Talliesin and insults

Asok

Actually it is, Just who was wrestlemania .....

6th

BigCon wrote:

And Woody was protecting Boards users in his way.

If someone wants to protect boards send a pm to a mod. If its really a serious and legal offense contact the garda. Taking the law into your own hands and prosicuting another boardsie is not the way. i hope you are never accused in the wrong.

BigCon wrote:

6th - your response to being ripped off would have been to "eat a big cake". That would really have helped all the future users who would have been ripped off by this guy. :rolleyes:

People get ripped off all the time -deal with it. report it when you can in the appropriate way but always remember cake will always be your friend!

BigCon

6th wrote:

If someone wants to protect boards send a pm to a mod.

There's a slight difference between protecting boards and protecting boards users...

6th wrote:

If its really a serious and legal offense contact the garda. .

He said he did contact the Gardai and they are investigating...

6th wrote:

Taking the law into your own hands and prosicuting another boardsie is not the way.

I don't understand what you mean. Did Woody say he was a solicitor, or that he was going to one

6th wrote:

i hope you are never accused in the wrong.

I don't plan to mess people about on the For Sale forum so hopefully this won't happen...

6th wrote:

People get ripped off all the time -deal with it. report it when you can in the appropriate way but always remember cake will always be your friend!

Agreed, that and alcohol

BigCon

Asok wrote:

Actually it is, Just who was wrestlemania .....

Is he related to Rolo Tamasi?

Talliesin

BigCon wrote:

There's a slight difference between protecting boards and protecting boards users...

I work to protect boards users. One of the things I work to protect them from is not having a boards.ie to use any more.

BigCon wrote:

He said he did contact the Gardai and they are investigating...

All the more reason to STFU.

BigCon wrote:

I don't understand what you mean. Did Woody say he was a solicitor, or that he was going to one

All the more reason to STFU.

BigCon wrote:

I don't plan to mess people about on the For Sale forum so hopefully this won't happen...

That would run the risk of being accused in the right. Not messing people about doesn't protect you from being accused in the wrong.

If tomorrow someone says posts that you were engaging in various illegal activities, what would you like me to do about it?

If the next day they persist in those statements, what would you like me to do about it then?

BigCon

Talliesin wrote:

I work to protect boards users. One of the things I work to protect them from is not having a boards.ie to use any more.

Good man, very noble, keep up the good work.

Talliesin wrote:

All the more reason to STFU.

Nice.

Talliesin wrote:

All the more reason to STFU.

Lovely.

Talliesin wrote:

That would run the risk of being accused in the right. Not messing people about doesn't protect you from being accused in the wrong.

If tomorrow someone says posts that you were engaging in various illegal activities, what would you like me to do about it?
If the next day they persist in those statements, what would you like me to do about it then?

If the said poster (and other posters) had been ripped off by someone whom it appeared had multiple accounts, I would hope that the moderator would ask them to provide proof supporting their allegations and explain to them that I was not the same user as the ripoff merchant.

If they persisted in making those statements, then I think a short ban (of a week or so) to let them cool down would be in order.
I think the important thing here is that they would have been ripped off by someone already.

IMO this is completely different than someone making accusations out of the blue (a bit like a man killing his wife for example in a rage after catching her cheating as opposed to a cold calculated murder).

Anyhow, it's not my battle, just making an observation - I'm not sure if Talliesin is saying that Woody should have "STFU" or is telling me to "STFU" (or both), so I'm walking away from this before I get a belt of the banstick too...

RE*AC*TOR

RuggieBear wrote:

harsh:(

I agree.

Talliesin

BigCon wrote:

Anyhow, it's not my battle, just making an observation - I'm not sure if Talliesin is saying that Woody should have "STFU" or is telling me to "STFU" (or both), so I'm walking away from this before I get a belt of the banstick too...

I was saying that Woody should have STFU when he was told to. I won't ban you for criticising something I've done here as long as you:

1. Stick to the facts of the matter when they are known.
2. Drop something you've been asked to drop because it's the sort of thing we told Woody to drop (you can still continue to criticise how we handle stuff, but if you've been told to leave certain accusations out of the public arena, then do).
3. Don't engage in too much vulgar abuse (I give people more leeway in being abusive to me than to other users, as a precaution against abusing the little power I have here, but there's a limit - besides someone else might ban you for personal abuse).
4. Make your points reasonably.

I've no argument with you making your point here, and my arguments with your points themselves have been made in this thread without any need for me to resort to the fact that I could ban you. Really, while we joke about the "League of Bastards" and amuse ourselves when composing ban messages, banning gets boring fast, and the majority of bans are really rather uninteresting removals of Spammers.

WhiteWashMan

Talliesin wrote:

I was saying that Woody should have STFU when he was told to. I won't ban you for criticising something I've done here as long as you:

1. Stick to the facts of the matter when they are known.
2. Drop something you've been asked to drop because it's the sort of thing we told Woody to drop (you can still continue to criticise how we handle stuff, but if you've been told to leave certain accusations out of the public arena, then do).
3. Don't engage in too much vulgar abuse (I give people more leeway in being abusive to me than to other users, as a precaution against abusing the little power I have here, but there's a limit - besides someone else might ban you for personal abuse).
4. Make your points reasonably.

I've no argument with you making your point here, and my arguments with your points themselves have been made in this thread without any need for me to resort to the fact that I could ban you. Really, while we joke about the "League of Bastards" and amuse ourselves when composing ban messages, banning gets boring fast, and the majority of bans are really rather uninteresting removals of Spammers.

well, i have had a word with talliesin in the past about his insults, and ive asked him to improve on them.

they just arent up to the standard when dealing with idiots.

Darth Maul

Sorry have been following this one and have to agree with other posters that a pernament site ban is/was not justified in this case, a temp ban and thread lock could have diffused it, A long time boards user/contributor shouldn'e be treated with a straight pernament ban.
Also if your aim is to protect boards, then throwing insults (such as calling a person thick or stupid) isn't the way to moderate a forum, you should of locked the thread after first explaining your reasons, think its unprofessional to see MODs trading insults.

Beruthiel

WhiteWashMan wrote:

well, i have had a word with talliesin in the past about his insults, and ive asked him to improve on them.

they just arent up to the standard when dealing with idiots.

agreed
the Mods should call an emergency meeting to discuss this problem asap

hullaballoo

Darth Maul wrote:

straight pernament ban

It wasn't a straight permanent ban. He was warned a few times to desist but continued anyway. Woody has been trolling boards.ie for a while now. I think he was lucky to not have been banned for naming that user in the first place.

On top of that: starting a thread in Feedback about how an SMod called him thick was a bit thick. I think he knew he would be banned for that. It stank to me of a "go on, ban me. See if I care" sort of a buzz. The answer to that is always going to be "ok, no problem".

Edit: WWM, you have to recognise the trade-off. If you up the standard too much, it goes over their head, and your quip is lost.

Crash

Just to clarify something for certain users - Woody made an accusation, was first informed by Asok that there was no evidence. then made the accusation again, and was informed by ecksor that there was no evidence...then made the accusation again? not on.

TerrorFirmer

&#231 wrote: »

Just to clarify something for certain users - Woody made an accusation, was first informed by Asok that there was no evidence. then made the accusation again, and was informed by ecksor that there was no evidence...then made the accusation again? not on.

That is a fair point, and woody was banned for persisting when already warned, which is also fair enough, but...

The user in question was/is selling the same things that the real scammer was. when confronted with this, he made up an elaborate front that didn't add up, due to the fact that stuff he was selling for months, he apparently "recently obtained" in his story?

I'm not saying outright its decisive evidence, but you can easily see where woody thought he was in the right, and possibly is right.

As well as that we have people with low post counts (>40 posts)suddenly cropping up on the thread defending the user in question, seems a bit fishy, to me at least personally.

But thats just my take on it, unlike woody I'm not providing names nor am I saying I'm 100% sure of anything one way or another...

RE*AC*TOR

&#231 wrote: »

Just to clarify something for certain users - Woody made an accusation, was first informed by Asok that there was no evidence. then made the accusation again, and was informed by ecksor that there was no evidence...then made the accusation again? not on.

I think everyone agrees and accepts that.

A straight perm-ban though? Strikes me to be a bit heavy-handed.

oscarBravo

Beruthiel wrote:

agreed
the Mods should call an emergency meeting to discuss this problem asap

Okie dokie. Sugar Club again?

jonski

Asok wrote:

Actually it is, Just who was wrestlemania .....

Could we get back on topic now .

Personally I always felt it was Hulk Hogan , yeah yeah , I know there was suits behind the scene , but come on , without him it was nothing !;)

Talliesin

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

I think everyone agrees and accepts that.

A straight perm-ban though? Strikes me to be a bit heavy-handed.

It wasn't a straight perm-ban though. It followed far more warnings than it really warranted. He was not only opening this site up to litigation, but was repeatedly doing so when warned.

He demonstrated that he wasn't going to stop. His ability to continue was taken away from him (he could do so in the prison forum, but if he does he'll be banned from there).

RE*AC*TOR

Talliesin wrote:

It wasn't a straight perm-ban though. It followed far more warnings than it really warranted. He was not only opening this site up to litigation, but was repeatedly doing so when warned.

He demonstrated that he wasn't going to stop. His ability to continue was taken away from him (he could do so in the prison forum, but if he does he'll be banned from there).

Well it was a straight perm-ban in the sense that he wasn't given a week ban first or some other lesser sentence.

I don't know if there are inter-personal relationship issues here between woody and some of the mods. I suspect there is at least a history of poor relations. But I think its important that a sense of fair treatment is felt by everyone.

Goodshape

I feel so out of the loop

Any chance of finding out what these accusations were?

//edit
...did a little searching through the past-posts... it seems someone was ripping people off, using a few aliases and woody was throwing about accusations as to who those aliases where. that about it?

CuLT

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Well it was a straight perm-ban in the sense that he wasn't given a week ban first or some other lesser sentence.

I don't know if there are inter-personal relationship issues here between woody and some of the mods. I suspect there is at least a history of poor relations. But I think its important that a sense of fair treatment is felt by everyone.

If we were to wait for everyone to have a sense of fair treatment we'd be waiting til Ragnarok.

GoneShootin

Just did a little digging wrt woody in our super amazing private forums and RE*AC*TOR if you knew what had gone on previous I think you would feel that Talliesin was justified.

Goodshape:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054934437&highlight=woody (post 38 onwardS)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51454369&postcount=19

Everyone else:

Firewalkwithme

I'm glad to see him gone as woody messed me around on the FS forum a while back so it was fun seeing him get himself banned last night (I watched all play out live - very entertaining)

As I did get to read the thread in question before it was deleted I have more background on what went on than some of those here who are saying that woody was treated harshly. He wasn't. He behaved like an idiot and didn't know when to shut up.

Nevyn

CuLT wrote:

If we were to wait for everyone to have a sense of fair treatment we'd be waiting til Ragnarok.

Hush now don't tempt fate really the wolf could come and eat the sun anyday now.

RE*AC*TOR

GoneShootin wrote:

Just did a little digging wrt woody in our super amazing private forums and RE*AC*TOR if you knew what had gone on previous I think you would feel that Talliesin was justified.

That probably affirms my thoughts that this had as much (if not more) to do with history than with current events.

I have no beef with Talliesin. I just thought that generally it should follow... warning.... week ban.... month ban.... perm ban....

Having said that I don't know if woody had been banned previously. I don't really care. It just seems to me that a giant foot has descended from the sky in a Monty Python-esque manner and squashed woody.

I guess the bottom-line is, should this type of justice be metered out in your oh-so-secret private forums? Or should it be available for all so that a proper sense of crime and punishment prevail. Then we can all hold hands together and skip merrily into the sunset, safe in the knowledge that this little corner of the internet we frequent has some sense of propriety and decency, that its justice is blind, and is not dependent on which member of the choosen few you happen to piss off on a given day.

"Oh he's guilty, WE have the evidence........"

**pats me on the head**

"Now run along"

Crash

Well, woodys been banned from 3 forums at least...so I don't think its all of that sudden an incident - and of course past actions count - thats how we judge people. if someone acts like a tit and continues acting like a tit, they get banned!

GoneShootin

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

I just thought that generally it should follow... warning.... week ban.... month ban.... perm ban....

It did.

Warnings
Temp Bans from different forums
Perm Bans from some of above forums
Temp site ban (maybe - not sure)
Perm site ban

At every stage woody was given the chance, and at every stage woody persisted.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

I guess the bottom-line is, should this type of justice be metered out in your oh-so-secret private forums?

Yes

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Or should it be available for all so that a proper sense of crime and punishment prevail.

No

RE*AC*TOR

GoneShootin wrote:

It did.

Warnings
Temp Bans from different forums
Perm Bans from some of above forums
Temp site ban (maybe - not sure)
Perm site ban

At every stage woody was given the chance, and at every stage woody persisted.



Yes



No

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!




*edit* please see below post for correct quote.

Crash

Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
King Arthur: Bloody peasant!
Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?


Get the damn quote right.

Gordon

Wrt the siteban procedure - I don't think I'm the only one that sitebans people without previous warnings or bans, and without a warning from myself.

WhiteWashMan

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

I just thought that generally it should follow... warning.... week ban.... month ban.... perm ban....

why should it be like that?

i dislike giving people 'a weeks' ban, becuase they have a tendency to come back and demand to be let back into a forum.

i will allow someone back into a forum if i have banned them, when i feel they should be allowed back. if its one day, its one day, if its 3 months, then its three months.
im not running some sort of diciplinary proceedure here. theres no verbal warning, written warning proceedure in place.

you act the mickey, you get banned depending on how much mickey youre acting...

secret_squirrel

Darth Maul wrote:

think its unprofessional to see MODs trading insults.

Technically since none of the mods are paid then they are amateurs, although I do believe there is a lucrative BanStick sponsorship in the offing.

CuLT

technically, since we're not doing a job, we're not anything.


and for the record, I hate banning people. Have to go to all that effort of going to the ban controls, banning the person, PMing them, waiting for the inevitable "OMG U FCKIN ASSHOLE WHO DO U THINK U R U HITLER NAZI?!1".

Then rifling through PMs when their ban time is up to see if they are actually supposed to be unbanned, or else trawling through their posts on FS to see why they were banned in the first place.

And then the moron brigade calling for blood and the freedom of the banees because "HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED YOU DICTATOR/CHILD/NERD/FAG".

It's just not fun.

The Sweeper

CuLT wrote:

technically, since we're not doing a job, we're not anything.


and for the record, I hate banning people. Have to go to all that effort of going to the ban controls, banning the person, PMing them, waiting for the inevitable "OMG U FCKIN ASSHOLE WHO DO U THINK U R U HITLER NAZI?!1".

Then rifling through PMs when their ban time is up to see if they are actually supposed to be unbanned, or else trawling through their posts on FS to see why they were banned in the first place.

And then the moron brigade calling for blood and the freedom of the banees because "HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED YOU DICTATOR/CHILD/NERD/FAG".

It's just not fun.

Post of the month to be honest.

I'd rather **** with a fingerful of chili sauce than ban most of the whinging bitches on this site these days.

RE*AC*TOR

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

Post of the month to be honest.

I'd rather **** with a fingerful of chili sauce than ban most of the whinging bitches on this site these days.

you guys are disillusioned.

oscarBravo

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

I'd rather **** with a fingerful of chili sauce ...

Ooh, that brought a tear to my eye.


And I have a different set of equipment, and all....

Victor

CuLT wrote:

"OMG U FCKIN ASSHOLE"

Is that Stan to Cartman?

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

I'd rather **** with a fingerful of chili sauce than ban most of the whinging bitches on this site these days.

Vid? Pix?

GoneShootin

CuLT wrote:

Then rifling through PMs when their ban time is up to see if they are actually supposed to be unbanned, or else trawling through their posts on FS to see why they were banned in the first place.

You want to get yourself rainlender mate



Tis what I use to remind me to unban folk.

RE*AC*TOR for AH / POLITICS / RELIGION mod by the way.

Hagar

I am not going to comment on the banning, that's entirely up to the mods, but I would like to express my disquiet at some of the dealing allowed on FS.

I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who are selling unopened, high cost, electronic goods on a regular basis. The Forum is intended for private sales by individuals to individuals. TBH it's more like a clearing house for Aladdin's Cave. Some posters never seem to post outside the FS Forum. Why would anybody be selling several mobile phones at the same time on one thread? Am I the only one that is getting a bad smell? There has to be a strong suspicion that stolen property is being traded. It's getting as bad as "buy and sell" IMHO.

It would be interesting to look at the value of sales made by some posters. I won't name anyone, the names are there for all to see, but some have a high enough turnover to be VAT registered.

Outspoken posters are being banned to protect Boards good name, I think its time for a bit of monitoring of some posters who are selling large volumes to also protect Boards good name.

Asok

If you have suspicions about a poster either report the thread or drop myself a pm and I can look into it.

GoneShootin

Hagar wrote:

Some posters never seem to post outside the FS Forum.

There was a time where I posted only in the FS section. There are those that post only in AH. Does that mean that those people that post only in AH are spamming gits? Yes. Yes it does.

Hagar wrote:

Why would anybody be selling several mobile phones at the same time on one thread? Am I the only one that is getting a bad smell?

I went through a stage of buying and selling a **** load of phones. Mobiles are like trading cards to some people. Buy em, try em, sell em. Repeated offenders should be brought to the FS mods attention of course, but there is nothing immediately bad about the scenario you described.

It's also very difficult to tell immediately if someone is a trader or not - and unfortunately it may only become apparent over time.

If FS mods ban someone too quickly they are harassed for being to strict. If they don't ban traders/scammers quick enough they are harassed for being too lenient/slow. SET MY (mod) PEOPLE FREE.

Talliesin

WhiteWashMan wrote:

i dislike giving people 'a weeks' ban, becuase they have a tendency to come back and demand to be let back into a forum.

There is a distinction between bans as punishment or warnings ("you were bad, go to jail, go directly to jail, do not collect 200 pounds") and bannings to simply remove someone from a forum or from the site because they are having a negative effect on it, indications are that the will continue to have a negative effect on it, and we are excising a problem.

RE*AC*TOR

big meanies ^^^

CuLT

Plenty of paranoia going around the FS mods Hagar, I can guarantee that. But er, honestly, this is the first time where I can say we've ever been accused of being too lenient.

There are a few suspect posters, but other than PMing them and questioning them (and obviously just getting lies if they're traders), there's not a huge amount we can do.

Do we set a "limit" to how much you can sell?

Do we simply ban people on "hunches"?

As the summer deepens I can only imagine this scenario will appear to look more alarming, and it will almost always be explained by students getting summer jobs, being flush with cash, few living expenses to pay for, and therefore lots of spare money to burn on FS.

Hagar

Thanks for the responses.

I do realise that within reason you must accept people at face value and accept their responses as truthful unless you can prove otherwise.

I think the FS is extemely well modded. I read it everyday but I have only ever sold one item and that was a sat system that was demonstrated working in my home.
I would not be too quick to trust some of the posters that I see there regularly. Maybe I'm too paranoid. Is that possible? If I were to PM or report posts suspected on a regular basis I would soon be labelled a crackpot, so I just brought the topic up in general here.
Will the higher profile adverts.ie attract more dodgy sellers I wonder? Could adverts.ie/boards.ie end up being tarred as just another buy and sell style clearing house for stolen property?

GoneShootin

Hagar wrote:

TMaybe I'm too paranoid. Is that possible?

It would seem so.

Shabadu

GoneShootin wrote:

It would seem so.

Dude, why couldn't you just TYPE that?

?_?

Stark

Because those on 56K modems must be punished.

WhiteWashMan

Talliesin wrote:

There is a distinction between bans as punishment or warnings ("you were bad, go to jail, go directly to jail, do not collect 200 pounds") and bannings to simply remove someone from a forum or from the site because they are having a negative effect on it, indications are that the will continue to have a negative effect on it, and we are excising a problem.

well, i dont have the ability to site ban, so i cant comment, but in theory, we are singing fom the same hymn sheet.

GoneShootin

GoneShootin wrote:

It would seem so.

No I couldnt just type Just because you're PARANOID doesn't mean that they're not OUT TO GET YOU as it would have consumed far too much of my valuable time and energy.