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

Problem with current affairs

Options
14142444647

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,680 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    Anyone up for a game of Spot the Wannabe Mods?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]



    this thread was a planned pile-on aimed at beasty


    and two of those involved have gotten half of what they deserved



  • Registered Users Posts: 67,506 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Before you go to the DRP process you must first engage with the mod who issued the sanction and then post those PM's to the DRP if requested to.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,347 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Now you are adopting the position of the GAA referee and awarding yellow cards to two players when only one was at fault.

    Moderation isn't one-sided if one side is committing more fouls than the other side. Going back to soccer, there are players and teams who pick up more than their fair share of yellow and red cards, and have to look first to their own behaviour rather than blaming the refs. It is quite clear from their arrogant contributions on this thread that @Brucie Bonus and @FrancieBrady believe that they bear zero responsibility for thier actions, blaming @Beasty primarily and then other posters while they indulge their victimhood. By contrast, you will have seen @markodaly @brokenangel and myself apologising for the picking up of sanctions and regretting actions. The contrast is stark.

    If only one side was moderated, the other side wouldn't pick up any cards. The difference in sanctions reflects the difference in behaviour.

    I am horrified at what @Beasty has had to put up with from the two, no moderator should have to deal with posters like that.

    Furthermore, I can't see a way back for them. All they seem to be doing is trying to throw stones at everyone else in a vain attempt to bring the house down around them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,347 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    This is the thing. The referee is always right, even when the referee is wrong. Otherwise, you can't have civilised sport. Otherwise you get referee bundled into the boots of cars in rural Wicklow.

    If you don't like the rules, if you can't play by the rules, if you don't like the refereeing, play another sport.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 67,506 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch, understand what you are being told by the mod/admin here.

    It isn't about the number of 'fouls' the mod/admins are not responding to them.

    They are responding to 'reports'.

    Which is effectively a charter for the overly sensitive/ the report happy/ or for a coordinated attempt to get rid of unliked posts or posters. (it worked for you with the Varadkar leak example)

    It is NOT going to make the forum a better place neccessarily.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,281 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    To return to the football analogy, it's like the referee only blowing for fouls when the large home crowd boos.



  • Registered Users Posts: 387 ✭✭shirrup


    Was the post that led to the 58 pm exchange linked to?

    I for one would love to be able to see the context behind it. What was posted, a list of the reports (no need to reveal the usernames) then I could form an opinion.

    A Were the reports iffy/soft or did it look like an "organised" report by a clique? Meaning the poster was dam right to fight his corner.

    B Where the reports valid with, or did they come in from a broad mix of posters , excluding some of the high rollers in here who are baiting and taunting?

    Maybe a little bit from column A and B?

    Doubtful that would ever be revealed, but by Christ it would possibly paint a different picture if it was.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    This is your narrative and agenda, not reality. My main issue, as I've had to constantly remind you, is a poster being both a mod and an admin. We have nowhere to go with any grievances. Its a call for more mods. So stop the constant misrepresentation.

    You and the lads have shown your true selves on here. Not the optics you seem to believe. You are trolling francie and spinning a narrative. You've posted false claims as facts. You are only here to do what you do in CA, have a go at a discussion you want to divert to suit your narrative. All the disruption on this thread and the clown show it has become can be quite easily traced back to you, Mark and BA. Just like in current affairs. My biggest criticism of beasty as regards moderation is, he very often lets you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,347 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    This is what happened:

    (1) Brucie set up the thread

    (2) Brucie PM'd Francie to tell him he had set up the thread

    (3) Francie posted in the thread following receipt of the PM.

    Which bit of coordinating do you not understand? By PMing about the thread, was Brucie expecting a thanks for telling me but I am not posting there response? Seriously? No, the logic suggests, and the balance of probabilities, is that Brucie PM'd Francie to make sure that Francie joined the thread to bash the Admin. That is coordinating.

    It looks like a duck, it walked like a duck, and it sure quacked as loud as a duck. To be fair to Francie, he wasn't doing the co-ordinating, he was just the lackey following orders.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 67,506 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Sorry Shirrup, not sure what you are asking here?



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,062 ✭✭✭✭markodaly



    or it is more simply explained by what a few have observed here. That Beasty enjoys a good row/debate.

    I make no bones about the fact I do too.

    A meeting of two minds maybe?

    Hilarious.

    Others have relayed their own experience with Beasty and managed to limit their exchanges to fraction of the mountain of PM you manage to create.

    Other mods have chimed in and you have an issue with them as well.


    So in summary

    Its not Beasty..

    Its not the other mods or Cmods

    Its not the other users

    .

    Its you and you alone Francie. Take ownership for once. You are the common denominator.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,722 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    No, you used a soccer analogy and said both get the sames sanctions but are treated different by the ref due to their actions. That's not how it works. From your analogy both get red cards and the one who took the piss gets a longer ban. You are essentially admitting that mods treat people different.

    Francie has also acknowledged he overstepped the lines at times and accepted his bans.

    Throughout this thread Mark has asked the same question 7 or 8 times even tho Francie clearly stated he wont answer. That's clearly baiting from Mark, he does the same in CA.

    I actually don't think Beasty moderates only one sided. In my eyes one side baits the other side repeatedly, plays the innocent and the other side stupidly takes the bait every time, gets reported and then gets banned. Both sides are ruining CA. banning one side of that doesnt fix CA.



  • Registered Users Posts: 67,506 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    You are refusing to accept that the above is not the allegation that has been made. But you know that and will continue to muddy the water.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,062 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    I do agree in spirit Fionn and need to have a look at my own behaviour.

    Now that the biggest troublemakers are no longer posting in CA I have seen a definite improvement on both the tone and quality of the debate in many of the threads under the microscope. Surely that is a good thing, even though we can sometimes and often disagree on things.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,242 ✭✭✭brokenangel


    Brucie sent you a PM to join the thread. That is both of you coordinating.

    You have admitted with Brucie and Dempo that you PM each other. That is also coordinating

    If this was so innocent why are the other poster not holding their hands up now?

    Anyway leave you to it,

    It's not against the rules.

    But if these people think nothing is wrong then why not admit it instead of sneaking around in the background.

    I think we all know why, don't we?

    Leo has to be mentioned on every thread....

    Look at even the person who put up the tweet about this. For some reason a person on Twitter mentioned FG. Baffling.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,281 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    Thats not coordination. Coordination requires that they have an agreed approach to the thread. I.e. that they have agreed what points to bring up and how they will back each other up. All done in advance. There has been no evidence provided that this has happened.

    Telling someone you have opened a thread which you think they might be interested in is not coordination.

    But as I said, even if they did, it isn't against the rules. Unless you can point out which rule it is against? I can wait.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,347 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Yourself and @Dempo1 have been putting out serious allegations of a clique for quite some time on this thread. As I previously indicated, most of those I have been accused of "co-ordinating" with, I have never PM'd. For the avoidance of any doubt, if any Admin believes that there has been a conspiracy or organised clique operating against @FrancieBrady or @Brucie Bonus, I will open access to my PMs to them.

    I would encourage the two lads to also grant full access to all of their PMs to the mods and admins so that they can be fully cleared of the allegations of co-ordination. After all, if, like me, they have nothing to hide.....................



  • Registered Users Posts: 387 ✭✭shirrup


    I'm saying that it would be interesting to see the context behind the whole "58 pm" exchange thing, what led up to it, the basis of the reports, and saying it would be very interesting who was behind the reports.

    Were the reports valid concerns but a random mix of posters, not the posters in this thread taunting baiting etc.

    Or were the reports from a "clique", with many of them from usernames whom are in the thread stirring.

    Basically I'm wondering out loud, if, just like the accusation levelled at yourself, was it "tactical reporting" that led to your on exchange to begin with, and is it happening often.

    I'm wondering by the way, not accusing anyone. There's a difference of course.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,062 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Even if your analogy was true the 'other' side did not conspire to have a go at the admin and mods to undermine them.

    The 'other' side didn't abuse the mods and admins publicly.

    The 'other' side didn't rack up 89 warnings in one year

    The 'other' side didn't engage with the mods and admins for up to 29 PM's per month alone.

    The 'other' side didn't create sockpuppet accounts to slap each other on the back..


    As I keep saying, take responsibility for your actions Francie.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,347 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    As I say in another post, the solution to this is for the two boyos to grant access to all of their PMs to a mod. It doesn't have to be @Beasty , it can be another mod. The allegations of co-ordination can be cleared up very quickly.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,316 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    it doesn't matter how many times a post is reported you only get sanctioned if it breaks the rules. If your posts are getting reported and you are getting sanctioned then the problem is with your posts not those reporting your posts. If you have a problem with the posts of others simply report them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    Yes blanch everyone else is in a clique plotting against you. Oh, and shinners.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,347 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Are you going to make the same offer to the mods that I have? If they believe I am part of any clique or conspiracy they can have full access to my PMs.

    Will you do the same?

    Nowhere do I mention a clique plotting against me, that is what others are claiming I am involved with.



  • Registered Users Posts: 387 ✭✭shirrup


    Hey, you jumped to conclusions here buddy. That's on you, not me.

    Touched a nerve did I?


    Oh and I wouldn't have the slightest interest in your or anyone elses inbox.


    Who was behind the reports, and the reasoning behind them would be interesting though.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,347 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Exactly, if there was nothing wrong with the posts, then they wouldn't be sanctioned.

    The paranoia on display is illuminating. Posters hinting of cliques out to get Francie, Francie blaming those who report him etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,062 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Its clear to me there is a scorched earth type of thing going on.

    This is what happened:

    (1) Brucie set up the thread

    (2) Brucie PM'd Francie to tell him he had set up the thread

    (3) Francie posted in the thread following receipt of the PM.

    4) Francie is the second poster on this thread and backs Brucie up 100%

    5) It was revealed that both of them racked up 89 warnings in one year

    6) It was revealed that they suck up more time of Beasty than the rest of CA put together

    7) PM exchanges up to 59 and 40 odd replies each respectively was revealed


    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,347 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    That was a quick back-down.

    Are you prepared to release to a mod all of your PM contacts with Brucie, Francie and others?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,242 ✭✭✭brokenangel


    Exactly

    The attempt to drag this onto Twitter was a new low for some people.

    A desperate attempt to try and take a swipe at not just Beasty but at boards and the entire boards community.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement