UCD bannings

Jonny Arson

Actually there's has been alot less spamming and chit chat on the UCD forum in recent weeks. Ok that may be partially due to the summer upon us but I think alot of posters copped themselves on a bit.

One of the problems with the forum is due to the likes of the Disabled Toilets thread.... threads like that always desend into spam chat fests. Usually if there's a thread started on say more normal college matters you don't tend to get the spam.... you could say maybe it's case for the mods to stamp out threads which will invite chat which it may be but the main problem is with a good 6/7 posters who's posts are mostly spam and that as a result drags some of the less spamful posters into the action.... maybe the bannings might kick them up the arse a bit? I hope.

Personally I do find the bannings OTT and harsh. I do understand that everyone has to be treated as equally as possible or there would be all types of favouritism allegations being flown about. However the UCD forum has a very good community, many of us know each other in person and drink beers with each other (like tonight hopefully!) and inevitably there is going to be a degree of chat and banter but I don't want to see a complete totalatarian banning of any chat whatseover or that may kill the good community on the forum, to get the right fine balance is the key. I may not completely agree with the ferocity of the bannings but overall the mods on the forum are very good most times, usually call things right and seem to be there in a flash to put out any fires!

ferdi

look, i'm here long enough to know that boards,ie is a safe haven for sad individuals to weild power, dispense discipline and impose authority that they will never have in the real world.ignore it. this is not a dig at the ucd mod, just a general observation.

Blush_01

I think it's pretty fair to say that the people who were banned know they deserved it. Nobody has said that they personally felt that they were wronged by being banned.

I do think, however, that singling Stepherunie out for an indefinite ban was a bit unfair, when someone who didn't get banned treats the board like it's their duty to reply to each individual post (we ALL know who I mean). The whole Stepherunie thing was a misunderstanding (which was obvious to me from having read the whole thread at once, but probably wasn't to others, I just happen to know her IRL - funnily enough having initially become friends via another website...), and I appreciate that Hulla isn't available to discuss it at the moment, but does she really deserve an indefinite ban on the basis of a misunderstanding when everyone else only got a week, regardless of exactly how spammy they have been?

hullaballoo

I'm not too sure what the point of this thread is, because it seems plainly clear that most people seemed to have grasped the reasoning behind the bans. However, I've always said that this is the place to discuss moderation in threads, so I suppose this is my chance to talk a bit about it. (I've only ever had one feedback thread before, but that was the whole SC debacle and doesn't really count).

So, what happened was this. Truckle and I agreed that the spam had to go. One of the first things was to lay down the rules so that people had a warning about it. This was made easier by the fact that peacheh kept going on about how strict on spam I am and as it turned out, there was no spam for the first few weeks.

Then the Bitch/Moan/Rant thread started getting excessively off-topic. Bear in mind that Truckle started the original thread, then I started one that was merged with it, and then there was a third one created to save the DB from too much needless hassle. It's easy enough to stay on topic: you just talk about the topic in the thread title/OP. However, a lot of people seemed to lose the plot in that thread. Just because it's a little bit light-hearted, people think it's time to have a full-blown conversation in the middle of a thread. It's a bit like telling school-kids they don't have to wear their uniform for a day; they just go ballistic.

Then the spam quietened.

Then there was no real trouble until this thread. From the outset it was a disaster. It's an interesting topic, so I thought that if it got back some way on topic, it could be funny. I sort of thought it might turn into a bit of a "Where's the weirdest place you've seen people at it in UCD, D?" or something. But no, it just went wildly off-topic from the first page. I left a warning and then left it for a day or so. When I came back I saw a post from Stepherunie that had me a bit gobsmacked.

I read and re-read it to check if I was seeing things or not. Anyway, I was fairly fed up then. Because of that and various other reasons, I had to take some time out of moderating for a bit but last night, I couldn't resist the urge to do something about that thread. It was such a mess that I couldn't just delete off-topic posts. Out of 10 or so pages, I'd say there were 10 on-topic posts (I just picked that figure randomly, I'm not bothered actually counting them). I wanted to just delete it completely so that none of the posters could have the benefit of their "postcount ++" comments but some deep-seated weakness inside me made me have a change of heart. Then I realised that I'm still not ready to come back to moderate!

Realistically, if I was on form, more or less the same thing would have happened re bannings and I doubt any moderator would have done any differently.

For Stepherunie: as I said before, I'll talk to you about it when I'm back moderating properly in about a week.

To be honest, I can't see how your comment could have pertained to anybody's post except mine. And that's not a good thing.

Bonjour.

Stepherunie

I accept it was fair enough to ban us all for going off topic, I've no qualms with it.

I'm not going to go into the whole issue of my indefinate banning here, i've tried to explain where i was coming from with what i said. I have apologised to both mods and stated that it was not my intention to insult any mods and at the end of the day that is all I can do.

Too all, hope to see you all again someday.

Chinafoot

hullaballoo wrote:

To be honest, I can't see how your comment could have pertained to anybody's post except mine. And that's not a good thing.

In relation to this I just have to say that when I read it initially I had the same response as you and I found it very odd coming from Stepherunie as she is generally a very good contributor to the forum. However I can now totally see the misunderstanding and while your initial warning was ignored (by pretty much everyone) Stepherunie was responding to your second post which she thought was a response to her post just before it.

I know thats not explained very well but I'll show you for those who are interested...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054960421&page=3

Starts at post #89

hullaballoo wrote:

Could this get back on topic at all? Thanks.

The conversation continued and went off-topic again. Grimes said something dirty at #101 and Stepherunie replied at post #102

Stepherunie wrote:

Did I really need that mental image? No I didn't thanks grimes!

Then hulla replied at #103

hullaballoo wrote:

So would that be a no, then?

He was of course referring to his request for the thread to get back on-topic whereas Stepherunie thought he meant "so that would be a no, then" to the mental image Grimes had given her. Hence her reply at #105

Stepherunie wrote:

You would be correct in that assumption alright.

I honestly don't believe there was anything nasty about her reply and it was honestly just a case of crossed wires. I'm sure she'll sort it out with the mods herself but tbh I felt she was being a little hard done by with the indefinite ban and she should have the week's ban along with the rest of us.

Stepherunie

Thanks a million Peachy,

Was actually going to post it all here myself this morning with the same post i sent to both mods.


Just a few additional comments:


a) There was over twenty four hours and 14 posts between hullas two comments and the fact he didn't quote the first post in his second made it less obvious to me that he was referring to the off topic warning.

b)As peachy knows (as i always apologise to her when i meet her) she only once had to warn me for going off topic before, yes I was off topic in the thread, and deserve the same ban as everyone else (1 week) which I'm happy to accept. But the indefinate ban is unfair imho

c) I really don't see how it's right that when hulla is taking a break from modding that he is in charge of when I'm allowed to return, if he's modding he's modding, if he's not he's not, he came back for an evening to ban people and is refusing to deal with my banning for at least a week (in his pm hulla stated it would be at least a fortnight before he would be prepared to discuss my banning, here he said a week)

hullaballoo

Don't be so quick to jump to any conclusions on when I "came back" or not. As a matter of fact, I didn't ban a single person. Truckle made that decision. Then he decided that since it was I who had been offended by your comment, it should be me who dealt with unbanning you.

Which I will, when I'm back.

Now, for anyone who thinks that is unfair, it isn't. Irrespective of whether there was a misunderstanding about to what each of us were referring, Stepherunie is banned for the week for posting off-topic anyway. That means that even if I don't deal with this for the week, she isn't losing out because she would be banned anyway.

Capiche?

irlrobins

hullaballoo wrote:

Now, for anyone who thinks that is unfair, it isn't.

Well it is a bit. You're going to leave her waiting for a week (at the very least) to see if she'll be unbanned or not. Not exactly fair to leave someone hanging like that.

Both sides have stated their case, you have all the info you need to make a decision now. Why wait?

Dave!

Are new people really afraid of the banter in the UCD forum? How long has this been going on? Was there none when I joined? Cos I don't remember feeling discouraged or anything...

hullaballoo

This is getting tedious. She's banned for a week anyway. She'll either be let back in at the end of the week, or she won't. I'm not dealing with it now because I'm supposed to be taking a break.

I don't think there's anything wrong with staving off my decision until I'm feeling a bit more rational. That would probably result in a more fair decision than the one I'd make if I were to be pressured into it now.

ozt9vdujny3srf

OK look at it this way. Until Hulla comes back, there is only one person modding the forum - me. My decision is to permanently ban Stepherunie. However IF Hullaballoo decides to let her back in at some point, thats cool with me, but thats irrelevant right now because he's not modding the forum.

panda100

Sorry you can Lock this thread if ya want. I thought thaT 'FEEDBACK' was allowed for all types of feedback,positvie and negative.This thread was meant to be positive feedback.My starting post was meant to be lighthearted in that 20 bannings in a day is rather a lot. I think all of us that got bannings deserved it. I know myself that I have stopped writing on the anti moan, wahoo type threads cos they are boring and tedious. I know in the past I have spammed a bit and made the forum uncomfortable for some to read (sorry blush:o ) by my union bashing but I havent done this at all in the last couple of months.
Forgive me truckle for I have sinned...............:)

God you remind me of Elliot out of scrubs.(panda100)

Mr.Nice Guy

Just read the thread in question which Peachypants linked to (oy vey, what a read. Aaargh) and it didn't seem to me like Stepherunie was giving lip but rather that she got her wires crossed.

I guess it's open to interpretation but I think she should be given the benefit of the doubt.

hullaballoo

Good God. Just leave it be people, will you? It's doesn't have anything to do with you at all and it has been repeated in this thread so much that you'd be pretty sick not to miss the point.

InFront

you mean "pretty sick to miss the point"?

irlrobins

hullaballoo wrote:

Just leave it be people, will you? It's doesn't have anything to do with you at all

Your actions as a mod has everything to do with the posters in the UCD forum. And therefore they are entitled to give their feedback on the situation as they see it.

The_Minister

I skimmed the page that Peachy linked to and most posts seemed to be about sex in UCDD in general. Can threads not "evolve" as they go along. Such a topic was always going to be slightly spammy due to the high hilarity factor, but most posts focused on college sex. Is this not an acceptable destination for the thread?

Terry

Grimes wrote:

Alright folks how about a Private Forum for those of use who "Spam" the crap out of the place where they can keep their RL annoyances to themselves?

To be honest most threads ,in any forum , descend into OT crap after 8 pages. What do you expect?

this post is a blatant plug for the forum proposal in my sig.

as a favour to Grimes, i hacve fixed the bbcode in his post.

antSionnach

How thoughtful! You must be a very attentive lover.

On topic, can I get my disban now please.

Its now seems, unbeknownst to me, that I wasnt off topic after all. But that everyone who posted in the thread after what shall thenceforth be known as 'the prophesy' got a ban.

Terry

that was on topic.

it seems there is some CoolSmileyGirl-esque posting going on in the UCD forum.
the proposal below would suit the people in question perfectly.

arbeitsscheuer

peachypants wrote:

Truckle was totally right.

Bang on. This kinda of strict moderating has been what the forum has been cryin' out for for ages. Both urself and myself used to often say just as much, but nobody ever took a blind bit of notice...

So, kudos to Truckle for grabbin the bull by the horns. Maybe it won't have the desired effect of reducing spamtastic posts, but at least the precedent is set down that if u ignore mods' warnings and post cr*p all the time, you WILL get banned.

Chinafoot

SebtheBum wrote:

Bang on. This kinda of strict moderating has been what the forum has been cryin' out for for ages. Both urself and myself used to often say just as much, but nobody ever took a blind bit of notice...

So, kudos to Truckle for grabbin the bull by the horns. Maybe it won't have the desired effect of reducing spamtastic posts, but at least the precedent is set down that if u ignore mods' warnings and post cr*p all the time, you WILL get banned.

Yup. Hopefully anyway.

Almost 20 of us got banned. It's safe to say that the usual suspects are in there (well, all bar one of them) and a few others who slipped up this time. Fair is fair, we were all warned equally.

Tbh though I don't think anyone has much of a problem with the bans. I'm sure the Stepherunie thing will be resolved and she'll be back with the rest of us next week.

What I do have a problem with is a the attitude of "It doesn't have anything to do with you at all" when it's on the feedback forum and it was blatantly a misunderstanding.

Apart from that it was most definitely a good move.

panda100

Good so we're all friends again!! May we take this week to think of out mistakes and look forward to a happy future on UCD boards!!:)

Deleted User wrote:

God you remind me of Elliot out of scrubs.(panda100)

People usually say Im like the janitor

Riamfada

panda100 wrote:

Good so we're all friends again!! May we take this week to think of out mistakes and look forward to a happy future on UCD boards!!:)

[Puke]me[/Puke]

hullaballoo

peacheh wrote:

What I do have a problem with is a the attitude of "It doesn't have anything to do with you at all" when it's on the feedback forum and it was blatantly a misunderstanding.

Apologies. I do see the error I made there. I was just getting a little bit tired of reading the exact same point over and over from different people, and people reverting back to it although I'd previously said I was going to deal with it at a future point.

Put it this way, I'm generally reasonable enough. I'm hardly going to make a bad decision here where the case is pretty clear-cut. The point is that I'm supposed to be getting away from all of this for a while. By all rights, I just shouldn't have logged in for the time. I just like boards a bit too much.

Mea culpa.

boneless

I'll take the weeks ban 'cause maybe I do deserve it. However, it should be made clear to all posters in the UCD forum by the Mods that a sense of humour will not be tolerated under any circumstances.....

neutral

In the context of the nature of that particular thread, the conversation that happened was to be expected; it was completely the wrong thread to use to make an example of people. Everyone there knew exactly where it was going. If it didn’t grasp your interest, then don’t read it.

And indeed it seems some of the 20 bans were for people who’d never been off topic on another thread, which seems disproportionate.

In terms of how off topic it was, would there be bans for talking about studying in a lecture theatre, in a thread about studying in the library?

It was essentially still about the same subject in similar scenarios, just in different locations.

If the strict sticking to the topic heading was so important, why not split it off into a new “studying in lecture theatres” thread, as it were?

I’m slightly more annoyed by Truckle’s locking of a thread on the basis that “noone else cares” the day after there was 11 posts on that thread.

And it’s only been a couple of months since one of the UCD mods locked a thread, explicitly because they disagreed with the opinions of the opening poster. Thankfully it was unlocked and the discussion went ahead.

I don’t post very often, but when I drop in on the UCD thread, some of the mods seem to be heavey-handed, and indeed at times one or two come across as quite arrogant.

More worryingly, everyone seems genuinely afraid to be seen to cross them. (Ironically, not by sticking to the rules, but instead by not being seen to criticise them.) It’s modding by fear not respect.

Philosophically, the “discussion” seems to be the less important part of “discussion board” for some of the mods.

Perhaps it’s time for a new mod to be added, perhaps someone who’s proven themselves as dedicated to the creation of discussion. Across the 4 current pages of the UCD forum, there are only 4 threads started by hullabaloo or truckle; 3 are about bans and rules, the fourth is an attempt to encourage people to stop using Boards in favour of IRC.

At the very least the UCD mods should have a rethink on their, ahem, methodologies.

Chinafoot

neutral wrote:

And indeed it seems some of the 20 bans were for people who’d never been off topic on another thread, which seems disproportionate.

If only those who do it very often were banned then there would have been cries of unfairness. Everyone who got banned had been off-topic after a warning was given. Sseems fair to me.

neutral wrote:

In terms of how off topic it was, would there be bans for talking about studying in a lecture theatre, in a thread about studying in the library?

It was essentially still about the same subject in similar scenarios, just in different locations.

Nope. There were lots of little chit-chat conversations going on that really didn't have much to do with the topic.

neutral wrote:

I’m slightly more annoyed by Truckle’s locking of a thread on the basis that “noone else cares” the day after there was 11 posts on that thread.

PM the mod if you have an issue like this.

neutral wrote:

And it’s only been a couple of months since one of the UCD mods locked a thread, explicitly because they disagreed with the opinions of the opening poster. Thankfully it was unlocked and the discussion went ahead.

If you're goingto make a claim like that you should probably back it up with links or at least tell us what the thread was about.

neutral wrote:

I don’t post very often, but when I drop in on the UCD thread, some of the mods seem to be heavey-handed, and indeed at times one or two come across as quite arrogant.

There are only 2 mods of the UCD forum, Truckle and Hullaballoo. Personally I think both can be very lenient and only step in when necessary. Evidence of such arrogance or heavy-handedness would be nice.

neutral wrote:

More worryingly, everyone seems genuinely afraid to be seen to cross them. (Ironically, not by sticking to the rules, but instead by not being seen to criticise them.) It’s modding by fear not respect.

Absolute rubbish. If everyone who used the forum were "genuinely afraid" then surely they would be sticking to the rules and heeding the warnings given by the mods.

neutral wrote:

Perhaps it’s time for a new mod to be added, perhaps someone who’s proven themselves as dedicated to the creation of discussion. Across the 4 current pages of the UCD forum, there are only 4 threads started by hullabaloo or truckle; 3 are about bans and rules

They are the mods of the forum. Of course they will start threads in relation to bans and other moderating decisions. They are there to help with the smooth-running of the forum and there is the added bonus that they attend the college and so will have a greater understanding of the issues being discussed.

neutral wrote:

the fourth is an attempt to encourage people to stop using Boards in favour of IRC.

What?! Nobody was being encouraged to stop using boards in favour of IRC. Fact of the matter is almost 20 of us are banned. We can't use the forum for a week so Truckle thought an IRC channel could be a good idea. The creation of the channel is not going to take anything away from the forum. If anything it will help cull the spam as those who use it can have their conversations there instead of having them on threads on the forum.

neutral wrote:

At the very least the UCD mods should have a rethink on their, ahem, methodologies.

The softly, softly approach hasn't worked. The spam levels have dropped recently but that is most likely due to the fact that its summer and lots of regular posters are away. The bans were a last resort and if you check back on the forum bans aren't handed out left, right and centre as the mods prefer to deal with it in other ways. It hasn't worked so maybe bans will.