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

Mod issue in the Covid forum - School reopen thread

  • 22-01-2021 3:25pm
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭


    I'd like to ask for an independent moderator review of this thread.

    Previous mod instructions on the thread have been clear that any mention of putting teachers on the pup are derailing and will be banned. As a result, many have been banned.

    Today a mod (from a different forum) came in the thread having a self-proclaimed rant, attacking posters and not any post, name calling, insulting curse words have been starred out, mentions the pup as well in the same breath as calling teachers lazy.

    I reported it. Mod came on thread to announce the post by the other mod was not inappropriate and starting threading bans on others who were very upset (for good reason what was being said).

    I have asked for clarification over private message as we're told to do as to why the difference in a mod being allowed to say things on thread previous users were banned for.

    Instead of explaining, I was threatened in the reply with a sanction myself if I mentioned it further.

    This is not fair moderating.


Comments

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


    Move from Feedback

    Specific mod or forum issues are dealt with in Help Desk


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


    To be clear, as the mod you were discussing this with, what I said to you via PM was that if you continued to discuss the fact a poster who was a mod in another forum was a mod I would threadban you

    Mods are no different from any other user in forums they do not moderate. You were making a deal of the fact they were a mod in a thread discussing Covid 19 in schools. That was not the topic. I did not sanction you, I simply told you not to do so again, under threat of threadban


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,798 ✭✭✭BonsaiKitten


    Adding my voice as another who was disgruntled by that particular piece of moderation. I know it can be a fiery thread (that's putting it mildly) and I'm sure it sucks up a lot of time for mods but I do feel that the wrong call was made. No doubt we don't know the half of what goes on behind the scenes but from my perspective, it seemed like long term, genuine posters got a quick slap of the ban hammer while the WUMs ran rampant.

    It's interesting to note that another Help Desk thread was opened last week about a similar issue in that very thread: https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058149827/1/#post115979235


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    I thought we weren't supposed to talk about what was said over pm? Genuinely so confused.

    I didn't "continue" to discuss a poster was a mod in thread at all, at any point - it was solely over pm to you to try understand why a mod was allowed to be disruptive on a thread and not get pulled over, when another mod set a rule that any poster discussing pup and being uncivil would be banned. It seemed to be one rule for another mod today, and one rule for everyone else. I asked you what the difference was, and instead of explaining it you threatened to sanction me if I discussed it on thread, which I did not do at any point.

    I did not make a deal about the fact a mod was discussing covid 19 in schools, That is very disingenuous comment I feel.

    The posts by the other mod was ranting, attacking people (teachers) not posts, calling them names, and saying they should be on pup. It's very simple. Other mods have said the pup may not be brought up again as it's derailing threads causing issues and has been banning people over it for days, maybe weeks now.

    But Hellrazer was allowed to do it today. I would like to know why.


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


    The permission of the sender to quote from PMs is required. As I was the sender I quite clearly am in a position to grant permission. Otherwise it would be a bit pointless simply stating verbatim what I have already said to you


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


    Just to clarify one point in connection with my own actions in the thread earlier. I only acted in connection with posts made after I issued in-thread warnings a few minutes before the relevant posts (and everything is still openly there in the thread)

    I dealt with around 50 PMs this afternoon. I am only just getting back to the site now. I will look back through the reports made to see if other in-thread warnings were ignored.

    I have made an amendment to the OP to indicate what behaviours I consider unacceptable following the actions of certain posters. I am not saying that is exclusive, but it is reflective of the problems I witnessed


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


    One further point to make here

    A mod is a mod only in the forums they have responsibility for. In all other public forums they are treated no differently from "registered users"

    CMods have responsibility for entire categories

    Site Admins have oversight of all forums. So yes I am accountable for my actions anywhere on the site as an Administrator, and I should always act with that in mind

    However calling out anyone in any thread because they are a mod elsewhere is unacceptable across the site, except for in 1 forum. This is that forum, Help Desk

    As a general point mods are chosen because of their interests in a topic, and the fact they have not caused major issues as a regular user

    Mods can get threadbanned. Mods can get forum banned. Mods can get sitebanned. However they are only categorised as anything different from a regular user in the forums they moderate

    Mods can get de-modded if they cause particular problems in their capacity of moderator in the forums they moderate, or registered users in other forums

    Hence OP you referencing to a person as a mod in that particular thread was unacceptable. Report? Yes. If not satisfied drop a PM to one of the forum mods. If still not happy you could approach a CMod or start a thread here. You do not derail a thread by discussing a poster (in this case a mod) rather than the topic (in the case Schools and Covid 19)

    I am now going to work through the reports to consider if any further action is appropriate. I will report back here once I have done so.


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


    I have looked at the reports made today, and the main point made is the poster in question referred to PUP in connection with school teachers

    The warning in the OP states
    "Can we not have the roundabout question of putting teachers on PUP every 10 pages or so please."

    Hence the user did mention it. However a search of the thread reveals 38 examples of it being used by posters on both sides of the argument.

    I am not going to sanction 1 poster because he is a mod and ignore those other 37 examples. However what I can do is post a specific warning that anyone referring to PUP in the thread can expect a minimum threadban. That would apply equally to all posters going forward. I am not proposing any action against those 38 posts already made as on the face of it every one of those broke the warning in the OP

    Would that deal with concerns on that front?

    The general point about slagging off teachers is noted. Tensions run high in that thread, and generic rants against teachers should not be made. However it is perfectly acceptable for posters to post their personal anecdotes about teacher behaviour if it is made clear that is what it is, and it is not an attack on the teaching profession as a whole. I know most teachers take their profession very seriously and want what is best for their students. But as in all walks of life there are bad apples.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,427 ✭✭✭History Queen


    Beasty wrote: »
    I have looked at the reports made today, and the main point made is the poster in question referred to PUP in connection with school teachers

    The warning in the OP states
    "Can we not have the roundabout question of putting teachers on PUP every 10 pages or so please."

    Hence the user did mention it. However a search of the thread reveals 38 examples of it being used by posters on both sides of the argument.

    I am not going to sanction 1 poster because he is a mod and ignore those other 37 examples. However what I can do is post a specific warning that anyone referring to PUP in the thread can expect a minimum threadban. That would apply equally to all posters going forward. I am not proposing any action against those 38 posts already made as on the face of it every one of those broke the warning in the OP

    Would that deal with concerns on that front?

    The general point about slagging off teachers is noted. Tensions run high in that thread, and generic rants against teachers should not be made. However it is perfectly acceptable for posters to post their personal anecdotes about teacher behaviour if it is made clear that is what it is, and it is not an attack on the teaching profession as a whole. I know most teachers take their profession very seriously and want what is best for their students. But as in all walks of life there are bad apples.

    As someone else who was involved in this today I would also like to add my voice to this thread by saying that I did feel today's moderation was heavyhanded and one-sided. That being said, I accept your point Beasty.

    I, for one, think your idea of on thread warning is a good idea. (Though I do content that many of those references to PUP that you threadsearched are replies to someone suggesting teachers be put on it. Hard to respond to those posts without using the word PUP. )Can the warning also stipulate what you said about posters posting anecdotes.as you said yourself "it is perfectly acceptable for posters to post their personal anecdotes about teacher behaviour if it is made clear that is what it is, and it is not an attack on the teaching profession as a whole." Then everyone is clear going forward.


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


    It was heavy handed - I do not deny that. It was deliberately so though. The thread was out of control, and everyone sanction (except for the one I have acknowledged was OTT) was fully justified IMO. Indeed I could have been harder as posters were blatantly ignoring my in-thread warnings

    I hope the message has got through as any more of that and I will not be so "generous" in my actions

    In terms of it being "one-sided" - only one side blatantly ignored my warnings. I'm not going to try and "even things up" when it's like that


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    Ok Beasty, that's a lot of posts there but will try to keep mine brief and to the point.

    To make clear from the start, I never at any time made reference to a person as a mod on thread. I would appreciate a retraction on this please, and if I'm wrong, please point out that post.
    What I actually did is exactly what you instructed below, dropped you a pm. And lets further note, you did not engage in discussion with me or answer my questions as to why that poster (who happened to be a mod) is able to post what they did on the thread without being pulled up on it as per previous mod instructions on the thread. Instead of answering me or discussing with me, you threatened me with a sanction and I was told to drop it. Is that fair? Perhaps you had me mixed up with another poster.

    One other point, is people do look to mods who should be setting an example on boards when they post. You say mods can also be carded, thread banned, forum banned, etc, so where was Hellrazer's? I will come back to this issue below and point out what was said by H. and again ask why Hellrazer was not held to the same standards as others according to mod instruction.
    Beasty: Hence OP you referencing to a person as a mod in that particular thread was unacceptable. Report? Yes. If not satisfied drop a PM to one of the forum mods. If still not happy you could approach a CMod or start a thread here. You do not derail a thread by discussing a poster (in this case a mod) rather than the topic (in the case Schools and Covid 19)

    I also would like to add a rebuttal to this point you make:
    Beasty: The warning in the OP states
    "Can we not have the roundabout question of putting teachers on PUP every 10 pages or so please."

    Hence the user did mention it. However a search of the thread reveals 38 examples of it being used by posters on both sides of the argument.

    Yes, there is an inserted warning now by a mod in the OP as you say. However, there was further instruction on the thread inserted by a mod (I can't remember by who, but my guess is Necro) regarding not mentioning pup, that it inflamed things and won't be tolerated etc that was not pasted into the OP. It was after that warning that we reported anyone mentioning the teachers should be on pup, and I noticed they would then be carded or thread banned. Can you please have another look at the thread and find this mod warning within the posts, and tell me how many posters were then thread banned/carded afterwards by mods as a result?

    My other point is, there is a difference between someone coming on the thread and their only contribution is to be disruptive and teacher bash and suggest they should go on the PUP, and other posters mentioning the word "PUP" in reference to others constantly suggesting this on the thread. Those two things are not the same. One is disruptive and uncivil, and the other is not.

    That said, I appreciate you now inserting a new warning against anyone mentioning it at all, but again, I do think there is a difference in how that acronym was being used on the thread from different posters.

    Now to the main point of my posting on the help desk/feedback forum, is your moderation yesterday in response to when the thread devolved after another poster (Hellrazer) came on and ranted/attacked, and the reactions that came from that - many of them in protest to you allowing it and being heavy-handed in banning others instead.

    Some mod warnings (I could find) on the thread: no mentioning of pup, comment on the post not the poster, stop discussing other posters, or "indeed anything else that derails the thread." (Please remember I've asked for your help in finding the mod instruction to not mention pup or be uncivil which was not also inserted into the OP)

    Now, here are some things Hellrazer has said on thread which do not seem to have gotten him into any trouble (and in fact you said and I quote that they were not inappropriate):
    "Teachers aren't doing their job from home" "So don't give me this crap they are doing their jobs and working from home"
    "They aren't doing a tap...they are doing as little as possible and taking full wages"
    "Put them all on the pup unless they can prove they are doing a full days work...that will get them back in the schools quicker than any negotiations."
    "Typical public servants - we all lose our jobs and salaries and they get to sit at home doing **** all and getting paid for it"
    "Rant over"
    *Next Hellrazer post*
    "I've obviously hit a nerve here...anyone that reacted care to let us know if you are involved in the education of our children?"
    "I was only saying what a lot of people are thinking"
    "I'm sick of hearing about the poor teachers"
    "They are paid to do a job and if they aren't doing that job they should be put on the pup like the rest of the country"

    I reported those posts, as I believe others did as well judging by the amount of pm's you said you had. You came on early in to say it wasn't inappropriate, and since Hellrazer's posts goes against previous mod instructions yet was being allowed, it caused an almighty devolution of the thread and rightfully so, a lot of upset.

    You then came in banning posters for it, people who have been contributing to the thread for the guts of a year while leaving Hellrazer's only contribution to the thread being teacher bashing and mentioning the PUP multiple times, untouched. Where is Hellrazer attacking anyone's posts in his rant, not the posters there who many are teachers? There was a warning in the OP (and one other warning not yet inserted) to not mention pup, yet Hellrazer did this twice and was not pulled up and in fact you said there was nothing inappropriate about their posts. It seems to be one rule for Hellrazer, and another rule for everyone else. You got so carried away with the threadbans in fact, that you banned someone for no reason other than "hitting you in the crossfire" you said (a crossfire YOU created) and had to reverse it and apologise.

    I haven't been on boards long mind you, but I have NEVER seen another mod react like this and then have to apologise for it on thread. That should tell you something there.

    In my opinion, if you had simply moderated fairly and sanctioned Hellrazer for his posts as per other mod instructions then this whole mess never would have happened at all. And in light of that, that is why I asked for another moderator review. I don't believe you can be impartial in this as clearly you have already acted impartially so how can you now impartially review your own impartial moderating. :-s This is why in Irish Employment Law we don't allow judges to rule on cases they would have bias in, lol.

    An aside point: As I recall, you closed my posts on the help desk a month ago, almost immediately. You couldn't have possibly known if I had that moderators permission to post what was said in pm. You certainly didn't ask me, and there was no way you had time to ask the other moderator either. But to close out that saga, we already settled it between us so I'm happy enough to drop that now and have learned about the permission rule going forward.


    Note: I am not a teacher.

    This is is my side of things, and as I said to you in PM I neither want to the hassle or to be one. This took up too much of my personal time for a ridiculous issue. I simply support teachers and they have been very helpful on that thread and I don't want to see them treated like rubbish. I consider this matter dropped as far as I'm concerned and now that I have said my peace. I ask going forward that ALL posters be held to the same standards.


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


    Stateofyou wrote: »

    To make clear from the start, I never at any time made reference to a person as a mod on thread. I would appreciate a retraction on this please, and if I'm wrong, please point out that post.
    Just to clear this one up.

    I can confirm you did not in the Schools thread, so sincere apologies for suggesting you did. As you have mentioned it was raised in PM correspondence and as I have made clear here that fact is pretty much irrelevant in the context of what the mod was posting in that thread. I have already explained that I acted against posts made after my warnings.

    In terms of the "previous mod instructions" issue, I have nothing to add to what I have already said above. I was not going to sanction 1 post but ignore 37 others


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    Well you didn't ignore 37 other posts, you rained a fury down on them while ignoring Hellrazer's (2 posts actually) completely, even stating they were not inappropriate.

    The mod warning were clearly already inserted in the OP as well as in thread before Hellrazer made his two inappropriate posts which violated those instructions. This is the only thing I see remaining; in terms of the "previous mod instructions," are Hellrazer's two posts going to have the appropriate mod action against them? I think this would go a long way and is only fair. Would you not agree?

    Thanks for clearing up the other issue and apologising in that regard, much appreciated.


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


    The warning was in the OP from the start. All 38 posts breached that warning. But please don't let facts get in your way


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    Beasty wrote: »
    The warning was in the OP from the start. All 38 posts breached that warning. But please don't let facts get in your way

    Again, there's a difference between trolling and disrupting saying that teachers should be on the pup, and other posters referring to trolls saying they should be on the pup.

    Hellrazer breached it too by your definition, yet they were the only poster to not get hit by your wrath and receive any kind of sanction. You even said Hellrazer's posts were appropriate. But that's not true, is it. The facts aren't in my way, but they seem to be in yours.

    Is there some reason you're not going to apply the same rules to Hellrazer? That is the WHOLE point of my posting.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,798 ✭✭✭BonsaiKitten


    Beasty wrote: »
    The warning was in the OP from the start. All 38 posts breached that warning. But please don't let facts get in your way

    What's done is done I think and as I said before, no doubt that thread is a hell of job to moderate. Don't envy you guys at all. But this post comes across as unnecessarily snide to someone who has been consistently polite to you.

    And in actual fact, StateOfYou seems quite clear about the warning being on the thread before all the nonsense went down - I'll quote them below on it - so I'm not quite sure what your point is here. It's not a question of sanctioning 1 post and ignoring 37 others, it's having sanctioned a few posters (via threadban) and not sanctioning another.
    The mod warning were clearly already inserted in the OP as well as in thread before Hellrazer made his two inappropriate posts

    I appreciate that the banned posters were able to rejoin. I'm not in favour of threadbanning the other poster at this point as all it will do is stir shít up again. However, I cannot look at what happened and claim that both sides were treated with an even hand. Surely in that case it should have been threadbans for all.


Advertisement