A discussion on the rules.

LeeMajors · 22-03-2015 03:02PM

Is a moderator of say, the legal profession threads, allowed access to PM's and abuse reports on the politics section where he isn't a moderator?

johnnyskeleton · 22-03-2015 03:06PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You know full well it's personal abuse of SF supporters I'm talking about. Your lecture here is irrelevant.

Can you show me some examples of the personal abuse of SF supporters that you are talking about? If its the whole -bot / shinners thing, thats already been discussed ad nausem in this thread. If its in the Cafe, please bear in mind the relaxed standards there.

Please also while youre at it, have a look for examples of SF supporters who have been personally abused and action has been taken.

LeeMajors · 22-03-2015 03:08PM

Here's an example of the baiting that seems to be acceptable.

On Friday I posted that I was heading out as I had things to do.

A smartarsed poster/'moderator' replied

"I didn't know Friday was the dole collection day.

You learn something new every day."

I reported this post as flaming or baiting and personal, but it's still there, still allowed stand with no sanction.

Now, if that's the level that's allowed, then fair enough. <snip> Ive told you to keep your DRP out of this. I will not tell you again

johnnyskeleton · 22-03-2015 03:14PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well FreudianSlippers just had a pop at "vitriolic SF supporters" here. Who deleted that post? What was the sanction? Is it helpful that it may or may not be actioned but we'll never know in a thread discussing precisely this issue?

LeeMajors wrote: »

You just deleted a post from a certain poster there johnny, who btw is also a 'moderator' to the stars.....
A poster who on 3 occasions on Friday personally attacked me in a most vile and disgusting way.
What was the sanction on Friday?

The deletion was the appropriate moderator action. Much like Ive deleted your posts which were in a similar vein in this thread. What you are both asking for is for other posters to be treated less favourably than yourselves and that is the very opposite to impartial moderation in my book.

So on the issue of whether there should be impartial moderation, I believe there should be. If there are examples of where that can be fine tuned Ill have a look at them. But I want to draw a line under these allegations of bias now.

Let me be clear, arguments as to how the moderation could be more impartial in reality or as peception are welcome, and examples can illustrate such. But if you want to assert that one or more moderators, including myself are biased, dont do it on this thread. Ive deleted posts up to now because sometimes it can be hard to see where the line is.

But crossing this line will result in a ban.Please just take it to feedback or DRP like Ive told you to.

FreudianSlippers · 22-03-2015 03:15PM

LeeMajors wrote: »

Is a moderator of say, the legal profession threads, allowed access to PM's and abuse reports on the politics section where he isn't a moderator?

PM stands for Private Message, so I'd say the clue is in the name there.

All moderators have access to the Reported Posts forum.

Happyman42 · 22-03-2015 03:17PM

LeeMajors wrote: »

Here's an example of the baiting that seems to be acceptable.

On Friday I posted that I was heading out as I had things to do.

A smartarsed poster/'moderator' replied

"I didn't know Friday was the dole collection day.

You learn something new every day."

I reported this post as flaming or baiting and personal, but it's still there, still allowed stand with no sanction.

Just for the record, I reported it too, and haven't, as usual, heard anything.

FreudianSlippers · 22-03-2015 03:19PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just for the record, I reported it too, and haven't, as usual, heard anything.

Your suggestion that moderators reply to every individual poster who reports a post is entirely unrealistic and unworkable tbh.

K-9 · 22-03-2015 03:20PM

LeeMajors wrote: »

Why do you think that is K9?

Infamy, infamy, they all have it in infamy.

Happyman42 · 22-03-2015 03:26PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Your suggestion that moderators reply to every individual poster who reports a post is entirely unrealistic and unworkable tbh.

I didn't suggest that, just stating that I heard nothing back, neither an action on the post or any correspondence from a mod.

Dan_Solo · 22-03-2015 03:29PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Your suggestion that moderators reply to every individual poster who reports a post is entirely unrealistic and unworkable tbh.

Nobody has mentioned getting a personal reply from the moderator except you. Why?
Any sign of actioning the abusive post at all is what was requested.

johnnyskeleton · 22-03-2015 03:29PM

No more talk about self moderation please, it should be clear that Im the evil supervillan deleting these posts with abandon!

K-9 · 22-03-2015 03:29PM

LeeMajors wrote: »

Is a moderator of say, the legal profession threads, allowed access to PM's and abuse reports on the politics section where he isn't a moderator?

Nobody has access to pm's. Only mods of a board should access reported posts of that board, I'd take a very dim view of any invasion of privacy.

Happyman42 · 22-03-2015 03:31PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No more talk about self moderation please, it should be clear that Im the evil supervillan deleting these posts with abandon!

This poster also had an abusive post removed from this thread on Friday, which does seem 'convenient' and requires some explanation imo anyway.

FreudianSlippers · 22-03-2015 03:31PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

I didn't suggest that, just stating that I heard nothing back, neither an action on the post or any correspondence from a mod.

Ah so you're suggesting that they only respond to your reported posts? That's different - of course that's not a problem. :rolleyes:

Boards.ie isn't a democracy where you get full transparency on every decision, particularly where posters continually report things they simply agree with as abuse, or claim that an obvious and silly quip is "personally attacked me in a most vile and disgusting way".

Mods take action in various manners, including use of cards, PMs, on-thread warnings, deletions, etc. - why do you believe you should be entitled to transparency on all decisions. You aren't, boards.ie is not a democracy, mods are volunteers and if you don't like it you are free to delete your account and move on with your life.

Dan_Solo · 22-03-2015 03:33PM

Moderators: any possibility you can respond to the query about the (apparently) unactioned abusive post above? It would move the thread along no end.
I asked earlier what happens when a post is reported also.

johnnyskeleton · 22-03-2015 03:36PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nobody has mentioned getting a personal reply from the moderator except you. Why?
Any sign of actioning the abusive post at all is what was requested.

How about this - if you report a post and it isnt actioned, that sort of thing is tolerated given the thread, the forum etc.

If it is actioned then its not acceptable.

If that action is to delete the post, its not that bad.

It will not always be clear that moderation action has been taken.

If you have a very bad history of repeatedly breaking the rules and disobeying on thread instructions, it is not bias if you are given a more severe punishment than other posters who have better track records. Indeed, the appropriate comparison is how your ones own threads were previously dealt with leniently, but you failed to learn from this.

If youve reported the post thats all you can do. If youre still unhappy take it to feedback.

But a report does not mean there will always be a visible mod response, and it is a false comparison to compare two things whih are not alike.

And for the final time. The moderation in the Cafe is different to the main forums.

FreudianSlippers · 22-03-2015 03:36PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nobody has mentioned getting a personal reply from the moderator except you. Why?
Any sign of actioning the abusive post at all is what was requested.

I was responding to this post:

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just for the record, I reported it too, and haven't, as usual, heard anything.

Clearly Happyman42 either feels that he deserves special privilege into the decisions of moderators by getting a response from the mod on their reported post, or he simply disagrees with whatever decision was taken and has decided to air that disagreement here rather than in the appropriate forum.

It also appears that you believe my posts should be treated (for some unexplained reason) more harshly than others in the Cafe.

You seem to have a very hypocritical view on what is "abuse" between your posts and others tbh. I would also suggest that it's ridiculous to suggest that it is abusive to imply someone is on the dole.

K-9 · 22-03-2015 03:41PM

Tbh how reported posts are dealt with is a site wide issue and has come up several times on the site feedback forum, it's beyond our pay grade really!

Dan_Solo · 22-03-2015 03:42PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ah so you're suggesting that they only respond to your reported posts? That's different - of course that's not a problem. :rolleyes:

Boards.ie isn't a democracy where you get full transparency on every decision, particularly where posters continually report things they simply agree with as abuse, or claim that an obvious and silly quip is "personally attacked me in a most vile and disgusting way".

Mods take action in various manners, including use of cards, PMs, on-thread warnings, deletions, etc. - why do you believe you should be entitled to transparency on all decisions. You aren't, boards.ie is not a democracy, mods are volunteers and if you don't like it you are free to delete your account and move on with your life.

None of which is actually a rebuttal of the issues raised.

FreudianSlippers · 22-03-2015 03:43PM

K-9 wrote: »

Nobody has access to pm's. Only mods of a board should access reported posts of that board, I'd take a very dim view of any invasion of privacy.

To be fair, there is no rule that requires mods to refrain from reading reported posts in another forum - if that was the intention then the site would be designed so that reported posts site-wide weren't all in one area.

That being said, I think it is beyond bad form to get involved in a way that is not your business. In doing my moderating duties, I am of course going to see that certain posts are reported - am I going in there and making comments? Of course not. But given that mods often have to wade through pages of reported posts from Politics and AH (which I doubt is classified info that they have a large number) to get to one I'm looking for (particularly on the touch site) I'm going to see other reported posts.

LeeMajors · 22-03-2015 03:44PM

K-9 wrote: »

Tbh how reported posts are dealt with is a site wide issue and has come up several times on the site feedback forum, it's beyond our pay grade really!

See how that ref just gave jones a yellow but sent Gerrard off for almost the same thing?
That's what it feels like around here.
YNWA!

FreudianSlippers · 22-03-2015 03:45PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

None of which is actually a rebuttal of the issues raised.

Of course it is:

1) What you see is what you get - some actions are private (i.e. PM warning)
2) You don't get transparency on the decision making process;
3) Not a democracy - like it or lump it;

Dan_Solo · 22-03-2015 03:48PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Of course it is:

1) What you see is what you get - some actions are private (i.e. PM warning)
2) You don't get transparency on the decision making process;
3) Not a democracy - like it or lump it;

Saying moderators can do what they like negates a claim of moderator bias is ridiculous TBH. If anything it's supports the reverse.

Dan_Solo · 22-03-2015 03:51PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I was responding to this post:

Clearly Happyman42 either feels that he deserves special privilege into the decisions of moderators by getting a response from the mod on their reported post, or he simply disagrees with whatever decision was taken and has decided to air that disagreement here rather than in the appropriate forum.

Nope, he would have "heard something" if the post had been actioned in any way discernable to him. This could be many things besides a PM.

Dan_Solo · 22-03-2015 03:53PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You seem to have a very hypocritical view on what is "abuse" between your posts and others tbh. I would also suggest that it's ridiculous to suggest that it is abusive to imply someone is on the dole.

I'm not really that big on a guy who thinks "shinnerbot" isn't pejorative's view on what is and isn't abusive TBH.

Dan_Solo · 22-03-2015 03:57PM

K-9 wrote: »

Tbh how reported posts are dealt with is a site wide issue and has come up several times on the site feedback forum, it's beyond our pay grade really!

So you don't know how reported posts come up in front of you for attention, or how they are marked as dealt with or anything? How is that possible?

johnnyskeleton · 22-03-2015 03:57PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Moderators: any possibility you can respond to the query about the (apparently) unactioned abusive post above? It would move the thread along no end.
I asked earlier what happens when a post is reported also.

No, for several reasons:

1. Lee tied it to his DRP;
2. Please give links to the relevant threads and not just quotations;
3. (Most importantly) This is not a place where individual decisions can be challenged or discussed.

You are making the argument that there could be real bias or at least a perception of bias. Build your case and we will consider it. If necessary, we will clarify the rules in the charter. Indeed, this feedback is most likely to have an impact should the Politics Cafe charter be expanded upon in the future.

Mod:The purpose of this thread is to help clarify the rules, and possibly change them. It is not a coconut shy for lobbing criticism at the moderators. Ive already told you what to do if you want to raise a claim of biased moderation, whether you have done that or not, dont take it any further in this thread (or indeed any other thread in the forums) or it will be a ban

johnnyskeleton · 22-03-2015 04:02PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So you don't know how reported posts come up in front of you for attention, or how they are marked as dealt with or anything? How is that possible?

He does know. But we have no control over that so you are, again, referred to site feedback rather than this rules thread.

Think very carefully about your next few posts Dan. If they do not constructively add to the discussion of the rules, do not post them in this thread

Dan_Solo · 22-03-2015 04:02PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No, for several reasons:

1. Lee tied it to his DRP;
2. Please give links to the relevant threads and not just quotations;
3. (Most importantly) This is not a place where individual decisions can be challenged or discussed.

Well this makes your request for examples of anti-SF abuse that has not been actioned a bit pointless. You'll just say a decision was made and it wasn't actioned and then it can't be discussed.

FreudianSlippers · 22-03-2015 04:03PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Saying moderators can do what they like negates a claim of moderator bias is ridiculous TBH. If anything it's supports the reverse.

That's not what I said now is it? I'm not getting sucked in to a discussion about alleged moderator bias from someone who is, frankly, displaying a shocking lack of self-awareness as to their own objective bias.

All I am saying is that it is a tenant of this site that you cannot demand that a moderator make all decisions transparent because you say so. It's not the way this website works and I doubt it ever will be. Neither myself nor the Politics mods created those rules, so if you have an issue with the fundamental way the site is run, raise it with the Admins in feedback.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nope, he would have "heard something" if the post had been actioned in any way discernable (sic) to him. This could be many things besides a PM.

So, that leaves 2 options:

1) Issue a card regardless of whether it was warranted;
2) Contact him by PM and explain the decision.

Any other suggestions?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'm not really that big on a guy who thinks "shinnerbot" isn't pejorative's view on what is and isn't abusive TBH.

I really couldn't care less, honestly. You don't seem to know what is abusive, considering my post earlier in this thread in which I discussed the difference between the "opinion" of an expert and an idiot and asked you a question was deemed by yourself to be "abusive".

This leaves me with the only conclusion that you have been abusive to yourself by either failing to comprehend my post or self-assigning yourself to a category as described.

A discussion on the rules.

Comments