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

"Mass ban on Conspiracy Theories" thread locked and deleted? Implications for other users?

Yeah Right

Hi,

There was a thread recently about an admin summarily banning an unknown number of posters for little more than their own personal opinion on the posters in question. They posters weren't acting against the charter in any way, the admin felt that they were "single-handedly ruining the forum" or something along those lines, so banned them.

The thread was abandoned by the admin who came back 24hrs later, said it was all resolved, going nowhere and closed the thread. Forgive me if the quote above is incorrect, I can't go back and check the exact wording as the thread has now been deleted, as far as I can see?

Is this correct and, if so, why was it deleted?

There are far reaching implications for all users of the site if the higher-ups can just decide to remove access to portions of the site willy-nilly. One of the posters in question was accused of 'decades' of harassment, but not one single accuser in the thread (including the admin) could point to a post where this was the case. Instead we had posters with years-old grudges swanning in to gloat and say it was about time. Others linked to posts by different posters who hadn't been banned and had in fact only ever posted in the CT forum once. Another refused to back up their accusations under the guise of "I refuse to spoon-feed you".

Is this what Boards has become? Mods and admins can just decide…."nahhhh" and swing the banhammer without so much as a PM to the people they're banning? Throw the charter out the window and just kick the undesirables out the door becuase you feel like it? If so, the number of users will continue to plummet as this is much more of an issue than the switchover to vanilla.

I've no doubt the admin (@bigbagofchips I can't tag them in this post for whatever reason) will come on here and say the "thread was resolved, poster A was fine and poster B closed their account", however that's not the point. The point is nobody should have the right to remove a poster because they feel like it, as long as they're abiding by the charter. This isn't anyone's own personal fiefdom to rule over however they see fit, no matter what it says beneath their username. Are we all one bad hangover away from being turfed out the door because someone doesn't like the cut of your jib?

I'd like clarity on the above, please, if possible.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Spear

@Big Bag of Chips if you could respond for this one.

Donald Trump

Banning Mass isn't fair on all the priest posters

Big Bag of Chips

The thread was deleted because if I was to go through and warn/delete all the individual posts that should have been deleted then there wouldn't have been much left.

I asked in the thread and nobody was able to answer: what constitutes "mass banning"?

There is no implications for other posters. They haven't been banned.

I decided on a measure in order to try improve posting in a particular forum. As an admin, and with discussion with the other moderators this is something I am entitled to do. I could have PMd a poster but the outcome would be the same. I could have gone back and banned on warnings in the forum but the outcome would have been the same.

Changes will be made in the forum. The moderators don't need the permission of the posters to make changes.

Access isn't removed "willy-nilly". If you get forum banned or sitebanned it's generally for a reason. And you know why. Other posters don't always see what the moderators see.

I didn't "abandon" the thread. I am not online 24/7.

Posters can "abide by the charter" and still cause problems in a forum. Have a read of any of the multiple feedback threads over the past year.

Some people disagreed with the action taken. Some people welcomed it. We're not going to please everyone.

If you aren't on the moderators' radar you are unlikely to be forum banned out of the blue. If you pick up a ban then despite protestations of innocence you'll have a fair idea you've been pushing it for a while.

I am now going to "abandon" this thread because the issue has been resolved. I have no interest in another 10 page thread going over the same ground. There is no implications for any other posters who were on that thread. You're not banned. If you don't regularly have moderator warnings then you are unlikely to get banned. The posters involved were dealt with and we do not discuss moderator actions with anyone other than the posters involved.

I will not be engaging with this thread again. The forum moderators can decide to leave it open or lock it.

odyssey06

I would add, for the forum modetators, whose responsibility is it to moderate Feedback threads about the site or specific forums?

The mods of this forum? Mods or admins of the forum under discussion?

Comments from BBOC that:

if I was to go through and warn/delete all the individual posts that should have been deleted then there wouldn't have been much left.

Suggests the thread was something of a Wild West and more responsive / engaged moderation of such threads is needed.

Spear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122897821#Comment_122897821

It's for the Feedback mods and admins. The mods of the forum being discussed don't get to stop threads about them.

bucketybuck

I would note that in multiple threads recently the admins have made it pretty clear that they sick to their holes of certain behaviours on the site and no longer intend to put up with it. Looks to me like they know who the time-sinks are and intend to do something about them, whether any particular person likes that or not doesn't appear to matter any more.

So I doubt any of the rules lawyering, "show us exactly what the charter says" types are going to get an answer that satisfies them.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122897848#Comment_122897848

So when an admin is involved in the thread that was deleted and played a significant role in the issues raised on the thread?

Would it not follow that merely for the optics alone that their deletion of the thread doesn't pass the sniff test?

The mode of chosen to ban any poster must meet the rules lain out in the forum charter. It can't be a solo run by an admin, particularly when they don't lay out to affected posters why there was an immediate ban.

Some of the admin's posts in the deleted thread were far from balanced and there was a significant degree of targeting of a single poster that was directly attributable to those posts that was immediately recognisable to anybody who spent any time in the CT forum.

Big Bag of Chips

Ok, I'm back...

I can't resist.

The mode of chosen to ban any poster must meet the rules lain out in the forum charter.

No it doesn't.

Posters can, and have been, forum or even sitebanned for a pattern of posts that skate just the right side of the charter without actually breaching it. A single post on its own is probably not worthy of a warning, but a pattern of the same type of disingenuous, disruptive posting will lead to a ban - and the poster won't be all that surprised. The only surprise is how they've managed to get away with it for so long!

Posters recently have been permanently sitebanned not for one particular post. Not for an accumulation of warnings but for consistently causing issues with the general tone of their posts.

A poster was recently permanently sitebanned for something he posted on another site! He was being a PITA here, but nothing that you could point to that breached any rule. But he was found by an Admin on another site posting something vile about a member here and was permanently sitebanned without warning.

There are many many reasons why a poster might get themselves banned, warnings are just one mode. Very few of them can say hand on heart it came completely out of the blue.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122897848#Comment_122897848

Well, there is a contradiction there, because if "mods of the forum being discussed don't get to stop threads about them" … how is it that it appears to be BBOC who deleted the thread and assumed responsibility for its moderation?

The thread was deleted because if I was to go through and warn/delete all the individual posts that should have been deleted then there wouldn't have been much left.

But I more had in mind plainly abusive posts by regular posters that were on the (now deleted) thread for some time, and no action taken for more than a day. This makes it difficult to have constructive discussions about the sites \ forums when disruptive posters are not deal with in a timely manner.

Are reports on posts in the Feedback forum actually \ actively monitored?

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122897931#Comment_122897931

A poster was recently permanently sitebanned for something he posted on another site! He was being a PITA here, but nothing that you could point to that breached any rule. But he was found by an Admin on another site posting something vile about a member here and was permanently sitebanned without warning.

And you have the appropriate charter or forum rule that lays out it's ok to do that?

Or is it decided on an ad-hoc basis? Either there's a system of rules that binds users to standards of expected and enumerated behaviour on the site?

Or there's a veneer of the rules but those rules aren't for everyone and indeed? Should an admin decide to undertake solo runs they can do so without recourse to the charter of any sub?

Big Bag of Chips

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122897956#Comment_122897956

Admins can decide to siteban anyon if they wish.

"Don't be a dick" covers it.

If you're being a dick you might get away with it for a while, but it'll eventually catch up with you.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122897979#Comment_122897979

So "Don't be a dick" is a universal rule that Boards mods & admins get to apply on users beyond the realm of boards.

And who decides when " Don't be a dick" applies to mods & admins? When an Admin engages in a thread and undertakes posting that is part and parcel of such behaviour, wheres the line?

nachouser

Lads, can you just take a step back and realise it's a free website with an absent owner and a handful of people who give up their free time to make judgement calls on some of the crappiest corners of the site.

Dan Steely

Similarly, low level trolling that blighted the Soccer forum for so long was dealt with and is now a distant memory.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122898025#Comment_122898025

If its such a "crappiest corner" of the site and there's only a handful of people trying to keep an eye on things ... time to take a step back and ask whether keeping it open is the best use of that limited capacity. By its nature it appears to be inherently challenging to moderate and will have a high ratio of posts needing moderation.

odyssey06

Re: being a dick

In such case it should be easy to find posts where they were. And sanction them and if that adds up to a ban so be it.

If that had been done in this case - or any future one - there wouldnt be near the same level of reaction about it in this forum.

Big Bag of Chips

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122897995#Comment_122897995

Nah, he was being a dick here but it was low level and difficult to really catch. He took it a step too far by posting something vile about a named poster on another site.

It was decide we don't need his type of attitude here. That's a right we hold. Why waste everyone's time with multiple warnings, increasing sitebans etc. it was decided the site could function ok without him.

Anyone even know who I'm taking about? Do you all miss his contributions?

Probably not.

No loss.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122897802#Comment_122897802

The thread was deleted because if I was to go through and warn/delete all the individual posts that should have been deleted then there wouldn't have been much left.

That's a cop out in my opinion. From the outside, it looks like you deleted it to hide the fact that anybody can be banned at any time for any reason, or no reason at all, just because you didn't like them. You had plenty of opportunity to address and sanction posts as the thread progressed, but refused, you were even called out for it by multiple posters (including myself). To let it slide then use it as justification for not just closing but deleting the thread is a cop out.

I asked in the thread and nobody was able to answer: what constitutes "mass banning"?

Multiple people banned without notice at the same time. You might have gotten a more robust answer if folks were aware of the number of posters who had been banned, but alas, it was all cloak and dagger stuff hidden behind some faux-GDPR nonsense. I suspect this was deliberately withheld to prevent accusations of bias because the number of posters banned was actually around 2, who you didn't like, but that's just me.

There is no implications for other posters. They haven't been banned.

Yet.

But the sword of damacles is now hanging over everyone's head that they could, at short notice for SFA reasons. If this is the case, everyone should know.

I decided on a measure in order to try improve posting in a particular forum. As an admin, and with discussion with the other moderators this is something I am entitled to do. I could have PMd a poster but the outcome would be the same. I could have gone back and banned on warnings in the forum but the outcome would have been the same.

Just because you can do something, that doesn't mean it's a valid or correct measure. "I banned him because I'm entitled to ban whoever I want" is no justification for banning anyone. I asked everyone, including you by name, to show us where and what their actions were that justified the bans and all I got was crickets. The outcome wouldn't have been the same at all if you'd PMd them, they'd have known they were banned for a start and could have been made aware of the reasons why. You didn't, which is another cop out, so the thread was started.

Changes will be made in the forum. The moderators don't need the permission of the posters to make changes.

I never claimed otherwise. At the very least, however, I'd expect a robust argument, instead of "you were being a dick, no I wasn't, yes you were, prove it, no you're banned and you've decided to close your account so thread locked and deleted ok bye thanks, don't worry everyone else, this is just a personal hit the rest of you needn't worry".

Access isn't removed "willy-nilly". If you get forum banned or sitebanned it's generally for a reason. And you know why. Other posters don't always see what the moderators see.

Except that wasn't the case here. The posters in question didn't know, they asked why, weren't really given a straight answer and the thread was locked as a cop out of providing those reasons. To them, and everyone else (bar a couple of axe-grinders) it looks like they were banned willy nilly. "Generally for a reason" means "sometimes it's for no reason". This is news to me and I've been on here for 20 odd years.

I didn't "abandon" the thread. I am not online 24/7.

You told everyone you were busy and would return when free. You returned to the thread in the early AM, locked it and left everyone hanging with multiple questions and requests for clarification. Again, from the outside, it looks like the reason for this is because addressing the requests and questions was too uncomfortable.

Some people disagreed with the action taken. Some people welcomed it. We're not going to please everyone.

The people who agreed with it were, almost exclusively, people with long-held, years old grudges. Including someone who had been banned for lying in the forum, and only came in to the thread to piss on graves. That alone should have given everyone pause to reflect if the decision made was the correct one.

If you aren't on the moderators' radar you are unlikely to be forum banned out of the blue. If you pick up a ban then despite protestations of innocence you'll have a fair idea you've been pushing it for a while.

Unlikely….but not impossible. As was the case with the posters in question who were banned without warning and without being "in the firing line" as it were. For all intents and purposes, these guys had zero idea that their behaviour was deemed unacceptable and people were actively asking for examples when the thread was closed. How are the rest of us to know what's crossing the line if we don't know where the line is and everything is all done behind closed doors?

The upshot of this entire episode is that you can be banned for whatever reason an admin thinks up in their head, whether that reason is valid or not and the accuser has zero onus to back up their reasons. Hiding behind "we don't discuss individual cases" is another absolute cop out when there are far-reaching and serious consequences for everybody who uses the site. I've defended the mods and admins on here before from cranks and nuisance posters, but "I don't like you even though you've done nothing wrong, GTFO" is as close to an abuse of power on this site as I've ever seen. I'd wager that if a mod did it, they'd be stripped of their banning privileges. This is a huge deviation from normal practice, despite your wishy washy claims that it has happened before, and deserves to be teased out so we all know what the story is going forward.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122898065#Comment_122898065

Bingo.

Decades of abuse, apparently, yet not one person could provide one example, even from the 'ding dong the witch is dead' crowd.

The admin accused one poster outright of single-handedly ruining the forum but declined to let everyone else know how or show anyone how it was done.

The entire thing smacks of a personal vendetta.

Big Bag of Chips

@Yeah Right I will not discuss actions taken against another poster with you, or anyone other than the poster.

I am not obliged to "let everyone else know" or "show anyone" anything.

I find it telling that I mentioned no names. Yet people claimed it was very obvious who I was referring to. I don't know how it was obvious if the poster has zero history and I've just made it all up to suit some imagined agenda.

There are plenty of examples of the type of posting the poster was banned for. That's why everyone knew exactly who I was talking about.

"Far reaching and serious consequences"???

Will you cop on.

It's a discussion site. Free to join, and free to leave. You might want to not take it so seriously

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122900515#Comment_122900515

I will not discuss actions taken against another poster with you, or anyone other than the poster.

Another cop out. You had no problem discussing your thoughts and actions against certain posters in the now deleted thread as you publicly assassinated their character. Funny how your willingness to do this changes, almost dependant upon how badly you feel you might come out of it.

I am not obliged to "let everyone else know" or "show anyone" anything.

I would argue that yes, if you're unilaterally deciding to alter the rules and go down a different avenue than is normally the case on here, you are obliged to let others know. Even if from a caretaker's POV, if you want to discourage certain behaviour then surely you should let everyone know what the bahviour looks like first?

I find it telling that I mentioned no names. Yet people claimed it was very obvious who I was referring to. I don't know how it was obvious if the poster has zero history and I've just made it all up to suit some imagined agenda.

I never said you made it all up, please don't put words in my mouth. I asked for examples of what they had done wrong and nobody, not one person including yourself, has put forward one valid example, even up to right now. If there are plenty of examples it should be easy, no? All I want is clarification of what is and is not okay. You can't hide the rules then chastise people for breaking them when they were ignorant of the rules in the first place.

There are plenty of examples of the type of posting the poster was banned for. That's why everyone knew exactly who I was talking about.

The poster outed themselves. I could point to other examples of how it was hinted at, but the thread's gone now.

"Far reaching and serious consequences"???
Will you cop on.

Boards is approaching 30 years old. There are communities here that have been going for longer than some people using the site have bee alive. The entire website is on its knees, figuratively speaking. If admins and mods are all of a sudden allowed to go rogue and permitted to get rid of their own personal hate-figures for absolutely no reason whatsoever, it will do nothing to stem the decline of the site. I don't want that to happen. Those are far-reaching and serious for both the owners and the sponsors of the site. Disagree all you want, downplaying the seriousness of the kangaroo court that happened this week does nobody any gavours, least of all Boards.ie

It's a discussion site. Free to join, and free to leave.

You possibly should have borne that in mind when you decided to boot people out for no reason without discussing it with them, or before you locked and deleted the last thread while discussion was happening.

You might want to not take it so seriously

LOL. Says the guy who pinned the downfall of a forum on one person before claiming he cannot discuss actions taken against anyone? If you weren't taking it seriously in the first place you wouldn't have banned anyone.

Big Bag of Chips

The posters were not banned for no reason. Reasons were given. Whether you or others agree with those reasons is completely irrelevant.

One poster accepted the reasons and acknowledged their part in the type of posting I was talking about.

One poster didn't.

This discussion, as far as I'm concerned is over. It is a rehash of the previous discussion. You are unaffected by the action taken. If the poster affected would like to discuss they have been invited to contact me.

This thread is now locked. Do not start another.