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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Mods

13»

Comments

  • #102
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    pleas advice wrote: »
    often you'd see posters pointing out unactioned posts, similar to their own. only to be told 'other users posts are not up for discussion'

    So what if someone else did it? Is someone using that arguement trying to minimise their involvement, or make sure other people get stung for it too?

    To be honest, it's easy to miss a few things when theres a lot of noise. Reported Posts would be referenced. And could form a basis for desicions.

    Even as a poster I've given up on threads here that don't have a clear topic, because I find them a lot of work to figure out what's going on in them. It'll be difficult to moderate them also. Especially when someone goes into it and isn't aligned to everyone else.


  • #103
    pleas advice
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭pleas advice


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    So what if someone else did it? Is someone using that arguement trying to minimise their involvement,
    they'd be pointing out that theres a track record of whatever they were infracted for going unactioned by mods
    or make sure other people get stung for it too?

    I don't know, but I'd say in the vast majority of cases not


  • #104
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,155 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    _Kaiser_ wrote:
    How about we start by you identifying which Mod you are (I'm assuming it's yet another rename.. funny though how such upset is caused by re-reg's though!)

    In fairness they are dealing with some members with several accounts & rereg accounts. The mods don't always know who they are talking to either. I was on a thread in the last few days where the same person seemed to be using two for sure and maybe three new rereg accounts.


  • #105
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    pleas advice wrote: »
    they'd be pointing out that theres a track record of whatever they were infracted for going unactioned by mods



    I don't know, but I'd say in the vast majority of cases not

    And? What of the rest of my post.


  • #106
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,489 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    dudara wrote: »
    That’s correct. They are not up for discussion. To use an analogy, if you were charged and bought to court, you don’t use the defense “others were doing it” and you don’t ask the judge to go find all the other people and bring them into court too.

    The DRP is an individual based process and, shocker, we are all responsible for our own actions.

    Previous cases and the sentence are certainly mentioned in a court.


  • #107
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    Previous cases and the sentence are certainly mentioned in a court.

    But that's not possible for the ones who got away. Otherwise no one would be convicted of murder with Jack the ripper not having been caught.


  • #108
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    rgossip30 wrote: »
    Previous cases and the sentence are certainly mentioned in a court.

    The actions of other users do not determine your guilt or innocence.

    Your previous history and forum precedent do, however, influence the sanction.

    Same in an actual court.


  • #109
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,489 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    But that's not possible for the ones who got away. Otherwise no one would be convicted of murder with Jack the ripper not having been caught.
    . Murder carries a mandatory sentence if found guilty..
    Steve wrote: »
    The actions of other users do not determine your guilt or innocence.

    Your previous history and forum precedent do, however, influence the sanction.

    Same in an actual court.

    No problem with that just double standards do happen on forums based on a mods like or dislike of a poster and it's hidden.


  • #110
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Steve wrote: »
    The actions of other users do not determine your guilt or innocence.

    Your previous history and forum precedent do, however, influence the sanction.

    Same in an actual court.

    Not quite so ... I reckon you might be thinking of Judge Judy there tbh ..

    From:

    Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016
    (a) no evidence shall be admissible to show that a person, who has a conviction which is, in accordance with this Part, regarded as a spent conviction, has committed or been charged with or prosecuted for or convicted of or sentenced in respect of an offence which is the subject of the spent conviction, and

    (b) no question shall be asked in any such proceedings and if asked, the person shall not be required to answer, any question relating to his or her past which cannot be answered without disclosing the spent conviction or the circumstances ancillary to that conviction.

    I do find the slapping of sanctions onto those who use dispute resolution after being carded but before any resolution of said dispute to be rather bizarre tbh.

    Does it pays not to engage In dispute resolution? ...


  • #111
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    gozunda wrote: »
    Not quite so ... I reckon you might be thinking of Judge Judy there tbh ..

    From:

    Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016



    I do find the slapping of sanctions onto those who use dispute resolution after being carded but before any resolution of said dispute to be rather bizarre tbh.

    Does it pays not to engage In dispute resolution? ...

    I'm not quite sure what your point is there.

    What has Garda vetting got to do with DRP?
    CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SPENT CONVICTIONS AND CERTAIN DISCLOSURES) ACT 2016

    An Act to make provision for the limitation of the effect of certain criminal convictions in certain circumstances and after certain periods of time; to amend the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 and the Garda Sh Act 2005 ; and to provide for related matters.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    pleas advice
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭pleas advice


    Steve wrote: »
    I'm not quite sure what your point is there.

    What has Garda vetting got to do with DRP?

    What has the justice system in general got to do with DRP, (although judges do look at precedent when handing down punishments)?


  • #113
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    pleas advice wrote: »
    What has the justice system in general got to do with DRP, (although judges do look at precedent when handing down punishments)?

    You answered your own question there I think.

    For me DRP is:

    1. Was there in fact a rule breach?

    2. Was the sanction appropriate? (or, more importantly, inappropriate enough to overturn it).


  • #114
    rgossip30
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,489 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    This forum is overloaded with mods who provoke more especially when biased. There are times when heated posts just burn out naturally .


  • #115
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Steve wrote: »
    I'm not quite sure what your point is there.
    What has Garda vetting got to do with DRP?

    I think you missed what I was saying tbh. With regard to the act I quoted

    CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SPENT CONVICTIONS AND CERTAIN DISCLOSURES) ACT 2016

    Section 7 includes the disclosure of a persons record of spent convictions in relation to court proceedings and not just garda vetting btw.

    See http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2016/act/4/section/7/enacted/en/html#sec7

    But yeah looking at garda vetting previous spent convictions are largely irrelevant to a person's record going forward. However we seem to have a system here where a record of infractions which have been sanctioned never expires

    Is there any little point in beating someone with the same stick twice? As above even in criminal trials - juries are not allowed to hear evidence relating to previous spent convictions and therefore that information is not included in the juries determination of guilty or otherwise. So no it's not the 'same (as) in an actual court' court unless you are only considering actual sentencing presuming that a person is found guilty.


  • #116
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,166 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    Actually since DRP was mentioned, I see one poster had a post of theirs moderated/infracted. Then a non-mod of the forum came in and gave a more severe infraction for the same post.

    Now if this was a rereg, spot on. But it was an Admin jumping in when really the original mod action should have stood. The mods should be allowed to get on with it.

    2c


  • #117
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    Pter is unsuitable to be an AH mod.
    Banning posters, or as he likes to state: "take a break for a day", whom has opposing views to him (as a poster on the same thread) is appalling.
    It smacks of Political Cafe of old.

    And being hostile on that thread and at the same time banning a poster telling him to calm down is odd. That particular poster was banned simply because he thanked a post questioning the mod's partiality.

    Also, did we not discuss in the Feedback thread of mods who partake in a discussion and being a mod on that same thread did not make sense? Bans handed out by mods who are also involved in a thread discussion as a poster have the appearance of bias ............ irrespective of that being the truth or not.


  • #118
    Baggly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    Kivaro, do me a favour there and show me where i gave my opinion on the matter. As far as i can see i have 10 posts in the thread, 2 or 3 of which are asking other users about their opinions, and the remainder are mod notifications.

    I think you have a bit of a false narrative made up about me.

    I should also add i hadnt noticed he had thanked your earlier post, but i dont see how anyone thanking your post absolves them from following the rules.


  • #119
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »
    Actually since DRP was mentioned, I see one poster had a post of theirs moderated/infracted. Then a non-mod of the forum came in and gave a more severe infraction for the same post.

    Now if this was a rereg, spot on. But it was an Admin jumping in when really the original mod action should have stood. The mods should be allowed to get on with it.

    2c

    Don't normally get in to discussing specific actions here, but to clear up what happened there. It was a technical issue in that the mod made an error in the original card. The only way to rectify that is to ask an Admin to change it - which he did.

    Nobody 'jumped in'.


  • #120
    Esel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,495 ✭✭✭✭Esel


    Newly-minted mods sometimes go on a bit of a power trip.

    Not your ornery onager



  • Advertisement
  • #121
    givyjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭givyjoe


    Kivaro wrote: »
    Pter is unsuitable to be an AH mod.
    Banning posters, or as he likes to state: "take a break for a day", whom has opposing views to him (as a poster on the same thread) is appalling.
    It smacks of Political Cafe of old.

    And being hostile on that thread and at the same time banning a poster telling him to calm down is odd. That particular poster was banned simply because he thanked a post questioning the mod's partiality.

    Also, did we not discuss in the Feedback thread of mods who partake in a discussion and being a mod on that same thread did not make sense? Bans handed out by mods who are also involved in a thread discussion as a poster have the appearance of bias ............ irrespective of that being the truth or not.

    Mods should be like referees. Forgettable once a thread is over/run its course.


  • #122
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,166 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    Steve wrote: »
    Don't normally get in to discussing specific actions here, but to clear up what happened there. It was a technical issue in that the mod made an error in the original card. The only way to rectify that is to ask an Admin to change it - which he did.

    Nobody 'jumped in'.

    Thanks, Steve. It wasn’t apparent from the exchange.


  • #123
    Baggly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    givyjoe wrote: »
    Mods should be like referees. Forgettable once a thread is over/run its course.

    Are you saying you think about me, even after a thread is over/run its course? Im honored.


  • #124
    givyjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭givyjoe


    Pter wrote: »
    Are you saying you think about me, even after a thread is over/run its course? Im honored.

    I'd have thought that was the opposite of what I was saying. Ego getting the better of you?


  • #125
    Baggly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    Of course! I'm a mod :D


  • #126
    Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,584 ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Pter wrote: »
    Of course! I'm a mod :D

    Wait, what?

    You haven't had the ego removal surgery yet?

    ...mmm...

    I'll be around at your house in an hour with some rusty scalpels... :pac:

    It's not so bad, actually hurts less than having your sense of humor removed.. :D


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    pleas advice
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭pleas advice


    How is this ego removal performed?


  • #128
    Boom_Bap
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,734 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    pleas advice wrote: »
    How is this ego removal performed?


    1403453.gif


Advertisement