Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Received an unwarranted yellow in rugby thread

  • 24-10-2019 2:05pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭


    I understand things are a bit tense in the rugby forum right now but I believe I received an unwarranted yellow because a mod missed the point I made and jumped to a conclusion that I was 'implying' provincial bias, when the goal of the example I chose was purposefully to avoid that charge.

    Below is my post, where I made a comparison to the selection decision to another team and chose a province, as it was the easiest for us both to relate. The mod would have a point in the card if I was talking about the Aki's performances dropping for Ireland, where provincial allegiances could come into it due to him being replaced by a player from another province, but I specifically chose to mention his performances for Connacht, as he would be replaced by other Connacht players and no provincial bias could be claimed.
    Foxtrol wrote: »
    From how the team performed during the WC when Sexton wasn't on the pitch some signs point that it could very well have been much worse.

    I hope to see your view to stay consistent and you'll call for Aki to be benched for a Champions Cup or key Pro 14 game if he has any poor run of form for Connacht in the future, no matter who the next choice ends up being available.

    The other poster themselves even understood and accepted the point I made, responding twice and even paraphrasing my point, but when I highlighted this to the mod they still refused to even discuss their decision.
    ClanofLams wrote: »
    I never said Sexton should be dropped. I said leaving him on the pitch for 72 minutes when he’s the worst player on the field sends out a bad message to the squad.

    As for your example, I would be fine with Robb and Godwin starting. But I appreciate the point you are making about inexperience of back ups. I actually said on here earlier this week that Sexton couldn’t have been dropped for Cardiff due to Carty’s inexperience but he should have been off much earlier.

    I could have used any team from any sport for the example I was trying to make but I chose the easiest to explain it. It is ridiculous that a mere mention of a province now can result in a yellow. If that is the case then the mods need to make that clear that there should be no mention of provinces at all and be consistent in their responses, rather than doling them out and claiming context is 'semantics'.


Comments

  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 78,393 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    When you indicate the mod refused further discussion, was this via PM and had you tried to resolve this by approaching the moderator with these assertions via PM?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Beasty wrote: »
    When you indicate the mod refused further discussion, was this via PM and had you tried to resolve this by approaching the moderator with these assertions via PM?

    I tried to resolve it with them via PM and they shut me down instantly.

    They wouldn't engage at all with my explanation of how the point I was trying to make in the thread was very different than what they inferred, they just repeated their point of view per the infraction and finished their message with:
    'I'm not going to get into semantics or hypothetical arguments here, you were in breach of the charter and that's what the card is for. End of story.'

    Semantics matter when the observer completely misconstrues the point you are making.


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 78,393 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Thanks

    I'll ask the Sports Mods to look at this for you


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Hi Foxtrol,

    I'll take a look at it.

    Can you please post here or forward to me the full pm exchange with the mod relating to the card.

    Thanks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Steve wrote: »
    Hi Foxtrol,

    I'll take a look at it.

    Can you please post here or forward to me the full pm exchange with the mod relating to the card.

    Thanks.

    PM'd you the full PM exchange with the Mod.

    Thanks


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    PM'd you the full PM exchange with the Mod.

    Thanks

    Hi, got them, thanks.

    I have reviewed this in detail and discussed with the mod. I don't see any clear evidence of back seat moderation or provincial bias on either side so my decision, with the agreement of the mod is to reverse the card.

    Thanks.


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 78,393 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Marking as resolved

    Thanks all


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement