Double Standards on boards.ie

John Sugrue

Moderator Asiaprod has informed me that this forum is a more appropriate place to post this issue than where I had originally posted it.

Hi All,

This is not a major issue but one I would like to draw attention to. I received a warning from a moderator in the Leaving Cert forum for the use of the term 'Mr. Smartass'. As I explained to the moderator in my PM following the warning, this was meant jokingly and has been misconstrued by the moderator, who admits in his response that nobody reported the comment.

He tells me this: "You should also be aware, however, that forums vary to some extent as to the amount of leeway allowable. LC has always been and always will be quite tightly moderated in comparison to some other forums, in order to ensure that it provides a useful and calm environment for the discussion of issues pertaining to the Leaving Cert, something which is in itself sufficiently stressful for most people undertaking it without having to endure a stressed and antagonistic atmosphere in this forum."

By and large, I accept this reasoning. I regret making the comment. I will be more careful in future.

However, my issue is now one of transparency and equality on the forums. The moderator in question is called 'randylonghorn'. His profile clarifies this as 'exactly what it says on the tin'. What's more, he has an avatar on his profile with the term 'porn star' on it. Nobody can dispute that this is a sexually explicit username and profile and given that he is so active in the Leaving Cert forum and that his profile is thus easily viewable by those under 18 who he claims require an additional degree of moderator protection, I feel that it is hypocritical and unfair, that such a person can discipline me for using the term 'smartass'.

Nevertheless, I do not expect any satisfying response to this post. From reading other threads in this forum, it is clear that the majority of moderators will cover each other even against the most logical of arguments (of which I believe this is one). But I feel that drawing everybody's attention to an apparent double-standard is worthwhile. However, if any moderator does feel that randylonghorn's profile is indeed inappropriate and should be renamed, especially given his specific role on the site, I would be very appreciative (and, unfortunately, surprised).

Regards,
JS

Tallon

I don't think someones name affects how well they moderate

For all I know, Asiaprod could mean something rude

John Sugrue

No but it raises questions with regard to their suitability to moderate. If a moderator is allowed to criticise me for using the term 'smartass' it is only reasonable that that moderator be expected to behave in an equally clean manner, which this one clearly is not.

Tallon

John Sugrue wrote: »

No but it raises questions with regard to their suitability to moderate. If a moderator is allowed to criticise me for using the term 'smartass' it is only reasonable that that moderator be expected to behave in an equally clean manner, which this one clearly is not.

But, as explained, that forum is moderated more 'tightly' than others

IITYWYBMAD

Tallon wrote: »

But, as explained, that forum is moderated more 'tightly' than others

I believe you're missing the point. The question is not really with regards to the degree with which LC is moderated, more the stated claim by the mod.

The OP is fairly accepting of the reasons behind his "slap on the wrist".

However, he is asking, quite legitimately imo, why is he being targeted for the use of a fairly lame term "irrespective and outside of it's contextual use" while the moderator is allowed to have a "nom de guerre" which suggests that he is a "porn star"?

If the kids need protecting, they need protecting!!

Spear

John Sugrue wrote: »

No but it raises questions with regard to their suitability to moderate. If a moderator is allowed to criticise me for using the term 'smartass' it is only reasonable that that moderator be expected to behave in an equally clean manner, which this one clearly is not.

It's the moderators job to ensure civil discourse and this means stopping people from abusing each other. It is not a moderators job to shield people from any aspect of reality they may not agree with or find acceptable.

LoLth

John Sugrue wrote: »

Moderator Asiaprod has informed me that this forum is a more appropriate place to post this issue than where I had originally posted it.

welcome to feedback.

Hi All,

This is not a major issue but one I would like to draw attention to. I received a warning from a moderator in the Leaving Cert forum for the use of the term 'Mr. Smartass'. As I explained to the moderator in my PM following the warning, this was meant jokingly and has been misconstrued by the moderator, who admits in his response that nobody reported the comment.

The warning could have been if the term Mr. Smartass was directed at someone as (mild) abuse instead of a joking comment. Under a tightly moderated forum I can understand *any* abuse warranting an infraction even if it is mild and unreported. all depends on circumstance tbh. However, feedback is not the place to sort out infractions or bans. thats the DRP in helpdesk (theres a link to it in the charter for this forum)

He tells me this: "You should also be aware, however, that forums vary to some extent as to the amount of leeway allowable. LC has always been and always will be quite tightly moderated in comparison to some other forums, in order to ensure that it provides a useful and calm environment for the discussion of issues pertaining to the Leaving Cert, something which is in itself sufficiently stressful for most people undertaking it without having to endure a stressed and antagonistic atmosphere in this forum."

By and large, I accept this reasoning. I regret making the comment. I will be more careful in future.

all good so far

However, my issue is now one of transparency and equality on the forums. The moderator in question is called 'randylonghorn'. His profile clarifies this as 'exactly what it says on the tin'. What's more, he has an avatar on his profile with the term 'porn star' on it. Nobody can dispute that this is a sexually explicit username and profile

hold it right there. I think you need to re-examine your definition of explicit. This is, if anything, implicit or innuendo. Boards.ie does have a policy on usernames and we do not allow usernames that are offensive or explicit. if you find one that you think is explicit then by all means report it but you need to brush up on the difference between innuendo (subtle or otherwise) and rude/crude/explicit

and given that he is so active in the Leaving Cert forum and that his profile is thus easily viewable by those under 18 who he claims require an additional degree of moderator protection, I feel that it is hypocritical and unfair, that such a person can discipline me for using the term 'smartass'.

I'm thinking that your objection to his name/profile is more fueled by his infraction of your post than it is by any real concern for the children.

Nevertheless, I do not expect any satisfying response to this post. From reading other threads in this forum, it is clear that the majority of moderators will cover each other even against the most logical of arguments (of which I believe this is one). But I feel that drawing everybody's attention to an apparent double-standard is worthwhile.

and there we have it. My favourite way that a user can be guaranteed to not get taken seriously. they type "i know you wont take this seriosuly" as a way of making the reader think that if they dont actually take you seriously then they must be doing something wrong. maybe a more legitimate concern would be taken more seriously ?

However, if any moderator does feel that randylonghorn's profile is indeed inappropriate and should be renamed, especially given his specific role on the site, I would be very appreciative (and, unfortunately, surprised).

I dont knwo about you but most 16 to 18 year olds I've encountered wouldnt blink an eyelid at that level of innuendo or quite a lot worse. Where would you suggest we draw the line at the level of exposure?
so should longhorn cattle in the states be re-named because some people may mistake the meaning ? perhaps its a good thing that windows changed windows longhorn's name. Perhaps we should force a namechange by deed poll on everyone called Randy (Randall, Randalph, etc) in real life. Maybe we should ask him to change his profile career type to "aspiring actor" or "pizza delivery boy" and report him to Ronseal for theft of their catchphrase.

Trust me, there are worse innuendo names on boards and they have been here a long time. I think you need to relax a bit and not read into everything so much or you are going to find the internet a very scary place indeed.

Regards,
JS

you are, of course, entitled to your opinion and I am sorry if you find his name offensive. I'm sure others would have an opinion on the matter and I would be interested in hearing them.

faceman

OP, while randy's username is tongue in cheek, its not directed at anyone, whereas Mr Smarta$$ was. the explicitness of randy's profile would seem no different than what can be found in the 12's rated movie nowadays.

Besides, everything is innuendo nowadays. even the OP' username. Its an anagram for "Use Jug Horn"

looksee

Since you ask for opinions, I tend to agree with the OP. Its a bit disingenuous to wander round the meaning of randylonghorn when it is perfectly obvious what it means, especially with the accompanying material.

No doubt the OP would not have bothered but for the warning - there does seem to be a bit of a double standard. I would not consider it overly offensive if it was obviously a joke rather than an insult, was the mod referring to the term or to the fact that it contained the word ass? Would he have been warned if he had referred to Mr Cleverclogs or any other similar expression?

John Sugrue

LoLth wrote: »

I dont knwo about you but most 16 to 18 year olds I've encountered wouldnt blink an eyelid at that level of innuendo or quite a lot worse. Where would you suggest we draw the line at the level of exposure?
so should longhorn cattle in the states be re-named because some people may mistake the meaning ? perhaps its a good thing that windows changed windows longhorn's name. Perhaps we should force a namechange by deed poll on everyone called Randy (Randall, Randalph, etc) in real life. Maybe we should ask him to change his profile career type to "aspiring actor" or "pizza delivery boy" and report him to Ronseal for theft of their catchphrase.

Trust me, there are worse innuendo names on boards and they have been here a long time. I think you need to relax a bit and not read into everything so much or you are going to find the internet a very scary place indeed.

Thank you. My point exactly. I don't know a single 16-18 year old who would consider the term 'smartass' vulgar or worthy of a warning. But as I said above I'm over it.

My issue is not with the username per se. It is with the fact that someone with such a username is in a position where he can criticise me on issues of decency and child protection.

El Weirdo

John Sugrue wrote: »

Thank you. My point exactly. I don't know a single 16-18 year old who would consider the term 'smartass' vulgar or worthy of a warning.

No. But if it was directed at someone, then you deserved a warning as per the charter.

John Sugrue wrote: »

But as I said above I'm over it.

I'm guessing you aren't.

John Sugrue

El Weirdo wrote: »

I'm guessing you aren't.

On the contrary, I am. I have accepted the caution. Yes, I directed the term smartass at an individual, albeit jokingly. I have accepted the warning, as I have said on numerous occasions now. However, a number of the comments above, including yours, are missing the point.

I have not accepted the fact that a person who is being ruder, less child-friendly and using sexual language has the power to warn me for far less. The moderators suitablility to do his job is the issue. As it stands, it is hypocritical, irrespective of who or what my comment was directed at.

RolandIRL

John Sugrue wrote: »

Thank you. My point exactly. I don't know a single 16-18 year old who would consider the term 'smartass' vulgar or worthy of a warning. But as I said above I'm over it.

My issue is not with the username per se. It is with the fact that someone with such a username is in a position where he can criticise me on issues of decency and child protection.

it wasn't the term that you were infracted for...it was the way you used it...you called someone Mr Smartass...you could have called someone stupid and you'd still be infracted (stupid's not vulgar but it's still mean). it's personal abuse, and it's not tolerated on boards.

I don't see where randy said that he was criticising you on issues of child protection...could you link to that please?

this is the thread in question: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056238918&page=2

John Sugrue

whiteman19 wrote: »

it wasn't the term that you were infracted for...it was the way you used it...you called someone Mr Smartass...you could have called someone stupid and you'd still be infracted (stupid's not vulgar but it's still mean). it's personal abuse, and it's not tolerated on boards.

I don't see where randy said that he was criticising you on issues of child protection...could you link to that please?

this is the thread in question: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056238918&page=2

Again, you're missing the point. I have accepted the warning.... This is getting tiresome.

The issue of child protection is one of the arguments the moderator gave for stricter moderation of the LC forum. I quoted that above from the PM he sent me so there's nothing to link to. The specific age range 16-18 was indicated by moderater LoLth in another response above.

RolandIRL

John Sugrue wrote: »

Again, you're missing the point. I have accepted the warning.... This is getting tiresome.

then what is the point? randy infracted you for insulting someone with the term "Mr. Smartass"...no mention in his posts of anything about "Mr. Smartass is too vulgar for the children in the LC forum who need to be protected"...is that your point is?

John Sugrue

whiteman19 wrote: »

then what is the point? randy infracted you for insulting someone with the term "Mr. Smartass"...no mention in his posts of anything about "Mr. Smartass is too vulgar for the children in the LC forum who need to be protected"...is that your point is?

My issue is a double standard on the forum. This is in my first post at the top of the page:

However, my issue is now one of transparency and equality on the forums. The moderator in question is called 'randylonghorn'. His profile clarifies this as 'exactly what it says on the tin'. What's more, he has an avatar on his profile with the term 'porn star' on it. Nobody can dispute that this is a sexually explicit username and profile and given that he is so active in the Leaving Cert forum and that his profile is thus easily viewable by those under 18 who he claims require an additional degree of moderator protection, I feel that it is hypocritical and unfair, that such a person can discipline me for using the term 'smartass'.

Spear

John Sugrue wrote: »

My issue is a double standard on the forum. This is in my first post at the top of the page:

There is no double standard, there's just you taking the standard for one thing and misapplying it elsewhere.

John Sugrue

Spear wrote: »

There is no double standard, there's just you taking the standard for one thing and misapplying it elsewhere.

That's not a rational argument. That's a 'You're making hassle for us. Please go away' comment.

What's more, I have had a fair share of support if you care to read the whole thread.

Spear

John Sugrue wrote: »

That's not a rational argument. That's a 'You're making hassle for us. Please go away' comment.

What's more, I have had a fair share of support if you care to read the whole thread.

You think that being punished for your name calling, somehow means other users names must be sanitized? You honestly think that constitutes a rational argument?

RolandIRL

as i say again...he didn't infract you for being vulgar with the term smartass. it's because you directed that comment specifically at another user which is abuse, and especially in the LC forum, that's taken quite harshly given that the moderators want the forum to be calm and useful to all posters.

you were being antagonistic to that poster. being vulgar has nothing to do with that.

i don't see what the double standard is, you were being rude to another poster...randy infracted you for that...simple as.

tbh

John Sugrue wrote: »

I feel that it is hypocritical and unfair, that such a person can discipline me for using the term 'smartass'.

This would seem to imply that you wouldn't have a problem with him if you hadn't received a warning. Do you think you'd have received the warning if you'd called yourself a smartass? I don't. Do you think you have received a warning if you'd called someone an ignoramus? I do. You seem to think you got the warning for bad language. You didn't. And I very much doubt you're over the warning, it seems to be the only thing that's motivating this tbh.

AckwelFoley

John, you know that to abuse someone on the forums is wrong, but i expect that if you didnt receive a warning you wouldnt have a problem with the moderators name.

My opinion for what it worth, is that i think perhaps the infraction is somewhat harsh, i cant think of particularly any example or tone where the term smart arse could be considered as abusive, but i have not read the thread - however as already stated -

- You received an infraction under the guise of abusing / insulting another poster, you have a problem with the moderators name as you think its not appropriate for the forum - thats not a double standard - they're 2 completely separate issues.

Do i think randylonghorn is an inappropriate name for a moderator in a forum for 16 - 18 year olds? Well i will put it this way - how innocent do you think adolesent irish people are. I remember being 16 - my reaction to the name randylonghorn would have been the same then as it is 18 years later now that im 34 - nothing, its a name with a suggestive meaning, similar to uglybolloxface or Fingers McGee.

John, in essance - play the ball, not the man

tbh

Forgot to say, also think the infraction is harsh.

John Sugrue

Are ye messing me around on purpose? Is that the policy on here when someone complains? Drag conversations that are totally missing the point on until he gives up?

Ok. I will say this one more time. I have accepted that warning. That means comments regarding why I got a warning or who I directed a comment at are all irrelevant.

The issue is with the suitability of the moderator to do his job. It is not acceptable that someone who's language and behaviour on this forum is far from clean has the power to criticise me for using much less crude language, directed anywhere!

It is like a judge locking someone up for dealing drugs and then going out and selling some himself.

tbh

It's really, really not like that.

John Sugrue

tbh wrote: »

This would seem to imply that you wouldn't have a problem with him if you hadn't received a warning. Do you think you'd have received the warning if you'd called yourself a smartass? I don't. Do you think you have received a warning if you'd called someone an ignoramus? I do. You seem to think you got the warning for bad language. You didn't. And I very much doubt you're over the warning, it seems to be the only thing that's motivating this tbh.

A logical argument. Thanks you!!

I appreciate what you're saying but, irrespective of what I said or who I said it to, it is still galling to be told how to behave by a person who's profile contains much worse.

John Sugrue

snyper wrote: »

John, you know that to abuse someone on the forums is wrong, but i expect that if you didnt receive a warning you wouldnt have a problem with the moderators name.

My opinion for what it worth, is that i think perhaps the infraction is somewhat harsh, i cant think of particularly any example or tone where the term smart arse could be considered as abusive, but i have not read the thread - however as already stated -

- You received an infraction under the guise of abusing / insulting another poster, you have a problem with the moderators name as you think its not appropriate for the forum - thats not a double standard - they're 2 completely separate issues.

Do i think randylonghorn is an inappropriate name for a moderator in a forum for 16 - 18 year olds? Well i will put it this way - how innocent do you think adolesent irish people are. I remember being 16 - my reaction to the name randylonghorn would have been the same then as it is 18 years later now that im 34 - nothing, its a name with a suggestive meaning, similar to uglybolloxface or Fingers McGee.

John, in essance - play the ball, not the man

Thanks for that. At last someone who can take a complaint seriously.

I have no problem with the name per se. It is the fact that someone with such a clear sexual tone in his name has the power to punish me for inappropriate language.

And to build one your point. If it is the innocence of the 16-18 year olds and how they would view the sexual terms that matters, do many get insulted when they're called a smartass, jokingly or otherwise? Doubt it. Smartass is an everyday term nowadays. Would many 16-18 year olds consider punishment for calling someone a smartass harsh? I would think so.

tbh

Your problem there is that for people to support your argument, they would have to feel as strongly about RLHs profile as you do. Most people don't I'd say. In fact I'd imagine most people think it's quite tame and would believe, deep down, that that's what you really think too.

tbh

John Sugrue wrote: »

Thanks for that. At last, I'm being taking seriously.

I have no problem with the name per se. It is the fact that someone with such a clear sexual tone in his name has the power to punish me for inappropriate language.

You keep talking about him punishing you. It's why people don't believe you when you say that the warnin is t your main motive for this.

RolandIRL

John Sugrue wrote: »

Thanks for that. At last, I'm being taking seriously.

I have no problem with the name per se. It is the fact that someone with such a clear sexual tone in his name has the power to punish me for inappropriate language.

He punished you for insulting someone, not for using inappropriate language. That's not double standards.

John Sugrue

whiteman19 wrote: »

He punished you for insulting someone, not for using inappropriate language. That's not double standards.

You've been missing the point since you started here whiteman. Sorry

John Sugrue

tbh wrote: »

You keep talking about him punishing you. It's why people don't believe you when you say that the warnin is t your main motive for this.

No, no. It is my motive!! That's the point. I don't think a rude moderator who's profile is full with sexual innuendo and inappropriate language is an appropriate person to tell me how to behave.

I'm complaining that I was punished for something by someone who should not be in a position to do so. He is not an appropriate character to preach what is wrong and right.

Orim

I don't think Whiteman has missed the point.

Reading into your complaint is that someone with a sexual innuendo in their name should not be moderating the LC forum especially as he has infracted you for the use of inappropriate language in the form of the term "Mr Smartass"

However the point Whiteman has been trying to make is that it is not the language but the fact that it is directed at someone in a mocking manner. To use your own example I'm sure that Randy would have done the same had you called someone Mr Clevercogs. It is the fact that it is an insult, not the choice of insult.

Without knowing exactly what was said in the PM conversation, I would assume that when talking about child protection and the need for the LC forum to be strictly moderated it is in regards to insults,flaming and trolling. The language does not come into because lets face anyone in the 16 - 19 age bracket generally knows more inventive swear words then their elders. However what they really don't need is any extra stress in what is generally the most stressful time of their life to that point. Any insult, even one as tame as this, is just an open door for trouble.

John Sugrue wrote: »

No, no. It is my motive!! That's the point. I don't think a rude moderator who's profile is full with sexual innuendo and inappropriate language is an appropriate person to tell me how to behave.

I'm complaining that I was punished for something by someone who should not be in a position to do so. He is not an appropriate character to preach what is wrong and right.

He is within the rules of the site. You were not.

That's like me saying that I couldn't be arrested for smoking hash because I saw the arresting gardai in a pub getting drunk.

John Sugrue

Orim wrote: »

I don't think Whiteman has missed the point.

Reading into your complaint is that someone with a sexual innuendo in their name should not be moderating the LC forum especially as he has infracted you for the use of inappropriate language in the form of the term "Mr Smartass"

However the point Whiteman has been trying to make is that it is not the language but the fact that it is directed at someone in a mocking manner. To use your own example I'm sure that Randy would have done the same had you called someone Mr Clevercogs. It is the fact that it is an insult, not the choice of insult.

Without knowing exactly what was said in the PM conversation, I would assume that when talking about child protection and the need for the LC forum to be strictly moderated it is in regards to insults,flaming and trolling. The language does not come into because lets face anyone in the 16 - 19 age bracket generally knows more inventive swear words then their elders. However what they really don't need is any extra stress in what is generally the most stressful time of their life to that point. Any insult, even one as tame as this, is just an open door for trouble.



He is within the rules of the site. You were not.

That's like me saying that I couldn't be arrested for smoking hash because I saw the arresting gardai in a pub getting drunk.

Yes, I think you are the first person to comment here who actually gets the full picture. I accept what you're saying and you're right for the most part.

At the same time, to take your point that 16-18 year olds would not be bothered by sexual innuendo as in the moderators username, I equally dont think any 16-18 would consider actually being called a smartass troubling.

Nevertheless we are both wrong. There is, no doubt, a LC student somewhere who would get upset by being called a smartass but, to be fair, I'm sure there is also a LC student who would find the term randylonghorn inappropriate. I still consider him to be inappropriate for his job. The site rules put too much emphasis on HOW someone is offended rather than WHAT is actually offensive.

Im dropping the issue now. Ive been at it too long. I dont agree with the moderator's action in warning me and a number of other moderators have agreed above that it was harsh. That acknowledgement is enough for me.

Spear

John Sugrue wrote: »

Im dropping the issue now. Ive been at it too long. I dont agree with the moderator's action in warning me. A number of other moderators have agreed above that it was harsh.

If you wish to dispute the infraction, then there's the DRP system here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1397

John Sugrue

Spear wrote: »

If you wish to dispute the infraction, then there's the DRP system here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1397

No thanks.

Insect Overlord

John Sugrue wrote: »

The issue is with the suitability of the moderator to do his job. It is not acceptable that someone who's language and behaviour on this forum is far from clean has the power to criticise me for using much less crude language, directed anywhere!

Have you taken the time to read all of randylonghorn's posts on the Leaving Cert forum? I'd imagine you probably haven't. The guy is one of the soundest moderators, posters and all-round characters on the whole site. Whenever he does make a joke or an "adult" post, he posts it in the appropriate forum. His behaviour on the Leaving Cert forum, to my knowledge, has been of a very high standard for a very long time, and the advice he offers to younger posters can be hugely beneficial.

John Sugrue wrote: »

No, no. It is my motive!! That's the point. I don't think a rude moderator who's profile is full with sexual innuendo and inappropriate language is an appropriate person to tell me how to behave.

I'm complaining that I was punished for something by someone who should not be in a position to do so. He is not an appropriate character to preach what is wrong and right.

As I said above, this is nonsense. I can't think of anyone better to mod the LC forum. Funny names and avatars do not define an individual. They may have given you a bad first impression, fair enough. But slating his whole character based on one single interaction you've had with him is incredibly naïve.

Straylight

Just out of curiosity, is your problem with Randy's username just because he's the mod of the LC forum? Would you have a problem with it under any of the following scenarios:

- Randy is a mod of a different forum but posts in the LC forum?
- Randy is a regular poster rather than a mod and posts in the LC forum?
- Randy never posts in the LC forum but is a mod of another forum that you also regularly post in?

John Sugrue

Straylight wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, is your problem with Randy's username just because he's the mod of the LC forum? Would you have a problem with it under any of the following scenarios:

- Randy is a mod of a different forum but posts in the LC forum?
- Randy is a regular poster rather than a mod and posts in the LC forum?
- Randy never posts in the LC forum but is a mod of another forum that you also regularly post in?

No my problem is with someone with such a username preaching to me about what is appropriate language. There's all sorts of stuff about how I directed my comment at an individual etc etc. But nevertheless it is still galling to be told that jokingly calling someone a smartass is inappropriate by someone who's profile has the term porn star and lots of masturbation and sexual innuendo on it and who's username speaks for itself.

John Sugrue

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Funny names and avatars do not define an individual. They may have given you a bad first impression, fair enough. But slating his whole character based on one single interaction you've had with him is incredibly naïve.

Fair enough. But it does come across as somewhat hypocritical.

Oh and his name is somewhat more than "funny". That's the issue.

Tallon

tbh wrote: »

Forgot to say, also think the infraction is harsh.

It was a yelow card, not really something to write home about

Straylight

John Sugrue wrote: »

No my problem is with someone with such a username preaching to me about what is appropriate language. There's all sorts of stuff about how I directed my comment at an individual etc etc. But nevertheless it is still galling to be told that jokingly calling someone a smartass is inappropriate by someone who's profile has the term porn star and lots of masturbation and sexual innuendo on it and who's username speaks for itself.

So essentially you have no problem with the username or avatar then? It's just purely because they happen to belong to a mod who has certain powers on the site? Is that in itself not a double standard? Surely they should be objectionable in all circumstances or none?

John Sugrue

Straylight wrote: »

So essentially you have no problem with the username or avatar then? It's just purely because they happen to belong to a mod who has certain powers on the site? Is that in itself not a double standard? Surely they should be objectionable in all circumstances or none?

I was warned for inappropriate use of language by someone I consider to be using inappropriate language. That's it really. It's quite simple but it's been looked at and poked from all angles over the last few hours.

I really am leaving it now. I've been wasting time with it for too long.

Insect Overlord

John Sugrue wrote: »

No my problem is with someone with such a username preaching to me about what is appropriate language.

Nobody was preaching. The mod was applying the rules as they're laid out in the charter, and in the site-wide guidelines. It could just as easily have been Fad or Piste. Randy just got there first.

John Sugrue

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Nobody was preaching. The mod was applying the rules as they're laid out in the charter, and in the site-wide guidelines. It could just as easily have been Fad or Piste. Randy just got there first.

It's a pity it was not Fad or Piste. There would have been no issue then.

randylonghorn

John Sugrue wrote: »

As I explained to the moderator in my PM following the warning, this was meant jokingly and has been misconstrued by the moderator, who admits in his response that nobody reported the comment.

No, please read what I said again. I said that it seemed that no-one else had a problem with the post which you responded to, and which you deemed deserved such a response because it was "boastful and arrogant", as no-one had reported THAT post.

This btw was your response:

John Sugrue wrote: »

Got your negative wrong Mr. Smartass. It's "je ne l'ai PAS entendu".

You got a yellow card, i.e. a warning, and were told to "leave it out". You weren't birched or imprisoned or subjected to any inhumane form of "punishment", you got a formal warning.

John Sugrue wrote: »

However, my issue is now one of transparency and equality on the forums. The moderator in question is called 'randylonghorn'. His profile clarifies this as 'exactly what it says on the tin'. What's more, he has an avatar on his profile with the term 'porn star' on it. Nobody can dispute that this is a sexually explicit username and profile and given that he is so active in the Leaving Cert forum and that his profile is thus easily viewable by those under 18 who he claims require an additional degree of moderator protection, I feel that it is hypocritical and unfair, that such a person can discipline me for using the term 'smartass'.

You know, fair enough.

I don't for a second agree with you, but you're perfectly entitled to raise this point if you feel strongly about it.

If the Site Admins agree with you, they will no doubt ask me to step aside as a mod of LC, and I will do so cheerfully and without the slightest ill-feeling.

I will not however be changing my username or profile. I was jokingly dubbed with the nick which is now my username by an ex-gf, and it stuck to the extent that many people who know me from college still call me Randy (including a couple of my old professors!). I'm quite fond of the nick and indeed of the person who so named me, and I won't be changing it to conform to someone else's moral crusade.

looksee wrote: »

I would not consider it overly offensive if it was obviously a joke rather than an insult, was the mod referring to the term or to the fact that it contained the word ass? Would he have been warned if he had referred to Mr Cleverclogs or any other similar expression?

See the original post quoted above.

The fact that it contained the word ass is absolutely irrelevant.

John Sugrue wrote: »

It is with the fact that someone with such a username is in a position where he can criticise me on issues of decency and child protection.

Where did I mention "decency and child protection"?

My comment was exactly as you have posted it above in your OP ...

"You should also be aware, however, that forums vary to some extent as to the amount of leeway allowable. LC has always been and always will be quite tightly moderated in comparison to some other forums, in order to ensure that it provides a useful and calm environment for the discussion of issues pertaining to the Leaving Cert, something which is in itself sufficiently stressful for most people undertaking it without having to endure a stressed and antagonistic atmosphere in this forum."

... and in response to your assertion that you had seen stronger insults go unremarked in other forums.

It points out that LC is tightly moderated, and that flaming is nipped in the bud very sharply, in order to ensure a "useful and calm environment" and to prevent "a stressed and antagonistic atmosphere" in a forum where people are already highly stressed quite often.

I never mentioned "child protection". I wouldn't insult the users of the LC forum by referring to them as children, they're young adults.

John Sugrue wrote: »

The issue of child protection is one of the arguments the moderator gave for stricter moderation of the LC forum.

No, it wasn't.

John Sugrue wrote: »

I quoted that above from the PM he sent me so there's nothing to link to.

No, you didn't.

You quoted that from a public post, whiteman19 has already linked to the relevant thread in his post above.

tbh wrote: »

Forgot to say, also think the infraction is harsh.

Teebs, as I explained above, it is policy in LC to nip any flaming very quickly in the bud. John's post might easily have gone unremarked in other forums, which is exactly what I tried to explain to him in the paragraph which he has quoted, but which he has chosen to interpret as some kind of diatribe about child protection and vulgarity.

John Sugrue wrote: »

If it is the innocence of the 16-18 year olds and how they would view the sexual terms that matters ...

Again, the issue which resulted in you receiving a warning was flaming and insulting other posters, not any affront to the "innocence" of 16-18 year olds.

Orim wrote: »

Without knowing exactly what was said in the PM conversation ....

There was no PM conversation, Orim. My response to John Sugrue is publicly viewable on thread.

Orim wrote: »

I would assume that when talking about child protection

Never mentioned the term, nor is it relevant.

Orim wrote: »

... and the need for the LC forum to be strictly moderated it is in regards to insults,flaming and trolling. The language does not come into because lets face anyone in the 16 - 19 age bracket generally knows more inventive swear words then their elders. However what they really don't need is any extra stress in what is generally the most stressful time of their life to that point. Any insult, even one as tame as this, is just an open door for trouble.

Despite having been mislead by mention of PMs and child protection, you are absolutely spot on target!

challengemaster

John Sugrue wrote: »

I was warned for inappropriate use of language by someone I consider to be using inappropriate language. That's it really. It's quite simple but it's been looked at and poked from all angles over the last few hours.

I really am leaving it now. I've been wasting time with it for too long.

If you consider that inappropriate language..... jeez. Things are going downhill.

boards has always taken a very pro-family stance when it comes to implementing rules to make sure unappropriate content is out of the view of the general public (ie. some subscriber stuff, private fora, etc)

I'm fairly sure there's been multiple stages (registration, being made a mod, mod of LC, etc) where if the admins or guys at boards HQ saw the username as inappropriate, they would have done something about it. As they didn't, and they ultimately have the last say over all matters - you're essentially wasting your time. If it was an issue, it would already have been dealt with.

As has already been said - randy is one of the better characters on the site, and there is a damn good reason he was made a moderator of LC.

72051877 wrote:

No, no. It is my motive!! That's the point. I don't think a rude moderator who's profile is full with sexual innuendo and inappropriate language is an appropriate person to tell me how to behave.

I'm complaining that I was punished for something by someone who should not be in a position to do so. He is not an appropriate character to preach what is wrong and right.

You're not the one who gets to decide that. Boards is privately owned, there's no freedom of speech. Moderators keep things running smoothly, and do a good job of it too. The people in charge obviously see no issue with it, otherwise he wouldn't be a moderator.

John Sugrue

randylonghorn wrote: »

You know, fair enough.

I don't for a second agree with you, but you're perfectly entitled to raise this point if you feel strongly about it.

If the Site Admins agree with you, they will no doubt ask me to step aside as a mod of LC, and I will do so cheerfully and without the slightest ill-feeling.

I have no intention of reporting to the site admins. I have made my point and it has to some extent been acknowledged as fair, even if not agreed with, by you and a number of earlier posters and that is enough for me.

John Sugrue

challengemaster wrote: »

As has already been said - randy is one of the better characters on the site, and there is a damn good reason he was made a moderator of LC.

Ok, I'll take your word on that.

But I would consider myself a fairly good character too who does his best to help the students in the LC forum. One silly post and I get an official warning seemed a bit harsh especially when his profile made him look like total hypocrite to be judging my behaviour.

But look, it's in the past. I'm moving on. Would be insane to spend more than a day on something like this lol

randylonghorn

John Sugrue wrote: »

I have no intention of reporting to the site admins.

Oh, the Admins tend to read the Feedback forum; that's at least partly why it exists.

If they feel the need to take any action or indeed comment on the issue, they will do so.

challengemaster

John Sugrue wrote: »

But I would consider myself a fairly good character too who does his best to help the students in the LC forum. One silly post and I get an official warning seemed a bit harsh...l

That's how things roll in LC - You take a bunch of hormonal and stressed out teenagers and pile them into an anonymous forum, anything seeminly minor anywhere else, could turn into a massive arguement and derail a thread. As has already been said multiple times on this thread, moderation of LC is heavy handed compared to other fora, to keep the level of arguements / flame wars to a minimum so the forum actually serves its purpose.