Blanket ban on replying to mods, deleting posts and expiry of warnings

Yeah Right

I've been given a 2-point warning and banned for a week for a week for "arguing with a mod". After a bit of discussion, it turns out it wasn't for arguing with a mod, it was for replying to a mod post. When I correctly pointed out that I wasn't actually arguing with the mod, merely asking questions, the response was

<PM content removed>

Leaving aside the irony of the passive-aggressive nature of this response by a (different) mod, surely we are beyond a totalitarian "zero replying to mod posts" in this day and age? Especially in cases where someone isn't even talking about the content of the mod post itself? Someone was deleting posts but not saying anything about it or the reasons why. I was told that I could have PM'd the mod, but how is anyone supposed to know which mod to PM if there's no "posts were deleted, everyone needs to up their manners" announcement or whatever?

I was also told that the reason for the week long ban is because I had, in the past, been given a 1-day and 3-day ban from that forum. Presumably under my previous account, which hasn't been active for 2 years at this stage.

So, to the feedback…….

• If posts are being removed, there should be an onus on the mod in question to simply tell others so. I thought I was losing my mind when I couldn't find my post, a simple two-word explanation is all it takes to let people know. Deleting posts and saying nothing is not only cowardly, it is self-defeating. If someone is exhibiting behaviour that is unwanted in a forum, simply removing the posts does nothing to deter that behaviour by others in the future. Removing the posts and telling the rest of us it was done, and WHY it was done, is a much better use of the mods' time as it will prevent others from committing the same crimes
• The blanket ban replying to mod posts needs to go. At the very least, it should be reduced from an (assumed) automatic ban (for the 2 points). "How dare you speak to us" vibes. Often time the only interaction a mod will have on a thread will be via mod posts. Sure, if someone is arguing the toss or acting the bellend, hit them with the banhammer. Seeking clarification of the mod post itself or even engaging with the mod on another topic altogether is completely different. Again, from a mod POV, this sort of discussion is better off happening in full view of all users, instead of the diktat of "take it to PM". Which is more time consuming; explaining something on a thread with 200 users, or replying to 75 PM's asking why something happened on thread?
• What is the point of the warning system? This current 2-point warning I received expires 27th May. AFAIK, any previous warnings had expired before this. So what's the point of an expiration if they're still counted in any future actions? Do they ever actually expire? Is there a post somewhere that outlines all of this that I can't find?

I'm not disputing the ban, as I feel it's a futile endeavour. I do feel, however, the black & white nature of such bans should be looked at.

Spear

The content of PMs is private, and you didn't get permission to post that, so it's been removed.

Irish Aris

Good afternoon Yeah Right,

I will give you an initial response as I was the mod that deleted your post.

You are right, the ideal way is to make a comment that a post was deleted. It's unfortunately not always practical to do it. But i get your point, I offer my apologies for any inconvenience caused and I will strive to be more consistent in this approach. There is a concern that frequently having mod notes on thread that a post was deleted may grate on people, but I guess we will deal with this if it ever comes up as an issue in future feedback threads. I don't necessarily agree that the mods should provide a reason every time they delete a post - at least not on thread. If the post has been deleted, people wouldn't know anyway what it contained, so it wouldn't be of much help.

In this particular instance I deleted your post because, in my opinion, it was insensitive/crass. It was caught because it was reported as such, by more than 1 people.

I can't comment on whether it's fair or unfair to not be able to respond to a mod note/warning on thread. This is a decision that predates my becoming a mod. Any decision to change this rule should be made on higher level (probably admin level). I would say though that you are (or should be) aware of the current rule to not respond on a mod note on thread, and failure to comply with that can result in a warning/ban.

The prior 1-day and 3-day bans are under your current account, not any previous accounts. You are correct, previous accounts aren't considered as part of the totting up CA process. In fact, mods don't know what previous accounts (if any) you have on the site.

The points do expire. For example 1 point expires after a week, 2 points expire after 2 weeks. Having too many active points automatically generates a temporary siteban.

Hope this clarifies somewhat, please let us know if you need any additional clarification on the topic.

Dial Hard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058410047/blanket-ban-on-replying-to-mods-deleting-posts-and-expiry-of-warnings

There's no blanket ban on replying to mods. There is, and always has been an absolute rule of "no replying to/arguing with/discussion of" mod instructions on-thread, and I can't see this ever changing; every thread would just descend into endless back & forth on mod interventions otherwise.

I do agree that "Post snipped/deleted" notes are preferable to the posts just disappearing altogether, but I can kind of get how that isn't always feasible or necessarily the best option. Some posts and posters just need to be nuked from orbit.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123447793#Comment_123447793

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

You are right, the ideal way is to make a comment that a post was deleted. It's unfortunately not always practical to do it.

I accept this fully. I've no idea how much of a PITA it is to clean a thread up and all that entails. I'm fully aware how real life can sometimes get in the way etc. However, adding an extra sentence when you're already typing up a warning post that contains 10-15 sentences isn't exactly asking for the moon. Even editing the post to say "Post deleted" isn't that much extra work than deleting it. We're talking seconds here, in the grand scheme of things.

But i get your point, I offer my apologies for any inconvenience caused and I will strive to be more consistent in this approach. There is a concern that frequently having mod notes on thread that a post was deleted may grate on people, but I guess we will deal with this if it ever comes up as an issue in future feedback threads.

No need to apologise, this is nothing personal against either you or the mod who banned me. But again, there was already a mod post being typed and instructions issued. I'm not asking for a separate post every time something is deemed unsuitable, just add it to the mod post. Adding three or four words to an post that is going up anyway hardly qualifies as frequent. It's already done pretty much everywhere on Boards.

I don't necessarily agree that the mods should provide a reason every time they delete a post - at least not on thread. If the post has been deleted, people wouldn't know anyway what it contained, so it wouldn't be of much help.

We can disagree on the first point, but your second point is part of the issue. If someone calls McGregor a scumbag and gets banned for it, then everyone can see how/why they were banned and there'll be no more posts calling him a scumbag. If you delete it and ban the poster, but nobody else is aware of it, you are pretty much guaranteed that there will be more people lining up to call him a scumbag. There is a false economy in not explaining yourself to save time, but then having to waste much more time doing the same thing over and over again. If you're trying to discourage certain behaviour from the unwashed masses, put the offenders' heads on spikes in the town square instead of locking them away in the tower. Shine a light on the messers and everyone else can see what qualifies as being a messer.

In this particular instance I deleted your post because, in my opinion, it was insensitive/crass. It was caught because it was reported as such, by more than 1 people.

Why not say so at the time then? Surely having to respond to threads such as these is more time consuming than explaining your rationale in the first instance?

I can't comment on whether it's fair or unfair to not be able to respond to a mod note/warning on thread. This is a decision that predates my becoming a mod. Any decision to change this rule should be made on higher level (probably admin level). I would say though that you are (or should be) aware of the current rule to not respond on a mod note on thread, and failure to comply with that can result in a warning/ban.

I fully accept this also, in no way am I holding you responsible for the policies of Boards inc. It's the main reason why I think appealing is a fool's errand. My own personal feeling is that having such a black and white rule in place is counter-productive. "You're not allowed to reply to this, full stop" was brought in to stop the bowsies from dragging stuff off topic via interminably debating instruction handed down. My post had nothing to do with what was contained in your mod post, in fact it was 100% to do with what was NOT INCLUDED. I could have PM'd you, but a) there's no guarantee it was you who removed them and b) we're back to the 'shining a light' analogy. It might help me to understand the reasoning behind a decision, but everyone else is still in the dark. Just add "posts deleted because [reason]….." to the mod post as happens everywhere else on Board.

The prior 1-day and 3-day bans are under your current account, not any previous accounts. You are correct, previous accounts aren't considered as part of the totting up CA process. In fact, mods don't know what previous accounts (if any) you have on the site. The points do expire. For example 1 point expires after a week, 2 points expire after 2 weeks. Having too many active points automatically generates a temporary siteban.

Thanks for the clarification. If they expire, but then are taken into account at a later date, then they don't really expire, though, do they? If you got 3 points that expired last year on your licence and you picked up another three tomorrow, and picked up a ban for accumulating 6 points, you'd be wondering what they meant by the first three having "expired".

Hope this clarifies somewhat, please let us know if you need any additional clarification on the topic.

Thanks again. And apologies if anything I've said on this or the other thread comes across as insulting or offensive. 'Twas never my intention.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123447832#Comment_123447832

There's no blanket ban on replying to mods.

I never said there was………….

There is, and always has been an absolute rule of "no replying to/arguing with/discussion of" mod instructions on-thread,

…………this is what I'm talking about and what needs to change. When I say "mod posts" I'm talking about what you refer to as 'mod instructions'. That's what they were called for years, "mod posts". Exhibit A.

and I can't see this ever changing; every thread would just descend into endless back & forth on mod interventions otherwise

If you don't ask, you won't get.

There is a difference between "Hey, Mr. Mod, I disagree with what you're saying is happening and will explain why in a series of 20 posts over 4 pages starting now…….."

and

"hey, Mr Mod, I agree with your actions, but you forgot to mention that you're deleting posts, maybe include that in your instruction next time?".

The blanket ban was brought in decades ago when we would regularly have thousands of users on at the same time and all of the potential issues that entailed. We probably barely get that number per day, in 2025, though I'm unsure if the stats are as easily accessible these days. If a rule is no longer suitable, then bin it and introduce a new rule (which is what happened when the rule was introduced in the first place).

Irish Aris

Thank you for the post @Yeah Right

No offense taken.

Let me try to explain a little bit more on the difference between points and their expiry vs the totting up process that CA only has, as the 2 aren't linked to each other (most of the time anyway).

The totting up process of bans is limited to CA only (Soccer may have something similar, but not sure how it works exactly). It doesn't take into consideration whether points are active or not. Instead mods check whether you have been previously banned in CA so they can apply the appropriate step in the scale. As a reminder for everyone, the scale can be found here.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058368026/new-rules-charter-for-the-ca-forum

The points system is applicable in most, if not all, forums of the site. Posters can accumulate points in more than one forums. some pointed warnings can have a ban attached to it, like in CA or Soccer. If a poster accumulates a lot of points during a very short period of time, then the temporary site ban kicks in.

For example: In the space of the same week, a poster gets 1 point in After Hours, 1 point in Radio, 1 point in CA, 1 point in soccer etc. All these are active in the space of the same week, so the temp site ban gets automatically activated.

In a different scenario: a poster gets 1 point in After Hours and two weeks later gets 1 more point in CA. By the time of the second point, the first one has expired. So the poster now has only 1 active point in their profile. But because the second point is in CA, this is subject to the CA scale and comes with a ban.

Not sure if my explanation makes sense to you/everyone, so please let me know of any further questions.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123447793#Comment_123447793

FWIW I remember yeah right's post which was a response to the OP. I didn't find it any more insensitive than other posts questioning the sense of stepping into the road to conduct a traffic stop which still exist.

If posters wanted to call it insensitive then they could have done so on the thread. Thinking something is insensitive is entirely subjective, some will, some won't, but insensitivity is hardly a valid case for deleting a post.

How many thanks had the post received when you deleted it? I thought it had at least one.

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123447832#Comment_123447832

There's no blanket ban on replying to mods. There is, and always has been an absolute rule of "no replying to/arguing with/discussion of" mod instructions on-thread, and I can't see this ever changing;

Probably one for admin, but I went looking for the general site rules a while ago and couldn't find them anywhere, I don't think whatever page they were on survived the move to vanilla.

Big Bag of Chips

Terms of Use of the Site

Most, if not all forums have the rule that you do not respond to a moderator instruction on thread. It's off-topic and derails the thread.

Some pertinent paragraphs from the Terms of Use are copied below.

• 14.2 Users:
  Boards SoftwareLimited may at its sole discretion for any reason (i) disable or deactivate your account, block your email or IP address, or otherwise terminate your access to or use of boards.ie, (ii) remove and discard any posts or Material within any thread or anywhere on boards.ie or (iii) shut down a discussion, thread or forum that you are involved in, with or without notice, and with no liability of any kind to you.

• Boards.ie may at its absolute discretion refuse you access to the site and/or cancel/terminate your user privileges without prior notice for any reason and you shall not be entitled to any compensation in respect of cancellation/termination of your user privileges. If we disable your account you will not be entitled to create another account without our permission.

Dial Hard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123447972#Comment_123447972

There's no blanket ban on replying to mods.

I never said there was………….

You literally said it in the thread title.

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123448770#Comment_123448770

I was more looking for rules like "attack the post not the poster" and the like, which I searched and found this post / thread (with the title and text changed to what you see here by a mod)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058402213/rules

I see a couple forums have similar to the below included in their charter, but I can't find wherever they've copied it from

As with all Boards fora, the general site rules apply:

Site Rules

Boards is a privately owned website, as such, free speech does not apply. If your post does not comply with the rules, it may be edited or deleted.

Be civil (Don't be a dick to others).

Always read the forum charter.

No Personal Abuse - Attack the post not the poster.

Don't back seat moderate, if you have a problem with a post, hit the report button.

Don't argue with a mod direction on thread - If you want to discuss it, take it to PM.

Don't advertise your company.

Don't post about illegal activities.

Don't post porn or any other Not Safe for Work Material (NSFW).

Don't use txtspk, use your whole keyboard, thats what its there for.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123448868#Comment_123448868

I did, apologies

AndrewJRenko

Apparently, it's not now permissible to even mention the fact that you've been moderated or banned, even in a feedback thread, because that is 'picking up where you left off' (even when it's not).

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123455956#Comment_123455956

Shield

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123461305#Comment_123461305

Mod post: You get a 1-point warning for back-seat modding. Consider yourself very lucky you’re not getting a forum ban, but be very careful or you find yourself banned from Feedback, and that’s coming from the admin team. Do NOT reply to this, rehabilitate your behaviour, and you will get away with just a warning.

-Shield

Quantum Erasure

Trying to keep this on topic, I thought the rule was always 'don't back seat mod' and 'don't argue / respond to mod directions on thread', but how far does that go?

I remember the last wokism of the day thread being closed for questioning mods actions, the question being wondering why the previous thread had been closed. Thought it was a little OTT at the time.

Shield

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123466485#Comment_123466485

It’s exactly what you’ve done here. My post was clearly indicated as a mod post, and people were replying to it on-thread regardless of it being a mod post. I’m not sure what you mean when you ask “how far does that go?” and we won’t discuss that here.

You’re free to send me a PM should you have further questions, but you cannot reply to mod posts. No sanctions this time for replying to my mod post, but you’ll pick up a warning if you ignore this. I think I’m being very reasonable here.

Now, let’s get this back on-topic!

Thanks.

-Shield