Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Inconsistent and biased moderation in the soccer forum

124

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 45,176 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    Steve wrote: »

    Good rule of thumb to not get sanctioned is to not do it in the first place. :)


    This, and tbf 99% of posters do.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,846 ✭✭✭✭Liam McPoyle


    Steve wrote: »
    Actually, no.

    Something like this is dealt with case by case and there isn't actually a practical way to pen a rule that covers them all.

    I've dealt with a few in DRP and they have all had different parameters and different outcomes.

    So, to reiterate, there is not a yes or no answer to that question, the only answer I can offer is 'it depends'.

    The punishment is, and will always be, at the discretion of the mod and can be anything from a yellow card up to a permanent ban depending on prior history in the forum.

    Good rule of thumb to not get sanctioned is to not do it in the first place. :)

    Hi Steve.

    Tom Mann Centuria made a post but it seems to have been deleted. I just want to reiterate what he said. There needs to be more clear cut rules applied as it's the ambiguity that is leading to problems. I take your point about not doing it in the first instance but in this instance I don't believe prevention is better than cure.

    I'll use the two most comparable examples.

    I referred to Jose as Adolf Mourinho and it was carded by fish. I appealed it and explained why I posted it ie to poke fun at the group of posters on the forum (non United fans) that were constantly digging at Jose. Beasty said he accepted there was no ill intent behind my post but the card was upheld just in case any one that didn't know I was a United fan saw it and thought it was kosher. I didn't and still don't agree with that but it is what it is.

    Then there was the city fan that referred to Pep as "Fraudiola" in an effort to poke fun at those posters that had had digs at Pep after his average first season in charge. This was not carded.

    Two people doing the EXACT same thing but one faces action and one doesn't.

    A clear and defined rule needs to be applied and even more importantly it needs to be applied by the mods.

    Im assuming fish was asked why he chose to take a hard line for certain things with United fans but not others?

    Id be interested to hear what the response was.

    If someone called me out publicly and made an accusation about me that I knew to be untrue then you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be front and centre defending myself. The complete radio silence from the mod in question and the dismissive, non answer responses from others illustrates to me that he and the powers that be see he has been abusing his mod privileges and that it's better to hide behind others and hope it blows over. Would that be about right?


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Hi Steve.
    A clear and defined rule needs to be applied and even more importantly it needs to be applied by the mods.

    Fair enough, could you propose the wording for such a rule?

    What would the limits be?

    For example (an historic one) would "We're all part of Jackies army" be a rule breach? if not why? who gets to decide on what level of 'name
    mangling' is acceptable?

    If your answer is 'the mods do' then we're back to square one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,538 ✭✭✭✭Trigger


    Steve wrote: »
    Fair enough, could you propose the wording for such a rule?

    What would the limits be?

    For example (an historic one) would "We're all part of Jackies army" be a rule breach? if not why? who gets to decide on what level of 'name
    mangling' is acceptable?

    If your answer is 'the mods do' then we're back to square one.

    The problem is that the context of such posts are not taken in to account for some users whereas they are taken in to account for others.

    BC's examples above use the exact same context, basically defending the manager, they wasn't being used as an attack on the person in the way the likes of Maureen or fat sam etc are used.

    These two posts, with the same context, resulted in 2 very different mod actions, one (Adolf Mourinho, used sarcastically by a pro Mourinho poster) was carded and upheld at the DPR level, basically in the DPR ot was stated that it was being upheld because they didnt want to set a precedent where this is allowed. Yet after this DPR a post "fraudiola" wasnt actioned, as far as I know the mods/cmods requested that the user give the context of the usage. No such leeway was given on the Adolf Mourinho post.

    That does not just look like an inconsistency tbh


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,846 ✭✭✭✭Liam McPoyle


    Jackie is a widely accepted variant of Jack so in what world could it be construed as being abusive? It's the same as saying that calling David Moyes Dave is abusive, common sense has to prevail. The mods are in situ because they have shown common sense and have been a positive member of a forum before they were asked to mod, at least that's how it worked when I was modding.

    Personally I would have thought that when a term is delivered in a non abusive manner then there should be no call for cards.

    Now part of that is dependent on the mod team being active in the forum.

    E.g, the City fan that posted fraudiola. Like I said to you when you asked why I reported it, I told you the poster was a city fan and it wasn't card worthy and a card rightly wasn't given, logic was applied.

    But I was carded for Adolf Mourinho, logic was not applied by the mod, logic WAS accepted at admin level but was still not applied.

    Imo a posters history is massively important in how cards are applied. I had been a huge supporter of Jose prior to the Adolf post but that was completely disregarded. That goes back to my point about mod activity. People can say other wise but I'd be fairly confident that most LFC fans and mods read the United thread daily and vice versa so a clear picture of a poster and their intentions is easy to form.

    The unfortunate reality is that due to the heavy handed conduct of fish, the grey area that allows for logic and discretion has to be done away with because in the absence of any kind of explanation, logic and discretion is out the window when it comes to fish and United fans.

    So to answer your question, I'd propose something along the lines of

    "The altering / amending / deliberate mispelling or changing of an individual's name is in breach of the charter and is a card worthy offence"

    It's a sorry day that we have reached this point of hand holding but when mods are allowed to run roughshod and selectively apply the rules then in the interest of fairness to all users, there isn't much choice.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 45,176 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    Business Cat, you are focusing on a card above that you received, but it's been pointed out you've been very lucky with other posts that broke the forum rules.

    There's a good chance inconsistent modding has saved you a ban. Or maybe they weren't reported.




  • RoboKlopp wrote: »
    Business Cat, you are focusing on a card above that you received, but it's been pointed out you've been very lucky with other posts that broke the forum rules.

    There's a good chance inconsistent modding has saved you a ban. Or maybe they weren't reported.

    Not only are you one of this thread's top contributors (https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=2057931071) but at this point you have fully taken on the tone of a mod now.

    Interesting.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,489 ✭✭✭VW 1


    RoboKlopp wrote: »
    Business Cat, you are focusing on a card above that you received, but it's been pointed out you've been very lucky with other posts that broke the forum rules.

    There's a good chance inconsistent modding has saved you a ban. Or maybe they weren't reported.

    The focus and point of the thread is inconsistency in moderation, hence pointing out these inconsistencies and looking for reasons, or trying to improve the underlying charter is relevant. If you feel aggrieved by BCs posts where he should have been banned, why not throw them up?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,846 ✭✭✭✭Liam McPoyle


    RoboKlopp wrote: »
    Business Cat, you are focusing on a card above that you received, but it's been pointed out you've been very lucky with other posts that broke the forum rules.

    There's a good chance inconsistent modding has saved you a ban. Or maybe they weren't reported.

    Hi roboklopp.

    I don't believe you are a mod, cmod or admin so im not sure why you are persisting with posting in this thread. You don't think there is an issue with moderation, good for you, others do not agree. 're my post history, I'm just going to repeat what I said to Beasty
    I'd be confident that if you went through my entire post history you would find other posts that could have been actioned and some that should have been actioned, not just in the soccer forum.

    The same could be said for many other posters in the SF and across the site.

    But that means absolutely nothing in the context of this thread. Not a single thing, because the fact remains that fish has targeted United fans and given them cards for things that other people have gotten away with scot-free

    In any case, you are one of the last people that should be casting judgement on what others have posted in the SF given your own posting history.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Jackie is a widely accepted variant of Jack so in what world could it be construed as being abusive? It's the same as saying that calling David Moyes Dave is abusive, common sense has to prevail.
    ...

    So to answer your question, I'd propose something along the lines of

    "The altering / amending / deliberate mispelling or changing of an individual's name is in breach of the charter and is a card worthy offence"
    I'm actually more interested in a solution to this rather than an argument.

    What you posted above is contradictory. Either there is discretion allowed or there is a rigid rule. Personally I don't think a rigid rule will work.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 45,176 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    Not only are you one of this thread's top contributors (https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=2057931071) but at this point you have fully taken on the tone of a mod now.

    Interesting.

    Half the people in the top 10 aren't mods. Why single me out. I'm trying to add to the topic at least.
    VW 1 wrote: »
    The focus and point of the thread is inconsistency in moderation, hence pointing out these inconsistencies and looking for reasons, or trying to improve the underlying charter is relevant. If you feel aggrieved by BCs posts where he should have been banned, why not throw them up?

    Beasty alraedy has (first page I believe) where he highlighted posts made by B-Cat they weren't carded, but maybe should have been. That's all. Surely that fits under the inconsistent moderation banner too, or is it only inconsistent when it's a card?
    Hi roboklopp.

    I don't believe you are a mod, cmod or admin so im not sure why you are persisting with posting in this thread. You don't think there is an issue with moderation, good for you, others do not agree. 're my post history, I'm just going to repeat what I said to Beasty


    In any case, you are one of the last people that should be casting judgement on what others have posted in the SF given your own posting history.

    As Stu has already posted above, it's open to non mods. It's an interesting topic for a lot of SF posters.

    The reason others are posting in this thread is to agree/disagree or just to add to the topic. I think that's fair. I don't agree with your assertion that the moderation is biased.

    Re your last comment, c'mon it's not too bad. It was a Utd mod that carded me last though - PHB - :D.

    Anyway, I'm sure the admins and cmods have this under control. Good luck with the outcome.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,935 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Steve wrote: »
    I'm actually more interested in a solution to this rather than an argument.

    What you posted above is contradictory. Either there is discretion allowed or there is a rigid rule. Personally I don't think a rigid rule will work.

    Is it really that hard to just distinguish basic context?


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 74,773 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    VW 1 wrote: »
    The focus and point of the thread is inconsistency in moderation, hence pointing out these inconsistencies and looking for reasons, or trying to improve the underlying charter is relevant. If you feel aggrieved by BCs posts where he should have been banned, why not throw them up?

    Well initially there was a large focus on perceived bias. I have indicated my own views on that and will not repeat them. Equally I have accept the point on inconsistency.

    I did spend quite a bit of time keeping my eye on things over the weekend, and have got to say I was pleasantly surprised at how constrained posters were. Yes of course Liverpool fans were jubilant at the result and performance behind it, and equally some of the United fans were largely resigned to what awaited on Sunday. However compared to prior matches both sets of fans were generally very well behaved

    There could of course be any number of reasons. Perhaps there was generally less posting, or possibly fewer of those who might look to troll in a low-level fashion are not as active as they once were. Equally posters may have known I was going to keep my eye on things and perhaps were a little more restrained. Whatever the reason though, it's a step in the right direction, and I will try to continue monitoring things for a while, and hope that no-one feels there was any inconsistency over the weekend.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    pjohnson wrote: »
    Is it really that hard to just distinguish basic context?

    No, it's not, but the proposed 'rule' would preclude taking that into account.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,846 ✭✭✭✭Liam McPoyle


    Steve wrote: »
    I'm actually more interested in a solution to this rather than an argument.

    What you posted above is contradictory. Either there is discretion allowed or there is a rigid rule. Personally I don't think a rigid rule will work.

    Not sure how it's contradictory Steve? For clarity the opening paragraph was just answering your example of Jack and Jackie and saying in instances like that then common sense should trump all, examples like that are very easy to see though. I'm not trying to start an argument over it either, apologies if it came across that way.

    The problem with leaving it at the mods discretion is that interpretation varies from one mod to another. In clear cut things e.g. C**tiola or similar, it is clearly abusive and action would be taken but oftentimes it won't be as clear cut as that. That's where problems arise.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Not sure how it's contradictory Steve? For clarity the opening paragraph was just answering your example of Jack and Jackie and saying in instances like that then common sense should trump all, examples like that are very easy to see though. I'm not trying to start an argument over it either, apologies if it came across that way.

    The problem with leaving it at the mods discretion is that interpretation varies from one mod to another. In clear cut things e.g. C**tiola or similar, it is clearly abusive and action would be taken but oftentimes it won't be as clear cut as that. That's where problems arise.

    Again, I am in agreement with you. Common sense should certainly prevail.

    However, your argument that: "leaving it at the mods discretion is that interpretation varies from one mod to another" requires a rigid rule that mods cannot apply their "common sense" to and are required to apply the rule - to the letter - in every circumstance.

    That's just not workable. So we circle back to to the question: can a rule actually be penned that covers this or do we have to live with human mods making a call on it?

    It will never be perfect but it's what we have.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭ Agustin Rancid Zucchini


    Steve wrote: »
    Again, I am in agreement with you. Common sense should certainly prevail.

    However, your argument that: "leaving it at the mods discretion is that interpretation varies from one mod to another" requires a rigid rule that mods cannot apply their "common sense" to and are required to apply the rule - to the letter - in every circumstance.

    That's just not workable. So we circle back to to the question: can a rule actually be penned that covers this or do we have to live with human mods making a call on it?

    It will never be perfect but it's what we have.

    This is a load of tosh

    as this proves


    Same mod, and some other admin saying that rules are black and white and summarily shutting down discussion of it,

    Boards has been tying itself in knots defending this moderator for years now.

    Which is it, rules are black and white, or they aren't - moderators can apply discretion or they can't - or some moderators can apply some discretion to some posts/users or they can't.

    It's clear as day what the response here is going to be, but it will be all kinds of fun to see what the admins response here is.

    Stick a pin in it, it's done.

    Such nonsense, time and again.


  • Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭ Jillian Faint Mockingbird


    This is a load of tosh

    as this proves


    Same mod, and some other admin saying that rules are black and white and summarily shutting down discussion of it,

    Boards has been tying itself in knots defending this moderator for years now.

    Which is it, rules are black and white, or they aren't - moderators can apply discretion or they can't - or some moderators can apply some discretion to some posts/users or they can't.

    It's clear as day what the response here is going to be, but it will be all kinds of fun to see what the admins response here is.

    Stick a pin in it, it's done.

    Such nonsense, time and again.

    I am not sure where your point is? The poster made chat and got suspended for 24 hours like in the thread name.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    This is a load of tosh

    as this proves


    Same mod, and some other admin saying that rules are black and white and summarily shutting down discussion of it,

    Boards has been tying itself in knots defending this moderator for years now.

    Which is it, rules are black and white, or they aren't - moderators can apply discretion or they can't - or some moderators can apply some discretion to some posts/users or they can't.

    It's clear as day what the response here is going to be, but it will be all kinds of fun to see what the admins response here is.

    Stick a pin in it, it's done.

    Such nonsense, time and again.
    My view on mod discretion is that they have discretion to let something slide if they see fit. This covers probably 90% of rule breaches on the site.

    If they choose to uphold the rules then so be it and I will test what was posted against the forum charter in a dispute.

    If there was no discretion allowed then the system would be unworkable and it would end up like 1984 only there would be an option to leave - which everyone would do.

    'This is a load of tosh' Have you a better suggestion as to how it should work?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,136 ✭✭✭✭Rayne Wooney


    Very interesting thread indeed
    gstack166 wrote: »
    Depends on if it was before or after the incident with Slippy G.
    Beasty wrote: »
    I'll let everyone know - "Slippy G" has always been considered unacceptable and actioned accordingly, and if you continue discussing moderation here I'll ban you myself


    I knew there were examples of the phrase being used freely as I had seen them before, but in the exact same thread, always actioned accordingly? censoring the post probably does not help to quell the usage of said phrase either?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,051 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    And is that discretion being applied impartially in the soccer forum, by all moderators?


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Enzo Helpful Utensil


    Steve wrote: »
    My view on mod discretion is that they have discretion to let something slide if they see fit. This covers probably 90% of rule breaches on the site.

    If they choose to uphold the rules then so be it and I will test what was posted against the forum charter in a dispute.

    If there was no discretion allowed then the system would be unworkable and it would end up like 1984 only there would be an option to leave - which everyone would do.

    'This is a load of tosh' Have you a better suggestion as to how it should work?

    It gets confusing thought when you see posts from admins like this
    Beasty wrote: »
    I'll let everyone know - "Slippy G" has always been considered unacceptable and actioned accordingly, and if you continue discussing moderation here I'll ban you myself

    He is saying Slippy G has always been unacceptable which isn't the case as its only a recent enough slagging term, but no one was informed of its unacceptability through the charter at least and at what point was this decided?

    He is saying its 100% unacceptable no matter the user or usage and for me there as worse things to be said for eg Dippers but this doesn't get punished even when reported.

    So there is really no wonder about the confusion and when you get Admins more willing to ban people over the discussion of moderation (which tbf is against charter) then actual breakages or abuse or charter you end up with a confused user base at best

    So they really do need to clear up the situation in someway as I didn't know Slippy G was off the table no matter the context till now.




  • I think Talking Bread's case is very relevant to this thread. His OP from the DRP is interesting, especially the first paragraph...

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057941635

    Other mods upheld TB's ban "because charter" and it's therefore resolved in DRP, but it raises more questions for this thread which is related to mod bias and inconsistencies.

    Talking Bread was banned for the following comment which aimed to provide some context to the Andy Carroll tracksuit wedding photo…
    "It is his sister in law's wedding as well !! I initially thought it could have been a surprise fan thing! Or a wedding reception in London stadium that he was passing by and dragged into for the laugh! (you can rent areas in the stadium out for weddings)

    His wife is on one of those reality shows."
    Yep, that's technically chat, fair enough. But then look at the likes of this from October, specifically posts 8158 and 8159...

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108266192&postcount=8157

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108266349&postcount=8158

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108266692&postcount=8159

    Post 8158 is the very same contextual kind of post which Talking Bread got carded for, the user even forgot about the no chat rule just like TB did. The posters are there treating the thread like a general football thread, yet where are the cards or consistency there?

    Then there are the unnecessary comments which accompany some links, when do they become chat? Here are some examples below. Also, there is a rule about baiting in the OP...

    The likes of this comment definitely invites chat and/or provocation and there's no need for the poster's opinion in this specific thread: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108686270&postcount=8237

    What is the benefit to a comment like this but to provoke or bait? https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108269313&postcount=8161

    The humour thread was made for days like Mourinho's sacking, suggestions of creating a separate humour thread are redundant chat: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108913695&postcount=8305


    A lot of things go unpunished on there according to the OP rules. However, the rules only get applied in certain instances it seems .

    Now, are most of the above posts ruining the thread or making it worse? No, common sense should be applied and you would think it was. But then you read the details of TB's dispute and realise that it might not be a case of common sense, but at best large inconsistencies or at worst selective bias and a mod agenda. How is TB's post any more deserving of a card/ban than any of the other examples above?

    Some of these rules - like no chat in the humour thread and no calling someone a troll or WUM even if they clearly are (during a time when baiting and trolling is rife in the SF) - are just open to abuse and selective infraction by mods, and there is evidence in this thread of that happening. Some call the application of these rules 'discretion', but upon observation of about 12 months now many of us don't.

    WUMs are prevalent on the SF and fond of the United thread, but call one out during one of their raids and you'll get a card from Fish while his trolling comrade goes unpunished. Spelling errors are rife in today's social media communicative world, but if you misspell the wrong manager's name as a United fan, you get a card from Fish. Chat/commenting/baiting with impunity is something which happens in the humour thread as shown above, but do it very soon after having another dispute with Fish, and you're the one who gets a rare card for it.

    Those couple of rules can be abused by the mod, and then when the poster takes it to the DRP the other mods are able to point at the charter and say 'upheld, thread closed'. Unintentional from the other mods in DRP I'm sure, but it's the perfect confidence and supply arrangement going between them and Fish. For the users, it's a wholly broken system, a pointless hamster wheel and it's not fit for purpose.

    There are legit grievances here in this thread. No matter how happy we are or are not as United fans, these grievances will not go away once there are repeat occurrences. United posters in here I barely even talk to, others I've had more disagreements with than not, but yet here we all are finding the same common problems in the SF.


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 74,773 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Very interesting thread indeed

    I knew there were examples of the phrase being used freely as I had seen them before, but in the exact same thread, always actioned accordingly? censoring the post probably does not help to quell the usage of said phrase either?
    When reported it's been actioned:
    eg
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107107974&postcount=9881
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104605058&postcount=1528
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106605964&postcount=8271


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,648 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    I notice in this one

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106605964&postcount=8271

    the mod message makes reference as to where it is posted as making it obvious trolling

    So is there the same standard across all threads, or not? Or is a fan of club X granted more leniency to say things in the club X thread that they might not be in the club Y thread?

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    Did you report it? What do you want the soccer mods to do? Spend the morning searching the forum for a list of forbidden words?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,514 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    I have said this about the radio forum and I'll say it about the soccer forum - if you have a 'zero tolerance' approach to a particular breach, you must action it every time, no matter how harmless the breach is*. The whole point of a zero tolerance rule is that the mods have decided to give up discretion when it comes to that particular breach.

    There doesn't have to be a zero tolerance approach. However, if one is in place but not enforced 100% of the time it's just needlessly creating a rod for the mods' own backs.

    *and I am the poster mentioned regarding post 8158 in Waylon Rapid Tightrope's post above. I'd guess my harmless post was never reported though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,369 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Steve wrote: »
    My view on mod discretion is that they have discretion to let something slide if they see fit. This covers probably 90% of rule breaches on the site.

    If they choose to uphold the rules then so be it and I will test what was posted against the forum charter in a dispute.

    If there was no discretion allowed then the system would be unworkable and it would end up like 1984 only there would be an option to leave - which everyone would do.

    'This is a load of tosh' Have you a better suggestion as to how it should work?

    TBH, refusing to acknowledge the possibility that such discretion might be abused - especially in the context of such a “tribal” forum as soccer - is one hell of a head in the sand attitude.

    Is there really such a fear of acknowledging that sometimes mod appointments might end up shown to have been a bad choice?

    Nobody has suggested that discretion isn’t an important part of modding.
    Where problems can arise is where that discretion gets abused - as is the accusation of the OP. The core point of the OP wasn’t to call for discretion to be dropped, it was for what they perceived as a pattern of selective application and non-application of discretion to be looked at. No response has tried to address that point, instead focusing on either shifting the the goalposts or else simply attacking the OPs motivation.

    It’s a sad reflection of the culture within the powers that be on boards that even the mere suggestion that a mod might abuse their discretionary powers is immediately shouted down by multiple mods, cmods and admins; with not even the pretense of taking any claims seriously.
    The message is loud and clear - don’t dare question the mods, or else prepare to face the consequences.

    Might as well close back down the feedback forum to be honest - this thread, together with the re-emergence of the locking of any/all nevative feedback threads gives an insight into how any perceived criticisms will be taken.


  • Registered Users Posts: 45,176 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    Why do people feel the need to put childish names on players anyway. It's done to wind up others and deserves sanctioning every time.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 45,176 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    Also, as predicted by a few people in the this thread, when results have picked up some self exiled posters have come back.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement