How appellants are treated in DR

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

When a person is banned, and a mod sends a message like this

Talked it over, no point in getting rid of you for a few months. You're not welcome here.

Why is the onus still on the banned person to engage with the moderator and follow step 1 of the process, when the moderator has made it quite clear that they are, at best, hostile to any further engagement.

It's a box ticking excercise that serves no purpose.

Beasty

If a user has made no attempt to engage (and to be clear I am not referring to any specific example here, but it does happen quite often) with the mod, either to understand the reasoning behind the sanction, or to attempt to resolve their dispute directly with the mod, I do not see why they should not be asked to do so

There are basically 3 levels of "appeal", so the user has the opportunity to have their case heard at Mod, CMod and Admin level

The mod reviews their decision in light of representations made by the user. If the sanction stands, it moves on to CMod level, where available evidence from both parties is considered and the CMod upholds, reduces, increases or overturns the sanction. If a user still is not satisfied they get a 3rd attempt to appeal to Admins.

All you are suggesting is taking away that first level which is actually where most sanctions that are ultimately overturned are actually dealt with.

We see many sanctions overturned or reduced by the Mod without going anywhere near the DRP. If we do away with that level of "review" we may well find many unnecessary appeals, with perhaps unwanted (from either side) public scrutiny, taking up more CMod time.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Absolutely no comment about the moderator attitude?

Thanks for that. Business as usual.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Wait a minute.

I gave an example of where the User HAD attempted to engage, and you went off on some tangent explaining a situation where the user doesn't

If a user has made no attempt to engage

<< direct quote from you

I'm not talking about an instance like that, so let's try again shall we, maybe you'll address my point instead of obfuscating.

When a mod directly states

You're not welcome here.

after the user has clearly tried to engage, then why is the onus on the appellant to re-engage? They've tried once, the mod has been quite clear.

Box ticking, stupid.

hullaballoo

You seem to be talking about a specific instance and then using that as irrefutable evidence that the whole system is broken.

Each case is taken on its own and if a mod doesn't meaningfully engage in their part of the DRP, then that will count for what it's worth in the appellants favour. So, if there's any doubt in question, the benefit of it would go to the appellant.

It's not a case of ticking a box, as that would ime result in the belligerents being told to try step 1 again.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Hmm, I'm in a pickle now isn't it.

Would you like me to trawl the DR forum for more examples? At what point do I get accused of being a timesink? Or accused of scurrilously going looking for historic examples?

I'm not up to some kind of skullduggery here, it's a pattern I've noticed.

No matter what is in the OP, the very first thing anyone says in reply, without even reading the OP it oftentimes seems, is to ask the appellant if they've tried to engage the mod in question.

Even when it's abundantly clear that the moderator message is blunt to the point of discouraging any further interaction in that direction.

It is absolutely a box ticking exercise in those instances, and leads to frustrated users.

Bur shure. Nobody in the heirarchy ever sees any problem, and the kneejerk reaction to any kind of feedback is "no no no, you're wrong, there's nothing amiss".

Does anything ever change in the attitudes to people providing what they consider to be genuine feedback. The default position is that there's nothing to be done, so go be on your way caller.

dudara

It’s not always clear from the OP if they have engaged with the mod, hence the repeated asking of the question. Trust me, I’d really rather not keep asking the question but it is the first step in the process and I need to know if it has taken place. Posters omit that information a lot of the time, or they don’t realise that their best chance of resolving any issues is to have a decent engagaement with the mod.

Personally, if they have confirmed then I’m largely happy at that stage to move it to the CMod stage. After all, if a mod has indicated that they’re not for turning, there’s no point in continuing. However, if you get the feeling that the engagement with the mod was short or snippy, then you might insist on another go. It’s really a case by case basis.

LoLth

A communication to the banning mod of "I intend to bring this to DRP. would you be willing to discuss this first?" would count as approaching the mod and starting a dialogue.

The point of the exercise, apart from box ticking and ensuring that a process is followed so that all users are treated equally when it comes to the dispute resolution process, is to allow the moderator a chance to recognise that they may have acted rashly or in error.

I recently received a message about a warning and responded with an expanded reasoning behind the card. It had already been reversed because i change how I would approach the issue but I would like to think that, had the warning still been in place the contact from the user would have triggered the rethink and reversal. On the other hand, I would like to think that the explanation given would have been enough for the user to think "ok, I can see how that got to that position now".

A brief interaction, preferrably polite or at the least non-insulting, can often negate any need for box ticking or drawn out discussion.

You do have a point, I think, in the language of the warning. I think maybe no comment from the moderator would be better in some situations and just a category of warning that the user can query if they don't understand why. However, damned if you do and damned if you dont, no comment could be construed as too impersonal/robotic/corporate overlord , while a set language might be seen as too inflexible and restrictive and free-text can result in exasperated mods making personal comments that users find offensive or provocative (as you have obviously experienced).

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

dudara wrote: »

It’s not always clear from the OP if they have engaged with the mod,

Seriouly?

More obfuscation?

I am very clearly NOT talking about instances where "it's not clear" if a user has attempted to engage.

LoLth wrote: »

A communication to the banning mod of "I intend to bring this to DRP. would you be willing to discuss this first?" would count as approaching the mod and starting a dialogue.

More obfuscation.

I am not talking about instances where no communication has taken place, and the user can legitimately be told to do the first step.

Are you adminny types purposely missing the point in the hope I'll get bored and piss off?

It's when they have done the first step, and been given the short shrift, they are often told to go way and engage the moderator a second time.

It is especially egregious when the user has engaged, and gets a reply like above, where the moderator clearly has no inclination to engage, but the user is expected to pretty much grovel a second time.

It's borderline humiliation really, for the sake of a ticked box.

dudara

I’m not disagreeing with you and I don’t want anyone to feel humiliated. I hope you trust me on that.

If someone has engaged and the mod has said “No” then we should move to the next step. However, sometimes that attempt at engagement is of poor quality (eg they demand sharply that the mod lift the action, no explanation etc) and that’s when we often ask for another go.

What we want is a decent effort at engaging from both sides. It’s not grovelling, it’s asking the two parties to have a decent, mature chat. If it doesn’t work, fine, we’ll move on. If the OP or the mod isn’t up for that, then that gets taken into account.

For what it’s worth, a significant amount of bans, warnings and infractions get reversed or downgraded without ever coming to DRP simply because the two parties have a good discussion and resolve it themselves. That’s a much preferable scenario.

Beasty

Just to add, in the example you quote the mod action was taken at 1:08 in the morning and the appeal thread was started 33 minutes later

Even if the poster had PM'd the mod to say he wished to appeal, he did not give the mod much opportunity to get back to him, so I asked if he had fully engaged in an attempt to resolve the matter directly (as on the face of it he had not)

Now we can debate the comments of the mod in the banning notice (and I note you criticised me for not commenting on what the mod had said, but you had not specifically invited comment on that)

I personally do not think that mod comment was helpful to the situation, but I had the view it would be possible (even if the odds could be considered low) for it either to be resolved directly, or at the very least the mod could have explained more reasoning behind the ban, which, for all I know, could have resulted in an acceptance without starting a thread here

LoLth

Kenzie Uneven Lettuce wrote: »

More obfuscation.

I am not talking about instances where no communication has taken place, and the user can legitimately be told to do the first step.

thank you for the clarification. it was not clear from your OP. That post reads to me as "user receives a card and a communication from a mod" - possibly in the form of the card reason/message - and not "user receives a card and contacts the mod and receives a response".

Misinterpretations do occur, just as you have misinterpreted my suggestion of asking a mod for a talk before going to DRP as an attempt to obfuscate or jumped to the conclusion that I was trying to discourage discussion with you in some way.

edit: I see where the confusion came from. I had not read the last line of your third post where you include the clarification of your first post.

LoLth

quick follow up:

of the DRP threads on the front page at the moment:

1 has been closed as invalid
5 had no indication that the user had contacted the mod, when asked, if they reseponded that they had, the thread was progressed
5 do include an indication that they have discussed it with a mod and the thread is moved on
1 resolved without DRP. possibly by PM after the initial post.

in the DR thread that you take that quote from the appellant clearly states that
a. the comment was made when they received the ban - which is exactly what I was referring to in my post
b. that they informed the mod they wanted to appeal, not that they tried to discuss with the mod, and, as Beasty pointed out there was no much time between notifying the mod of appeal and the start of the DR thread.

I appreciate your concern over the treatment of users appealing decisions and I completely agree that they should not be belittled or made to feel that they need to grovel. There is no evidence based on the front page of the DR forum of any of that behaviour taking place. At worst , a user is told the reason why it is important to perform step 1.

so, my original post on this topic is still relevant. Seeing as it was the ban/warning note that caused offense, perhaps a solution would be to remove the ban/warning note and so prompt for step 1 as a natural part of any disagreement with a mod decision ?

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

dudara wrote: »

What we want is a decent effort at engaging from both sides. It’s not grovelling, it’s asking the two parties to have a decent, mature chat.

Any examples of a time when you've publicly asked the mod to re-engage at Step 1, and not the user to re-engage when they've felt aggreved at the initial response?

Or do the excellent moderators not warrant that, sure they'd never make a user feel that way, and if they do it's their own fault probably.

Beasty wrote: »

I personally do not think that mod comment was helpful to the situation, but I had the view it would be possible (even if the odds could be considered low) for it either to be resolved directly, or at the very least the mod could have explained more reasoning behind the ban, which, for all I know, could have resulted in an acceptance without starting a thread here

Yet it was the user who was fobbed off and told to re-engage with an already hostile mod. Something doesn't smell right about that.

Can you at least acknowledge the bizarreness of this situation?

It's not a balanced process, from the outset, if an admin is here admitting that the mod comment was unhelpful (at best), but the user is the one made to jump through hoops.

The Nal

LoLth wrote: »

The point of the exercise, apart from box ticking and ensuring that a process is followed so that all users are treated equally when it comes to the dispute resolution process, is to allow the moderator a chance to recognise that they may have acted rashly or in error.

Thats been Boards.ie from day 1. An awful mod culture. Like egomaniac headmasters banning people for nothing, no PMs, no warnings, jumping in to threads and killing them with "Don't say this, don't say that" etc. You are free, to do as we tell you.

Of all the forums I've ever seen this one has by far the worst culture for that. Closing down threads they don't like or they dont post in but dont deem relevant. A forum that censors the word "shít". In 2018!

But hey, this is a place who banned all talk of MCD gigs once and banned users for discussing it. Open internet forum apparently. :rolleyes:

.......

This post has been deleted.

LoLth

The Nal wrote: »

But hey, this is a place who banned all talk of MCD gigs once and banned users for discussing it. Open internet forum apparently. :rolleyes:

that was on the back of legal advice.

Despite the big banner asking users not to discuss this, some continued to do so. Users were banned for discussing MCD. they were not banned for questioning the ban on discussion (not that i can recall, I was not an admin at the time).

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Hi all,

Related content that I've seen.

I think it's inherently unfair for Mods/Cmods/Admins/Staff to be bringing up successfully appealed sanctions when passing judgement on a situation which a user is trying to get looked at.

Link

During the past 2 months alone you have made 61 posts in the Manchester United Superthreads, and in doing so you have picked up 4 yellow cards plus a ban. Another ban was overturned in the DRP

Your red card was subsequently reduced to a yellow, basically giving you the benefit of any doubt. That resulted in the ban referred to above being overturned. I think you were very lucky to get that result

This type of thing undermines the whole appeal process, basically stating that even if an appeal is successful sure we can still bring up the incident and throw it in your face if we feel like it.

Either an appeal is successful, or it isn't. If it is then there's no way it's fair to bring it up when looking at subsequent sanctions.

Beasty

It was not an appeal within the DRP as the DRP does not deal with thread bans. I had moved it to Help Desk where the DRP rules do not apply and, in theory, anyone can input

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

yeah, thanks for not addressing the points made

standard.

Beasty

I have been discussing this with other Admins, and accept your points are valid

I would just add that in this case I do not consider it would have changed my conclusion, but agree those particular examples were not appropriate to support my reasoning

end of the road

Beasty wrote: »

It was not an appeal within the DRP as the DRP does not deal with thread bans. I had moved it to Help Desk where the DRP rules do not apply and, in theory, anyone can input

why are thread banns not dealt with in the drp out of interest? they would surely operate along the same lines and disputing them would operate along the same lines as well?
would there be scope to change this? i personally think so.

Beasty

end of the road wrote: »

why are thread banns not dealt with in the drp out of interest? they would surely operate along the same lines and disputing them would operate along the same lines as well?
would there be scope to change this? i personally think so.

DRP was only ever set up to deal with sanctions that were visible on a user's "record", i.e. cards and forum bans.

There remains an avenue to request thread bans to be overturned, but that involves attempting to resolve it directly with the mod and then a CMod, before starting a thread in Help Desk.

Thread bans usually have quite a finite life as most threads in which they are applied will naturally reach an end reasonably quickly.

It is different in Soccer, where thread bans are being issued following discussions in this year's feedback thread. The main difference is that team Superthreads can last for an extended period (in some cases a number of years), or in the case of a couple of clubs can turn over in a matter of weeks. In most cases I would expect local mods to review such bans after a period and if the poster has shown better behaviour elsewhere and gives assurances over future behaviour in the relevant threadthey may consider lifting the thread ban

Canis Lupus

Kenzie Uneven Lettuce wrote: »

Hi all,

Related content that I've seen.

I think it's inherently unfair for Mods/Cmods/Admins/Staff to be bringing up successfully appealed sanctions when passing judgement on a situation which a user is trying to get looked at.

Link



This type of thing undermines the whole appeal process, basically stating that even if an appeal is successful sure we can still bring up the incident and throw it in your face if we feel like it.

Either an appeal is successful, or it isn't. If it is then there's no way it's fair to bring it up when looking at subsequent sanctions.

Not sure it's that black and white. Everyone has a different take on a given matter. One mod action appears harsh to another mod but another mod might think an action isn't severe enough. If his first mod action was overturned because he was given a chance and then goes on to get a further 4 yellows and a ban in 2 months then I think it's relevant to take overturned history (if it relates to the same issue) into account.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Ho hum.

Look at this post

User is appealing a 3-day ban that had already expired by the time anyone had the time to look at the appeal, how convenient.

Anyway, is it really ok for a CMod/Admin/Staff to go rooting through the appellants post history to find the most tenuous thing they can find to have a go at the appellant about?

I see you have a bit of a history in the last month or so with one-liners and throwaway comments. I mean posts like this are not ok

The post referenced was three weeks(!) before the CMod post, and as far as I can see was not actioned by any moderator in the intervening period - this is grossly unfair to be dragging up unrelated posts by the user in an attempt to paint them as troublemakers just for having the temerity to raise a DRP.

Again, the whole process is stacked against the appellant if CMods can do this, and oftentimes if an appellant does the same thing (point to a GOOD posting history int he forum), it is immediately shot down as irrelevant to the current action and review.

It's having mod cake and eating it really - a CMod referencing an innocuous, un-actioned post from weeks previous doesn't seem kosher, when if a user did the same, they'd be told they are wasting time.

The Hill Billy

While not commenting on a specific appeal, what has most likely happened in a case like this is that a poster's behaviour has been noted in a mod thread. Something along the likes of "Xxxxx has been making a lot of yyy-type comments of late." Co-mod responds "Don't action now, but if it carries on it will have to be sorted."

Chats like that would come up as part of a CMod investigation into an appeal.

No digging, no probing, no nastiness, nothing underhand at all. But you know that. You've been a mod.

Unless of course you behaved differently, & now just assume that all other mods do too.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

The point is though, that it's unfair to bring this up as part of an appeal process where the user has zero prior clue that they are being "watched" and have not been "warned" or carded, either on-thread or in private, when that post has nothing to do with the appeal at hand, and especially when if an appellant tried to bring other posts into the equation, then they are usually told that only the post in question is relevant in any appeal.

I once again note that the go-to response from an admin is to

1. dismiss the point as if everything is rosy and nothing could ever be wrong with Boards.ie
2. obfuscate with non-relevant nonsense
3. try to belittle me personally for daring to put my head above the parapet.

At least here it's not censored like my post of a few days ago in the pre-modded forum.

The Hill Billy

I've put out a couple of likely explanations for CMod behaviour in the DR Appeal & yours on the site in general - that's all.

I gotta hand it to you though. You really have a most magnificent way in which you can twist things almost beyond all recognition. Bravo!

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Yet again, ignoring the point to have a pop, well done.

Have you absolutely no comment to make on the point that when appellants bring up "other" posts they are deemed an irrelevance, but CMods/Admin/Staff can do it whenever they feel like?

If you, and others in the heirarchy, are going to continue to refer to my "behaviour...on the site in general", can you let me know what my behaviour in the 2.5 years since this account has been active is causing the most concern?

My posts in this thread is it? Or other times where I've posted respectfully and get hounded by the likes of you? Is there something I should be doing differently on this site, on this account, in the time I've been posting under this profile?

Or can you let me know how long the likes of you are going to hold onto that grudge for?

dudara

The poster in question received a 3 day ban on foot of a previous one day ban. This was part of escalating mod action as the poster was failing to take heed of previous warnings. In this context, it’s perfectly valid to examine their previous posts to understand if the 3 day ban was warranted.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill here IMO.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

dudara wrote: »

The poster in question received a 3 day ban on foot of a previous one day ban. This was part of escalating mod action as the poster was failing to take heed of previous warnings. In this context, it’s perfectly valid to examine their previous posts to understand if the 3 day ban was warranted.

Again, can you address the point I made that if an appellant refers to previous posts, then they are dismissed.

dudara wrote: »

You are making a mountain out of a molehill here IMO.

No, that is not the case at all.

I made a respectful observation on the workings of the DRP, and an Admin has, once again, come in all guns blazing taking personal pot shots at me over what I assume are grudges held from over two and a half years ago.

Nothing I've posted about on this account, in that timeframe, can warrant the constant abuse, belittling and dismissive attitude towards me both here in Feedback and on other related fora of Boards.ie. I'm respectful, tempered in my responses and postings, but all I get from certain sections of the CMod/Admin/Staff cohort is stick.

It's verging on bullying tbh, I seem to be disallowed from comment on certain sections of this website without someone in power having a snide dig at me, time and again my posts are dismissed because of my "history", only for a begrudging admission later that my points had merit (look to the top of this thread for an example of this).

That's not even what I came here to discuss tbh, but again I've been baited into a response by an Admin type, for what reason I do not know.

Why the points couldn't have been addressed without a further delve into my "previous" (which at this stage is over two and a half years ago) I don't know, but The Hill Billy made a pointed remark about my previous status as a mod, well over three years ago at this stage, and my "general behaviour" - what behaviour? It's an attempt to discredit me, yet again, by pointing to non-existent issues. And that ls tantamount to bullying.

Chips Lovell

As a mod, I let a lot of stuff slide.

Sometimes neither I nor my co-mods are around to deal with stuff or are just too busy.

Sometimes we want to give posters a chance to mend their ways themselves.

Sometimes it's borderline

If you want mods to action every actionable post, then it'll be a lot more work for the mods but will also result in a lot more complaints from users about "heavy handed moderation". I doubt it would be popular.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

No, I don't want that, stop being silly.

But it IS unfair for Heirarchy types to be allowed reference instances of ostensibly "bad" behaviour, that hasn't been actioned, when normal posters are told in no uncertain terms that the post being looked at, and that post only, are relevant in their appeals.

dudara

There is no standard one-size-fits-all approach to a DRP. It’s a bit of an art at times which is required to ensure that fair treatment is given. Sometimes recent posting history is relevant, sometimes it’s not. In this case, I am satisfied that the DRP was handled fairly.

Chips Lovell

Kenzie Uneven Lettuce wrote: »

But it IS unfair for Heirarchy types to be allowed reference instances of ostensibly "bad" behaviour, that hasn't been actioned, when normal posters are told in no uncertain terms that the post being looked at, and that post only, are relevant in their appeals.

I don't think it is in fairness. As a mod I'd give regular reminders to users to read the forum charter. At the end of the day, they're all grown-ups and should be able to familiarise themselves with the rules and know that just because a post it isn't actioned doesn't mean it broke the rules.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

dudara wrote: »

Sometimes recent posting history is relevant, sometimes it’s not.

At no times that I've seen has a Hierarchy person allowed a user to reference their other posts in a thread as a "defence" or supporting argument in the DRP.

So the real truism here is "sometimes posting history is relevant FOR HIERARCHY TO REFERENCE and sometimes it is not, normally when it presents the appellant in a worse light".

dudara wrote: »

In this case, I am satisfied that the DRP was handled fairly.

lol, I expected nothing else tbh.

Shall I piss off now?

Insect Overlord

Kenzie Uneven Lettuce wrote: »

Shall I piss off now?

You very clearly love this website and want to keep making it better. No doubt about that. But when were you happiest on here? When did posting bring you the most joy instead of frustration?

I know I've been much happier since I stopped reading Prison, Feedback and the DRP forums every day. I just read the topics I enjoy now instead of getting into arguments with people I'll never agree with. No more taking sides or fighting other people's battles or judging the worst behaviour of other members. It's a lot less stressful.

dudara

Kenzie Uneven Lettuce wrote: »

At no times that I've seen has a Hierarchy person allowed a user to reference their other posts in a thread as a "defence" or supporting argument in the DRP.

So the real truism here is "sometimes posting history is relevant FOR HIERARCHY TO REFERENCE and sometimes it is not, normally when it presents the appellant in a worse light".



lol, I expected nothing else tbh.

Shall I piss off now?

I feel that I’ve been nothing but respectful to you and I’ve attempted to explain why I feel this DRP was fairly handled. But you are hellbent on your agenda, and I feel that nothing I say will get through to you or be considered. Therefore I am out. Wishing you a happy new year.

KERSPLAT!

Insect Overlord wrote: »

You very clearly love this website and want to keep making it better. No doubt about that. But when were you happiest on here? When did posting bring you the most joy instead of frustration?

I know I've been much happier since I stopped reading Prison, Feedback and the DRP forums every day. I just read the topics I enjoy now instead of getting into arguments with people I'll never agree with. No more taking sides or fighting other people's battles or judging the worst behaviour of other members. It's a lot less stressful.

This is off topic but I completely agree with avoiding sections that annoy you. It's unlikely you'll change anything and more often than not you'll end up worse off.

I dropped into Feedback yesterday, all going well for a bit and then the usual returned and I got pissed off. I shouldn't be here now! I understand the frustration from both sides. Posters should realise that the frustration they feel is also felt by mods, even at times on the same issues.

DRP and prison can be annoying. Best to avoid unless you're actively disputing something IMO.

Steve

Kenzie Uneven Lettuce wrote: »

At no times that I've seen has a Hierarchy person allowed a user to reference their other posts in a thread as a "defence" or supporting argument in the DRP.

So the real truism here is "sometimes posting history is relevant FOR HIERARCHY TO REFERENCE and sometimes it is not, normally when it presents the appellant in a worse light".

I don't believe I've ever done that in DRP (at least in recent more mature years), I try to take the mod action in isolation and evaluate it's validity. If I find it is valid then, yes, history is then taken into account.

Like our legal system, the fact that little scroate 'Damo*' was found to have robbed crisps from the same shop on 20 previous occasions doesn't make him guilty this time .... however, if he is guilty, *unlike* our legal system, he doesn't get another 100 chances.

*fictitious name

Shall I piss off now?

Can I ask you seriously why do you 'hate' this place so much? and more pertinently, why are you still here if it's so frikkin bad???

LuckyLloyd

Insect Overlord wrote: »

You very clearly love this website and want to keep making it better. No doubt about that. But when were you happiest on here? When did posting bring you the most joy instead of frustration?

I know I've been much happier since I stopped reading Prison, Feedback and the DRP forums every day. I just read the topics I enjoy now instead of getting into arguments with people I'll never agree with. No more taking sides or fighting other people's battles or judging the worst behaviour of other members. It's a lot less stressful.

If you're on the site a lot and an active contributor the reality is that you will - eventually - be impacted by the way its run. As such, it's not always possible to keep your head in the sand forever. Bot42 has always been an active contributor to the site and had opinions on how it can be improved.

In this thread he has consistently come back with concrete examples to back up the original point of the thread. I see validity to his claims in how he is responded to. Indeed, your post and this side conversation is more of that: it's not addressing the substantive aspect of what he is raising. It's focussing on him and his usage and his history.

Steve wrote: »

Can I ask you seriously why do you 'hate' this place so much? and more pertinently, why are you still here if it's so frikkin bad???

Why would you ask that? But in anycase it seems, to me at least, that the issue here is bot42 loving the place or having loved the place in the past. Asking hard questions about a place don't mean you hate it. It certainly shouldn't be assumed that is the case anyway.

Steve

1.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Why would you ask that?

2.

But in anycase it seems, to me at least, that the issue here is bot42 loving the place or having loved the place in the past. Asking hard questions about a place don't mean you hate it.

3.

It certainly shouldn't be assumed that is the case anyway.

To honestly answer that I have to do so in reverse order of how you asked.

3. I agree, it shouldn't be assumed.

2. Historically, there were lots of people here who gave lots of time and effort of make it work who are now now longer here. That includes mods smods cmods admins. If you go back to a time when the site was actually more fun despite it crashing all the time, having to access it on dial-up, and questioning an admin decision was unheard of.. The most profound thing from that was Dev's attitude and approach and prediction that boards is like a bus. Nobody ever knows or will know where it is going, nor has any one person control over that - the userbase collectively steers it.
If you don't like the turn it has taken, you are free to get off at the next stop, just don't sit there and complain about the road it is on because it is not in line with where you would like to go. That philosophy has worked for me so far, there were a few times I nearly rang the bell but held back to see what was around the next corner and so far (despite some speed bumps) am happy to stay on as a passenger.

1. Why? I hope the above explains it really. It's meant to be an enjoyable experience - as with any social media (don't forget we were around before that was even a 'term') and if 'you don't like it' then the obvious question is 'why are you still here??' It's like standing in front of a speaker at a wedding or gig and complaining that it's too loud.

pleas advice

'if you don't like it, change the station' ?
That kind of reasoning could get you banned in some forums around here...

Steve

pleas advice wrote: »

'if you don't like it, change the station' ?
That kind of reasoning could get you banned in some forums around here...

Which ones?

pleas advice

Radio, mostly

...

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

DRP and prison can be annoying. Best to avoid unless you're actively disputing something IMO.

But if theres something wrong with the system, by then its too late to try fix it

FreudianSlippers

Dispute resolution as a forum always has been and always will be a colossal waste of time/energy.

RasTa

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Dispute resolution as a forum always has been and always will be a colossal waste of time/energy.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057929464

Prime example. 2 months over a one day ban and not sure why the mod is going through "thousands" of posts

LuckyLloyd

RasTa wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057929464

Prime example. 2 months over a one day ban and not sure why the mod is going through "thousands" of posts

Jaysus, that's quite the example.

.......

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Jaysus, that's quite the example.

Its fairly typical though.

FreudianSlippers

Has a mod decision ever been overturned as a matter of interest? I've only ever seen things reversed where the initial mod makes that decision.

ancapailldorcha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Has a mod decision ever been overturned as a matter of interest? I've only ever seen things reversed where the initial mod makes that decision.

It happens.