UCD bannings

lostexpectation

the mods should have locked the thread and created another chat subforum not banned 20 people they need to seriously lighten up

how can you go off topic in a thread about sex in the toilet... really come one tell me :rolleyes:

I predicted there would be problems with this mod

neutral

Well banning someone with this much of an explanation:

"Chakar the banned they call him..." is hardly best practice.

The same applies to locking an 11-post-a-day thread with the justification that no-one cares about it. (Presumably the mod not caring means no-one cares, despite all the people actively posting on that thread.)

And indeed, locking a thread with a post that simply reads: "F**k sake...." (*'s inserted by me for the sake of manners)

Or stating (Truckle) that issues relating to feedback and mods were off-limits beacuse they were none of a poster's "business".

Hullabaloo locked a thread because he disagreed with the opening poster's views on the relative value of studying Arts, and specifically said so. (in fairness, as I previously said, it was eventually unlocked).

Plenty of threads have been locked without any explanation at all.

I think it's reasonable for me to consider flippant posts banning people and zero-explanation lockings to be quite arrogant.

If someone gets banned or a thread gets locked, I think we're entitled to a coherent, rudeness-free, if brief, explanation.

neutral

And the IRC thread was started for people to communicate on instead of Boards.

"I've set up an IRC channel to facilitate chat between UCD heads thats a bit more informal then on the forum."

There was no mention at all of doing the banned people a favour.

Does that not jutify my statement that this could be described as to "encourage people to stop using Boards in favour of IRC".

Dave!

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!!:)

Jesus f*cking christ.........

humbert

DaveMcG wrote:

Jesus f*cking christ.........

poor panda. the irc is to aid conversation not take away form boards, it was in response to some of the posters saying that the increase in conversation on the forum was due to their desire to stay in touch over the summer. good idea imo.

antSionnach

I have to agree with a lot of what neutral is saying.

Peachy not everyone who posted there was offtopic. Everyone who posted anything after the mods warning got aban, whether they were being on topic or not. I pointed my case out to truckle twice on this thread and twice in private messages over the course of the past few days and he completely ignored them all.
I have since been unbanned by Cloud, and Im grateful for that, but Truckle should at least have the courtesy to get back to a poster who feels they might have been unfairly banned or explain the reason for the ban and if there was no reason, or the reason is different that stated in his PM, he should make that clear.
It is a pity any of this has happened. I personally feel some responsibility for having started the thread, and I do apologise absolutely for that. It's unreasonable that a poster has to go to an admin to clear his ban because the mod won't deal with them

At the time I thought it was a reasonable enough decision to be honest with you, but since this thread on feedback, Stepherunie's case, and some of the comments that have been posted I am beginning to feel differently.
Having said all of that I look forward to Hulla coming back, as I have never had, nor do I have, anything but an overall very good opinion of his modding skills.

The_Minister

neutral wrote:

"Chakar the banned they call him..." is hardly best practice.

Chakar is a special case. He has been doing backflips on "the line" for a long time. Indeed, if I was mod I would have been a little harsher then they were.

panda100

DaveMcG wrote:

Jesus f*cking christ.........

I was joking ....hence my bless me Truckle for I have sinned comment.Im fully aware know one will be at home for the whole week thinking of there wrong doing on the ucd forum.:rolleyes:

Anyways,I think most people seem to be okay with their bannings and think the mods on the ucd forum are pretty fair

Riamfada

Im just interested to see which direction the forum is going to take. The whole place seems to be a bit devided between those who never spam making clear references to those who do . I also notice its the older posters on the neverspam brigade and us n00bs as the spammers , but perhaps this is all in my head.

Its not just the spam that puts new posters off. This time last year n00bs such as myself and some other posters (who brought this to my attention) were spoken to like crap by some of the more established posters . Especially those with a low postcount

So whats the deal with the forum now? No fun? I really want to know or does anyone have an answer.

InFront

Just in relation to what Grimes has said, I dont find spam annoying at all on boards, it never put me off from posting on any issue, and especially not a UCD issue.
I think that spam is bad for the server, its not necessarily bad for the boards.ie atmosphere. There are far more offputting things. And by that what I suppose I really mean, is off-putting posters. If theres any reason UCD isnt that great to post in its because of this

L.i.g.h.t.e.n. U.p.

But to all the Mods: Hullaballoo, Truckle, Peachypants I do have respect for your work. If spam is against the charter its against the charter, there are no two ways about it.

Riamfada

for the record I cant think of anyone (with the exception of truckle) who isn't guilty of posting chatter and spam in the forum be them new posters or the revered old skoolers. So I'm kinda tired of some of these people excluding themselves from that circle.


"clap clap mod clap clap, about time , about time" when they are as guilty as everyone else.

Dave!

hear hear. It's getting f*cking annoying now.

InFront

Oops just in case that was directed at me I wasnt trying to kiss mod ass, I was trying to be witty.

Er, I'll try harder next time...

Riamfada

Lol no it wasnt infront. Relax there , its kinda like the Purges around here. It was directed at no one........... [/shiftyeyes]....

Jonny Arson

Grimes wrote:

for the record I cant think of anyone (with the exception of truckle) who isn't guilty of posting chatter and spam in the forum be them new posters or the revered old skoolers. So I'm kinda tired of some of these people excluding themselves from that circle.


"clap clap mod clap clap, about time , about time" when they are as guilty as everyone else.

You just don't get it....

There isn't one person on the forum who isn't guilty of chatting now and again. There has always been an element of chat and conversation about college and life etc on the forum.....

the problem is with the 7 or 8 new posters who exploit the more laid back nature of the forum by constantly chatting with each other, constantly chatting with the same people most of the time and rarely contribute anything to the forum's purpose......

as a result the forum became an unreadable mess a few months ago. The mods spoke out about this and warned everyone to cut it down and we're back to square one.

The mods have really have no other choice now to virtually ban any element of conversation all because some people couldn't cop themselves on even slightly.... I detest this because the forum isn't going to be the same again. I enjoyed the conversation, I enjoyed the laid back aspect of the forum and most importantly I enjoyed the great community that was there but that's probably all gone because of a small group and their unfunny immature 5 year old crap.

So instead of going blaming the mods, the ''old-skool'' posters go and have a look around for someone else to blame Grimes, they aren't far away.

Vorsprung

Zane from MTV2 wrote:

You just don't get it....

....................<snip>......................

What he said

blondie83

Maybe it would have been a good idea to ban 10 of the people for this week and the other 10 the next week? The forum is boring as hell at the moment, there's 6 day old threads from 25th July for Gods sake! If I was a newcomer and saw it at the moment I'd just think it was an inactive board and not bother coming back

That said there is a bit of an issue with the spam (cue collective groan from everyone, don't worry I'll try and not just repeat what everyone else said!) Basically a little spam is okay, acceptable and even expected on a college board. But the amount we have at the mo is slightly unwelcoming. Compare it to your first day in college and these two scenarios:

1) A lot of people already know each other, but they are all friendly to you and answer any questions you have and invite you to go with them to lunch

2) A lot of people already know each other and slag each other off constantly about stuff you don't get cos your new. They are friendly to you and start to answer any questions you may have, but then go off on a tangent while answering it about more stuff you dont get. They invite you to go with them to lunch, but when you do you feel kinda excluded from the conversation as they chat about funny stuff that happened before and making in-jokes that you just don't get.

Okay I know there's probably flaws in my comparism, but I was just trying to equate it to something everyone's experienced. For the record I'm not trying to impress anyone I'm just trying to explain a point

(oh and I miss ye all and really just came over here to chat to you cos there's hardly anyone left to chat to on the UCD forum - come back soon!)

InFront

Im not friends with any of the UCD posters and have only ever met two of them, briefly. Some of them are quite good friends, thats obvious from their conversations. But imo that just shows me what a friendly, relaxed bunch of people they appear to be. Their chatting doesnt put me off in the slightest. Sometimes you have to invite yourself into conversations and just get chatting to people, its not all about invitations.

Im not banned btw so not that biased. But blondie83 is right, UCD is boring without the chatter of familiar posters. I nearly prefer the real UCD:eek:

ozt9vdujny3srf

neutral wrote:

Well banning someone with this much of an explanation:

"Chakar the banned they call him..." is hardly best practice.

The same applies to locking an 11-post-a-day thread with the justification that no-one cares about it. (Presumably the mod not caring means no-one cares, despite all the people actively posting on that thread.)



Or stating (Truckle) that issues relating to feedback and mods were off-limits beacuse they were none of a poster's "business".

Hullabaloo locked a thread because he disagreed with the opening poster's views on the relative value of studying Arts, and specifically said so. (in fairness, as I previously said, it was eventually unlocked).

Plenty of threads have been locked without any explanation at all.

I think it's reasonable for me to consider flippant posts banning people and zero-explanation lockings to be quite arrogant.

If someone gets banned or a thread gets locked, I think we're entitled to a coherent, rudeness-free, if brief, explanation.

The same applies to locking an 11-post-a-day thread with the justification that no-one cares about it. (Presumably the mod not caring means no-one cares, despite all the people actively posting on that thread.)

The feminism one? The one that had gone hurtling off topic for the last 2 pages?

And indeed, locking a thread with a post that simply reads: "F**k sake...." (*'s inserted by me for the sake of manners)

Ah yes, that was after a thread was locked, then someone restarted the same thread, which i locked, then it happened again, so i locked taht one too. (all with explanations). What exactly should my reaction be when someone does something I've told them not to do 3 times?

"Chakar the banned they call him..." is hardly best practice.

As good a a way as any to say hes banned tbh.

Or stating (Truckle) that issues relating to feedback and mods were off-limits beacuse they were none of a poster's "business".

I told the poster the correct way to deal with such matters (i.e. via pm or here). Not that i needed to. He wasnt disputing a ban or anything like that. He just wanted to know about another users business.


I think it's reasonable for me to consider flippant posts banning people and zero-explanation lockings to be quite arrogant.

How else should i treat people who flippantly ignore my warnings?

If someone gets banned or a thread gets locked, I think we're entitled to a coherent, rudeness-free, if brief, explanation.

I sent everyone a pm about why they were banned, even considered each individual appeal that was made by re-reading the offending posts when they replied (although I did neglect to reply to an appeal which i decided against granting which i should have)

ozt9vdujny3srf

neutral wrote:

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.

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.

It had turned into a meandering IRC style conversation. That's not what boards is for.



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

So what do you suggest i do when people completely ignore a warning to get back on topic? Ignoring a warning is a bannable offense all on its lonesome in my book. Anyway, there were probably 3 people who taht was the case for.


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?

people who stayed on topic after hullas warning (talkinga bout sex in strange places in general included) were not banned. There are posts tehre that have nothing to do with sex OR disabled toilets.


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.

In this case the users in question didnt appear to have any fear or respect for hullaballoos warning.


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

There is plenty of creation of discussion on the UCD board. I think you've misunderstood what a moderators job actually is.

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


You're right. It is. I figured the best way to stop the board being used as a chat room for a few buddies, is to create a chat room for them to chat in. This leaves the board to be used as an interesting read and source of information for any UCD Student, whether they be a regular to the board or someone who only dips in and out.

ozt9vdujny3srf

antSionnach wrote:

Peachy not everyone who posted there was offtopic. Everyone who posted anything after the mods warning got aban, whether they were being on topic or not. I pointed my case out to truckle twice on this thread and twice in private messages over the course of the past few days and he completely ignored them all.
I have since been unbanned by Cloud, and Im grateful for that, but Truckle should at least have the courtesy to get back to a poster who feels they might have been unfairly banned or explain the reason for the ban and if there was no reason, or the reason is different that stated in his PM, he should make that clear.
It is a pity any of this has happened. I personally feel some responsibility for having started the thread, and I do apologise absolutely for that. It's unreasonable that a poster has to go to an admin to clear his ban because the mod won't deal with them

At the time I thought it was a reasonable enough decision to be honest with you, but since this thread on feedback, Stepherunie's case, and some of the comments that have been posted I am beginning to feel differently.
Having said all of that I look forward to Hulla coming back, as I have never had, nor do I have, anything but an overall very good opinion of his modding skills.

Everyone who posted anything after the mods warning got aban

Except of course for:
Chakar
FuzzyLogic
Red Alert
nursbetty
rainbow kirby

Who managed to stay on topic.

I have since been unbanned by Cloud, and Im grateful for that, but Truckle should at least have the courtesy to get back to a poster who feels they might have been unfairly banned or explain the reason for the ban and if there was no reason, or the reason is different that stated in his PM, he should make that clear.

I read your PM, and reviewed your case, if i remember correctly the post i banned you for had 6 replies to general banter and one on-topic bit at the end. please correct me if i am wrong here because i already just went through that thread once AGAIN for your benefit.

Please understand i got 27 about this, each of which i reviewed and made a decision on (often reading through the thread again).

I responded to 16 of those 27, and also explained my actions on this thread. I went to a bit of effort here. However a point came where i figured with the feedback thread that all of the necessary information about the bannings was out there. Perhaps I should have pm-ed you to say i had reviewed your case and decided against ubanning you. Just so you know you aren't being ignored!

It is a pity any of this has happened. I personally feel some responsibility for having started the thread, and I do apologise absolutely for that. It's unreasonable that a poster has to go to an admin to clear his ban because the mod won't deal with them

No apology necessary, there was nothing wrong with starting that thread. Some of it was quite amusing.

antSionnach

I read your PM, and reviewed your case, if i remember correctly the post i banned you for had 6 replies to general banter and one on-topic bit at the end. please correct me if i am wrong here because i already just went through that thread once AGAIN for your benefit.

The post you describe refers to one made by someone called "meowCat", not me. My name is antSionnach, it is written above my rather spiffing avatar of Mrs Sophia Petrillo. It is Irish for the fox, which, presumably you confused with meowCat, "three times".

If thy wants to review my posts (antSionnach) for a "fourth time" I would ask you to do so, Lo it is abundantly clear that I, being antSionnach, was on-topic.

Forever yours in excited anticipation,
antSionnach.

ozt9vdujny3srf

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51744807&postcount=97

Ahh thats probably what i banned you for.

You'll forgive me for missing the joke behind what you were saying. My sense of humour wasnt at its best when i was going though the thread originally.

My apologies. You were on topic i was just too stupid to see the connection.

lostexpectation

truckle wrote:

How else should i treat people who flippantly ignore my warnings?

The warning by the mod was ignored because it was ridiclous, warning about off-topic post in the thread that was already off topic?

They treated the warning as it should have been treated.

It had turned into a meandering IRC style conversation. That's not what boards is for.

Really? Really Really?

So what do you suggest i do when people completely ignore a warning to get back on topic? Ignoring a warning is a bannable offense all on its lonesome in my book.

Not when the warning is a crock? Again justify bans for what happened after the banning rather for the reason for the ban.

people who stayed on topic after hullas warning (talkinga bout sex in strange places in general included) were not banned. There are posts tehre that have nothing to do with sex OR disabled toilets.

oh alright, can we put this in the charter, Threads talking about sx in strange places are the deadly serious business of UCD boards and must not go off topic in punishble by death. FFS

In this case the users in question didnt appear to have any fear or respect for hullaballoos warning.

That's because it was crock? It got the respect it deserved. Absolutley none.

Everyone who posted anything after the mods warning got a ban.

Except of course for:
Chakar
FuzzyLogic
Red Alert
nursbetty
rainbow kirby

Who managed to stay on topic.

Wow hullabuloo and truckle experts and arbitors of the whats on topic in idle conversations about sex.

hullaballoo

lostexpectation wrote:

The warning by the mod was ignored because it was ridiclous, warning about off-topic post in the thread that was already off topic?

They treated the warning as it should have been treated.


Really? Really Really?



Not when the warning is a crock? Again justify bans for what happened after the banning rather for the reason for the ban.



oh alright, can we put this in the charter, Threads talking about sx in strange places are the deadly serious business of UCD boards and must not go off topic in punishble by death. FFS




That's because it was crock? It got the respect it deserved. Absolutley none.




Wow hullabuloo and truckle experts and arbitors of the whats on topic in idle conversations about sex.

Grow up lostexpectation. Just because you don't like me doesn't mean the moderation of UCD is flawed in any way. You obviously can't keep your personal opinions of me from influencing you when you're trying to make a reasoned argument.

I mean good God, whatever I did (I can't remember, but I was probably right in doing it), get over it.

The warning by the mod was ignored because it was ridiclous, warning about off-topic post in the thread that was already off topic?

I'm just a bit unclear on this. You think that because the thread was gone off topic, that it's ridiculous for a mod to ask people to bring it back on topic? Is that it?

Actually, hold on, maybe I'm taking the wrong tack here. Maybe you need to vent your issues, lostexpectation.

Maybe you should go on ranting about how little respect you have for me and how much you foresaw all of the problems there would be when I became mod some more. Maybe you should tell everyone what the problems are that you have with me.

That way everyone will be able to see how much I'm obviously a bad moderator and how I should be de-modded quick-smart.

elmyra

lostexpectation wrote:

The warning by the mod was ignored because it was ridiclous, warning about off-topic post in the thread that was already off topic?

They treated the warning as it should have been treated.


Really? Really Really?



Not when the warning is a crock? Again justify bans for what happened after the banning rather for the reason for the ban.



oh alright, can we put this in the charter, Threads talking about sx in strange places are the deadly serious business of UCD boards and must not go off topic in punishble by death. FFS




That's because it was crock? It got the respect it deserved. Absolutley none.




Wow hullabuloo and truckle experts and arbitors of the whats on topic in idle conversations about sex.

Child.

lostexpectation

hullaballoo wrote:

Grow up lostexpectation. Just because you don't like me doesn't mean the moderation of UCD is flawed in any way. You obviously can't keep your personal opinions of me from influencing you when you're trying to make a reasoned argument.

I mean good God, whatever I did (I can't remember, but I was probably right in doing it), get over it.

The warning by the mod was ignored because it was ridiclous, warning about off-topic post in the thread that was already off topic?

I'm just a bit unclear on this. You think that because the thread was gone off topic, that it's ridiculous for a mod to ask people to bring it back on topic? Is that it?

Actually, hold on, maybe I'm taking the wrong tack here. Maybe you need to vent your issues, lostexpectation.

Maybe you should go on ranting about how little respect you have for me and how much you foresaw all of the problems there would be when I became mod some more. Maybe you should tell everyone what the problems are that you have with me.

That way everyone will be able to see how much I'm obviously a bad moderator and how I should be de-modded quick-smart.

Because you set up a forum precisly to mercilessly mock people without there knowledge and that forum is probably still doing that this day but sure knowbody being mocked has anyway of knowing because you made it for private for your amusement.

dajaffa

Look the bans nearly over + it's pretty clear that they took place because there has been too much spamming in general on the forum and they wanted to show that there were consequences...

Most ppl r willing to take the ban, even me who isn't prone to it (hence my low tally of posts) + we''l ba back soon + be happy yay.

However, I will be banned 4 my birthday which begins in an hour. BUMMER

InFront

Happy Bidet Dajaffa.
When are the bannees being released. UCD is seriously boring.

So..... anyone here know what the deal is with that new services dude?
j/k

panda100

I sorta aked this last year so will ask it again.I was wondering if it would be possible if the mods could send a pm to those who spam and ask them not to do it.Everyone keeps on going about these 10 or so people who spam and I can honestly only think of two so Id really like to know if I am one of them or not. I think it would be good before the start of trem time if the mods would send a pm to these 10 or so people warning them