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.