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

Problem with current affairs

Options
1141517192047

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,542 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    +1 Iv been reading this trash for 2 days now whilst stuck inside with illness.


    It's a lovely day outside lads. Go outside and get some air. (all of ye)


    Who would want to be a mod here.....



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Sorry, I did what in a PM?

    I did nothing of the sort Francie.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    If the PM was after Brucie had started a thread, how does it prove they colluded to start the thread?



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'd like to see this,to examine the strength of pretty bleak accusations yous are making

    though for clarity a totality of the conversation should be included.....but I'd guess yous would need approval of other participant to be allowed make private exchange public?



  • Registered Users Posts: 67,617 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    It is clear to me that a number of posters have been discussing how to challenge moderation behind the scenes. And yes the prime culprits have already posted in this thread backing each other up. I'm pretty confident the pair of them agreed to start this thread in Feedback


    That's the allegation ^.

    Now how bright do you have to be to reckon a PM saying: 'I've opened a thread in Feedback' is prior conspiracy to challenge moderation and confident belief that two posters 'agreed to open a thread'?

    Which bit of 'I've opened a thread' tells you that Brucie sought my agreement or approval to do something he had already done.

    Take your time.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    This.

    I said this yesterday and ill say it today. People need to relax.

    The admin has made the decision, it wont be reversed by the looks of it.

    The two posters who conspired behind the scenes were close to site bans anyway, so are lucky they just got a perma forum ban of CA.

    Francie and BB have gone down the scorched earth route now, trying to drag others down with them. One would think they would be smarter and more contrite but alas.



  • Registered Users Posts: 387 ✭✭shirrup


    If someone was to come here (theoretically) and suggest that FFG trolls were being absolute brown nose lick arses to a mod or admin that was seemingly sanctioning posters that appear to be critical of the status quo, i doubt it would be allowed to stand.


    Let's see how long your accusation is allowed to remain in place.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    You never answered my earlier Francie. Do you think the admins and mods have an agenda against you because of your political leanings? You hinted at it earlier, but would be nice to get clarity?



  • Registered Users Posts: 67,617 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Take your predictable deflections elsewhere please and stop badgering, it's also against the rules.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    OK, so you wont answer the simple question.

    Speaking of badgering, why are you badering an admin?

    'Do as I say, not as I do'


    Never change Francie :)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    Mark you took beasty's theory of back channel PM's and start referring to it as fact. You are baiting francie above.

    You and @blanch152 have been stirring and playing up an us v them narrative rather than discussing the main point.

    I sent beasty a screen grab of my telling francie about this thread dated August 26th.

    You are the problem here. You are taking a theory and selling it as fact.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    See? And telling people to relax. Zero credibility.

    This is the type of behaviour allowed everyday in CA.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,755 CMod ✭✭✭✭Ten of Swords


    Thread has become the train wreck it was seemingly destined to however, as the other CA mod I will try my best to address some of the issues raised by those who are participating in this thread in good faith.

    Kaiser summed up some talking points pretty well in this post so I'll start there

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119545996/#Comment_119545996

    These are the main points (I'm paraphrasing)

    1) More mods

    When CA was set up originally we had 11 mods for the forum. 5 were admins and 6 were regular mods, all of whom were also AH mods at the time. Over time the need for admins to actively mod CA was reduced so a couple of years ago a number of admins were removed from CA and newer mods were brought on, at the time these were also the current mods of AH.

    Recruiting mods is not an easy process. It takes time, due diligence and input from category mods and forum mods to even produce a list of viable candidates. These are then considered at admin and office level which itself takes time and finally anyone who is approved can then get approached to gauge their interest, if they decline the process needs to start again. Additionally, the lack of mod tools on the new platform have made the job of forum mod a lot tougher, I really do miss the mod functionality that we had on vbulletin but we have to make do with what we have.

    One particular point for Kaiser's first point stood out for me,

    boards needs to widen its gene pool from the usual practice of selecting people with lots of forums under their name as it is

    CA is not a 'starter' forum for a new mod. It would be throwing someone in the deep end as it is a tough place to mod and for that reason we have, in the past, chosen only mods of other forums because at least they have some modding experience under their belt already. That may or may not change in the future.

    It's clear we need more mods. Beasty has done absolutely stellar work in this forum, in my view, and only ever seems to receive abuse for it. I moderate After Hours (currently as the only active mod there) as well as CA and for the last number of weeks I've had to scale back my time on Boards a bit due to real life commitments so there have been times Beasty has been modding CA solo on the days I have not been around - finding time to post, deal with reports, dealing with PMs from users (I know from my end the PM's are near constant whenever a mod action is handed out) and deal with admin level issues too such as resourcing new mods for other forums and categories.

    2) Swift action against troublemakers

    This requires buy in from the users of the forum. Even when we had a 11 person mod team we did not read every post in every thread so we need users to report posts. All reports get looked at - every single one - and there are days when there have been entire pages of reported posts for the CA forum. It's daunting and it takes time to work through but every single reported post is reviewed and actioned if appropriate.

    The second thing that really helps is if posters on thread don't feed the troll or otherwise perpetuate what is going on. Many posters are good at reporting problem posts but not so good when it comes to not engaging with obvious trolls or trouble makers.

    3) Drop some pedantic rules

    The CA charter has only 4 rules an 95% of the issues that are moderated are because of rule 1 (don't be a dick) or rule 3 (be civil). Other irritations relate to threads going off topic and requiring mod instructions to get back on track - more recently this seems to have been interpreted by some as mods telling posters what they can and can't discuss which is not the case, it typically means it can be discussed in another thread.

    4) Its only a discussion forum

    Yes, and some people do need to calm down and not overreact. Like all forums we will get trolls and reregs and these get dealt with as quickly as possible. We also get people with deeply entrenched views defending their position (sometimes zealously) and arguing with others (sometimes vociferously) but as long as it's civil it's fine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 67,617 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    I answered an admim/mod making claims about himself, me and others.

    No badgering involved. I can prove what I said, that he relishes interaction by PM as much as anyone he says does and that he is not adverse to throwing in some invective or insult.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,321 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    you were advised how to continue with the dispute and decided not to do that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    No, the fact is that you and Francie conspired to have a go at the mods/admins in CA.

    The fact is you are both permabanned from CA.

    Maybe time to let it go now and move on.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,250 ✭✭✭mikethecop


    haha the other great tactic , any one who dares to point out the obvious is accused of being a ff or fg troll or shill or what ever.


    you know i m allowed to not like sf an also not like ff an fg too ??

    great to see this thread has triggered so many of ye though 😂



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    I'll repeat I am amazed at the patience and work Beasty puts into CA, yet here we are with 2 posters, in particular, giving him awful grief for him just doing the job and slyly stating that he is biased because of their politics.

    It's clear to me now there is a scorched earth tactic going on from those two posters. They feel, that if they aren't allowed to post in CA, then no one should be allowed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,087 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    No badgering involved

    Francie, have you once sat back and thought to yourself that may you are part of the problem here?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,297 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    I have no doubt that finding good mods takes time, but I suppose the point could be that time has now passed and little seems to have changed.

    The original point appeared to be that one person should not be judge, jury and executioner, and the reasons why should be obvious to any honest poster.

    But its over a year now since the change in software and when it comes to mods nothing seems to have changed.

    What is the timescale for addressing this issue?



  • Registered Users Posts: 67,617 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


     Other irritations relate to threads going off topic and requiring mod instructions to get back on track - more recently this seems to have been interpreted by some as mods telling posters what they can and can't discuss which is not the case, it typically means it can be discussed in another thread.

    This is catergorically wrong. I got a warning on the Troy thread for mentiooning Leo Varadkar, when people where mentioning a whole host of others from Ahern, Hogan, Calleray, P. Flynn, to Enda, and many more. I explained the relevance of the post I made to Beasty, and the fact that it wasn't me who intitially brought Varadkar into the conversation but the warning stood and the post was deleted. No so, for all the other posts that mentioned others. By the time Beasty got around to his moderation the thread had moved on and my post neither took it off topic or derailed it.

    Arbitrary inconsistent moderation that is impossible to navigate.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    Thank you. We needed adult intervention.

    There issue of an Admin citing PM's and floating a theory about back channels is way over the line IMO. I have sent him a screen grab of the PM where I tell Francie about this thread dated before his theory was floated.

    We are not allowed to mention leo's leak in any capacity in any CA thread. We are not to discuss housing in detail in the government thread as there is a shinner housing thread. We are not to discuss Troy in detail in the government thread.

    I was banned from CA for starting a thread in feedback.



  • Registered Users Posts: 67,617 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Yes, I have. And unlike some I have zero issue saying I have been no saint over the course of making nearly 60,000 posts. I also have no issues with moderation or accepting that Beasty does some good work.

    What I am saying is and others agree, if you get the wrong side of this mod, the warnings become increasingly petty, arbitrary and inconsistent when you look at what people get away with on this site. There is as pointed out no possibility of a fair hearing when a mod/admin can make false allegations privately and in public that contribute to a perma ban and when asked for proof cannot and will not provide it.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,755 CMod ✭✭✭✭Ten of Swords


    A number of new mods have been appointed across a range of categories since the platform change. In fact a user was made a mod yesterday (doesn't seem to have been announced in their forum yet so I won't say who and see if the Cmod announces them)

    The issue with CA is getting a list of viable candidates, something the Soc Cmods are actively working on.



  • Registered Users Posts: 387 ✭✭shirrup


    You are letting paranoia clout your vision Mike. No-one said you were an FFG troll.

    The thread is about the inconsistency and perceived bias with moderation, and making a comparison between your post and a theoretical one.


    Went over your head, well done.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I was surprised I wasn’t approached last year tbh, and I now don’t have the time or inclination to do so.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,348 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Why do I get the feeling that this is like some young lad high on a Saturday night squaring up to the Gardai to tell them what he thinks of them? Won't end well.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,348 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    So you haven't appealed this current sanction in Disputes Resolution, yet you are banging on about it here.

    Once again, I see you don't want my opinion on something. How often do you try to control the narrative?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    Because you want to stir the thread into something that doesn't relate to the point of the OP.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement