Disappointed in moderation of "Animals and Pets"

Talliesin

The Muppet wrote:

If you read my post properly you would have seen that I said it would be suitable for "some" contentious bans.

Most contentious bans are contentious because someone chose to contest it.

Take this thread for instance. Someone was warned repeatedly and instead of either heeding the warning or opening a discussion about the warning itself either in polite PM to the mod or here, kept going. I don't see what's contentious about that, except perhaps that FnF shouldn't have pussy-footed around so much, but still it was contested.

Strokesfan

I think the problem with the thread that I highlighted is that the OP was new, got no help, was basically accused of looking for a 'mickey-extension' and was then banned for getting offended, meanwhile the posters writing the provocative messages were basically patted on the back.

Muppet has made some very good points.

I think it's a shame because Boards.ie seems to pride itself on having a large number of registered users ("Now 75,000 of ye are talking") - and that particular poster probably didn't bother complaining because of the experience and possibly won't ever bother coming back.

Now, I know that's a drop in the ocean of registered users but boards isn't just an ol' boy's network. I just wanted to point it out possibly so it doesn't continuously happen.

therecklessone

Strokesfan wrote:

I think the problem with the thread that I highlighted is that the OP was new, got no help, was basically accused of looking for a 'mickey-extension' and was then banned for getting offended, meanwhile the posters writing the provocative messages were basically patted on the back.

I'm certain your intentions are noble, but I think you're misrepresenting what happened. The OP was banned for abusive language after ignoring two clear warnings to let it go, I don't see why the mod of a forum should have to hold hands until a poster learns to understand clear and concise warnings.

As for "posters" writing provovative messages, from my reading of the thread one poster was provocative (EGAR) and another (Bambi) chose to explain to the OP why his post may have been taken the wrong way.

All three posters were treated roughly the same way right up until eldanny ignored the second warning to play nice.

therecklessone

Meant to add, any poster who can't read a charter and listen to repeated warnings from a moderator about their behaviour isn't really a loss to boards.

The Muppet

WWM I see where you are coming from and you could be right. You asked me to make a suggestion and I did . Under the current system if someone is banned unfairly they have to just lump it, If a mod dislikes your online persona and decides to ban for a trivial offence you can do nothing about it.(eg an indefinite ban for going off topic) Personally i dont think thats very fair either.


@Reckless,

Ronan I didn't have anyone in particular in mind with my comments re mod wannabes but it's obvious to anyone who reads this forum on a regular basis that I have grounds for my observations.

There is noting wrong supporting a decision if that is your honest opinion on a given situation. However I suspect that some users would back up the mod no matter what the circumstances.

As for contacting Mod and C Mod, from my recent experience there is little point in going that route, The mod is likely to " wish you luck with your crusade" and the CMod likely to ignore your request for them to give an opinion on a decision.

Talliesin

There is nothing to say that if this ban had been unfair it wouldn't have been overturned.

Endymion

Unfair bans have been lifted in the pass by Admins. Moderators have been removed in the past.

The Muppet

Talliesin wrote:

There is nothing to say that if this ban had been unfair it wouldn't have been overturned.

Yes I have seen that happen on occasion but I think it depends on the users involved.

WhiteWashMan

The Muppet wrote:

WWM I see where you are coming from and you could be right. You asked me to make a suggestion and I did . Under the current system if someone is banned unfairly they have to just lump it, If a mod dislikes your online persona and decides to ban for a trivial offence you can do nothing about it.(eg an indefinite ban for going off topic) Personally i dont think thats very fair either.
.

on the other hand, it could work, it was only my opinion that it doesnt work for the reasons i gave.

however, if people think something is unfair, then they post on feedback, and bans have been overturned as pointed out.

The Muppet wrote:

As for contacting Mod and C Mod, from my recent experience there is little point in going that route, The mod is likely to " wish you luck with your crusade" and the CMod likely to ignore your request for them to give an opinion on a decision.
.

meh!
what can i say, people are people. personally ive had people complain to me as a cat mod about unfair bannings and ive had a word with mods and overturned it.
or ive re-enforced the ban and given the reason why i think it shouldnt have been over turned.

at no point is there a rule against taking 'it higher'. although, whether the attitudes of the admins is going to be fair or not, is beyond my knowledge, but as far as im aware, they are also subject to their own bias in these matters as well.

so no, essential, there is no 'fair and just' way for this to happen. but it works. i guess we can just make it as fair and just as we can, and thats a moderators responsibilities. im not above having moderators removed for being crap personally.

The Muppet

WhiteWashMan wrote:

on the other hand, it could work, it was only my opinion that it doesnt work for the reasons i gave.
however, if people think something is unfair, then they post on feedback, and bans have been overturned as pointed out.
meh!
what can i say, people are people. personally ive had people complain to me as a cat mod about unfair bannings and ive had a word with mods and overturned it.
or ive re-enforced the ban and given the reason why i think it shouldnt have been over turned.
at no point is there a rule against taking 'it higher'. although, whether the attitudes of the admins is going to be fair or not, is beyond my knowledge, but as far as im aware, they are also subject to their own bias in these matters as well.
so no, essential, there is no 'fair and just' way for this to happen. but it works. i guess we can just make it as fair and just as we can, and thats a moderators responsibilities. im not above having moderators removed for being crap personally.

IMO Posting on feedback is not the answer for the reason I gave earlier. It is usually virtually impossible to have a balanced discussion here . I believe there would be little point in bringing my complaint to a higher level so why waste my time and energy, If I feel like that how do newer members of this community think when they see how users can be treated here. I was reading the thread on AH about moderators and I think just my view's post here is pretty much spot on.

TBH I'm not really bothered at this stage about my own ban as it's not worth the hassle and there are a wide variety of fora here that interest me just as much as the one I can't access. It's just a shame to see what was a good lively forum reduced to a joke because of very poor moderation.

That's an interesting comment on removing crap moderators I hope you follow up on that when the opportunity arises as it certainly will.

Mr Magnolia

The Muppet wrote:

CMod - likely to ignore your request for them to give an opinion on a decision.

When I was a boards newbie I was banned from a particular forum for 4-5 days. I PM'd WWM for his opinion on the banning(didn't realize he was a cmod, it wouldn't have mattered anyway as he wasn't over that cat).

He gave me his opinion about the ban and I was very happy with his responce.

The moderators have been appointed, it was that mods decision to ban me and that's his/her choice IMO. As a result of the banning I don't contribute to that forum anymore, that's my choice.

Endymion

The Muppet wrote:

Yes I have seen that happen on occasion but I think it depends on the users involved.

That really is stating the obvious. Each ban is user specific. And I agree, it is very hard to have a balanced discussion of this forum... without someone ji-jacking threads with their own personal cross to burn. Have you ever even posted on animals and pets? are you banned from animals and pets? If not, then stop making this thread about you. You're a fairly boring person, and I tire of reading your diatribe.

WhiteWashMan

:cool:

The Muppet wrote:

I think just my view's post here is pretty much spot on..

and it is for a lot of people.
but its specifically vague about what the actual issues are.

good mods dont step forward it says. doesnt sound like a good mod to me.

and lets not kid ourselves that this is a some neautral observer.

there is obviously an issue with bans etc, and theres obviously a perception 'out there' about how boards is run.

but i have yet to see anything from anyone about what the problems really are, and how to address them.

its all hand waving, and vagueness and shouts of 'i was banned unfairly' etc.

at the end of the day, after 8 or 9 years, there are going to be bans handed out that were 'unfair' (completely subjective in some cases) or were just plain stupid. theres always going to be people who could complain about bans and treatment. hell, ive been banned from PI for three months at a time i think. i sitll go in there and laugh, i mean look at the posts, but i find myself not really doing so, becuase i know i would just write something thats going to get me banned
at the end of the day, and i always say this, this site runs, and it keeps 99% of the people happy 99% of the time.
why would you change that to help the 1% of people that arent happy?
and why do they keep coming back?

now, you change my attitude on that, and oyu will get a completely different answer from me, but you have to sell that idea to me first.

Talliesin

Further. Any new methodology would have to be one that couldn't be abused by deliberate trouble makers.

ecksor

Didn't I see you have a long rant about people who use the word "methodology" a couple of years ago?

As it happens, I've been working on a method for dealing with complaints since the middle of August. We're still undecided as to whether we'll actually use it or something like it but it is being considered and if we do decide we'd like to try it it won't get adopted without a lot of feedback.

Talliesin

I don't know why I used the disgusting term "methodology". My handling of the English language is clearly deteriorating.

I can only offer my heartfelt apologies to anyone who read that, and pledge to try to be a bit more careful in my posting in return.

I am also banning myself from boards for one day. See you all later.

ecksor

I quite like the word "methodology", when properly used.

DublinWriter

The Muppet wrote:

IMO Posting on feedback is not the answer for the reason I gave earlier. It is usually virtually impossible to have a balanced discussion here . I believe there would be little point in bringing my complaint to a higher level so why waste my time and energy,

Muppet, I have to completely agree. You’ve articulated most of the points I’ve made on here much better than I could or ever would.

As per your original post, I agree that about 50% of mods do their job in a very efficient manner. As for the other 50%? Banning people because they use the word ‘gobshite’ too much, or for going off topic, or for asking how many cushions you lean on when you listen to jazz betrays more about them, their power-trippage and their general unhappiness with their own personal lot in the real-world than the people they ban.

The Muppet wrote:

If I feel like that how do newer members of this community think when they see how users can be treated here.

If boards.ie implodes, it won’t be because of some mega-corp suing them out of existence, but it will be for the total ineptitude of certain people in here with mod rights souring the whole experience for new users.

Just look at what happened a few months ago when a new-user forum was attempted to be established and look at the crowing in feedback from a handful of mods saying “it’s my clique, and I’ll cry if I want to”.

In the light of the current legal trouble, boards.ie could have a lot of friends contributing to a war-chest, professional, educated users who wouldn't have thunk twice about bunging a couple of hundred Euro in Tom Murphy's direction. Instead we’re all keeping our wallets and cheque books firmly shut.

The Muppet wrote:

TBH I'm not really bothered at this stage about my own ban as it's not worth the hassle and there are a wide variety of fora here that interest me just as much as the one I can't access. It's just a shame to see what was a good lively forum reduced to a joke because of very poor moderation.

Me too. Like many others, I’m prepared to be perma-banned from poorly moderated fora and will just let my boots do the walking.

Gordon

DublinWriter wrote:

Just look at what happened a few months ago when a new-user forum was attempted to be established and look at the crowing in feedback from a handful of mods saying “it’s my clique, and I’ll cry if I want to”.

What?! Can you extrapolate on that as I don't remember this happening!

In the light of the current legal trouble, boards.ie could have a lot of friends contributing to a war-chest, professional, educated users who wouldn't have thunk twice about bunging a couple of hundred Euro in Tom Murphy's direction. Instead we’re all keeping our wallets and cheque books firmly shut.

I know for a fact that you are wrong with this remark. Not only did many users offer money and hardware but a number of other bulletin boards and websites even offered to have a chip-in for boards seeing as any legal ramifications could involve them.

If you're going to make statements like that please get your facts straight.

Endymion

A sure he doesn't even know which user is Tom

DublinWriter

DublinWriter wrote:

In the light of the current legal trouble, boards.ie could have a lot of friends contributing to a war-chest, professional, educated users who wouldn't have thunk twice about bunging a couple of hundred Euro in Tom Murphy's direction. Instead we’re all keeping our wallets and cheque books firmly shut.

You obviously missed this thread.

DublinWriter

Carnivore wrote:

A sure he doesn't even know which user is Tom

No I don't.

But maybe with 345 posts yourself in the last 5 years you'd care to enlighten me?

GuanYin

This issue is simple, moderators aren't as accountable for their actions as they should be. But to say that all mods are in a clique abusing people is a huge gross generalisation. Most of us will quite happily tear each other to shreds in the mod forum if we see a transgression. The problem is that in the few rare cases where the moderators can't support their actions well, they just decide to go off in a huff and hide and there are never any visible consequences too it. Hopefully ecksors considerations will address that (the admins know what they're doing, no matter how much fuss I make, I am very much aware of that - I often tend to argue for the sake of arguing).

I do think all mods should be answerable and I am always happy with constructive intelligent criticism (as opposed to the "you're a sad loser" or "you're an asshole" type criticism that you see on feedback). I do try answer every and any constructive charge brought against me and I think all mods should do that, after all, we're here to facilitate users, not govern them.

That said, users don't help either. In postingin a forum, you inherently agree to the rules of the forum. If you have a problem with the rules, you need to address them before you go break them, not after). We are all 100% accountable for the transgressions we make, whether or not our transgressions were initiated by someone else and whether or not the rule is stupid or not. If you break it you take it.

The issue is then, how do you address rule changes and issues you have? the answer should be feedback, but as this and most other threads demonstrate, feedback is a lame duck. For one thing, the united front of moderators helps noone. Mods are users outside their own forum and if you're willing to complain elsewhere you should complain here too. The second problem is the signal to noise ratio here. People come in and use the place as a trolling ground. For one thing I think I think this should be one of the stricter moderated forums on boards.ie. Either post something intelligent and constructive here or don't post at all.

Even with all this in place, some posters are too stubborn and proud to ever feel they're in the wrong and you'll always get cases of feedback where someone was rightly banned but still feels a great injustice. I still think the best way to deal with these cases are with constructive discussion rather than the melee that currently exists.

Endymion

psi wrote:

This issue is simple, moderators aren't as accountable for their actions as they should be.

That a contentous issue, I personally disagree with your take on it. Mods are more accountable now, then they ever have been in the past. You've Cmods, Smods and Admins all watching the watchers watch... the girls go by.

GuanYin

Carnivore wrote:

That a contentous issue, I personally disagree with your take on it. Mods are more accountable now, then they ever have been in the past. You've Cmods, Smods and Admins all watching the watchers watch... the girls go by.

What authority do you believe smods and cmods have over moderators? Do you honestly believe they can/would overturn a moderator's action off the cuff and undermine the moderator? If so, you're misguided in that belief.

Secondly, how many consensus ban moderating actions have you seen overturned by anyone other than the mod themselves?

Thirdly, who is to say the cmods and smods are perfect themselves?

Endymion

psi wrote:

What authority do you believe smods and cmods have over moderators? Do you honestly believe they can/would overturn a moderator's action off the cuff and undermine the moderator? If so, you're misguided in that belief.

Secondly, how many consensus ban moderating actions have you seen overturned by anyone other than the mod themselves?

Thirdly, who is to say the cmods and smods are perfect themselves?

Well I didn't say off the cuff, pelase don't try to miss quote me, and I never said they where perfect. I personally don't believe a system has to be "perfect", for someone to be held accountable to it.

WWM has already stated in this thread that he has, on occasion, overtuned banning

personally ive had people complain to me as a cat mod about unfair bannings and ive had a word with mods and overturned it.

So i think it is you that is miss guided if you think Cmods and Smods won't get involved in individual bannings.

As for the number of banning I've seen over turned, a handfull, in five years. Usually accompanied by a de-modding. But i don't read every thread on every forum, or every PM.

amp

DublinWriter wrote:

Muppet, I have to completely agree. You’ve articulated most of the points I’ve made on here much better than I could or ever would.

As per your original post, I agree that about 50% of mods do their job in a very efficient manner. As for the other 50%? Banning people because they use the word ‘gobshite’ too much, or for going off topic, or for asking how many cushions you lean on when you listen to jazz betrays more about them, their power-trippage and their general unhappiness with their own personal lot in the real-world than the people they ban.

This is utterly false, moderators are very happy people in the real-world. We get paid per ban and as such live a life of luxury.

If boards.ie implodes, it won’t be because of some mega-corp suing them out of existence, but it will be for the total ineptitude of certain people in here with mod rights souring the whole experience for new users.

If you look at Nazi Germany (which is the nearest real-world equivilant to boards.ie) it didn't implode because of it's population. They loved Hitler dearly. What caused it to implode was those pesky allies. And as yet, neither the US or the Russians have declared war against us.

Boards.ie 1
Dublinwriter 0

Just look at what happened a few months ago when a new-user forum was attempted to be established and look at the crowing in feedback from a handful of mods saying “it’s my clique, and I’ll cry if I want to”.

Well you'd cry too if it happened to you. EVERYBODY! IT'S MY CLIQUE AND I'LL CRY IF I WANT TO! CRY IF I WANT TO!

In the light of the current legal trouble, boards.ie could have a lot of friends contributing to a war-chest, professional, educated users who wouldn't have thunk twice about bunging a couple of hundred Euro in Tom Murphy's direction. Instead we’re all keeping our wallets and cheque books firmly shut.

We don't need your filthy money. Especially since selling users e-mail address' get's us SO much money.

Me too. Like many others, I’m prepared to be perma-banned from poorly moderated fora and will just let my boots do the walking.

Well those boots were made for walking. And that's just what they'll do.

Killaqueen!!!

Hahaha I can't believe there's such a heated analyised discussion about this. He got banned for going off topic - yes he was warned not to, but....HE WAS BANNED FOR GOING OFF TOPIC. It's ridiculous. A mod has a job to do - fair enough. But why are mods so picky and so strict all the time? I've been to forums where there is practically no moderation but it actually works. There's no threats ("one week ban if you go off topic") - none of that crap. Now I don't know why exactly I'm saying this because my opinion doesn't matter. I'm not in charge here and nobodys going to be able to change the charters around here. Rules are rules. I agree. And especially if you are warned once are twice. But the guy was new. He probably didn't understand that going off topic was such a dreaded thing to do :rolleyes:

GuanYin

Carnivore wrote:

Well I didn't say off the cuff, pelase don't try to miss quote me, and I never said they where perfect. I personally don't believe a system has to be "perfect", for someone to be held accountable to it.

WWM has already stated in this thread that he has, on occasion, overtuned banning

WWM would be an exception and I think I've seen it happen once.

So i think it is you that is miss guided if you think Cmods and Smods won't get involved in individual bannings.

Nope, I've been involved in many of the more inflammed threads on mod and that just isn't the purpose of smods or cmods.

As for the number of banning I've seen over turned, a handfull, in five years. Usually accompanied by a de-modding. But i don't read every thread on every forum, or every PM.

Name 3 cases where someone was demodded over a bad mod decision.

therecklessone

Killaqueen!!! wrote:

Hahaha I can't believe there's such a heated analyised discussion about this. He got banned for going off topic - yes he was warned not to, but....HE WAS BANNED FOR GOING OFF TOPIC.

Did you read the relevant thread?

Banned
Eldanny banned for one week.
PM me when its up if you want it lifted.
Last edited by FranknFurter : 19-09-2006 at 02:17. Reason: Abusive language.