Complaint about forum moderator

Danger781

Hello all,

Apologies for making you take time from your day to read over this, but it is appreciated.

I have a problem with FutureGuy - The moderator of Fantasy Sports Arena.

#1
I have stated this issue previously via PM to CMods. I won't go into specifics on this since the PM itself contains everything you need to know:

Danger781 wrote:

Hey guys,

I'd like to discuss the actions taken today by our forum moderator FutureGuy. Long story short he more or less issued a warning to a fellow poster and regular to FSA, manual_man, for the use of 'lol'. manual_man was directing some friendly banter at those who decided to jump the gun on the Costa transfer. Poking some fun at the thousands of people who transferred him out when the rumour of a 6 week injury period first broke. He didn't insult anyone, didn't personally attack anyone, or even directly make a comment at anyone in particular - and got warned all the same.

The post in question:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=91981421#post91981421

manual_man issues an apology and decides to try and lighten the mood by taking a friendly jab at FutureGuy, and goes on to imply that he feels hard done by
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91981748&postcount=386

FutureGuy responds by taking the jab personally and threatens a ban against manual_man
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91984940&postcount=614

manual_man responded with an, in my opinion, very level headed respectful response
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91986391&postcount=643

FutureGuy with the final response
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91986890&postcount=647

As you can see I am not even involved in the dispute. I am a neutral third party that does not want my favourite forum to become the dull boring wasteland that it seems to be heading to. I don't want to have to have to sanitise my comments before posting to be sure they meet the FSA strict rules and regulations. I know I am not alone when I say that the forum being run as a dictatorship is going to drive away a lot of us.

Poking a bit of fun and having some banter with each other is a large part of what makes FSA the enjoyable place that it is. We're not out to insult one another, or make anyone feel bad outside of a friendly jab. Seeing the situation handled earlier the way it was, I felt I needed to take some form of action. Submitting a complaint to the CMods may or may not have been the correct method of doing this but based on how FutureGuy acted earlier I imagine he would have told me off for questioning him and then recommend I take it up with you anyway. I'm not looking to cause any trouble here for anyone involved - I just love FSA and don't want to see it destroyed.

To summarise.. FutureGuy needs to lighten up.

Best regards,

Luke

Understandably the CMods couldn't let me in on the resolution process since I was not directly affected by FutureGuys actions (That particular time..) so I have no idea what the resolution was, or if there was one. All I know is that manual_man has not been around since.

---

#2

A few weeks ago I was issued an official warning by FutureGuy for publicly questioning the severity of his actions against roryc. Rory had just returned from a two week ban, and stated that he likely would not be posting in FSA much for the foreseeable future. I replied back saying that it would be shame to see a such a recognised member of FSA give up on posting in FSA, to which he replied "As usual Lemlin is not the problem". Banned for a month for that one sentence. No personal attack on anyone, and nothing against the charter that I can see. From what I can see it was a completely biased decision against rory as FutureGuy simply does not like him.

I responded with : "Ah here I can see no need for that whatsoever. He merely responded to something I said. You'd swear he directed a personal insult at you..". I can't remember FutureGuys response but it was in the General FPL chat thread. From what I remember it was basically something along the lines of rory is a troublemaker and I'm the mod. I was issued an official warning for questioning the decision as above. I realise the forum charter says to go through PM with the mods but from experience with FutureGuy I know that would have gone nowhere. I didn't want to stand idly by and see a great contributor given an excessive ban over some personal gripe with FG has with him.

Neither Lemlin or RoryC has been seen since.

---

#3

Today, I was issued a one week ban. I'm not appealing the ban as again I publicly questioned FG's actions. While I feel a week is probably harsh, that's irrelevant here. What I'm pointing out is the biased nature of FGs decisions. Following my post about his decision - Two users that are buddies with FG replied to my post in a mocking way which could almost be considered a breach of step two in the charter (Insulting someone), and had I bothered to reply to them would most definitely be in breach in step 5 of the charter (Getting a rise out of someone). I did not reply to either. I followed protocol and reported these two posts as a personal attack on me and pointed out how they were in breach of the charter, yet nothing will happen to these two. A prime example of selective moderating.

That entire situation arose when Mr. Incognito (Another FSA regular) misspelled a players name one too many times and received an infraction for it. Whether it was intentionally or not, you surely can not issues an infraction to someone for misspelling a name. I pointed this out as being harsh moderating and pointed out that i was likely going to be banned for openly expressing an opinion that goes against FutureGuy, and I was right - One week ban.

The users who responded to me - Swiper the Fox and Mr. Prodston responded to my post in a mocking / trolling manner which I took as them personally targeting me. Mr. Prodston responded by saying something along the lines of

I am openly disagreeing with your open opinion. I am openly expressing an opinion..

You get the point. I can't remember exactly what was said but he was taking something from my post and using it against me in a deliberate mocking manner. Nothing happened to him.

Swiper followed on by pointing out that they would miss my "Obviously insightful posts :pac" and then made another comment about gathering a group of users to send me a virtual group hug to make me feel better. Again nothing happened to him.

If we reverse the roles and I was the one posting those snide comments I can guarantee FG would have made an example of me.

---

What I want out of this is to have FG removed from his duties. Alternatively appointing a second impartial moderator would be great, as long as it is not someone who is close to FG. Someone impartial.

Again, sorry for making you read all of this, but it is appreciated. I'll try to be as civil as possible throughout this process.

Spear

Moved from DRP as this isn't DRP related.

Danger781

Spear wrote: »

Moved from DRP as this isn't DRP related.

Sorry, my bad.

FutureGuy

Given the fact that this is not a Dispute and is in the help desk, may I move to add my side of the story - something I have been unable to do in the Dispute forum?

Mr E

Moved to feedback (a better fit)

FutureGuy

Mr E wrote: »

Moved to feedback (a better fit)

Thank you. I will be presenting a reply later today.

Mr E

Note for all, if this turns into a free for all, it will be locked. Keep it civil.

Mr. Incognito

I opened a thread in disputes yesterday with regard to inconsistent molding. I myself got two infractions yesterday one even after I had opened a dispute thread. The first one for calling out a grammar nazI which is a site wide no no. That's just petty stupid stuff.

Basically there is bullying going on in the threads and mob mentality.banning have become too common, petty and personal. Future guy needs a second objective sounding board where he can step back from the situation.

I think a second objective mod would solve a lot of the issues.

No one can be perfect and Future guy needs some help. I don't know him but the forum is bleeding members.

A review on modulus will show the one sided nature of the moderation in the forum.

A second mod is the simple solution.

FutureGuy

Mr E wrote: »

Note for all, if this turns into a free for all, it will be locked. Keep it civil.

Absolutely no problem. Thanks.

Ok, first and foremost, I just want to say that, until now, I have not had the opportunity to respond to a number of Dispute Resolutions as per the rules of boards.ie. Despite a number of times where my character has been sullied, I have remained professional throughout.

I will leave the admins of the site come to their own conclusions, but over the course of this PM, I will give my account of what has been presented by Danger781 in this post.

Danger781, I am going to respond to your three points before moving on to areas I wish to cover.

POINT 1

Danger781 wrote

Understandably the CMods couldn't let me in on the resolution process since I was not directly affected by FutureGuys actions (That particular time..) so I have no idea what the resolution was, or if there was one. All I know is that manual_man has not been around since.

Futureguy response

Above you have stated...

All you know that manual hasn't been around since.

So, without any idea of what happened, you have constructed a story that, somehow my actions here have caused manual_man to stop posting.

Firstly, and most importantly, manual_man has been incredibly active in FSA as can be easily seen in this link...

http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=249088&forum=1535&sort=newest&date_to=&date_from=&query=%2A%3A%2A&page=1

So is this an oversight or a deliberate lie to try and undermine my work as a mod?

Secondly, you have no idea what happened after I gave that warning to manual_man. The truth is that myself and manual_man had an incredibly amicable exchange via PM which left no doubt in my mind as to the fact that he is an excellent contributor. Admins, if you want the PMs sent, please let me know. I will not publish it here.

I welcome the admins to review each post that Danger781 has linked above as I stand 100% behind my decisions. To summarise, I gave ample warning to people about the use of certain inflammatory posts (something which was subsequently explained here in a sticky on the forum)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057280815

Knowing all this, and having made things perfectly clear on thread, Danger781 has continued to have issue with my handling of the case as can be seen in his reent posts.

Then you state...

As you can see I am not even involved in the dispute. I am a neutral third party that does not want my favourite forum to become the dull boring wasteland that it seems to be heading to

All your actions since I gave you a warning have been the exact opposite to this. You have lied about my actions, you have (in my opinion) selectively taken pieces of information, twisted them and posted them in an attempt to undermine my position as mod.

In my personal opinion, and again I will leave the mods to come to their own conclusions, you are incredibly biased against me as a moderater as a direct response to the fact that I warned you in the past

POINT 2

Danger781 wrote

A few weeks ago I was issued an official warning by FutureGuy for publicly questioning the severity of his actions against roryc. Rory had just returned from a two week ban, and stated that he likely would not be posting in FSA much for the foreseeable future. I replied back saying that it would be shame to see a such a recognised member of FSA give up on posting in FSA, to which he replied "As usual Lemlin is not the problem". Banned for a month for that one sentence. No personal attack on anyone, and nothing against the charter that I can see. From what I can see it was a completely biased decision against rory as FutureGuy simply does not like him.

I responded with : "Ah here I can see no need for that whatsoever. He merely responded to something I said. You'd swear he directed a personal insult at you..". I can't remember FutureGuys response but it was in the General FPL chat thread. From what I remember it was basically something along the lines of rory is a troublemaker and I'm the mod. I was issued an official warning for questioning the decision as above. I realise the forum charter says to go through PM with the mods but from experience with FutureGuy I know that would have gone nowhere. I didn't want to stand idly by and see a great contributor given an excessive ban over some personal gripe with FG has with him.

Neither Lemlin or RoryC has been seen since.

Futureguy response

Ok, apologies for the length of this response but there is so much wrong with this, I have to be incredibly thorough.

QUOTE 1.

Danger781 wrote...

I replied back saying that it would be shame to see a such a recognised member of FSA give up on posting in FSA, to which he replied.

This is, again, incorrect.

You actually wrote...

"Would be a shame if moderating decisions were what caused you to stop posting as much. I absolutely understand where you're coming from though"

You have, without ANY idea of the history of warning, infractions, and bans that have been handed out to Rory in FSA and without any idea of the full interactions between all parties, completely taken his side and stated that it was my fault. You also state you know where he is coming from. Let's remember that Rory has had 2 disputes taken to admin level and on both occasions, the decision went in my favour.

QUOTE 2

Danger781 wrote...

I responded with : "Ah here I can see no need for that whatsoever. He merely responded to something I said. You'd swear he directed a personal insult at you..". I can't remember FutureGuys response but it was in the General FPL chat thread. From what I remember it was basically something along the lines of rory is a troublemaker and I'm the mod."

It's funny that you are selectively relying on memory when the facts are easy to retrieve...

OK, that's the end of the discussion pertaining to moderating decisions. If you have a problem, PM me. If you post below this warning regarding the moderation of the forum, I will be handing out cards.

RoryC received a month's ban. I do not hand out any sort of ban lightly on here. I have no intention of justifying any piece of moderating. He was banned for 2 weeks a fortnight ago and the decision was upheld by a category moderator and an admin.

Now he is banned for a month.

What I will say is that a number of people are making judgements based on one side of a dispute. I cannot get involved in a dispute and I cannot have my say. If I could, then people may have a different understanding.

The fact is that RoryC can dispute the ban as per the Dispute Resolution instructions, and if the ban is found to be unjust, it can be overturned.

I do not care how good a poster someone is, that does not give them any priveledges when it comes to FPL

So yet again, you twist things to make it look like I'm the problem. Rory came back from a 2 week ban and immediately attacked me as a mod twice in his first three posts. He dragged up a 5-day old post to take a swipe at my decision which is going to be actionable anywhere on boards.ie. Again, you are showing incredible bias towards RoryC and are twisting things to suit your agenda. You are very quick to highlight other times when the Charter has been broken, but incredibly fail to see this instance.

Clearly, I stated here that I could not give my side of events and yet you have clearly persisted with your agenda regardless.

QUOTE 3.

Danger781 wrote...
"I realise the forum charter says to go through PM with the mods but from experience with FutureGuy I know that would have gone nowhere. I didn't want to stand idly by and see a great contributor given an excessive ban over some personal gripe with FG has with him."

What experience? Please explain this in detail as I have no idea how I have acted unfairly. Admins, I expect a response to this from Danger781.

Furthermore, I have no personal gripe with Rory. You are one of a few posters that are doing your best to propagate an untruth. Rory acted out of line, he was punished. Nothing more. I have stated in a number of places, both publicly, privately and to the CMods that Rory is an excellent poster. To say anything else is hurtful and wrong.


QUOTE 4

Danger781 wrote...
"Neither Lemlin or RoryC has been seen since."

This is your conclusion to point 2, and much in the same way as point 1, you have constructed a story based on your own clear bias and concluded it with an inaccurate statement. Lemlin has not posted since for a completely different reason, again one which you are completely clueless about. But yet again, you post something that is completely untrue to suit your agenda.

As for Rory, if Rory does not want to post again, then that is unfortunate, but as I have said many times, no poster is above the rules of the forum, regardless of how good a poster they are.

Again I ask, is this an oversight or a deliberate lie to try and undermine my work as a mod?

POINT 3

DANGER781 wrote...

"Today, I was issued a one week ban. I'm not appealing the ban as again I publicly questioned FG's actions. While I feel a week is probably harsh, that's irrelevant here. What I'm pointing out is the biased nature of FGs decisions. Following my post about his decision - Two users that are buddies with FG replied to my post in a mocking way which could almost be considered a breach of step two in the charter (Insulting someone), and had I bothered to reply to them would most definitely be in breach in step 5 of the charter (Getting a rise out of someone). I did not reply to either. I followed protocol and reported these two posts as a personal attack on me and pointed out how they were in breach of the charter, yet nothing will happen to these two. A prime example of selective moderating.

That entire situation arose when Mr. Incognito (Another FSA regular) misspelled a players name one too many times and received an infraction for it. Whether it was intentionally or not, you surely can not issues an infraction to someone for misspelling a name. I pointed this out as being harsh moderating and pointed out that i was likely going to be banned for openly expressing an opinion that goes against FutureGuy, and I was right - One week ban.

The users who responded to me - Swiper the Fox and Mr. Prodston responded to my post in a mocking / trolling manner which I took as them personally targeting me. Mr. Prodston responded by saying something along the lines of

Quote:

I am openly disagreeing with your open opinion. I am openly expressing an opinion..
You get the point. I can't remember exactly what was said but he was taking something from my post and using it against me in a deliberate mocking manner. Nothing happened to him.

Swiper followed on by pointing out that they would miss my "Obviously insightful posts :pac" and then made another comment about gathering a group of users to send me a virtual group hug to make me feel better. Again nothing happened to him.

If we reverse the roles and I was the one posting those snide comments I can guarantee FG would have made an example of me."

Futureguy response

Again, apologies for the long response but I have to be thorough and use facts.

QUOTE 1
"Today, I was issued a one week ban. I'm not appealing the ban as again I publicly questioned FG's actions. While I feel a week is probably harsh, that's irrelevant here."

Correct, and I wager that if you did appeal it, it would be upheld.

QUOTE 2
"Two users that are buddies with FG replied to my post in a mocking way which could almost be considered a breach of step two in the charter (Insulting someone), and had I bothered to reply to them would most definitely be in breach in step 5 of the charter (Getting a rise out of someone). I did not reply to either. I followed protocol and reported these two posts as a personal attack on me and pointed out how they were in breach of the charter, yet nothing will happen to these two. A prime example of selective moderating."

Lies. Simple as. Again, you are selectively taking points. Firstly, both you reports were seen. By the time I had seen them, I had already given Swiper a yellow card for his post and warned him of his behaviour and I had reviewed MrProdston's post and did not see any issue with it. So you are again not presenting correct facts.

I'll get to the next point in more detail, but here again, you accuse me of biased and of having buddies. Admins, again I want this user to back up these damaging accusations.

I don't care who anyone is on FSA. If you break the rules, you get punished. I find it hilarious that you say I have favourites and buddies, yet you fail to mention the facts that I have had run ins with Swiper when he first came to FSA, a time when he was given some stern advice and he has flourished to become an excellent poster since then. As for Mr.Prodston, he has been an excellent contributor, a previous mod of FSA, has a flawless conduct record on boards.ie and one of the most respected persons on the forum. You are incredibly disrespectful to him when you say he is being favoured. You also failed to mention that I have given warnings and bans to some of the people that I think are the best contributors on the forum, and people who I actually have chats with via PM, like Rory and Like Lemlin. Again, you are twisting things to suit your agenda. It seems like you think I am being biased to posters when in fact I am punishing rule breakers.

QUOTE 3
That entire situation arose when Mr. Incognito (Another FSA regular) misspelled a players name one too many times and received an infraction for it. Whether it was intentionally or not, you surely can not issues an infraction to someone for misspelling a name. I pointed this out as being harsh moderating and pointed out that i was likely going to be banned for openly expressing an opinion that goes against FutureGuy, and I was right - One week ban.

Again, you are making up facts so you can be biased about me. Lets look at the post replying to the above spelling of Aguero...

It's way more fun to spell it wrong and watch you foam at the mouth each week.

Augerio captained for you then?

You state that I issue an infraction for misspelling a name. You state that he misspelt a name one too many times and that's what caused it. Yet more bias! He (Mr. Incognito) received a red card for blatantly abusing another poster with the above post. In addition to the fact that he said it was done to watch him foam at the mouth, the then used Aguerio again. That's at least a red card every single day of the week, and I also gave a 1-week ban but felt a red was sufficient.

He then went on to post a dispute where he made a number of "inaccurate" statements about the incident. Again, you could have checked that yourself, but you couldn't be bothered.

QUOTE 4
Swiper followed on by pointing out that they would miss my "Obviously insightful posts :pac" and then made another comment about gathering a group of users to send me a virtual group hug to make me feel better. Again nothing happened to him.

Again. Lies. Swiper was given a yellow and warned.


FURTHERMORE
So now lets look at your recent posts in FSA (in reverse order, since the incident you discussed).

"Ah here I can see no need for that whatsoever. He merely responded to something I said. You'd swear he directed a personal insult at you"

"We can agree to disagree on that one"

"Careful now, you don't want to follow in rory's footsteps"

"Surprised he wasn't infracted for it! Considering people have been infracted for the use of "lol". Seriously"

"Well I reckon that's the end of my time here then, at least for the foreseeable future. I imagine rory and Lemlin won't be contributing much any more either. I have more I want to say but won't for fear of landing myself in further trouble. Good night folks"

"This isn't because of a single incident - A number of incidents since the start of the season have been building up to this. I'll say no more as I'm dragging this thread off topic and it will only land me in further trouble. For now at least, I'm done"

Break for 2 weeks, then returns when I give a red to Mr. Incognito to add his opinion...

"Mr. I received an infaction and 8-10 received a warning for these two posts. I'm likely going to get warned / infracted / banned for going against the grain and openly stating an opinion. I'm surprised people still post here at all with this carry on "

"I'm no longer contributing"


All these posts suggest a person tha has taken great offense to the fact that I have baned people for reasons they feel are wrong, but are completely justifiable. But instead of going down the official route, you have, in my opinion, chosen a different route...

CONCLUSION
My my opinion as a moderator, a category moderator and a long term user of boards.ie, you are directly responsible for being part of a very aggressive witch hunt against me as a person and as a moderator.

Admins, Danger781 has requested that, based on the "facts" that he has presented, that I should be relieved of my duties as Moderator of FSA. I hope you take my responses on boards before making any decisions.

Likewise, I urge you to take a look at this feedback from poster Danger781 and ask whether this post is based out of concern for the wellbeing of the FSA forum or nothing more than an deliberate attack on me as a person, an attack that has used blatant lies, clear and proven bias and selective posting of information in an attempt to smear my name as a moderator as a direct response to the fact that he has taken issue to the fact that I warned and banned him from the forum.

Futureguy

roryc

Hi,

I was working on a Feedback thread myself but under the Feedback Forums rules I’m not allowed post while on a ban from FSA, so I was going to play by the rules and wait until Oct 21st. However, seeing as my name has been mentioned in this thread numerous times its logical to assume I am now free to respond? If not I will likely create another thread on October 21st when my ban is up, and this seems like it would be a waste of everyone's time when we can all discuss the issue now. Please confirm this is OK before I add to this thread. Due to recent moderator decisions I want to be 100% clear on this before I post.

Another thing to get straight right from the start - I do not want to focus on old history or discuss (in any real detail) previous bans. This thread is to discuss the overall standard of modding of the forum, and while its obvious that people (myself included) will feel the need to discuss previous decisions made by Futureguy, I don’t want this thread to end up locked for this reason. Its not a Dispute Resolution thread, however when a number of key posters stop posting on the forum due to one moderator, and he has yet another two DR threads in the last two days alone (one from another Boards.ie moderator) its clear that this needs to be discussed. I’m currently serving the second of two consecutive lengthy bans and rather than continue posting on the Forum as it is, I would prefer if we could get some sort of resolution on this thread.

Thanks,

Rory

FutureGuy

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I opened a thread in disputes yesterday with regard to inconsistent molding. I myself got two infractions yesterday one even after I had opened a dispute thread. The first one for calling out a grammar nazI which is a site wide no no. That's just petty stupid stuff.

Basically there is bullying going on in the threads and mob mentality.banning have become too common, petty and personal. Future guy needs a second objective sounding board where he can step back from the situation.

I think a second objective mod would solve a lot of the issues.

No one can be perfect and Future guy needs some help. I don't know him but the forum is bleeding members.

A review on modulus will show the one sided nature of the moderation in the forum.

A second mod is the simple solution.

Firstly, lets look at facts.

You did not get a red for calling out a Grammar Nazi. You got a red for flaming, baiting and trolling.

"It's way more fun to spell it wrong and watch you foam at the mouth each week.

Augerio captained for you then? "

Let's make that very clear immediately. You see, yesterday could have gone two completely different ways. You could have reported the post and explained your grievances as per the guidelines of boards.ie and allowed me to review the situation. If that would have happened, I would have dealt with it.

Instead, you chose to admit that you have been trolling people for a long time. You state that you use Aguerio because it is easier for you to spell it that way, yet in the second part of the post, knowing full well it would cause annoyance, you used the incorrect spelling again.

As a moderator yourself, I expected you to take the former action, but incredibly you chose the latter. You then implied that I and other posters were Grammar Nazis. The case above is nothing to do with being a grammar Nazi whatsoever and your post completely vindicated my moderating decison. I completely stand my the red I gave you.

Relating to your comment that "Basically there is bullying going on in the threads and mob mentality.".

I would like you to present cases where bullying has gone on, mindful of the fact that people are allowed to disagree with comments if they choose. I have already heard another poster saying that there was bullying going on, when the actual fact is that he posted a comment which perhaps 90% of the forum would disagree with. Do you actually expect me to stop people from disagreeing with a point?

As for your comment on the forum bleeding members, you seem to suggest that this is my fault? If someone does not want to post because they disagree with my moderating decisions so be it. RoryC, Danger781, Zarquon and yourself have stated you will not be posting/posting less because of my modding. You all took offense to the fact that ye were punished instead of taking it and moving on.

You state that I my bannings are "common, petty and personal". Show me proof where I am being petty. Show me proof where I am being personal. As for being more common, I agree that there has been an increase in the amount of moderation necessary, but this has been in direct response to the need for such actions because of certain posters. I even stated this in the sticky thread I mentioned in my previous posts above.

Of course I hate to lose a single person but I will absolutely not bow to pressure to let people get away with breaking rules. If someone does not want to post on FSA because they feel were harshly treated, then fair enough. I will have any single moderating decision I have made since I have started modding on FSA brought up for scrutiny.

You then state that..."A review on modulus will show the one sided nature of the moderation in the forum. "

Again, please present an actual factual statement to back this up and then we can discuss. Who am I showing favourable moderation to? List them. Who am I being harsh against? Again, list them and the admins can review my moderating.

Finally, you present the idea that I need a second moderator to help? As you may know, we have a second moderator called Mr. Moon. To confirm, I presume you have no issue with his moderation as you have not posted it here on the feedback thread for this, the FSA forum?

Back to your good suggestion, the decision to add/remove mods is not a process that is open to public eyes. However, as you may know, Mr. Prodston decided to step down as mod of FSA over the summer and in recent weeks I have drawn up a list of potential replacements. As of yesterday afternoon, I received confirmation that two candidates were vetoed for modship. I contacted one yesterday who declined due to a busy life right now, and I am contacting the second one today.

It seems to be that you had zero problems with my modding until yesterday when you decided to open a DRM because you received a red card. All of a sudden, within the space of a few hours I was "p!ss-poor moderator", despite us having absolutely no interaction in the past or you showing any grievances whatsoever.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057301968

Here, in addition to posting insults and inaccuracies, you state that I am allowing bullying, pandering to "favourites" and only giving yellows because of the facts that you said that you were posing the DM. Have you any idea how serious these accusations are, especially the fact you are stating that I am allowing bullying? I'll be very honest here, as the cMods and admins already know my stance, I am not letting this comment go.

You also posted a number of completely incorrect and inaccurate points in terms of how poster 8-10 and you have interacted.

Because you never reported a single post regarding your apparent mistreatment at my hands, sent me a single PM to voice your worries or concerns or contacted another mod/cmod about my modding, it seems perfectly clear that you, like Danger781, are making this incredibly personal.

As I have stated above, I would like you to post actual examples where I have allowed bullying and favoured other posters at the expense of others and I would be delighted for the admins to review.

FutureGuy

roryc wrote: »

Hi,

I was working on a Feedback thread myself but under the Feedback Forums rules I’m not allowed post while on a ban from FSA, so I was going to play by the rules and wait until Oct 21st. However, seeing as my name has been mentioned in this thread numerous times its logical to assume I am now free to respond? If not I will likely create another thread on October 21st when my ban is up, and this seems like it would be a waste of everyone's time when we can all discuss the issue now. Please confirm this is OK before I add to this thread. Due to recent moderator decisions I want to be 100% clear on this before I post.

Another thing to get straight right from the start - I do not want to focus on old history or discuss (in any real detail) previous bans. This thread is to discuss the overall standard of modding of the forum, and while its obvious that people (myself included) will feel the need to discuss previous decisions made by Futureguy, I don’t want this thread to end up locked for this reason. Its not a Dispute Resolution thread, however when a number of key posters stop posting on the forum due to one moderator, and he has yet another two DR threads in the last two days alone (one from another Boards.ie moderator) its clear that this needs to be discussed. I’m currently serving the second of two consecutive lengthy bans and rather than continue posting on the Forum as it is, I would prefer if we could get some sort of resolution on this thread.

Thanks,

Rory

Despite the fact that RoryC has one again completely broken the rules he KNOWS are in place, I would be happy for an admin to allow his feedback. Having said that, it's another case of Rory knowing the rules of the site but ignoring them anyways.

As the theme for this evening is clearly posting inaccurate information as truths, lets clear up more "facts". I do not have two DRs currently against me. One was closed pretty quickly by an admin and the second is actually a feedback forum. Since you have already have 2 DMs ruled against you about the lengthy bans you were given, I though you would take the advice given to you. Clearly I am incorrect.

Suffice it to say Rory that I will be 100% referring to your record on FSA when responding to any post you are allowed to post on here. It's only fair to shed light on the reasons why you are getting such lengthy bans which are being upheld by category mods and admins.

roryc

Simply trying to avoid having two identical threads within the space of two weeks. If the Admin want me to wait, then I'll wait.

gordongekko

Ah Jesus lads . Tis only the internet. Chill out. Surely There is some common ground to be found.

How about all posters mentioned in the thread(including the mod) step back for 2 weeks. a second mod is put in place and the cmods use the few weeks to update the forum charter.

A fantasy sports forum should be a bit of fun and a chance to forget about the daily grind of life.

FutureGuy

gordongekko wrote: »

Ah Jesus lads . Tis only the internet. Chill out. Surely There is some common ground to be found.

How about all posters mentioned in the thread(including the mod) step back for 2 weeks. a second mod is put in place and the cmods use the few weeks to update the forum charter.

A fantasy sports forum should be a bit of fun and a chance to forget about the daily grind of life.

Hi there,
Thanks for your input. I agree with your call for another (third) moderator and this process has been ongoing for a number of weeks.

Regarding your point about a fantasy forum needs to be a bit of fun , I'm sure the vast majority of users would say it is! However, as with any forum on boards.ie , if you break the rules, you will get punished. If you consistently break the rules, then you will be in trouble consistently. I think it's important to make that point.

zombieHanalei

I've been following this a bit as I must confess I'm a bit of a fan of the DR forum. To be honest, the words witch hunt come to mind here. FG's decisions have been justified all along in my opinion.

Myrddin

zombieHanalei wrote: »

FG's decisions have been justified all along in my opinion.

That's along with any Dispute Resolution regarding the FSA too, all of which were judged impartially by other Cmods, & Admins if required. As a Games Cmod, I receive notification of all the reported posts in the entire Games category & from what I can see from the evidence, the only problem in the FSA is the apparent inability of some users to post within the rules there.

The users who get infracted or banned right away without warning, are almost always the same posters who have been warned countless times over the weeks/months. Frankly, users that continue to cause hassle in a forum & disregard warnings (on thread & individually targeted), should not be surprised to see action taken against them. That same action might differ person to person, because as always, mod actions are down to judgement calls. It's perfectly fine in my opinion, to ban someone for derailing a thread who has been warned & infracted over doing it before...whereas someone newer who might not be as familiar with the rules deserves a bit more leeway.

This is all basic stuff, & every Dispute Resolution I've poured over regarding the FSA, has had a solid, accountable, chain of events that led to mod action, thus completely putting FutureGuy in the clear. There is no mod bias here, no agenda, no dark plan...but there is a small clattering of users here who seem to be getting bent out of shape because they've had their knuckles wrapped, for posting outside the rules of the forum...something identified each & every time a case is reviewed for the DRF.

FutureGuy mentioned the modding situation there in the FSA also, in response to another user about adding another mod. This is something being actively looked at, & has been since before this all started. I think everyone can appreciate that time be taken when considering candidates for modding, as we need to be sure the right person is picked for the job. And it's not just us that has to approve a candidate, but that user would have to be approved after being vetted by the Admin team too, so it's completely impartial. I only mention this bto make the point that if/when another mod is selected, they will be a user who is level headed, mature, has a good history in the site, is dependable, neutral, & fair.

KevIRL

In my opinion FutureGuy is doing a good job on the FSA forum. By and large its a good community on there, with plenty of side games that posters often give a lot of their own time to organise and run. Likewise plenty of advice is given (usually good!) to those who ask

The nature of the Fantasy Football games though can lead to ego driven posts, a lot of 'told you so', or comparisons being made to another posters ranking or historic ranking in order to validate a point. This sort of thing can lead to bitterness and point scoring, and regularly it will cause further issues between posters down the line

I'm glad to see there is talk of a 3rd mod, really a second as Mr Moon is rarely on, and FutureGuy is left to mop up any crap that occurs. Along with a new mod, I'd feel an on forum feedback thread (similar to whats done in many forums here) could be started to capture the feelings of what the posters on the forum would like it to be run.

More often posters on the forum need to remember it is a game, fantasy sport (based on real life granted) and the best times on the forum are the humour and helpful posts. I do feel there has been a tendency recently towards a quite strict application of rules which wasnt there previously. Would hate to see the place become overly santisied and souless - In saying this I fully accept how tricky the mods position can be

edit - to add, FG - the thread started and locked in the forum pointing people to here is unnecessary and more than a bit inflamatory imo

FutureGuy

KevIRL wrote: »

In my opinion FutureGuy is doing a good job on the FSA forum. By and large its a good community on there, with plenty of side games that posters often give a lot of their own time to organise and run. Likewise plenty of advice is given (usually good!) to those who ask

The nature of the Fantasy Football games though can lead to ego driven posts, a lot of 'told you so', or comparisons being made to another posters ranking or historic ranking in order to validate a point. This sort of thing can lead to bitterness and point scoring, and regularly it will cause further issues between posters down the line

I'm glad to see there is talk of a 3rd mod, really a second as Mr Moon is rarely on, and FutureGuy is left to mop up any crap that occurs. Along with a new mod, I'd feel an on forum feedback thread (similar to whats done in many forums here) could be started to capture the feelings of what the posters on the forum would like it to be run.

More often posters on the forum need to remember it is a game, fantasy sport (based on real life granted) and the best times on the forum are the humour and helpful posts. I do feel there has been a tendency recently towards a quite strict application of rules which wasnt there previously. Would hate to see the place become overly santisied and souless - In saying this I fully accept how tricky the mods position can be

edit - to add, FG - the thread started and locked in the forum pointing people to here is unnecessary and more than a bit inflamatory imo

Hi Kev,
Excellent post thanks. You would be correct in stating that there is a more strict tendency to follow rules this season. To explain from a mods perspective, there have been a slight change in way that some of the posters have been reacting to each other, especially on match day, and it's something I addressed in a sticky. It's a case of catching things in the bud before they get out of control. One excellent long term poster contacted me in the first few weeks to say he was discontinuing posting thanks to the behaviour of a few posters and it reinforced my decision to crack down on such posts after giving general warnings. In addition, I sent certain people a private PM to explain the situation in a 1-to-1 environment.

Having said all that, if a poster continues to break rules, my hands are tied as a mod. I would be a terrible moderator if I let people get away with breaking rules.

I'm aware that different people have different ways in which they moderate forums. From being a common reader (if not poster) of the FSA forum, the only comment I'll make is that at times I have thought that FG may be a tad overzealous in handing out infractions/bans over the last number of weeks. Granted of course I don't have the full back story there, and you can be correct on paper about a decision about giving an infraction/ban, however, it might be best for the community in the forum to just give a warning in bold on thread. A lot of users get their backs up when they get an official warning, instead of just one on thread.

Myrddin

Dónal wrote: »

however, it might be best for the community in the forum to just give a warning in bold on thread.

I can assure you, such warnings have been made in the FSA (I've seen them myself when DRP reviewing) & I've seen them time & again go ignored.

Myrddin

Myrddin wrote: »

I can assure you, such warnings have been made in the FSA (I've seen them myself when DRP reviewing) & I've seen them time & again go ignored.

Fair enough so.

FutureGuy

Dónal wrote: »

I'm aware that different people have different ways in which they moderate forums. From being a common reader (if not poster) of the FSA forum, the only comment I'll make is that at times I have thought that FG may be a tad overzealous in handing out infractions/bans over the last number of weeks. Granted of course I don't have the full back story there, and you can be correct on paper about a decision about giving an infraction/ban, however, it might be best for the community in the forum to just give a warning in bold on thread. A lot of users get their backs up when they get an official warning, instead of just one on thread.

Thanks for the input. Anything in particular you found to be overzealous that hasn't been addressed above or in a completed dispute resolution? I appreciate the fact you have admitted to don't have the full back story.

Just to say that I had given two warning to the general community before handing down the first yellow for the "lol @ xxxxx owner" comments in addition to then placing a sticky on the site explaining the situation which was thanks by a great number of the community.

Myrddin

KevIRL wrote: »

I'd feel an on forum feedback thread (similar to whats done in many forums here) could be started to capture the feelings of what the posters on the forum would like it to be run.

That may be a good idea, however the below seems contradictory?

edit - to add, FG - the thread started and locked in the forum pointing people to here is unnecessary and more than a bit inflamatory imo

I don't see how it's un-necessary really. Granted it's not 'on-forum' like you suggested above, but is it not exactly what you're otherwise suggesting? I also don't see anything inflammatory in the wording of it:

FutureGuy wrote:

If I have in any way been guilty of the above or if you have anything to say about the accusations, please feel free to leave your feedback. This relates to either personal treatment or treatment you have witnessed.

I'd imagine this feedback thread here will be used to clear up the existing issues raised, & afterwards, if FG sees fit, a more local feedback thread that's in-forum could be implemented. From FG's perspective, there have been some big claims made against him here, so I think it's only fair that the userbase of the FSA be made aware of this feedback thread to give their say.

FutureGuy

KevIRL wrote: »

In my opinion FutureGuy is doing a good job on the FSA forum. By and large its a good community on there, with plenty of side games that posters often give a lot of their own time to organise and run. Likewise plenty of advice is given (usually good!) to those who ask

The nature of the Fantasy Football games though can lead to ego driven posts, a lot of 'told you so', or comparisons being made to another posters ranking or historic ranking in order to validate a point. This sort of thing can lead to bitterness and point scoring, and regularly it will cause further issues between posters down the line

I'm glad to see there is talk of a 3rd mod, really a second as Mr Moon is rarely on, and FutureGuy is left to mop up any crap that occurs. Along with a new mod, I'd feel an on forum feedback thread (similar to whats done in many forums here) could be started to capture the feelings of what the posters on the forum would like it to be run.

More often posters on the forum need to remember it is a game, fantasy sport (based on real life granted) and the best times on the forum are the humour and helpful posts. I do feel there has been a tendency recently towards a quite strict application of rules which wasnt there previously. Would hate to see the place become overly santisied and souless - In saying this I fully accept how tricky the mods position can be

edit - to add, FG - the thread started and locked in the forum pointing people to here is unnecessary and more than a bit inflamatory imo

Hi Kev,
As you may have seen, I have been accused of a number of things and if I am doing a poor job, I need to know about in an environment that is considered to be a safe zone.

If it is more than just the above people that have an issue with me, I really need to know. Therefore I added a sticky explaining, in a factual manner, what I have been accused of and where to report such incidences.

KevIRL

Myrddin wrote: »

That may be a good idea, however the below seems contradictory?



I don't see how it's un-necessary really. Granted it's not 'on-forum' like you suggested above, but is it not exactly what you're otherwise suggesting? I also don't see anything inflammatory in the wording of it:



I'd imagine this feedback thread here will be used to clear up the existing issues raised, & afterwards, if FG sees fit, a more local feedback thread that's in-forum could be implemented. From FG's perspective, there have been some big claims made against him here, so I think it's only fair that the userbase of the FSA be made aware of this feedback thread to give their say.

FutureGuy wrote: »

Hi Kev,
As you may have seen, I have been accused of a number of things and if I am doing a poor job, I need to know about in an environment that is considered to be a safe zone.

If it is more than just the above people that have an issue with me, I really need to know. Therefore I added a sticky explaining, in a factual manner, what I have been accused of and where to report such incidences.

Inflamatory was the wrong word to use, I dunno but it appeared to me to be unneeded.

In my opinion it doesnt contradict at all, a in forum feedback thread about how the users want the forum to run is world apart from this thread.

Anyway, its only an aside from the other points I raised and I'd prefer if it wasnt the focus of my post.

Paully D

I have no problem at all with any of the aggrieved parties and have had some good discussion on that forum with most, if not all of them. However, I think Future Guy is a good moderator.

FutureGuy

Paully D wrote: »

I have no problem at all with any of the aggrieved parties and have had some good discussion on that forum with most, if not all of them. However, I think Future Guy is a good moderator.

Agreed. All are good posters in terms of their knowledge and I enjoy their contribution. As I have said it publicly and privately, I'll repeat the fact that I do not want to lose any of them as a poster but if they do not wish to post based on their disagreement of my moderation, then I cannot help this.

Lemlin

For a start, I'd like to point out that my not posting has nothing to do with FG's modding. I had a two week ban which was then made a two week site ban. Neither were FG's fault and I'm not going to try and play the victim.

FG does a thankless job on a forum that IMO has been a victim of its own success.

As well as that, he's a valued poster who has a proven track record in the game.

Mr.Prodston

First off before I provide feedback I would like to say that I really do not appreciate Danger781's comments about me in the opening post. I'm actually disappointed to think that anyone would think that I would ever troll or mock deliberately. I was annoyed at comments that were made and responded in a civil manner. I have nothing but love and respect for the Fantasy Sports Arena. If I am guilty of any wrong doing in any post then I am more than happy to face the consequences be it be from a mod, CMod or and Admin

I think it is extremely obvious that the forum needs another moderator. I myself was appointed as moderator earlier on in the year to the forum and stepped down in June because I simply did not enjoy the role and felt it was taking away from the quality and quantity of my posts. The very thing that put me in a position to be a moderator. I provided a list of candidates I thought suitable when I stepped down and assumed a mod would have been appointed sooner rather than later. That's where my role in events ended. I do feel partly responsible for a lot of the kerfuffles which have arisen in the past few months as it left FutureGuy picking up the majority of the slack.

I believe that in at least 90% (not an accurate number) of cases I would have agreed with the moderating decisions made. The other 10% in this mythical 100% may be open to interpretation but it's simply because I would not have all the information to make decisions. Not that this relevant anyway as I'm no longer a moderator.

I in no way want to make any of this personal and would like to think I have a good relationship with almost everyone in the forum but the posters that have found themselves complaining about decisions are not innocent parties and I don't think anyone could really disagree with that too strongly. From my brief time as a moderator if I learned one thing it is that FutureGuy has the patience of a saint. Straw can break a camel's back though which is why another moderator really is needed to accompany FutureGuy and Mr.Moon too. I would suggest that 3 active mods would be even better. A moderator's job is to apply the rules of both the forum and boards.ie which I think may or may not be forgotten sometimes. If anything it's the previous leniency that was applied that may lead some to think recent actions are over-zealous.

The FSA in general is a fantastic community and I just hope that at the end of all this we can all just move on together and keep the high spirit of the place going.

I personally think FutureGuy has done a very good job in moderating the forum since I've been on boards and involved with the FSA. Nobody is perfect but I think he does a fine job but another mod is essential moving forwards and I hope they last longer than I did.

Mr. Incognito

FutureGuy wrote: »

Firstly, lets look at facts.

You did not get a red for calling out a Grammar Nazi. You got a red for flaming, baiting and trolling.

"It's way more fun to spell it wrong and watch you foam at the mouth each week.

Augerio captained for you then? "

Let's make that very clear immediately. You see, yesterday could have gone two completely different ways. You could have reported the post and explained your grievances as per the guidelines of boards.ie and allowed me to review the situation. If that would have happened, I would have dealt with it.

Instead, you chose to admit that you have been trolling people for a long time. You state that you use Aguerio because it is easier for you to spell it that way, yet in the second part of the post, knowing full well it would cause annoyance, you used the incorrect spelling again.

As a moderator yourself, I expected you to take the former action, but incredibly you chose the latter. You then implied that I and other posters were Grammar Nazis. The case above is nothing to do with being a grammar Nazi whatsoever and your post completely vindicated my moderating decison. I completely stand my the red I gave you.

Relating to your comment that "Basically there is bullying going on in the threads and mob mentality.".

I would like you to present cases where bullying has gone on, mindful of the fact that people are allowed to disagree with comments if they choose. I have already heard another poster saying that there was bullying going on, when the actual fact is that he posted a comment which perhaps 90% of the forum would disagree with. Do you actually expect me to stop people from disagreeing with a point?

As for your comment on the forum bleeding members, you seem to suggest that this is my fault? If someone does not want to post because they disagree with my moderating decisions so be it. RoryC, Danger781, Zarquon and yourself have stated you will not be posting/posting less because of my modding. You all took offense to the fact that ye were punished instead of taking it and moving on.

You state that I my bannings are "common, petty and personal". Show me proof where I am being petty. Show me proof where I am being personal. As for being more common, I agree that there has been an increase in the amount of moderation necessary, but this has been in direct response to the need for such actions because of certain posters. I even stated this in the sticky thread I mentioned in my previous posts above.

Of course I hate to lose a single person but I will absolutely not bow to pressure to let people get away with breaking rules. If someone does not want to post on FSA because they feel were harshly treated, then fair enough. I will have any single moderating decision I have made since I have started modding on FSA brought up for scrutiny.

You then state that..."A review on modulus will show the one sided nature of the moderation in the forum. "

Again, please present an actual factual statement to back this up and then we can discuss. Who am I showing favourable moderation to? List them. Who am I being harsh against? Again, list them and the admins can review my moderating.

Finally, you present the idea that I need a second moderator to help? As you may know, we have a second moderator called Mr. Moon. To confirm, I presume you have no issue with his moderation as you have not posted it here on the feedback thread for this, the FSA forum?

Back to your good suggestion, the decision to add/remove mods is not a process that is open to public eyes. However, as you may know, Mr. Prodston decided to step down as mod of FSA over the summer and in recent weeks I have drawn up a list of potential replacements. As of yesterday afternoon, I received confirmation that two candidates were vetoed for modship. I contacted one yesterday who declined due to a busy life right now, and I am contacting the second one today.

It seems to be that you had zero problems with my modding until yesterday when you decided to open a DRM because you received a red card. All of a sudden, within the space of a few hours I was "p!ss-poor moderator", despite us having absolutely no interaction in the past or you showing any grievances whatsoever.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057301968

Here, in addition to posting insults and inaccuracies, you state that I am allowing bullying, pandering to "favourites" and only giving yellows because of the facts that you said that you were posing the DM. Have you any idea how serious these accusations are, especially the fact you are stating that I am allowing bullying? I'll be very honest here, as the cMods and admins already know my stance, I am not letting this comment go.

You also posted a number of completely incorrect and inaccurate points in terms of how poster 8-10 and you have interacted.

Because you never reported a single post regarding your apparent mistreatment at my hands, sent me a single PM to voice your worries or concerns or contacted another mod/cmod about my modding, it seems perfectly clear that you, like Danger781, are making this incredibly personal.

As I have stated above, I would like you to post actual examples where I have allowed bullying and favoured other posters at the expense of others and I would be delighted for the admins to review.

I spent three hours putting together lists of inconsistent modding yesterday. Then i deleted it. I simply dont care any more. I have left the forum for good. You can kick up the persecution complex all you want but its the internet. Its a forum. Its not that serious. Lets all chill out.

I think you are a poor mod. Thats my opinion. I shouldnt have to be banned for calling out a grammar nazi because grammar nazi culture shouldnt exist. And you shouldnt be infracting one party and warning and apologising to the other. Thats not objective or impartial.

I deserve my ban. You deserve the criticism. Lets call it quits.

A second impartial mod is my suggestion for the benefit of the forum. You are not capable of not making this personal now and no-one is objective if they feel they are being attacked personally. A cock fight is not whats needed. An objective voice is. This can be provided by a second mod.

Its up to the cmods, admins and users after that.

Beasty

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I shouldnt have to be banned for calling out a grammar nazi because grammar nazi culture shouldnt exist.

Seriously?

It's standard practice across the site - regular users should not be "calling out" anything. They should be reporting it and leaving it to the local mods to deal with. What staggers me is you, as a mod, should be as aware as anyone of the "backseat modding" rule. If that's the way you behave in forums you do not mod then you really should not be surprised if you are getting yourself carded and/or banned

Mr. Incognito

Beasty wrote: »

Seriously?

It's standard practice across the site - regular users should not be "calling out" anything. They should be reporting it and leaving it to the local mods to deal with. What staggers me is you, as a mod, should be as aware as anyone of the "backseat modding" rule. If that's the way you behave in forums you do not mod then you really should not be surprised if you are getting yourself carded and/or banned

I am not denying i am in the wrong. I was. But this is a consistent needling pedantic nonsense that is going on wholesale in the forum where we have pedantic bullies picking on posters and being backed up by the local mod.

I have stopped posting as a result after years of actively enjoying the forum. In short, the culture there is not enjoyable anymore.

CSF

I'd just like to point out for a bit of perspective that these incidents and disagreements are very much the minority and not reflective of the forum at large. Put that many people in what is essentially a competitive domain (even though we do our best to make it as friendly as possible, and do a good job of that) and people are going to fall out.

In comparison to the soccer forum (the closest forum in content) there's very little going on to be worried about, and I think that's a testament to the moderation of the forum as well as 99% of the posters.

Do I necessarily agree with literally every single decision the mods (FutureGuy appears to be the only active mod of the forum which makes his job even more difficult) make? No. Do I think the Lemlin/Roryc thing could have been managed better? Perhaps. But do I think FutureGuy's steps to try and get rid of the 'lol at the Ulloa captainers' culture is a good thing? Absolutely.

But by and large when people get yellows and reds on here, a lot of the time people are still going to think they're in the right, I mean you've a guy on here admitting he was wrong and still having a go at the mod, none of us are completely squeaky clean in our postings, so I think a lot of the hassle coming out of here is a bit ridiculous, and some of the in thread mod questioning from the OP of this thread recently has been unacceptable.

Ken.

FutureGuy wrote: »

Instead, you chose to admit that you have been trolling people for a long time. You state that you use Aguerio because it is easier for you to spell it that way, yet in the second part of the post, knowing full well it would cause annoyance, you used the incorrect spelling again.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I am not denying i am in the wrong. I was. But this is a consistent needling pedantic nonsense that is going on wholesale in the forum where we have pedantic bullies picking on posters and being backed up by the local mod.

I have stopped posting as a result after years of actively enjoying the forum. In short, the culture there is not enjoyable anymore.

I don't use The FSA forum so have no dog in this fight but if the bolded bit is true then Mr.Incognito should be in the dock(if their is a dock) and not Futureguy but that's probably for the mod or admins forum not here.

Mr. Incognito

I have been trolling no one. Pedantic dicks have been pedantic dicks and i, fool me, rose to the bait.

CSF

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I have been trolling no one. Pedantic dicks have been pedantic dicks and i, fool me, rose to the bait.

You're arguing the unarguable at this stage? You've already admitted as much in thread that you like doing it to annoy people. To criticise the mod for moderating that post is just lunacy.

FutureGuy

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I spent three hours putting together lists of inconsistent modding yesterday. Then i deleted it. I simply dont care any more. I have left the forum for good. You can kick up the persecution complex all you want but its the internet. Its a forum. Its not that serious. Lets all chill out.

I think you are a poor mod. Thats my opinion. I shouldnt have to be banned for calling out a grammar nazi because grammar nazi culture shouldnt exist. And you shouldnt be infracting one party and warning and apologising to the other. Thats not objective or impartial.

I deserve my ban. You deserve the criticism. Lets call it quits.

A second impartial mod is my suggestion for the benefit of the forum. You are not capable of not making this personal now and no-one is objective if they feel they are being attacked personally. A cock fight is not whats needed. An objective voice is. This can be provided by a second mod.

Its up to the cmods, admins and users after that.

I've chosen to leave my personal feeling out of this and will again, focus on where you continue to post inaccurate information as fact.

"And you shouldnt be infracting one party and warning and apologising to the other. Thats not objective or impartial. "

Where did I apologise to the other poster? Please can you post this apology you refer to?

As for the accusation that I was not objective or impartial. I will recap events as you have pointed out...

The thread was going fine without incident on matchday.

A party posted a post that was, at a minimum, a blatant attack that was, in my opinion, designed to annoy, flame and bait another user. There are grounds for saying that this party, by their own admission, has been doing it to get a rise out of the person all along. That to me is a red card offense, bordering on a short length ban. I decided to avoid the ban and issue just a red card given the fact that you have no history with problems in FSA.

A party, clearly annoyed by this attack posts what I felt to be a dig at the first party. I gave the party a yellow card. I did not deem it worthy of a red but definitely deserved more than a informal warning.

Another party, who had taken offense to the first party, posted a dig at said party. I gave the party a yellow card. I did not deem it worthy of a red but definitely deserved more than a informal warning.

And finally, for the record, what have I ever done to you that would make me not objective or not impartial towards you specifically. Name even one instance in the history of me modding the forum.

"I shouldnt have to be banned for calling out a grammar nazi "

In case you didn't read it or forgot it, I have already given my reason for applying a red card. You can check it again, but it wasn't for calling out a grammar Nazi.

Simple fact - three posters I have very little dealings with break the rules. One transgression is more severe than the other two. That one receives a red, the other two merit only a yellow.

FutureGuy

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I have been trolling no one. Pedantic dicks have been pedantic dicks and i, fool me, rose to the bait.

Unacceptable. In your dispute resolution, you stated the following.

"I have had a poster correct my spelling of Augerio the football player for over a year.

Every time I post he will post a correction."

Again, just pointing out actual facts...

You used the term "Aguerio" in a total of 71 posts.

http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?query=augerio&forum=&user=99104&date_from=&date_to=V

From what I can see, 8-10 has refered to this a grand total of 3 three times. This completely flies in the face of your statement. Also, you never one reported an incident, you never once PMed me to say you felt it was out of order. Nothing.

The poster was not being pedantic even in the slightest and he is not guilty of the accusations you have brought against him. This is hugely unfair to 8-10, an excellent poster with an excellent record on FSA.

manual_man

First of all, and i want this to be the most important point of my post, i feel it's essential to have a second (active) Mod on board to help FG with the modding duties. I'm aware that Mr Moon is currently listed as a forum Mod, but for quite a while now it has been left mostly for FG to deal with any issues that arise by himself. This is not a healthy situation. And the sooner FG has support in sharing modding duties, the better for everyone, i believe.

The FSA Arena would fall into chaos without moderating. We all get a little excited (or a lot more) when talking about our fantasy sports, so i would like to thank FG for the time he dedicates to the forum as a Mod.

I've been name-checked here so i want to take a moment to respond. Was i happy with how the situation (involving myself) was handled? No i was not. I'm no angel but i felt i was made a scape-goat for a comment that i posted, and was very taken aback at the public admonishment and yellow card received. It was a fairly innocuous comment, and like many you see amid the craziness of mid-matchday action (not to be taken seriously - unless you can't take a bit of banter/ a jibe). I don't walk on eggshells for anyone, online or offline! I initially made my feelings known on the thread itself - FG wouldn't back down so i brought it up via pm with a Cmod. FG pm'ed me and we discussed the issue. I maintained my unhappiness with how things had transpired, he tried to explain his reasons for acting as he did, we agreed to disagree. It was left at that.

Modding is a difficult balancing act, i get that, but at the same time it is a worry that some things are being taken over-seriously and the banter is slowly being drained out of the forum. I love FSA and as a long-time poster i want things kept fun.

But back to my original point and i can't stress enough that need for modding support. FG has been bearing the brunt of modding duties for too long - that extra active Mod (or 2?) would be invaluable for everyone with an interest in FSA in my opinion

Cheers!

m_m

Danger781

Okay, first things first. I have read this entire thread and really didn't expect things to take off like this. I'm at work and don't have time to issue a proper response so will try to get to it this evening if possible.

I do however feel like I owe some quick apologies It was never my intention to drag peoples character into question.

To FutureGuy - I may have been a bit harsh / offensive towards you in the opening post. I guess I got caught up in the moment of it all. As for the 'quotes' I relayed - tis a bit difficult to have actual quotes when you can't access the forum. I was working from memory. Sorry.

To Mr. Prodston - Again, didn't mean to personally attack you, but I took what you said as mockery. I think I made it clear as to why I took it up that way. Apologies for dragging you into this.

To rory / lemlin / manual_man - Sorry for dragging you guys in. May have made some assumptions as to why I had not seen any of you posting in some time. Should have checked my facts first.

That's all I have time to say for now. Like I said I will try to get a decent response in asap.

zombieHanalei

It's all well and good going on about an extra mod but that means nothing unless certain posters have the cop on to realise that it's their own attitudes and posting styles that need to change. Some people are refusing to accept that they have nobody but themselves to blame. It's as though that certain people feel the forum rules should be relaxed with them as they are regulars who feel like a valued part of the FSA family.

The increased instances of mod actionable behaviour by posters has led to an increase in instances of mod intervention, there are some who would seek to pin the blame for that solely on the mod rather than taking a step back and realising it's the posters that are the problem.

For all the things said in this thread, for all the things said about FutureGuy that in some cases deliberately omitted key parts of the story and in other cases were just outright lies, for all the character assassination he has had to endure, I have yet to see a single example of a post where he has abused his powers or given out an infraction that he shouldn't have given.

By all means, add another mod if necessary; but unless certain posters have a bit of cop on and realise they are not above the forum rules, and realise that they are not entitled to leniency on account of their longevity and regularity as a user of the forum, nothing will change.

CSF

Danger781 wrote: »

Okay, first things first. I have read this entire thread and really didn't expect things to take off like this.

To be fair, considering the quantity of your in thread postings (I think they reached double figures despite being blatantly against the charter), and the over the top nature of your in-thread postings about the moderation of the forum made it blatantly clear that this is exactly what you were looking for. It is disingenuous to go suggesting otherwise now.

P.Walnuts

Don't post that often but follow the fsa forum quite closely, don't think there is a big problem with the moderation, imo it's quite a difficult forum to moderate sometimes as even though people try to distance themselves from it, football is still a pretty emotive subject, added to that there can be quite a few egos and I told you so type posters around, but it's by no means a big problem.

In saying that I think roryc s second banning was harsh, there was about a two page conversation about his ban, his post was hardly inflammatory

Edit: posted before finished typing by mistake, on phone!

Lemlin

zombieHanalei wrote: »

It's all well and good going on about an extra mod but that means nothing unless certain posters have the cop on to realise that it's their own attitudes and posting styles that need to change. Some people are refusing to accept that they have nobody but themselves to blame. It's as though that certain people feel the forum rules should be relaxed with them as they are regulars who feel like a valued part of the FSA family.

The increased instances of mod actionable behaviour by posters has led to an increase in instances of mod intervention, there are some who would seek to pin the blame for that solely on the mod rather than taking a step back and realising it's the posters that are the problem.

For all the things said in this thread, for all the things said about FutureGuy that in some cases deliberately omitted key parts of the story and in other cases were just outright lies, for all the character assassination he has had to endure, I have yet to see a single example of a post where he has abused his powers or given out an infraction that he shouldn't have given.

By all means, add another mod if necessary; but unless certain posters have a bit of cop on and realise they are not above the forum rules, and realise that they are not entitled to leniency on account of their longevity and regularity as a user of the forum, nothing will change.

I agree with this totally. I've often been infracted and had bans and, while I don't agree with them in all cases, I put myself in the position where they could be given.

The easiest way to avoid them is not to put myself in that position again, which is my tactic going forward.

Too many posters are eager to play the victim.

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Don't post that often but follow the fsa forum quite closely, don't think there is a big problem with the moderation, imo it's quite a difficult forum to moderate sometimes as even though people try to distance themselves from it, football is still a pretty emotive subject, added to that there can be quite a few egos and I told you so type posters around, but it's by no means a big problem.

In saying that I think roryc s second banning was harsh, there was about a two page conversation about his ban, his post was hardly inflammatory

Edit: posted before finished typing by mistake, on phone!

In relation to the FSA forum, after our last ban, myself and RoryC were given strict guidelines, as per his actual wish on a number of occasions now, to forget that the other poster existed and not reference each other at all. This is because it seems any interaction or us referencing each other results in bans. We were also warned that any attempt to interact or reference each other would result in a ban.

RoryC's first post back on the FSA forum:

Yep, was on a little two week break! Don’t want to drag this thread OT discussing moderating decisions as it will result in another ban. Unsure if I’ll post as much on the forum anymore but at least the thread above has clarified that the other poster will receive a ban if he replies to any of my posts. Hopefully that’s the end of it.

I'm not trying to start an argument here. Just making people aware that just what you see on the forum isn't the total sum of any ban. There were plenty of pms sent to me and I'd imagine RoryC about our bans and also a topic was started in the Feedback forum.

We were given strict guidelines on how to interact with each other in future, or rather not interact with each other, and those guidelines were broken in his first post back on the forum. I fail to see how FG can be held accountable for that.

Earthhorse

zombieHanalei wrote: »

It's all well and good going on about an extra mod but that means nothing unless certain posters have the cop on to realise that it's their own attitudes and posting styles that need to change. Some people are refusing to accept that they have nobody but themselves to blame. It's as though that certain people feel the forum rules should be relaxed with them as they are regulars who feel like a valued part of the FSA family.

The increased instances of mod actionable behaviour by posters has led to an increase in instances of mod intervention, there are some who would seek to pin the blame for that solely on the mod rather than taking a step back and realising it's the posters that are the problem.

For all the things said in this thread, for all the things said about FutureGuy that in some cases deliberately omitted key parts of the story and in other cases were just outright lies, for all the character assassination he has had to endure, I have yet to see a single example of a post where he has abused his powers or given out an infraction that he shouldn't have given.

By all means, add another mod if necessary; but unless certain posters have a bit of cop on and realise they are not above the forum rules, and realise that they are not entitled to leniency on account of their longevity and regularity as a user of the forum, nothing will change.

This sums things up quite well for me.

As a reader and occasional contributor to the forum there's no doubt in my mind that there has been more visible moderation in the forum of late. Much of this revolves around ongoing rivalries and the competitive nature of the forum's subject matter. People seem to want the rules to be applied to others but waived when it comes to themselves.

It's all very well saying the decisions are pedantic but when there's an ongoing issue I think mod decisions become necessarily pedantic precisely so that they can be seen to be fair; mods can exercise judgement but at some point they have to apply the letter of the law.

Expecting FutureGuy to keep everyone happy is unreasonable and I think people need to reflect on their own posting style and whether it is not partly responsible for the slight souring of the atmosphere of the banter at times.

Calhoun

Earthhorse wrote: »

This sums things up quite well for me.

As a reader and occasional contributor to the forum there's no doubt in my mind that there has been more visible moderation in the forum of late. Much of this revolves around ongoing rivalries and the competitive nature of the forum's subject matter. People seem to want the rules to be applied to others but waived when it comes to themselves.

It's all very well saying the decisions are pedantic but when there's an ongoing issue I think mod decisions become necessarily pedantic precisely so that they can be seen to be fair; mods can exercise judgement but at some point they have to apply the letter of the law.

Expecting FutureGuy to keep everyone happy is unreasonable and I think people need to reflect on their own posting style and whether it is not partly responsible for the slight souring of the atmosphere of the banter at times.

I would nearly go a step further at this stage and start handing out perma-bans, as when posters forget themselves and site rules it creates a fairly toxic posting environment.

For this then to spill into the feedback in the manner it has and because of the truth being used in such an economical way to attack a moderator who is a volunteer I think such posters are not worth having around.

I think folks forget that posting on boards is not a guaranteed right and in ways is a privilege.

P.Walnuts

Lemlin wrote: »

I agree with this totally. I've often been infracted and had bans and, while I don't agree with them in all cases, I put myself in the position where they could be given.

The easiest way to avoid them is not to put myself in that position again, which is my tactic going forward.

Too many posters are eager to play the victim.



In relation to the FSA forum, after our last ban, myself and RoryC were given strict guidelines, as per his actual wish on a number of occasions now, to forget that the other poster existed and not reference each other at all. This is because it seems any interaction or us referencing each other results in bans. We were also warned that any attempt to interact or reference each other would result in a ban.

RoryC's first post back on the FSA forum:



I'm not trying to start an argument here. Just making people aware that just what you see on the forum isn't the total sum of any ban. There were plenty of pms sent to me and I'd imagine RoryC about our bans and also a topic was started in the Feedback forum.

We were given strict guidelines on how to interact with each other in future, or rather not interact with each other, and those guidelines were broken in his first post back on the forum. I fail to see how FG can be held accountable for that.

Ye point taken, it probably was enough of a dig to warrent a ban if those were the restrictions in place. I suppose the actual conversation was let go for too long though. However that would be the only mod action that I would see as even slightly questionable, the rest of the complaints are compeltely unwarranted

Earthhorse

Calhoun wrote: »

I would nearly go a step further at this stage and start handing out perma-bans, as when posters forget themselves and site rules it creates a fairly toxic posting environment.

For this then to spill into the feedback in the manner it has and because of the truth being used in such an economical way to attack a moderator who is a volunteer I think such posters are not worth having around.

I think folks forget that posting on boards is not a guaranteed right and in ways is a privilege.

I get where you're coming from but what I'd really like to see is the issue de-escelate. Like a lot of boards disputes there's been enough escalation and it'd be cool to see the various parties step back, re-group and continue contributing to the forum in a positive way.

LoLth

I'd just like to say here that I was the admin in RoryC's DR thread and I was the one that contacted Lemlin to inform him of the outcome because , after reviewing the history between the two users it seemed obvious that both posters could not enter a discussion without getting their back up. it happens. Someone just gets under your skin and anything they do is instantly seen as directed at you in particular. FG requested them to no longer talk to one another or they would be banned because their on-thread digs were taking things off topic and , essentially, ruining friendly banter.

I made it more official by backing up FG's decision and adding a stipulation of my own that both posters had to ignore one another using the ignore function if they wanted to continue posting in the FSA. Both are good contributors, both are well respected in the community, it would be a shame to lose either or both of them over this recurring squabble.

@Danger781 : Its nice to see your apology / clarification above. it makes your OP less neck-hair-raising "I'm not challenging the decision but I'll open a thread in feedback for some public lambasting instead" is not a popular stance among the admins. Its not fair to the mods who are just applying the charter and trying to keep a forum from turning into a free-for-all clique war. And it would, especially in a forum based on a quite engrossing pastime that operates purely on opinion and observation. Its a tough job and having to defend oneself from accusations that are based off incomplete knowledge is incredibly unfair imho.

@FG : we (the admins) are aware you are understaffed in the FSA. I didn't realise you were so isolated though and Mr E is currently pushing that along so we will get someone in to help out asap.

@the forum users: two things here in general:
1. if you feel a mod is being over the top, stop to consider whether there could be any history to the action. A red card or a banning for a possibly innocent comment might seem harsh but not if its on the foot of repeated low level trolling / digs / disruption . There can be a to more going on than is readily apparent so please hold off on judgement and brandishing or farm implements.

2. Yellow cards are WARNINGS. that's all. when looking at a poster's history we tend to ignore yellow cards and concentrate on the reds and the bans. Yellows do matter, but only if they lead to reads or worse or if they display a pattern of behaviour (5 yellows over a period of time might not raise an eyebrow but 10 in the same period and all for insulting another user would point to that poster not getting the "attack the post not the poster" rule or just someone who doesn't know how to be civil). Lets not lose our **** because a moderator gave a warning that a particular post is crossing the line. If you disagree with a warning, talk to the mod or the co-mod or cmod. maybe it was a misunderstanding or the timing caused it to appear out of context (a "lol" post after a mod warning is a lot different from a "lol" in response to a witticism but it could happen that it was intended to appear after the latter but the mod warned in the meantime).

3. It is very rare that a mod or cmod or admin will give a flat NO to a suggestion. If its something that we have considered before we may be open to hearing a new view on the issue. If there is no new view or no change in circumstances then yes, the answer would still most likely be a no but a user would never be dismissed without being listened to and considered. If its something we have not heard before then the mods and cmods and admins should sit up and take notice. The pros and cons should be weighed and then a decision given. Nine times out of 10 the reason for a decision is given to the requester. That 1 time isn't because we don't feel like it, its because we are not at liberty to say or there is a concern that it may negatively affect another user's privacy. --- so, if you feel the FSA charter needs addressing, make your suggestion and be open to discussion and to the possibility that the mod may not agree. if the answer is no, don't be offended, accept the decision (if it has not been made arbitrarily) and feel free to re-visit the suggestion in the future should circumstances change.

I haven't performed any survey to confirm this for anyone else but I, for one, am getting a little bit tired of these feedback witch hunts that drag malcontents out of the woodwork to throw in a "me too". Genuine complaint and feedback are appreciated but forcing a mod to re-visit every decision and explain themselves just because one or two users demand it isn't fair.

@RoryC : knowing the rule and deciding to post anyway, to me, states that you willingly accept the consequences of that action and t do any less would be to cheapen your effort. However, FG, being the mod in question on the thread and most likely the object of your feedback endorsing your right to add your input does shed a different light on things so fair enough, post away under the same restrictions as any other poster not currently banned from FSA.

roryc

Thanks Lolth,

I received 3 PM's asking me to post on this thread, and I have held back until you have permitted me despite my name being mentioned 50+ times. I merely posted to ask for permission to add my feedback now rather than in two weeks. Apologies for the 3,000 word post, but unfortunately there’s a lot to highlight. Despite the tone of Futureguy’s response to me earlier in this thread I’ll try to keep this civil and not respond with the same tone. I’ll aim to simply ‘reference’ past decisions rather than go into detail discussing them as this is not a Dispute Resolution thread.

The issue I have with Futureguy is a perceived bias in his moderation due to my past history, which has led to heavy handed, inconsistent modding, especially recently. I am not accusing him of anything else and I am not part of any 'witch hunt' against him. The fact that a number of other posters seem to have issues with him recently simply shifts the focus away from me, as I'll admit I was wary of creating some sort of 'Rory v FG' Feedback Thread which I would be unlikely to see any resolution from. Suffice to say I won't be commenting on any other posters bans or infractions. I'll aim to keep it simple, stating the issue I have with FG and backing it up with evidence.

FG appears to deal with specific posters very differently, and this goes far beyond simply treating newcomers and 'known troublemakers' differently, as I hope I will show evidence for below. I would prefer if specific bans and infractions prior to 2014 are not dragged up in this thread although by all means reference anything from my ‘previous history’ that is relevant to this discussion without simply aiming to paint me in a bad light to ensure that all recent modding actions appear justified. I would prefer that any references pre-2014 are highlighted as such. The reason I ask this is because I'm aware I am being treated a lot harsher due to my conduct on the forum pre-2014 when I used to bite at a lot of Lemlins comments, and prior to this, Carlcon. I’m sure we were both hassle at this time for FG, but as far as I'm aware it has been quite a while since I posted anything bordering on abuse and I think the timelines need to be noted when referring to my 'previous history' as justification for recent harsh responses from the mod in question. Futureguy has readily admitted (in these exact words) that ‘Lemlin is the aggressor in most situations’ yet does not appear to recognise the fact that I have improved my conduct on the forum quite a bit since he threatened us both with forum bans at the end of last year. Lemlin never changed his conduct in any way, still trying to bait me regularly, dragging up old posts, directing abuse at me etc. And yet despite both of us taking very different approaches to the perma-ban threat, he has somehow managed to remain on the Forum. Lolth even highlighted in the first DR thread that moving forward if there is any issue between myself and Lemlin then the ‘instigator will be banned’. Why has this not always the case when FG himself has called Lemlin the instigator?

If harshly banning me due to my history with two troublesome posters is something that will never change, how can I continue to post on FSA? Even criminals get the benefit of good behaviour! I can’t see how I can continue to post if my conduct from 2013 and beyond is constantly brought up as justification to ban me for practically anything. I haven't checked through every one of my posts from this year but if you were to exclude posts such as 'Happy Betting folks' which I received a ban for purely due to my 'history' then I think I've been an excellent poster. I would imagine a large number of posters on the forum won't even understand why I get such harsh bans for mundane comments, and I think too much weight is put on conduct from previous years. FG mentioned that he has become stricter across the board due to comments like "lol @ xxxxx owner" which I have had nothing to do with. Every ban/infraction I receive is to do with Lemlin. Simple solution I am told by mods, Cmods and Admins is to simply stick him on ignore. I tried this, however other posters quoted his digs at me to ensure I saw them. FG did not clamp down on any of this so I felt having him on ignore was pretty pointless while he was still freely allowed to reply to me. Besides, the issue has gone way beyond a spat with another poster at this stage. To clarify what I mean by this, there was a tongue-in-cheek post yesterday on the forum which I wouldn’t dream of posting these days. I don’t want to get into a debate on this specific post as it is merely an example, but I have no doubt I would receive a ban for this as it would be misconstrued. No need to discuss hypothetical scenarios, I just want to highlight how I’m walking on eggshells posting there, and as mentioned already in this thread I don't appear to be alone in this. Anyway, I don’t want to play the victim here and would hope to highlight two specific examples below of what I would perceive to be inconsistent and biased modding:

1. Other posters were able to discuss my recent ban, linking from FSA directly to the thread in the DR forum. This was left up by FG for 6 days prior to me replying. I would question why this was. It is referring to a ban and this is in breach of the Forum Charter. Numerous posters commented on it and it is absurd to assume FG didn’t see it. However as soon as I commented (simply to confirm I got a ban and it was not due to an issue with Lemlin) I received a one month ban. As per the forum charter “Straying off topic will result in post deletion”. Again, I would ask why the posts were not deleted in the six days prior to my ban ending. It has nothing to do with ‘Fantasy Football Chat.’ Again, I don’t want to debate this specific ban as it has already been done in the DR thread, and that is not the point of this feedback thread, but the actions of the moderator(s) here are questionable. I am still serving this ban so discussing it is pointless. I mention it to highlight the moderator actions (or lack of) which led to my ban. It’s worth noting that in the 2nd DR thread I was told by the moderator that “Had you reported these posts, instead of joining in roryc, you'd have been in the clear & I'm sure FutureGuy would have cut the conversation down anyway" and that had the posts been reported I 'might have a case'. I have since been PM’d by another forum regular (who has also stopped posting) to inform me that he had in fact reported the posts but they went ignored by FG. This directly contradicts what I was told in the DR thread, and I was contacted by Mr. E to discuss the situation, something I am still waiting for a resolution on. I did not post this in the DR thread (merely alluded to it) as I have no way to verify if it is correct, but the fact that I haven’t heard a response on it would lead me to think there may be more to it. At first I didn’t want to name the poster as it was a Private Message between us, but I have since clarified to Mr. E that it was who FG thought it was. If the content of the PM is not correct then I apologise for highlighting it now, but I have been more than patient waiting for a resolution on this and after 10 days since initially discussing it with Mr. E (and 5 days since last PM) I think it warrants inclusion on this thread. This should not be the focus of this thread, if you want to take this back to PM I'm happy to do so?

2. This next one is one I think a black and white case of bias. I have been banned for practically every interaction between myself and Lemlin this year, with you using my ‘previous history’ to justify it. Yet you clearly stated via PM that this was not how you were treating Lemlin (see below). You know well that he responded to my posts regularly. Some were nothing more than a comment on FPL, others were perhaps a bit inflammatory. Other times he indirectly referred to me. Below are a select few posts over a two week period prior to my ban where Lemlin repeatedly tried to engage and interact with me. Worth noting that his replies to me over this two week period alone would likely account to more than I have interacted with him in the entire year:

4th September
4th September
3rd September
2nd September
25th August

Most are merely replies to FPL topics, others are critical of tactics/strategy etc. The content is irrelevant though, he should not have been replying to any of my posts in the first place. And yet when I reported one of his posts in the past FG sent me the following:

FutureGuy wrote:

His post on your wildcard was not found to be aggressive and I told you I'm not banning ye from interacting. He make a point relating to FPL and backed it up. I can't ban someone for that.

Yet I was told in my DR thread by the Cmod that I would be banned for this exact scenario?

Myrddin wrote:

You don't need to personally abuse Lemlin to be forum banned, simply by interacting with him is enough.

These two points directly contradict one another! FG - I will remind you that you already stated in the past that Lemlin was the aggressor in most situations. Can you see why I have an issue with ‘biased moderating’? You say you can’t ban Lemlin for interacting with me, then a Cmod says this is exactly the reasoning behind my most recent bans. I actually said to you back in August 2013, “I'm not intentionally trying to make your life difficult and I'm not trying to tell you how to mod. It was a serious comment I made - ban either of us for replying to the others posts and it stops all of this. I have no interest in discussing anything with him, FF or otherwise, so if you take away his ability to make smart comments then I can pretty much guarantee you won't have any trouble from my side." I'm unsure why this process has only been applied to me, please clarify why this is the case. Myrddin posted this earlier on this Feedback Thread:

Myrddin wrote: »

It's perfectly fine in my opinion, to ban someone for derailing a thread who has been warned & infracted over doing it before...whereas someone newer who might not be as familiar with the rules deserves a bit more leeway.

I would agree with this to a certain extent, but how can you differentiate between the likes of myself and Lemlin, especially when he has been highlighted by the moderator as the instigator? I cannot offer better evidence than the above and I hope this clarifies why recent decisions have been incredibly frustrating from my point of view.

Lolth, you yourself made the issue this black and white in the DR thread

Lolth wrote:

you agreed not to respond to Lemlin in future.

you responded.

the mod imposed the ban, as warned.

_____________________________________________________


I do not want to turn this into a back and forth quotefest. FG can respond to this post if he wishes and unless there is something that I really need to respond to from his reply I would happily not post again in this Feedback Thread and let the Admin make whatever decision he/she sees fit. However I feel like I should clarify a few points FG made above which directly reference me:

FutureGuy wrote: »

As the theme for this evening is clearly posting inaccurate information as truths, lets clear up more "facts". I do not have two DRs currently against me. One was closed pretty quickly by an admin and the second is actually a feedback forum.

My point was there have been two Dispute Resolution threads created within the last 2 days to discuss issues with your moderating. Apologies if you misunderstood my point. The fact that one was ‘closed pretty quickly’ and the second has been moved here to Feedback is a moot point – two posters had an issue with you since I was banned and therefore this is clearly not restricted to an issue I alone have with your moderating. The fact that you have posted a thread on the FSA forum itself shows that this is not an issue that is just between myself and yourself, despite that being the catalyst for this whole thread.

FutureGuy wrote: »

Let's remember that Rory has had 2 disputes taken to admin level and on both occasions, the decision went in my favour.

FutureGuy wrote: »

Since you have already have 2 DMs ruled against you about the lengthy bans you were given, I though you would take the advice given to you. Clearly I am incorrect.

You actually are incorrect here. I had the initial DR thread go to Admin as I felt that giving both myself and Lemlin equal bans was a bad decision. The Admin ruled in your favour, I left it at that. Worth noting that in 10 years I think this may have been the only thread I have ever referred to an Admin (correct me if I’m wrong?). I don’t do this lightly or to waste peoples time. The second DR thread I created in order to dispute the overly harsh 1 month ban you issued me immediately upon my return. I ended this discussion before it got to an Admin, for two reasons. Firstly, I could not discuss your actions in any way despite them being inherently applicable to the ban in question. I was directed to create a Feedback thread, something I would have done once my current ban was up. Secondly, as I mentioned above I received a PM from another forum regular that directly refuted what the Cmod claimed in the DR thread, therefore I thought it best to close the thread while this was being investigated. This is beside the point - I highlight this solely because you seem adamant that “the theme for this evening is clearly posting inaccurate information as truths” so I think its best to point out where you also appear to be posting inaccurate information.

FG - you mention above that “Rory came back from a 2 week ban and immediately attacked me as a mod twice in his first three posts. He dragged up a 5-day old post to take a swipe at my decision which is going to be actionable anywhere on boards.ie.” As you have mentioned above, lets not get emotions involved here. I did not 'attack' you, and I did not 'drag up' a 5 day old post. My first four posts when I returned are visible to all. I replied to a 6 day old post that should have been deleted under the Forum Charter, and TWICE asked posters to not discuss it and bring the thread back on topic. Why should I have to stop people discussing a ban of mine when it is clearly against the forum Charter? These posts should all have been deleted, and again I would question why they were not. I should have simply reported the post, but then again it should have been deleted by the mods. Neither followed correct procedure here, the difference being that I received a one month ban while the moderators actions cannot be questioned. The ‘attack’ you mention was me confirming that ‘my issue was not with Lemlin’. This is hardly an ‘attack’ is it? You have insulted me in the past (calling me childish) and I have not reported you for an ‘attack’ on me have I? Had any other poster made this comment coming back from a ban I would be very surprised if they would receive a month ban for the same post. In fact I’ll go as far as to say you would not have issued this ban to anyone else on the forum bar me. Regardless of how we view the situation, the Cmods have again backed you up in the DR thread so I see no reason to discuss the ban itself. I'm sure you have acted within your remit on all these bans and infractions, but as has been highlighted numerous times on this thread the question is did you act in the best interests of the forum? In my opinion your inability to deal with Lemlin correctly has been the catalyst for all this. I accept more than my fair share of blame for reacting to him, however, I'm 4 weeks into a 6 week ban. As a moderator your actions have not been up for any scrutiny up to now, so I think its fair for you to have your say, especially relating to posts like this:

FutureGuy wrote:

What I will say is that a number of people are making judgements based on one side of a dispute. I cannot get involved in a dispute and I cannot have my say. If I could, then people may have a different understanding.

There is clearly something you want to get off your chest here. I asked for clarification in the DR thread and was told this needed to be done in Feedback, so now is your chance to elaborate on what it is that is making you treat me differently that anyone else on the forum. I've never had any dealings with you outside of Boards.ie and I'm happy for you to post anything you feel is relevant here. I've gotten a bit heated on PM's before due to the way you've handled Lemlin in the past, but I don't recall ever going over the top. I think I went through every PM between us yesterday and I honestly have no idea what you are referring to?

You go on to say you have ‘no personal gripe with Rory’ – I have no personal gripe with you, why would I? I don’t know you, and up until recently thought you did a good job moderating. I'm not part of any 'witch-hunt' that's out to get you. Like I said at the start of this post, I think you have an issue with me which is causing you moderating to be biased. That's it. The tone of your post below where you feel the need to make it look like I’m trying to cause trouble in this thread would appear to me that you do have an issue with me.

FutureGuy wrote: »

Despite the fact that RoryC has one again completely broken the rules he KNOWS are in place, I would be happy for an admin to allow his feedback. Having said that, it's another case of Rory knowing the rules of the site but ignoring them anyways.

I didn’t create a feedback thread two weeks ago when I asked to close the 2nd DR thread because it was highlighted by the mod that it was a Feedback Issue. Had I created a Feedback thread anyway you would have a point. However, I decided to check with a Cmod to ask if I could post my issue with you here. He advised me to wait until my FSA ban was up, and this is exactly what I have been doing. Unfortunately in the meantime this Feedback Thread has been created and my name has been mentioned no less than 50 times. I feel like this supercedes the forum rule making me wait until my forum ban has ended, especially when my thread then would be identical to this. However, instead of just jumping straight in with my feedback I have asked an Admin for permission to post here. Is this really ‘completely breaking the rules I KNOW are in place’. Is it really a case of me ‘knowing the rules of the site but ignoring them anyway’? I think I’ve shown great restraint to wait two weeks up to now when I feel I have a combined 6 weeks of bans I feel are unfair and unwarranted, AND I still haven’t gotten resolution on the PM issue with yourself and Mr. E. When my name is brought into this Feedback thread then I think its within my right to at least ask if I can include my Feedback now rather than wait two weeks. The fact that you immediately try to (twice) make it look like I'm just here to 'break the rules' is definitely worth noting. There was nothing in my post to warrant the tone of yours. You appear to be letting your personal opinion of me cloud your judgement, which is precisely the issue I am trying to highlight here. On that same note, Danger mentions above that he was issued with a 1 week ban today. Am I right in assuming he shouldn't be able to post in this Forum during that ban? Odd that this hasn't been noted, yet when I simply request permission from an Admin to post I am ‘completely breaking the rules I KNOW are in place’

Anyway, to finish... the ideal resolution for me from this Feedback thread would be the following:

• Reconsider how you have handled the past few weeks and look at whether you need to change how you deal with situations like this. The Forum will continue to grow and if its not sorted now it will go one of two ways. Either the moderating will be too lax and it will go the way of TotalFPL and FISO, or heavy handed moderation will drive away good posters which could see a mass exodus, similar to what happened to the Boards.ie Poker Forum a few years back. Surely there is a happy medium? Personally I think you have been too strict in your application of the rules recently, possibly due to doing the work of 2 or 3 mods. As Myrddin says above, if you go through every DR thread by the letter of the charters I have no doubt you can in some way justify every decision you have made. But have they all been in the best interest of the forum? The number of posters highlighting issues in this thread coupled with a few others leaving the Forum would suggest otherwise.
• On a personal note, I would like if you put in place something I've been asking for for a long while. Ban myself and Lemlin from interacting in any way. If we reply to each other, site ban us. I don’t know why this wasn’t done a long time ago. Myrddin has already clarified this is the case for me so it seems logical that you stretch this to also include ‘the instigator’. Moving on from this, recognise that my conduct on the forum has improved over the past 12 months and consider giving me something of a clean slate to work off where my pre-2014 history is not factored into every comment I make. If after 6 months I have not received so much as a warning then please treat me the same as other posters from that point on and do not continue to refer to history from 12-18 months previous to justify bans. I’ve been on Boards almost a decade and you say I am a good contributor to the forum so I don’t think this is asking too much?
• Finally, bring on another objective mod to help out. I can see from your previous post that you are looking for a replace for Mr Prodston which is good news. I’m aware that the Forum already has a second moderator in Mr. Moon, but with all due respect you appear to deal with 90%+ of the issues on FSA, at least when it concerns me. I don’t think I have had any interaction with Mr. Moon in the past 12 months.

I've no issue with you, although I do think you have an issue with me. I'm sure I've given you plenty of reasons in the past to dislike me but as moderator of the forum I don't think you should let a personal grudge get in the way of fair moderating. Despite this being a ridiculously long post I think I have been civil throughout, so I would ask you do the same with your reply.

Thanks