https://www.boards.ie/ Thu, 16 Apr 2026 21:16:34 +0000 en circle jerking — boards.ie - Now Ye're Talkin' https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2056555078/pancake-tuesday Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:39:25 +0000 After Hours starbelgrade 2056555078@/discussions
Then there's that odd phenomenon of drowning them in lemon concentrate that comes in a plastic lemon.. one can only presume that real lemons are, I dunno.. too real?

So what's your take on Jif Lemon Day & will you be partaking in the great pancake debacle of 2012?]]> https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2056478213/couples-on-boards Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:04:00 +0000 After Hours gemma188 2056478213@/discussions
Or would you keep you Boards persona a secret from your other half? Or dare I ask, are there couples out there that use forums here as a means to communicate to one another!?]]> https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055476597/kawasaki-events-and-other-feedback Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:31:33 +0000 Feedback Archive Da Bounca 2055476597@/discussions The term used was Kawasaki. It was not used in a derogatory way, nor in fact does it have any link to racism that I can see.
It does rhyme with paki, which some would deem a derogatory word, but in fact it is an abbreviation of the full word Pakistani. No racism there.
Kawasaki is part of a cockney rhyming style slang.

Kawasaki by the way was a passing remark and in no way a theme or focus of the thread. julep clarified what kawasaki meant and then decided it was 'fairly' racist, and banned the OP. Fairly racist? It's either racist, or it is not.

It was a funny thread, there for the amusement of many and has continued on. The mod didn't understand the word and asked for clarification. That's fine. It should have ended there. The language used by the mod in his subsequent banning of the user looked like it was a joke:
"Ahh. I see. That's a fairly racist remark. Banned."
Banning someone for that reason, combined with the way the ban was phrased as well as seemingly taking an unserious tone when banning a user(which is a serious matter), one could very easily think that it is a joke. So when I asked if it was indeed a joke, I was told to go to the Help Desk if I had a problem with it.

After using boards for over 10 years I find it highly insulting to be rudely pointed toward the help desk forum, obviously because I know where it is and also because there was no reason for the mod to assume I had a problem with his actions. This shows that the mod doubted his own actions and made a point of making me out to be a thread bandit. So when I responded to his rude comment with a rude question of my own, which was well within reason, I got banned. For arguing. Arguing is to put forth reasons for or against something, to debate, to give an opposition to a view or point. I did none of these things, so at the very least, my ban for arguing should be lifted.

Further, at a later date, the mod admitted in PM and then on a thread that the rule I broke was not arguing but giving attitude to a mod. Yet another reason my argument ban should be lifted and a prime example of how facts are twisted to suit the mod's personal views, to justify his/her actions and to save face at the expense of another user.

So I am banned from Afterhours. I believe unfairly. So I go to the Help Desk as is standard procedure. Wherein I receive no help whatsoever. The matter was not discussed. It was finalised without any sort of proper clarifaction, and the thread was promptly closed.

The issue was being discussed to some degree through private message with a mod named seamus, with some input from julep when he wished to converse through PM. Seamus informed me that he would see if julep would perhaps reduce the length of the ban, which was for a whopping 7 days.
julep then sent a message saying that my ban would be reduced to the same length as the 'racist' had received. A 4 day ban. A 4 day ban for being a 'racist' while I who had simply 'argued' with a mod received a 7 day ban. So julep seems to think that acts of racism are less important than someone questioning a mods actions(which yet again, never actually happened). This again shows that the ban is for personal reasons and not for any breach of the charter. I basically said his attitude sucked after he was rude to me, and he banned me for it. I may have broken the 'do not be cheeky to a mod' rule, but it was in response to an abruptly rude and uncalled for command. I don't think hyprocisy should have a home on boards. Mods should not be allowed to insult boards users while banning any user that defends themselves in kind.

Another boards user began a thread in feedback about the state of moderation and the seemingly decrease in empathy and human understanding that is apparent in some mods attitudes. A lot of valid points were brought up and discussions had begun about the issue and the recent problems surrounding it. Then, another mod decided to delete half the posts and move it to Help Desk so that nobody could continue posting on it, the thread looks ridiculous because all the posts that have been quoted have dissapeared and so nobody will take it seriously, let alone read it. This is terrible behaviour by an smod. When politely messaged about the issue, the smod ignored the pm, this happened more than once. They claimed, it was a Help Desk issue(which it isn't of course - it's a rendition of recent events, aka feedback). Besides that, I don't see how 'it belongs on helpdesk' explains the deletion of posts, but I'm sure another reaching and vague explanation will be provided. Also the fact that any inquest into that issue has been met with a blank wall from more than one mod is further proof of the state of moderation on boards. Ironic that the very thread that questions and depicts mod's morality gets moved, silenced and pillaged of it's content.

SO.
(A) Labelling someone a racist and banning them.
(B) Labelling a slang word racist.
(C) Abusing a forum user.
(D) Banning them for responding to abuse with abuse.
(E) Falsifying and later altering the reason to ban the user.
(F) Proposing that arguing with a mod is worse than acts of racism.
(G) No help at the Help Desk and thread locked to prevent any.
(H) Destroying a thread to prevent further serious discussion on it.
(I) Moving a thread to prevent further serious discussion on it.
(J) Not responding to private messages requesting reason and help on above.


This is shockingly disgraceful behaviour and not by just one person.
The issue began with julep, was justified by seamus, then Beruthiel sabotaged any attempt to rectify the situation.

I am not calling for heads or anything. I just think these actions are preposterous and deserve to be highlighted. Maybe some healthy changes will be made to boards in light of this feedback.

The OP of the kawasaki thread was banned, yet the thread he began was allowed to continue on. If someone starts a thread, and is banned for the use of language they included in the starting post, surely the thread should be locked and further posting prevented? It practically invites a derail.

I would also like to suggest a temporary demodding system for mods that act out of personal interest or fail to uphold the rules and/or honour of boards.

kawasaki thread

Locked HelpDesk thread

Pillaged feedback thread]]>