Why is this person a mod?

Fromthetrees

First time posting on feedback. Usually don't care about most stuff but I think what this mod says is unacceptable, disgusting and outrageous.

irishconvert
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2007

People involved in the distribution of class A drugs do an unbelieveable amount of damage to our society. Anyone involved in this business deserves the death penalty.

To get to the stage of hitting your wife, you first have to be in a position where you are so annoyed you are no longer sleeping in the same bed as her.

Here he equates Muslims protesting against America on the streets of Dublin with people protesting on the streets of Dublin over Bloody Sunday.
No one with any sanity can make such a comparison.

Originally Posted by MrD012
what is it again they are chanting ?

Originally Posted by irishconvert
God is greatest, down down America? Is it really surprising some of these lads have a problem with America as it is probably responsible for bombing some of their homelands back to the stone age.

Hey, do you remember the protest to the British Embassy in Dublin after the Bloody Sunday shootings? Can you tell us your view on what happened at that protest?

There's 3 proper crazy reasons for why I'm questioning why this person is a mod. I'm very sure if I spent another 15 minutes I could find another 3 equally outrageous posts.

5starpool

A. None of those posts are in the forum he/she moderates.
B. Hardly earth shatteringly controversial opinions. Strong opinions expressed frankly, yes, but hardly unbecoming of a moderator, especially since they are not a moderator as far as those posts are concerned.

You have an issue with those posts, I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't.

Edit: OK, the wife hitting one is clearly batshít actually.

EazyD

5starpool wrote: »

A. None of those posts are in the forum he/she moderates.
B. Hardly earth shatteringly controversial opinions. Strong opinions expressed frankly, yes, but hardly unbecoming of a moderator, especially since they are not a moderator as far as those posts are concerned.

You have an issue with those posts, I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't.

Edit: OK, the wife hitting one is clearly batshít actually.

While I would agree that the moderator has by no means any obligation to refrain from voicing their opinion in forums, it goes without saying that it is the nature of their position that makes such strong views look unfavourable.

LoLth

iirc the wife beating discussion was already brought up in feedback and discussed at the time.

Is there any particular reason why you are bringing up these posts now? (1 post from 2011, one from 2012 and one from january 2013)...I cant believe you spent 15 minutes digging those up to be honest.

anyway, as 5tarpool has pointed out, while we expect moderators to behave within the rules of any forum they post in, a moderator is just a user in any forum they do not moderate. Users are allowed opinions, so are mods. You or I may not agree with their opinion but thats the joy of discussion and debate.

If you have an issue with a post, report it and let the mods decide if its too far over the line.

irish bloke

Fromthetrees wrote: »

First time posting on feedback. Usually don't care about most stuff but I think what this mod says is unacceptable, disgusting and outrageous

There's 3 proper crazy reasons for why I'm questioning why this person is a mod. I'm very sure if I spent another 15 minutes I could find another 3 equally outrageous posts.

Seen a lot worse to be honest.

lanyard

Someone who condones hitting their wife shouldn't be given the privilege of moderating discussion. They are obviously not balanced and are on the fringes of society.

Fromthetrees

LoLth wrote: »

iirc the wife beating discussion was already brought up in feedback and discussed at the time.

Is there any particular reason why you are bringing up these posts now? (1 post from 2011, one from 2012 and one from january 2013)...I cant believe you spent 15 minutes digging those up to be honest.

anyway, as 5tarpool has pointed out, while we expect moderators to behave within the rules of any forum they post in, a moderator is just a user in any forum they do not moderate. Users are allowed opinions, so are mods. You or I may not agree with their opinion but thats the joy of discussion and debate.

If you have an issue with a post, report it and let the mods decide if its too far over the line.

Is there something wrong with bringing this issue to feedback now? I haven't posted here before.

The main problem is how can I properly post in a forum when one of the mods of that forum has such a warped way of looking at the world.

Death penalty for drug distributors, women can be beaten, Irish people protesting on Irish streets over Irish people being murdered in cold blood is totally equitable to Irish/non Irish Muslims protesting on Irish streets over America bombing countries thousands of miles away.

The mindset is scary quite frankly.

Pawwed Rig

5starpool wrote: »

A. None of those posts are in the forum he/she moderates.

The wife beating one is in the Islam forum which the mod moderates.

5starpool wrote: »

Hardly earth shatteringly controversial opinions. Strong opinions expressed frankly, yes, but hardly unbecoming of a moderator, especially since they are not a moderator as far as those posts are concerned.

You have an issue with those posts, I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't.

Agree with this. I don't think the other two opinions are that controversial. Many would consider tougher laws on drugs to be preferable.
The point about the protest is a non issue.

And to be fair what the guy actually said was
'Look, to be honest I am not the type of person who goes around hitting anyone, my wife included. To get to the stage of hitting your wife, you first have to be in a position where you are so annoyed you are no longer sleeping in the same bed as her. My opinion is that if you are at this stage and you feel you have to hit your wife then you may as well call time on the marriage. Actually if I did hit my wife I think she would divorce me quicker than you can say sharia law! '

lanyard

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The wife beating one is in the Islam forum which the mod moderates.


Agree with this. I don't think the other two opinions are that controversial. Many would consider tougher laws on drugs to be preferable.
The point about the protest is a non issue.

And to be fair what the guy actually said was
'Look, to be honest I am not the type of person who goes around hitting anyone, my wife included. To get to the stage of hitting your wife, you first have to be in a position where you are so annoyed you are no longer sleeping in the same bed as her. My opinion is that if you are at this stage and you feel you have to hit your wife then you may as well call time on the marriage. Actually if I did hit my wife I think she would divorce me quicker than you can say sharia law! '

He actually said the following:

oceanclub wrote: »

What do you consider valid circumstances for hitting your wife, and what do you consider not severe?

P.

irishconvert wrote: »

I don't know, I haven't been in a situation where I felt it was appropriate. I stress that hitting a wife is to be regarded is a last resort.

So at some point he feels it would be appropriate to hit his wife.

Madam_X

Just my opinion on this:

I'm not in agreement with one person being named tbh, but speaking in general terms: I used to agree that it shouldn't matter what a moderator posts in the forums they don't moderate (besides charter-breaching, which applies to anyone)... when I used to be a moderator. Now I realise that that's pretty disingenuous. If you have a bolded username and "Moderator" under it, it's not unreasonable to relax a bit outside the forum(s) you moderate, but it's also not unreasonable to be expected to uphold a certain standard, seeing as it's visible to all that you have been assigned with moderating, even if elsewhere on the site. Not everyone can be expected to realise that you're a regular member outside of the forum(s) you mod when your profile doesn't look that way.

Inflammatory, polarising comments just blurted out without any substance are not thought highly of when posted by a regular member (sometimes even reprimanded) let alone someone who is more representative of the site.

It's hypocritical IMO to post flame-baiting stuff in one forum if you are instructing people not to do so in another - that's not the same as saying though that you can't make mistakes or have a more easygoing, irreverent persona outside of the forums you moderate.

Not too far back, a moderator (who is no longer on the site) posted pretty provocative sectarian comments - and it looked worse IMO coming from a moderator, even though it wasn't in the forum they modded. It can also give the impression to those who are not fully au fait with the place that mods have a level of impunity. It's not the case, but IMO perceptions can be as important as realities sometimes.

Czarcasm

The whole "Mods outside their own forums aren't posting as Mods" get out clause has been done to death all over Feedback already, I just think Moderators are charged with a responsibility in a leadership role and have a duty to uphold the image of that role.

What seems to happen at the moment is that Boards policy says it's ok for Moderators to "take a poo at Paul's" so to speak, and leave the Moderators of that forum to deal with the stink, while said Moderator goes back to their own fresh smelling house.

Moderators SHOULD BE held to a higher standard at ALL times, but that doesn't mean they can't be allowed to visit Paul's house. They SHOULD BE held to the "You wouldn't do that in your own house" standard.

They can still be the same, civil posters they are in their own forums, still be allowed express their opinions and so on, but allowing them an excuse to have free reign outside their own forums sets an example for any visitors to Paul's house that says it's ok to treat the place like a dump if they see people who are supposed to be leading by example doing it.

Orion

lanyard wrote: »

Someone who condones hitting their wife shouldn't be given the privilege of moderating discussion. They are obviously not balanced and are on the fringes of society.

As an athiest I feel that someone who believes in a mythical divine entity shouldn't be a moderator. They are obviously deluded and should not be given any position of power.

Does that help provide perspective?

Madam_X

Orion wrote: »

As an athiest I feel that someone who believes in a mythical divine entity shouldn't be a moderator. They are obviously deluded and should not be given any position of power.

Does that help provide perspective?

Not IMO, seeing as domestic violence involves physically harming someone, the concept of atheism doesn't.

Orion

Madam_X wrote: »

If you have a bolded username and "Moderator" under it ... but it's also not unreasonable to be expected to uphold a certain standard,

Czarcasm wrote: »

I just think Moderators are charged with a responsibility in a leadership role and have a duty to uphold the image of that role.

Just a bit of background here - I'm pretty sure that for the earlier 2 of the posts linked in the OP irishconvert wasn't a mod of any forum at the time so this argument doesn't apply. [edit] I'm 100% sure he wasn't a mod at the time of the wife beating post at least. Not as confident about the 2012 one[/edit]

Don't get me wrong - I find some of his arguments and views completely alien to my way of thinking. But that doesn't mean he can't be a good mod of a forum.

Orion

Madam_X wrote: »

Not IMO, seeing as domestic violence involves physically harming someone, the concept of atheism doesn't.

You completely missed my point. I see religion as harmful - mentally and, as history has shown, physically. So therefore religious people shouldn't be mods. Fact! :cool:

Madam_X

Orion wrote: »

You completely missed my point. I see religion as harmful - mentally and, as history has shown, physically. So therefore religious people shouldn't be mods. Fact! :cool:

But your view on religion is subjective. Domestic violence as harmful is objective.

Micky Dolenz

Orion wrote: »

As an athiest I feel that someone who believes in a mythical divine entity shouldn't be a moderator. They are obviously deluded and should not be given any position of power.

Does that help provide perspective?

No, it does not help provide perspective.

Can you expand please.

lanyard

Orion wrote: »

As an athiest I feel that someone who believes in a mythical divine entity shouldn't be a moderator. They are obviously deluded and should not be given any position of power.

Does that help provide perspective?

WTF!!

Czarcasm

Orion wrote: »

Just a bit of background here - I'm pretty sure that for the earlier 2 of the posts linked in the OP irishconvert wasn't a mod of any forum at the time so this argument doesn't apply.

Don't get me wrong - I find some of his arguments and views completely alien to my way of thinking. But that doesn't mean he can't be a good mod of a forum.

Ah no Orion I wasn't specifically directing my post at irishconvert or any Moderator in particular, I was directing it at the often trotted out excuse that "Moderators are not Moderators outside forums they moderate".

It's a bit like saying for example that in an office environment a manager isn't a manager outside their own department. Yes they are, and they still have to maintain that leadership role outside their own department, leading by example. They're still on Boards, only in another department so to speak.

It's all well and good to say "Oh but it's a voluntary and thankless job", etc. The key word there is voluntary- they don't HAVE to do the job, but if they do volunteer their time, the least they could do is take the role seriously and bring other posters up to their standard, not bow down to the standards of posters who couldn't care less about the image of Boards.

Orion

Madam_X wrote: »

But your view on religion is subjective. Domestic violence as harmful is objective.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

No, it does not help provide perspective.

Can you expand please.

Religion is subjective. As are opinions.

The post I replied to said that a Muslim who believes in everything that his religion teaches are "obviously not balanced and are on the fringes of society". That was the comment I was responding to. It's ludicrous to suggest that someone is unbalanced purely because of their religious beliefs. The christian bible teaches that an eye for an eye is acceptable. It advocates death for apostacy and heresy. Genocide was perpetrated in Jericho and Babel (one divine and the other mundane). Examples such as these are in all abrahamic religions. But it doesn't mean that all believers are "on the fringes of society". That was the point I was trying to get across. Well that and that there was a blinkered view of what society is.

I'm sorry if the irony didn't come across in text form.

Orion

Czarcasm wrote: »

Athe least they could do is take the role seriously and bring other posters up to their standard, not bow down to the standards of posters who couldn't care less about the image of Boards.

We do take the role seriously - when we are in our own forums. When I post outside Parenting or Giving up Smoking I'm not a mod. End of. If I act the dick across the site I'd be removed of my modship pretty quickly. But having an opinion is not acting the dick.

Also, as I said irishconvert wasn't a mod then at all - in any forum - so why should he be held up to this standard that wasn't expected of him then?

Madam_X

Well ok, I was specifically focusing on the "Stage of hitting your wife" thing rather than Islam in general. Whether it's a religious belief or not, it's objectively wrong, as it appears to be legitimising physical harm.

Orion wrote: »

But having an opinion is not acting the dick.

Oh expressing one can be. (I'm speaking in general now) Saying "My opinion is that all gays should be exterminated" and nothing further to substantiate it, is being a dick. It's inflammatory and likely designed to provoke a reaction. Saying "I object to homosexuality because... (reasons given)" is a controversial opinion, but the expression of it in that way is not being a dick.

Micky Dolenz

Orion wrote: »

Religion is subjective. As are opinions.

The post I replied to said that a Muslim who believes in everything that his religion teaches are "obviously not balanced and are on the fringes of society". That was the comment I was responding to. It's ludicrous to suggest that someone is unbalanced purely because of their religious beliefs. The christian bible teaches that an eye for an eye is acceptable. It advocates death for apostacy and heresy. Genocide was perpetrated in Jericho and Babel (one divine and the other mundane). Examples such as these are in all abrahamic religions. But it doesn't mean that all believers are "on the fringes of society". That was the point I was trying to get across. Well that and that there was a blinkered view of what society is.

I'm sorry if the irony didn't come across in text form.

Irony certainly is a funny thing, and certainly one that is not lost on me.


What I see is a poster condoning violence against women under certain "conditions" citing Religion as a reason or an excuse.

Do you think this to be acceptable?

Czarcasm

Orion wrote: »

We do take the role seriously - when we are in our own forums. When I post outside Parenting or Giving up Smoking I'm not a mod. End of.

And that's the attitude I disagree with. A Moderator is charged with a leadership role, and while "in the office" so to speak, as in while they are on Boards, they have a responsibility to be good leaders, who can express their opinions in a civil and proper manner the same as the majority of posters manage to do. A Moderator should at all times be conscious of the fact that they have a duty to be an example to ordinary members of Boards.

If I act the dick across the site I'd be removed of my modship pretty quickly. But having an opinion is not acting the dick.

Of course nobody is saying Moderators are not entitled to their opinion the same as ordinary members, but they should be conscious of how their opinion might be perceived and should be consciously aware of how they word their posts.

Also, as I said irishconvert wasn't a mod then at all - in any forum - so why should he be held up to this standard that wasn't expected of him then?

Personally speaking, I think it was out of order for the OP to be allowed single out a single Moderator like that and twist their posts out of context. The OP should've PM'ed a CMod in this instance as Feedback is for more general site and forum issues as opposed to being Moderator or member specific.

Orion

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Irony certainly is a funny thing, and certainly one that is not lost on me.


What I see is a poster condoning violence against women under certain "conditions" citing Religion as a reason or an excuse.

Do you think this to be acceptable?

Of course not - I don't see it as acceptable in the slightest just as I don't find a lot of religious arguments for various things acceptable. But the thread is about whether or not irishconvert should be a mod because of his religious views and I was posting in that context. I also said in a previous post that I disagree with a lot of what he has to say - it doesn't mean he can't be a good moderator of a forum.

Orion

Czarcasm wrote: »

Of course nobody is saying Moderators are not entitled to their opinion the same as ordinary members, but they should be conscious of how their opinion might be perceived and should be consciously aware of how they word their posts.

I can't disagree with you more. If I am told by the cmods or admins that I have to make my posts corporate-aware and be careful what I say in forums outside of my modded ones I'll hand in my mod hat that same day. I mod two forums - they're the only ones I need to act as a mod in. In any other forum I'm an ordinary poster just like yourself and subject to the same sanctions as anyone else if I step out of line.

nesf

Madam_X wrote: »

Well ok, I was specifically focusing on the "Stage of hitting your wife" thing rather than Islam in general. Whether it's a religious belief or not, it's objectively wrong, as it appears to be legitimising physical harm.

There are situations where it is unequivocally acceptable to physically harm someone, generally when defending yourself or others from greater harm from that individual. I'm dearly hoping that's what irishconvert meant by "last resort."

K-9

Madam_X wrote: »

But your view on religion is subjective. Domestic violence as harmful is objective.

It depends, if his comment is in line with Islamic teaching or what he thinks it means, in the context of a discussion on Islam it is relevant. I think he said he doesn't agree with it, but if he is giving a comment on Islamic teaching on a board about Islam, that's a bit different to the same comment on say AH in a thread about domestic violence..

I rarely join discussions on religion, only encounter them when politics and religion collide. I've seen a good few comments and views that I'd view as abhorrent on those threads, but on a board about a particular religion and theology, would be fine. Theology is theory to me, different to how Governments should act on social issues.

The views on drugs and America are a bit hard line, but common enough. As long as it doesn't interfere with his modding, he has a right to his beliefs. Sure we all know Boards mods are all liberal, lefties, pc brigadiers!

Czarcasm

Orion wrote: »

I can't disagree with you more. If I am told by the cmods or admins that I have to make my posts corporate-aware and be careful what I say in forums outside of my modded ones I'll hand in my mod hat that same day. I mod two forums - they're the only ones I need to act as a mod in. In any other forum I'm an ordinary poster just like yourself and subject to the same sanctions as anyone else if I step out of line.

And that's exactly my point right there- it's a voluntary role, and if a Moderator feels they cannot meet the challenges presented by that role (to be an example of leadership to ordinary posters), then they are free to step down from that role, or as the case may be, choose to decline that role in the first place.

It goes all the way up the chain- Cmods should be an example to Moderators, Hosted Moderators and ordinary members, Admins should be an example to Cmods, Moderators, Hosted Moderators, and ordinary members.

Each person is charged with the responsibility to make Boards a place where people want to be, and where they are expected to meet a standard, a bar set high because it's set by example.

This is the true spirit of community, while at the same time projecting Boards corporate image in a positive light. Just look at what a minority of idiots have done to Facebook. If people are not held accountable in some respect and held to a standard- chaos ensues and the place goes to shìt, and I'm fairly sure the majority of members around here would prefer to see that didn't happen that Boards just went the same way as Facebook.

K-9

There is a wider issue, nothing to do with the mod, but if Islam does allow domestic violence in certain circumstances (and I don't have a clue if it does or not), Boards shouldn't really be facilitating a discussion on that. I can't think of many forums that condoning DV would be allowed, so I don't see how any discussion even entertaining the thought that it is acceptable, can be allowed.

General site wide view and morals overtakes any freedom of religion belief argument, Boards secularism in a way!

Overheal

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Irish people protesting on Irish streets over Irish people being murdered in cold blood is totally equitable to Irish/non Irish Muslims protesting on Irish streets over America bombing countries thousands of miles away.

You act as if an Irishman never held an anti-war rally in Ireland, when nary a war had ever come near there. Don't kid yourself.

Not to mention, destruction of USAF property in Shannon as a protest to the very same bombings that these Muslims are protesting to.

Cop on.

Madam_X wrote: »

Not IMO, seeing as domestic violence involves physically harming someone, the concept of atheism doesn't.

Apply the same argument to people that don't take issue with physically correcting children, animals, or butchering things for meat, people that hunt, or people that volunteer in the military. Just to name a few. Hitting a bold child, hitting your wife, they're not things I look on with any particular favor. Even mild disdain. However, its a far stones throw away from things that are really worth taking offense to... death penalty for drug dealers? I've heard worse things people want to do to the bankers in AH. This whole thread meekly smells of islamophobia and little else. I don't see the problem here.

Orion

Czarcasm wrote: »

Each person is charged with the responsibility to make Boards a place where people want to be, and where they are expected to meet a standard, a bar set high because it's set by example.

No - each mod is charged with modding a particular forum. Nothing else.

Czarcasm wrote: »

If people are not held accountable in some respect and held to a standard

Mods are held to the same standard as everyone else outside their forums. Inside them the standard is higher. Mods have been site-banned in the past for being a dick outside their modded forums. That accountable enough for you?

Czarcasm

K-9 wrote: »

There is a wider issue, nothing to do with the mod, but if Islam does allow domestic violence in certain circumstances (and I don't have a clue if it does or not), Boards shouldn't really be facilitating a discussion on that. I can't think of many forums that condoning DV would be allowed, so I don't see how any discussion even entertaining the thought that it is acceptable, can be allowed.

General site wide view and morals overtakes any freedom of religion belief argument, Boards secularism in a way!

Violent people co-opting religion to support their behaviour is a whole lot different from a religion that espouses violence though.

Religious people are not violent, but violent people can twist and contort religion to suit their beliefs and justify their behaviour, if that makes sense?

LoLth

on the issue of "the moderator is a user outside of the forum they moderate excuse being trotted out"...

so, you're saying that if someone is a moderator of Creative Writing for example, they have no right to express an opinion on another forum? Granted, in this case, the opinion being posted could be seen as controversial (I'm referring to the death penalty for dealing class A drugs and the Bloody Sunday comment) but in general, if a person is a moderator then they have no right to express an opinion someone may disagree with on any part of the site? Thats not true at all. Mods can post their opinions just like normal posters including in the forum they moderate.

What they cannot do, is break the rules of a forum. If they break the rules in a forum they DONT mod, they should be dealt with, just like any other poster would be dealt with and no leniency should be given because they are mods. On the contrary, a mod trolling other forums and creating work for the mods of that forum will most likely be dealt with more harshly because, being mods they should know better.

Mods breaking the rules in their own however are a different story and are dealt with a lot more severely than if it were a user as it is an abuse of their authority.

Now, whether or not you agree with Irishconvert's opinions on Drugs and Protests in Dublin, did either of those posts break any forum rule? (honest question, I havent looked up the charters for those forums) or were they just an opinion expressed and part of a discussion? Were they even off topic for the thread they were in?

@Fromthetrees: Nothing wrong with asking a question in feedback, I'm just wondering why you made a post based on three comments from a moderator spaced over three years and the most recent being from January? I'm sure I've posted something someone found offensive in my many years here before I was a cmod or admin, should I be demodded now for something from several years ago? Reading a thread from 2011 is unusual normally, taking offense to something posted then and raising an objecction two years later is unusual so I was wondering what prompted the action on your part.

As for how can you post properly on a forum, any forum ? Regardless of the personal views of the moderator I would suggest you post within the rules of the charter and of boards.ie in general and you'll be fine. Its not just the moderators that you engage in discussion.

Ken.

Maybe mods on their profile page should have a "mod of x forum since x date". If I made a post today (that got by the mods) saying "all travellers should be herded into the sea" and in a years time I got made a mod of any forum, should people be allowed go back to that post and say "Hey a mod said this bad stuff, de-mod him.

K-9

Czarcasm wrote: »

And that's exactly my point right there- it's a voluntary role, and if a Moderator feels they cannot meet the challenges presented by that role (to be an example of leadership to ordinary posters), then they are free to step down from that role, or as the case may be, choose to decline that role in the first place.

It goes all the way up the chain- Cmods should be an example to Moderators, Hosted Moderators and ordinary members, Admins should be an example to Cmods, Moderators, Hosted Moderators, and ordinary members.

Each person is charged with the responsibility to make Boards a place where people want to be, and where they are expected to meet a standard, a bar set high because it's set by example.

This is the true spirit of community, while at the same time projecting Boards corporate image in a positive light. Just look at what a minority of idiots have done to Facebook. If people are not held accountable in some respect and held to a standard- chaos ensues and the place goes to shìt, and I'm fairly sure the majority of members around here would prefer to see that didn't happen that Boards just went the same way as Facebook.

A mod will generally be viewed harsher than an ordinary user if they cause bother on a forum, it isn't appreciated that a mod who should know better, creates work for mods on another forum.

Overheal

ken thats kind of a bad example, since that kind of view isn't really supported or condoned on this website in any form: it's just bigotry. User or Mod alike would be infracted for that kind of post. Similarly I don't think I've ever seen a user upheld while saying such things in relation to Palestine or Israel, either, as the quote seems linked to underneath a thin veil

Orion

K-9 wrote: »

There is a wider issue, nothing to do with the mod, but if Islam does allow domestic violence in certain circumstances (and I don't have a clue if it does or not), Boards shouldn't really be facilitating a discussion on that. I can't think of many forums that condoning DV would be allowed, so I don't see how any discussion even entertaining the thought that it is acceptable, can be allowed.

General site wide view and morals overtakes any freedom of religion belief argument, Boards secularism in a way!

[edit]I re-read K-9's post and I think I picked it up wrong

Madam_X

LoLth wrote: »

in general, if a person is a moderator then they have no right to express an opinion someone may disagree with on any part of the site?

No. And I do wonder why that keeps being said when it has been made clear that provocative, inflammatory, unsubstantiated, polarising comments (I wouldn't even call them "opinions" seeing as they're so flimsy) just being thrown out there is not in the spirit of discussion, it's attention-seeking and flame-baiting and at least deserves a request for elaboration IMO.

Ken.

Overheal wrote: »

ken thats kind of a bad example, since that kind of view isn't really supported or condoned on this website in any form: it's just bigotry. User or Mod alike would be infracted for that kind of post. Similarly I don't think I've ever seen a user upheld while saying such things in relation to Palestine or Israel, either, as the quote seems linked to underneath a thin veil

Ok bad example but the premise stands. Should a mod's record pre being a mod be allowed to be used against him or her.

Orion

Madam_X wrote: »

No. And I do wonder why that keeps being said when it has been made clear that provocative, inflammatory, unsubstantiated, polarising comments (I wouldn't even call them "opinions" seeing as they're so flimsy) just being thrown out there is not in the spirit of discussion, it's attention-seeking and flame-baiting and at least deserves a request for elaboration IMO.

Probably because 2 of the 3 posts in the OP are in forums that he doesn't mod and the third was made in his modded forum well before he became a mod. For the former his moderatorship is irrelevant and in the latter it wasn't an issue at the time.

K-9

Czarcasm wrote: »

Religious people are not violent, but violent people can twist and contort religion to suit their beliefs and justify their behaviour, if that makes sense?

It does.

Orion wrote: »

[edit]I re-read K-9's post and I think I picked it up wrong

Thanks, I was just getting at the moral dilemma question. If domestic violence is considered acceptable in extreme cases in any religion, and Boards doesn't allow comments that support DV, well, I think Boards rights to view DV as abhorrent supercedes any religious discussion entertaining the notion.

Overheal

Madam_X wrote: »

No. And I do wonder why that keeps being said when it has been made clear that provocative, inflammatory, unsubstantiated, polarising comments (I wouldn't even call them "opinions" seeing as they're so flimsy) just being thrown out there is not in the spirit of discussion, it's attention-seeking and flame-baiting and at least deserves a request for elaboration IMO.

It deserves request for elaboration in the discussion it's brought up in. Calling up that user's character and position as a mod in an unrelated forum seems like a complete detraction from that. From what I can see, Irishconvert was discussing the issue just fine within the thread. The problem comes from people who fly off the handle and can't sit to give the opinion it's due consideration. If it's so crazy, refute it, and be done with it. Circumventing the discussion to attack the user's character? The f*ck is that?

K-9

Madam_X wrote: »

No. And I do wonder why that keeps being said when it has been made clear that provocative, inflammatory, unsubstantiated, polarising comments (I wouldn't even call them "opinions" seeing as they're so flimsy) just being thrown out there is not in the spirit of discussion, it's attention-seeking and flame-baiting and at least deserves a request for elaboration IMO.

How do you know cases like that aren't dealt with?

Czarcasm

Orion wrote: »

No - each mod is charged with modding a particular forum. Nothing else.

Then in my view at least, the job description needs to be expanded. Being a Moderator shouldn't be seen as an authoritarian and controlling role, which fosters a negative attitude towards Moderators, it should be seen as a leadership and aspirational role, which fosters a positive attitude towards Moderators.

Mods are held to the same standard as everyone else outside their forums. Inside them the standard is higher. Mods have been site-banned in the past for being a dick outside their modded forums. That accountable enough for you?

I don't know Orion if you get where I'm coming from. Accountability isn't just about being penalised, it's about being responsible. It's about leading by example and giving ordinary posters a level to aspire to, and if Moderators are more visible in other forums and are posting the same high standard they expect of their own forums, that makes the forum they're not a Moderator a better forum because ordinary posters will look up to Moderators as leaders by example and aspire to that same standard.

Overheal

K-9 wrote: »

Thanks, I was just getting at the moral dilemma question. If domestic violence is considered acceptable in extreme cases in any religion, and Boards doesn't allow comments that support DV, well, I think Boards rights to view DV as abhorrent supercedes any religious discussion entertaining the notion.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/532317_363071273798992_572664362_n.jpg

tl;dr - I think turning boards secular is far off the table.

Orion

K-9 wrote: »

Thanks, I was just getting at the moral dilemma question. If domestic violence is considered acceptable in extreme cases in any religion, and Boards doesn't allow comments that support DV, well, I think Boards rights to view DV as abhorrent supercedes any religious discussion entertaining the notion.

I got that - that's why I edited rather than deleted my post. There is a difference with someone discussing the reasons (religious or otherwise) for DV and someone actively promoting it though. The former is acceptable imo, the latter not.

Overheal

ken wrote: »

Ok bad example but the premise stands. Should a mod's record pre being a mod be allowed to be used against him or her.

Its used as a means to even consider them as mods. Mods aren't picked at random, they're hand picked by mods, cmods, and admins. Tell you the truth I even got a sneaky peek at a discussion that involved myself at one point, and yes my spotty past history was called into question by several. I don't see an issue with that.

I think the real issue would be if someone dragged up some irrelevant controversial opinion I express in 2008 to discredit my character in 2013. Not the same as dragging up some topical thing I said at the time: especially true of politics and 4 year election cycles (I especially love discrediting posters who claim to have never held X opinion in their life and get their post from a couple years back where they're telling me they were a devout believer in X. Poor dude got pissed right the hell off, but dammit if he didn't shove his entire foot in his mouth). In this case however, I just don't see what relevance any of this has on Irishconvert's ability to moderate a forum.

K-9

Overheal wrote: »

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/532317_363071273798992_572664362_n.jpg

tl;dr - I think turning boards secular is far off the table.

Well yes, with large and vibrant religious boards. The problem is the clash with general Boards site views.

Orion wrote: »

I got that - that's why I edited rather than deleted my post. There is a difference with someone discussing the reasons (religious or otherwise) for DV and someone actively promoting it though. The former is acceptable imo, the latter not.

That still isn't getting my point. A discussion about why DV occurs is perfectly fine, a discussion saying DV is acceptable in certain circumstances because my religion/political views says so, well that starts getting uncomfortable for me.

Overheal

K-9 wrote: »

Well yes, with large and vibrant religious boards. The problem is the clash with general Boards site views.

So the opinion of a majority should hold tyranny over the minority opinion? No thanks. How would we keep politics discussion lively without people who are willing to espouse the dissenting view? This is more of the same. It would be same as banning the handful of die hard creationists on here that - to put it politely, I strongly disagree with. And so do most other people from what I gather. At least on here. Even from a purely conceited point of view: one creationist in particular has generated thousands of page views and ad impressions, and he kinda deserves a medal for that. This place would be fierce boring if people weren't allowed to have clashing opinions.

Orion

Czarcasm wrote: »

I don't know Orion if you get where I'm coming from. Accountability isn't just about being penalised, it's about being responsible. It's about leading by example and giving ordinary posters a level to aspire to, and if Moderators are more visible in other forums and are posting the same high standard they expect of their own forums, that makes the forum they're not a Moderator a better forum because ordinary posters will look up to Moderators as leaders by example and aspire to that same standard.

I do get where you're coming from - I just disagree

Mods are mods only in their own forum. Lolth was much more eloquent that I'm going to be at this hour.

Generally mods don't get infracted in forums - not because they're mods but because they became mods due to being valued posters and not being asshats in general. Some posters are fantastic posters in certain forums but total dicks in others. Those people generally never become mods.

I'm not saying I'm not a dick - some of my best friends would call me on that But I do have the right be be a dick on any forum outside the forums I mod and I also have the right to get banned from those forums if I do. I don't do that though. Not because I'm a mod but because I like rational discussion without the need to be a dick. And I think that's a reason I was offered a position as a mod in the first place.

I have one warning and one infraction in 10 years on this site (I can remember what one was for and it was deserved - can't remember the other). If I started racking them up in other forums I'd see my bold name and silver stars disappear pretty quickly. If I started acting like that in Parenting I'd lose them even quicker. That's accountability and responsibility.