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

A discussion on the rules.

1…7576788081…89

Comments

  • #2312
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Also, why isn't "mod hat always in bold" a rule to avoid ambiguity? What advantage could there ever be not to use bold, so why not make a rule of it?

    I think its pretty clear when someone is making a moderation type comment generally, hence a lot of people notice backseat moderation etc.

    Bolding is a style originally used by, I think, Victor and in the last few years has become a straightforward way of seeing mod notes easily and adding extra emphasis. But there are other ways e.g. "Mod note" or Scofflaws signature changing.

    The point being that if someone makes a moderation type comment in response to one of your posts, and that person is a moderator, then please respect it, regardless of formatting.


  • #2313
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    LeeMajors wrote: »
    Do you think there's a problem with the moderation on the site johnny?

    This thread would suggest there is.

    There's certainly at least two posters who spend their time baiting and flaming on the threads I follow, in a passive aggressive manner, and despite being reported for breaking the rules, no sanction is taken.
    I also think it's somewhat bizarre that one entire side of several threads here, supporters of one of the country's most popular political parties, are pretty much unanimous in agreement that there's a problem.
    Is this likely to be a coincidence?


  • #2314
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    But that doesn't explain why a secret ban for "trolling" as you mentioned would help anything. Re-regs are an entirely separate issue and the only case where it makes any sense not to announce bans.


  • #2315
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    LeeMajors wrote: »
    Do you think there's a problem with the moderation on the site johnny?

    This thread would suggest there is.

    There's certainly at least two posters who spend their time baiting and flaming on the threads I follow, in a passive aggressive manner, and despite being reported for breaking the rules, no sanction is taken.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I also think it's somewhat bizarre that one entire side of several threads here, supporters of one of the country's most popular political parties, are pretty much unanimous in agreement that there's a problem.
    Is this likely to be a coincidence?

    Like I said a few posts back, this thread is for a discussion on the rules. Dan, please see my previous post regarding the avenues of complaint. Lee, as I said if its before the Admins its not a suitable matter for this thread.


  • #2316
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    The point being that if someone makes a moderation type comment in response to one of your posts, and that person is a moderator, then please respect it, regardless of formatting.
    But why not just make a rule of it? Where is the advantage of it not being a rule? Also, why not make mods who are not in "their" forum have their nick in regular font? I am told they have no special place at all in other forums. A technical possibility surely?


  • Advertisement
  • #2317
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Like I said a few posts back, this thread is for a discussion on the rules. Dan, please see my previous post regarding the avenues of complaint. Lee, as I said if its before the Admins its not a suitable matter for this thread.
    OK so, no case specifics.
    Can I ask what exactly happens when a post is reported? It goes to a list of reported posts and then an active mod selects it, deals with it, and marks it as dealt with?


  • #2318
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I also think it's somewhat bizarre that one entire side of several threads here, supporters of one of the country's most popular political parties, are pretty much unanimous in agreement that there's a problem.
    Is this likely to be a coincidence?

    I'd say it definitely isn't a coincidence that the same 3 or 4 posters have continual issues with the operation of the forum, complete agreement there Dan!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #2319
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    K-9 wrote: »
    I'd say it definitely isn't a coincidence that the same 3 or 4 posters have continual issues with the operation of the forum, complete agreement there Dan!
    Or similarly that the same 3 or 4 posters never have any issues with the operation of the forum.
    I see discussing specific cases is now OK again after another mod warned against it a few posts back?


  • #2320
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    But why not just make a rule of it? Where is the advantage of it not being a rule? Also, why not make mods who are not in "their" forum have their nick in regular font? I am told they have no special place at all in other forums. A technical possibility surely?

    Sometimes, like my post above in re: feedback / admin review, a bolded comment will come accross as unnecessarily aggressive. Sometimes its better not to bold the mod comments.

    In relation to the avatars, you should probably raise that in feedback as it is a site wide issue


  • #2321
    RecordStraight
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭RecordStraight


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I also think it's somewhat bizarre that one entire side of several threads here, supporters of one of the country's most popular political parties, are pretty much unanimous in agreement that there's a problem.
    Is this likely to be a coincidence?
    You might want to look a little closer to home for the source of that problem, Dan.

    It seems that every party is subject to criticism, even by its own supporters, with the exception of...'one of the country's most political parties', who has a team of internet warriors who will attack anyone who dares make any sort of criticism of them at all.


  • Advertisement
  • #2322
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Or similarly that the same 3 or 4 posters never have any issues with the operation of the forum.
    I see discussing specific cases is now OK again after another mod warned against it a few posts back?

    I haven't been about much, phone is banjaxed and there's a rather important football match on in a minute.

    Most feedback threads have a few posters that will always have issues, it's SF posters now, used to be libertarian posters who wanted the forum modded a certain way, and I'm sure others from time to time. A few biased or users with one view means exactly that, and on a politics boards will be treated as that.

    It's up to mods to look at the merits of arguments, though having such a broad range of the more biased political posters thinking we're biased is probably a good thing! An accusation of bias from a party apparatchik or ardent libertarian is actually a good sign!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #2323
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    RecordStraight wrote: »
    You might want to look a little closer to home for the source of that problem, Dan.

    It seems that every party is subject to criticism, even by its own supporters, with the exception of...'one of the country's most political parties', who has a team of internet warriors who will attack anyone who dares make any sort of criticism of them at all.
    Specific case discussion after mod warning. Misquotation. Allegations of shilling. Thanks for popping up with a perfect example of the kind of poster I'm taking about.


  • #2324
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    OK so, no case specifics.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I see discussing specific cases is now OK again after another mod warned against it a few posts back?

    I never said you couldnt discuss specifics provided they are used to support a view on the rules. What youre not allowed do is fight a proxy war on some issue that is currently being dealt with elsewhere. If you are proposing something to do with the rules by all means use examples to back it up.


  • #2325
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    K-9 wrote: »
    An accusation of bias from a party apparatchik or ardent libertarian is actually a good sign!
    The fact you describe these complaints as coming from "apparatchiks" says a lot more about our concerns than I think you really intended to.


  • #2326
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    I never said you couldnt discuss specifics provided they are used to support a view on the rules. What youre not allowed do is fight a proxy war on some issue that is currently being dealt with elsewhere. If you are proposing something to do with the rules by all means use examples to back it up.
    You did. You said LeeMajors' claims were off the table as they are at admin level now.


  • #2327
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    The fact you describe these complaints as coming from "apparatchiks" says a lot more about our concerns than I think you really intended to.

    He also referred to ardent libertarians.


  • #2328
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    He also referred to ardent libertarians.

    QED, point proven.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #2329
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    He also referred to ardent libertarians.
    Do you think Sinn Fein supporters here expressing concerns about moderator bias are the "ardent libertarians" he mentions then or do you think he was possibly referencing them as "party apparatchik"?


  • #2330
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    K-9 wrote: »
    QED, point proven.
    You said:
    it's SF posters now, used to be libertarian posters...


    ....An accusation of bias from a party apparatchik or ardent libertarian is actually a good sign!


    So "libertarian" in the second instance refers to "libertarian" in the first while "party apparatchik" in the second instance refers to something entirely different to "SF posters" in the first?
    Not credible.


  • #2331
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    You did. You said LeeMajors' claims were off the table as they are at admin level now.

    Heres exactly what I said qua moderator a few posts back:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94760082&postcount=2292

    I gave three examples of where specific examples are or are not useful.

    What I said to Lee and yourself here:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94784229&postcount=2315

    relates to a specific issue that Lee has said on thread that he has taken to the Admins, so that issue is sub judice if you will allow that phrase, and so is not open for discussion here.

    But be under no doubt that specific examples are permissible provided you are genuinely trying to illustrate a point regarding the rules.

    I may have mistakenly assumed that you were aware of Lees issue and if thats the case sorry for including your post with his.


  • Advertisement
  • #2332
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Do you think Sinn Fein supporters here expressing concerns about moderator bias are the "ardent libertarians" he mentions then or do you think he was possibly referencing them as "party apparatchik"?

    Neither. I dont think he was talking about any particular party. There are many pro SF posters who regularly and positively post on these forums who never cause problems and who, at least to my knowledge, dont have any priblem with the moderation in general. Likewise if the supporter of another party is causing trouble the same turn of phrase could be used in relation to them.

    Can you point to an example where someone politely and eruditely made a pro SF comment which was actioned to illustrate your point? Forget about whether a person identifies themself as a pro-X party poster or not and please show me where non breach of charter pro SF posts have been unfairly sanctioned. Otherwise well leave it there.


  • #2333
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Ive deleted two posts now. I was happy to let a bit of back and forth go on in circumstances where it was described as illustrating a point, but lets not go beyond that.

    EDIT: Ive deleted three more posts. Theres a fine line between discussing the rules and discussing individual decisions or posters.

    As general guidance, please remember this thread is for user input into how the forums should be run. If a post is not adding to that it will be deleted.

    If a poster has availed of the sites dispute resolution/appeals process, please await the outcome of it there and dont bring it into this thread


  • #2334
    LeeMajors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭LeeMajors


    K-9 wrote: »
    I'd say it definitely isn't a coincidence that the same 3 or 4 posters have continual issues with the operation of the forum, complete agreement there Dan!

    Why do you think that is K9?


  • #2335
    LeeMajors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭LeeMajors


    K-9 wrote: »
    Most feedback threads have a few posters that will always have issues, it's SF posters now, used to be libertarian posters who wanted the forum modded a certain way

    The certain way in question would be for the thread to be modded in an impartial way.
    Hardly too much to ask is it?
    Perhaps you are can't see the wood for the trees.


    BTW, 'gwan the 'pool!!!!


  • #2336
    LeeMajors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭LeeMajors


    Ah Johnny!
    You're an awful man altogether...:D


  • #2337
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Can you point to an example where someone politely and eruditely made a pro SF comment which was actioned to illustrate your point?
    I can point you to a shedload of abusive anti-SF posts that were not actioned to illustrate what my real point is.


  • #2338
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I can point you to a shedload of abusive anti-SF posts that were not actioned to illustrate what my real point is.

    Well thats a different thing and is not evidence that there is a bias or censorship of a political party. There are criticisms of all parties and examples of unactioned criticisms of the government are just as common. If criticism/abuse goes into the realm of specific personal abuse of an individual poster then it is actionable.

    But criticism of a party or public figure is given fairly broad leeway, regardless of the party or public figure. You can reply to such suggestions by demonstrating that they are not true, unfair or that one party is just as bad as another etc, so long as you attack the post and not the poster.

    So really, if there are a lot of unchecked criticisms of SF that is not censorship or bias. In fact, the opposite is the case - if we were to stop criticism of SF and not other parties then we would be biased.


  • #2339
    LeeMajors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭LeeMajors


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    . If criticism/abuse goes into the realm of specific personal abuse of an individual poster then it is actionable.

    You just deleted a post from a certain poster there johnny, who btw is also a 'moderator' to the stars.....
    A poster who on 3 occasions on Friday personally attacked me in a most vile and disgusting way.
    What was the sanction on Friday?


  • #2340
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Well thats a different thing and is not evidence that there is a bias or censorship of a political party. There are criticisms of all parties and examples of unactioned criticisms of the government are just as common. If criticism/abuse goes into the realm of specific personal abuse of an individual poster then it is actionable.

    But criticism of a party or public figure is given fairly broad leeway, regardless of the party or public figure. You can reply to such suggestions by demonstrating that they are not true, unfair or that one party is just as bad as another etc, so long as you attack the post and not the poster.

    So really, if there are a lot of unchecked criticisms of SF that is not censorship or bias. In fact, the opposite is the case - if we were to stop criticism of SF and not other parties then we would be biased.
    You know full well it's personal abuse of SF supporters I'm talking about. Your lecture here is irrelevant.


  • Advertisement
  • #2341
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    LeeMajors wrote: »
    You just deleted a post from a certain poster there johnny, who btw is also a 'moderator' to the stars.....
    A poster who on 3 occasions on Friday personally attacked me in a most vile and disgusting way.
    What was the sanction on Friday?
    Well FreudianSlippers just had a pop at "vitriolic SF supporters" here. Who deleted that post? What was the sanction? Is it helpful that it may or may not be actioned but we'll never know in a thread discussing precisely this issue?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement