Overzealous Modding & The Ladies Lounge

OutlawPete

Hi, hoping a Soc CMod or member of Admin could take a look at this for me.

I feel that I have been over-zealously moderated in TLL.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056271167

Silverfish wrote: »

Because we do not want the thread dragged off-topic with needless whataboutery and questioning posters on their posts by applying a different scenario to the one being discussed.

I haven't been banned or infracted, but I may as well have been, as I have been prevented from making some points on a thread that I felt were valid and very relevant, especially considering they addressed points made by the OP and certain things they included in the OP. It was said twice that one aspect of a point that I raised in the forum was "needless whataboutery".

I fully accept that it can be annoying if users keep coming in and posting: "What about if it were men.." etc and so understand why the first user was moderated (not that I support it, as it was somewhat relevant and could have been dismissed rather easily as a point I thought). However, there are times when "What if.." questions and points can be VERY relevant and in no way could be seen as derailing

Silverfish wrote: »

Perhaps you have not read the thread, but the 'what if it was boys' point was raised, and warnings resulted. Do not continue the derailment.

The above was said to me twice and if these: "What if it was boys" posts exist, I have not seen them.

I fully respect the TLL ethos, but just what that ethos is, seems to be differs from day to day. I would like to point out also that I have been respectful to users when posting in the thread and with moderators via PM while trying to get this matter sorted, but that has not being a two way street unfortunately.

I have three PMs from/to Silverfish which I can post should a CMod/Admin request to see them and I am including a PM from Wibbs from earlier, as it was the last PM I received on the matter.

Cheers ..

--

OutlawPete wrote:

Hello,

Wibbs wrote:

OutlawPete,

Silverfish summed all this up in her post on thread.

Silverfish wrote:

Because we do not want the thread dragged off-topic with needless whataboutery and questioning posters on their posts by applying a different scenario to the one being discussed.

This back and forth point scoring PM tennis is precisely the kind of thing we don't need or want on that or any other thread in the Ladies Lounge.

"PM tennis"?

I am trying to resolve an issue I have with how I was moderated. How else can I do that if not via PM.

Wibbs wrote:

And yes it's 99 times outa 100 a drive by male poster that does it. You want to discuss stuff in a pointscoring manner until a "winner" is pronounced?

What Who said I wanted that? I want no such thing.

I posted a question on a thread and then clarified my point in a second post. I was moderated within minutes of that. How can you call that 'posting' in a "point scoring" manner?

Wibbs wrote:

Humanities is an option. After Hours another. You want to jump in a fortnight later on a thread to get picky? Not in the Ladies Lounge.

I posted on the thread as soon as I seen it

With regards to being "picky". One of (if not THEE) main point of the OP was to quote Andrea Dworkin and say that her words still "held true". Words that suggest that when fathers rape children, it is indicative of women not having made enough "progress" in society. What I was attempting to do was ask the OP why she holds this view. Opinions that users make should always be up for discussion, especially when made in the OP of a thread.

When I replied to that post and asked the user to clarify why they felt Dowrkin's words "held true", I then posed a rhetorical question at the bottom of the post (which I answered myself) in an effort to show how that view makes little sense. The rhetorical question was just one aspect of my overall point though and had I not included it, my initial question would still stand. As I said to Silverfish, I have or would have no problem with that line from both my posts being edited out. If I had known that that particular aspect of my point would be problematic, I would of course not have included it.

Wibbs wrote:

OK here's my broad analogy; Gender on Boards is not unlike religious faith. Boards is overwhelmingly agnostic/atheistic versus religious. Boards is overwhelmingly male versus female. There are forums for the religious that allow them to talk about and share their viewpoint among themselves without having to justify themselves and their position and viewpoint Every. Single. Effing. Time. in Every. Single. Effing. Thread. And that's the way it's going to be in the Ladies Lounge.

I am not guilty of what you are suggesting, not even close to it. For a start, I don't feel that the view I am expressing here is a "male" one, it's a "human" one. If a guy posts in the tGC and says that the Gardai are discriminating against men as he got caught speeding, then you bet your bottom dollar women will post and ask him: "What if you girlfriend got done for speeding, would you still think that also pointed to the fact that they had an issue with men?". You see, the question doesn't need an answer, as just posing it, makes a point.

Wibbs wrote:

Frankly we're all(mods and users) tired of the male whataboutery kicking off Every. Single. Effing. Time. in Every. Single. Effing. Thread. It's getting real bloody old at this stage. And it's usually the same names and tired whataboutery time and time again. Try pulling that stuff in the aforementioned religious forums. It won't fly.

I'm not trying to "pull" anything. I posted just two posts before being moderated. Your PM is needlessly aggressive. I am not the enemy. I hardly ever post in the TLL. I think I have 29 posts in TLL in total, in five years. Only time I was ever been in a debate in TLL before, was the time you posted after a while and said I had made my point. I did not argue with your moderation or dispute it in anyway as I felt you were right, I had indeed made my point.

Wibbs wrote:

I should know I'm permabanned from Islam... This goes for other forums too. Go into the Vegetarian forum and keep posting "but whatabout meat" or constantly post about pushbikes in the Motors forum. You won't last long. Now imagine that when it's a group of people doing this. Personally speaking I've a pain in my arse with it.

Are these comments really for my benefit, or the other five recipients of this PM?

Wibbs wrote:

Short version: In the religious forums the non believers may be welcome, but believers are more welcome. This IMHO is how it is in the Ladies Lounge. It's a place for women on boards. The clue is in the title.

I am well aware of the ethos of TLL. I have no problem with it, no matter how many times it is said that I do. I fully appreciate that the forum is one primarily for the viewpoint of women, I have no issue with that at all.

Wibbs wrote:

Men and their opinions and style of debate are welcome but Ladies and their opinions and style of debate are more welcome.

Again, no problem with that.

Wibbs wrote:

Just to be clear OutlawPete I'm really not interested in nor will entertain the thought of a drawn out back and forth PM dialogue over this. Life is too short.

I PM'd Silverfish as that is the procedure which a user is supposed to follow. I'm sorry that you are put out by it, but trust me, I too would rather be doing something else. Such as taking part in an interesting discussion.

Wibbs wrote:

If you don't like the forum, or it's ethos, or it's "bias", or me, or whatever, don't post.

Who said I din't like TLL, or it's ethos, or you for that matter? Last interaction I had with you was four weeks back when I PM'd you to say that I felt you deserved POTD. I really have to wonder what all this aggression is about Wibbs.

For the record, I have NO issue with the ethos of TLL, none. In fact I quite welcome it, as I do the ethos of tGC etc and as can be seen from my user history, I have no problem following moderation on Boards, so paint me anyway you like, it won't make me something I am not, no matter much you imply it.

Wibbs wrote:

It really is that simple. I work that way myself on Boards. A lot.

Hope this clears it up.

Clears up a few things all-right.

Pete

Spear

OutlawPete wrote: »

I haven't been banned or infracted,

And hence it's not for the DRP process, so it's been moved to the more general Help Desk.

Silverfish

OutlawPete wrote: »

Hi, hoping a Soc CMod or member of Admin could take a look at this for me.

I feel that I have been over-zealously moderated in TLL.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056271167



I haven't been banned or infracted, but I may as well have been, as I have been prevented from making some points on a thread that I felt were valid and very relevant, especially considering they addressed points made by the OP and certain things they included in the OP. It was said twice that one aspect of a point that I raised in the forum was "needless whataboutery".

I fully accept that it can be annoying if users keep coming in and posting: "What about if it were men.." etc and so understand why the first user was moderated (not that I support it, as it was somewhat relevant and could have been dismissed rather easily as a point I thought). However, there are times when "What if.." questions and points can be VERY relevant and in no way could be seen as derailing



The above was said to me twice and if these: "What if it was boys" posts exist, I have not seen them.

They do exist, taken from your posts on this thread:

OutlawPete wrote: »

If that man had raped his son and two other young boys, what would you have done then? I'll tell you what you couldn't have done shall I. What you couldn't have done is take the situation and imply that sexual inequality was it's true cause, which is what you did in the OP. As if you did, it would obviously make no sense whatsoever! It's just a shame that you can't also see, that when it's a 'daughter' rather than a 'son' and 'two girls' rather than 'two boys', that it still makes ZERO sense!

and then

OutlawPete wrote: »

The above is suggesting that, because this man raped his daughter and two other young girls, that what it this all means is that women still have some "progress" to make when it comes to gender equality. What I want to know from you is why precisely you think this particular case of a man raping his daughter and two girls is somehow indicative of gender inequality in this country? As if it were his SON that and two young BOYS that he raped, you would not be able to take that stance and so I want to know why, when it is a daughter and two young girls, you feel that you can.

So first off, these posts do exist and you have seen them, as you posted them yourself.

Secondly, you wanted to question the OP on her inclusion of a particular quote, which she felt was relevant to the issue in the OP.

You seemed to be trying to claim that had a completely different scenario occurred, the quote would not be relevant, I said to you in a pm that yes, that would be correct. It would not be relevant.

You wanted to discuss the use of the quote, by using a applying a different scenario, rather than the actual topic of the thread.

I also explained to you that the poster had responded and did not want to get into a discussion on feminism with you, as she was aware of your views on it, I also clarified in pm that by continuing to ask a question in the thread that was a) not relevant to the actual topic, and b) was already responded to, would be a derailment.

OutlawPete

Silverfish wrote: »

They do exist, taken from your posts on this thread:

You are saying that the posts you were referring to in the following two moderation posts, were .. MY posts?!?

Silverfish wrote: »

This was already brought up in this thread, and was dealt with:

Silverfish wrote: »

Perhaps you have not read the thread, but the 'what if it was boys' point was raised, and warnings resulted. Do not continue the derailment.

This would be funny, if I didn't know you were serious. It is quite obvious that you were not referring to my posts. The truth is, that there were no posts that brought up the: "what if they were boys" argument. My two posts were clearly the first to raise the point and so the moderation of my posts, telling me that the point had previously been "raised" and that "warnings resulted" from it, was in fact, not true.

Silverfish wrote: »

So first off, these posts do exist and you have seen them, as you posted them yourself.

Do you realise what you are saying here? Do think I was born yesterday or something. You were NOT referring to MY posts, it defies logic and anybody that reads the thread can see that. Here is your post:

Silverfish wrote: »

Perhaps you have not read the thread, but the 'what if it was boys' point was raised, and warnings resulted. Do not continue the derailment.

You even imply that I missed the posts that you were referring to as perhaps I had "not read the thread" and now you are saying that you were referring to my posts, ones I had just made when I bumped the thread and that you were just moderating?

Silverfish wrote: »

Secondly, you wanted to question the OP on her inclusion of a particular quote, which she felt was relevant to the issue in the OP.

Yes, in part.

Silverfish wrote: »

You seemed to be trying to claim that had a completely different scenario occurred, the quote would not be relevant ..

No, I was claiming that the quote would never be relevant, no matter the sex of the children. Putting the scenario that I did in the from of a rhetorical question was done so in the hopes that maybe then the OP would see how ill-judged her contention was. Sexual abuse happens across both sexes and to imply that gender inequality results in children being raped, should at the very least be open to examination and criticism in the form of discussion.

Silverfish wrote: »

I said to you in a pm that yes, that would be correct. It would not be relevant.

And as I said to you in the PM, there is a difference between being relevant to the OP and relevant to the case. I am questioning the relevance to the case, I do not question that the quote is relevant to the point the OP wanted to make, on the contrary, I doubt she could have found a more apt one.

Silverfish wrote: »

You wanted to discuss the use of the quote, by using a applying a different scenario, rather than the actual topic of the thread.

Not true at all, the topic of the thread is that a father raped his child, along with two other children, got a lenient sentence and the OP feels that Andrea Dworkin's quote regarding fathers raping their children is befitting and relevant.

Silverfish wrote: »

I also explained to you that the poster had responded and did not want to get into a discussion on feminism with you, as she was aware of your views on it.

I am aware of what the OP said on the thread and as I said to her in my reply, I had no desire in the slightest to discuss or debate feminism with her. What I wanted to do is what in fact I did and that was to ask her to clarify why she felt the quote was relevant to the case and why she felt the way she did with regards to child abuse being indicative of women needing to make more "progress". Not one single element of that equates to wanting to debate Feminism other than that that may be the reason that the OP holds the views she does, but there would be no need to discuss that when answering the questions which I asked of her.

Silverfish wrote: »

I also clarified in pm that by continuing to ask a question in the thread that was a) not relevant to the actual topic, and b) was already responded to, would be a derailment.

I did not "continue" to ask the question as you put it. I asked the questions in my first post and when the OP replied to that post, my questions were ignored/went unanswered and the OP spoke of "sexual freedoms" instead of addressing the points I made. So I posted my second post and in that I clarified my questions and made it clear that "sexual freedoms" was not what I was referring to at all and that I had no wish to discuss 'Feminism' with her either. Within minutes of that post being made, you moderated it (and quoted the part of my post which made the observation regarding the sex of the children) and told me that that my point had been brought up already and linked to a post were a user had discussed the fact that women are responsible for 25% of all cases of sexual abuse. All of which of course has little or nothing to do with any point that I had made, other than the fact that both were thrown under the same umbrella term of: "whataboutery" when moderated. Something which I obviously feel is overzealous.

I can see that the other's users points re:'the statistics' could have derailed the thread somewhat and that may very well have drawn away from the topic of the OP. However, nothing that I had asked or stated would have done that to any great degree, for a few simple reasons. Firstly, I didn't change the rapist to a woman and start asking 'what if it was a mother who raped her children' etc. I also asked the OP two questions based on the content of the OP, which were of course: why did she feel Dworkin's quote "holds true" with regards to that case and also why does she feel that sexual abuse of children in Ireland (of either gender) is indicative of gender inequality. Lastly, because the following line in Dworkin's quote with regards to the rape of children by their fathers, clearly refers to both sexes:

'That is not the way we measure progress. We count the number of rapes. We count the women who are being battered. We keep track of the children who are being raped by their fathers. We count the dead. And when those numbers start to change in a way that is meaningful, we will then talk to you about whether or not we can measure progress.'"

If the OP wants to include this quote in their threads and say that the words of it "hold true" today, then users should be allowed to address it and ask them to clarify why they feel that way, without being moderated and told that they are "derailing" threads and posting "needless whataboutery". Who knows, maybe they could convince me they're right.

Silverfish

Prior to your posts then:

Ickle Magoo posted this warning:

Not on a thread in the ladies lounge regarding a man grooming, raping and making his daughter pregnant - if that's an issue or you wish to direct the discussion away from the topic at hand, you are welcome to start a thread in the appropriate forum.

A poster responded with

well i'm glad to see you cleared that up.
one wonders would it be ok, were the roles reversed

The mod warning following this:

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Can we keep the thread on-topic and adhere to the ethos of this forum - if you have an issue with moderation or wish to argue the ethos of the forum can you do so using the proper channels.

It would be nice if at least one discussion in this forum could be had without being constantly dragged off topic with needless whataboutery and drive-by interjections.

Now, you had posted twice questioning the quote in the OP and it's relevance in the case of different circumstances to the ones being discussed.

The OP let you know she did not want to be sidetracked into a discussion on feminism with you, so since you had already asked twice, continuing to post the same question would derail the thread, as you are now complaining you are not allowed continue asking the question until you get an answer.

Wibbs

I see it this way. It's the Ladies Lounge. A forum for "the discussion of topics from a woman's point of view as the first line in the charter states. Since 1) you're not a lady and more importantly 2) rather than discuss the original topic you hop into the thread a fortnight later and proceed to pick at one line in one post a fortnight before that again. And in the style of "what if it was boys/men". A style we're all to familiar with in the forum. A style that's gotten real boring for the users and mods. Hence your warning.

Simply put it's called badgering and I would be of the opinion that the subsequent PM exchange goes someway to illustrating how it would have panned out on thread if god forbid the other user had decided to engage with you. Standard dog with a bone debating. Back and forth, ad nauseam. So IMHO it was pretty prescient moderating.

OutlawPete

Silverfish wrote: »

Prior to your posts then:

So you concede that what you said was false and that when you said: "Perhaps you have not read the thread, but the 'what if it was boys' point was raised, and warnings resulted. Do not continue the derailment." .. that this was unwarranted, as it was not the case at all?

Silverfish wrote: »

Ickle Magoo posted this warning:
A poster responded with
The mod warning following this:

I have already responded to the IM quotes on the thread:

OutlawPete wrote: »

..with respect, the issue that I raised was NOT already brought up before. The two quotes that you have posted above from IM concern a user that raised some points regarding statistics which showed that women were responsible for 25% of sexual abuse and so that obviously has nothing whatsoever to with anything that I have asked here, which are primarily based on the OP's inclusion of a quote from Andrea Dworkin.

What I asked the user was why in the OP she implied that this man raping his daughter and two girls was indicative of gender inequality in Ireland, nothing more. I made the point that if it were boys he raped, taking such a view would be a nonsensical one, but I fail to see how that in anyway goes against the ethos of TLL.

Silverfish wrote: »

Now, you had posted twice questioning the quote in the OP and it's relevance in the case of different circumstances to the ones being discussed.

I posted once and then clarified my question when the OP suggested I had said something else in her reply. You keep making it sound as if I asked the question twice, as my post was ignored or something, that is not what happened. I only posted the second post because of what the OP said in her reply to my first post.

Silverfish wrote: »

The OP let you know she did not want to be sidetracked into a discussion on feminism with you so since you had already asked twice, continuing to post the same question would derail the thread, as you are now complaining you are not allowed continue asking the question until you get an answer.

Why are you repeating this? It is irrelevant what the OP said to me or about me. She also compared me to Kevin Myers. She could have said she did not want to discuss Chinese Food with me and it shouldn't make a blind bit of difference. I should be moderated on what I do, not what another user says that I meant or wanted to discuss. I did NOT want to discuss feminism with the OP. I wanted to discuss her suggestion that gender equality was something to be considered with regards to sexual abuse in this country. Feminism does not have a monopoly on issues of equality. Andrea Dworken is a feminist, but to answer the questions I posed, the OP only had to give me her opinions, not anybody elses.

Let me assure you also, that had I not been moderated and the OP had went on to ignore my clarification post, I would NOT have addressed that user again on the thread, be clear about that. I haven't chased a reply from a Boards user who avoided or overlooked my questions in my five years on this forum and I am not going to start now.

The reason I am complaining about the moderation that I received in TLL is not just because I feel that I was on-topic or that my questions were reasonable (although I certainly do feel that way) I am complaining about the moderation because any hope I had of the OP replying to my clarification post, was all but distinguished when that post was labelled "needless whataboutery" and of a "derailing" nature. I have given many reasons in my last post why I feel the questions I asked of the OP should not be categorised as "needless whataboutery". Whether they are listened to or not is up to you and the rest of the moderators of tLL I guess.

OutlawPete

Wibbs wrote: »

I see it this way. It's the Ladies Lounge. A forum for "the discussion of topics from a woman's point of view as the first line in the charter states.

I did not going against the Charter of the forum and asking the OP of that thread a question based on a quote they included is not going against the ethos of the forum in any way either.

Wibbs wrote: »

Since 1) you're not a lady and more importantly 2) rather than discuss the original topic you hop into the thread a fortnight later and proceed to pick at one line in one post a fortnight before that again.

Again with this two weeks thing? If I had seen the thread before that, I would have posted on it. You are also using terms like "hop on the thread" in an effort to make it look like I was causing trouble, I wasn't. I posted and asked a question. You also say I "picked" at "one line" of the OP but that is completely disingenuous, as there are only TWO lines of the OP's own words in the post

Sharrow wrote: »

A man who admitted grooming his daughter before raping and sexually assaulting her, after which she became pregnant, has received a 12-year sentence to run consecutively to an earlier jail term for raping two other teenage girls.

The 42-year-old man pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court to raping the eight-year-old girl from April 20th, 2000, to April 14th, 2007.

Mr Justice Paul Carney, who previously imposed a 12-year sentence on him for raping two other teenagers, said the man had a “propensity when faced with adversity to rape children and young girls”.

He ordered that the 12-year term for raping his daughter begin “upon the lawful termination” of the earlier sentence

He pleaded guilty in 2007 and is only being sentenced now so that's 4 years already served and he only got 6 years each for the two other girls he raped.

I swear that while there are thing I disagree with Andrea Dworkin about there are time her words still hold true.

"We have been asked by many people to accept that women are making progress, because one sees our presence in these places where we weren't before. And those of us who are berated for being radicals have been saying:

'That is not the way we measure progress. We count the number of rapes. We count the women who are being battered. We keep track of the children who are being raped by their fathers. We count the dead. And when those numbers start to change in a way that is meaningful, we will then talk to you about whether or not we can measure progress.'"

--Andrea Dworkin, MASS MURDER IN MONTRÉAL -- The Sexual Politics of Killing Women
in Life and Death.

The Andrea Dworkin quote was a large part of the sentiment of the OP, anybody who reads it can see that. If I started a thread, included a quote and made a comment about how that comment is relevant today, about something as serious as child abuse, then I would expect nothing less than to be asked why I felt it relevant. I can think of no other forum on Boards where the moderators would take this stance and call an on-topic question "needless whataboutery". I understand completely that the forum has to moderated from comments such as: "But men get that too.." but the definition of just what is "needless whataboutery" has become far too loose imo, it's encompassing and all and although I am a rare poster there, I am a frequent lurker and it is becoming more and more evident. If the OP doesn't want to answer questions then all they have to do is ignore them. No user can make another user answer a question and I certainty wouldn't try, even if I could.

Wibbs wrote: »

And in the style of "what if it was boys/men". A style we're all to familiar with in the forum. A style that's gotten real boring for the users and mods. Hence your warning.

Incorrect, and you accuse me of "picking". I did not ask a question of the OP in that style. The two questions that I asked the OP had nothing to do with that aspect of my point. My post was three paragraphs long, only the third paragraph contained reference to the point about the children's sex and even then it was rhetorical question, which is evident by the fact that I answered it myself. It was the first paragraph that contained the questions that I wanted the OP to answer, here are those questions (I have emboldened the question marks):

OutlawPete wrote: »

I have just read this thread from start to finish, three times in fact and I am PERPLEXED to say the very least. How the above has gone relatively unaddressed, is beyond me. Sharrow, do you mind explaining to me just precisely what a man raping his daughter and two other young girls has got anything whatsoever to do with sexual equality? Specifically in 21st century Ireland? How could you for one second even, think that the above Andrea Dworkin quote could be in any way relevant here?

Sexual inequality has nothing to do with why this happened and nothing to do with why this particular sentence was handed down either. If sexual inequality had a large part to play in the amount of rape and sexual abuse of the western world, then the relevant statistics would show us that the numbers have been plummeting in direct proportion to egalitarian principles being achieved throughout the western world, but they haven't, as the two are largely, if not totally .. unrelated.

Wibbs wrote: »

Simply put it's called badgering ..

"Badgering"?

I directed two PMs at the OP, almost 18 hours apart. More muddying of the waters Wibbs, and needlessly too. Maybe it will work for you,who knows, if it does, good for you.

Wibbs wrote: »

.. and I would be of the opinion that the subsequent PM exchange goes someway to illustrating how it would have panned out on thread if god forbid the other user had decided to engage with you.

There was nothing wrong with my PMs. If Admin want to see them, I will gladly post them or forward them on. I was moderated on-thread and as per Boards rules I took it to PM. There was three sent and three received and then you sent yours and that is posted here.

Wibbs wrote: »

Standard dog with a bone debating. Back and forth, ad nauseam.

I was just addressing the points that were put to me. Maybe you should give it a shot yourself instead of mud slinging the whole time. If you did, this thread may not have been needed.

Wibbs wrote: »

So IMHO it was pretty prescient moderating.

Well I disagree obviously, but if whichever Admin makes the decision, decides that it was fine, then I will fully accept that decision. Yes I disagree with you both, but I know damn sure I have done nothing to warrant how I have been addressed in the past two days via PM. Nobody is forcing you to be a Mod Wibbs, if you can't deal with someone civilly when there is a moderation issue, then maybe it's time to call it a day, if I spoke to user of TLI they way you did to me, I would be ashamed of myself and walk away. I did exactly what a user is supposed to do when they have an issue with on-thread moderation, I took it to PM.

I have said all I have to say on this now, as it is just becoming more about attacking me, rather than whatever is that I may be guilty of and so I am more than happy at this stage for Admin to decide on whether or not the moderation I received was fair. I have no problem or issue with the rhetorical 'what if the were boys' part of my question been edited from my posts, as I would like the posts to stand with just the questions from the opening paragraph from each of my two posts. If the OP doesn't not wish to address them still after the edit (if it is felt warranted) then that of course is fine, I would not want anyone to answer a question unless they wanted to 100%.

Wibbs

OK so lets get down to brass tacks.

1)You agree that your original post should be edited to remove the whataboutry?

Your good self wrote:

I have no problem or issue with the rhetorical 'what if the were boys' part of my question been edited from my posts

and

2) You agree that the OP shouldn't have to answer the rest of your question if she chose not to

Your good self wrote:

If the OP doesn't want to answer questions then all they have to do is ignore them. No user can make another user answer a question and I certainty wouldn't try, even if I could.

She clearly stated she wasn't getting into it with you in particular, but still you replied, ignored that and took a different tack at your point. You ignored her request. End of. Further it is my opinion you would have continued to do so if warnings hadn't been given. Evidence for that conjecture? I quote:

Your good self in PM wrote:

I have been prevented from making some points on a thread that I felt were valid and very relevant,

What points? According to you you already made your point. The OP refused to get into it on thread and you made the same point from another angle. What were you gonna do next? Leave the thread?

Silverfish(and Ickle Magoo before her) addressed this on thread and I quote

Her good self wrote:

Because we do not want the thread dragged off-topic with needless whataboutery and questioning posters on their posts by applying a different scenario to the one being discussed.

So what is your complaint about the moderation again? You agree your post should have been edited and that the person involved shouldnt have to answer so you took it to PM. So the moderation was correct in retrospect?



As for how I've treated you and your dig about how I should be ashamed of myself and step down? In 4 years modding first PI/RI then tLL and S&S and the watches and Timepiece forum, this is the first time I've had to come to the helpdesk and I've never had a DRP thread. So with respect OutlawPete I'll take my counsel from the rest of the community, my fellow mods and that past record.

OutlawPete

Wibbs wrote: »

1)You agree that your original post should be edited to remove the whataboutry?

No, I NOT agree that it SHOULD be edited to remove what YOU and the rest of the moderators there refer to as "whataboutery", if I did - then I would not have went to all the trouble that I have to explain precisely why I feel my rhetorical question was reasonable, in this post early this morning!


Points which you haven't even shown me enough respect to even address. What I actually said was that if the moderators wished to removed what THEY felt was "whataboutery" then they could and I would have no problem with that and that, had I known that it would have been seen as problematic, I would not have posed that rhetorical question in the first place. I would have left the post a two paragraph one instead, with just the two straight questions.

Wibbs wrote: »

2) You agree that the OP shouldn't have to answer the rest of your question if she chose not to She clearly stated she wasn't getting into it with you in particular, but still you replied, ignored that and took a different tack at your point.

You are totally misrepresenting my second post.

The OP replied to my first post and suggested TWO incorrect things about it. Firstly she suggested that I was speaking of "sexual freedom" (I wasn't) and also that I wished to discuss "Feminism" (I didn't) and so when I replied to her post, it was to CORRECT her in what she had incorrectly in her reply and to CLARIFY that I did not want to discuss Feminism at all. If I had replied to her post asked her to explain why she feels that Radical Feminism's effect on society in the 1970's had such negative consequences, then yeah, you may have a point, but as I didn't do that, you don't.

You say that I took a "different tack" in my second post - again, not true. My second post was almost identical to my first. Perhaps I worded it a little more succinctly, but that was only because I didn't want it misrepresented twice. The OP had also compared me to Kevin Myers in that post and so, perhaps I was a little sterner than my usual chirpy self, here is that post for completeness:

OutlawPete wrote: »

I was not speaking of sexual "freedoms" and I have no idea why you think I was. The term I used was "sexual equality" (ie: Gender equality, also known as gender equity and gender egalitarianism) and in the context of my post, I would have thought that was quite obvious.

I do not want to have discussion on feminism. You included a quote from a feminist and yes, I am addressing that, but only that. All that I asked you was why you feel that the quote you used was relevant and to clarify just what your point was in that regard. Perhaps I wasn't clear, I will put my point to you again, as I feel it an important one.

In the OP of this thread you quoted an article regarding a man that had received a sentence for raping his eight year old daughter and two other young girls. You implied the sentence was lenient (I agree, it certainly appears that way) and then you made the following comment and included a quote from Dworkin:

The above is suggesting that, because this man raped his daughter and two other young girls, that what it this all means is that women still have some "progress" to make when it comes to gender equality. What I want to know from you is why precisely you think this particular case of a man raping his daughter and two girls is somehow indicative of gender inequality in this country? As if it were his SON that and two young BOYS that he raped, you would not be able to take that stance and so I would like to know why, when it is a daughter and two young girls, you feel that you can.

So, sorry Wibbs, but not only did I not attempt to discuss something which the OP said she didn't wish to, I also did not use a "different tack" in my second post, than what I had in my first.

Wibbs wrote: »

You ignored her request. End of.

Nope Wibbs, you are WRONG my friend.

The OP claimed I wanted to discuss "Feminism" and said she had no wish to discuss that with me and that she had as much interest in a discussion on feminism with me as she would with Kevin Myers.

Might I add, that while all this was going on, one user had said that they felt the OP's reply to me was "harsh" and also said that with regards to my OP, they thought: "it was a valid enough question and was interested in the answer."

Wibbs wrote: »

Further it is my opinion you would have continued to do so if warnings hadn't been given.

I am not a liar, please don't imply that I am.

Wibbs wrote: »

Evidence for that conjecture?

Would be nice.

Wibbs wrote: »

I quote:What points? According to you you already made your point. The OP refused to get into it on thread and you made the same point from another angle.

How many times do I have to say the same thing? I have addressed this umpteen times. My second post was made because the OP suggested that I was speaking of "sexual freedoms" and that I wanted to discuss feminism.
That is what she said, not conjecture, but the actual facts.

Wibbs wrote: »

What were you gonna do next? Leave the thread? ]

Well Wibbs, here's a suggestion, why don't you listen for once and stop being so righteous, you might actually take someone's point on board for once rather than having to repeat it over and over again. Ready?

You asked me what was I going do next, leave the thread? You maintain I would have continued, even without the OP replying to me. Well here's some apples for you:

I posted my first post in reply to the OP of the thread at 04:54am on the June 3rd.
I posted my second post in reply to the OP of the thread at 22.33pm on June 3rd.

That's 19 and half hours I waited for the OP to reply to my post. So, what makes you so cock sure sure that I would not also again wait for a reply from the OP?!? NOTHING, that's what.

Just wild conjecture and idle speculation in an yet another attempt to try and protray me as the user you wish I was so that it would excuse your stance. Facts haven't done it for you so far and so now we're down to Wibb's 6th sense I guess.

Wibbs wrote: »

As for how I've treated you and your dig about how I should be ashamed of myself and step down?

If you are treating users with disrespect and ranting to them like you did to me, then yes, might not be a bad idea. What do you expect me to say, just take your anger on the chin and take it because you have four stars under your name. Nah, I'm nobody's doormat mate. If people don't treat me with respect, then I ain't to bothered about showing them any. If they show me respect, they get it back in spades. Nothing I did warranted that anger, it's just a moderation issue an I am following the proces of trying to deal with it, come what may.

I posted two posts in reply to the OP and a point I raised is being considered "whataboutery", fine - I don't feel it should be, but that's life. When I was moderated, I did not argue on-thread, I took it to PM as users are supposed to do. I made my case and after three PMs you sent your PM which gave me no option but to start this thread. No option at least if I still wanted what I see as overzealous modding of my question for the OP dealt with and I do, so here we are.

Wibbs wrote: »

In 4 years modding first PI/RI then tLL and S&S and the watches and Timepiece forum, this is the first time I've had to come to the helpdesk and I've never had a DRP thread.

You're here because YOU wanted to be here Wibbs:

Just to be clear OutlawPete I'm really not interested in nor will entertain the thought of a drawn out back and forth PM dialogue over this. Life is too short

.

I'm sorry you are put out by this Wibbs, but if I were you I would take a good long hard look at the PM you sent and the tone and obvious angry therein. I would also have a chat with TLL moderators about being civil to users that PM with moderation issues, it's needed. I have been as pleasant as I can be considering all the shite you and Silverfish have thrown. It's been nothing but mudslinging since I sent the first of the three PMs. Not one once of respect did I get. You don't have to agree with someone to show a little bit of that. I was accused of "demanding" things, wanted users "forced" to reply to me, just basically a load of accusations that could not be justified for a second. Saying that I want to post in a point scoring fashion and the dog n bone analogy etc. I could say that to you now sure, as here you are replying to me after I said I that I was happy to let Admin make their call earlier. How would you appreciate that? Would you think it fair that after typing out a long post someone just dismisses it as pointscoring?

End of the day, I feel the moderation was unnecessary and had you just let the OP ignore my second post, then all this could have been avoided. I wanted to ask the user a question about the Dworkin quote and why she feels how she does on that and was jumped on because a user said I wanted to discuss Feminism. So in effect the thread was killed for me as who would reply to my post after the moderation it received.

Wibbs wrote: »

So with respect OutlawPete I'll take my counsel from the rest of the community, my fellow mods and that past record.

Just because someone has stars under their name does not make them right. To many yes people around this forum and maybe if the TLL opened up the odd Feedback thread within the forum, then you might be surprised by what feedback you get back. It's not just men that think the moderation of in TLL is OTT, it is many women also. Women that feel intimidated by the current regulars and feel that the TLL doesn't provide for them, but just a dozen or so hardcore users. 33% of Boards users are women and in my view and many others, TLL does not reflect that. Moderation is too fierce. Nobody wants the essence of the ethos to change, or men to be able to come onto a thread and change it to a male viewpoint, but the odd male view point can sometime be beneficial to a thread. Jumping down people's throats when they make a relevant observation but that just isn't a precisely a women's view, is crazy. If users are going to make statements then they should be open to questions on why they made them, just like on any forum on Boards. Wheter they asnwer them or not, is of course up to them and them alone. If a user continues to direct questions at a user then they can then be moderated for that. Overzealous is the word I used in the thread as I feel it apt.

I will no longer be replying on this (except to Admin if they request I do so).

Thanks to whoever looks at this, I don't envy reading through all this ..:)

Wibbs

You know OutlawPete it might be better if you took your own counsel and didn't put words in peoples mouths and read into things that aren't there? Where did I mention being a mod/four stars made any diff? Nope don't think so. Certainly not in this instance, nor in the past. The most I've ever claimed is janitorial status at best. I've taken crap in private and public over calling out other mods on the "them and us" mentality. That we're all the same and should be treated the same. I've resigned from a forum I put a lot of work into and loved modding and you'll never see me being approved for another modship again in defence of that openness and ideal. Some have short memories around here. Then you have me "ranting" at you, yet take a look at my wordcount and then see if at any point I'm suggesting you should be ashamed and step down? Really?

Not content with that you're now suggesting how "many" women you know out there that are intimidated by the forum and you've this phalanx of other no doubt male users backing you up? Funny how the same names thanked the anti tLL posts in the recent feedback thread. I'd put good money the same names would creep into any feedback thread. Oh wait. They did when we've had them. Same day different crapola basically. Any time the moderation of tLL comes up it's always the same names. I actually wish it wasn't I really do.

As above we've had feedback threads in the Ladies Lounge and guess what was the result? That's right, largely the forum and charter and moderation you see today. Chat was removed from the Know your loungers thread, the OT chat thread was largely dropped as some felt out of the loop, the private ladies only sub forum was created(guess why) and a few other things driven by the users. So either your "many" women are terribly quiet or don't have the courage of their convictions to post. Which is odd given we have anon posting for sensitive subjects and any admin can see clearly which ones are not approved(spam for the most part). Nor have I or any of the other mods to my knowledge been PM'd in quite a long time about the ethos or direction or vibe of the forum. That door is always open too and if people think I'm a dickhead, cool, there are five other mods of varying personalities to chose from. Or they could start up a feedback thread in well feedback.

Most of all OutlawPete you weren't infracted or even yellow carded, never mind banned. I could go some way to understanding this exercise in keyboard polishing if you were and guess what I'd actually support you if you had been banned for that, but you weren't. I dunno, if anyone appears to be in the running for a rant of righteous indignation crown, I'd be surprised if an outsider would say it's me. But hey that's for others to judge.

OutlawPete

Wibbs wrote: »

You know OutlawPete it might be better if you took your own counsel and didn't put words in peoples mouths and read into things that aren't there?

That's rich, considering the things you have accused me of, that I have shown are not true. I started off this thread a lot calmer than I am now, that's for sure, I'll admit it, but when someone implies that you are lying, it kinda grates a bit.

By the way, did Silverfish tell you that you were wrong to imply I was lying when you said that I would have posted again had the OP not replied to the clarification post? I ask as she knows that I wasn't, as I said to her in one of the PMs that I would like to continue on the thread but that the OP would now not likely reply to my second post as it had been labelled a "derailing" post by moderators. So I put a compromise to her. I said that if moderators edited out the rhetorical question from my posts and then posted on the thread saying that it was fine/okay for the OP to reply to my 'second' post IF SHE WANTS TO, then I would NOT post on the thread again, at all!! Do they sound like the words of someone that was going to keep posting to ask the OP questions , even if they did not reply to my second post?? Nah, they don't do they. Yes, I wanted to continue on the thread and have a discussion with the OP about why she feels the way she does about Dworkin's quote being relevant in 21st century Ireland with regards to sexual abuse, but I waited 20 hours for a reply to my first post, and I can damn well assure you, I would've waited 20 YEARS for a reply to the second one.

Wibbs wrote: »

Where did I mention being a mod/four stars made any diff? Nope don't think so. Certainly not in this instance, nor in the past.

I was referring to your "fellow mods" comment. Been around Boards long enough to know that "fellow mods" aren't always the best at letting their co-mods know when they have been OTT. Some are of course, but many are not and if any Mods/Admin have told you (or tell you in the future) that that PM you sent me was appropriate, then they are not worth their modship and/or are just backslapping you.

Wibbs wrote: »

The most I've ever claimed is janitorial status at best. I've taken crap in private and public over calling out other mods on the "them and us" mentality. That we're all the same and should be treated the same. I've resigned from a forum I put a lot of work into and loved modding and you'll never see me being approved for another modship again in defence of that openness and ideal. Some have short memories around here.

I don't deny any of that, you were one the mods I always though was decent, I don't any longer. I guess you'll put that down to me just been disgruntled at being moderated. Well, if you do, you'd be wrong as it's not down to that at all. It's down to HOW you have spoken to me and the type of user you have suggested I am. There was no need for any of it. Anything I have said is in response to what's been said to me. I know you have never been one of the sheep around Boards but your words are your words. What do you expect me to do exactly? I asked a god damned question ffs Wibbs. Here you are listing you record on this forum and why? Because you feel that my comments were unfair, right? Well, did you think about my record on Boards when you were sending that PM? Maybe if you want someone to address in the manner that befits you, you should think about addressing them in a manner that befits them. That PM should have been sent to a fcuking troll or whoever was responsible for the pain in your arse that you said you had, cause I know I wasn't.

Wibbs wrote: »

Then you have me "ranting" at you, yet take a look at my wordcount and then see if at any point I'm suggesting you should be ashamed and step down? Really?

Your PM was a rant Wibbs, 99% of the stuff you said you were pissed off with, had nothing to do with me. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't be pissed off with all that crap, if anything I think you should be even more about it, but that has naff all to do with me and the moderation issue I had (other than there was an element of whataboutery in my post). As for suggesting that I said you should step down, I didn't. What I said was:

"IF you can't deal with someone civilly when there is a moderation issue, then maybe it's time to call it a day".

Somewhat different than saying I think you should step down over one angry PM. Just to clarify, I don't think that you should step down. I'm thinking you're just using me as example as I am the big bad misogynist. I guess if enough people repeat a lie loud enough and often enough, people will believe it.

Wibbs wrote: »

Not content with that you're now suggesting how "many" women you know out there that are intimidated by the forum and you've this phalanx of other no doubt male users backing you up?

More conjecture. I rarely if ever speak to men about TLL, all women I'm afraid.

Wibbs wrote: »

Funny how the same names thanked the anti tLL posts in the recent feedback thread.

Oh you want to bring 'thanks' into it, dear lord. The 'thanked' posts on that thread read like a who's who of the Boards moderation team. It was backslapping central and the only user who spoke an ounce of truth was Zohan. You really think it was a coincidence that 95% of people saying there is no real issue were all mods. The usual: 'If you don't like it, don't post there' nonsense that misses the point by a country mile. Lots of sexist remarks made also, but then you have made the odd one on this thread also, I just didn't address them as these posts are long enough as it fecking well is already.

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd put good money the same names would creep into any feedback thread.

You said it and by the way, the only reason I didn't post on that thread is because I knew what would be said if I did. Someone would say that my comments just came from having an axe to grind and then when I replied to the bait, I'd be told that I have a Help Desk thread going and the thread was not for specific incidents. So, I kept my mouth shut .. for now.

Wibbs wrote: »

<snip> So either your "many" women are terribly quiet or don't have the courage of their convictions to post.

No, they just don't want the hassle. 30% of Boards users are female, you really think they stay away from the one forum that so called "represents their views", if that is indeed .. what it did?

Wibbs wrote: »

Most of all OutlawPete you weren't infracted or even yellow carded, never mind banned. I could go some way to understanding this exercise in keyboard polishing..

Trite comment for triteness sake.

I disagree with a moderation decision because I believe it goes against the charter and the ethos of the forum (yup, I believe that). I took it to PM and that was not good enough for you and so this is my only option. I have made my case and addressed what you and Silverfish have put my way and if you want to dismiss that as: "keyboard polishing" so be it. I'm sorry you don't think think that my post fell under the "male input" of the charter, but I think it did.

Wibbs wrote: »

if you were and guess what I'd actually support you if you had been banned for that, but you weren't.

You don't get it, you think this is about me. It's not, it's about TLL and their silencing of opinions that they do not like. It's about TLL mods needlessly using phrases like "whataboutery" to shut people up when they ask sometimes relevant questions that may show a popular user to be wrong (sometimes there is whataboutery which should be moderated, I don't dispute that for a second) and it's also and most importantly about TLL chopping and changing just what defines "male input" which I sum up as .. overzealous.

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno, if anyone appears to be in the running for a rant of righteous indignation crown, I'd be surprised if an outsider would say it's me. But hey that's for others to judge.

Fine, I'll leave you with the last dig. I am not interested in winning a war of words with you. Say what you want about me. Simply .. I don't agree with the moderation of my question (and not just because things were said that were not true, but) because I feel the question was a reasonable one.

Any chance we could leave this here now? Think we've both said enough.

Wibbs

OutlawPete wrote: »

More conjecture. I rarely if ever speak to men about TLL, all women I'm afraid.

Then could you ask them to start a thread in tLL giving specifics about their issues with the forum? Or PM one of the other tLL mods giving specifics? Or start a thread in feedback discussing it? We're all ears if women want to chime in, but we're really not hearing it. All we are hearing is male voices. Honestly? Pardon me if I find it hard to respect any opinion if they don't have the backbone to post/pm that opinion about the issues they have and god forbid offer solutions.



Actually I've heard three general complaints in my time. 1) about the clique that was forming in an OT thread. A thread now long gone. 2) issues with the know your loungers thread and 3) about some of the male posters disrupting threads. There was also a general serious forum V more frivolous forum vibe for a while. Meh no forum is going to appeal to all. That's what super sekrit forums and groups are for.

Beruthiel

OutlawPete wrote: »

However, there are times when "What if.." questions and points can be VERY relevant and in no way could be seen as derailing

As you have asked for an Admin opinion, I will give it.

You were derailing the thread.
This is actually very simple, it's the Ladies Lounge, a forum where women can discuss subjects from a female pov.
We also have a forum where you can discuss subjects from the male point of view, the Gentlemans Club.

The Mod had every right to warn you.

OutlawPete

Beruthiel wrote: »

As you have asked for an Admin opinion, I will give it.

Appreciate it.

Beruthiel wrote: »

You were derailing the thread.

The moderation post says and I quote:

Silverfish wrote: »

Because we do not want the thread dragged off-topic with needless whataboutery and questioning posters on their posts by applying a different scenario to the one being discussed.

Perhaps you have not read the thread, but the 'what if it was boys' point was raised, and warnings resulted. Do not continue the derailment.

There was NO: "what if it was boys" point raised on the thread before and so it's impossible that "warnings resulted" from something that never happened, so I presume you are referring to the "whataboutery" aspect overall and I tend to agree, that does seem to be the crux of this.

So, couple of brief points:

1) The post sat on the thread for 20 hours and was not moderated for "whataboutery" so why was it suddenly "derailing" to clarify the post after it was misrepresented?

2) The "whataboutery" aspect of my post was a rhetorical question which I answered myself and was used to explain why I felt how I did about what the OP had suggested. That question was in no way directed at the OP, the three questions I put to the OP were in the first paragraph.

Beruthiel wrote: »

This is actually very simple, it's the Ladies Lounge, a forum where women can discuss subjects from a female pov.

I am asking a woman to extrapolate on a "female pov". It is a "female pov" which I addressed and wish to understand, is it not? Why does my question not qualify as "male input"? At what point does "male input" become "male point of view"?

Beruthiel wrote: »

We also have a forum where you can discuss subjects from the male point of view, the Gentlemans Club.

I know, I use it but the thread was not posted there, it was posted in TLL.

Quick question for you Beruthiel, seen as you used TGC in a comparable fashion:

Lets say I started a thread tonight in TGC and quoted an article like this and suggested that what this woman did was indicative of there being discrimination against men in Australian society and it is a true measure of how men need to fight for gender equality, insinuating that that the abuse wouldn't have occurred but for that. Along with the article I use a quote which backs up my contention. Now, would you not think it reasonable for a woman in TGC to ask me to clarify why I feel that gender equality had anything to do with with what this women did? Would you think if a woman did ask me why I felt that way, that the Mods should jump in and stop her for doing so? Where a woman to ask me would I feel the same why, had two children have been girls and no boy was involved, do you think that question should be labelled "whataboutery"? Do you think that if I started bleating about how the women really wanted me to talk about "Men's rights", that that would be an acceptable reason for Mods to accuse that women of "badgering" me, when she had said no such thing?

Beruthiel wrote: »

The Mod had every right to warn you.

I respectfully disagree

Silverfish

OutlawPete wrote: »

There was NO: "what if it was boys" point raised on the thread before and so it's impossible that "warnings resulted" from something that never happened, so I presume you are referring to the "whataboutery" aspect overall and I tend to agree, that does seem to be the crux of this.

In this post at the start of this thread, I gave an example of where the point WAS raised before yours.

It was applying a different scenario to the point being discussed, and therefore of no relevance to the thread and as such a derailment to discuss a different scenario than the one in the OP.

OutlawPete wrote: »

So, couple of brief points:

1) The post sat on the thread for 20 hours and was not moderated for "whataboutery" so why was it suddenly "derailing" to clarify the post after it was misrepresented?

2) The "whataboutery" aspect of my post was a rhetorical question which I answered myself and was used to explain why I felt how I did about what the OP had suggested. That question was in no way directed at the OP, the three questions I put to the OP were in the first paragraph.

1) because I did not see the your first post in the thread until after it was addressed by the OP to say she didn't want to discuss the inclusion of a feminist quote with you.

2) Now that we have established the 'whataboutery', your question to the OP

do you mind explaining to me just precisely what a man raping his daughter and two other young girls has got anything whatsoever to do with sexual equality? Specifically in 21st century Ireland? How could you for one second even, think that the above Andrea Dworkin quote could be in any way relevant here?

You then went on to answer this yourself.

The poster responded

Gender politics is what the above quote is about the term sexual politics is out moded but that was the term used back when the book was written. The quote is not about sexual freedoms and you are wrong to assume so. And this is the only post I will make on this, I have as much interest in discussion feminism with you as I would with Kevin Myers.

and stated that

I have read enough of his posts on the topic to know his position and opinion and so feel no need to hear them again or enguage him on them. I would prefer to do this rather then have him write a huge reply and just not get a response.

The next question I can find from you is:

What I want to know from you is why precisely you think this particular case of a man raping his daughter and two girls is somehow indicative of gender inequality in this country? As if it were his SON that and two young BOYS that he raped, you would not be able to take that stance and so I want to know why, when it is a daughter and two young girls, you feel that you can.

This is the crux of it. You are there applying a different scenario to the topic of the thread to argue the use of a quote.

I reminded you that the different scenario was brought up in the thread prior to this, and resulted in a warning. This was a note to you not to continue the 'What if the roles were reversed / what if it was boys' argument.

You then went on to try argue the ethos of tll:

What I asked the user was why in the OP she implied that this man raping his daughter and two girls was indicative of gender inequality in Ireland, nothing more. I made the point that if it were boys he raped, taking such a view would be a nonsensical one, but I fail to see how that in anyway goes against the ethos of TLL.

Since when is a man asking one question based on the content of an OP going against the ethos of TLL

The poster had already said she didn't want to have to debate a feminist quote in the thread. The thread was not about her quote.


You weren't banned, you weren't infracted, you were asked to stop derailing a thread with different scenarios to the one being discussed.

OutlawPete

Silverfish wrote: »

In this post at the start of this thread, I gave an example of where the point WAS raised before yours.

As I have said now umpteen times already, NEITHER of the points that those two users made were the same "POINT" as mine. Those users were changing the sex of the rapist and so could arguably be seen to be giving a "male" point of view, I was not doing that. You said specifically that the: "what if they were boys' point had been raised and it is THAT and THAT alone which I am saying did not happen on that thread, nothing more. I am not saying that other users didn't put their own scenarios. Which of course you know as didn't I reply on the thread and address just that point here.

Silverfish wrote: »

It was applying a different scenario to the point being discussed, and therefore of no relevance to the thread and as such a derailment to discuss a different scenario than the one in the OP.

A different scenario was used to explain my reasoning, but a different sceanrio was NOT put to the OP when asking her the questions which I did. The questions were asked in the first paragraph, I did not use a rhetorical question until the third one (LONG AFTER the questions had already been put to the OP, as there are no questions at all in the second paragraph):

OutlawPete wrote: »

I have just read this thread from start to finish, three times in fact and I am PERPLEXED to say the very least. How the above has gone relatively unaddressed, is beyond me. Sharrow, do you mind explaining to me just precisely what a man raping his daughter and two other young girls has got anything whatsoever to do with sexual equality? Specifically in 21st century Ireland? How could you for one second even, think that the above Andrea Dworkin quote could be in any way relevant here?

Sexual inequality has nothing to do with why this happened and nothing to do with why this particular sentence was handed down either. If sexual inequality had a large part to play in the amount of rape and sexual abuse of the western world, then the relevant statistics would show us that the numbers have been plummeting in direct proportion to egalitarian principles being achieved throughout the western world, but they haven't, as the two are largely, if not totally .. unrelated.

If that man had raped his son and two other young boys, what would you have done then? I'll tell you what you couldn't have done shall I. What you couldn't have done is take the situation and imply that sexual inequality was it's true cause, which is what you did in the OP. As if you did, it would obviously make no sense whatsoever! It's just a shame that you can't also see, that when it's a 'daughter' rather than a 'son' and 'two girls' rather than 'two boys', that it still makes ZERO sense!

So, my post was a 'derailing' one because of one rhetorical nature of the last paragraph of my post which put my reasoning for why I disagreed with her? I find that to be a nonsense quite frankly.

Silverfish wrote: »

1) because I did not see the your first post in the thread until after it was addressed by the OP to say she didn't want to discuss the inclusion of a feminist quote with you.

TWISTING WORDS!

The OP did NOT say anything whatsoever about not wanting to discuss that quote, here is what the OP said:

Sharrow wrote: »

Gender politics is what the above quote is about the term sexual politics is out moded but that was the term used back when the book was written. The quote is not about sexual freedoms and you are wrong to assume so. And this is the only post I will make on this, I have as much interest in discussion feminism with you as I would with Kevin Myers.

To answer the questions that I put to the OP, she would not have had to discuss Feminism. What she WOULD have to discuss was "gender equality" as that is what the quote concerned. If a Buddhist made that quote and I asked her why she agrees with it's contention, would that mean I want to discuss BUDDHISM??

Silverfish wrote: »

This is the crux of it. You are there applying a different scenario to the topic of the thread to argue the use of a quote.

Again, the scenario makes little or NO difference to the questions that I asked. You are suggesting that I put a scenario to the OP and then asked questions based on that scenario. I did nothing of the sort. The questions were put BEFORE the scenario was even mentioned.

Silverfish wrote: »

The poster had already said she didn't want to have to debate a feminist quote in the thread.

TWISTING WORDS.

She did NOT say that she didn't want to discuss that quote nor indeed, the use of it. She said Feminism, she meant Feminism, I know it, you know it, anybody that read the thread knows it. So stop twisting what was said for your own means. The OP even confirmed in the next post to the user who asked her why she was not answering my questions, that he had said he would be interested in hearing the answers to and she said:

Sharrow wrote: »

I have read enough of his posts on the topic to know his position and opinion and so feel no need to hear them again or enguage him on them.

FEMINSIM .. NOT the quote.

That is what she said that she did not what to discuss and again I repeat, to answer the questions that I put to her, she would NOT have had to even mention Feminism. The quote was about gender equality and women's progress in that regard and as I have stated already, Feminism does not have a monopoly on such things.

Sharrow wrote: »

The thread was not about her quote.

No, I agree with you, the thread was not about that quote at all.

What the thread was about, was a man who had raped three children (one of them his daughter) got got a lenient sentence for it and the OP's contention was that gender inequality was in some way (partially or fully, guess we'll never know) to blame for that happening. The quote was just used as vestibule of sorts, to express her thinking which is precisely why had the OP of answered my questions, Feminism need not have come up.

Sharrow wrote: »

You weren't banned, you weren't infracted, you were asked to stop derailing a thread with different scenarios to the one being discussed.

Aye, I am well aware that I wasn't banned and am also fully aware that I wasn't infracted too in fact, which is precisely why I have not said I was banned and is also precisely why I have not said that I was infracted either.

The thread was about an Irish man that raped three children, and the OP put 'gender inequality' in the frame for it happening. I asked her a few questions and at ALL times I stuck to the matter at hand: a man raped three children and got a lenient sentence and I never veered away from those crucial aspects of the case. I even told the OP I agreed with her with regards to the sentence. AFTER I posed the questions, I went on to use a rhetorical question where I changed one small aspect of the case so I could make MY own reasoning clear to her. The OP replied and said she did not want to discuss Feminism and as neither did I - decided to clarify that to her in the following post. A post which is in the very same format as my first:

OutlawPete wrote: »

I do not want to have discussion on feminism. You included a quote from a feminist and yes, I am addressing that, but only that. All that I asked you was why you feel that the quote you used was relevant and to clarify just what your point was in that regard. Perhaps I wasn't clear, I will put my point to you again, as I feel it an important one.

In the OP of this thread you quoted an article regarding a man that had received a sentence for raping his eight year old daughter and two other young girls. You implied the sentence was lenient (I agree, it certainly appears that way) and then you made the following comment and included a quote from Dworkin:

The above is suggesting that, because this man raped his daughter and two other young girls, that what it this all means is that women still have some "progress" to make when it comes to gender equality. What I want to know from you is why precisely you think this particular case of a man raping his daughter and two girls is somehow indicative of gender inequality in this country? As if it were his SON that and two young BOYS that he raped, you would not be able to take that stance and so I want to know why, when it is a daughter and two young girls, you feel that you can.

Now, you may see this one line of this post as "derailing", but I most certainly do not. I see it as very relevant and valid point. However, even though it is relevant, it is in no way crucial to have been included in the post and is only ever included to express my own thinking on the OP's contention, which I felt was a better way to approach the thread rather than just steam in with the questions from the first paragraph of my opening post. Now it would appear as if I would have been better off doing that now, but I thought and still think tbh, that that would have been an aggressive way to enter a thread, to just ask a bunch of questions and not given my own thinking on the topic and my reasoning for posing the questions.

Either way, my posts could have been edited to remove what is now being referred to as "whataboutery". A PM could then have then been sent to explain that the forum wanted no element of any OP, ever being changed in any way, to make a point. I would have thought it madness, but at least my question would have remained and perhaps the OP would have replied to my clarification post .. perhaps not.

On a final note, there is no need to keep telling me that I have not being infracted. I am here because I wanted to ask an OP some questions about something she said on a serious subject and because of the way I phrased a part of the post, with regards to the children's sex, my posts is being labelled "needless whataboutery". I feel this is 'overzealous' and goes against the charter of TLL with regards to: "male input" being welcome.

Silverfish

If the Ladies Lounge riles you to this level, at this stage, I would advise you that it's probably in your best interest just not to read it.

That is my last word on this.

OutlawPete

Silverfish wrote: »

If the Ladies Lounge riles you to this level, at this stage, I would advise you that it's probably in your best interest just not to read it.

The Ladies Lounge doesn't rile me, being reading it for years and can only think of two threads were I thought the OP was sexist or just wrongheaded, but that has nothing to do with TLL, you get that all over Boards.

Even posted a little poem in the: "What made you smile.." thread the other day, as it made me smile

In fact, my first ever TLL post was in that thread.

Nah, I like TLL me, just some of the moderation decisions I take issue with, hence this thread.

OutlawPete

Missed this post for some reason:

Wibbs wrote: »

Then could you ask them to start a thread in tLL giving specifics about their issues with the forum? Or PM one of the other tLL mods giving specifics? Or start a thread in feedback discussing it? We're all ears if women want to chime in, but we're really not hearing it. All we are hearing is male voices.

Will pass it but I wouldn't hold your breath.

Wibbs wrote: »

There was also a general serious forum V more frivolous forum vibe for a while.

A less serious forum would not have to frivilous, I don't see how it's one or the other.

Wibbs wrote: »

Honestly? Pardon me if I find it hard to respect any opinion if they don't have the backbone to post/pm that opinion about the issues they have and god forbid offer solutions.

Users shouldn't need to have a "backbone" to post on a forum, if there is tension on a forum then something is wrong with it. The hardcore maybe be happy with the way it is, but that is hardly surprising, as it's that way because they made it that way. If the will is there to reach out to female Boardsies and make TLL a palce where all women on Boards are welcome, then it can be achieved, but that first means acknowledging that something is wrong first.

One thing that could make the place a little more inviting is have one of the moderators set up a thread in TLL asking regulars to design a Sig Banner for the forum. Would create some buzz and when TLL'rs begin sporting them, they will be seen throughout Boards. It would send the message that the TLL is interested in new faces and/or to see some of old ones come back.

Wibbs

OutlawPete wrote: »

Will pass it but I wouldn't hold your breath.

Then with respect their opinion holds zero water for me at least.

A less serious forum would not have to frivilous, I don't see how it's one or the other.

Hence it's not. Read the thread titles on the first page. That was waaaay back and oh look we had a community chat and we fixed it.

Users shouldn't need to have a "backbone" to post on a forum, if there is tension on a forum then something is wrong with it.

Here we go again. You and a few other men(and apparently remarkably silent women you know) are the only ones moaning about "tension" and the moderation. Let's play spot the problem with that.

In any event I was referring to your post about all these women you've talked to who don't like the place. My opinion is; Cool beans Chief, but if you don't have the stones to bring this to the communities attention and try and make it better then moaning about it holds zero water for me. Piss or get off the pot basically.

The hardcore maybe be happy with the way it is, but that is hardly surprising, as it's that way because they made it that way.

You could say that to one degree or other about literally every forum on Boards.ie and we've a bigger "hardcore" of regular repeat posters than the majority of forums on Boards.

If the will is there to reach out to female Boardsies and make TLL a palce where all women on Boards are welcome, then it can be achieved, but that first means acknowledging that something is wrong first.

And here we go again. You believe there's something wrong in the direction of the forum. A few men share your opinion. This may come as a shock to you, but this does not actually mean there is something wrong. Until such times as we have women telling us this and not men with an axe to grind about the forum, we're simply not going to put much store in your opinion. Well any to be frank.

For all that is "wrong" with the place according to Outlawpete(with a supporting cast of well.. who knows), to my knowledge we've not had a single solitary complaintrant in helpdesk or DRP from women. Only men. Again let's play spot the problem with that picture. For all that is "wrong" with the place according to OutlawPete, stats wise the Ladies Lounge shows up near the top out of all the many hundreds of forums on Boards.ie(and surprisingly higher than some) Of course it can be improved, but we'll await more local counsel if that's alright with you and the other (male)naysayers.

One thing that could make the place a little more inviting is have one of the moderators set up a thread in TLL asking regulars to design a Sig Banner for the forum. Would create some buzz and when TLL'rs begin sporting them, they will be seen throughout Boards. It would send the message that the TLL is interested in new faces and/or to see some of old ones come back.

Good idea. We'll take it under advisement.

In any event, because at this stage it's a tad odd... Pretty much this.

Silverfish wrote:

If the Ladies Lounge riles you to this level, at this stage, I would advise you that it's probably in your best interest just not to read it.

That is my last word on this.

And definitely this.

OutlawPete

Wibbs wrote: »

Then with respect their opinion holds zero water for me at least.

No surprise there.

Wibbs wrote: »

Hence it's not. Read the thread titles on the first page. That was waaaay back and oh look we had a community chat and we fixed it.

Have another one.

Wibbs wrote: »

Here we go again. You and a few other men(and apparently remarkably silent women you know) are the only ones moaning about "tension" and the moderation. Let's play spot the problem with that.

Okay .. I spot that the problem is the moderation of the forum is overzealous and needlessly shuts out relevant comments from both men and women.

Not one moderator has an explanation for why my whole post is being dimissed because of one "whataboutery" aspect to it, which I might add, was not aimed at the OP in the form of a question. It obviously was not the be all and end all of my stance and had little or nothing to do with the questions that I actually asked of the OP, previous to it in the opening paragraph. Nor can a moderator explain just why the questions that I asked are being labelled as "a male point of view" as they have been here. Could a woman not also ask the user the same questions? Could a woman not also use a rhetorical question to then explain that thinking? Of course they could and hey look, I again used some rhetorical questions to make a point again.

Wibbs wrote: »

In any event I was referring to your post about all these women you've talked to who don't like the place. My opinion is; Cool beans Chief, but if you don't have the stones to bring this to the communities attention and try and make it better then moaning about it holds zero water for me. Piss or get off the pot basically.

They are not on the pot, as they longer want to piss in it. The pot was making their arse sore and so they now piss in other pots and were their piss is appreciated and they don't have to stop pissing mid-flow every few minutes so that someone can adjust the pot and tell them they ain't pissing right. Now they piss in peace but if the piss pot over at TLL ever becomes a place were pissing could become enjoyable again for them again, maybe they'll return to piss there once more.

Wibbs wrote: »

You could say that to one degree or other about literally every forum on Boards.ie and we've a bigger "hardcore" of regular repeat posters than the majority of forums on Boards.

It caters pretty much to one viewpoint and one viewpoint alone. I (and most people that are honest with themselves) know that the views of women in TLL are far different than the views of women expressed elsewhere on the forum. If that thread had have been started in After Hours or Humanities and only women were allowed to post in it, do you really think that the OP's contention would have went unchallenged, in the way it has done in TLL? A contention that a man raping three children was something that should be used as a "measure" of just how much "progress" women have made in western society. Not on your life would it and that's because the TLL DOES NOT represent the vast majority of female boardsies, it represents and reflects a very small percentage of females on Boards and a very set way of thinking too I might add. The forum has been hijacked by those with an agenda, a very clear anti-male agenda and you and as many others can waffle on about how it compares to TGC as much as you like, but it does not. Women are not treated the same on that forum as men are treated in TLL. Men in TGC do not see women in as poor a light as the vast majority of TLL'rs see men. There is no true comparison, but there should be and it is my belief, that one day there will be.

Wibbs wrote: »

And here we go again. You believe there's something wrong in the direction of the forum. A few men share your opinion. This may come as a shock to you, but this does not actually mean there is something wrong.

Well, this may come as a shock to you, but just because you are oblivious to the fact that the vast majority of female Boardsies think the TLL is a joke (when it comes a large percentage of the views expressed there) does not mean that it isn't so. The forum has a become a sanctuary for ludicrous victimology type opinions. Users start threads there that they would never dream of starting elsewhere on Boards, saying things they would never for dream of saying elsewhere and not just because they are only interested in a female point of view, but because they know that they get away with borderline sexism there, whereas if they attempted to elsewhere, they would be called on it.

If I was to go to TGC and post a similar opinion, there is no way the mods there would gather around me and accuse female users of badgering me for just asking questions on why I made the comments which I had. Look at the Kevin Myers thread in AH where I expressed my views on Radical Feminism. Did I run from my opinions and say I did not want to discuss the comments which I had just posted, as I knew what those users thought of them?? Like fcuk did I, I stood my ground and explained my stance and why I held each and every single view. Posted research, interviews, linked to examples of what I spoke of, links to social policy which was put into legislation because of feminist lobby groups, shown how they were violent and involved in bombings etc etc etc. All which showed that I didn't just pluck the views I held from my derriere. You talk about how women should have the "stones" to air their grievances with TLL, well I feel women should have the "stones" to stand by what they post and not run for cover just because the user that asks them a question doesn't agree with them. It is "discussion" forum after all, not a platform for soapboxing.

However, I understand that mindset and I am not too bothered by it, what I am bothered by is how moderators and a whole forum uses nonsense like "whataboutery" to silence a user who asks a simple question. There was no derailment by me. I was "on topic". Had a woman asked what I did, she would have been let and not a chance would she be accused of derailment. Takes a little more for a woman to get accused of that, but they still do and just to clarify again (as I feel I need to, down to the amount of strawmanning that has gone on) I DON'T think ALL 'whataboutery" should be allowed. If it is TRULY going to derail a thread, then that is quite a different matter and I can't see anyone objecting to genuine examples of it being moderated.

Wibbs wrote: »

Until such times as we have women telling us this and not men with an axe to grind about the forum, we're simply not going to put much store in your opinion. Well any to be frank.

Ah, the usual "axe to grind" stuff, saves you having to actually deal with the points being raised. Just dismiss them all off as disgruntled users with chips on their shoulders.

Wibbs wrote: »

For all that is "wrong" with the place according to Outlawpete(with a supporting cast of well.. who knows), to my knowledge we've not had a single solitary complaintrant in helpdesk or DRP from women.

Well, according to you, women and men having different debate "styles" so maybe that's the reason? I wouldn't know as I happen to be one of those who believe that men and women debate the very SAME way. I've been in enough debates on Boards with them to have earned that opinion, but you being a Mod of TLL, maybe you know more about them than me I guess.

Wibbs wrote: »

Only men. Again let's play spot the problem with that picture. For all that is "wrong" with the place according to OutlawPete, stats wise the Ladies Lounge shows up near the top out of all the many hundreds of forums on Boards.ie(and surprisingly higher than some) Of course it can be improved, but we'll await more local counsel if that's alright with you and the other (male)naysayers.

It should be more popular going by the numbers. 33% of Boards users are female, roughly (most Polls tells us this) and so a forum that is SUPPOSED to cater to them and their viewpoints, should be much busier. So why is not bustling with female Boardsies then? Why is the majority of the hardcore of the same mindset, which is a much different one to that expressed elsewhere on the forum whenever we see women giving their views? If there are two threads on the very same subject, one in TLL and the other on another part of the forum, without exception the views expressed by the women will be worlds apart, when one thread is compared to the other. Three and half years the forum is going and there is just 250,000 posts, heck TLI is a small private forum which was just set up only a year ago and it has 110,000 posts under it's belt. A forum that hardly anyone knows about and which you have request access to. That is not to say that I am making comparisons between the forums with regards to the quality of threads and/or posts, as I am not. My point is that TLL is a pretty much a public forum. It is well Google'd and so, as it is a forum for female Boardies and 33% of registered users appear to be female, then it really should be more active than it has been in it's 4 years. Long story short, TLL has become an enclave for those with a certain viewpoint and users who post there and don't share the viewpoint of the majority, are made to feel about as welcome a paedophile at a kid's pool party. I'm sure the NWCI would fit right in though, perhaps you should PM Susan McKay a link, would like to see what snaps she adds to the KYL thread;)

Wibbs wrote: »

Good idea. We'll take it under advisement.

Great, I may throw in a few entries myself.

Wibbs wrote: »

In any event, because at this stage it's a tad odd... Pretty much this.

Going out as you came in eh, quoting Silverfish when what she said was wholly incorrect. As I said to her and I'll say it again to you: The Ladies Lounge does not rile me, I likes the place ya see. I like women, love 'em in fact and so would like to be part of a forum where their views are being expressed. Same reason that I like to post in TGC, as there tends to be just "male" views being expressed, good for the old ying and yang. I am also quite friendly with many of TLL patrons and as "male input" is supposed to be welcomed there, I'd like to be one of the men who's views fall under that banner. I (and many other men also ot would appear) just ain't quite sure what that definition of "input" quite just is, at it tends to change depending on which way the wind is blowing it would seem.

Anyway, back to why we're all here and as everyone's having their "last words", I'll have mine:

I asked questions in a forum and it is being labelled as "whataboutery". The derailment is now NOT the issue here it would seem, as the mod has intimated that she would have moderated the post in the same way had she seen it in the 20 hours previous to it being replied to and so that makes this all very simple. The crux of the is that my post has been labelled 'whataboutery' and I feel it shouldn't be, as I believe that the post would not have derailed then thread in any way as the questions PUT to the OP could easily have been answered without referring to that aspect of my post, which was only used to explain my thinking and of course without the need to discuss Feminism.

So, that is why I feel the moderation was overzealous.

Silverfish

Few facts for you.

You have not reported ONE post in the ladies lounge. So I find it hard to believe it is 'Anti-men'. I believe that you want to think it is, but quite frankly, it isn't. As was pointed out, people get banned for the same thing on tGC as they do on TLL.

Secondly, on a quick glance, I have found roughly 15 posts by you complaining about tLL on After Hours. But not once did you hit the report post button in tLL.

Secondly, it is one of the top ten forums on boards, in both followers and individual posters.
In regards to traffic, it is not in the top ten, but with the target audience being roughly 30% of the userbase, and with forums such as AH, Motors, Soccer, we aren't going to feature.

Of our top 20 posters, 5 are men, with no bans or infractions in the forum.

The majority of people who are actually banned from the forum are for

Spamming
Trolling
Advertising.

Of the posters banned for trolling, many are sitebanned for trolling sitewide.

So with the target of the forum being roughly 30% of the userbase, and let's just say not all of the targets are actually interested in posting there, we're happy enough with how it is.

I would also put it to you with 29 posts in the forum, 21 of them in one thread, that you are perhaps not the best judge of how well the forum is doing overall, or how it should operate.

You're not happy with the moderation, we get that. However we will not step down, or change anything to accommodate one poster who is not the target audience of the forum, and who has had a grudge against the forum for a long, long time.

I'm closing this thread now, because this is just axe-grinding and pointless for all involved.