After Hours inconsistency

fran17

I have noticed lately,as have many others,that on certain topics the leniency you can expect to receive regarding your language very much depends on which side of a certain argument you stand.
Recently a thread on the topic of the upcoming gay marriage referendum,which we all know can evoke strong opinions,produced numerous permanent bans for the no side of the debate and none for the yes side.The no side bans were delivered on a separate post and the moderator called there opinions "comedy stylings",however the very few yes cautions were noted on there posts only.Now lots of people get lots of bans all the time and I have no problem with this but one particular issue raised my eyebrows.One yes side poster made rather tasteless and insulting personal comments accusing me of being homosexual and then proceeded to make horrible comments about priests abusing children.I reported this but to no avail.In a later post this same individual made a disgusting comment about "anal sex as a child" which I reported twice and finally the poster was issued with a "take a few days off" warning.To my amazement in less than three days this poster was active again.Five no side posters received permanent bans for what was no more than generalised criticism.
Why has After Hours become so consistently inconsistent on certain topics?

El Guapo!

"Take a few days off" is not a warning. It means the person has been banned for a few days.
So basically:
You reported a persons posts....
A moderator reviewed your reports...
The person was banned from the forum.

This is how the system works. I'm not sure what more you want people to do.

fran17

El Guapo! wrote: »

"Take a few days off" is not a warning. It means the person has been banned for a few days.
So basically:
You reported a persons posts....
A moderator reviewed your reports...
The person was banned from the forum.

This is how the system works. I'm not sure what more you want people to do.

Yes this is how the system works,thats my point.The challenge for us all is trying to understand why,in certain topics,a childish generalised comment results in a permanent ban and a crude nasty comment results in a temporary ban.Your correct in calling it a ban but the key word being temporary.
Where is the consistency here? Actually no,to hell with consistency,where is the fairness here?

The Hill Billy

Permanent bans are not issued on a whim. Moderators need to be able to justify any moderator action, especially a permaban.

Without knowing the specifics of the cases you describe, I would imagine that these posters have 'history' & their comments (which may have seemed fairly innocuous to you) may have been the straw that broke the camel's back for the mod team in terms of their overall behaviour in the forum.

Celly Smunt

Mine was pretty much on the whim of a new moderator,needless to say the the dispute resolution process is far too time consuming and never really resolves anything so there's no point putting yourself in a kangaroo court style setting.

The Hill Billy

Your decision not to avail of the Dispute Resolution Process is hardly an argument to my explanation.

Edit: You were banned by one of the most experienced & well-respected mods on this site.

fran17

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Permanent bans are not issued on a whim. Moderators need to be able to justify any moderator action, especially a permaban.


Without knowing the specifics of the cases you describe, I would imagine that these posters have 'history' & their comments (which may have seemed fairly innocuous to you) may have been the straw that broke the camel's back for the mod team in terms of their overall behaviour in the forum.

The only anecdote I can give is in the past I received a ban on a thread for a post I made on a completely unrelated thread,on a completely unrelated topic two months before,that nobody took issue with.

Yes those would be reasons I could understand but I have reviewed a lot of the posts made and I cannot see anything worthy of a permanent ban,of course this is just my opinion.Also two of the permanent bans were handed out to members who had less than 30 posts between them.How could anyone issue a permanent ban in these situations if not on a whim?

Penny Tration

From what I saw on that thread, people who were banned, were banned for making disgusting comments, not for the side of the debate they were on.

There's a massive difference between stating your reasons for opposing the motion, and making disgusting, homophobic comments.

Nodin

fran17 wrote: »

The only anecdote I can give is in the past I received a ban on a thread for a post I made on a completely unrelated thread,on a completely unrelated topic two months before,that nobody took issue with.?

Evidently somebody did.

fran17 wrote: »

Yes those would be reasons I could understand but I have reviewed a lot of the posts made and I cannot see anything worthy of a permanent ban,of course this is just my opinion.Also two of the permanent bans were handed out to members who had less than 30 posts between them.How could anyone issue a permanent ban in these situations if not on a whim?

You've no idea why they were banned because you don't have access to their disciplinary record and other pertinent information, like previous a/c's etc.

fran17

Jingle_Balls wrote: »

From what I saw on that thread, people who were banned, were banned for making disgusting comments, not for the side of the debate they were on.

There's a massive difference between stating your reasons for opposing the motion, and making disgusting, homophobic comments.

I agree,some things said were pretty distasteful from both sides.But sticking to the topic,i feel the actions taken was very disproportionate and if reviewed without bias most would concur.

fran17

Nodin wrote: »

Evidently somebody did.



You've no idea why they were banned because you don't have access to their disciplinary record and other pertinent information, like previous a/c's etc.

Nodin i have not come here to begin an argument about an argument.This is the first time I contributed to feedback and I was of the belief its where you could discuss issues with the organ grinders.No offence.

The Hill Billy

fran17 wrote: »

The only anecdote I can give is in the past I received a ban on a thread for a post I made on a completely unrelated thread,on a completely unrelated topic two months before,that nobody took issue with...

The Dispute Resolution forum is there for all to use to contest bans. The Feedback forum is not the place for this.

fran17 wrote:

...Also two of the permanent bans were handed out to members who had less than 30 posts between them.How could anyone issue a permanent ban in these situations if not on a whim?

Probably posters who have re-regged to evade bans.

Just because on the face of it there appears to be inconsistency does not necessarily mean that this is so.

The mods have access to information that regular posters do not. This information may be used when evaluating what level of moderator action is required.

endacl

fran17 wrote: »

.But sticking to the topic,i feel the actions taken was very disproportionate and if reviewed without bias most would concur.

Oh, I disagree. I was surprised it took so long for most of those bans to appear. None of the 'anti' position posts were anti- the motion as much as they were anti- the people. There was no coherent argument put forward. There was, by and large, only abuse of what was presented as deviance.

It amounted to a vitriolic mess of 'will you be voting for apples? Won't somebody think of the bananas?!?'

fran17

The Hill Billy wrote: »

The Dispute Resolution forum is there for all to use to contest bans. The Feedback forum is not the place for this.


Probably posters who have re-regged to evade bans.

Just because on the face of it there appears to be inconsistency does not necessarily mean that this is so.

The mods have access to information that regular posters do not. This information may be used when evaluating what level of moderator action is required.

There all fair points,like I say I'm not here to start an argument.I am a firm believer though that on certain topics the agenda is set and no matter what the alternative point of view is it will not be entertained.We will just have to agree to disagree.

Celly Smunt

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Mine was pretty much on the whim of a new moderator,needless to say the the dispute resolution process is far too time consuming and never really resolves anything so there's no point putting yourself in a kangaroo court style setting.

I know that THB has already mentioned this but I feel the need to clearly outline this for anyone who may think there is any worth to what you've said because there is none.

Firstly, Ruu is modding AH for over a year this time around. Previous to that, on an other account of the same name, it's no secret that he was an AH mod, a Cmod, and an Admin.

Secondly, you have 22 previous mod actions in AH by many different mods. You've also had a previous Siteban. Quite frankly I'm amazed it took this long for you to be permanently removed.

So, if you want to continue to claim your innocence, go right ahead, but it's very clear that the new mod on a whim is not the problem here.

RDM_83 again

fran17 wrote: »

There all fair points,like I say I'm not here to start an argument.I am a firm believer though that on certain topics the agenda is set and no matter what the alternative point of view is it will not be entertained.We will just have to agree to disagree.

The Breast Feeding (in AH) thread is a good example of how there is a "right" position in moderator eyes and a wrong one and those on the wrong side will get a much more severe response.
It doesn't matter if one view point is more sensible and nicer (I'd be pro Breast Feeding for example), each post should be judged against the rules* and seen if it stands or falls in that regard and in comparison against whats previously been tolerated on thread (as AH threads vary in "seriousness").
There's definitely far more tolerance for inflammatory and baiting posts if they coincide with mod opinion this is always dismissed though even though its natural for people to be more tolerant to views that coincide with their own opinions (I know I am and mods are only human).
And how do you separate an uneducated but genuinely held belief from trolling?

* I know the standard response to this is that mod require flexibility to prevent rules lawyering but thats always seemed like a cop out too me.

fran17

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The Breast Feeding (in AH) thread is a good example of how there is a "right" position in moderator eyes and a wrong one and those on the wrong side will get a much more severe response.
It doesn't matter if one view point is more sensible and nicer (I'd be pro Breast Feeding for example), each post should be judged against the rules* and seen if it stands or falls in that regard and in comparison against whats previously been tolerated on thread (as AH threads vary in "seriousness").
There's definitely far more tolerance for inflammatory and baiting posts if they coincide with mod opinion this is always dismissed though even though its natural for people to be more tolerant to views that coincide with their own opinions (I know I am and mods are only human).
And how do you separate an uneducated but genuinely held belief from trolling?

* I know the standard response to this is that mod require flexibility to prevent rules lawyering but thats always seemed like a cop out too me.

100% correct.In the past I've even been involved in such ludicrous situations as other users having there bans shortened or lifted,insulting posts they made deleted without reason or action taken and thread and poll results blocked just to aid one side of an argument.I will concede that these are not regular occurrences but at times something stinks.

Celly Smunt

RopeDrink wrote: »

Care to elaborate on 'never really resolves anything'? Un-backed statements like this (and belief in them), in the face of evidence to the contrary, can't go unchecked as it's that sort of view which results in a lot of feedback clutter about mod decisions in X thread or Y forum, seeing as people have this strange notion that DR simply doesn't work at all.

Can debate how well it works all day long - but not really resolving anything isn't fair to say.

Only bringing it up as certain things being mentioned here most definitely belong in DR as opposed to Feedback.

One example was I was banned from the weather forum for doing something minor (3 days),went through the process with dispute resolution catagory mod etc etc l,but rather than getting anything resolved the mod who banned just decided to ignore the process and wait until the ban was over. So doesn't work and isn't an isolated case.

The process is far too long for short bans

Celly Smunt

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I know that THB has already mentioned this but I feel the need to clearly outline this for anyone who may think there is any worth to what you've said because there is none.

Firstly, Ruu is modding AH for over a year this time around. Previous to that, on an other account of the same name, it's no secret that he was an AH mod, a Cmod, and an Admin.

Secondly, you have 22 previous mod actions in AH by many different mods. You've also had a previous Siteban. Quite frankly I'm amazed it took this long for you to be permanently removed.

So, if you want to continue to claim your innocence, go right ahead, but it's very clear that the new mod on a whim is not the problem here.

I proclaim innocence!

The Hill Billy

Guilty! Tough, ha!

BuffyBot

Your attitude and "organ grinders"/monkey comparison suggest to me the issue is probably to do with you than anyone else.

On a more general note, the reason moderation works is because there is no cookie cutter approach.

I don't see going anywhere productive