[Resolved] Inconsistent moderation in an AH thread

AndrewJRenko

I’ve been on Boards for what must be twenty years or more in various guises. I’ve experienced all kinds of moderation over the years, good and bad. I’ve never felt motivated to open a dispute before today.

In this thread, another user posted the comment ‘shoot all the cyclists’ comment. I reported this post for inciting violence. The post has not been removed and no moderator action is noted on this post.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058285186/i-know-how-to-make-the-roads-safer#latest

I posted shortly after, suggesting that steering wheel airbags should be replaced by spikes. This is a reference to Tullock’s Spike thought experiment, a fairly well established concept in road safety discussions.

Self-Driving Cars Safety And The Curious Thought Of Steering Wheels With Tullock Spikes

Raichu issued a warning, referencing my report of the other post, and finished with “anymore crap like this and it’s a one week ban”. I queried his bias in leaving the ‘shoot all the cyclists’ post in place, which he refused to discuss.

I explained to Raichu that my post was not intended to be taken literally. They replied with “Do not be so ridiculous. You know exactly what your post meant”., and said that they wouldn’t continue engaging with me.

There is a clearly obvious bias in the decision to leave the other post present. If Boards policy is to take all posts literally, then so be it. It doesn’t seem like a great policy, but I’ll accept it.

What has happened here is that my post has been taken literally, while the other post has not, which appears to be a very obvious example of personal bias.

I would respectfully request that either both posts are removed or my warning is revoked and my post is restored.

Ten of Swords

Hi AndrewJRenko

I would respectfully request that either both posts are removed or my warning is revoked and my post is restored.

Which would you prefer? If it's both posts being removed you can discuss this with @[Deleted User] by PM and see if you can come to an agreement.

If you want to dispute your warning let me know and I will review

AndrewJRenko

Thanks for getting back to me. I’d prefer my post to be restored. I did engage with @[Deleted User] , who said that they wouldn’t continue engaging with me.

Please review my warning.

Ten of Swords

Please post the correspondence between you and the mod re this warning, thanks

AndrewJRenko

• You are being warned for the following post:

• AndrewJRenko✭✭✭✭
• Feb 20, 2023

I know how to make the roads safer.

I know how to make the roads safer.

• AMKCFeb 20, 2023
• No insurance on any vehicle. Just think how much safer the roads would be then because no one would crash into anyone because they would not be able to claim anything so the roads would in turn be safer :) .
• 
  
• View Post
• 
  
• 
  
• We'd still need 3rd party insurance to cover damage to other people and vehicles. 
• We should replace drivers airbags with these 

• 
  
• 
  
• View Post
• 
  
• 
  
• Reporting a post for inciting violence and you then immediately post this a few posts down? Seriously? You need to get over this thing you have with motorists. Anymore crap like this and it’s a one week ban.

• AndrewJRenko February 21
• So you removed my post and left the “shoot all the cyclists” post in place? Is there a little bias in play here?

• Raichu February 21
• No bias except for your own Andrew. reporting their post only to follow up shortly after with that of your own, really?
• I’m not discussing moderation I took with other users either. I tried to edit your post to remove the picture but I could not do so as I felt the rest was fine to stay, but had to delete. 
• Regards,
• Raichu

• AndrewJRenko February 21
• You’re here to moderate my posts, not manage my opinions. You brought up the matter of my report of the other post, so it’s more than a bit rich for you to be backing away from it now as if it is nothing to do with you.
• My post was not intended to be taken literally, which I thought was fairly obvious. It was intended to spark discussion about how car safety measures are all about cushioning the occupants from the impacts of their driving - a relevant question in the topic.
• I can’t see any reason why you would leave the other post in position and remove mine, other than clear bias.

• Raichu February 21
• If you are trying to tell me that your post was an attempt to discuss airbags as opposed to why steering wheels are not equipped with railway spikes I’m not even going to continue engaging with you. 
• Do not be so ridiculous. You know exactly what your post meant. 
• Im not discussing what action I took or didn’t take with the other poster, I just found it rather amusing that in the same breath as your calling out a post for inciting violence you, yourself are doing the same.

• Raichu February 21
• If you want to dispute the warning I’ll refer you to DRP. I’m not buying your story here and I’m not reversing the warning. 
• Thanks,
• Raichu

Ten of Swords

Hi AndrewJRenko

A couple of things to note

First - the post containing 'shoot all cyclists' did receive a warning at the same time yours did. Unfortunately the vanilla platform does not show posters when a post has been warned like the old yellow/red card system on vBulletin. Moderators can see when a post has been warned because there is a pink banner across the top of the post, this banner is not visible to regular posters unfortunately.

Second - When discussing your sanction with you a mod is not going to discuss specific mod actions (or lack of, if applicable) concerning other posters.

The sequence of events in that thread is broadly outlined above in your first post but - a poster made a trollish comment about shooting cyclists, you reported this and then almost immediately follow up with your post containing an image of a steering wheel with a spike in the center. It's a fairly logical conclusion to reach that your post could be interpreted as violence/harm against drivers due to the earlier post about shooting cyclists - you did not mention a Tullock spike (or it's theoretical function in road safety) until post #1 of this thread. You didn't mention it when you posted it initially or to Raichu in your PM exchange, all you said was that your post was not to be taken literally - I am equally assuming the other poster did not intend to actually shoot cyclists either.

The mod acted in good faith applying a warning to both, believing them to be troll posts. As you can see from the image quote above Raichu deleted your post because of the picture of the spike in your post. The other post, while warned, was left on the thread which is where I am guessing the basis for your inconsistent modding argument originates?

If you properly described the theory behind a Tullock Spike it is actually on-topic for the thread and provides an interesting viewpoint. For this reason I am overturning your warning but to be clear I don't think Raichu acted incorrectly as you did not explain what the image was, either in the post or subsequent PMs. I am also deleting the 'shoot all cyclists' post to avoid future reports.

I am not restoring your post and if you want to introduce it as a discussion point in this, or any other, thread I advise you to explain what it is.

Please let me know if this is agreeable or if you would like an admin to review.

AndrewJRenko

Thanks, I’m agreeable with this.