GAA Forum, protecting Mods - Double standards.

Stinicker

The GAA forum appears to have double standards when it comes to bannings and infractions and who can and who can't break the rules. It currently appears as if there is one rule for Moderators and another for everyone else.

The charter is outdated and is soon to be replaced with something new. I would hope it is clear and concise, in one new unreplied to thread which would then be locked for clarity, without all the addons and discussion that exists in the current charter.

Eg. In this thread and again in this one several members hurtled abuse at GAA players and were infracted and banned as per the current charter.

As a background to those who don't follow GAA and the tensions between the posters etc, Yesterday Cork and Clare played in the Championship Cork won and a Clare player Graham Kelly was sent off for headbutting the Cork player which was captured on Camera and subsequently broadcast on the RTÉ's the Sunday Game. Kerry and Tipperary were also playing and a Kerry player Tomas O'Se was also sent of for an alleged strike, this was not seen on camera.

Eg. of the posts infracted.

This guy made a comment that "the thug should get a six month ban" here
He was subsequently banned for one week here by the Moderator "clareman"

These posts also got infracted and the users banned in the Tomas O'Se thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72363873&postcount=5
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72364009&postcount=7

All three posts got into trouble over the use of the word "Thug" to describe the players and their actions.

However in the Graham Kelly thread a Moderator of a different forum made this similar comment. Yet the person in question Orizio did not get an infraction or ban. I reported the post twice, and yet no action was taken.

Other users similarly voiced their dislike for Orizio's unwarranted comments, here, here and here, and another also agreed that Orizio should be given no special status whilst posting in the GAA forum despite his moderatorship of different forums.

I then asked the Moderator Clareman about it and if Orizio being a Mod made him above the rules; in-thread here, whose response was this (neither confirming or denying). I then made some suggestions of my own on how to reform the charter as a Reform of the Charter had earlier been announced here by Daysha.

I feel the response given here by Clareboy was quite arrogant and totally side stepping the issue; instead accusing me of arguing and quoting the charter. This was quite the contrary, considering I had just made suggestions of how to reform the charter and voiced my dismay of the special protection shown to the Mod Orizio while other members were banned for the same comments.

So one rule for Mods to do as they want and one rule for everyone else then; is that correct?

Daysha

Ok first regarding the new charter. Yes it's something we want to get done and obviously sooner the better, but there won't be any major wholesale changes. Like you said it's just to keep the charter clean and consistent, and also so me and the other mods will know exactly what warrants what sort of punishment. I don't like the old charter and we've had a lot of mod changes in the last year so now seems the perfect time to get it done.

At the moment our charter stats bans will be given for personally abusing players, eg 'that player is a thug'. What the charter doesn't state is whether bans are warranted for criticising their behaviour, e.g. 'that tackle was of a thuggish nature'.

There were 3 posters who were banned for example no.1. What you failed to mention in your OP is that the mod you're referring to wasn't the only person who was warned and not banned for example no.2. There were at least 3 posters who phrased their posts in that fashion, and they were all warned accordingly. So I'm failing to see where the mod bias is coming into it.

This kind of situation is just one of many things we're going to look at for the charter refresh, but in the meantime we have to work with the charter we have. Personally I would be wary of banning people for criticising the behaviour of players - if a players knocks-out an opponent with a punch and ends up in hospital, the player gets a 6 month ban and a poster says it was an event of a thuggish nature, are we really expected to ban the poster for a week when the entire country is saying the same thing?

Like I said it's something we're going to look at but for now I'm happy with the stance both myself and Clareman took on this.

Also if you think Clareman was sidestepping the issue when you called him up about it on the thread, that's because that wasn't the issue we were discussing in the first place. It's a rule of nearly every forum on boards that arguing with a mod and/or back-seat modding is against the rules, and it's the same in GAA so I see nothing wrong with how he responded.

Have to say I even noticed that myself.... doesn't seem to be any difference between calling someone a thug and their behaviour thuggish

User Friendly

Daysha wrote: »

Also if you think Clareman was sidestepping the issue when you called him up about it on the thread, that's because that wasn't the issue we were discussing in the first place.

gilberto_eire wrote: »

Have to say I even noticed that myself.... doesn't seem to be any difference between calling someone a thug and their behaviour thuggish

There is no difference,none!Thats Key here,but the main issue is being sidesteped again!

Why wasnt the poster banned,infracted or yellow carded?
it is my opinion The poster was just **** stirring and showing his hatred and bias against Kerry,He never replied on the thread again

The post was reported by more than 1 poster as ye're well aware.

Clareman

Normally mods don't reply to questions on their modding in threads, I didn't sidestep the issue, not intentionally anyway.

As I pointed out, Orizio and others were walking a very find line, there is a distinction between commiting an act of thuggery and being a thug. Anyone can commit an act of thuggery, it can be an isolated incident and completely outside a persons normal behaviour, calling someone a thug however is branding someone and in line with the zero tolerance in abuse towards people in the forum I handed out a ban.

IITYWYBMAD

Clareman wrote: »

Normally mods don't reply to questions on their modding in threads, I didn't sidestep the issue, not intentionally anyway.

As I pointed out, Orizio and others were walking a very find line, there is a distinction between commiting an act of thuggery and being a thug. Anyone can commit an act of thuggery, it can be an isolated incident and completely outside a persons normal behaviour, calling someone a thug however is branding someone and in line with the zero tolerance in abuse towards people in the forum I handed out a ban.

Your argument is pure semantics. Outside of the impression of whether a mod gets different treatment or not on the forum you mod, surely in order to commit an act of Thuggery (which besides everything else has legal connotations) you must act in a thug like manner or be a thug?

Secondly, your 'explanation' can be completely turned on it's head by saying that a Thug can somehow mend his/her ways, and after a single act of Thuggery and commit no similar acts. Is this not the case?

The bottom line is that if you're banning/infracting somebody for calling somebody a thug, you should also do the same to those who accuse an individual of acting in a thuggish manner or committing an act of thuggery.

There really should be no argument about that.

K-9

Well it obviously was thuggish behaviour, hence the Sunday Game highlighting it, doesn't mean the player is a thug though, could be completely out of character for him.

The Recliner

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Your argument is pure semantics. Outside of the impression of whether a mod gets different treatment or not on the forum you mod, surely in order to commit an act of Thuggery (which besides everything else has legal connotations) you must act in a thug like manner or be a thug?

Secondly, your 'explanation' can be completely turned on it's head by saying that a Thug can somehow mend his/her ways, and after a single act of Thuggery and commit no similar acts. Is this not the case?

The bottom line is that if you're banning/infracting somebody for calling somebody a thug, you should also do the same to those who accuse an individual of acting in a thuggish manner or committing an act of thuggery.

There really should be no argument about that.

I don't agree

It is much the like the attack the post and not the poster rule

I can't say to someone in a post
"You are a prick" I will get infracted and maybe banned for it

I can however say
"Your attitude in that post makes you come across like a prick"

it might be a fine line between the two but one is personal abuse and the other is commenting on someone's words or in the case of the player their actions

There is a difference imo and whilst you can call it semantics it is an important difference imo

IITYWYBMAD

The Recliner wrote: »

I don't agree

It is much the like the attack the post and not the poster rule

I can't say to someone in a post
"You are a prick" I will get infracted and maybe banned for it

I can however say
"Your attitude in that post makes you come across like a prick"

it might be a fine line between the two but one is personal abuse and the other is commenting on someone's words or in the case of the player their actions

There is a difference imo and whilst you can call it semantics it is an important difference imo

AFAICS there was no "Attack the poster" at all. It was a commentary on an incident which happened in a game, which is completely different. No poster was insulted, think of it this way:

Poster a) That player is a thug...result => BAN
Poster b) That player plays in a Thuggish manner...result => NO BAN

Is that right? If so, fine...let that be the rule/exception/difference/etc...

But I personally believe that there is not much, if any, difference between the two.

Insect Overlord

My 2c.

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Poster a) That player is a thug...result => BAN
Poster b) That player plays in a Thuggish manner...result => NO BAN

Is that right? If so, fine...let that be the rule/exception/difference/etc...

But I personally believe that there is not much, if any, difference between the two.

That's not exactly what happened, but it's close.

a) "Player X is a thug."

That's labelling the person. It's an attack on their character.

b) "What Player X did on the field this afternoon was pure thuggery."

That's labelling the act. It's a moral judgement on one incident.

Personalising the argument gets a warning/infraction/ban.
Criticising the behaviour doesn't. How otherwise are we to discuss anything?

IITYWYBMAD

Insect Overlord wrote: »

My 2c.



That's not exactly what happened, but it's close.

a) "Player X is a thug."

That's labelling the person. It's an attack on their character.

b) "What Player X did on the field this afternoon was pure thuggery."

That's labelling the act. It's a moral judgement on one incident.

Personalising the argument gets a warning/infraction/ban.
Criticising the behaviour doesn't. How otherwise are we to discuss anything?

hopefully both Kelly and O'Se will do time for their thuggery

I see no context of time, nor place is the quote? I merely see two players being labeled as thugs. Look, I've no more time to split hairs on this, than I do to further reply.

I've given my 2C..I don't really care anymore tbh...whatever happens..happenz., but I do think it's obvious to 99.9% of people who care to read this thread and the one we are talking about what the situation is. Good luck!

AckwelFoley

If one player in any sport other than the world head butting championships headbutts someone i dont see why you cant call them a thug.

Its a thuggish thing to do, generally perpetrated by thugs.

Alas, its probably in the best interest of the forum and keeping things black and white for the purpose of creating the charter that you cannot abuse players.

keane2097

snyper wrote: »

If one player in any sport other than the world head butting championships headbutts someone i dont see why you cant call them a thug.

Its a thuggish thing to do, generally perpetrated by thugs.

Alas, its probably in the best interest of the forum and keeping things black and white for the purpose of creating the charter that you cannot abuse players.

+1

The bleeding hearts are worse than any amount of personal abuse imo.