[Legal Discussion ] Transparency on boards.ie

selma patty

Hello,

How many people here think that boards.ie should make it easy for posters to see how many complaints have been made against a moderator and of what nature those complaints were? I find moderation here very shoddy, and I know that many others do too. Wouldn't it be better for all if this were transparent?

RossieMan

you've 22 posts. most likely a re-reg who was previously banned.

I think the moderators here do a great job. mostly all positive.

DoctorEdgeWild

I think the system is pretty good as it is. There's a Feedback forum for general stuff and a dispute resolution forum for more specific appeals etc. I've never had to use the latter but seems pretty clear cut as to how it all works.

RGDATA!

selma patty wrote: »

Hello,

How many people here think that boards.ie should make it easy for posters to see how many complaints have been made against a moderator and of what nature those complaints were? I find moderation here very shoddy, and I know that many others do too. Wouldn't it be better for all if this were transparent?

You could always put in a freedom of information request.
http://foi.gov.ie/

selma patty

RossieMan wrote: »

you've 22 posts. most likely a re-reg who was previously banned.

False and irrelevant. In fact, that repsonse is typical of the attitude of what is wrong with this country. If one questions a system, suggests that it could be vastly improved one is perceived (and attacked) for having an agenda rather than wanting to see things done better.

That is how FF and the likes have been getting away with it all for years; intelligent people who know better are attacked by the mob if they speak out, just look at how the whistleblowers were/are treated.

Timberrrrrrrr

selma patty wrote: »

Hello,

How many people here think that boards.ie should make it easy for posters to see how many complaints have been made against a moderator and of what nature those complaints were?

What would this achieve? There are posters on here who have had HUNDREDS of accounts, What if they make a complaint against a moderator on each re reg account? Should they all count?

I find moderation here very shoddy, and I know that many others do too. Wouldn't it be better for all if this were transparent?

I fnd it is fair and balanced and i have had MANY infractions, warnings and even a couple of bans.

RossieMan

as someone who has many infractions also, they've always been fair.

If you're not a Re-reg. how at 22 posts have you came to the conclusion that the modding is unfair?

Ken.

selma patty wrote: »

False and irrelevant. In fact, that repsonse is typical of the attitude of what is wrong with this country. If one questions a system, suggests that it could be vastly improved one is perceived (and attacked) for having an agenda rather than wanting to see things done better.

That is how FF and the likes have been getting away with it all for years; intelligent people who know better are attacked by the mob if they speak out, just look at how the whistleblowers were/are treated.

Its not the system, its you.

selma patty

So are you actually saying that full transparency is a bad thing? That secrecy is better? You sound like the government.

hullaballoo

Moved to Feedback. Feedback charter now applies.

selma patty, normally I can understand when someone feels affronted by a moderator decision but here, I genuinely am baffled by your reasoning.

Repeatedly starting threads on the same topic, all of which are closed because they are inappropriate for the forum, you then go on to query a moderators intelligence and capacity to be a moderator by comparing your query to something totally unrelated.

Then you start a thread questioning the site policy generally around moderators and "transparency" in Legal Discussion.

Honestly, I have no idea what your complaint is because you haven't come close to setting out any tangible reasoning.

RossieMan

selma patty wrote: »

So are you actually saying that full transparency is a bad thing? That secrecy is better? You sound like the government.

what secrecy though?

does someone have too much paranoid juice this morning?

selma patty

hullaballoo wrote: »

Moved to Feedback. Feedback charter now applies.

... you then go on to query a moderators intelligence and capacity to be a moderator by comparing your query to something totally unrelated.

.

1. Where are you getting this information?

2. My thread was locked because I asked how much one could expect to pay a solicitor for a particular service. I pointed to another thread where a person had asked the same thing and even received advice from moderators.

It lies with you to explain that inconsistency.

Timberrrrrrrr

selma patty wrote: »

So are you actually saying that full transparency is a bad thing? That secrecy is better? You sound like the government.

What secrecy are you talking about though? Should i be able to walk into your job and demand to see your work record?

RossieMan

Wouldn't it be the same answer to what the other person asked? if it was the same thing they asked.

selma patty

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What secrecy are you talking about though? Should i be able to walk into your job and demand to see your work record?

Yes, if my work has an impact on you. And why not? What do you have to hide?

selma patty

RossieMan wrote: »

Wouldn't it be the same answer to what the other person asked? if it was the same thing they asked.

The other person was allowd to ask how much a solicitor charged for a service, not the same service that I asked about.

Lack of transparency always = corrpution.

RossieMan

ah here, go back to your basement and put on your tinfoil hat.

Timberrrrrrrr

selma patty wrote: »

Yes, if my work has an impact on you. And why not? What do you have to hide?

You would have no problem with someone walking into HR and asking for your personal private work records and they handing them out to a total stranger? Also how does a moderators work i"have an impact" on you? :rolleyes:

seamus

What makes you think anyone has a right to know that information?

This isn't a public service provided by the state.

The Hill Billy

selma patty wrote: »

Hello,

How many people here think that boards.ie should make it easy for posters to see how many complaints have been made against a moderator and of what nature those complaints were? I find moderation here very shoddy, and I know that many others do too. Wouldn't it be better for all if this were transparent?

A couple of things...

Do you have an issue with general site-wide moderation, or the specific actions of one moderator? This is not very clear from your post. If it is site-wide moderation, what is shoddy about it & how do you feel it could be improved? If you have an issue (not related to a card or a ban) with a specific moderator - your first step should be to PM the CMods of the relevant category.

As for your perceived right to access of any 'complaints' against a moderator - use the forum search function in Feedback or the Dispute Resolution forum. This is publicly available information that you are free to look at. The DRF was specifically set up to ensure the transparency of any issues that posters may have in relation to cards & bans.

If you think that you should have right of access to any private messages or private forums to further your research - forget it. This is a privately owned website & your ability to use it is at the discretion of the site owners & managers.

Darkglasses

seamus wrote: »

What makes you think anyone has a right to know that information?

This isn't a public service provided by the state.

This. We are not civil servants. I am just another user on a private message forum, with a limited amount of extra responsibility on a couple of certain forums. Nothing more, and i don't think a comparison with the government or anything else is useful or appropriate.

godtabh

Darkglasses wrote: »

This. We are not civil servants. I am just another user on a private message forum, with a limited amount of extra responsibility on a couple of certain forums. Nothing more, and i don't think a comparison with the government or anything else is useful or appropriate.

I'm sure some of us are!

Easiest way to understand the transparency on boards.ie is to read the terms of conditions you signed up to when registering to the site. If you dont like them there is a forgetme function now I believe.

Darkglasses

godtabh wrote: »

I'm sure some of us are!

Easiest way to understand the transparency on boards.ie is to read the terms of conditions you signed up to when registering to the site. If you dont like them there is a forgetme function now I believe.

Well, not as boards moderators we aren't

hullaballoo

Ok, I've had a re-read of this thread and on the one hand, the OP seems to be suggesting that there's a lack of transparency and that this would be resolved if complaints about moderators were publicly available. They are publicly available so that solves that problem.

However, there is another issue that arises here because this thread is a collateral attack on the decision of a moderator to lock the threads you started regarding finding a solicitor for naturalisation. Now, the first thread was locked because you were looking for a recommendation for a solicitor, which is not allowed under the charter. In your second thread, you asked how much it costs for some services. That was locked because that's tantamount to asking how long a piece of string is. In other threads, where the cost of a legal service comes up, no one ever gets an answer because it's not a question that can be answered. In other cases, the question might have arisen as a collateral query in a thread whose main purpose is not to ask how much it costs to do [x].

You reported the moderator's post and made all sorts of wild accusations both personally about the moderator and about boards.ie policy in appointing moderators. I still can't grasp where your coming from on that and I suspect, based on your posts thus far in this thread, that you will not engage in any meaningful way with the feedback processes.

selma patty wrote: »

1. Where are you getting this information?

2. My thread was locked because I asked how much one could expect to pay a solicitor for a particular service. I pointed to another thread where a person had asked the same thing and even received advice from moderators.

It lies with you to explain that inconsistency.

1. You sent it to me when you reported The Mustard's post.

2. This is the thread you pointed to: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057307650 - The OP in that thread asked whether a fee estimate in his case of €1,500-€2,000 was reasonable. One poster said it's not unusual. The moderator's reply was to explain the difference between a case that is dealt with by PIAB and one that proceeds to court. I don't see any similarities between that thread and asking how much it costs "for a signature and proofreading".

There's no inconsistency there. Also, there's no burden on me to explain the actions of another moderator on this site. I doubt we'd have too many people volunteering their time for free if they were imposed with being accountable for things other people do. (In this case, though, I want to note that I completely stand over what The Mustard did here and he was totally correct in what he did.)

Wouldn't it have been much quicker to pick up the phone and ask a solicitor?

You'd probably have your answer in a fraction of the time it has taken you to type all these posts.

Graham

RGDATA! wrote: »

You could always put in a freedom of information request.
http://foi.gov.ie/

Doesn't apply unless boards has secretly become a government department or specified public body..

selma patty

hullaballoo wrote: »

Ok, I've had a re-read of this thread and on the one hand, the OP seems to be suggesting that there's a lack of transparency and that this would be resolved if complaints about moderators were publicly available. They are publicly available so that solves that problem.

However, there is another issue that arises here because this thread is a collateral attack on the decision of a moderator to lock the threads you started regarding finding a solicitor for naturalisation. Now, the first thread was locked because you were looking for a recommendation for a solicitor, which is not allowed under the charter. In your second thread, you asked how much it costs for some services. That was locked because that's tantamount to asking how long a piece of string is. In other threads, where the cost of a legal service comes up, no one ever gets an answer because it's not a question that can be answered. In other cases, the question might have arisen as a collateral query in a thread whose main purpose is not to ask how much it costs to do [x].

You reported the moderator's post and made all sorts of wild accusations both personally about the moderator and about boards.ie policy in appointing moderators. I still can't grasp where your coming from on that and I suspect, based on your posts thus far in this thread, that you will not engage in any meaningful way with the feedback processes.


1. You sent it to me when you reported The Mustard's post.

2. This is the thread you pointed to:- The OP in that thread asked whether a fee estimate in his case of €1,500-€2,000 was reasonable. One poster said it's not unusual. The moderator's reply was to explain the difference between a case that is dealt with by PIAB and one that proceeds to court. I don't see any similarities between that thread and asking how much it costs "for a signature and proofreading".

There's no inconsistency there. Also, there's no burden on me to explain the actions of another moderator on this site. I doubt we'd have too many people volunteering their time for free if they were imposed with being accountable for things other people do. (In this case, though, I want to note that I completely stand over what The Mustard did here and he was totally correct in what he did.)

And as a moderator do you think it apporpriate to make public a message that was sent directly to you? I personally don't care, but the people on here who support secret socities rather than transparency should be concerned that moderators are picking and choosing which piece of a message sent directly to them to use against a poster on the thread. Here is where the lack of transparency becomes an issue.

RossieMan

Is the OP serious or just a really, really bad troll?

The Hill Billy

selma patty wrote: »

And as a moderator do you think it apporpriate to make public a message that was sent directly to you? I personally don't care, but the people on here who support secret socities rather than transparency should be concerned that moderators are picking and choosing which piece of a message sent directly to them to use against a poster on the thread. Here is where the lack of transparency becomes an issue.

And what secret societies would those be? My interest is piqued.

Seriously, it has been explained to you how this privately-owned site works in relation to the transparency of complaint procedures. If you don't get it or agree with it - try another site.

hullaballoo

selma patty wrote: »

And as a moderator do you think it apporpriate to make public a message that was sent directly to you?

You decided you wanted to air your issues in public and came here posting broad-stroke, general allegations. I didn't have any choice other than to extrapolate from various sources of information what you were trying to get at and try and set it out here for everyone's benefit.

Otherwise, I don't know, people mightn't have taken you seriously and I wouldn't want that.

Pat Mustard

selma patty wrote: »

2. My thread was locked because I asked how much one could expect to pay a solicitor for a particular service. I pointed to another thread where a person had asked the same thing and even received advice from moderators.

It lies with you to explain that inconsistency.

Your initial thread was a request for a recommendation for a solicitor and a query about fees. Your second thread was a second query about fees, after the first thread had been closed.

You were in breach of the forum charter with your first thread. Subsequently, you posted duplicate content in another thread, eight minutes after the first thread was closed.

Posting duplicate content on a forum is disruptive behaviour, which is trolling. As an apparently new user, you received the benefit of the doubt, so you did not receive a card at that time.

Nody

The Hill Billy wrote: »

And what secret societies would those be? My interest is piqued.

Seriously, it has been explained to you how this privately-owned site works in relation to the transparency of complaint procedures. If you don't get it or agree with it - try another site.

*Makes the secret face over and over again* Hrm, nothing to see here.

Zaph

selma patty wrote: »

And as a moderator do you think it apporpriate to make public a message that was sent directly to you? I personally don't care, but the people on here who support secret socities rather than transparency should be concerned that moderators are picking and choosing which piece of a message sent directly to them to use against a poster on the thread. Here is where the lack of transparency becomes an issue.

In the interests of full disclosure, seeing as this seems important to you, the message wasn't just sent directly to hullaballoo. It went to the Reported Posts forum which is accessible to all mods, CMods and admins. But if you're going to make wild accusations about the intelligence of a particular mod and describing the rest as clueless then I suggest you actually have some facts to back up your assertion.

This thread is a complete nonsense and the OP is either a very bad troll or someone who need to get out a bit more. Regardless of which they are, I see no point in entertaining them any further. Thread closed.