warned for backseat moderation

robarmstrong

Hi all,

Just wanna highlight the ridiculous of some of the mods in this forum. Tired of them cherrypicking what they act on and what they don't act on. I was warned for backseat moderating by asking someone a question regarding their soap boxing. I've gone through the rules and whilst you can't go on about trolling, I can't find anything on soap boxing, which is different.

robarmstrong wrote: »

How many times do you have to be told to understand that your opinion is not fact? Honestly, how many times? You've been booted from thread to thread over the abortion issue for constantly soapboxing and spouting the same nonsense over and over and over again.

Charter says soap boxing isn't tolerated, says nothing about commenting on a user soap boxing.

I also got a mod note for a personal attack yet when countered the mod ignored two of my pm's regarding a poster who I felt was posting a personal attack towards me.

What's going on lads, it seems to be that some posters keep getting away with everything yet the people who question these posters or challenge them get carded? Where's the consistency???

dudara

The first step in the DRP process is to contact the mod in question and attempt to resolve the matter directly with the mod. Can you confirm if you have done this?

robarmstrong

dudara wrote: »

The first step in the DRP process is to contact the mod in question and attempt to resolve the matter directly with the mod. Can you confirm if you have done this?

Yep done this and moved onto the dispute stage already, sorry forgot to mention that.

dudara

Thanks - I'll notify a CMod now to review. Please have the PM conversation with the mod ready to share.

robarmstrong

No worries, do I PM the conversation or share it in here? or is it down to user preference?

dudara

You can share here.

Pat Mustard

Happy to take a look at this dispute.

Please send on the PM exchange, OP.

robarmstrong

Thanks Pat,

Apologies in advance if I butcher this -

Delirium wrote:

Dear robarmstrong,

You have been warned for posting Backseat Moderation.

Boards.ie has a team of volunteers who look after our forums and they are the ones who will give instruction or take action on a thread should it be deemed necessary.

If you see a problem with a post, report it and a mod will investigate.

Please see the Boards.ie FAQ for more details.



Delirium

Moderator Note

Carded for soapboxing comment

Your post:

robarmstrong wrote: »

end of the road wrote: »

while it relies on the mother for a time, it's technically a separate being. it is not an extension of the woman's body, even though it is attached to her for a time. therefore in this country at least, unless absolutely necessary, she doesn't get to choose what to do with it, because it is a separate life and will be independant of her. it is the same stance held over all human beings in ireland.



no abortions at any stage unless medically necessary is my view.



the unborn should not have their lives ended just because the woman doesn't want them. i'm not denying them any rights, abortion on demand is not a right. i would disagree that countries which allow abortion on demand are 100% progressive and civilised because they allow the killing of human beings when it isn't necessary. they may be mostly civilised and progressive but the unnecessary killing of human beings would down-rate them somewhat in my view. we have our own faults as well, but we have a chance to insure we are a step above other countries by saying no to the killing of human beings where unnecessary. that is what i and many others will try to do on referendum day, via our vote.
my sig is the truth as far as i see it. i believe that supporting women's rights means we should support their right to be born also. future women will not be born due to abortion and seeing as people are making this a woman's rights issue, then i believe it's important to hi-light this aspect.

"for a time" is 22 weeks. That's more than half the length of the pregnancy. It is a part of the woman's body via extension, this is basic human biology.

There's no such thing as abortion on demand, the phrase you insist on using is ridiculously incorrect and despite you being proven wrong several times you keep insisting on using it to further how wrong you are.

Your sig isn't the truth, it's your opinion, so it doesn't make it truth.

How many times do you have to be told to understand that your opinion is not fact? Honestly, how many times? You've been booted from thread to thread over the abortion issue for constantly soapboxing and spouting the same nonsense over and over and over again. To be brutally honest I don't think you give a toss about the referendum, you just saw an opportunity to be in the minority again, which seems to be a thing for you.

What ya gonna do when the 8th is repealed? Am I gonna see you protesting non stop or will you sit and wait until something else pops up that you can dive onto as a minority?

Delirium wrote:

It's a site wide rule not accuse posters of trolling, soapboxing on thread.

This is why you were carded. If you wish to dispute it, then open a thread in DRP.

robarmstrong wrote:

How is that backseat moderating? Where in our rules or charters does it mention that you can't challenge someone who's soapboxing? Are you gonna reply to this message or am I just gonna have to open up a case in the DRP?

robarmstrong wrote:

I know the trolling one, show me the soapboxing one.

Yeah I'm gonna definitely dispute it seeing as you didn't bother your hole with my previous mails. Complete lack of consistency there.

Apologies for the mess, I tend to delete the quoted parts of messages as I feel that they (in my opinion) make replies a tad confusing. I understand it was a short conversation with the mod in question, but they had previously ignored outright two of my messages that I sent complaining about other posters' actions towards me. I felt that going straight here was better off as the lack of consistency being shown towards us (I completely understand it's not okay to accuse someone of trolling), but soapboxing is completely different and I could not find a single rule about remarking about someone soapboxing. It does seem that the particular poster "accused" of soapboxing gets away with no cards yet when they are challenged, whomever challenges them gets carded.

Pat Mustard

robarmstrong wrote: »

Apologies for the mess, I tend to delete the quoted parts of messages as I feel that they (in my opinion) make replies a tad confusing.

Okay but you might post up whatever has been omitted for the sake of completeness, please.

robarmstrong wrote: »

I understand it was a short conversation with the mod in question, but they had previously ignored outright two of my messages that I sent complaining about other posters' actions towards me. I felt that going straight here was better off as the lack of consistency being shown towards us (I completely understand it's not okay to accuse someone of trolling), but soapboxing is completely different and I could not find a single rule about remarking about someone soapboxing. It does seem that the particular poster "accused" of soapboxing gets away with no cards yet when they are challenged, whomever challenges them gets carded.

Can you please send on the PM exchange that you had with the mod regarding the previous complaints about soapboxing, please.

robarmstrong

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Okay but you might post up whatever has been omitted for the sake of completeness, please.


Can you please send on the PM exchange that you had with the mod regarding the previous complaints about soapboxing, please.

I've post up everything I had, there was no PM exchange regarding previous complaints as I did not get a response to my initial PM, I did not get a response to my query regarding the clarification of soapboxing being against the rules and my previous complaints were not replied to.

Pat Mustard

You might send me the PMs that you sent in any event, please.

You might send them to me by PM.

robarmstrong

Just confirming that I've sent everything Pat requested via PM.

robarmstrong

Do I have to open up a separate dispute for another related warning regarding soapboxing? This is getting ridiculous now, I asked where exactly mentioning or commenting about soapboxing is against the rules. This is my response -

Turtwig wrote:

You've been warned in thread not to do it.
Spirit of charter, and mod instructions in this thread, previous messages to you. Previous mod action. All of which you were ignored.

Rule lawyering isn't acceptable here.

So it's okay for Mod's to make rules up as they go along?

Pat Mustard

Please open up a separate dispute thread for a different dispute, if that's okay. Otherwise, these things can become drawn out with additional issues.

robarmstrong

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Please open up a separate dispute thread for a different dispute, if that's okay. Otherwise, these things can become drawn out with additional issues.

Fair enough Pat, that's understandable. I'll open one up at some stage tomorrow as it's quite late now, appreciate the info.

Pat Mustard

In relation to the current dispute at hand, if you sent a PM to make a complaint about soapboxing, could you post it up here on the thread, please?

robarmstrong

I think this is what you're looking for is it Pat?

Delirium wrote:

It's a site wide rule not accuse posters of trolling, soapboxing on thread.

This is why you were carded. If you wish to dispute it, then open a thread in DRP.

robarmstrong wrote:

How is that backseat moderating? Where in our rules or charters does it mention that you can't challenge someone who's soapboxing? Are you gonna reply to this message or am I just gonna have to open up a case in the DRP?

Pat Mustard

robarmstrong wrote: »

they had previously ignored outright two of my messages that I sent complaining about other posters' actions towards me.

Have you given me both of these messages that you mentioned?

robarmstrong

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Have you given me both of these messages that you mentioned?

Yep I'm 99% positive I PM'ed them to you previously in our conversation.

Do you need me to send them again or filter through them properly?

robarmstrong

robarmstrong wrote:

Delirium wrote:

Dear robarmstrong,

You have been warned for a breach of the forum charter.

Every forum on Boards.ie has a charter which lists any specific rules that forum may have and it is really important that you read this as it'll help you familiarise yourself with how that forum works. You should also understand that every forum is different and that charters are how you learn the differences.

Please see the Boards.ie FAQ for more details.



Delirium

Moderator Note

please note that swearing is against the charter, includes text such as wtf or sh!t

Your post:

robarmstrong wrote: »

end of the road wrote: »

your points were dealt with so whatever you are supposibly waiting for, it won't be coming. case closed.

When and where did you deal with my points?

I don't see you dealing with them, but rather being very roughly proven wrong and having your argument shut down so you can run away tail tucked between your legs to another thread.

Case closed indeed, until you pop up spouting more soapbox material on another thread and get shut down and banned... But I digress.

Very interesting in the read back through this thread of the conflicts Christians are having with themselves regarding this particular topic, asides from the few obvious <snip> stirrers there have been some really good posts and points from Christians for, and Christians against abortion.

Don't really care, anything on ***** with his blatant soapboxing and flaming/baiting or does he/she get to toddle on and continue in the thread without so much of a glance of an infraction?

robarmstrong wrote:

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

Please don't argue with a mod instruction on-thread. This is a site-wide rule.

If you have an issue with a mod instruction, take it to PM.

Regarding the previous warning, you may dispute the warning. Please bear in mind if you continue to post such personal comments, you will receive further moderator action.

Thanks for your attention.

I'd dispute the warning, by the way if you're going to go down that route it would be equally fair by your mentality to warn ***** for a sly remark about my attitude. That would be considered "personal" too.

[/QUOTE]

Pat Mustard

Okay, thanks. I'm going to have a read through the thread before I come back on this.

Pat Mustard

I am going to post my take on this chronology of events, first.

1. Via PM, you made a complaint that another poster was soapboxing:

Don't really care, anything on ***** with his blatant soapboxing and flaming/baiting or does he/she get to toddle on and continue in the thread without so much of a glance of an infraction?

2. 23rd March, you discussed moderation on thread. That is backseat moderation. That could have incurred a card but only an on-thread warning issued:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106505488&postcount=3818

3. 23rd March, Another poster (End of the Road) is warned for what is soapboxing, essentially. This means that an on-thread warning has been posted in relation to soapboxing:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106522534&postcount=3835

4. 28th March. A yellow card issues on thread for a different poster who makes accusations of soapboxing:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106563893

5. 29th March. You received a yellow card for your soapboxing comment.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106569696#post106569696

I think that there is a rule in the AH charter that calling another poster a troll is not allowed. I don't see that rule here. However, there is a sitewide rule to play the ball and not the man. Furthermore, there is a rule against backseat moderation, which is the subject of this dispute. Backseat moderation can be like complaining that the ref is blind or it can be an attempt for a poster to take matters into his own hands by calling people out for various shortcomings on the thread.

Looking at the thread, you complained of soapboxing to the moderator, by PM. Another poster was warned for accusing a poster of soapboxing on the thread on the 28th March. The day after that warning, you accused the same poster of soapboxing. To me, that is backseat modding because you are attempting to taking moderation issues into your own hands, at this stage.

You had already been given an on-thread warning for backseat moderation on the thread (for disputing an on-thread mod post) and then another poster was given a yellow card for the accusation of soapboxing the day before you received a yellow for a similar accusation.

I think that the moderators have been lenient in their approach, overall.

The card is upheld.

You may request Admin review if you wish.

robarmstrong

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I am going to post my take on this chronology of events, first.


3. 23rd March, Another poster (End of the Road) is warned for what is soapboxing, essentially. This means that an on-thread warning has been posted in relation to soapboxing:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106522534&postcount=3835

And the poster continues to post like that long after the warning and nothing is done yet people challenging that particular posting style get carded.

Where's the consistency from a moderation point of view?

Pat Mustard wrote: »

5. 29th March. You received a yellow card for your soapboxing comment.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106569696#post106569696

I receive a yellow for my soapboxing comment yet nothing is addressed in the actual post regarding his posting style, there's no smoke without fire. Seems like a bit of protectionism there.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

However, there is a sitewide rule to play the ball and not the man.

I am playing the ball, soapboxing is a style of posting, his posting style (therefore his posts) are being challenged.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Furthermore, there is a rule against backseat moderation, which is the subject of this dispute. Backseat moderation can be like complaining that the ref is blind or it can be an attempt for a poster to take matters into his own hands by calling people out for various shortcomings on the thread.

Disagree, various shortcomings on the thread? We're trying to challenge this posters views by getting him to post something other than soap-box material, how is that backseat moderation? It's a discussion site, for discussion, not soap-boxing, so when people see this style of posting they try to dissect and challenge the basis on which it was made, are you suggesting that this stops?

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Looking at the thread, you complained of soapboxing to the moderator, by PM. Another poster was warned for accusing a poster of soapboxing on the thread on the 28th March. The day after that warning, you accused the same poster of soapboxing. To me, that is backseat modding because you are attempting to taking moderation issues into your own hands, at this stage.

See above note. No consistency again shown in terms of moderation.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You had already been given an on-thread warning for backseat moderation on the thread (for disputing an on-thread mod post) and then another poster was given a yellow card for the accusation of soapboxing the day before you received a yellow for a similar accusation.

I agree I should not have disputed the on-thread mod post, that was a fair point.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I think that the moderators have been lenient in their approach, overall.

Yeah they have, to one particular poster who runs away whilst everyone else gets carded. This is essentially what goes on:

A warning for a user who's soap-boxing, an infraction for someone who challenges said soap-boxer - how on earth is that fair or consistent? Honestly, can you tell me that that's fair and consistent in any way shape or form? Using your football analogy that's the equivalent of a ref warning a player for pulling on a shirt but booking me for challenging why he's pulling on my shirt, do you see how ridiculous that is?

Pat Mustard wrote: »

The card is upheld.

You may request Admin review if you wish.

I want an Admin to review this, there is a glaring inconsistency here and it's just getting beyond a joke at this stage.

dudara

As I said before in your earlier DRP, the DRP process deals with your posts and how you choose to respond to other posters. The mod actions applied to other posters do not come into this process. If you have problem with another poster, report it.

IMO there were clear and adequate warnings given about commenting on soapboxing. Yet you chose to comment, in violation of mod direction. Therefore I see no reason to overturn the card.

Card upheld.