The weekend on one with Brendan O Connor

john123470

Dear CMod,

I received a warning while posting on the above named thread on 10 and 11th of May which i acknowledged and accepted from a Mod - A lamb named Miltiades.

Soon after this I received an infraction for using the term 'a Downs' while referring to obviously 'a Downs syndrome child'

I wrote back to the Mod (above named) explaining that I have 'a Downs syndrome person' in my family and we refer to him (when asked) as being a "Downs" - and we do so with love as opposed to what the Mod above sharply rebuked me for in the infraction. " .. you have been round long enough etc.."

I wrote back and explained myself but received no reply

The particlular discussion revolved around B O Connor not maintaining impartiality during the radio interview last Sunday with Richard Dawkins.

It seems the Mod above took an opposing view to mine and so was ready to pounce on anything I wrote.

Eg. Post #2527, the Mod wrote in favour of BOC.

I do not mind a Mod pulling me up if I am out of line but the Mod in this case clearly has "skin in the game' and it was evident to all readers that i was reprimanded simply for holding a different opinion to the Mod

I just wonder how can a Mod be impartial in his rulings if he is so evidently taking sides in a discussion. People will be afraid of gaining infractions simply disagreeing with a Mod

I would thank you if you have time to look into this. If I am deemed to be wrong, then I will accept it . I can be sometimes a bit robust in my arguments and I do not mind being corrected in an orderly fashion but I was taken aback by the Mod's aggression.

A Mod, from what I understand, should be impartial in his / her rulings. In no way was i trying to denigrate "Downs syndrome children".

This simply smacks of bullying and not being in agreement with the Mod in the discussion

PS. I do not know how to link my replies to the Mod above but i will try to send them to you if you need them

Many thanks,
John
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058044602&page=169

EmmetSpiceland

Come on, you can’t think referring to someone with Down’s Syndrome as “a Downs” is acceptable anywhere. That’s even worse than saying “a Down’s Syndrome child” instead of “a child with Down’s Syndrome”. The fact, you say, you have someone in your family with DS should make you well aware of that.

There seems to be a number of these “complaints” of late. Almost like a concerted effort to either have the mods removed or force them to stand down. It’s fairly puzzling when I, personally, see how well moderated the forum is. There is a lot of “leeway” given for posters to whinge and moan about RTÉ and the rest of WOKE (all caps) mainstream media.

Now I, myself, have been on the wrong side of mod “actions” on a number of occasions. Some I didn’t fully agree with and in discussion after things get clarified, sorted or you suck it up. At no point did I really think it was personal but if you keep popping up on a mod’s “radar” they are going to get sick of having to deal with you.

As long as you keep it within the rules, no matter how bizarre or unhinged, the mods don’t need to take any action. But step over the line and appropriate action is taken. I’m really not sure what the end game is here, have all the “Radio” forum mods quit or fired so that it’s closed down or is it hoping a malcontent type gets the nod and we get the “inmates” running the asylum?

Mods can give opinions in threads, especially in a forum like that, and debate their point robustly. They aren’t going to try “silence” users because they don’t enjoy Marty Whelan’s ‘Hugo’ ramblings or because you think Pat Kenny isn’t condemning Palestine as much as he is Israel. I, personally, would see the mods in that forum as closer to “ordinary” users who do a bit more maintenance to keep the place ticking over.

The fact that some users get a bit too worked up and cross the line of forum “rules”, and taste, is hardly their fault but whenever they seem to take this appropriate, and necessary, action the perpetrators start to play the victim and complain to the “higher ups”.

We should be thanking these mods for the time they’re putting in to the, more, “niche” forums. Not trying to run them out because we think they don’t like us.

john123470

A Moderator moderates. This particular one does not moderate justly and is inconsistent in handing out infractions / warnings. A Mod so obviously invested in taking sides does not inspire much confidence in the posters - a bit like a referee preferring one side to win. Let him / her contribute under a pseudonym - i'm sure they do anyway

If you read the exchanges, you would see this inconsistency clearly.
So, please do Read the actual thread before you fire off your opinions.

If this 'Mod' was so upset with my wording then they could correct me without this 'you shd know better !' etc. And they can have the goid manbers to reply when I query them. That is their job, after all

Some Mods appear more level-headed and civil than others.
Not all Mods are as infallible as you seem to claim.

If you like this particular Mod, then good for you, but I have a right to call out inconsistency when I see it and I don't need your permission to do so, thanks

Why on earth would I try to denigrate "a child with Down's syndrome" when there is a "child with Down's syndrome in my family'!

Talk about WOKE

'Come on', yourself

EmmetSpiceland

john123470 wrote: »

A Moderator moderates. This particular one does not moderate justly and is inconsistent in handing out infractions / warnings. A Mod so obviously invested in taking sides does not inspire much confidence in the posters - a bit like a referee preferring one side to win. Let him / her contribute under a pseudonym - i'm sure they do anyway

If you read the exchanges, you would see this inconsistency clearly.
So, please do Read the actual thread before you fire off your opinions.

If this 'Mod' was so upset with my wording then they could correct me without this 'you shd know better !' etc. And they can have the goid manbers to reply when I query them. That is their job, after all

Some Mods appear more level-headed and civil than others.
Not all Mods are as infallible as you seem to claim.

If you like this particular Mod, then good for you, but I have a right to call out inconsistency when I see it and I don't need your permission to do so, thanks

Why on earth would I try to denigrate "a child with Down's syndrome" when there is a "child with Down's syndrome in my family'!

Talk about WOKE

'Come on', yourself

Sides? In a radio forum? What sides are there? Some people like some shows, or presenters, and others don’t. Do you think the mods in there are “sanctioning” users who don’t like the same shows they do? Get a grip.

I have read them. It’s more of the same, a user unhappy for getting called out for crossing the line and then scrambling to try and turn it around on the mod who “wronged” them.

The simple fact of the “matter” is you should have known better. Just became you know someone with Down’s Syndrome that doesn’t excuse referring to anyone else with it as “a Downs”. If you can’t see that then that’s on you, not the mod who, correctly, warned you.

Like is a bit strong, that mod is alright. Don’t know them personally but having seen how they go about their business in the “Radio” forum, and across the site, I can say that I think they are alright. We’re not in cahoots or laughing at you behind your back, if that’s what you’re thinking.

By all means point out inconsistencies, you don’t need my permission. But it would be nice if they were actual inconsistencies and not just the actions of a user “scorned” trying to get back at the mod who caught him out.

Why on Earth indeed. Having a family member doesn’t excuse anything. And now it’s WOKE (all caps) to not use offensive terms when referring to those with special needs? I would have thought that was just good manners and proper behaviour.

john123470

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Sides? In a radio forum? What sides are there? Some people like some shows, or presenters, and others don’t. Do you think the mods in there are “sanctioning” users who don’t like the same shows they do? Get a grip.

I have read them. It’s more of the same, a user unhappy for getting called out for crossing the line and then scrambling to try and turn it around on the mod who “wronged” them.

The simple fact of the “matter” is you should have known better. Just became you know someone with Down’s Syndrome that doesn’t excuse referring to anyone else with it as “a Downs”. If you can’t see that then that’s on you, not the mod who, correctly, warned you.

Like is a bit strong, that mod is alright. Don’t know them personally but having seen how they go about their business in the “Radio” forum, and across the site, I can say that I think they are alright. We’re not in cahoots or laughing at you behind your back, if that’s what you’re thinking.

By all means point out inconsistencies, you don’t need my permission. But it would be nice if they were actual inconsistencies and not just the actions of a user “scorned” trying to get back at the mod who caught him out.

Why on Earth indeed. Having a family member doesn’t excuse anything. And now it’s WOKE (all caps) to not use offensive terms when referring to those with special needs? I would have thought that was just good manners and proper behaviour.

Thank you for your opinion.

My point stands : Moderators should moderate and be nonpartisan. Otherwise, their role is open to abuse

I am not the first to complain

Beasty

None of us claim to be perfect. We get some things wrong, but generally we get things right more often. And in most cases we are talking shades of grey.

It's helpful if mods not directly involved in a discussion do the moderating, but has been explained many times that sometimes is not possible. Mods are chosen partially for their interest in the subject (I will though admit to having no interest in canoeing or kayaking, but we had no-one else to take on that role!). We do not discourage mods from contributing to discussions they are interested in.

In this case you accept the two cards issued to you. Everything else seems to have been dealt with in the thread itself, and indeed a few weeks ago. Other than re-iterating it's better if mods who are not directly involved do relevant modding I don't see much more to say here

john123470

Beasty wrote: »

None of us claim to be perfect. We get some things wrong, but generally we get things right more often. And in most cases we are talking shades of grey.

It's helpful if mods not directly involved in a discussion do the moderating, but has been explained many times that sometimes is not possible. Mods are chosen partially for their interest in the subject (I will though admit to having no interest in canoeing or kayaking, but we had no-one else to take on that role!). We do not discourage mods from contributing to discussions they are interested in.

In this case you accept the two cards issued to you. Everything else seems to have been dealt with in the thread itself, and indeed a few weeks ago. Other than re-iterating it's better if mods who are not directly involved do relevant modding I don't see much more to say here

"We do not discourage mods from contributing to discussions they are interested in"

There you have it. The thread then basically becomes a chat room with a bully on board.

If a Mod wishes to contribute, let them do so under a pseudonym. I'm sure they do so anyway

It's quite simple. There are plenty of posters on any given topic. A Moderator's job shd be to moderate these posts, to give everyone a fair hearing. That patently is not happening where particular Mods are concerned

I have no problem being called out and corrected if I overstep the mark.
What I do have a problem with are Mods who come across as petty and vindictive. Using their "authority" to stifle any dissent.

A poster shd not feel insecure contributing to threads where a particular Mod is "moderating" for fear of being pounced on for any perceived greivance.

At least, a more rigorous form of Mod selection should be employed. I hope they are not chosen simply because they have "an interest in the subject"

It is a pity really because Boards used be a good place to share opinions and indulge in banter

As previously mentioned, I am not the first to complain about this

john123470

Beasty wrote: »

None of us claim to be perfect. We get some things wrong, but generally we get things right more often. And in most cases we are talking shades of grey.

It's helpful if mods not directly involved in a discussion do the moderating, but has been explained many times that sometimes is not possible. Mods are chosen partially for their interest in the subject (I will though admit to having no interest in canoeing or kayaking, but we had no-one else to take on that role!). We do not discourage mods from contributing to discussions they are interested in.

In this case you accept the two cards issued to you. Everything else seems to have been dealt with in the thread itself, and indeed a few weeks ago. Other than re-iterating it's better if mods who are not directly involved do relevant modding I don't see much more to say here

"Everything's been dealt with .. few weeks ago" ...

I reply more or less promptly but it takes 1 week or so for my replies to be "moderated" and posted here

"Everything's been dealt with.." to your satisfaction perhaps, but not to mine

john123470

john123470 wrote: »

"Everything's been dealt with .. few weeks ago" ...

I reply more or less promptly but it takes 1 week or so for my replies to be "moderated" and posted here

"Everything's been dealt with.." to your satisfaction perhaps, but not to mine

I guess one shd have enough problems to be getting on with : car stolen, g/friend finding a female lover, job front iffy .. But, well .. i just hate bullying

A defender of the Mod I am writing about above says that Mods are chosen 'partially for their interest in a subject' ..
And what other criteria ? Eg. How well they speak English ? Their popularity with other posters ? Friends of other Mods ?
There shd be a more rigorous procedure for Mod selection than "he likes the radio"

Mods shd also be changed more frequently to show transparency and that Boards.ie are always open to new input. It's a forum for people not a playground for a Mod

Threads shd not just glorified chat rooms with a head honcho dictating the terms whom you disagree with at your peril.

Mods need Moderation also. If more than one poster complains about the Mod's behaviour, as is the case here - then the behaviour of that Mod shd be reviewed. Otherwise, people will simply stop posting

It doesn't really matter what fancy names one adopts, replete with linguistic flourishes - if what you are being served up is Mutton dressed as lamb

john123470

I wish you might have let me know about this thread, I might have been able to explain the decision at the time. For the record, you were warned about personal abuse when you started referring to people as "oafs" and "planks" and then started talking about a child as being "a Downs".

Also, for the record, you didn't raise this as a problem in our PMs. In fact, you sounded fairly satisfied and said you'd 'duly noted' the rules.

john123470 wrote: »

"We do not discourage mods from contributing to discussions they are interested in"

There you have it. The thread then basically becomes a chat room with a bully on board.

If a Mod wishes to contribute, let them do so under a pseudonym. I'm sure they do so anyway

It's quite simple. There are plenty of posters on any given topic. A Moderator's job shd be to moderate these posts, to give everyone a fair hearing. That patently is not happening where particular Mods are concerned

99% of the time, mods are posting as regular users. We get carded, infracted and banned as appropriate. I've had all of the above.

Why would we be active on boards if we weren't allowed to post our opinions? Reading reported posts, or carding people with whom you are friends, isn't any craic. I agree, it's not ideal that a moderator is simultaneously offering an opinion and attempting to moderate a discussion, but if you know of a better way of managing forums, tell the admins.

This expression you've used, "bully" is unfair. I don't believe I've ever bullied anyone in my life. I am sometimes a bit abrupt, but your comments are out of order, if I may say. If you were dissatisfied, you should have said that to me, whereas you indicated yourself to be pretty content, and apologetic.

john123470

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I wish you might have let me know about this thread, I might have been able to explain the decision at the time. For the record, you were warned about personal abuse when you started referring to people as "oafs" and "planks" and then started talking about a child as being "a Downs".

Also, for the record, you didn't raise this as a problem in our PMs. In fact, you sounded fairly satisfied and said you'd 'duly noted' the rules.


99% of the time, mods are posting as regular users. We get carded, infracted and banned as appropriate. I've had all of the above.

Why would we be active on boards if we weren't allowed to post our opinions? Reading reported posts, or carding people with whom you are friends, isn't any craic. I agree, it's not ideal that a moderator is simultaneously offering an opinion and attempting to moderate a discussion, but if you know of a better way of managing forums, tell the admins.

This expression you've used, "bully" is unfair. I don't believe I've ever bullied anyone in my life. I am sometimes a bit abrupt, but your comments are out of order, if I may say. If you were dissatisfied, you should have said that to me, whereas you indicated yourself to be pretty content, and apologetic.

I am not going to spend a lot of time on this. I have already spent more than it is worth.

Re 'a Downs' - i have explained already to you (why do I have to repeat myself - do you read what I write to you) that we have a CHILD WITH DOWNS SYNDROME in our family whom we refer to (lovingly) as 'a Downs child..'.. so I was hardly trying to denigrate 'CHILDREN WITH DOWNS SYNDROME'.

Sorry for not being au fait with the modern, correct terminology but this shd not necessitate this 'you shd know better !! ' finger wagging from you and your mates - who were (conveniently) in disagreement with my argument on the thread

Of course, I will accept correction, cards, whatever, gracefully - when deserved and have always done so, but I stand by the charge of bullying.

I was curious enough, following our exchanges, to read several of your other posts on various threads and my impression is confirmed. Sorry about that

As mentioned already, I am not the first to complain about your behaviour and competence as a Moderator.
People vote with their feet

Anyway, end of the day, you win.

I will avoid posting on threads where 'Miltiades the tyrant' is a Mod thus saving you the trouble of dealing with me again.

I have indeed learned my lesson
It's all yours

john123470

john123470 wrote: »

Of course, I will accept correction, cards, whatever, gracefully - when deserved and have always done so, but I stand by the charge of bullying.

Okay, well can you explain how I bullied you? If I said anything that could possibly be construed as bullying, I will definitely apologise. Really.

I will avoid posting on threads where 'Miltiades the tyrant' is a Mod thus saving you the trouble of dealing with me again.

Just a minor point for the record, I had this username before I became a mod. It's become a little annoying, and it does rub people up the wrong way. It was just a line from a poem (The Isles of Greece, great poem)

john123470

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Okay, well can you explain how I bullied you? If I said anything that could possibly be construed as bullying, I will definitely apologise. Really.


Just a minor point for the record, I had this username before I became a mod. It's become a little annoying, and it does rub people up the wrong way. It was just a line from a poem (The Isles of Greece, great poem)

Yes, you are quite precious about that name. A few days ago, you suddenly changed it from 'Miltiades the lamb' to 'Miltiades the tyrant' right after I posted the folliwing -

"It doesn't really matter what fancy names one adopts, replete with linguistic flourishes - if what you are being served up is Mutton dressed as lamb" -

But
The real problem is not the ever changing name(s) you use - whether designed to impress people that you are "a learned, well read person" or not (lols), the 'bullying', whatever - it's that this lack of Maturity becomes evident in your contributions and adjudications. People stop taking you Seriously.

As stated above, I am not the first to complain about your behaviour.

The problem with having a Mod who uses his muscle to downplay posters he takes a dislike to - is that the forum becomes no more than a private chatroom for the Mod and his mates. It stops being a public forum

When a complaint does arise, the Mod's mates and other Mods will line up to defend him / her - as has happened above

People like to express their opinions on current affairs etc - esp. if they don't have a voice. It is a real shame they can be prevented doing so with these shenanigans

EmmetSpiceland

john123470 wrote: »

When a complaint does arise, the Mod's mates and other Mods will line up to defend him / her - as has happened above

I would just like to go on record, and state, that I am not “mates” with the mod in question. Yes, we share the odd joke, opinion and “ribbing” on the site but this is someone I have never met, nor do I intend to. Mixing online with the real world is just a recipe for disaster, in my opinion.

The reason I responded to your bellicose whine is because there seems, to me, to be a rise in complaints against radio mods from users who’ve been “chastised” for being excessively uncivil, and unhinged. There is a shocking lack of self awareness at play.

I would ask that you please refrain from continuing with this, risible, accusation of some sort of “conspiracy” where the mod, along with other members of the forum, are palling around and laughing at you behind your back. That’s just utter nonsense.

Frankly, I think it’s baffling that you continue with your, tone deaf, assertion that it’s ok to call a person with Down’s Syndrome “a downs” simply because you say that you have a relation with the condition. Absolutely zero defence.

john123470

john123470 wrote: »

Yes, you are quite precious about that name. A few days ago, you suddenly changed it from 'Miltiades the lamb' to 'Miltiades the tyrant' right after I posted the folliwing -

[...]

The real problem is not the ever changing name(s) you use - whether designed to impress people that you are "a learned, well read person" or not (lols), the 'bullying', whatever - it's that this lack of Maturity becomes evident in your contributions and adjudications.

Well, all I can say at this point is reiterate that I will apologise if I said anything that could conceivably be construed as bullying.
You called people oafs, planks, and referred to a specific child as 'a downs'. That's what you were carded for.

I think that's as much as I have to say on this topic.

Leg End Reject

I'll admit I have no business posting in this thread, but a mod's username is hardly evidence of bullying, especially since they've explained the origin and the fact that is was their username before they were a mod.

It has nothing to do with a mod action at all.

john123470

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well, all I can say at this point is reiterate that I will apologise if I said anything that could conceivably be construed as bullying.
You called people oafs, planks, and referred to a specific child as 'a downs'. That's what you were carded for.

I think that's as much as I have to say on this topic.

You keep digging holes. You go "on record" here and we find it is untrue.

I am not saying you're a bad person - and i do not want to hurt your feelings - .. just that I and others have found your ability / maturity to moderate a public forum .. questionable. Now you add Reliability to the list. The evidence is in your posts

Readers stop taking you Seriously.
Why fight it

Again, Boards.ie is a public forum - not a playground for a Mod and his mates.

Mods shd be changed up every so often.
Otherwise, the rot sets in.

Miltiades indeed. Miltiades would have been chucked out the great Forum Magnum in Rome - head first thru the great Forum doors into the hot, dusty Roman street - if he tried it on.
His toga and sandals flung after him. Then some drunken Roman soldiers, loitering about outside the Forum, might have their way with him

No way would this be tolerated in Miltiades' day. Democracy was a right, not a debate

Poor ol Miltiades must be spinning in his catacomb ..
Ye Gods

john123470

john123470 wrote: »

Miltiades indeed. Miltiades would have been chucked out the great Forum Magnum in Rome - head first thru the great Forum doors into the hot, dusty Roman street - if he tried it on.
His toga and sandals flung after him.

Poor Miltiades was a Greek, not a Roman. He wouldn't have understood any of that.

Look, is it a stupid username? Yes. I just liked that quote when I signed-up. I reget it. When I changed it to something more placid, the replacement sounded idiotic.

I have already said all I can say on the main topic, so have nothing further to offer.

So in summary you were carded for repeatedly posting against the charter.
And on the down's syndrome point, you said "thanks for pointing it out".
You now accuse me of bullying. I resent that a bit. Anyone in their right-mind hates bullying, and I'd ask you to offer any proof, or maybe take it back.

I can't offer anything else on the main topic, but the bullying point grinds on me. f I said anything bullying to you or anyone else, I will apologise without reservation.

john123470

john123470 wrote: »

You keep digging holes. You go "on record" here and we find it is untrue.

I am not saying you're a bad person - and i do not want to hurt your feelings - .. just that I and others have found your ability / maturity to moderate a public forum .. questionable. Now you add Reliability to the list. The evidence is in your posts

Readers stop taking you Seriously.
Why fight it

Again, Boards.ie is a public forum - not a playground for a Mod and his mates.

Mods shd be changed up every so often.
Otherwise, the rot sets in.

Miltiades indeed. Miltiades would have been chucked out the great Forum Magnum in Rome - head first thru the great Forum doors into the hot, dusty Roman street - if he tried it on.
His toga and sandals flung after him. Then some drunken Roman soldiers, loitering about outside the Forum, might have their way with him

No way would this be tolerated in Miltiades' day. Democracy was a right, not a debate

Poor ol Miltiades must be spinning in his catacomb ..
Ye Gods

Stop worrying about your name.
It is not about your name nor the fact that you changed it some 2 weeks ago - then claimed (on the record) that you had this username from before you were a Mod -

.. although this craic might give the impression you are liable to say anything that suits you at any given time.

I don't care if you call yourself 'Hitler with a headache' - it's the fact that I and others have complained about your 'Maturity / ability' to Moderate on a public forum in a fair and consistent way. As mentioned, the evidence is in your posts

I have been on Boards for some 5 years. In that time, i have been shot at, carded etc and never saw reason to 'complain' until now.

Mods need to be changed up every so often. Otherwise, the rot sets in as has happened here. You know yrself.

What you end up with is a chat room with a bully on board and that is not what Boards.ie is about

Sorry - if i hurt your feelings but it needs to be called out