Moderators

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I Can you explain how that works please?

if the user is a spammer, a returned banned user, or a dick - i.e. the trouble and aggravation they cause outweighs any benefit they may bring, then they generally get banned. As for why other users don't get banned, you'd have to bring that up with the mods in question. It's none of my business

btw, I don't think I was being a smart arse, I was merely asking a question. as you said yourself in a previous post,

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

. One good turn deserves another?

My name is URL

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, yes, it was, and I don't have any difficulty saying I was out of line in saying it.

However, how would you stop someone being offended by the statement above - or by the statement "conspiracy theories are just paranoid fantasies"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

You can't stop anyone from being offended by anything.. if somebody was offended by the above opinion about CTs then that's their own prerogative. While I'm sure people would indeed be offended by it, it isn't a direct attack on them as a person or group. It's merely an opinion on a general subject, be it true or not.

The terms conspiracy theory/ist are themselves pejorative these days anyway. I think most people realise that, even those who mostly post in that forum.

Yitzhak Rabin

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

So regarding your answer: you can ban someone for life even though they have no infractions yet someone else can have seven pages of infractions and no such action taken... Can you explain how that works please?

It makes sense.

What if a user uploaded child pornography or something?

Would you say "Well he had no previous infractions, so we'll give him a slap on the wrist"

or would it be more appropriate to dish out a life-time ban immediately?

tbh wrote: »

if the user is a spammer, a returned banned user, or a dick. I don't think I was being a smart arse, I was merely asking a question. as you said yourself in a previous post,

Hmm. So pages of infractions count for nothing? I just find it more and more difficult to see any logic in the way moderation works on boards.ie. Regardless of your smart arse answers to legitimate questions (see highlighted part of above quote), the basic principle that someone can have carte blanche to insult and bully others and accumulate loads of infractions yet another poster can be banned for life without ever having been infracted... Well, I'm sure you guys have some form of logic to justify it. F**ked if I can work it out though.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good point - mind you, I've debated the proposition that the host's best friend was a complete idiot, and successfully too. Admittedly, I was then kicked out of the party, which seemed fair enough, and which applies quite well to boards.

If I were prepared to debate the statement, does that make it OK? The problem with the example above is more that any possibility of argument is dismissed by assuming the other poster isn't capable of it. On the other hand, I would consider that if someone I've called a delusional fantasist is able to muster a convincingly rational response, then one has to accept that they're...no, wait, hang on...actually, I'd only have to accept that they were capable of being rational, not that they're being rational about whatever it is that caused me to call them a delusional fantasist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sparks

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which is to say that I shouldn't post something inflammatory like that even as "just a poster", for exactly the same reasons that other posters shouldn't do it.

I accept that, and I'll try harder in future to avoid that kind of inflammatory remark.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I find it continually amusing that moderators are expected to modify their posting style like this, most often by posters who find that having their posting style modified in the same manner to be sufficient cause to denounce boards.ie as having overly strict moderation and being doomed/censored/silly as a result...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Hmm. So pages of infractions count for nothing? I just find it more and more difficult to see any logic in the way moderation works on boards.ie. Regardless of your smart arse answers to legitimate questions (see highlighted part of above quote), the basic principle that someone can have carte blanche to insult and bully others and accumulate loads of infractions yet another poster can be banned for life without ever having been infracted... Well, I'm sure you guys have some form of logic to justify it. F**ked if I can work it out though.

well then maybe boards just isn't for you. In fairness, 99% of posters don't seem to have a problem understanding how it works.
Call me a smart arse all you want, but "don't be a dick" is the primary rule on boards.

DeVore wrote: »

There's one "rule"... dont be a dick.

Don't be a dick, is the rule. The rest is our approximate explanation of what is, and isnt, dickish.
.

My name is URL wrote: »

So if your personal opinion on transgender people was one which those people find insulting would you still share it despite the 'don't be a dick' rule? I'm sure your opinion on that particular issue is not one which is insulting towards that group of people, but can you see my point?

Hill Billy wrote: »

OP - For your information The George is a gay bar.

Inbox - Don't be a dick. If you're not going to post something helpful - don't bother posting.

HB

Tom Dunne wrote: »

We can turn this site into a democracy when everyone adheres to the "don't be a dick" rule.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't see it only in terms of potential legal liability; there should also be some level of ordinary decency, a level that might be indicated by "don't be a dick".

The Recliner

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Hmm. So pages of infractions count for nothing? I just find it more and more difficult to see any logic in the way moderation works on boards.ie. Regardless of your smart arse answers to legitimate questions (see highlighted part of above quote), the basic principle that someone can have carte blanche to insult and bully others and accumulate loads of infractions yet another poster can be banned for life without ever having been infracted... Well, I'm sure you guys have some form of logic to justify it. F**ked if I can work it out though.

It wasn't a smart arse answer

Dont be a Dick is one of the founding rules for behaviour on Boards, it might not be specifically referenced in the charters but we sure can ban for it

Depending on the level and amount of infractions or the speed with which someone racks them up they will come to the attention of the higher ups and get a holiday for them

Someone who has been on the site for a number of years may well have picked up a lot of infractions but it may also be relative to their post count

Someone who picks up a large amount of infractions in very few posts hasn't got much to offer the site

people can be sitebanned for their first post if it warants it

Gordon

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Hmm. So pages of infractions count for nothing? I just find it more and more difficult to see any logic in the way moderation works on boards.ie. Regardless of your smart arse answers to legitimate questions (see highlighted part of above quote), the basic principle that someone can have carte blanche to insult and bully others and accumulate loads of infractions yet another poster can be banned for life without ever having been infracted... Well, I'm sure you guys have some form of logic to justify it. F**ked if I can work it out though.

If someone has enough infractions they will automatically get a siteban. If many infractions are gained throughout their history then an Admin will look at the case and judge whether or not they need to be booted, we don't have a software system (yet!) for dealing with a large amount of infractions over an extended time duration.

There are always some grey areas though, admittedly. It seems to work well, but we're always up for suggestions on improving things around here

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Hmm. So pages of infractions count for nothing? I just find it more and more difficult to see any logic in the way moderation works on boards.ie. Regardless of your smart arse answers to legitimate questions (see highlighted part of above quote), the basic principle that someone can have carte blanche to insult and bully others and accumulate loads of infractions yet another poster can be banned for life without ever having been infracted... Well, I'm sure you guys have some form of logic to justify it. F**ked if I can work it out though.

Leaving aside the obvious ones like being a spammer, the main difference between FB and someone who's attracted a lifetime ban will tend to be one of dickishness. Someone who accepts that being rude is wrong, and who therefore tries not to be, but fails, even on a fairly regular basis, is generally going to be OK, even if they do pick up a lot of infractions, because they fundamentally accept that the rules apply to them, even if they fail to observe them sometimes. On the other hand, someone who simply doesn't accept that the rules apply to them, and whose response to being asked not to be rude is essentially "you're not the boss of me" and a bunch of asterisks, is someone who is not going to be OK.

Basically, it's a community, it has some imposed rules (no libel) and a load of community rules which have evolved over time, and which are irrelevant to the owners of boards.ie but not the posters. Those rules are supported by the majority of users, or they become dead letters. So most people who post on boards.ie prefer users not to be rude, or at least to accept that being rude is not acceptable - and when the mods are faced with a user who simply doesn't get that the rules apply to them, and feels they have carte blanche to do and say what they like, it's likely that that user will eventually attract a permanent ban if they don't change, because they're going to be disruptive - selfishly so - for the majority of the community.

The community aspect of the rules is very important, and one of the reasons why the rules vary quite a lot from forum to forum. That's why AH is AH - stuff is tolerated there that wouldn't be in Politics, and stuff is tolerated in Politics that isn't in Religion or Personal Issues, etc etc. If the general community of Politics posters felt I was out of line in a mod decision, I would soon hear about it - yes, there are sanctions for arguing moderation on-thread, but they're not there to suppress dissent, but to stop threads themselves being dragged off-topic. That's why Feedback exists, and why we have a dispute resolution procedure. Sure, some people like to believe that those are just window-dressing, and that any dispute will always be "resolved" in favour of the moderators - but that's not actually true, and the kind of people who tend to believe that has an amazingly large cross-over with the kind of people who don't get that the rules apply to them in the first place.

In short, that comes down to the famous and basic law of boards - "don't be a dick".

cordially,
Scofflaw

tbh wrote: »

well then maybe boards just isn't for you. In fairness, 99% of posters don't seem to have a problem understanding how it works.
Call me a smart arse all you want, but "don't be a dick" is the primary rule on boards.

Your other quotes on that post are interesting. The mods seem to have one major thing in common: the use of the word Dick! It seems to be at the top of their vocabulary.... :rolleyes:

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Your other quotes on that post are interesting. The mods seem to have one major thing in common: the use of the word Dick! It seems to be at the top of their vocabulary.... :rolleyes:

Yes - first thing that happens when you become a moderator is Dick Camp, and they drill it into us there.

no really,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes - first thing that happens when you become a moderator is Dick Camp, and they drill it into us there.

no really,
Scofflaw

Sounds painful, but I'd believe it though.;) Perhaps they could issue you with KY Gel or Vaseline or some Sudocreme for afters?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Your other quotes on that post are interesting. The mods seem to have one major thing in common: the use of the word Dick! It seems to be at the top of their vocabulary.... :rolleyes:

Purely because I searched for "don't be a dick" to prove I wasn't being a smart arse. If that's the inference you want to draw from that, be my guest.

oh, and apology accepted

tbh wrote: »

oh, and apology accepted

Yeah. Whatever rocks your boat....

I was actually talking about when you apologised for calling me a liar after you misinterpreted one of my posts, if you want to add calling me a smart arse for informing you of boards rule #1 to that apology, then I'll graciously accept that too. Don't call me a hero!

tbh wrote: »

I was actually talking about when you apologised for calling me a liar after you misinterpreted one of my posts, if you want to add calling me a smart arse for informing you of boards rule #1 to that apology, then I'll graciously accept that too. Don't call me a hero!

Like I said, whatever rocks your boat....

ah now lenny come on, don't be sulking. It's all just a bit of fun. We all make mistakes. Even me! I didn't realise that only mods can see infractions - I never would have mentioned flutts record if I'd realised. Sorry flutt.

tbh wrote: »

ah now lenny come on, don't be sulking. It's all just a bit of fun. We all make mistakes. Even me! I didn't realise that only mods can see infractions - I never would have mentioned flutts record if I'd realised. Sorry flutt.

No probs. I'm not sulking. It's just that I've a sore head. It hurts after a while of banging it against a brick wall...:rolleyes:

demonspawn

Scofflaw wrote: »

Leaving aside the obvious ones like being a spammer, the main difference between FB and someone who's attracted a lifetime ban will tend to be one of dickishness. Someone who accepts that being rude is wrong, and who therefore tries not to be, but fails, even on a fairly regular basis, is generally going to be OK, even if they do pick up a lot of infractions, because they fundamentally accept that the rules apply to them, even if they fail to observe them sometimes. On the other hand, someone who simply doesn't accept that the rules apply to them, and whose response to being asked not to be rude is essentially "you're not the boss of me" and a bunch of asterisks, is someone who is not going to be OK.

That's gotta be the most ridiculous thing I've heard you say yet. So it's ok for me to break the rules so long as I accept that I am indeed breaking the rules? Is that what you're trying to say? Pull the other one.

I was banned for a week for posting "CT rubbish" when in fact nothing in that film was CT whatsoever. If you bothered to watch the film you would know this. It was a documentary about various civil uprisings around the world. There was no suggestion of a NWO or anything like that. The makers of that film are actually award winning documentarians. The other reason for the ban was because the video was "unpleasant and graphic". Did you miss the huge bolded warning about the graphic content of the film located directly above or below the video player? In fact, I believe the only reason you even knew of the graphic content was because of that warning. I seriously doubt you watched that film at all.

FlutterinBantam

demonspawn wrote: »

That's gotta be the most ridiculous thing I've heard you say yet. So it's ok for me to break the rules so long as I accept that I am indeed breaking the rules? Is that what you're trying to say? Pull the other one.

I was banned for a week for posting "CT rubbish" when in fact nothing in that film was CT whatsoever. If you bothered to watch the film you would know this. It was a documentary about various civil uprisings around the world. There was no suggestion of a NWO or anything like that. The makers of that film are actually award winning documentarians. The other reason for the ban was because the video was "unpleasant and graphic". Did you miss the huge bolded warning about the graphic content of the film located directly above or below the video player? In fact, I believe the only reason you even knew of the graphic content was because of that warning. I seriously doubt you watched that film at all.

The main difference I would opine is that I do not use the politics thread to try to ram my ideas down other peoples throats.

while I do transgress from time to time, I do not use Boards.ie as a vehicle to promote my views and my transgressions are of a one-to-one nature rather than a 'site or rule' violation.

I have long extolled the dangers of allowing vested interest groups and activists, the platform of Boards.ie and it's status, to peddle their polemic views and I would suppose that that is the reason why you attracted the |Moderator's attention.

I hold my hand up and freely admit that I have broken the rules on occasions, always in the personal abuse field,but I haven't used Boards.ie as a medium to batter my radical and anti establishment views on a so called innocent public.

the public are not quite as 'innocent' as you might think friend.

Always remember that;)

demonspawn

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

The main difference I would opine is that I do not use the politics thread to try to ram my ideas down other peoples throats.

while I do transgress from time to time, I do not use Boards.ie as a vehicle to promote my views and my transgressions are of a one-to-one nature rather than a 'site or rule' violation.

I have long extolled the dangers of allowing vested interest groups and activists, the platform of Boards.ie and it's status, to peddle their polemic views and I would suppose that that is the reason why you attracted the |Moderator's attention.

I hold my hand up and freely admit that I have broken the rules on occasions, always in the personal abuse field,but I haven't used Boards.ie as a medium to batter my radical and anti establishment views on a so called innocent public.

the public are not quite as 'innocent' as you might think friend.

Always remember that;)

Here we go with the "friend/buddy/pal" nonsense again. Weren't you warned about that already by an admin?

You think I have some sort of vested interest or that I belong to some organization? Perhaps you should spent more time in CT than in politics. I've stated numerous times that I subscribe to no political party or organization, if you wish to believe otherwise that's your choice entirely.

"I do not use Boards.ie as a vehicle to promote my views " What is a debate if it's not two people trying to promote their own personal views? I have never tried to ram my opinions down anyone's throat, I find that behavior repulsive. That's why I have such a dislike for organized religion and political parties.

You've already proved to me your reasons for posting on board when you chased Nodin all the way to AH with the sole intent of trolling and instigating a row. Now please excuse me, I really have nothing else to say to you, ever.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

No probs. I'm not sulking. It's just that I've a sore head. It hurts after a while of banging it against a brick wall...:rolleyes:

Probably not the smartest thing to do. Only one head, but an infinite supply of bricks

FlutterinBantam

demonspawn wrote: »

Here we go with the "friend/buddy/pal" nonsense again. Weren't you warned about that already by an admin?

You think I have some sort of vested interest or that I belong to some organization? Perhaps you should spent more time in CT than in politics. I've stated numerous times that I subscribe to no political party or organization, if you wish to believe otherwise that's your choice entirely.

"I do not use Boards.ie as a vehicle to promote my views " What is a debate if it's not two people trying to promote their own personal views? I have never tried to ram my opinions down anyone's throat, I find that behavior repulsive. That's why I have such a dislike for organized religion and political parties.

You've already proved to me your reasons for posting on board when you chased Nodin all the way to AH with the sole intent of trolling and instigating a row. Now please excuse me, I really have nothing else to say to you, ever.

I have no wish to drag this thread into a personal confrontation other than to say,where do you get your ideas from and how come you are so clenched and entrenched in your ideas.

"Chasing Nodin 'all the way to AH' with the sole intent of trolling and instigating a row!!!

C'mon man I don't have to 'chase' Nodin', he will be found in any anti US or pro Israeli thread on boards, so chasing isn't necessary.

And there is nothing wrong with that , nothing at all.

Just remember that posters will challenge your views in Politics, you don't have free rein or untrammelled access, people will confront your views and oppose them, rightly or wrongly.

Politics is not a polemic for you to spout your views.

Learn to accept that and we're all good;)

AckwelFoley

Scofflaw wrote: »

I appreciate snyper's point, but it seems a shame to completely rule out the ability to be pithy just in case we cause offence to somebody by being pithy. Political correctness gone mad, to coin a phrase.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I will have to disagree that its political correctness, and attribute it more to politeness and more important to perception. If i were to have a politician from the Sinn Fein Party come to my door looking for a vote, (something i await with great zeal) and i were to use language that contained words such as "scumbags" "terrorists" & "commie bastards" they would make their retort and leave and soon forget about my points, you see - and i know this for a fact, politicians from all parties are very ofey with getting abused at the doors, and expect it, however the ones that use language like ive stated are the ones that are heeded the least. Someone once said to me "if a dog barks at you would you be offended? No, you wouldnt - because hes a dog".

If however i were to make essentially the same points and word it in a less abrasive manner, i would in essance be making the same point, however the perception would be that i would have something more worthwhile to say.

snyper wrote: »

I will have to disagree that its political correctness, and attribute it more to politeness and more important to perception. If i were to have a politician from the Sinn Fein Party come to my door looking for a vote, (something i await with great zeal) and i were to use language that contained words such as "scumbags" "terrorists" & "commie bastards" they would make their retort and leave and soon forget about my points, you see - and i know this for a fact, politicians from all parties are very ofey with getting abused at the doors, and expect it, however the ones that use language like ive stated are the ones that are heeded the least. Someone once said to me "if a dog barks at you would you be offended? No, you wouldnt - because hes a dog".

If however i were to make essentially the same points and word it in a less abrasive manner, i would in essance be making the same point, however the perception would be that i would have something more worthwhile to say.

I agree entirely - but I don't particularly feel I'm there to persuade anyone of my views at the moment (as I did during Lisbon), so I'm inclined not to worry quite as much about whether I'm actually being persuasive.

cordially,
Scofflaw

demonspawn wrote: »

That's gotta be the most ridiculous thing I've heard you say yet. So it's ok for me to break the rules so long as I accept that I am indeed breaking the rules? Is that what you're trying to say? Pull the other one.

I was banned for a week for posting "CT rubbish" when in fact nothing in that film was CT whatsoever. If you bothered to watch the film you would know this. It was a documentary about various civil uprisings around the world. There was no suggestion of a NWO or anything like that. The makers of that film are actually award winning documentarians. The other reason for the ban was because the video was "unpleasant and graphic". Did you miss the huge bolded warning about the graphic content of the film located directly above or below the video player? In fact, I believe the only reason you even knew of the graphic content was because of that warning. I seriously doubt you watched that film at all.

The whole thread of the film is that we're all in a war between the violent rightist "world system" and the few brave rebels - a war without end, a war without battlefields. That's an NWO narrative, and it's not even as if that's some kind of solitary opinion of mine. Here's one of the comments from Youtube, and I have to agree with it:

This film is a bunch of clips of protesters from all over the world manipulated to fit a different story tilted towards NWO. But anyways. I agree with the protesters and don't let the narration fool you. The protesters are right.

This is "fight/free yourself from the NWO" stuff. Whether it's disturbing/graphic - you said it, not me. It's undeniably CT, just as if it were a video about chemtrails or similar nonsense.

As to whether it had anything to do with whether the EU was more or less responsible for preventing war in Europe after WW2 - the best one could say is that it was tangentially related, but that would have been equally true of a historical documentary about WW1. That is, unless one was going to make the implicit claim that the EU, far from preventing war, is in fact part of the war apparatus of the world order in its ongoing "fourth world war" - and funnily enough, I think that's exactly the point you were trying to make.

regards,
Scofflaw

demonspawn

Not all wars are fought with tanks and bombs. There's a global economic war going on as we speak. The WTO has essentially declared war on those countries outside of the WTO. They impose sanctions and unfair trading policies that favor developed nations over developing nations. They enforce those sanctions and policies with the threat of military action. The European Union is also guilty of this to some extent.

In my opinion, the EU was formed to consolidate power and give Europe more ammunition in this global economic war, World War III if you will.

That's a direct quote from myself from the thread in question. I posted that video to provide evidence of what happens when a nation refuses to accept interference by the WTO in their country's financial affairs. You banned me for a week to keep me out of the discussion, as my views regarding the EU are diametrically opposed to your own.

Edit: By the way, the title of the thread was "The EU stopped World War Three" or something along those lines. The entire discussion was based on theory from the start.

Edit 2: So when my ban is up, will it be ok for me to break the forum rules as long as I accept those rules apply to me?