Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Bad modding

  • 09-02-2012 2:22pm
    #1
    iregk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,235 ✭✭✭


    I've seen it a couple of times recently and I'm just wondering the logic of it all. Some posts have been posted on the football forum that have warranted a warning/card. The posts that follow condemn the inflammatory post and the user has as I said received a warning.

    What baffles me is that when this happens the posts condemning the comment get deleted however the one that started it stays with a card attached. What on earth kind of logic is that?

    Also the modding in the football forum seems to be completely inconsistent. If seems to go with whether or not a particular mod agrees or not with the poster as to the infraction. If an insult is thrown about a player on the team he supports the poster gets a ban. If it's about a player that he dislikes then no ban is given.
    Post edited by Shield on


Comments

  • #2
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    Have you brought this up with the Mods/CMods?

    btw
    Mods are not robots.
    No two will act exactly the same.


  • #3
    iregk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,235 ✭✭✭iregk


    I thought this was where you raised this kind of thing. Also i appreciate that mods are not exactly the same but I'd have thought the policy and process would have been consistently followed by all of them.


  • #4
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    If you are going to complain about gross inconsistency in the moderation of that forum, you will have to supply links in order that we can comment on what you are talking about.


  • #5
    iregk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,235 ✭✭✭iregk


    Ok fair enough. I'll take it up with the mod in question and if there is nothing to come of that I'll go back here and post up links.


  • #6
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,907 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    iregk wrote: »
    What baffles me is that when this happens the posts condemning the comment get deleted however the one that started it stays with a card attached. What on earth kind of logic is that?
    That's pretty obvious. The post with the card stays so that other posters know what's not acceptable. The posts condemning it add nothing to the discussion whatsoever, but are not card-worthy, so they're deleted.

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Advertisement
  • #7
    iregk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,235 ✭✭✭iregk


    28064212 wrote: »
    That's pretty obvious. The post with the card stays so that other posters know what's not acceptable. The posts condemning it add nothing to the discussion whatsoever, but are not card-worthy, so they're deleted.

    On the same token the mod in many threads has spend copious amounts of time constantly deleting posts that make reference to the offending post which has been left there. Also allowing many more people to add thanks there by continuing the arguments.

    I'm all for removing posts that don't contribute anything to a discussion however the offending post should also be removed. If people need a clue as to why they got banned or what was offensive then they haven't read the charter!


  • #8
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,972 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    You obviously missed the whole Accountability/Communication/Transparency thing here in 2010...


  • #9
    iregk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,235 ✭✭✭iregk


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    You obviously missed the whole Accountability/Communication/Transparency thing here in 2010...

    That's 2 years ago. 2 weeks ago on here is a long time...


  • #10
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    iregk wrote: »
    the offending post should also be removed.

    No it shouldn't.
    I have been a Mod on this site since 2003 and this has always been the way I have moderated.
    If the comment is not there for all to see then you are not moderating in a transparent way.
    Also, having it there for all to see means other users will learn what is and isn't accepted in the forum.


  • #11
    iregk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,235 ✭✭✭iregk


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    Also, having it there for all to see means other users will learn what is and isn't accepted in the forum.

    Is that not what the charter is for?

    So by your logic lets say someone spray paints a big penis onto the front of the new convention center. Many are offended and report it to the local authorities. The local authorities should under no circumstances remove it but rather paint on a "this is not allowed" warning onto.

    By this they are letting everyone know it's not OK to spray paint a big penis onto the building but on the same token they will leave it there to offend plenty more people.

    Nice.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    You are comparing two completely different scenarios thus it is not logical to do so.

    If the original indiscretion is deleted then it is liable to be repeated.


  • #13
    twinQuins
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,199 ✭✭✭twinQuins


    iregk wrote: »
    Is that not what the charter is for?

    Charters, deliberately, do not cover every eventuality. Apart from the fact that it would allow rule-lawyering aplenty, it's simply impossible to account for every dickish move a user might make.
    So by your logic lets say someone spray paints a big penis onto the front of the new convention center. Many are offended and report it to the local authorities. The local authorities should under no circumstances remove it but rather paint on a "this is not allowed" warning onto.

    By this they are letting everyone know it's not OK to spray paint a big penis onto the building but on the same token they will leave it there to offend plenty more people.

    Nice.

    The law, however, is very clearly spelled out and strictly interpreted. Which is why people get off on technicalities and it's why charters are open enough for mods to do their job.


  • #14
    The Recliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,630 ✭✭✭The Recliner


    iregk wrote: »
    Is that not what the charter is for?

    So by your logic lets say someone spray paints a big penis onto the front of the new convention center. Many are offended and report it to the local authorities. The local authorities should under no circumstances remove it but rather paint on a "this is not allowed" warning onto.

    By this they are letting everyone know it's not OK to spray paint a big penis onto the building but on the same token they will leave it there to offend plenty more people.

    Nice.

    In this example the offending penis can be edited out and a note left to the effect that posting penis is not allowed

    Depending on how graphic the image of the penis it might not need to be edited out


Advertisement