No moderator?

Dan_Solo

There has been back seat modding, personal abuse and trolling at boards.ie > Soc > Emergency Services, which I have reported. I also requested a mail from the moderator asking that he at least tell me that my reports have been considered. I've had no response at all.
Does Emergency Services have a moderator?

Insect Overlord

It has 3 moderators and 2 CMods. You should probably wait more than just a few hours before demanding a personal response though, considering it was a rather nice Friday evening.

Dan_Solo

Well the first incident of back seat modding I reported was at noon today.
Must have all gone off early... (yeah, I know they have day jobs!)

Insect Overlord

A quick look at their profiles would have given you that info.

One of the mods hasn't posted on Boards in 2 weeks, another in 2 days, and the other was last on-line on Friday morning.

There should be a minimum of 24 hours (probably closer to 48 hours) after a report before you start complaining about it. In fairness.

Dan_Solo

An File wrote: »

A quick look at their profiles would have given you that info.

One of the mods hasn't posted on Boards in 2 weeks, another in 2 days, and the other was last on-line on Friday morning.

There should be a minimum of 24 hours (probably closer to 48 hours) after a report before you start complaining about it. In fairness.

I wasn't complaining about the moderation. I was asking a question about it.

Insect Overlord

Fair enough.

LoLth

Hi Dan,

in response to this feedback thread I've taken quick look at your reported posts and , more importantly, the thread the posts were reported from to get a handle on the context.

As I suspected , your issue is not with a lack of moderation, its with a lack of moderation when it comes to an offense you perceive to have been committed against you.

Can I just ask, why do you think it is ok for you to jump into a thread and basically make no attempt to discuss the topic but instead just repeatedly soapbox your negative opinion of the emergency services all the while completely ignoring the points the other posters are making but it is not ok for someone to post that it is pointless discussing the topic with you or that they are no longer going to respond to your posts?

Given your attitude in that thread and the fact that from the start you went in with an attitude of starting a fight, I'm surprised you weren't flat out carded then banned by the mods. For trolling. because that's almost exactly what it reads like. You know the emergency services forum is going to be frequented by people with an interest or career in the emergency services and you make no attempt to engage, you just repeatedly slag off their ethics and capabilities and , when corrected on points of law on which you base an example to support your assertion, you ignore the response and go on to further derisive posts.

Then, you decide you are the one that has been insulted and start to claim that there is no moderation because the mods have not taken an action you want them to take in a timeframe you consider acceptable.

I've just gone back to re-read that thread before I hit the post button here because I am concerned that my opinion may be a bit harsh or maybe I'm just misreading the whole situation.

Nope. you were patronising, smug, argumentative and basically being a dick in that thread.

I'm going to ask the mods of the emergency services forum to read that thread and take whatever action they feel is necessary. I am also going to recommend that they practise zero tolerance when it comes to your posts in future with absolutely no discretion or leeway. You cannot behave like you did in that thread and expect the rules to protect you when other posters react badly.

Dan_Solo

I didn't realise that because a channel was frequented by certain professions I was required to agree with them. This rule was not made clear.
I decided I was the one insulted because I WAS insulted. Not my argument or anything, I was directly called a fool. And a troll, which is back seat modding whether you now decide to agree with that now or not. All of which is apparently OK "if you are provoked".
So, mods close ranks and see ya later. Got it.

Dan_Solo

LoLth wrote: »

As I suspected , your issue is not with a lack of moderation, its with a lack of moderation when it comes to an offense you perceive to have been committed against you.

Can I ask you how the word "perceive" managed to get into this post of yours?
Is this

A discussion? With Dan_Solo? It would be like discussing thermo-nuclear physics with a cat.

"perceived" personal abuse or just plain old fashioned abuse but you are refusing to admit it is? Could you please explain to me how this kind of line is a matter of perception.

Also, and just for example, do you not think that asking me to NAME, and insisting on it, people who have been jailed for not paying their TV license is argumentative?

Shield

For the record, I have now just come online and will commence investigating this issue now. I will edit this post with my opinion when I have read all the pertinent information.

EDIT #1 Dan_Solo has posted 55 times out of 135 posts on this thread, which accounts for just over 40% of the content of the thread. In order for me to conduct a fair and impartial investigation into this issue, it will take me a few hours, at the least. However, these are hours I am willing to put in, in the name of fairness, transparency and impartiality.

So far, I have spent 1 hour and 20 minutes reading down through the thread slowly, methodically, and without bias. I must now sign off temporarily, but I will return to this later on this afternoon, and hope to have a final opinion on this before midnight tonight.

LoLth

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I didn't realise that because a channel was frequented by certain professions I was required to agree with them. This rule was not made clear.

no one is saying you have to agree all the time but deliberately spoiling for a fight by posting contrary to the overall topic of the forum (for example posting "Pokémon is all childish crap" in the Pokémon forum) and then not discussing but going on to soapbox is pretty much the definition of trolling and being a dick.

I decided I was the one insulted because I WAS insulted. Not my argument or anything, I was directly called a fool. And a troll, which is back seat modding whether you now decide to agree with that now or not. All of which is apparently OK "if you are provoked".

and this is rules lawyering and using the rules to protect yourself form the reaction to your own decision to post like an argumentative, soapboxing dick. But I am willing to bet you didn't re-read your posts after my comment with any intention of seeing if there could possibly have been a grain of truth to my assertion. I think you are happy that they broke a rule therefore you "win". Congratulations. If only there were more posters on the interwebz like you. Boards.ie has very few zero tolerance rules because we do encourage context to be taken into account. Fine you were called a troll and a fool, imho, given your posts in that thread, they are not observations without basis and were I mod, I would give each a posted warning / post edit and maybe a yellow card.

So, mods close ranks and see ya later. Got it.

aaaaand there it is. How were mods closing ranks? the emergency services mods have not given their opinion. I was giving my response to your feedback. Is it closing ranks just because I don't agree with you?

I notice you don't deny my assertion that you were smug, argumentative and being a dick or that you posted with the intention of argument and not discussion. Do I take it from this that you agree with my evaluation? Did you just admit to provoking posters? (bit like trolling that isn't it?)

please, continue the pedantic nitpicking sense of entitlement argument style, it really works well with me. (just for clarity, that bit isn't true at all but its in print so maybe you can quote it back to me later on in the thread to support some vaguely related point).

Dan_Solo

I would prefer not to deal with Lloth as he has admitted he had come to his conclusion before reading the thread in question and now he has directly insulted me by calling me a fool in this thread.

But anyway, asking why other posters are not considered argumentative is not equivalent to admitting I was argumentative. What we as posters are looking for is consistency. One man's argumentative trolling is the next man's witty and concise risposte.
You have not responded to my question as to why you used the word "perceive" to describe the abuse I received. Does this by your logic now mean that you agree it had nothing at all to do with perception and was just plain abuse?

Dan_Solo

Did all 8 of the people who thanked Lloth's post above really read the entire thread in question before giving their thanks? Any of it? The moderator there himself says it takes more than an hour to get through

Dades

If your responses to LoLth's replies are anything to go by then it wouldn't surprise anyone to discover what he says is true.

If you'd addressed or even acknowledged the accusations put to you regarding your own posts then it mightn't look like such a case of feedback biting you in the ass.

bumper234

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Did all 8 of the people who thanked Lloth's post above really read the entire thread in question before giving their thanks? Any of it? The moderator there himself says it takes more than an hour to get through

I did,

I have been following that thread and tbh your posts in there are the reason i stayed away from it.

Gordon

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Did all 8 of the people who thanked Lloth's post above really read the entire thread in question before giving their thanks? Any of it? The moderator there himself says it takes more than an hour to get through

Does someone have to read the whole of that thread in order to be allowed to thank Lolth's post?

Also, thanking a post has many meanings, some people could have specifically been thanking this line:

I'm going to ask the mods of the emergency services forum to read that thread and take whatever action they feel is necessary.

LoLth

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I would prefer not to deal with Lloth as he has admitted he had come to his conclusion before reading the thread in question and now he has directly insulted me by calling me a fool in this thread.

no, I said I went back and re-read the thread to be sure I was making an impartial decision and wasn't misreading the context. As for dealing with me, this isn't DRP, this is Feedback, which I moderate. Feel free to not read my posts but you do not get to pick and choose who can and can not respond to your posts.

But anyway, asking why other posters are not considered argumentative is not equivalent to admitting I was argumentative.

you never asked why other posters were not considered argumentative. If you had asked I would have happily told you, you posted early on in that thread and many of those that insulted you posted at length in response to your points. Of those you chose to ignore or dismiss over half of the points that displayed flaws in your own stance. Of course they were being argumentative, that's the tone you brought to the thread.

What we as posters are looking for is consistency. One man's argumentative trolling is the next man's witty and concise risposte.

your posting was not anyone's witty or concise riposte. it was soapboxing at best. Possibly deliberate provocation - ie: trolling.

You have not responded to my question as to why you used the word "perceive" to describe the abuse I received.

I'll answer that when you answer my questions. I notice from your other thread that this is a common theme for you. Ignore questions and demand answers to your own, later questions. Is this a learned argument style where putting the other participant on the defensive is seen as somehow a display of skill or knowledge? You are , in this thread and the emergency services thread combative not conversational. You want to post like that, fine but don't cry when other posters get angry or annoyed with you.

Does this by your logic now mean that you agree it had nothing at all to do with perception and was just plain abuse?

no, it means I believe you did receive abuse but while you believe that you are an innocent party in all of this wrongly set upon by ignorami who cannot appreciate your fine prose, I am of the opinion that you pretty much reaped what you sowed. You set the tone and I have no sympathy because others responded to it exactly as I would have expected.

ps. its LoLth, not Lloth, greyhawk not FR

Overheal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I would prefer not to deal with Lloth as he has admitted he had come to his conclusion before reading the thread in question and now he has directly insulted me by calling me a fool in this thread.

Oddly, that sounds like exactly what you did in that thread, calling other users Matlock derisively, accusing them of sleeping in late, stuffing their face with donuts, and never doing any actual enforcement.

Then when presented with pretty fair, legitimate scenarios, you just respond by complaining that it's not the same hypothetical scenario you were all ready to bitch and moan about. You got your knickers in a right twist when a user explained to you the simple and basic kinematics of highway pursuit - it really didnt matter what the perceived offense of the motorist was (driving with no seatbelt, using a phone, or in this case muddy license plate).

Not to delve too far into the topic itself, your position from the get-go is unfeasible, hence thats why you have such a shaky time defending it. 1 cop sees 3 motorists doing 90kph in an 80kph zone, they can at best pull one over, and as asked, what happens if during the traffic stop you see motorists pass by talking on their phones? Even if you want to go live off in a Judge Dredd fantasy, even Dredd couldn't perform 100% enforcement. Basically, you're argument is that cops are human and can't be everywhere at all times enforcing every letter of the law. Feel free to criticize which discretions they choose to make I suppose, but trying to vilify them for making discretions at all, is simply not practical. [That is hence why we talk about the Spirit and the Letter of the law - with spirit always being first; in the case of motoring laws, it's the spirit of safety. If the motorist is going a bit over the limit, safely, and there are other things to be done to protect and serve the population, then there's little point in making that pull].

My advice is that you are going to have a much easier time here taking a step back, honestly evaluating the feasibility of your position, and if you should discover on your own that you need to withdraw that position, do so cordially. It's a lot easier to respect someone who can admit being wrong. Your current course of action will doubtfully end well.

Dan_Solo

LoLth wrote: »

no, I said I went back and re-read the thread to be sure I was making an impartial decision and wasn't misreading the context. As for dealing with me, this isn't DRP, this is Feedback, which I moderate. Feel free to not read my posts but you do not get to pick and choose who can and can not respond to your posts.

I don't care how impartial or objective you are claiming to be. You said people were calling me a fool and you agree with them. That is you calling me a fool and therefore a direct personal insult. I believe that's against your charter here at boards.ie. If I call you stupid and say that's not an ad hominem because I am being impartial and objective does that grant me immunity from moderation? Here, I'll quote exactly where you broke the charter:

Fine you were called a troll and a fool, imho, given your posts in that thread, they are not observations without basis

If I said people think you are a fool and I agree with them, do you think I might get carded for that? Maybe?

LoLth wrote: »

and this is rules lawyering and using the rules to protect yourself form the reaction to your own decision to post like an argumentative, soapboxing dick. But I am willing to bet you didn't re-read your posts after my comment with any intention of seeing if there could possibly have been a grain of truth to my assertion. I think you are happy that they broke a rule therefore you "win". Congratulations. If only there were more posters on the interwebz like you. Boards.ie has very few zero tolerance rules because we do encourage context to be taken into account. Fine you were called a troll and a fool, imho, given your posts in that thread, they are not observations without basis and were I mod, I would give each a posted warning / post edit and maybe a yellow card.

Using the rules to protect yourself... this is an absolutely bizarre statement. What else are the rules here for except to protect posters from back seat modding and direct personal insults? Every time somebody reports personal abuse then you can now claim they were in fact at fault for reporting it.

LoLth wrote: »

aaaaand there it is. How were mods closing ranks? the emergency services mods have not given their opinion. I was giving my response to your feedback. Is it closing ranks just because I don't agree with you?

Ah, but you said you didn't agree with me before you even read the thread. You admitted fully what your predicted decision was before you had any information on which to base an opinion.

LoLth wrote: »

I notice you don't deny my assertion that you were smug, argumentative and being a dick or that you posted with the intention of argument and not discussion. Do I take it from this that you agree with my evaluation? Did you just admit to provoking posters? (bit like trolling that isn't it?)

Another totally ludicrious non-point. Just because I did not specifically deny something that increases my guilt? Really? You are more agresssive and argumentative than anybody was at Emergency Services. I guess by your own definition that makes you a bit like a troll.

LoLth wrote: »

please, continue the pedantic nitpicking sense of entitlement argument style, it really works well with me. (just for clarity, that bit isn't true at all but its in print so maybe you can quote it back to me later on in the thread to support some vaguely related point).

And "there it is". Anyone who tries to defend themselves is being pedantic and nitpicking. So your choices are to agree with you or else you are pedantic and nitpicking and therefore automatically wrong. Looks like more agressive sarcasm there at the end. Is that trolling? Like they say, it's banter when you do it, trolling when anyone else does.

Dan_Solo

Overheal wrote: »

Then when presented with pretty fair, legitimate scenarios, you just respond by complaining that it's not the same hypothetical scenario you were all ready to bitch and moan about. You got your knickers in a right twist when a user explained to you the simple and basic kinematics of highway pursuit - it really didnt matter what the perceived offense of the motorist was (driving with no seatbelt, using a phone, or in this case muddy license plate).

I'm sorry but this just reads like pure biased interpretation of an argument when you obviously back one side of it.
Of course you think your side is fair and legitimate.
Of course you think my side is rubbish.
This kind of vague meta-analysis is just another way of saying you think you were right all along.

Do you not think it's also not all that helpful to invent a hypothetical (and hyperbolic) scenario right here now to try to prove something or other while only a few lines earlier in your post complaining about me doing the exact same thing? Besides that you assert it's "fair, legitimate" and I don't agree?

Dan_Solo

Gordon wrote: »

Does someone have to read the whole of that thread in order to be allowed to thank Lolth's post?

Also, thanking a post has many meanings, some people could have specifically been thanking this line:

That's possible, but I find it hard to believe ALL the thanks are for that line, which is the only one in the post which doesn't require the thanker to haver read the thread to form a useful opinion on it.

Insect Overlord

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's possible, but I find it hard to believe ALL the thanks are for that line, which is the only one in the post which doesn't require the thanker to haver read the thread to form a useful opinion on it.

You're right! It's probably because loads of posters think you're a bit of a pain.

Dan_Solo

An File wrote: »

You're right! It's probably because loads of posters think you're a bit of a pain.

Maybe they do.
That still doesn't mean they have read the thread to be able to form any meaningful opinion on the matter at hand.

Oryx

I read the other thread. To me, you come across as someone who is arguing just for the sake of it. You give the same impression here. While it might not be how you mean to come across, it might be worth taking on board that you do, and that it winds people up.

I also think you are labouring the point of the rules here, without accepting the part you had to play in the other thread going badly. If you don't want others to insult you, why goad them into it?

Shield

I think that any editing to post above might be missed by the masses because there's been quite a few posts since I signed on this morning.

For the record, in a thread as big as this, it's impossible to come to one overall conclusion. The only way to approach a big investigation is to break it down into small, manageable chunks. I can't say I'll break it down into X number of posts, because something pertinent may have been said further on down the line.

The only fair way to all is to break it down into incidents of charter breaches. Since it's 135 posts, it's going to take a tad longer than I thought, and will definitely fall over into tomorrow.

I apologise to the admins for not having a full opinion today, but stuff got in the way, and I'd like to wind down now rather that amp up. I will, however, be able to get my teeth stuck into this tomorrow, and will update this thread then.

-Shield.

KERSPLAT!

Shield wrote: »

I think that any editing to post above might be missed by the masses because there's been quite a few posts since I signed on this morning.

For the record, in a thread as big as this, it's impossible to come to one overall conclusion. The only way to approach a big investigation is to break it down into small, manageable chunks. I can't say I'll break it down into X number of posts, because something pertinent may have been said further on down the line.

The only fair way to all is to break it down into incidents of charter breaches. Since it's 135 posts, it's going to take a tad longer than I thought, and will definitely fall over into tomorrow.

I apologise to the admins for not having a full opinion today, but stuff got in the way, and I'd like to wind down now rather that amp up. I will, however, be able to get my teeth stuck into this tomorrow, and will update this thread then.

-Shield.

You're a volunteer here, take your time

Dan_Solo

Oryx wrote: »

I also think you are labouring the point of the rules here, without accepting the part you had to play in the other thread going badly. If you don't want others to insult you, why goad them into it?

But anybody can use that excuse. I broke the charter because I was goaded into it.
I accept I was part of an argument. I do not accept I was anywhere near the most aggressive or argumentative person on that thread, and I certainly never engaged in either back seat modding or direct personal insults.

Dan_Solo

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

You're a volunteer here, take your time

Good to hear. No rush at all.
No idea how so many others have formed an opinion on that thread so quickly when they obviously haven't read it though.

Oryx

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Good to hear. No rush at all.
No idea how so many others have formed an opinion on that thread so quickly when they obviously haven't read it though.

Reading and moderating require different levels of analysis I presume.

Dan_Solo

Oryx wrote: »

Reading and moderating require different levels of analysis I presume.

True, but that doesn't explain why people would support a moderation opinion on that thread unless they had also read it in sufficient detail to make that opinion useful.

Oryx

Dan_Solo wrote: »

True, but that doesn't explain why people would support a moderation opinion on that thread unless they had also read it in sufficient detail to make that opinion useful.

In my case, the opinion I gave was mine alone, not in support of any particular side. Perhaps others are the same.

Dades

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Good to hear. No rush at all.
No idea how so many others have formed an opinion on that thread so quickly when they obviously haven't read it though.

And no doubt if Shield comes back and decides your posting in that thread was disruptive or trolling you'll accuse him of circling the wagons or misunderstanding you.

Let's just face it... anyone who posts in this thread who thinks you deserve no sympathy (which would be everyone, so far) is wrong, correct? Or do you trust Shield to be impartial here? I do.

(Shield - take your time, sir. This thread can wait)

Dan_Solo

Dades wrote: »

And no doubt if Shield comes back and decides your posting in that thread was disruptive or trolling you'll accuse him of circling the wagons or misunderstanding you.

Let's just face it... anyone who posts in this thread who thinks you deserve no sympathy (which would be everyone, so far) is wrong, correct? Or do you trust Shield to be impartial here? I do.

(Shield - take your time, sir. This thread can wait)

I didn't say they were wrong. What I said is they haven't read the thread in question so they can't form an opinion on it or not. Their support for LLoth is therefore somewhat irrelevant and pointless.
If they were right it would be purely by accident.
Do you understand the difference?

Dades

Do you think it's fair that people from an opinion of you on the basis of your posts in this thread? You've done nothing here to suggest to people LoLth's appraisal was unfair, and nobody who knows him as a poster would believe he read that thread with any agenda.

That's the gauntlet you run in Feedback.

Dan_Solo

Dades wrote: »

Do you think it's fair that people from an opinion of you on the basis of your posts in this thread? You've done nothing here to suggest to people LoLth's appraisal was unfair, and nobody who knows him as a poster would believe he read that thread with any agenda.

That's the gauntlet you run in Feedback.

I believe from the time his post appeared in this thread it is incredibly unlikely that people read the posts after, decided LoLth was probably right (even though they had no real evidence) and then scrolled back up to hit thanks.
People hit the thanks without reading the thread under discussion or the rest of the thread, which is what renders the support uninformed.

Overheal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I certainly never engaged in either back seat modding or direct personal insults.

Just indirect ones?

Dades

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I believe from the time his post appeared in this thread it is incredibly unlikely that people read the posts after, decided LoLth was probably right...

Why are you so hung up on "thanks" when you ignored or deflected LoLth's actual breakdown of that thread. If you want the casual Feedback observer on your side give them a reason to root for you.

Dan_Solo

Dades wrote: »

Why are you so hung up on "thanks" when you ignored or deflected LoLth's actual breakdown of that thread. If you want the casual Feedback observer on your side give them a reason to root for you.

Lolth admitted he had a pre-conceived conclusion, still insists that no abuse at all towards me even existed (it was only "perceived) and called me a fool, a direct personal insult and a clear breach on the.boards.ie charter.
I don't understand how much more I need to say really.
Claiming anybody discussing a topic is "hung up" is a tired meme at this stage. The people who are responding to me on that topic must also be 'hung up" I guess or does that depend on whether you agree with them or not?

Dan_Solo

Overheal wrote: »

Just indirect ones?

No, just my data backed opinion on the fitness of the force for purpose. Nothing personal at all, correct.

LoLth

lets do this your way seeing as you have decided that you know for a fact my thoughts on this.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Lolth admitted he had a pre-conceived conclusion,

quote where I said this? I said I had a suspicion. That is one based on years of responding to feedback threads where users demand mod action in public without actually contacting the mods themselves. You've been here 4 years, you know that 24 hours is not unusual for mod response times and 12 is not enough to start accusing mods of being in absentia.

still insists that no abuse at all towards me even existed (it was only "perceived)

again, quote where I said there was no abuse

and called me a fool, a direct personal insult and a clear breach on the.boards.ie charter.

again, quote where I called you a fool? I stated that those that called you names in that thread did not do so, in my opinion, without foundation based on your posts in that thread. Again you refuse to see that you may have had a hand in your own treatment and instead add on another slight tweak to the response until it becomes closer to what you want it to be.

I did however state that in my opinion you were argumentative, trolling and smug in that thread and that's an opinion I'm allowed post here because it is you that started this thread looking for action on your reported posts.

I also stated that, in my opinion, you were being a dick. That's not a random observation, that's an opinion formed on the basis of a long time modding , cmodding and adminning on boards.ie .

To make this clearer, if I were to mod the thread you reported and used as an example that the Emergency Services did not moderate at all, I would have banned you from that forum for low level trolling. Instead, because there are moderators of the ES forum who do moderate and do their voluntary role very well from what I have seen, I am happy to leave the decision up to them.

I don't understand how much more I need to say really.

and that's really part of the problem here. You don't understand. You ignore the basic civility when engaging with other users. you post in a manner that is aggressive, insulting and dismissive and then you call foul when those you ignore, anger or flat out insult (you described one poster's valid argument as moronic at one point) react badly and break a forum rule in their response to you. I never said they didn't break any rules. I am arguing that you clearly provoked them to that point and so you have to accept some responsibility for their actions. Try this next time, post an opinion and be willing to allow for the possibility of it changing based on the response form others. You'll find a much less hostile reaction.

Claiming anybody discussing a topic is "hung up" is a tired meme at this stage.

that is not a "meme" I am familiar with. Are you sure that's what you meant? I think Dades was referring to the fact that you were fixating on the number of thanks my post got. I don't pay attention to the number of thanks and most mods would not either. As Dades pointed out there can be many reasons. Also, you have no way of knowing that some of those who thanked my post had not read the thread before I posted or while you were actively engage din it yourself. To assume that they didn't read the thread and so thanked my post with no informed opinion and so should be ignored is a rather big presumption on your part and that leap of logic may cause you not to understand what people are trying to say to you.

If, by meme, you mean a phrase on boards that gets used a lot then I think we may have a case of the pot calling the kettle black here. did you not post:

So, mods close ranks and see ya later. Got it.

as soon as two posters shared an opinion that did not fully agree with your opening post?

lets try for another bit of selective interpretation on your part:

Ah, but you said you didn't agree with me before you even read the thread. You admitted fully what your predicted decision was before you had any information on which to base an opinion.

show me where I said I had made a decision before I read the thread? I had a suspicion, I read the thread to make my opinion, I then wrote my opinion and checked the thread again to make sure I was not misreading the situation. I actually state that I read the thread and then re-read it, but you seem happy to ignore that fact.

If you want me to support the fact that I had an idea of what I was going to find when I read that thread, I will be happy to share the source of information that gave rise to my suspicion.


Now, you never answered my first question:

Can I just ask, why do you think it is ok for you to jump into a thread and basically make no attempt to discuss the topic but instead just repeatedly soapbox your negative opinion of the emergency services all the while completely ignoring the points the other posters are making but it is not ok for someone to post that it is pointless discussing the topic with you or that they are no longer going to respond to your posts

seriously, why do you think your behaviour in that thread should be acceptable to other posters or to moderators of the forum?

Dan_Solo

LoLth wrote: »

quote where I said this? I said I had a suspicion. That is one based on years of responding to feedback threads where users demand mod action in public without actually contacting the mods themselves. You've been here 4 years, you know that 24 hours is not unusual for mod response times and 12 is not enough to start accusing mods of being in absentia.

I had contacted them, asking if they could at least tell me if my concerns had been appraised. Again, your pre-conceptions obviously aren't as great a guide as you seem to think they are. And no, I've never had to wait 24 hours for a response from a mod. I didn't realise this could happen. Which is sorta why I was here asking about it in the first place.

LoLth wrote: »

again, quote where I said there was no abuse

When you said the abuse was "perceived" you said there was no abuse. This is undeniable. You may have said otherwise elsewhere in your post, but the fact that you claim my reporting of abuse was something to with my "perception" is therefore implying it was not really abuse at all.

LoLth wrote: »

again, quote where I called you a fool? I stated that those that called you names in that thread did not do so, in my opinion, without foundation based on your posts in that thread. Again you refuse to see that you may have had a hand in your own treatment and instead add on another slight tweak to the response until it becomes closer to what you want it to be.

I have already done so. Here, I'll quote where you called me a fool, a direct personal ad hominem attack and a breach of the boards.ie charter:

Fine you were called a troll and a fool, imho, given your posts in that thread, they are not observations without basis

So if I say that, "imho, given Lolth's posts in this thread, calling Lolth a fool is not an observation without basis" is that calling you an fool or not? So I can safely use this
"imho, given your posts in this thread, calling you a moron/Nazi/asswipe/whatever is not an observation without basis"
and you are categorically stating this is not a personal insult?
Come on.

Little CuChulainn

Having had to deal with Dan_Solo trolling in a number of threads I thought I would give my input. I have tried explaining things to him, I have tried proving things to him, I have even tried ignoring him although this really disrupts a thread. Not once have I gotten a serious response. In the latest thread where i have tried ignoring him he has taken to replying to my responses to other posters and has gone so far as to imply I am a paedophile in order to get attention and goad further response.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90450383&postcount=605

Now I'll admit that I've risen to his bait a few times but I've tried my best to remain civil. I'm aware that you can ignore users but it really doesn't work on a thread where every third post is from the ignored person.

Dan_Solo

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Having had to deal with Dan_Solo trolling in a number of threads I thought I would give my input. I have tried explaining things to him, I have tried proving things to him, I have even tried ignoring him although this really disrupts a thread. Not once have I gotten a serious response. In the latest thread where i have tried ignoring him he has taken to replying to my responses to other posters and has gone so far as to imply I am a paedophile in order to get attention and goad further response.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90450383&postcount=605

Now I'll admit that I've risen to his bait a few times but I've tried my best to remain civil. I'm aware that you can ignore users but it really doesn't work on a thread where every third post is from the ignored person.

Oh dear. How unfortunate that your link shows us where you falsely accused another poster of connecting Indians with pedophilia.

I'm not exactly sure why you are linking Indian men to paedophilia

Wasn't very clever advertising your baseless allegation of racism to the world while begging for justice, was it Little CuChulainn?

BTW, I said that hypothetical "resonates" with you for some reason (well enough for you to forget it was a hypothetical altogether seemingly). That isn't accusing you of anything. I know you're flailing about for a killer blow here, but you'd want something a bit less vague.

lighterman

Just wondering if there is an actual mod in the ES forum.

The thread I started about the incident in waterford is just an off topic snide remark making shipwreck. Incidentally a few of the posters on this thread are the main culprits.

Shield

I've just locked that thread and deleted a few posts, so don't worry about the lack of forum moderation.

On the issue this thread was started for, I would like to update all, and let you all know that I have just finished another 3 hours of breaking it down, noting the incidents, and typing up my notes. It's definitely taking longer than I thought it would, but I want to try and be fair to any and all contributors on the thread in question.

Regards,

-Shield.

Brown Bomber

Can you pay please particular attention to "RecordStraight". They are possibly a banned user or a moderator who has used a new second account to insult people.

This was from their very first post.

You are either a troll or a complete weirdo. I genuinely hope that some scumbags trash your car or your home

Thanks.

EDIT: I should add that Little Cuchullian didn't understand my hypothetical situation and this is what fuelled the little misunderstanding he and Dan have had.

Dan_Solo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

EDIT: I should add that Little Cuchullian didn't understand my hypothetical situation and this is what fuelled the little misunderstanding he and Dan have had.

Not only that, he apparently didn't understand it was a hypothetical situation at all. When you gave an example of what you considered defamation he accused you directly of the same defamation as if you were saying it was true.

Brown Bomber

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Not only that, he apparently didn't understand it was a hypothetical situation at all. When you gave an example of what you considered defamation he accused you directly of the same defamation as if you were saying it was true.

Just reading back through that thread. Sad but Ironic that there should be incitement to hatred and incitement to violence in a forum called emergency services.

More sad is the site itself or "boards.ie" even thanked a post which referred to the dead student -- dead only hours at this point -- as an "animal" (post 4).

Little CuChulainn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you pay please particular attention to "RecordStraight". They are possibly a banned user or a moderator who has used a new second account to insult people.

This was from their very first post.



Thanks.

EDIT: I should add that Little Cuchullian didn't understand my hypothetical situation and this is what fuelled the little misunderstanding he and Dan have had.

I'm pretty sure I had stopped responding to him before you brought it up. My disagreement with him was to do with his claim that people were being libeled which, to me, showed a complete lack of knowledge in the law.

El Weirdo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Just reading back through that thread. Sad but Ironic that there should be incitement to hatred and incitement to violence in a forum called emergency services.

More sad is the site itself or "boards.ie" even thanked a post which referred to the dead student -- dead only hours at this point -- as an "animal" (post 4).

That post was obviously POTD, and the boards.ie account automatically thanks it. It isn't an endorsement of any kind.

Brown Bomber

El Weirdo wrote: »

That post was obviously POTD, and the boards.ie account automatically thanks it. It isn't an endorsement of any kind.

I genuinely have no idea what that means. It certainly isn't obvious to me. Can you explain please?