Moderation in Atheism & Agnosticism Thread

GreeBo

Hey,

I feel that the Moderation (and Admin) posting in this thread isnt at all un-biased.

It comes across firmly that the Admin and Mods in question feel one way and that clearly bleeds into their posting (both as mods and posters)
I have no issue with their posts as regular posters, but when posting as an authority I think its wrong to be on one side of the argument or another.

The treatment of one poster (who it seems decided to rage-quit) was pretty bad.
Only this one poster was warned yet others (including mods of other fora) continued in exactly the same vein without a mention.
Warning


Condescending much?

Is this an Admin warning or a poster?
Its back seat modding if its a poster yet no action by the mods.

Personal attack by admin?

Ignored attack

I dont think thats a good standard of unbiased moderation tbh.

Cabaal

GreeBo wrote: »

Condescending much?

Its nice how you conveniently leave out the part where the user in question abused the hell out of the users/mods in the forum by saying

3 Mods now. Fck the lots of yous. Ban me. Feel big about yourself. Smug *****. Corrupts assholes. And that girls comment above is homophobic. Doubt u will do fck all about that either. Door already hit me bye

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92141477&postcount=682

One day ban for the above abuse was pretty lenient and showed alot of restraint,

Ignored attack

It wasn't ignored, a mod in the forum took action

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92140947&postcount=668

Only this one poster was warned yet others (including mods of other fora) continued

You being a mod know that I'm treated as a user in the forum in question...just like you are,
Just like I'd treat you or any other mod in say for example Broadband forum as a user and as such they are very much subject to the same rules as anyone else, as you are a mod I'm sure you are aware of this?

If I step out of line then I expect to be treated the same as any other user in the forum in question,

I'm curious why you feel the need to mention mods from other forums given it has no relevance to the situation and you are already aware of this.

Dades

Before anyone makes up their minds, I suggest they read a fair bit of that thread to get context.

Also, the only actual moderation was a one day ban for this:

3 Mods now. Fck the lots of yous. Ban me. Feel big about yourself. Smug *****. Corrupts assholes. And that girls comment above is homophobic. Doubt u will do fck all about that either. Door already hit me bye

I personally don't think that's harsh, do you?

Threads in A&A are allowed continue with verbals to keep things civil, of which there were several. That is the sand pit there. Posters who drop grenade posts and run, or dodge questions won't be afforded civil rights they will be expected to defend their comments and given every opportunity to do so.

Regarding this, it was a suggestion more than anything to posters not to rise to the parting shot of a poster.

EDIT - Overalp with Cabaal.

GreeBo

Cabaal wrote: »

Its nice how you conveniently leave out the part where the user in question abused the hell out of the users/mods in the forum by saying



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92141477&postcount=682

One day ban for the above abuse was pretty lenient and showed alot of restraint,

Which is fine, he should get a ban for that.
Its not conveniently left out, it just forms no part of the point of this thread.

Cabaal wrote: »

It wasn't ignored, a mod in the forum took action

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92140947&postcount=668

Took action, however you continued down the line that the mod took action on, yet the poster got a specific warning and you (amongst others) got nothing. Why not?

Dades wrote: »

Before anyone makes up their minds, I suggest they read a fair bit of that thread to get context.

Also, the only actual moderation was a one day ban for this:
I personally don't think that's harsh, do you?

Threads in A&A are allowed continue with verbals to keep things civil, of which there were several. That is the sand pit there. Posters who drop grenade posts and run, or dodge questions won't be afforded civil rights they will be expected to defend their comments and given every opportunity to do so.

Regarding this, it was a suggestion more than anything to posters not to rise to the parting shot of a poster.

EDIT - Overalp with Cabaal.

The banned user was pretty much provoked imo.

I'm not one who typically gives any notice to the "oh look all the mods supporting each other" tripe, but I have to say in this instance it seems spot on.

Cabaal, GerryT and Weathering all continue down the same line that the banned poster was directly warned not to continue down. Why only that poster? Why wasnt Cabaal directly told to stop, despite a moderators on thread warning?

I have no issue with the poster being banned, but I can see why he felt he was left to making the outburst.


Dades, regarding your "rising to the bait comment"
I think if you are acting as an Admin then state is as an admin, posting it in general poster speak doesnt help the situation imo.

GreeBo

Cabaal wrote: »

You being a mod know that I'm treated as a user in the forum in question...just like you are,
Just like I'd treat you or any other mod in say for example Broadband forum as a user and as such they are very much subject to the same rules as anyone else, as you are a mod I'm sure you are aware of this?

If I step out of line then I expect to be treated the same as any other user in the forum in question,

I'm curious why you feel the need to mention mods from other forums given it has no relevance to the situation and you are already aware of this.

The reason I bring it up is because you, and the others, were treated differently that the other poster who ended up banned; thats the point of this thread.

why was there a general warning, then a specific warning to that poster only, despite the fact that you and others continued anyway, ignoring the mod in thread warning?

I mention the other mods as they got away with the same thing you did, the banned poster did not. This is the relevance, hence its in the feedback thread.

Cabaal

GreeBo wrote: »

I think if you are acting as an Admin then state is as an admin, posting it in general poster speak doesnt help the situation imo.

Bold text = moderation action,

All the posts where a mod in the forum gives warnings etc are in bold, one's not in bold are posting as a normal user.

You understand that this was a very fast paced thread right?
You understand that by the time a mod/admin got to look at the forum the user in question had basically thrown the toys out of the pram and abused the mods.

Look at the time stamps, anybody posting in the thread would have to keep refreshing it all the time to see the latest posts. Even I missed several posts in the time that I clicked reply and created a post.

I mention the other mods as they got away with the same thing you did, the banned poster did not.

Myself and other users did not basically tell the mods and everyone to go **** themselves, if I had done that I'd expect to be banned and for far longer then 1 day.

GreeBo

Cabaal wrote: »

Bold text = moderation action,

All the posts where a mod in the forum gives warnings etc are in bold, one's not in bold are posting as a normal user.

You understand that this was a very fast paced thread right?
You understand that by the time a mod/admin got to look at the forum the user in question had basically thrown the toys out of the pram and abused the mods.

Look at the time stamps, anybody posting in the thread would have to keep refreshing it all the time to see the latest posts. Even I missed several posts in the time that I clicked reply and created a post.



Myself and other users did not basically tell the mods and everyone to go **** themselves, if I had done that I'd expect to be banned and for far longer then 1 day.

I know bold text = moderation, hence why Im asking Dades why he didnt post in bold.
Otherwise its backseat moderating effectively.

I wouldnt have expected to get away with back seat modding in that thread.

I also know it was a face paced thread, but the mod actions were fast enough to warn everyone, then warn him specifically yet ignore the follow up posts from others, the question is why.

Stop fixating on the ban, thats not what this thread is about, its about the moderation leading up to the ban.#

Look at posts 670 - 657
Why is the user specifically warned for continuing yet the other posters are not? Thats what led to the escalation imo.

Cabaal

GreeBo wrote: »

Look at posts 670 - 657
Why is the user specifically warned for continuing yet the other posters are not? Thats what led to the escalation imo.

I'm assuming you PM'd the mods of the forum to ask all this before creating the thread?

No point asking me why xyz wasn't done, I don't mod the forum

I know bold text = moderation, hence why Im asking Dades why he didnt post in bold.

Maybe I'm just missing something here, but in what posts does Dades come across to you as posting as a mod?

Spear

GreeBo wrote: »

I know bold text = moderation, hence why Im asking Dades why he didnt post in bold.
Otherwise its backseat moderating effectively.

This isn't correct. While there may be a common convention sitewide of mods using bold text, it's not a requirement. Bold text does not automatically mean it's a mod statement, nor does its abscence mean it's not a mod statement.

GreeBo

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm assuming you PM'd the mods of the forum to ask all this before creating the thread?

No point asking me why xyz wasn't done, I don't mod the forum



Maybe I'm just missing something here, but in what posts does Dades come across to you as posting as a mod?

I'm not specifically asking you, hence I created a feedback thread rather than ask you.
No I didnt PM the mod as I think its a larger issue than that and I wanted more input, I cant raise a DRP and a reported thread wouldnt cut it.

Im pretty sure a feedback thread is appropriate for this type of issue, you clearly disagree.

The link to the post in question by Dades is in my first post.

Insect Overlord

GreeBo wrote: »

Im pretty sure a feedback thread is appropriate for this type of issue, you clearly disagree.

A&A has its own feedback thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056770280

GreeBo

Spear wrote: »

This isn't correct. While there may be a common convention sitewide of mods using bold text, it's not a requirement. Bold text does not automatically mean it's a mod statement, nor does its abscence mean it's not a mod statement.

Ok, but based on a quick search Dades does post in bold for authority type posts or at least marks the post with an exclamation mark.

example

I think the point still stands, either its a moderating action or it isnt.

Cabaal

GreeBo wrote: »

Im pretty sure a feedback thread is appropriate for this type of issue, you clearly disagree.

nah, I certainly don't disagree,
I was just curious if you had pm'd a mod in the forum, it would have got answers to some of your concerns directly and if you remained unhappy then it would have made sense to start this thread.

But sure each to their own i guess :pac:

GreeBo

An File wrote: »

A&A has its own feedback thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056770280

Thanks, linked to here from there.

robindch

Both posters were told to cut it out

robindch wrote: »

Folks -

Please put down your umbrellas, take one step back, lean forwards and shake hands.

Thanking youze

Weathering wrote: »

Did I say he was? I said it was un mod like which it is and then you came in so maybe it isn't too unmod like after all. Someone has a different opinion to you and they must be "uneducated"

If that isn't snobbery to the highest degree then I don't know what is. But it's ok you can say what you like you are a mod. It ryhmes with God. Funny that

robindch wrote: »

Please read the post which immediately precedes yours.

- robin.

Cabaal wrote: »

I never said you were uneducated, I said your post/comment was uneducated...you may wish to re-read it,
Of course you resorted to personal abuse directed specially at me, not my post.

Me being a CMod has nothing to do with my posts in this forum, doesn't matter if you think otherwise you are very much wrong in your belief.

I am a user in this forum, same as everyone else..except the mods of this forum

Weathering wrote: »

Funny how the instigator plays the victim card. Justifying your comment by saying you were calling my comment uneducated not me? A comment cannot be educated/uneducated only a person can be so please don't insult me. Then say I personally attacked you lol. I will respect Rob and leave now. Enjoy your Catholic education

robindch wrote: »

I didn't ask you to leave, I asked to you make peace with your fellow poster(s) and for him/her to make peace with you.

If you prefer to bounce out the door in a huff instead, well, that's your call.

Weathering wrote: »

3 Mods now. Fck the lots of yous. Ban me. Feel big about yourself. Smug *****. Corrupts assholes. And that girls comment above is homophobic. Doubt u will do fck all about that either. Door already hit me bye

I see no issue with this treatment tbh

Turtwig

Weathering called 'robindch' a prick. So, I think given the circumstances expecting a perfectly stoic mod reply isn't going to be realistic.

Regarding the thread in general. It's an emotive topic, so leniency, as in the norm in A&A, is given. Several posters on both sides were given light slaps throughout the thread.

The only posters who were banned were posters who blatantly crossed the line - and then some.
One who persisted in ignoring moderator instruction. Was given a full-HOUR to comply - I just kept deleting his posts. Yet even on the last warning still persisted. Only one option was left.

The other called a moderator a prick via a reported post. Sorry, but that's not allowed, regardless of how much injustice or whatever they feel.

So, I'm not sure it's fair to say the moderation is biased. Though obviously I would say that wouldn't I?

Calhoun

Problem i have with the thread is that allot of the negative discussion is OTT in comparison to some of the discussion that goes on in boards.

There definitely does seem to be an element in group think on what is the right answer and any negative response is justified along the lines of finger pointing at the other person being worse first.

It definitely looks like an us versus them approach, OP is an atheist who has a certain view on the topic and the community has rallied. I expect as much but it would be nice to have seen some earlier intervention from the mods.

Definitely feel this belongs here as why should any forum have a protected policy of moderation, should all have some standard.

GreeBo

Why wasn't Cabaals post warned in the same way that Weatherings (first) post was?
I dont see the difference between them, both ignoring the on thread warning?

Both were directly linked in the initial on thread warning, but then Cabaals persistence with the issue is ignored, thats only going to antagonise a poster, especially when the poster is "having issues" with Cabaal in the first place.

GreeBo

Turtwig wrote: »

Weathering called 'robindch' a prick. So, I think given the circumstances expecting a perfectly stoic mod reply isn't going to be realistic.

Regarding the thread in general. It's an emotive topic, so leniency, as in the norm in A&A, is given. Several posters on both sides were given light slaps throughout the thread.

The only posters who were banned were posters who blatantly crossed the line - and then some.
One who persisted in ignoring moderator instruction. Was given a full-HOUR to comply - I just kept deleting his posts. Yet even on the last warning still persisted. Only one option was left.

The other called a moderator a prick via a reported post. Sorry, but that's not allowed, regardless of how much injustice or whatever they feel.

So, I'm not sure it's fair to say the moderation is biased. Though obviously I would say that wouldn't I?

Again, no issue with the banning and the post that caused the banning, I just believe that the poster reacted in this way due to the moderation of the thread and some apparent bias towards others.

Can you explain why Cabaal follow up post (linked above) wasnt commented on by the mod team yet weatherings was?

zombieHanalei

As a neutral who is a bit bored I might weigh in.

Weathering's first post was what I'd consider a small bit robust, but not particularly helpful as his suggestion was much easier said than done, and I suspect he knew as much, and it struck me as though he jumped in without reading the thread and didn't completely get what was going on; understandable as it's not entirely reasonable to expect someone to read 40+ pages.

There were a few responses to the effect as stated above.

His second post claims he read the OP, but that's just one post in a 40+ page thread. He basically goes on to reiterate what he previously said. Again not particularly helpful, but so far no rules broken.

Next key post from Cabaal; "Another uneducated comment", not something anyone particularly wants to see written about something they just wrote but Cabaal stuck to the key rule of attack the post, not the poster.

Next, two more moderators (Neyite and Orion) counter Weathering's posts by (rightfully in my opinion) pointing out flaws in Weathering's comments.

Note; none of the three moderators involved so far are A&A mods.

Next comment @ Weathering was from Dades, and don't hold it against me for saying this but I don't believe your comment was particularly useful (even though to be honest, I fully agree with the sentiment you expressed)

Next the key post from Weathering

Weathering wrote: »

Another snobby, high horse comment. Nice job. Very unmod like comment. More fitting of an uneducated yob like me

I think what we see from now on is that the guy has a chip on his shoulder when it comes to mods, as it is a key theme to the rest of his posts. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that some posters have a chip on their shoulder when it come's to mods, I'd hazard a guess that were it just 'Regular' posters disagreeing with him that it may not quite have gotten out of hand. But the above comment has crossed the line from attack the post to attack the poster.

robindch intervenes at this point; directly adresses Cabaal and Weathering, a friendly warning. Weathering immediately posts adressing a different poster, again the comment was personal based on posters having mod status. robindch again politely points Weathering to the previous warning. Very fair and arguably lenient moderating given Weathering was getting a bit personal.

Weatherings next comment was a little heated and to be honest I have no problem with Dades saying don't take the bait; his comment ended with "Enjoy your Catholic Education" which given the context of the thread was borderline trolling.

And his final comment was just outright stupid. Lucky to get just a 1 day ban for that.


tl dr; guy had a chip on his shoulder regarding mods and lost the plot when a few posters who coincidentally happened to be mods disagreed with his views.

GreeBo

^ that pretty much sums it up, the issue I see is that it looks like only the non-helpful posts from weathering led to anything, the other posters (who happened to be mods and an admin) were left alone (barring a single, joint warning)

to someone with a chip, right or wrongly, thats not going to help matters.

Turtwig

Cabaal wrote: »

another uneducated comment,
nice job

I thought I'd use this post as an example. In certain threads we allow this type of comment. In others we don't. As a general rule: We allow it.

It's not a personal attack. Though arguably the wording can be better. There's no issue with a post being described as ignorant. Now, obviously the specific wording has negative personal connotations to some but it's also a very apt description of the comment. Taking a moderation line on this is always going to be subjective. A&A's policy is generally lenient.

I stated in another thread somewhere to the user Nagirrac (when I wasn't a mod) that it was far more convenient for us to use the word ignorant than have to put lack awareness or similar for fear of the word's connotations. He knew I wasn't saying he was ignorant person and I knew he wasn't calling me ignorant so let's just use the word like it's definition means it should be used. Moderating for word connotations isn't something that's ever going to be easy. If a user takes offence because of ignorance of the english language then it's not all that different from a user taking offence because of the forum belittling their perceived beliefs. Drawing the line in the sand isn't particularly straight forward. Unless the thread is a seriously emotional topic we generally allow such remarks - even if mod action is to be taken it's one of extreme leniency usually the poster is just pm'd and asked to reword their remark. Typically speaking this occurs for posts in the abortion thread where the choice of wording by a pro-choice poster may be of particular grievance to an anti-abortion one.

If there's a barrage of that particular posting style where it appears the poster is intentionally being inflammatory then we step in. Otherwise, we usually just let such things slide - and assume unless there's reason to suggest otherwise that the comment is benign. It's such an easy thing to get wrong otherwise.

Finally forgot to add, the general why mod action would be taken for that particular comment is the lack of explanation for why that comment is uneducated. I'd have preferred if as well as people saying "Read the thread" or whatever, they quoted the content that contradicted the user. Basically the argument pyramid all over again. Nobody particularly likes posts that stuff contradict stuff and nothing else. People like to know why something is inaccurate or accurate.

Calhoun

Turtwig wrote: »

I thought I'd use this post as an example. In certain threads we allow this type of comment. In others we don't. As a general rule: We allow it.

It's not a personal attack. Though arguably the wording can be better. There's no issue with a post being described as ignorant. Now, obviously the specific wording has negative personal connotations to some but it's also a very apt description of the comment. Taking a moderation line on this is always going to be subjective. A&A's policy is generally lenient.

I stated in another thread somewhere to the user Nagirrac (when I wasn't a mod) that it was far more convenient for us to use the word ignorant than have to put lack awareness or similar for fear of the word's connotations. He knew I wasn't saying he was ignorant person and I knew he wasn't calling me ignorant so let's just use the word like it's definition means it should be used. Moderating for word connotations isn't something that's ever going to be easy. If a user takes offence because of ignorance of the english language then it's not all that different from a user taking offence because of the forum belittling their perceived beliefs. Drawing the line in the sand isn't particularly straight forward. Unless the thread is a seriously emotional topic we generally allow such remarks - even if mod action is to be taken it's one of extreme leniency usually the poster is just pm'd and asked to reword their remark. Typically speaking this occurs for posts in the abortion thread where the choice of wording by a pro-choice poster may be of particular grievance to an anti-abortion one.

If there's a barrage of that particular posting style where it appears the poster is intentionally being inflammatory then we step in. Otherwise, we usually just let such things slide - and assume unless there's reason to suggest otherwise that the comment is benign. It's such an easy thing to get wrong otherwise.

Looks like a personal attack by most of the yard sticks used in other places on these boards. Is it a case then that if i identify as an atheist that i can get away with posting in that style?

If you look at the whole thread from start to finish there is allot of posts where the wording could be allot better. Some fairly personal attacks on peoples parenting styles that elsewhere would have you given some time off for a while.

Edit: Personal attacks on both sides of the argument no one comes off looking good.

GreeBo

Turtwig wrote: »

I thought I'd use this post as an example. In certain threads we allow this type of comment. In others we don't. As a general rule: We allow it.

It's not a personal attack. Though arguably the wording can be better. There's no issue with a post being described as ignorant. Now, obviously the specific wording has negative personal connotations to some but it's also a very apt description of the comment. Taking a moderation line on this is always going to be subjective. A&A's policy is generally lenient.

I stated in another thread somewhere to the user Nagirrac (when I wasn't a mod) that it was far more convenient for us to use the word ignorant than have to put lack awareness or similar for fear of the word's connotations. He knew I wasn't saying he was ignorant person and I knew he wasn't calling me ignorant so let's just use the word like it's definition means it should be used. Moderating for word connotations isn't something that's ever going to be easy. If a user takes offence because of ignorance of the english language then it's not all that different from a user taking offence because of the forum belittling their perceived beliefs. Drawing the line in the sand isn't particularly straight forward. Unless the thread is a seriously emotional topic we generally allow such remarks - even if mod action is to be taken it's one of extreme leniency usually the poster is just pm'd and asked to reword their remark. Typically speaking this occurs for posts in the abortion thread where the choice of wording by a pro-choice poster may be of particular grievance to an anti-abortion one.

If there's a barrage of that particular posting style where it appears the poster is intentionally being inflammatory then we step in. Otherwise, we usually just let such things slide - and assume unless there's reason to suggest otherwise that the comment is benign. It's such an easy thing to get wrong otherwise.

Finally forgot to add, the general why mod action would be taken for that particular comment is the lack of explanation for why that comment is uneducated. I'd have preferred if as well as people saying "Read the thread" or whatever, they quoted the content that contradicted the user. Basically the argument pyramid all over again. Nobody particularly likes posts that stuff contradict stuff and nothing else. People like to know why something is inaccurate or accurate.

Dades wrote: »

Given this response I doubt it would have made a difference.

"Weathering. Championing minority rights since 2012".

Cabaal wrote: »

Don't let the door hit you....
:rolleyes:

Cabaal wrote: »

wow,
You have information that no other human being on this planet has?
That we were without a doubt created by a god and that is fact?

You sir are now the most famous person in the world. take a bow

Cabaal wrote: »

another uneducated comment,
nice job

I dont think that level of continued personal attach is appropriate in any forum tbh.
In this case weathering got done for bringing being a mod into it, but its hard to see past this, when mod/admin posts like above were ignored.


/edit
and it continues

Cabaal wrote: »

Its a sad reflection on this society when you think that so many parents just don't care about the upbringing of their children, from your previous post you also don't seem too concerned about aspects of it either.

Of course some don't, they just tick the boxes and go along with stuff for the sake of social conformity.

How exactly is questioning the care another parent has for their child part of any argument in this thread? Surely that can only be attacking the poster "you dont care about your childs upbringing" - based solely on the parents religious beliefs, beliefs that apparently Cabaal beliefs are fine, assuming your belief is to in fact not believe.
fine its an Atheists thread, but does that mean the blinkers go on to anything else? If so maybe that should form part of the title - Only Atheists views are really considered in this forum.

Turtwig

The trouble here is the length of the thread. It's easy to cherry pick a sample. But the fact of the matter is everyone was shown leniency. We can't just have a policy whereby mods of other forums are treated differently because they're mods or they appear to agree with the status quo. That's not how the forum works. Maybe, a statement could be made about mods's posting style in other fora but honestly I'd rather not go there. Mods are regular posters, it's not our fault if other posters of the forum don't get that distinction. Suicide by mod is common all over boards

A thread where the topic is an experience of the OP's daughter is inevitably going to have an element of the style of parenting in it. As I said in a mod post, the thread would by its very nature be biased against the OP. The OP's parenting will invariably be questioned and by extension some other's parenting is going to be discussed too. It's not a personal attack per se either. Some remarks might be, but not all are.


I don't consider what you quoted

Its a sad reflection on this society when you think that so many parents just don't care about the upbringing of their children, from your previous post you also don't seem too concerned about aspects of it either.

Of course some don't, they just tick the boxes and go along with stuff for the sake of social conformity.

A personal attack. It's a general comment by the poster on their perceived view of society and the poster they're replying to's views and it's somewhat relevant to the subject matter of the thread.


Full post here

Turtwig wrote: »

Mod: where do I even start here?

Reading parts of this thread is like reading the exchange between two kids accusing each other of who broke a toy!

Everyone is entitled to their opinions - within reason. Their personal nature is to be respected but their opinions are fair game and open to scrutiny.

Because of the topic of the thread it's inevitable that the OP has put his own daughter a little in the firing line so some questioning is going to be allowed. That DOES NOT mean it's a perfect game. Nor, does it mean that other people's personal lives suddenly become fair game. (Even if it is by use of an analogy to try to make a point.) In fact, for the purposes of this thread there's an inherent bias by its very nature. The OP's personal scenario is the topic of this thread, so within reason certain challenges are permitted. Any challenges against the personal lives of any other poster in this thread that isn't the OP are entirely unwelcome. I appreciate this is an emotive topic so I'd ask that if you do wish to question or challenge the OP's decision making or actions that you take a pause and choose your words very carefully. Here on out, anything which we consider to be excessively over the line may result in cards,

Consider this fair warning to all!
Thanks,

Dades

This perception that a verbalised prevailing viewpoint in a forum is tantamount to 'ganging up' always annoys me.

Every specialised forum is going to have majority views on a topic. A poster that engages honestly and constructively in A&A will be given every courtesy. A poster that drops in and makes it clear they either haven't read the thread or that they have a mind not for changin' is gonna find themselves at the wrong end of some sharp posts.

The poster that got banned clearly couldn't handle this as maybe in other forums he's held less accountable for what he posts.

GreeBo

Dades wrote: »

This perception that a verbalised prevailing viewpoint in a forum is tantamount to 'ganging up' always annoys me.

Every specialised forum is going to have majority views on a topic. A poster that engages honestly and constructively in A&A will be given every courtesy. A poster that drops in and makes it clear they either haven't read the thread or that they have a mind not for changin' is gonna find themselves at the wrong end of some sharp posts.

The poster that got banned clearly couldn't handle this as maybe in other forums he's held less accountable for what he posts.

Its the (perceived perhaps) leniency that posters who follow the prevailing viewpoint are afforded that is the problem.

I could care less what the prevailing viewpoint is, but accusing another poster of not caring about their child can only be a personal attack. Couching it with "oh society lah de dah" doesnt change that one bit.

Again you are focussing on the ban, the fact that one poster acts the dick shouldnt have any bearing on other posters being let away with things.

Why did weathered get a special warning and no one else did, despite them following the exact same line, after an on thread warning?
Thats the crux that I have yet to see answered on here.

GreeBo

Turtwig wrote: »

The trouble here is the length of the thread. It's easy to cherry pick a sample. But the fact of the matter is everyone was shown leniency. We can't just have a policy whereby mods of other forums are treated differently because they're mods or they appear to agree with the status quo. That's not how the forum works. Maybe, a statement could be made about mods's posting style in other fora but honestly I'd rather not go there. Mods are regular posters, it's not our fault if other posters of the forum don't get that distinction. Suicide by mod is common all over boards

A thread where the topic is an experience of the OP's daughter is inevitably going to have an element of the style of parenting in it. As I said in a mod post, the thread would by its very nature be biased against the OP. The OP's parenting will invariably be questioned and by extension some other's parenting is going to be discussed too. It's not a personal attack per se either. Some remarks might be, but not all are.


I don't consider what you quoted

A personal attack. It's a general comment by the poster on their perceived view of society and the poster they're replying to's views and it's somewhat relevant to the subject matter of the thread.


Full post here

Everyone bar the guy who got banned, again, forget the ban, but why, leading up to the ban was he treated differently than, specifically, Cabaal?

As I said above, couching a personal attack in by blaming society and then tacking on a "and you too" at the end doesnt mean its not a personal attack.

"lots of posters on boards are pathetic and stupid and cant string a logical argument together, you appear to be one of them"
Is that not a personal attack of exactly the same manner?
I'd expect to get some moderator reply if I posted that anywhere else, are you really saying that A&A is that different to the rest of the site? You'd get done on AH for less.

catallus

Is there anything to be said for a nice mass?

Calhoun

With almost every post, as impressed with the OP's daughter as I have been, I am even more disappointed on behalf of Luke and what he must have to deal with on a daily basis.

As difficult as things are for children like the OP's daughter, they are a million times worse for the Luke's of the world as those poor children get no respite as they have to come home to it as well.

Poor poor Luke, he really has no chance at all.

What about these types of posts? would they be a personal attack or not?

Admittedly the poster that these were referring to was being OTT themselves to a point but they had some point in what they were saying. The attacks in these posts were pointed and directly attacking the poster, the excuse used was they wanted to teach this person a lesson for what was perceived as spiteful digs.

Cabaal

GreeBo, I think you should have been more upfront about this thread. Clearly you appear to have more of an issue with me and my posts. Your views of my posts are hardly unbiased given you're actively involved in the thread in question.

Turtwig

Calhoun wrote: »

What about these types of posts? would they be a personal attack or not?

Admittedly the poster that these were referring to was being OTT themselves to a point but they had some point in what they were saying. The attacks in these posts were pointed and directly attacking the poster, the excuse used was they wanted to teach this person a lesson for what was perceived as spiteful digs.

The posts referring to luke's mom were OTT. As stated in the above quoted mod post (just a few posts up). Just because the OP's was open to a particular line of questioning didn't mean that other posters were. Luke should never have been mentioned. Even if people only wished to point out how acerbic they felt Lukesmom's comments were. The thread's bias against the OP was inevitable, as they had actively opened discussion on their personal life. Lukesmon' hadn't.

GreeBo

Cabaal wrote: »

GreeBo, I think you should have been more upfront about this thread. Clearly you appear to have more of an issue with me and my posts. Your views of my posts are hardly unbiased given you're actively involved in the thread in question.

Excuse me?
Reign in the ego a bit there chief.
I have a problem with what I see as selective moderation on a thread, specifically in favour of mode/admins who are pro "the prevailing viewpoint"

The fact that your posts appear here says much more about you than me imo.

My opinion is entirely unbiased, I was not on the receiving end of any moderators action, in that regard we are on the same side.

GreeBo

Turtwig wrote: »

The posts referring to luke's mom were OTT. As stated in the above quoted mod post (just a few posts up). Just because the OP's was open to a particular line of questioning didn't mean that other posters were. Luke should never have been mentioned. Even if people only wished to point out how acerbic they felt Lukesmom's comments were. The thread's bias against the OP was inevitable, as they had actively opened discussion on their personal life. Lukesmon' hadn't.

So why does this post of Cabaals

Cabaal wrote: »

Its a sad reflection on this society when you think that so many parents just don't care about the upbringing of their children, from your previous post you also don't seem too concerned about aspects of it either.

Of course some don't, they just tick the boxes and go along with stuff for the sake of social conformity.

go ignored, when it flies directly in the face of what you just said above.
Again, if I was another poster I may feel that he was being afforded special leniency either due to his viewpoint matching the forum mods or that he himself is a mod (albeit of another forum)

Calhoun

Totally agree but i am pointing out that from start to finish there has been a very caustic thread.

Don't get me wrong i have allot of respect for the OP for standing up for his little girl but the behavior in the thread from start to finish is quite questionable.

Like you talk about the warning but we are back to talking about how another parent is raising their child? these were taken from today after the warning was given. Yet again its the equivalent of the no you response, on its own they dont look so bad but considering the earlier posts its like nothing changed.

Cabaal wrote: »

Its ok, Luke was indoctrinated into the right sort of belief.
that makes everything all ok no matter what age the child is. :pac:

But having a child at any age with no belief...pfft they are too young to understand that
:rolleyes:

vibe666 wrote: »

but you pushed him through it anyway even though you thought he was too young?

lazygal wrote: »

Is seven too young for Luke to make up his mind about being catholic and receiving the sacrament of holy communion?

Cabaal

GreeBo wrote: »

My opinion is entirely unbiased, I was not on the receiving end of any moderators action, in that regard we are on the same side.

Thats a pretty big claim and something you can't substanitate

You've been actively involved in the thread. You can hardly claim an unbiased view of said thread,

GreeBo

Cabaal wrote: »

Thats a pretty big claim and something you can't substanitate

You've been actively involved in the thread. You can hardly claim an unbiased view of said thread,

You made the claim, prove I am biased.
I cant prove a negative.

If I was biased, what am I biased about exactly?
What on this thread that I started has any remote link to my opinion on that thread?

Turtwig

GreeBo wrote: »

"lots of posters on boards are pathetic and stupid and cant string a logical argument together, you appear to be one of them"
Is that not a personal attack of exactly the same manner?

Let's put it into the microscope, shall we?

groups in society are pathetic,
-nothing wrong there.
they're illogical,
-again nothing wrong not great wording.
you're appear to be one of them.
- personal attack.



However, Cabaal's comment are subtly different.
Its a sad reflection on this society when you think that so many parents just don't care about the upbringing of their children
His/her interpretation of the poster's own viewpoint - nothing wrong there.

you also don't seem too concerned about aspects of it either.
Given the posters past remarks in the thread that seems an open response. Not personal. If you comment in a thread outlining how you discipline your kids and then folks criticise your parenting you can't really consider it to be an ad hom attack. That's just trying to abuse mod powers to protect your viewpoints and censors legit discussion. In this case, the poster had posted their particular view on stuff relating to parenting, general attitudes of society and education that others choose to comment on those views is inevitable.

GreeBo

Turtwig wrote: »

Let's put it into the microscope, shall we?

groups in society are pathetic,
-nothing wrong there.
they're illogical,
-again nothing wrong not great wording.
you're appear to be one of them.
- personal attack.



However, Cabaal's comment are subtly different.
Its a sad reflection on this society when you think that so many parents just don't care about the upbringing of their children
His/her interpretation of the poster's own viewpoint - nothing wrong there.

you also don't seem too concerned about aspects of it either.
Given the posters past remarks in the thread that seems an open response. Not personal. If you comment in a thread outlining how you discipline your kids and then folks criticise your parenting you can't really consider it to be an ad hom attack. That's just trying to abuse mod powers to protect your viewpoints and censors legit discussion. In this case, the poster had posted their particular view on stuff relating to parenting, general attitudes of society and education that others choose to comment on those views is inevitable.

Can you not see how the prevailing anti-religion views may be clouding your judgement here?

You think that because a poster is ok with their child being taught religion that this equates with them not caring about their childrens upbringing?
Like seriously?

I'm actually shocked that you think this is ok.
Am I really the only one who has a problem with this?

Cabaal

GreeBo wrote: »

You made the claim, prove I am biased.
I cant prove a negative.

In short you had numerous posts with what I supposed could be referred to as the "opposite view" to what you call the "prevailing viewpoint".

As such you cannot claim in anyway that you are unbiased...no more then I can claim I am unbiased. Of course you'd have a much more believable claim that you are unbiased if you were not involved in the thread.

It would be silly for me to claim I'm unbiased as I also actively posted in the thread much as it is silly for you to make such a claim, but if you want to keep on claiming you're unbiased then by all means go right ahead..

I would highlight that you referred to the OP's child's non-belief as "special needs", as I pointed out to you there is only one classification of special needs when it comes to the department of education...and its not the OP's child.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92120928&postcount=213

Its evident there's more to this thread then a claim of "lack of moderation or special treatment", it looks like this thread now exists just as a chance to nit pick other users posts. While this may not have been your intention, its certainly what it seems to have turned into.

As such I won't be wasting further time on it,

Turtwig

Calhoun wrote: »

Totally agree but i am pointing out that from start to finish there has been a very caustic thread.

Don't get me wrong i have allot of respect for the OP for standing up for his little girl but the behavior in the thread from start to finish is quite questionable.

Like you talk about the warning but we are back to talking about how another parent is raising their child? these were taken from today after the warning was given. Yet again its the equivalent of the no you response, on its own they dont look so bad but considering the earlier posts its like nothing changed.

Oh I agree, we may go through the thread and retrospectively card posters that ignored the warning. I'd bet that the mods haven't read the entire thread. I know I haven't. It was a quick moving 'un.

As for the nature of the thread. It's an emotive issue, anything parenting related usually is. Throw in the concoction of religion and you've got well the perfect formula of personal beliefs and ideas. So caustic is to be expected and A&A always ebbs to the more lenient side of the scale. Unless posters blatantly overstep their mark they're sanctioned. This is why certain other posters are still posting in the thread. Many things calm themselves down spontaneously. We mostly only step in when the thread becomes of the chewy glass through barbed wire nature or there's a user who's crossed the line and then the event horizon.

GreeBo

Cabaal wrote: »

In short you had numerous posts with what I supposed could be referred to as the "opposite view" to what you call the "prevailing viewpoint".

As such you cannot claim in anyway that you are unbiased...no more then I can claim I am unbiased.

Infact it would be stupid for me to claim I'm unbiased as I also actively posted in the thread, but if you want to keep on claiming you're unbiased then by all means go right ahead..

I would highlight that you referred to the OP's child's non-belief as "special needs", as I pointed out to you there is only one classification of special needs when it comes to the department of education,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92120928&postcount=213

Ok, you do realise that this is a different thread, with a totally different topic, right?

One thread is about a child in school, we disagreed in that thread.
This thread is about moderation, sure its about moderation in the other thread, but its a different topic.
How can there be bias here?

No I said a child had special needs not "special needs"
I went on to painstakingly point out to you that the word "special" followed by the word "needs" doesnt automatically mean what your mind conjures up.

Someone with a broken leg has special needs when they go to the cinema, they probably need a aisle seat.
Please stop bringing unrelated points into this discussion to somehow defend your posts in the other thread.

Turtwig

GreeBo wrote: »

You think that because a poster is ok with their child being taught religion that this equates with them not caring about their childrens upbringing?

We all have to suck it up,it is trivial really when you see the plight of the Palestinian Children.

If a poster makes the following whataboutery statement can you seriously expect me to take mod action against another user who chooses to interpret that as that poster not particularly caring about this aspect of child care and education?

Note: Aspects, not an absolute. If it was an absolute comment then i'd agree with you but there was no absolute statement made. It's the difference between calling certain views idiotic and calling the person a idiot. A subtle but very important difference!

GreeBo

Turtwig wrote: »

Oh I agree, we may go through the thread and retrospectively card posters that ignored the warning. I'd bet that the mods haven't read the entire thread. I know I haven't. It was a quick moving 'un.

As for the nature of the thread. It's an emotive issue, anything parenting related usually is. Throw in the concoction of religion and you've got well the perfect formula of personal beliefs and ideas. So caustic is to be expected and A&A always ebbs to the more lenient side of the scale. Unless posters blatantly overstep their mark they're sanctioned. This is why certain other posters are still posting in the thread. Many things calm themselves down spontaneously. We mostly only step in when the thread becomes of the chewy glass through barbed wire nature or there's a user who's crossed the line and then the event horizon.

But mod action was taken, when the poster was warned prior to their banning, why did they ignore the two other posters who also ignored the mod warning?
Is that not clearly biased modding, against those who dont follow the prevailing theme?

GreeBo

Turtwig wrote: »

If a poster makes the following whataboutery statement can you seriously expect me to take mod action against another user who chooses to interpret that as that poster not particularly caring about this aspect of child care and education?

Note: Aspects, not an absolute. If it was an absolute comment then i'd agree with you but there was no absolute statement made. It's the difference between calling certain views idiotic and calling the person a idiot. A subtle but very important difference!

Ok, please show me what posts would lead you to believe that the poster doesnt care about their childrens upbringing.


To be frank, you arguing the difference between absolutes and aspects smacks of closemindedness to protect the prevailing view.

Can I say that lots of people are bigoted in their opinions, your argument here leads me to believe that you are one of these people.
Is that "aspect-oriented" enough to be an acceptable statement for me to make?

Im starting to think that further discussion with the mods of the forum in question is pointless all all defence seems to be based on the "Atheism is good" standpoint.
I'll wait for others to comment.

Turtwig

I'm really struggling to understand your posts. Distinctions are mightily important when it comes to enforcing the rules. If one poster says they suck it up and another interprets that as they don't care strongly enough I can't pull up the other one for that interpretation. They made the comment. It's open to critique. It's not a direct personal attack.

"Everyone has idiotic opinions, doesn't mean they're actual idiots." Do you agree with statement?

Can I say that lots of people are bigoted in their opinions, your argument here leads me to believe that you are one of these people.
Is that "aspect-oriented" enough to be an acceptable statement for me to make?

No you can't. Bigot is a personal attack. However, if the poster made a series of posts that are racist or bigoted or sexists then it's a more open question. For the record, in A&A currently on matters of gay marriage we still prohibit the use of the word bigot but it's something that is being continually discussed because some posts are indeed bigoted.

As an aside:
Atheism is whatever it is. I wouldn't say it's good or bad, I'd say neutral?


Regarding the ignoring. It looks like Rob tackled Cabaal and Weathering simulataneously. As for ignoring, or appearing to ignore, I don't know. Maybe they didn't see my warning, maybe they opted to be lenient. Maybe the pace of the thread caught them, maybe they were biased, maybe they were only the skimming the thread, maybe. . . I dunno. In time I'm sure they'll give their account of what occurred too.

GreeBo

Turtwig wrote: »

I'm really struggling to understand your posts. Distinctions are mightily important when it comes to enforcing the rules. If one poster says they suck it up and another interprets that as they don't care strongly enough I can't pull up the other one for that interpretation. They made the comment. It's open to critique. It's not a direct personal attack.

"Everyone has idiotic opinions, doesn't mean they're actual idiots." Do you agree with statement?

Can I say that lots of people are bigoted in their opinions, your argument here leads me to believe that you are one of these people.
Is that "aspect-oriented" enough to be an acceptable statement for me to make?

No you can't. Bigot is a personal attack. However, if the poster made a series of posts that are racist or bigoted or sexists then it's a more open question. For the record, in A&A currently on matters of gay marriage we still prohibit the use of the word bigot but it's something that is being continually discussed because some posts are indeed bigoted.

I'll ask again, show me where the poster says they dont care about their childs upbringing.
If you said that to me I'd take it as an attack on me as a parent, I dont think Im alone with this opinion.

Turtwig wrote: »

As an aside:
Atheism is whatever it is. I wouldn't say it's good or bad, I'd say neutral?

The problem is that the moderation doesnt appear to be neutral.
those that dont agree get moderated and those that toe the line do what the want, or at least have a longer leash.

Turtwig wrote: »

Regarding the ignoring. It looks like Rob tackled Cabaal and Weathering simulataneously. As for ignoring, or appearing to ignore, I don't know. Maybe they didn't see my warning, maybe they opted to be lenient. Maybe the pace of the thread caught them, maybe they were biased, maybe they were only the skimming the thread, maybe. . . I dunno. In time I'm sure they'll give their account of what occurred too.

I'm starting to think Im imagining thing here.
You can see Robs post where he warns them both to stop, you can see where weathering doesnt stop and gets a personal warning, yet you cant see where Cabaal continues and receives nothing? Even though its the very next post?

Turtwig

GreeBo wrote: »

I'll ask again, show me where the poster says they dont care about their childs upbringing.
If you said that to me I'd take it as an attack on me as a parent, I dont think Im alone with this opinion.



I'm starting to think Im imagining thing here.
You can see Robs post where he warns them both to stop, you can see where weathering doesnt stop and gets a personal warning, yet you cant see where Cabaal continues and receives nothing? Even though its the very next post?

Popularity of opinions doesn't matter. The poster never said they don't care about their child upbringing. Nor did Cabaal imply they didn't.

As for how you perceive connotations, that's how you perceive them. I perceive them differently. I don't see the statement that a poster doesn't care about their child's upbringing said or implied anywhere. I only see a statement saying the poster doesn't appear to care about certain aspects of their child upbringing. Given their comments in the threads, whether I agree with cabaal or not, I can't sanction a comment on the subject matter of the thread.

As a conflict of interest, my opinion would be alone the line of cabaals so maybe there is some blindness there, either way I'm not yet convinced by your illustration of it. The fact that you disagree over aspects versus absolutes makes it harder for me. To me, aspects are wholly different from absolute statement. Especially when it's aspects relevant to a thread topic.


Generally speaking, we're not pedantic, we don't sanction posts directly after a mod post. We leave a time lapse. See Orion's post in the thread.
Cabaal may still be sanctioned. We haven't reviewed the thread yet.

GreeBo

Turtwig wrote: »

Popularity of opinions doesn't matter. The poster never said they don't care about their child upbringing. Nor did Cabaal imply they didn't.

As for how you perceive connotations, that's how you perceive them. I perceive them differently. I don't see the statement that a poster doesn't care about their child's upbringing said or implied anywhere. I only see a statement saying the poster doesn't appear to care about certain aspects of their child upbringing. Given their comments in the threads, whether I agree with cabaal or not, I can't sanction a comment on the subject matter of the thread.

As a conflict of interest, my opinion would be alone the line of cabaals so maybe there is some blindness there, either way I'm not yet convinced by your illustration of it. The fact that you disagree over aspects versus absolutes makes it harder for me. To me, aspects are wholly different from absolute statement. Especially when it's aspects relevant to a thread topic.

"many parents just don't care about the upbringing of their children, from your previous post you also don't seem too concerned about aspects of it either."

So that doesnt imply the poster doesnt care about their childs upbringing, but it does state that they dont "appear" to care about their childs upbringing?

Is that seriously the line that you draw on the A&A forum?
Just what lengths will you go to to defend the pro A&A posters?

Turtwig wrote: »

Generally speaking, we're not pedantic, we don't sanction posts directly after a mod post. We leave a time lapse. See Orion's post in the thread.
Cabaal may still be sanctioned. We haven't reviewed the thread yet.

Are you even reading the examples I am posting.
Weathering was warned again IMMEDIATELY after the joint warning, THE VERY NEXT post was by Cabaal but was ignored by the Mods.
Go read the damn links I posted for crying out loud.

This is beyond ridiculous, in fact Im out until a non A&A poster chimes in.

catallus

GreeBo wrote: »

This is beyond ridiculous, in fact Im out until a non A&A poster chimes in.

Hello

Why are you in A&A if you want to avoid ridiculousness?!

Turtwig

GreeBo wrote: »

"many parents just don't care about the upbringing of their children, from your previous post you also don't seem too concerned about aspects of it either."

So that doesnt imply the poster doesnt care about their childs upbringing, but it does state that they dont "appear" to care about their childs upbringing?

Is that seriously the line that you draw on the A&A forum?
Just what lengths will you go to to defend the pro A&A posters?

Aspects is an incredibly important word.

Yes it is, but it's not the strawman line you're reproducing everytime.

It's also the Christianity forum's line.

Considering I've sanctioned many of the posters in both fora and have some on borderline ban's I don't think it's fair to say I defend pro A&A posters. I'd like to think that most poster that go against the status quo of the A&A forum or of a particular thread think i'm impartial when it comes to modding. (I'd like to most posters of all types do! ) I've made mistakes. We all do. But, there's no way in hell I'm defending pro A&A posters. I just flat out stated to you that the use of Luke via analogy was wrong.

Fwiw, I thought you had some valid points but your example, the one I quoted and started this to and fro isn't what I'd consider a personal attack.

Weathering was warned again IMMEDIATELY after the joint warning, THE VERY NEXT post was by Cabaal but was ignored by the Mods.
Go read the damn links I posted for crying out loud.

He wasn't warned again. Rob just asked him to make note of the post above his. To ensure he'd seen it. It wasn't just an escalation just a please pretty pretty please take note that you're over the line.
Cabaal's comment about shutting the door was OTT, but that wasn't his very next post.