nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Will there ever be a modding policy on travellers?

[Deleted User]

It seems to be "clueless, tainted by some mods with their own prejudice".

I was banned on AH for interpreting "sh1te people" as displaying bigotry. 6 mods liked that. Meh, I'll take my beating.

But now 2 posts have stood there for almost a week, one referring to them as "utterly sh1he people" and the other calling for their ethnic cleansing.

There is no way that would be tolerated about any other group, none.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Tokyo

I took a look at the thread in question, and I'm afraid that I don't interpret the discussion in the black and white terms that you describe.

That being said though, I didn't find any references to ethnic cleansing, so it's possible that I missed something. Did you report the posts in question to the AH mods?? That is usually the first port of call in a forum specific complaint such as this.

[Deleted User]

mike_ie wrote: »

I took a look at the thread in question, and I'm afraid that I don't interpret the discussion in the black and white terms that you describe.

And that's fair enough.

I completely disagree with the mod that it was impossible to interpret it in the way I did, that calling travellers "sh!te people" could only be a reference to travellers who committed the crimes. I think it at least was capable of the interpretation I took, in fact for reasons set out there I think it the most likely one...but so be it, the issue was trashed out there.

The 2 posts calling for their ethnic cleansing and that they are "utterly sh!te people" are the last two on the thread and have stood for a week.

Is there a policy on travellers threads? I don't think that would be tolerated on any thread about any other group identified in anti discrimination/equality legislation here.

Edit - these are the 2...

Hans Bricks wrote: »

Utterly ****e people is putting it mildly.

Gwynplaine wrote: »

A real candidate for ethnic cleansing. I absolutely hate them.

Tokyo

I agree that as a general rule of thumb, one can't simply say that it's impossible to interpret something a certain way, but buy the same argument, you have to accept the fact that it's also impossble for you to state that your interpretation is definitively correct. And if we banned/deleted posts on the possibility that something was misinterpreted, we wouldn't have a forum to post in.

Boards policy is, and always has been, that we don't tolerate blatant discrimination of any sort. And from what I read in that thread, I didn't see anyone call travellers "sh1te people" - I saw posters call sulky drivers who ride down motorways without regard for other drivers on the road "sh1te people". While it wouldn't be my preferred turn of phrase, I find it hard to lake the leap that all travellers were being labelled in that fashion, a point that quite a few posters tried to make when you brought your grievance to the thread.

With respect to the "ethnic cleansing" comment that you highlighted, did you try to bring it to the mods attention via the reported post function???

[Deleted User]

mike_ie wrote: »

And from what I read in that thread, I didn't see anyone call travellers "sh1te people" - I saw posters call sulky drivers who ride down motorways without regard for other drivers on the road "sh1te people".

Afair the poster himself referred to people in the video. That included children and others who were not riding them at all. I think it is clear who he was referring to, but we can differ. I got banned for my interpretation, but as I said that issue is over.

My question now is about modding policy. Is there really one? Again, I simply think that neither of these posts would be tolerated if any other group were identified.

Hans Bricks wrote: »

Insert bubonic plague here please.

Doing what they do best and then jeering an innocent and injured pregnant woman. Icing on the cake. Traveller style. Utterly ****e people is putting it mildly.

Although It is amusing seeing traveller apologists reminding us of the meaningless ethnic minority status. As if the rest of civilized society even cares.

Gwynplaine wrote: »

A real candidate for ethnic cleansing. I absolutely hate them. Never met or heard of a good one yet. A scourge on society and a burden on the taxpayer.

Would you accept that they clearly refer to all travellers?

No, I didn't complain them. I don't see why I would, I'm gone from there, wouldn't it be strange if I were to return to help them clean up their forum? I think there is a prejudice, I think the fact that the posts were left up for almost a week points to that.

Beasty

Deleted User wrote: »

No, I didn't complain them. I don't see why I would, I'm gone from there, wouldn't it be strange if I were to return to help them clean up their forum? I think there is a prejudice, I think the fact that the posts were left up for almost a week points to that.

Hang on a minute. How can you expect mods to act when you do not alert them to an issue? In particular I would note you did report a similar comment from earlier in the thread, and that was removed by the mods

Tokyo

Deleted User wrote: »

No, I didn't complain them. I don't see why I would, I'm gone from there, wouldn't it be strange if I were to return to help them clean up their forum? I think there is a prejudice, I think the fact that the posts were left up for almost a week points to that.

And therein lies a big part of the problem. Modding of threads on boards, particularly in a busy forum like AH, has always been very user driven - if there is an issue with something posted, then we need users to bring it to our attention via the reported posts functionality. Unless of course, you expect the moderators to read every single post in AH, looking for anything offensive?

You ignored your part in that process, and instead argued ad infinitum in-thread with other posters, which I suspect was a factor in your thread ban (incidentally, you weren't banned from AH as far as I can see, just banned from posting in that thread), so it's a little unfair to lambast mods for not actioning posts, when they went unreported by you and others.

[Deleted User]

mike_ie wrote: »

Unless of course, you expect the moderators to read every single post in AH, looking for anything offensive?

You ignored your part in that process, and instead argued ad infinitum in-thread with other posters, which I suspect was a factor in your thread ban (incidentally, you weren't banned from AH as far as I can see, just banned from posting in that thread), so it's a little unfair to lambast mods for not actioning posts, when they went unreported by you and others.

I did not lambaste then for not acting on posts. My point is that there is a prejudice. It would be obviously silly of me to helpfully suggest they remove any evidence that supports this.

And if 6 or 7 mods can descend to welcome my ban within a day or 2, where did they disappear in the meantime? I don't expect every mod to see every post at all, everyone is busy, but so many seeing 1 random post within a short time and welcoming it, and then just completely missing 2 for an entire week? Again, maybe like the point that kicked it all off, capable of different interpretations...one of which being that there is an anti traveller prejudice amongst the mods.

The mod who banned me started a thread about travellers before. It was one of the "how come they get new houses and new caravans, who pays for this, genuine question" variety.

Tokyo

A quick glance through that thread shows that one red card was handed out, one yellow, three people were thread banned and two troll accounts were nuked, the majority of which was for expressing blatant anti traveller sentiments, so I think it's a little unfair to say that there is "an anti traveller prejudice amongst the mods".

Does the thread have issues - yes. Some of the posts I read do skirt very close to the line. Do I personally agree with thanking threads when someone has been banned, no - it's a little like kicking someone when they're down, in my eyes. But my initial point still stands - if you think a post crosses the line, then please report it. Mods can't read all posts in a forum, we very much depend on the userbase to bring problems to our attention. You didn't do that, instead you soapboxed in the thread, which ultimately led to your thread ban.

And to clear one point up, reporting a post doesn't lead to content being deleted, or "removing the evidence" as you put it. If anything, we like to leave content in place if at all possible, so that it's perfectly transparent as to why a poster was carded/banned.

[Deleted User]

mike_ie wrote: »

And to clear one point up, reporting a post doesn't lead to content being deleted, or "removing the evidence" as you put it. If anything, we like to leave content in place if at all possible, so that it's perfectly transparent as to why a poster was carded/banned.

And that's fair enough. Though obviously in this instance, neither poster was carded or banned.

It's just strange how so many mods have become inactive. There were clearly 6 or 7 around when I was banned by a mod who himself has his own view on travellers with his "who pays for them and where do they get the money for their caravans" thread.

One could interpret it as a bias. Which would be unfortunate if there really happens to be none.

In fairness to you, I should say thanks for the answers/points btw.

Tokyo

With respect to the 'ethnic cleansing' comment - the poster in question was recently banned from AH for a week - it's not visible in the thread. The post was reported, possibly due to its visibility in this thread, and was immediately acted upon. I'd like to think of that as evidence that the reported post function is effective in terms of culling these type of posts.

[Deleted User]

mike_ie wrote: »

With respect to the 'ethnic cleansing' comment - the poster in question was recently banned from AH for a week - it's not visible in the thread. The post was reported, possibly due to its visibility in this thread, and was immediately acted upon. I'd like to think of that as evidence that the reported post function is effective in terms of culling these type of posts.

And thats welcome, but the hope that they get bubonic plague because they are "utterly sh1te people" just above it was not acted on because it wasn't reported?

6 of them can react so quickly in a vacuum to action by a mod who himself has a certain stance on travellers judging from his own thread. After a whole week 1 mod will only act on a blatantly awful post only because it was reported, but take no action at all on the post just above it?

I appreciate you batting for them and you're doing a good job, but my take is:-

1. Jonny doesn't like travellers. We can see that from his own contributions.
2. He banned me for something that was far from the worst offence on that thread. In fact, I pointed out to him that he could have told all of us to move on from the issue. He didn't answer.
3. 6 mods reacted. Jonny's post could not have prompted a report, 6 happened to be passing and read it and reacted.
4. After a whole week in which 2 obviously vile posts did not provoke one reaction from that group, one is finally acted on because they pretty much have to, the other stands.

Edit - as a matter of interest, why did the mods not advertise the ban for him? It would have been interesting to gauge the activity and enthusiasm of other mods...

Tokyo

I'm not batting for anyone, simply expressing things the way that I see them, based on my knowledge of the workings of the site.

At the risk of sounding like I'm repeating myself, did you report the post you are finding issue with? I don't see any instance of tht post being reported, and respectfully, I'm not going to go through the thread reporting posts on your behalf, when you can simply click on the report post button yourself and bring it to the mods attention.

1. Jonny doesn't like travellers. We can see that from his own contributions.

I see nothing of the sort in that thread, which is where your grievance lies. And I don't see where personal opinion swayed judgement - if anything, six out of the seven mod actions in that thread were against those expressing anti-traveller sentiments. The seventh was against you, for soapboxing.

2. He banned me for something that was far from the worst offence on that thread. In fact, I pointed out to him that he could have told all of us to move on from the issue. He didn't answer.

Again, your thread ban was just one of seven actions in that thread, so implying that you were targeted for your views is disingenuous.

3. 6 mods reacted. Jonny's post could not have prompted a report, 6 happened to be passing and read it and reacted.

.... as did 40 other people. Mods thank posts for different reasons - in certain fora, the forum mods use 'thanks' to acknowledge a mod action. Non-ah mods are considered regular users outside the forums they moderate, and as such, are bound by the same rules, and entitled to the same freedom to post/thank as any member on the site. Posters often thank a mod action to agree with the mod action, not necessarily the views of either party involved.

In short, I can't speak to the thoughts of the 46 people who thanked that post, but I sincerely doubt they were waiting to thank it so they could stick it to you.

4. After a whole week in which 2 obviously vile posts did not provoke one reaction from that group, one is finally acted on because they pretty much have to, the other stands.

I figured you might take that view unfortunately - that the post was only actioned as a result of this feedback thread. There is of course a far simpler explanation - the post was reported and came to the mods attention, and a mod rightly actioned it. It's worth pointing out that, as you didn't report the post either, that effectively makes you a part of the same group you are complaining about.

Edit - as a matter of interest, why did the mods not advertise the ban for him? It would have been interesting to gauge the activity and enthusiasm of other mods...

I have no idea - while we generally agree on best practices when dealing with different types of poster, it's not set in stone. I know from experience for example, that when modding from a phone I am a lot more concise, and a lot more liable to deal with the problem than provide lengthy explanations in the thread, or the same if I'm in a hurry or dealing with real world issues. It's worth noting that there's no requirement to inform a poster in-thread that they are banned from the forum - they received an automated message when a ban is put in place. Thread bans do have to be posted in-thread however, as they are put in place by the moderators, rather than being enforced by the forum software (so no automated message).

But the actual concern here is beginning to show its head. You are creating a 'me vs. them' scenario where perhaps none exists, or at least that's how it is coming across in your most recent post. Certain posters were actioned/banned for their discrimiatory views on travellers. You were threadbanned for soapboxing, not your personal views, or the perceived bias of others. In short, if you want to prevent this from happening in future, report the posts and let the mod team deal with it.

[Deleted User]

mike_ie wrote: »

At the risk of sounding like I'm repeating myself, did you report the post you are finding issue with?

Just to clarify again, the issue on this thread is modding bias, not a post. Particularly a mod who...well has expressed a bias on his own thread on the issue.

You referred a few times to soapboxing, which I presume is pushing a point (as that word was not suggested to me by the mod). If he felt a point was being pushed, presumably the mod should have simply told all to move on. He took a side, the anti-traveller side, the one closest to his own stated position.

I am not sure why the reference to 40 thanks, I don't see it as some validation. In fact, given the visceral dislike of travellers, which is demonstrated on any boards thread about them, I am surprised it was so low. I have seen posts in the past calling for pretty vile measures against them get a lot higher. The aspect I was interested in was the number of mods who thanked it and so were certainly active on the thread when that ban was handed down, but disappeared for a week when the most outrageous comments were made.

In fairness, from glancing back over that thread, it is clear that Buford T. Justice did act a number of times.

Tokyo

Deleted User wrote: »

Just to clarify again, the issue on this thread is modding bias, not a post. Particularly a mod who...well has expressed a bias on his own thread on the issue.

Your original question was "Will there ever be a modding policy on travellers?" and we seem to be straying far away from that, and very much into the personal in terms of you having an issue with a forum moderator.

Your allegation is a serious one, and while it's well outside the scope of your original thread title, rather than leave the allegation hanging, I took a look at the thread you keep referring to. What I see is a poster who asked a genuine question about housing that is made available to the travelling community. Unless what you are suggesting is that *any* question about the travelling community is a manifestation of prejudice, what you suggested about the mod is very much unsubstantiated. In other words, you're taking from the thread what you wish to see, in my opinion.

You referred a few times to soapboxing, which I presume is pushing a point (as that word was not suggested to me by the mod). If he felt a point was being pushed, presumably the mod should have simply told all to move on. He took a side, the anti-traveller side, the one closest to his own stated position.

Forum mods work as a team - whoever happened to pull the trigger at the end is incidental. And as mentioned earlier, the fact that six out of the seven mod actions in that thread were against those expressing anti-traveller sentiments doesn't lend a lot of support to the claim that the mods took an anti-traveller stance.

I am not sure why the reference to 40 thanks, I don't see it as some validation. In fact, given the visceral dislike of travellers, which is demonstrated on any boards thread about them, I am surprised it was so low. I have seen posts in the past calling for pretty vile measures against them get a lot higher. The aspect I was interested in was the number of mods who thanked it and so were certainly active on the thread when that ban was handed down, but disappeared for a week when the most outrageous comments were made.

The reference to 40 other thanks is to provide context. As I mentioned earlier, forum mods thank posts for different reasons - one being to acknowledge the mod action as being unanimous. I'd also like to point out that only two AH mods thanked the post, the remaining mods are regular members of the site outside of their own forums - the fact that their names are in bold in forums outside their own means nothing. So more accurately, 44 site members and two forum mods thanked the post.

In fairness, from glancing back over that thread, it is clear that Buford T. Justice did act a number of times.

Yes, I think that's fair to say. But I'd like you to be aware of the fact that again, while Buford might have pulled the trigger, many of the actions were discussed by the mod team beforehand.

These are the facts as I see them (and please bear in mind that I have access parts of the site that are not visible to you). I suspect that you will nevertheless draw your own inferences, however I don't see modding bias here.

So to answer your original question - yes, there is a modding policy on travellers, the same way we have a policy on any discrimination against any group of people. If you wish to be a part of fighting such discrimination in future, report questionable posts, and let the mod team take care of it.

[Deleted User]

mike_ie wrote: »

Your original question was "Will there ever be a modding policy on travellers?" and we seem to be straying far away from that, and very much into the personal in terms of you having an issue with a forum moderator.

Your allegation is a serious one, and while it's well outside the scope of your original thread title, rather than leave the allegation hanging, I took a look at the thread you keep referring to. What I see is a poster who asked a genuine question about housing that is made available to the travelling community. Unless what you are suggesting is that *any* question about the travelling community is a manifestation of prejudice, what you suggested about the mod is very much unsubstantiated. In other words, you're taking from the thread what you wish to see, in my opinion.

If he said he saw black people move into new houses near him, who pays for them...would you not question it at all? Would you say any suggestion that it reveals a prejudice was completely unsubstantiated?

Tokyo

Respectfully Conor, you have brought this conversation around from what was a genuine query from the onset, to a personal issue you seem to have with a moderator on the site. You're asking me to comment on what you perceive to be another person's position on an ethnic group. All I can tell you is that I have looked at the situation objectively, and non top of answering your initial question, I looked into your allegation and I don't see anything to support it.

You are no doubt going to disagree with me, as you seem unwilling to let this point go - all I can say is that I don't see anything to support your claim, and that I fully believe that the AH mods are capable of modering traveller related threads (or any group for that matter) impartially, as they have always done.

[Deleted User]

mike_ie wrote: »

Respectfully Conor, you have brought this conversation around from what was a genuine query from the onset, to a personal issue you seem to have with a moderator on the site...

I have no personal opinion of the man...or indeed woman...at all, except I think the thread and actions betray a dislike of travellers.

He could be lovely. He just has a position I disagree with.

mike_ie wrote: »

You are no doubt going to disagree with me, as you seem unwilling to let this point go...

And you seem unwilling to accept that any criticism can be levelled at them on the issue.

We'll agree to disagree. Although I'd invite you to read the latest thread on sulky racing. I think every single observation about travellers is negative. Whatever the mods are doing, or not doing, is working...I don't think you'll see such unanimity on any other topic!