Antrim Forum; Thread Giants Causeway: Muffler

CityMan2010

I must voice my concerns in the manner in which Muffler, Moderator of the Antrim Category has managed a thread:

"Giant's Causeway Post #31"

I found Mufflers management of this post to be over-reactionary, rude, and condescending.

If Muffler thought the post to be inflammatory he could have removed it without the arrogant condesencion.

In my opinion the OP was merely sharing an honest experience, and that the post was not intentionaly inflammatory or meaning to cause offence.

Mufflers reaction was delivered as a knee jerk and reeked of ugly superiority. Is this the tone and manner in which you wish your "Moderators to Behave".

The post (#31) did not however receive any adverse reactions from anyone else on the Forum, except Muffler.

And when I raised my concerns with Muffler I was given an infraction for being "naughty"...Catch a grip, add some common sense into the way forums are moderated.

Judge for yourselves: IMO this was a disgraceful insult to the OP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuinseog
At the risk of getting banned from this forum Bushmills is a cold and strange place. As a Catholic I really felt like they despised me because I came from the south.

Yes you took the risk but it backfire my friend.

Your post was nothing but flame baiting and I wont have that here.

Enjoy your time off and reflect on your contribution to the forum,

r3nu4l

Rather than ask the CMods to deal with this I'll do it directly.

CityMan I'm afraid that you are unaware of the history behind this particular user and have been the victim of trolling. Fuinseog has a particular dislike of all things bushmills related and this is based on sectarianism.

He also seems to have a beef with everything British too and has been infracted for such posts in the past. As such when a moderator knows that a popster is deliberately writing a post intended to upset others or start an off topic heated debate, they tend to give them short shrift.

Why should our mods be expected to be polite to those whose sole intention is to deliberately wind up other users? Fuinseog knew exactly what he was doing when he posted that inflammatory post in the Antrim forum and muffler acted correctly to quickly halt his activities.

As for your infraction, it is A fairly standard rule on boards.ie that you do not derail a thread by arguing or commenting on moderator actions. If you wish to do that then you should PM the mod in question asking why they took that action. As always if your PM is not antagonistic, most mods are happy to explain, I know i am.

I hope this helps.

CityMan2010

No that doesnt help much.

Quite as expected this appears to by enlarge, an excuse for shoddy management. But I did'nt expect much of anything else.

r3nu4l wrote: »

Rather than ask the CMods to deal with this I'll do it directly.

CityMan I'm afraid that you are unaware of the history behind this particular user and have been the victim of trolling. Fuinseog has a particular dislike of all things bushmills related and this is based on sectarianism.

He also seems to have a beef with everything British too and has been infracted for such posts in the past. As such when a moderator knows that a popster is deliberately writing a post intended to upset others or start an off topic heated debate, they tend to give them short shrift.

Why should our mods be expected to be polite to those whose sole intention is to deliberately wind up other users? Fuinseog knew exactly what he was doing when he posted that inflammatory post in the Antrim forum and muffler acted correctly to quickly halt his activities.

As for your infraction, it is A fairly standard rule on boards.ie that you do not derail a thread by arguing or commenting on moderator actions. If you wish to do that then you should PM the mod in question asking why they took that action. As always if your PM is not antagonistic, most mods are happy to explain, I know i am.

I hope this helps.

r3nu4l

CityMan2010 wrote: »

No that doesnt help much.

Why not? It was pretty clear? Take some time to read the forum charter which covers all of the North counties and is linked at the top of the Antrim forum.

Cast your eyes over this bit in particular:

Do not argue with a moderator in a thread after they have given a warning or a ban etc. If you have an issue with a moderator's action then PM the mod in question. They will discuss it with you.

Does that help?

You breached the charter, you got a warning. Fair game. Not the mods fault if you failed to read the charter and didn't understand the rules. That's your responsibility.

Hardly shoddy management, you are either someone who doesn't bother reading charters or thinks they don't apply to you. Which one are you?

CityMan2010

Are you really expecting a reply to your smug and snide response? Is this how you normally attempt to resolve a concern over the Moderation of your threads?

Firstly, I was not disputing my "infraction" for being naughty. Stay focussed.

Secondly, that post in question read "in islolation" was not inflammatory.

Thirdly, given your extensive commentary on the posters background, why has he/she not been previously been banned?

Fourthly under any normal circumances, (given your extensive background on the original OP's history as an explanation for the Moderators tone), the post should have been removed and not allowed to remain in public view. ie; you wish to avoid flame baiting but you allow the post to remain.

Fiftly, you publicly condoned/supported your moderators tone and language towards of the OP. Again taking post #31 in isolation, under any normal terms of professionalism, that is unacceptable.

Sixth, your rules, your empire, your excuses, good luck get on with it.

Enjoy.

r3nu4l wrote: »

Why not? It was pretty clear? Take some time to read the forum charter which covers all of the North counties and is linked at the top of the Antrim forum.

Cast your eyes over this bit in particular:


Does that help?

You breached the charter, you got a warning. Fair game. Not the mods fault if you failed to read the charter and didn't understand the rules. That's your responsibility.

Hardly shoddy management, you are either someone who doesn't bother reading charters or thinks they don't apply to you. Which one are you?

r3nu4l

CityMan2010 wrote: »

Are you really expecting a reply to your smug and snide response?

You just did. Remember you get what you give. I answered your 'concern' politely and got a snide response back from you. Can't have it both ways my friend.

Is this how you normally attempt to resolve a concern over the Moderation of your threads?

If you give me snide comments about 'shoddy management', then yes expect snideness in return.

Firstly, I was not disputing my "infraction" for being naughty. Stay focussed.

Really? Well this forum is for disputing your infraction or ban. Not disputing other people's infractions or bans. I indulged you in the first reply to give you some background. If you have a concern with the moderator tone, contact the mod first. Then come here if you don't like the answer.

Secondly, that post in question read "in islolation" was not inflammatory.

Thirdly, given your extensive commentary on the posters background, why has he/she not been previously been banned?

Fourthly under any normal circumances, (given your extensive background on the original OP's history as an explanation for the Moderators tone), the post should have been removed and not allowed to remain in public view. ie; you wish to avoid flame baiting but you allow the post to remain.

Fiftly, you publicly condoned/supported your moderators tone and language towards of the OP. Again taking post #31 in isolation, under any normal terms of professionalism, that is unacceptable.

Sixth, your rules, your empire, your excuses, good luck get on with it.

Enjoy.

The rest of this? Not relevant to your infraction at all, therefore not relevant to this forum.

Go back to the mod in question and query their tone if you like but given how you've responded here to politeness given to you in the first instance I suspect you'll treat the mod similarly. Expect no favours if you are going to be snide.

r3nu4l

Following PM discussion between the mod, myself and CityMan2010 it was determined that sometimes users are not as aware of the history of a user who has been banned as Mods and Admins are.

As a result sometimes a mod action or response to the banned user can seem overly harsh or critical.

It's therefore a good idea for a mod to state why a person has been banned/infracted/not entertained when the reason for a ban is not immediately obvious to everyone.

We don't expect mods to write long essays on every ban or infraction and we don't expect mods to comment on the reason for every ban or infraction but when it's not immediately obvious then it's a good idea as then regular Users realise that this isn't an off-the-cuff ban and that there's more to it than it would initially seem.

I'd like to thank CityMan2010 and muffler for their comments and thoughts. Productive!