Wannabe Freemason is now a CT mod.

Xavi6 · 13-09-2010 12:32pm

LoLth wrote: »

The changing of DS's avatar, this is something thats been done before. This isnt a first. Perhaps it wasnt good timing and for that we should apologise.

Is this confirmation that it was 100% done by an admin or am I reading it wrong?

Tom Dunne · 13-09-2010 12:39pm

Just to set the record straight, I did not modify anyone's avatar or signature.

If my comments came across as abusive, that was not the intention. I still stand by my statement that if a poster makes outlandish claims then I should be able to counter them with mild humour. I never once made a direct personal attack on anyone, nor did I make reference to anyone's mental health.

Had I known the history behind demonspawn, of course I would have acted differently. But of course hindsight is a wonderful thing. However, along with being a regular on the Conspiracy Theory forum, demonspawn also made himself known to the wider community with increasing frequency of late, most notably here in Feedback. As such, I deemed him fair game. Was that wrong of me? In hindsight, it appears it was.

I accept that as an admin, I should be held to higher standards as smashey says above, so I apologise for any offence caused by my comments on this thread.

So I'll chalk this one down to experience and be mindful of the events here, should such an event occur in the future.

LoLth · 13-09-2010 12:51pm

Xavi6 wrote: »

Is this confirmation that it was 100% done by an admin or am I reading it wrong?

yes, DemonSpawn's avatar was changed by an admin. I dont know if it was changed as many times as DemonSpawn claims it was. However, no, an admin did not disable his user CP (not CT as demonspawn claims, I'm assuming that was a typo). We dont have that ability.

As I said already and has been pointed out by other posters, this is not something new it was intended as a bit of fun. Did it get out of hand? Yes. Perhaps in the past it was done to users who were on better terms with the admin/s doing the changing or perhaps it hasnt been done to a user that actively *wants* to have an issue with an admin so they can point and say "look!". In any case, this is being discussed by the admins and boards staff.

Tallon · 13-09-2010 12:55pm

Joking / friendlyness or not, It's something that shouldnt be done at all

Wibbs · 13-09-2010 1:04pm

Fair play on the explanations and apologies. IMHO there's feck all need for anything more than that too. Just because there's a title under the username, doesnt mean anyone should get unnecessary and out or proportion static for it

We all have those moments hence we have these:

Mine is more this:

Actually this may be more applicable:

LoLth · 13-09-2010 1:04pm

Tallon wrote: »

Joking / friendlyness or not, It's something that shouldnt be done at all

Never?not even if a user uploads a custom avatar that is offensive/illegal ? Or an advertisement?

Its a utility that the admins need to have to perform their function. granted, having a joke isnt strictly the use the utility was intended for but it hasnt been an issue up to now. This is the first time that a users avatar has been changed, that I know of, without the avatar being against the rules of baords.ie or public decency and the user has complained (or any other user for that matter). changing and avatar/name/title/signature is a quite public action and cant have gone unnoticed by every single boards user up to now.

But yes, you are correct that changing DemonSpawns Avatar was not seen funny by the user. The admins are discussing this and if necessary will draw up better rules for if and when this utility is used.

Sightaridis · 13-09-2010 1:12pm

an admin did not disable his user CP (not CT as demonspawn claims, I'm assuming that was a typo)

I don't believe it was a typo. By CT he would mean the custom title under his name which may have experienced changes if he was placed in a certain usergroup perhaps.

P. Breathnach · 13-09-2010 1:17pm

I am really pleased to see a different tone being adopted by "the official side", an acknowledgment that some things might have been handled inappropriately, and a suggestion that lessons should be drawn from this experience to guide future behaviour.

My name is URL · 13-09-2010 1:40pm

LoLth wrote: »

But yes, you are correct that changing DemonSpawns Avatar was not seen funny by the user. The admins are discussing this and if necessary will draw up better rules for if and when this utility is used.

It wasn't seen as funny by many I'd imagine.. not least because the person that I suspect to have changed it pretty much denied it and said that such a notion made the mind boggle.. and then when asked about it did not give an answer.

If it had been stated early on that it was a joke then maybe it would have been seen as such by everyone.. but instead, as soon as it was pointed out that an Admin changed it, DS was banned, and that made it seem petty to me at least.. after allowing him to stew for so long without banning him.

Tallon · 13-09-2010 2:12pm

LoLth wrote: »

Never?not even if a user uploads a custom avatar that is offensive/illegal ? Or an advertisement?

Of course not, I meant for the purpose of a joke / bullying.

LoLth wrote: »

However, no, an admin did not disable his user CP (not CT as demonspawn claims, I'm assuming that was a typo). We dont have that ability.

Also the bit in bold, not exactly true. I'm not trying to cause trouble or anything here, but you's Do have the ability to do that

Poccington · 13-09-2010 2:28pm

Sparks wrote: »

Set forth your reasoning. Because I look at this and see a prank and nothing more.

In one case, you have an avatar and name change done to a Mod by an Admin as a joke between friends, everyone had a nice chuckle about it in the Mod forum and that was that.

Then you have a user having his avatar changed and repeated attempts to wind him up by users indulging in a thank fest until an Admin eventually got bored enough with the circle jerk and sitebanned him.

In the first case, it was a bit of craic between two friends. In the second case, it was an Admin being a wanker and then the Admins taking nearly 20 pages to finally admit that they changed his avatar.

****ing ridiculous.

LoLth · 13-09-2010 2:30pm

My name is URL wrote: »

It wasn't seen as funny by many I'd imagine.. not least because the person that I suspect to have changed it pretty much denied it and said that such a notion made the mind boggle.. and then when asked about it did not give an answer.

If it had been stated early on that it was a joke then maybe it would have been seen as such by everyone.. but instead, as soon as it was pointed out that an Admin changed it, DS was banned, and that made it seem petty to me at least.. after allowing him to stew for so long without banning him.

I can tell you that the admin that banned DS did so without knowing who had changed the Avatar or knowing for a fact that the users avatar had been changed by an admin. (we're not actually a network brayne aware of what each other admin is doing at any given moment though I did see DeV sharpening a razor and trying to hide electrodes in his desk drawer). Crossovers do happen. The banning wasnt in response to something being pointed out, it was an unfortunate piece of timing.

if the scenario you described above is what is getting under your skin then I am happy to put your mind at ease and tell you that your suspiscions are wrong. I'm not saying that you are wrong to jump to the conclusion you have drawn but perhaps you should be open to the possibility that sometimes what looks like a conspiracy is actually just a tenuously related string of independant actions. If you wish to believe that this is, or has been, an attempt by the admins to cover up anything then I'm not sure what I can say to convince you otherwise. If that is the opinion a user already holds, I can hardly expect them to believe me when I say otherwise as thats exactly what I would say if I were part of a conspiracy.... or am I being smart and saying exactly what you'd expect me to say so you are taken unawares and are thus convinced by my unexpected non-sneaky openness.....I'm confused. What was your question?

anyway, joking aside, point taken and if that had been the case I would be more than happy to apologise and would raise it as an issue with the other admins (we do disagree you know but we tend to talk it out rather than hurl abuse and ban one another in some sort of weird parody of a well known pulp fiction scene). It is unfortunate that the series of events appeared the way you described to some but I know that thats just down to crossed wires. Whether you believe me or not however is up to you. I can only hope that I have not given any reason (other than being an admin) for you not to admit to the possibility that I may be telling the truth.

LoLth · 13-09-2010 2:35pm

Tallon wrote: »

Also the bit in bold, not exactly true. I'm not trying to cause trouble or anything here, but you's Do have the ability to do that

I'll double check that because
a: I cant see the option to do that though admittedly I've never looked for it before this morning and even then I just gave a quick glance

b: at least one other admin agrees with me that we cant do that

please, feel free to PM me intructions on how its done or any evidence you have of it being done. and I'll check it for you.

Tallon · 13-09-2010 2:53pm

Here's one way it could be done. There are probably others but the existance of one method is enough.

1. Create an additional usergroup and put him in it.

2. Set the Permissions for that usergroup using the Admin CP

Again, not trying to cause trouble, just making things transparent

LoLth · 13-09-2010 3:08pm

Poccington wrote: »

In one case, you have an avatar and name change done to a Mod by an Admin as a joke between friends, everyone had a nice chuckle about it in the Mod forum and that was that.

Then you have a user having his avatar changed and repeated attempts to wind him up by users indulging in a thank fest until an Admin eventually got bored enough with the circle jerk and sitebanned him.

In the first case, it was a bit of craic between two friends. In the second case, it was an Admin being a wanker and then the Admins taking nearly 20 pages to finally admit that they changed his avatar.

****ing ridiculous.

It is also a case with precedent where a troll/muppet/troublemaker has been tormented before being banned. This was from a time when baords.ie was smaller and we didnt really have to take user feelings into account because we all pretty much knew each other and could vent on DM4.

In this case however, I would like to think the fact that an action that was fine with everyone (except the muppet) a few years ago but is now being objected to is being listened to and discussed , shows that the site administration has evolved and changed with the site itself. maybe the rate of change isnt the exact same (or even constant) but its there.

My take on your observation at the end:

It was an Admin letting off steam with a user who has wasted a lot of admin time and still persists in doing so despite every courtesy being extended to him previously the user openly insults the admins. Another admin banned him on his own accord when he became aware of the actions of the user. bad timing maybe but a correct course of action.

My name is URL · 13-09-2010 3:16pm

LoLth wrote: »

I can tell you that the admin that banned DS did so without knowing who had changed the Avatar or knowing for a fact that the users avatar had been changed by an admin.

Thanks for clearing it up, and I apologise for jumping to conclusions without actually knowing all of the details.

LoLth · 13-09-2010 3:21pm

Tallon wrote: »

Here's one way it could be done. There are probably others but the existance of one method is enough.

1. Create an additional usergroup and put him in it.

2. Set the Permissions for that usergroup using the Admin CP

<image snipped>

Again, not trying to cause trouble, just making things transparent

cool , noted for future shenanigans

but no, no new user groups were created in this instance and no, there is no option for us to disable a single user's CP without setting up a new user group to put him in.

So, while it may be possible (if somewhat more cumbersome than I would like...) it was not done in this case and I really dont think there is any intention of doing it in the future. I'm actually not sure if admins can create new groups. after the hack we had all our permission reset to least priviledge as a security precaution.

actually I just checked that and nope, I cant create a new user group either. So yep, I was initially correct and the admins cannot disable a users CP on boards.ie

Tallon · 13-09-2010 3:27pm

Just FYI, I'm not saying it happened, just pointing out that it is physically possible.

Dohnny Jepp · 13-09-2010 4:14pm

I rathered it when everyone was clawing the faces off each other in here.

This talking things out and being friendly makes me very uneasy.. . . touchy feely weirdos

:P

LoLth · 13-09-2010 4:22pm

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

I rathered it when everyone was clawing the faces off each other in here.

This talking things out and being friendly makes me very uneasy.. . . touchy feely weirdos

:P

I'll touchy feely you in a minute... wait.. no thats not what I meant...

Dohnny Jepp · 13-09-2010 4:46pm

Now I've been abused by an admin too. .. . literally

Permabear · 13-09-2010 6:42pm

This post has been deleted.

WIZE · 13-09-2010 7:00pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

:rolleyes:

So how many times has he been site banned in the past few months .

If he is such a dick which you all make him out to be why was he allowed back

Surely a thorn in the side could have easily been removed
months ago

It looks like people who run this site were egging him on to dig his own grave

A jack in the box which ye wound up

copacetic · 13-09-2010 7:04pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't think anyone was trying to make him a martyr or a victim. Most people who think this case was handled badly are also saying he should have been sitebanned early on. The only thing that could make him a victim is the way he was treated.

Imo there are two ways of looking at it, either he was an ubertroll and senior boards volunteers being reduced to bullying and silly tricks means he has won.

Or he wasn't a troll and had sincerly held (if seriously misguided) opinions and senior boards volunteers being reduced to bullying and silly tricks reflects badly on boards.

All in all though it's probably somewhere in the middle and likely isn't a serious incident.

DeVore · 13-09-2010 7:20pm

On that note of "learn for the future" can I close this thread?

DeV.

Permabear · 13-09-2010 7:27pm

This post has been deleted.

Dohnny Jepp · 13-09-2010 7:34pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats all well and good, now actually read the thread so everything doenst need to be re-iterated

Richard tea · 13-09-2010 7:45pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The mod in question made it public that he is becoming a freemason an one week later he is made a mod.
Read the whole thread before posting, its tiring at this stage with all the repeats

Nevyn · 13-09-2010 8:43pm

Richard tea wrote: »

The mod in question made it public that he is becoming a freemason an one week later he is made a mod.
Read the whole thread before posting, its tiring at this stage with all the repeats

And?

Hang on do you really think the two are related?

Do you know how the mod appointment system works?

The current mods make suggestions which are passed on to the catmod and then to a panel of admins(serval of which can never be masons), not even of the Scottish order.

What a lame rumour, what happened the other one about the having to offer services to admins and the orgies?

Yitzhak Rabin · 13-09-2010 8:55pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

What a lame rumour, what happened the other one about the having to offer services to admins and the orgies?

That one is a fact, not a rumour.

Wannabe Freemason is now a CT mod.

Comments