Mod bias with in thread warning

James Brown

Hello,
I was asked where the government would find money to fund social housing. I said we would save money if we weren't paying for emergency.
It was mistakenly taken I meant cut emergency accommodation funding and use the money to build social housing. Fair enough. I corrected this a number of times. My point was if the state can find money for growing emergency accommodation costs, it can find money for social housing build.
When pressed I said I didn't know where the money would come from but I also don't know where the funding for emergency accommodation comes from, yet here we are. My point was simply, depending on the private market was not good value for the tax payer. I never claimed to have it all costed out.
Anyway, a poster kept claiming I said cut funding for Emergency Accommodation, (him 'being a dick' as per charter) I kept correcting him. After a time I flagged him for trolling me and the post below was what I got for my troubles;

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

Ok I think its best that you leave it there. Your point is that its a shame that money is spent on emergency accommodation and not on social housing, but you are not proposing anything specific re: changing the budget.

Other posters have pressed you on the point but you dont want to elaborate. Thats fine.

Now lets move on please.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105357314&postcount=464

Not only was it an incorrect summation of the discussion, it shows an opinion on the discussion. Also, the idea being I should drop it, when my flag was an attempt to have it dropped.

I've been PM'ing with the mod but he's sticking to his misunderstanding of the discussion and his biased in-thread warning.

Wouldn't "Okay guys leave it there" have been a better response?

I'd appreciate someone looking at this.

Thanks.

Tokyo

Good afternoon Matt Barrett,

this forum is solely for disputing an infraction or ban - is that the case here? I'm not seeing any evidence of a card being handed out.

If it's a case that you are simply unhappy with the wording of a mod's in-thread warning to move the discussion along, I'm afraid that I will have to close the thread. Please advise.

~Mike

James Brown

My issue is that a Mod taking a view on a discussion and a note, which can lead to a card if not followed. The Note with a view, is what I have issue with. Also the incorrect summation.

Essentially we've a politics forum where my discussing Social housing as an alternative to emergency accommodation is being censored because I flagged a poster for 'being a dick'. Rather than asking we stop the line of debate, a side is given on it and in essence, one party is wrong.

If asked a question and it's answered, then asked again several times, that would be an issue?

The concern here is a politics forum seen to weigh heavier on a poster depending on their view. I would think it a good idea to quash such an impression?

Tokyo

Moved to help desk as this is not a DRP.


I read through the last few pages of the thread, and I'm not seeing any evidence of trolling, or "being a dick". I could possibly pick out a few condescending statements dotted around the thread, not least your own "let me dumb it down for you" style statements, but nothing I'd consider actionable in the greater scheme of things.

The way I see it is this. You're made broad, sweeping statements in that thread. Posters are simply asking you to qualify said statements with something more than conjecture. The nature of a forum like Politics is exactly that - to debate your point in a rational and reasonable manner, with evidence where available. Now you say that your point was mistakenly taken that you meant to cut emergency accommodation funding and use the money to build social housing, and being honest, I can see what that interpretation of events came from - you presented the argument of funding for emergency accommodation and for social housing very much in an either/or scenario. That however, is a side issue here - your grievance is about the mod warning.

From what I can see in the mod warning, nobody is censoring you - they're simply asking you to stop flogging the same old dead horse without adding something new to the argument. It's a reasonable request IMO - back up your assertions, or move along. Your argument that the in-thread warning is biased doesn't hold water - the mod never claimed your point was wrong, the mod warning simply states that you've made your point, and unless you're willing to add something new to said point, there's no need to reiterate it again.

James Brown

I was asked where the money would come from, I said I don't know.

It was mistakenly thought I suggested cutting Emergency accommodation funding and using that money for social housing. I corrected that several times. I flagged the poster for persisting.

If you can show a question I didn't answer, please do.
The idea that you can't suggest a way to tackle an issue without costing it first is ridiculous. It's a discussion not the workings of a policy document. I was trying to move on. I flagged the issue.

Tokyo

You're accusing a mod of bias, based on the content of the in-thread warning, which is a reasonably serious allegation to make.

With respect to the point you made in the thread - I don't believe anybody claimed that you couldn't suggest a way to tackle an issue without costing it first - however, as is the nature of debate, if you make a statement without qualifying it with fact, than it's not unreasonable to assume that people will ask you to qualify said statement. If you can't, then that's also fair enough, but from what I can see in the thread, the point was becoming laboured, without any additional information being added - in other word, the thread was going round in circles, and a mod (rightly in my opinion) stepped in to get things moving again.

With respect to the in-thread warning, I'm not seeing any evidence of bias. The mod never took a side regarding your point - he never said your point was either valid or invalid. The warning simply pointed out the truth of the situation - that you had stated your opinion, but as no further information was forthcoming, it was time to move on.

James Brown

mike_ie wrote: »

You're accusing a mod of bias, based on the content of the in-thread warning, which is a reasonably serious allegation to make.

With respect to the point you made in the thread - I don't believe anybody claimed that you couldn't suggest a way to tackle an issue without costing it first - however, as is the nature of debate, if you make a statement without qualifying it with fact, than it's not unreasonable to assume that people will ask you to qualify said statement. If you can't, then that's also fair enough, but from what I can see in the thread, the point was becoming laboured, without any additional information being added - in other word, the thread was going round in circles, and a mod (rightly in my opinion) stepped in to get things moving again.

With respect to the in-thread warning, I'm not seeing any evidence of bias. The mod never took a side regarding your point - he never said your point was either valid or invalid. The warning simply pointed out the truth of the situation - that you had stated your opinion, but as no further information was forthcoming, it was time to move on.

I had moved on. A poster persisted, I flagged that poster. The mod posted an in-thread warning incorrectly stating I wasn't willing to answer a question, I'd already answered and asked me to move on.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

Ok I think its best that you leave it there. Your point is that its a shame that money is spent on emergency accommodation and not on social housing, but you are not proposing anything specific re: changing the budget.

Other posters have pressed you on the point but you dont want to elaborate. Thats fine.

Now lets move on please.

I suggested the growing time/money/effort spent on emergency accommodation would be better spent on social housing. That's it.
The above in bold is incorrect. It's that simple. Wanted it noted. There's no card to rescind.