Complaint about forum moderator

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

Calhoun

Earthhorse wrote: »

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.

Oh i agree but i just think it needed to be said so people dont forget that the "boogey man" they are fighting is a volunteer giving up their free time to ensure a neutral environment to post in.

Calhoun

roryc wrote: »

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

Not going to quote all as its a wall of text but this to part to me sums of the problem here. Your first and last point generally a dig at the moderator with no acknowledgement of what you are going to do to change your posting style.

It comes across like their is a clique in the forum who are disgruntled that the charter is now being enforced. You talk about how your past history shouldnt be taken into account but if you have been a troublemaker why do you expect to be treated any better?

I think for some objectivity, you now need to be perma banned from the forum as your not getting it and are making no attempt to reform. Even the wording of "objective mod" makes it sound like someone is out to get you when your past actions have come back to haunt you.

Why should anymore time be wasted on you if you are not going to change?

I will retract this if you tell me how you are going to change to make this a better place? As they say whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

roryc

I think its best that posters who have never made a single post in FSA refrain from asking for perma-bans. You are making assumptions of cliques with absolutely no knowledge of the forum. I think you should leave this to the forum moderators, posters, and Admins unless you have some constructive, objective feedback that isn't based on assumptions.

Thanks

Lemlin

roryc wrote: »

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

I'll reply because I am directly called the "instigator" a number of times in your post.

Let me be clear, bar the direction that recently came after your thread which was started in Prison on Saturday 06th September 2014, there was nothing in force to stop us replying to each other. I replied to your posts to try and engage you in conversation regarding your tactics.

I fail to see where there is anything even "a bit inflammatory" in any of the above posts I would add. In fact, back in February, it was agreed that we were allowed to reply to each other once we kept the discussion to the FPL.

On the other hand, here's a post of yours to me as recently as 29 September:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91964222&postcount=56

Was this post adding anything constructive to the discussion at the time? Was it another example of me being an "instigator"?

Also, why when you knew we were not to reference each other on the forum, did you come straight on and post about "that poster"?

Stop playing the victim. I won't be able to question your views on the forum anymore so the mods have given you what you've wanted for a long time now.

FutureGuy

Lemlin wrote: »

I'll reply because I am directly called the "instigator" a number of times in your post.

Let me be clear, bar the direction that recently came after your thread, there was nothing in force to stop us replying to each other. I replied to your posts to try and engage you in conversation regarding your tactics.

I fail to see where there is anything even "a bit inflammatory" in any of the above posts I would add. In fact, back in February, it was agreed that we were allowed to reply to each other once we kept the discussion to the FPL.

On the other hand, here's a post of yours to me as recently as 29 September:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91964222&postcount=56

Was this post adding anything constructive to the discussion at the time? Was it another example of me being an "instigator"?

Stop playing the victim. I won't be able to question your views on the forum anymore so the mods have given you what you've wanted for a long time now.

Hi Lemlin,
This is between myself and Rory and not you and Rory. I'd appreciate if you let me deal with this thanks.

LoLth

@Roryc

a few points here:

1. your second DR didn't go to an admin because you did not want it brought to an admin. you said you were not contesting the ban and that you only had an issue with the moderator. I take that to mean that, given the explanation provided by the cmod, you were satisfied that the ban was actually deserved but what you actually meant was you could no longer argue against the ban so instead you would argue against the mod instead.

2. you claim the mod is biased against you and yet you complain when you receive a ban that lasts the same length as the other individual warned (and you were both warned at the same time with the same criteria). A lot of your DR thread was a call for Lemlin's ban to be longer than yours, not any attempt to claim that the ban was undeserved just that Lemlin was worse than you. and, here, again you are claiming that Lemlin is worse than you. what is wrong with you? why do you have this need to be less bold than Lemlin? will this make everything ok and you'll stop acting out? (I apologise if you find this tone condescending, I tend to get like that when posters act childishly even if that childishness is wrapped in mature prose).

3. you cannot blame FG for not upholding an admin decision when the admin had not made that decision at the time! that's really just being unfair.

4. You claim to only post (after 6 days) to tell people to stop discussing the DR thread....the thread had moved on. people had stopped discussing the DR thread, you dragged it back to it and took a swipe at the mod and Lemlin at the same time. We have always had a great intolerance for the "I'm back from ban" gloaty type posts. Motors used to be plagued with them iirc. It generally fell foul of the "don't be a dick" rule. (by the way, 6 days and 56 posts had passed since the last mention of the DR thread in that discussion before you posted to say you didn't want to talk about it modding decisions but the decision made it clear that..... <insert your take on the modding decision>.)

5. the post was left up for 6 days.... and you reported this and didn't respond to it? nope. you responded to it and had your say and then cried foul.

6.

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

this has been applied to both of you. However, where Lemlin has accepted this state of affairs and , as far as I can tell, abides by it, you continue to reference Lemlin in your posts. wtf?

Take any reference to issues with Lemlin out of your post and what's left? not much. Just drop this competition you have. forget it and you'll enjoy FSA much more and have lower blood pressure.

To reference your ideal resolutions:

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?

that's pretty much in place now. On the issue of "after 6 months treat me like any other poster if I haven't received an infraction" I would counter suggest "act like any other poster for 6 months and you wont receive an infraction", problem solved.

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.

2 questions here: if a mod decision can be backed by the charter then why is that decision having to be made in the first place? if the charter no longer matches the forum spirit then the mod can be requested to change it to make it more suitable and a discussion can be held, you don't just ignore it because you don't feel like abiding by the rules you don't like and then force a change when the inevitable consequences are applied.

also, your last line says users posting here suggests that FG isn't modding properly or that the charter doesn't fit but I'm seeing more users, who have received cards from FG in the past, posting to support his modding and the way the forum is being run in general (just that there needs to be more active modding from other mods as well). This would suggest, to me, that FSA is actually running quite well except for a few posters that cannot understand why its not running the way they want it to.

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.

fully agree and we always try to have two active mods in every forum to allow one to take a break if needs be. I believe we already have a new mod lined up (waiting for a response) and we are actively looking for another.


one last point: If we are going to ignore posters who have not posted on FSA, why should we listen to posters who have not obeyed the rules of FSA? Please don't go telling other posters not to post their opinion when your post here is the one that has the exception made for it.

Lemlin

FutureGuy wrote: »

Hi Lemlin,
This is between myself and Rory and not you and Rory. I'd appreciate if you let me deal with this thanks.

No problem.

Just wanted to get part of my side across. There's a large post there where I have been referenced as an "instigator" on a number of occasions and I have been labelled a "troll" and had other derogatory names used to describe me by this poster in the past.

I think the above aptly proves my point about the truth being used conservatively so will leave it at that.

Calhoun

roryc wrote: »

I think its best that posters who have never made a single post in FSA refrain from asking for perma-bans. You are making assumptions of cliques with absolutely no knowledge of the forum. I think you should leave this to the forum moderators, posters, and Admins unless you have some constructive, objective feedback that isn't based on assumptions.

Thanks

I generally class myself as more of an observer than a poster, my point count compared to the age of my account generally backs this up.

I saw both your DRP threads, i also have observed the interaction on thread enough to comment. The tone from your post isn't one of facilitator who will work for the betterment of the forum, its of a user who believes because their is an acknowledgement of the need for an new mod that they in some way have been vindicated.

Futureguy is doing a pretty thankless job in a fairly hostile environment and all he has to go on to keep the ship steady is peoples posting history and the charter. Yet he has been demonized for doing this, so yes i will not be retracting my comment for you to be perma-banned as you still dont get it.

Oh and if it comes across that i have a high opinion of FG its probably due to stuff like this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87798503&postcount=190 . He has a proven track record of being someone who is fair and cares for the community/category he mods.

roryc

Hi Lolth,

You are an Admin and I would really expect more from you than the condescending post above. I do not have a need to be ‘less bold’ than Lemlin. I felt that by giving two equal bans the moderator is stating that two disproportionate posts warranted an equal ban. I explained this clearly to you in the DR thread. You had a different view and I accepted this and the thread was closed. I’m unsure why you feel the need to bring this up in a Feedback thread. Instead of addressing the evidence I’ve provided above you jump straight back to my DR thread to ‘prove’ that by giving us both 2 week bans then he must not be biased.

Both yourself and FG have now resorted to calling me childish, and as much as I appreciate the insult I would prefer if you address my concerns with the forum moderation which I think I have presented above in a civil manner. This is a Feedback thread and I’m querying moderating decisions such as why posts were left in the thread for 6 days without being deleted when they are clearly against the Charter. My conduct after this is irrelevant to a Feedback Thread. My conduct has already been dealt with and I am currently still serving a ban. I am not asking to overturn either ban, so why discuss them in the context of a forum moderator feedback thread? With regards your last point, I have no problem with anyone posting their opinion here but I don’t think it’s too much to ask that users should be calling for perma-bans, especially when they don't appear to know the full ins and outs of the situation (something I'm hoping is clarified even further when FG gives his response to my post). I’ve trying to remain civil to ensure this thread doesn’t stray off topic and get locked.

@Lemlin – read the post again. FG was the one that originally referred to you as the instigator. You have an issue with that phrase take it up with him.

@Calhoun - I also have a high opinion of FG despite how the above posts may come across. It doesn't mean I can't question his moderating does it? I'm not asking him to step down, I'm not in any way insulting him. I disagree with some recent decisions and I think this is the place to discuss them.

Rory

degrassinoel

Hadn't seen that before Calhoun, but wow..

Hard to believe the same guy is being slated for being biased and unfairness. I think he's more than fair and post 9 says it all really.

that being said, it's good to hear there's another mod being sent that way too, it's not easy being a volunteer and having to run a popular forum by yourself, no matter how good you are at it.