really happens on the site anyway.
Seriously lads, there are other ways to wait on death than sitting at the keyboard bitching about stupid issues like gun bags, what a Garda may or may not say or do.... And so on.
It's wrecking part of the sport

Inari

Inari wrote: »

What would peoples opinions be on the merging of "Airsoft Questions" and "Airsoft Technical" - there seems to be too many sub-categories, which means people don't frequent the whole site too much. There are not too many differences between the two, so they could probably merged to good effect.

In case people missed it

Shiva

Inari wrote: »

In case people missed it

Seems reasonable to me.

Stercus Accidit

+1 I forget which one I posted in regularly as there is so much crossover.

Stercus Accidit

CaptainPrice wrote: »

Since were getting threads merged I propose we just have 2

Airsoft arguments
And adverts/arguments

Since that's all that ever really happens on the site anyway.
Seriously lads, there are other ways to wait on death than sitting at the keyboard bitching about stupid issues like gun bags, what a Garda may or may not say or do.... And so on.
It's wrecking part of the sport

I dissagree, we'd be banned rotten by now if we never hammered things out or made people aware of the law and their responcibilities.

Should I have posted this in the arguments sub-forum? :P:)

War Machine 539

Lemming wrote: »

I alluded to this in a post in the feedback thread. It is exceptionally difficult to govern IMO, and you need to show a specific behavioural pattern over an extended period of time to prove any notions of bullying.

All the same, it's something that the admins should be made aware of so that they might be able to tackle the issue from a higher policy level.

I find this hilarious. I have been double teamed in an argument by you and your girlfriend before. Once does not constitute bullying, but I also have seen you do it to other people. It may not be bullying in the conventional sense, but its not pleasant.

Moderation on the airsoft forum is broken.

I suggest a degree of transparency in moderation decisions.

I suggest that all boards users are allowed access to the moderators decision making forum. If they have nothing to hide access should not be an issue.
I also suggest that all decisions are made on this forum, there's a ''No off thread dealing rule'' a similar rule with regards to decision making could'nt hurt.

Also, similar to how we see sanctions and why they are given, when a sanction is magically lifted - Again as was the case with Lemmings girlfriend coincidentally enough :rolleyes: - that an explanation be posted also.

If this was a once or twice occurance it would be coincidence. Its been a fair few times now. Im suspicious.

TheDoc

Didnt this idea just die a death or something?

I know it was all up in arms and elts get **** sorted, but as usual I'm pretty sure nothing was done and we jsut move on until we get the new big arguement, although in all fairness I think you may have started it off

*gets popcorn*

senordingdong

TheDoc wrote: »

Didnt this idea just die a death or something?

I know it was all up in arms and elts get **** sorted, but as usual I'm pretty sure nothing was done and we jsut move on until we get the new big arguement, although in all fairness I think you may have started it off

*gets popcorn*

Positive as usual.

TheDoc

senordingdong wrote: »

Positive as usual.

Wouldnt have it any other way

Steve

War Machine 539 wrote: »

Also, similar to how we see sanctions and why they are given, when a sanction is magically lifted - Again as was the case with Lemmings girlfriend coincidentally enough :rolleyes: - that an explanation be posted also.

Exactly what are you on about there?

gerrowadat

TheDoc wrote: »

Didnt this idea just die a death or something?

I know it was all up in arms and elts get **** sorted, but as usual I'm pretty sure nothing was done and we jsut move on until we get the new big arguement, although in all fairness I think you may have started it off

*gets popcorn*

It's the boards way. Act like you're concerned and go on about things being done 'any day now', and then hope everyone shuts up and ****s off.