Locking of the Purge Thread in AH

Baggly wrote: »

Ill take the feedback on board but as ive said, rules were broken so actions made based on users history. The very basic card i can give for breakages is literally called a 'warning'.

The two cards handed out were for going way too far beyond the pale. And to try avoid further escalation i issued on thread warnings, which were ignored; hence further bans.

Sometimes you start with an on thread warning, sometimes it follows - its case by case and given the posts carded, im happy with my call on this one. As i said though, ill take the feedback on board.

If escalation is what you wanted to avoid then an on thread warning not to use that word and to be a bit more mindful would have been enough. Jumping straight into carding users for posting as they have been for three solid weeks was only going to result in one thing.

I was thread banned in one of the tournament threads, the mod was unfamiliar with the tone of those.

I sent a pm explaining the types of posts allowed etc, the mod checked and overturned the thread ban.

No drama ensued and the insults kept flying. I really think that approach should have been applied here. There wasn't an escalation on previous posts in this purge, everyone who participated in all the purges can attest to that.

Baggly wrote: »

With respect - that is not my experience (at least not in all cases). Some users have a habit of not stopping escalation until they see cards. Thats not specific to the posters that were carded here; but its my experience of modding AH/CA when things are spicy like in that thread.

In fairness Baggly, and I mean no disrespect with this comment. But you have already taken some valid criticism of your actions as “attacking you” and other remarks about your moderating as “personal”, so maybe, just maybe, this purge thread wasn’t the one for you.

Mods can mod whatever threads they like but arriving in at the eleventh hour and taking offence to the tone and issuing warnings and bans like smarties, when things have been running fine up to that point, is a little unfair and over the top. That’s all people are saying.

Baggly wrote: »

Thats a bit facetious in terms of how things went down imo but, as ive said, ill take the feedback on board.

If you read the thread from the start to the point where you jumped in you'll see it's accurate. There's nothing facetious about retro's post.

retro:electro wrote: »

Correct, it was actually cards, then warnings, then warnings not to discuss the warnings, then bans, then thread closure.

Issuing cards before giving people a chance and issuing a warning is grossly unfair.

Card for site rule breakage. You are suggesting this is grand because other slagging hadnt been actioned previously I disagree.

Panda Killa wrote: »

Ah don't worry, just like everyone else in here we are just using you to get to your dad... nobody wants the retarded offspring when you can properfck the baby gravy supplier

Same as above.

Urethral Buttercup wrote: »

Every single woman on this forum is compromised, either physically or mentally. They're the grime at the bottle of the barrel, exact same as the men.

Warning to try deter further issues given the cards above given for rule breakages.

Baggly wrote: »

Mod

Too far folks. Its supposed to be lighthearted. Keep it that way.

Warning was ignored, so thread bans handed out as well as cards. As well as another warning for everyone else.

Baggly wrote: »

Mod


Don't post in the thread again.


Don't post on the thread again.

For those unclear, just stop sledging each other and looking to rile people up. It's not what the thread is for.

Further warning.

Baggly wrote: »

Just keep it civil and follow mod instructions and you can have all the fun you like Emmet

Further warning.

Baggly wrote: »

Read the OP. Lighthearted.

Warning re: discussing mod actions on thread.

Baggly wrote: »

Mod

Lads mod actions arent up for discussion here. Follow the instructions or cards will follow.

Card for not doing so (which admittedly is being rescinded now).

retro:electro wrote: »

But mod sir miss your honour we’ve been doing that this whole time. Bit silly to implement such a rule at the eleventh hour on thread four

Thread closed for review due to further escalation by posters.

Baggly wrote: »

Mod

Thread closed. Lads there has been an escalation and its gone too far. You can object that it hasn't been called before now but I can't do anything about that but apply the rules since I'm here now.

I'll discuss with comods as to whether it can be revived.

So yeah you are there or thereabouts right in your more recent post - and we just disagree with regards to the initial cards? Im ok with that and happy with the cards. The standard of posting wasnt up to scratch, so i actioned it.

I cant do more than take your feedback on board at this stage, given i want to agree to disagree with you retro.

I dont time when i have to made mod actions, but if its 10 in an hour, its 10 in an hour. I dont NOT make an action because it will look bad.

Half of them are warnings, most if not all of which were ignored....and yet you lump them all in together and say the issue is the mod action rather than the behaviour that prompted the action? I fail to see how thats an abuse of mod power or unfair. I literally gave the thread 5 warnings to change their behaviour. Thats probably far too many for most circumstances to be honest.

Im not justifying anything - im outlining my side in response to feedback - and im saying ill take the feedback on board. Would you prefer mods not do that?

You have made up your mind, so if you cant agree to disagree as i have asked a couple of times now, then i dunno what to say.

Baggly, your warning came after 3 previous purges and the current one which is running since the weekend.

The posts you quoted are the type of posts that were acceptable up to the point you entered the thread. You're the only one who's had an issue.

Can you see that? Can you accept that posters are confused and annoyed when all the purges had these types of insults? Why were they allowed before?

Baggly wrote: »

I'm feeling hugely attacked here and Perse has just made this personal now so with all due respect to all involved I'm out of this thread. I tried to respond in earnest but I've no interest in this being made personal.

I'll defer the thread and any further actions to the other forum mods. I don't believe I was wrong in my actions this evening and I'm OK with you guys disagreeing.

With all due respect, you’ve just made a show of yourself. Both with your rulings and with this post.

retro:electro wrote: »

Mods can mod whatever threads they like but arriving in at the eleventh hour and taking offence to the tone and issuing warnings and bans like smarties, when things have been running fine up to that point, is a little unfair and over the top. That’s all people are saying.

Thing is, it’s a bloody Mod that runs and started the thread. Surely Ken could have handled all this himself? Tbh, this is why I had to change the tone of my tournament threads. The barbs were the best part. When they were put under the cosh, I decided to move them off to the Games Forum. They’re still decent but the craic isn’t the same.

Baggly wrote: »

I have not been around those threads the last few weeks so it's not my place to comment on that.

Regardless of the previous threads it's right there in the charter and op....keep it light hearted. The mentions of rape, casual sexism and paedophilia is just not tenable. I can only mod what's in front of me so that's what I did.

Yet there is a whole Mod team who deemed the rest ok. So how come the previous three threads and this one until this evening were all ok under their various watches? Are you saying all the other mods are out of touch or could it just be yourself perhaps?

Omackeral wrote:

Yet there is a whole Mod team who deemed the rest ok. So how come the previous three threads and this one until this evening were all ok under their various watches? Are you saying all the other mods are out of touch or could it just be yourself perhaps?

Or it could be a straw that broke the camel's back. You seem keen to corner me into apportioning blame.

Omackeral wrote:

Didn’t know displaying private conversations was allowed. Maybe that’s different for moderator though. I thanked you for easing up your initial restrictions if I recall correctly. You’re also calling me either a troll or a hypocrite there. Nice. It sounds like you’re losing the the run of yourself a bit tbh.

You saying you didn't thank me publicly? You sure?

Baggly wrote: »

The first purge wasn't nearly this bad to be fair leg end reject.

The others I hadn't read before this morning.

I can see the warnings were different to what had become normal in those threads so I do understand the confusion, but that doesn't mean the posts were ok. I will concede I could have issued a warning before a card but I don't accept all out heavy sledging was allowable especially after my warnings.

I have not been around those threads the last few weeks so it's not my place to comment on that.

Regardless of the previous threads it's right there in the charter and op....keep it light hearted. The mentions of rape, casual sexism and paedophilia is just not tenable. I can only mod what's in front of me so that's what I did.

The other purges had insults, many could have been construed as personal attacks, many could have been construed as offensive if you're of a sensitive bent, but participants accepted them as amusing and responded in kind.

The original tournament threads were far more abrasive, but they were great craic.

To be honest, this all feels like being back in secondary school with the principal quoting school rules for minor misbehaviour.

The other purges ran their course without this level of interference and we all left with no hard feelings or bruised egos.

Ken. wrote: »

. We'll give it a break for a week or 2 and come back better.

Doubt it.

I’m out anyway.