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

How appellants are treated in DR

124

Comments

  • #152
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,569 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    ....... wrote: »

    Its funny, because another poster has made the point on this thread that the DRP is used for mods here to wield their power and try to belittle people.
    Just to correct this point, mods get no opportunity to "use" the DRP (certainly in their modding capacity)


  • #153
    Tokyo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,655 ✭✭✭✭Tokyo


    ....... wrote: »
    Its funny, because another poster has made the point on this thread that the DRP is used for mods here to wield their power and try to belittle people.

    Mods don't have any more input into a DRP than the appellant has - in fact, a mod needs to be specifically invited by an admin to post before they can participate in a DRP. The general process is that a CMod takes a DRP, asks the forum mods about the events leading up to the infraction, whether they engaged with the poster, etc, and then the CMod forms their own opinion on the situation based on all the facts at hand.

    The idea of mods holding court over regular posters in DRP is fallacy.


  • #154
    Tokyo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,655 ✭✭✭✭Tokyo


    KyussB wrote: »
    In fairness, Boards has a widely held public perception, of mods being 'overly fond of their control panel' - as it was put.

    It seems a bit silly getting offended by it and debating over it - it's a reputation the site has well earned - making an argument over it and restricting someone from the thread over it, creates a perception of proving the posters point tbh - a perception which would easily be avoided by *shock* less use of mod powers...

    If someone's not being overly constructive on the thread, there's no need to try to pick at something to skewer them on a technicality - it looks less bad to just let the strand of the conversation end naturally, or just tell them to knock it off without thread banning.

    In one strand of discussion, a poster taking offence with that dismissed by admins/cmods, in another strand of discussion, an admin taking offence with a poster threadban in place...perhaps thicker skins would help...

    In broad strokes, I agree with what you say - in a pool of people as large as the boards members list, there's always going to be a small percentage of posters that are incapable of engaging in a constructive manner, and you are correct, for the most part it's easier (and smarter) to let them talk themselves out. Because at the end of the day, hopefully there's more signal than noise in the thread as a whole, and that will win out.

    That being said, there are posters that use feedback as a means to get a boot in, because it's one of the few places where you can take a jab at the office, admin or mods and wrap it up as "feedback". And we let that fly, to a degree - it's good to air frustrations at times. But when someone posts along the lines of:
    Over the years it has become clear that the "payment" is their little control panel and the free reign to belittle people in the drp.this is not my opinion,its a fact

    ....That's not even a feigned attempt at giving feedback, that's just being a dick, plain and simple, and I make no apologies for saying that.

    Engage with us with a modicum of civility, and I (we) will happily hear you out, even if we don't always agree with what you are saying. But if someone can't follow that basic tenet, then I see no issue with removing the tool of feedback from that poster until they learn to communicate civilly.

    It's a pretty basic requirement, not much removed from the real world. Walk into your local bank and go to.customer service, shouting "you're all a bunch of money-grabbing c********nts!!!!!!!", and see how far you get in terms of a response.


  • #155
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Kenzie Uneven Lettuce wrote: »
    So here's a contradiction. Historic cards have "ongoing relevence" in bans as a result of a "totting up" process.

    So what you are saying here is that Admin etc may reference them, but the appellant may not refer to them, nor appeal them, if Admin etc deem that to be "unreasonable".

    That is pretty stacked against users, if you'd be honest about it for once.
    +1

    What's the point of the "points/expiry" on cards if they never actually expire and there's no clear indication of what the "points" mean?


  • #156
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,403 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    The points system is an automated feature that triggers a site ban if you accumulate so many active ones, no? “9 pointed”, I believe the term used to be. It’s legacy functionality from the old forum platform.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    mike_ie wrote: »
    Engage with us with a modicum of civility...

    This should apply to mods as well as users.


  • #158
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    What's the point of the "points/expiry" on cards if they never actually expire and there's no clear indication of what the "points" mean?

    Each infraction comes with a point. If you rack up nine points within a certain period of time (I can't remember how long), you get an automatic temporary siteban. The points expire after a certain time period.

    So while points expires, the infraction itself remains on a poster's record.


  • #159
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,647 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    Each infraction comes with a point. If you rack up nine points within a certain period of time (I can't remember how long), you get an automatic temporary siteban. The points expire after a certain time period.

    So while points expires, the infraction itself remains on a poster's record.

    Which is then used down the line to beat posters around the head. How many times do we see then words "over the last X years you have accumulated "?


  • #160
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Which is then used down the line to beat posters around the head. How many times do we see then words "over the last X years you have accumulated "?

    I don't think taking a poster's prior record into account counts as "beating them over the head". At least not in my opinion.

    I believe its reasonable that serial troublemakers should get heavier sanctions compared to first timers or posters with a relatively clean track record.


  • #161
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    Each infraction comes with a point. If you rack up nine points within a certain period of time (I can't remember how long), you get an automatic temporary siteban. The points expire after a certain time period.

    So while points expires, the infraction itself remains on a poster's record    .

    Which was the original point in hand I believe.

    And it's not just points on a current profile, I know for sure that your accounts going back 13 years can be brought up in an attempt to sway a cat mods decision in DRP.

    If there's no system really in place to deal with sanctions issued past a certain period of time, then so too should past transgressions on the site. Why can cards/bans and any record of them not be nuked after a certain period of time?

    It's madness that your posts history can be nuked at will via GDRP, but not your "record".

    And for the record, I largely agree with the DRP process, it's not perfect by any means, but it's sure as hell better than none, and I'm not sure of any other site that offers such a process.

    I'm just pointing out that time lines being drawn should be applied equally or not at all.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    If you didn't take previous accounts into account (to pardon the pun), then people could just open a new one any time they got a card and start afresh. It would modding forums a lot more difficult if serial troublemakers could avoid escalating sanctions by just reregistering.


  • #163
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    And it's not just points on a current profile, I know for sure that your accounts going back 13 years can be brought up in an attempt to sway a cat mods decision in DRP.

    Thats cant be done anymore because it would mean that personal data was being kept after accounts were closed. GDPR has stopped this.


  • #164
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    ....... wrote: »
    Thats cant be done anymore because it would mean that personal data was being kept after accounts were closed.

    What personal data?


  • #165
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    What personal data?

    When you register you provide an email address. And no doubt your IP address is recorded as part of posts you make.

    If boards.ie is able to link a new account with an old account, they must have some method of linking them?

    So if your old account is identifiable BY your new account, then some personal data must have been retained.

    Unless there is some other way of knowing who owned what old accounts?


  • #166
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    ....... wrote: »
    When you register you provide an email address. And no doubt your IP address is recorded as part of posts you make.

    I don't know if IP addresses count as personal data, but it's kind of beside the point because mods don't have access to either.

    To borrow a phrase from a rural Garda I once came across, when it comes to figuring out who's a re-reg, most of the time "it doesn't take much solving".


  • #167
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    If you didn't take previous accounts into account (to pardon the pun), then people could just open a new one any time they got a card and start afresh. It would modding forums a lot more difficult if serial troublemakers could avoid escalating sanctions by just reregistering.


    Of course I'm not expecting previous accounts aren't taken into consideration- period, I'm saying that maybe they should be considered irrelevant after a certain time frame.

    My account is close to 2 years old, yet I seen first hand how my old accounts were being brought up to be used against me a few weeks ago. Surely there's enough/not enough transgressions racked up in that period to base a decision on without resorting to that nonsense.

    ....... wrote: »
    Thats cant be done anymore because it would mean that personal data was being kept after accounts were closed. GDPR has stopped this.

    I don't know the ins and outs of it tbh, but it happens still.


  • #168
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    I don't know if IP addresses count as personal data, but it's kind of beside the point because mods don't have access to either.

    To borrow a phrase from a rural Garda I once came across, when it comes to figuring out who's a re-reg, most of the time "it doesn't take much solving".

    An IP address on its own is not. But if a combination of IP and email address could identify an individual - then it is personal data.

    Oh sure - and no doubt some pattern matching on the content of posts is enough.


  • #169
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Of course I'm not expecting previous accounts aren't taken into consideration- period, I'm saying that maybe they should be considered irrelevant after a certain time frame.

    I think the answer to that is, it depends. For example, if poster X picks up a yellow and a red card three years ago and they break the rules again today, there's no way I'm going to say to them "well you've already got a yellow and a red, so I'm giving you a one day ban".

    However, if poster Y has been picking up half a dozen mod actions a year, every year without fail, I'm not going to say "we'll I'll just ignore any of the ones older than a year because that's ancient history". To me it's relevant that a poster has been unable to modify their behaviour for four or five years as opposed to one year, or what ever the cutoff date is.


  • #170
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    I think the answer to that is, it depends. For example, if poster X picks up a yellow and a red card three years ago and they break the rules again today, there's no way I'm going to say to them "well you've already got a yellow and a red, so I'm giving you a one day ban".

    However, if poster Y has been picking up half a dozen mod actions a year, every year without fail, I'm not going to say "we'll I'll just ignore any of the ones older than a year because that's ancient history". To me it's relevant that a poster has been unable to modify their behaviour for four or five years as opposed to one year, or what ever the cutoff date is.

    I'm not trying to have a go at you, or be difficult, I'm really not, but I have had a case where I was carded by you, and during the pm process I even had cards that were overturned still being taken into consideration as to the reasoning for issuing the sanction at the time.

    The card system and the points expiry/overturned thing needs overhauled big time.


  • #171
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    I'm not trying to have a go at you, or be difficult, I'm really not, but I have had a case where I was carded, and during the pm process I even had cards that were overturned still being taken into consideration as to the reasoning for issuing the sanction at the time.

    The card system and the points expiry/overturned thing needs overhauled big time.

    +1

    It makes no sense to say "you are receiving this card for breaking this rule" and then when you appeal to be told, "well actually you got the card because you broke the rule AND you had previous transgressions".

    So you are actually getting punished for previous transgressions, not for whatever rule you broke.

    But you were already punished for the previous transgressions at the time of the previous transgressions - so you get punished, then the same transgression is used as a stick to beat you later.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    I'm not trying to have a go at you, or be difficult, I'm really not, but I have had a case where I was carded by you, and during the pm process I even had cards that were overturned still being taken into consideration as to the reasoning for issuing the sanction at the time.

    I think you may be getting the wrong end of the stick. I believe you're referring to the one day ban you received in November 2018? If that's the case, the PM to you read:
    Since you've had three yellows and three reds in just over a year, this time it's a ban

    You replied saying two of the yellows had been reversed.

    Between July 2017 and November 2018, you got three yellows and three reds AND two yellows that were reversed. The reversed cards weren't factored into your one day ban.


  • #173
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    I think you may be getting the wrong end of the stick. I believe you're referring to the one day ban you received in November 2018? If that's the case, the PM to you read:



    You replied saying two of the yellows had been reversed.

    Between July 2017 and November 2018, you got three yellows and three reds AND two yellows that were reversed. The reversed cards weren't factored into your one day ban.

    Just to refresh your memory, you initially said that the ban was issued because, and I quote (on the 28th of November 2018)
    Since you've had three yellows and three reds in just over a year, this time it's a ban


    And I responded with.
    One year ago to the day was the 28/11,

    One yellow - reversed.

    A further yellow issued by yourself also reversed (cos trigger happy moderation)


    Since that, 2 x reds.... both issued by **cough cough** = you.

    Looks like you're including cards that have been reversed, and a yellow going back to July 17.

    How long are mod actions held against an account (reversed or not) anyway?


  • #174
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Yes, you seemed to read my PM as "exactly one year", whereas it read "just over a year".


  • #175
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    Yes, you seemed to read my PM as "exactly one year", whereas it read "just over a year".

    The middle of July 17 to 2 days away from December 2018 the following year is a big chunk off being "just over a year".

    To surmise, it was total of two red cards in the space of a year.

    Let's leave it at that though.


  • #176
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    ....... wrote: »
    It makes no sense to say "you are receiving this card for breaking this rule" and then when you appeal to be told, "well actually you got the card because you broke the rule AND you had previous transgressions".

    I can't speak for every instance, but it's generally more the case "you are receiving this sanction for breaking this rule and the severity of the sanction is because you broke this rule AND you had previous transgressions"


  • #177
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    I can't speak for every instance, but it's generally more the case "you are receiving this sanction for breaking this rule and the severity of the sanction is because you broke this rule AND you had previous transgressions"

    Well actually I was referring to the DRP where cards are quite often upheld because of previous transgressions and NOT because of the trangression itself.

    But tbh, either way is unfair IMO.

    Not all cards are warranted. But if you dont dispute every card you get - you risk being beaten with them later.

    So posters SHOULD dispute EVERY card - because if they dont, they risk being beaten with them later.

    I let a card slide before just because it wasnt a big deal, but I felt like the mod was in the wrong - but you know, people have bad days. Another mod even private messaged me and said to dispute it because it would be overturned. I never got round to it. However, next trangsression I was beaten with the previous card.

    The whole system is flawed - IMO.


  • #178
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    ....... wrote: »
    +1

    It makes no sense to say "you are receiving this card for breaking this rule" and then when you appeal to be told, "well actually you got the card because you broke the rule AND you had previous transgressions".

    So you are actually getting punished for previous transgressions, not for whatever rule you broke.

    But you were already punished for the previous transgressions at the time of the previous transgressions - so you get punished, then the same transgression is used as a stick to beat you later.

    They should disappear for mods as well as the rest of us after a while.


  • #179
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    ....... wrote: »
    Well actually I was referring to the DRP where cards are quite often upheld because of previous transgressions and NOT because of the trangression itself.

    I don't recall seeing a case in DRP where it was found someone didn't break the rules but the sanction was still upheld because of their previous record.


  • #180
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    I don't recall seeing a case in DRP where it was found someone didn't break the rules but the sanction was still upheld because of their previous record.

    I have.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,569 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    ....... wrote: »
    I have.

    Please provide a link

    Thanks


  • #182
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    I believe its reasonable that serial troublemakers should get heavier sanctions compared to first timers or posters with a relatively clean track record.

    thats not how it works in Ireland mate. :pac:
    I mean if you eventually dealt with a poster once he had racked up 400 odd points then maybe it'd be ok to give him a suspended ban at that stage


  • #183
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    They should disappear for mods as well as the rest of us after a while.
    Cards and bans should be entirely expunged after a certain period of time.


  • #184
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    Beasty wrote: »
    Please provide a link

    Thanks

    This isnt court, its feedback. So I dont particularly feel obliged to provide you with proof.

    The search function isnt very good on the site and I havent got the time to go through lots of disputes for you.

    However, I do recall a moderator, Corinthian (sp?) I think it was, who ended up leaving entirely because of this - if you can find the particular dispute then well done.


  • #185
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    ....... wrote: »
    So I dont particularly feel obliged to provide you with proof.

    The search function isnt very good on the site and I havent got the time to go through lots of disputes for you.

    If Beasty or one of the other admins made a vague accusation and, when challenged about it, responded with "I don't particularly feel obliged to provide you with proof...." I doubt the reaction would be stellar.

    If you hold people to certain standards, you should adhere to them yourself.


  • #186
    xi5yvm0owc1s2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭xi5yvm0owc1s2b


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Cards and bans should be entirely expunged after a certain period of time.

    Agreed.

    Even penalty points are removed from your driving licence after three years.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,569 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    ....... wrote: »
    This isnt court, its feedback. So I dont particularly feel obliged to provide you with proof.

    The search function isnt very good on the site and I havent got the time to go through lots of disputes for you.

    However, I do recall a moderator, Corinthian (sp?) I think it was, who ended up leaving entirely because of this - if you can find the particular dispute then well done.


    You think you can come here and throw out allegations like that without being able to substantiate them?

    Do not post in this thread again unless it is to provide such a link.


  • #188
    Big Bag of Chips
    Administrators Posts: 14,393 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    People have come making broad, generalising statements. People have said there's "quite a few" examples of cards being upheld not because of the specific issue, but past issues. If there are quite a few examples, they should be easy to find. A poster has admitted to generalising. Meaning the issue isn't as widespread as this thread would have you believe.

    If there is a specific issue, with a specific post/moderator/Category Moderator then please highlight it. Then it can be address and the specific people dealt with.

    But generalising, vague statements don't help. As I said, I have never belittled anyone in the DRP. And I have overturned a number of decisions. So I take exception to being included in a vague "I don't know why anyone would use the DRP" jibe.

    Highlight specific issues which can be dealt with. Otherwise this thread isn't actually feedback and is just for people with no specific complaint to just have a dig.


  • #189
    s3rtvdbwfj81ch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭s3rtvdbwfj81ch


    Big Bag of Chips wrote: »
    But generalising, vague statements don't help.

    And I'm being, once again, castigated for coming in and posting actual examples.

    Once again, heirarchy folk post lines that suit themselves for whatever agenda they want to follow.

    Post specific examples and you are looking for chances to "feign offence" - I'm not actually offended, just interested in pointing out the inherent unfairness in the system and how the heirarchy do anything they can to stack the process against people who are stupid enough to raise DRPs.

    Post general examples and not specifics and you aren't doing enough.

    :confused:


  • #190
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    Beasty wrote: »
    You think you can come here and throw out allegations like that without being able to substantiate them?

    Do not post in this thread again unless it is to provide such a link.

    All right. I find the search function pretty useless in this regard - if you can suggest a better way of searching I am agog.

    However, simply searching on the term "past transgressions" throws up:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057892879&page=13
    As I already stated, My behaviour since the last ban is being ignored, and I'm being punished simply based on past transgressions..

    This is the one I recall from The Corinthian:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=97450695

    The bit that stuck in my memory is:
    A ban, warning or infraction is for the purposes of transgressions, not for past transgressions that have already been acted upon. The moderator has already admitted that it was not personal abuse, so in essence I have received a ban for transgressions I've already 'served time for' in full knowledge by the moderator that I did not actually carry out the very act that I was punished for.

    This one that you yourself were involved in - bringing up past transgressions and using an aggressive tone with the poster:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=99895573


    This more recent one - ban upheld on the basis of past transgressions.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=108845344


    Heres another one, no rule broken but punished on past transgressions:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=107685030

    Do you need more?


  • #191
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,569 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Your first link is a link to this thread

    Your second link is to a DRP for someone who had called another poster a racist bigot

    Your third link is to a DRP for someone who picked up a yellow card for trolling

    Your fourth link is to a DRP for someone who had picked up a ban for ignoring a mod instruction

    Your final link was to a DRP for someone appealing a ban for ignoring a mod instruction

    In all these cases "current" transgressions triggered the mod action. It may well be that past transgressions influenced the nature of the sanction, but in none of these cases was a poster sanctioned for past transgressions, All those transgressions were current and specific

    You stated these are examples of DRPs where it was found someone didn't break the rules but the sanction was still upheld because of their previous record.

    That is clearly wrong. In all these cases users broke the rules and the sanctions were upheld in the DRP

    But of course you knew that. What surprises me is you must have believed I would not click on any of those so-called examples


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    droidman123 wrote: »
    At a guess,i would imagine theres a lot of people that wouldnt bother at all with the drp to avoid being spoken down to by some random stranger with too much time on their hands.i for one certainly wouldnt give them the excuse to play at being a headmaster admonishing a pupil,i could be wrong but i,m sure theres many more too

    Nah, I never bothered with it because I was able to see that my infractions were deserved. The most I ever did was lash out at a mod via PM, probably because of it being deserved. Sometimes I’ve read disputes in DR and prison where the ban seemed heavy-handed but usually it’s plainly obvious why the infraction happened and it’s amusing/eye-rolling to watch users act all indignant or wide-eyed because they weren’t allowed to be a jackass. Take some responsibility, people.

    As for the bolded bit. Mods and Admins can’t win here. Too much time spent dealing with disputes and they have “too much time on their hands”. Take ages to respond to disputes and they are lazy or don’t care.
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Cards and bans should be entirely expunged after a certain period of time.

    Maybe but I bet most infractions go to repeat offenders so the ol’ record probably remains pretty current anyway.


  • #193
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    droidman123 wrote: »
    This is a regular feature in the drp.i often wondered why anyone would put hours of work in for a private profit making company for no pay.over the years it has become clear that the "payment" is their little control panel and the free reign to belittle people in the drp.this is not my opinion,its a fact,its there for everyone to see.the prison forum used to be a free for all for them until we got that stopped.the last (and only) feedback thread i started warning them about their behaviour was abruptly closed with some tinpot excuse.i really dont understand why anyone would use the drp at all

    Yeah, the Prison forum used to a good read. :( It always seemed to me that the prison inmates getting attitude and slagging from Admins were blatant persistent re-reg trolls. Who honestly feels sorry for them?


  • #194
    Necro
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,167 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    Reading this thread it just seems that some people want to be eternally outraged and shake their fists at the powers that be.

    But imo, worse than that are the serial post thankers that haven't the gumption to put their own thoughts on the thread in relation to the matter at hand.

    I'll freely admit to having absolutely no dealings with the DRP system (not to say I haven't been naughty, but when I do cross the line, I take it on the chin) but reading the threads I honestly don't know why the mods actually bother.

    It seems that it's fine to throw out accusations of bias and bullying which wouldn't be allowed in any other forum on the site - well except maybe here.


  • #195
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Maybe but I bet most infractions go to repeat offenders so the ol’ record probably remains pretty current anyway.
    In that case they will be a perpetual repeat offender and will be punished accordingly. As it stands, someone with a few cards and bans over 10 years is treated the same as a repeat offender with the same number over less time.


  • #196
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,569 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    In that case they will be a perpetual repeat offender and will be punished accordingly. As it stands, someone with a few cards and bans over 10 years is treated the same as a repeat offender with the same number over less time.
    I have never treated a poster like that. Indeed if someone has half a dozen sanctions in quick succession they may well be looking at Probation. If that's over 2 years or more it's not going to happen, unless they do something that results in a site-ban

    Of course your own statement is as easy to make as mine. Posters who disagree with mine can try and find examples. I suspect you have little if any evidence to back up your statement


  • #197
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Beasty wrote: »
    I have never treated a poster like that.
    Just double-checked as I was positive my post was not directed at you, and turns out it wasn't. You're taking this all very personally for some reason when it's certainly not my intention to have a go at you - rather the site moderation (which has become much worse in the past year or so) and DRP in general.
    Indeed if someone has half a dozen sanctions in quick succession they may well be looking at Probation. If that's over 2 years or more it's not going to happen, unless they do something that results in a site-ban
    In your view, but that's not standard across DRP in general is it?
    Of course your own statement is as easy to make as mine. Posters who disagree with mine can try and find examples. I suspect you have little if any evidence to back up your statement
    You may suspect whatever you want; you'd be incorrect to do so, but you may. In any event, I'm entitled to post my opinion on this website based on my experiences without having to justify my posts (which are not even directed at you) to you.

    I am, however, glad to see you admit that like everyone else you are simply posting your opinion without any actual evidence to back up your opinion.


  • #198
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,569 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    You were making a statement of "fact" (a "fact" that I have not seen any evidence of, and was highlighting was not my own experience), not posting an opinion. I caveated my own statement accordingly


  • #199
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Beasty wrote: »
    You were making a statement of "fact" (a "fact" that I have not seen any evidence of, and was highlighting was not my own experience), not posting an opinion. I caveated my own statement accordingly
    I'm not going to get into a conversation with you about what the difference between a statement of fact and opinion; it's not a productive use of my valuable time. Unfortunately however, despite many people here giving their opinions on how DRP and treatment of posters is poor (both objectively and subjectively) and could be improved, your consistently defensive and terse posts highlight exactly the issues you're looking for posters to provide factual evidence of - in fact your two posts directed at me in the past 26 hours highlight exactly the attitude and issue that many people have with the moderation (administration, etc.) of this website.


  • #200
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 77,569 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    So basically you are saying you have nothing to support this statement:
    As it stands, someone with a few cards and bans over 10 years is treated the same as a repeat offender with the same number over less time

    It is simply your "opinion"


  • #201
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Beasty wrote: »
    So basically you are saying you have nothing to support this statement:


    It is simply your "opinion"
    If one isolates that out of the general conversation of the expiry of cards/bans then it could be perceived that way. It would be a completely disingenuous thing to do, but I suppose if one wanted to do so they could do so.

    It is, however, my experience that under the current situation historic bans and cards are disproportionately weighed when considering present decisions as to whether to card or ban and as to the length of such a ban - furthermore, this is normally upheld except in rare circumstances in the DRP process.

    If you would like me to investigate these facts on your behalf and report back to the admins with the results of same and an opinion, I'm happy to do so if you provide me will all of the supporting evidence of cards/bans of all DRP cases in the past 6 months. Otherwise, you could simply take the suggestion on board as opposed to taking it so personally and going on the defensive.

    Or are you seriously suggesting that I'm not allowed to form an opinion based on what I perceive?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement