Abuse of Moderatorship

krpc

Hi there,

I'm writing this e-mail as a means to complain about the conduct of a Moderator on the "Mobiles & PDA" section of boards.ie and also in the hope of having a thread re-opened.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055008874

I'm the author of the thread "Unlimited Vodafone to Vodafone Free Calls for Life - Marketing Scam" on the above noted section. The existence of this thread has been discussed with numerous users posing different, unique views on the matter. The views on the issue are quite divided. In the last 48 hours the discussion became heated resulting in some heat of the moment comments which had subsided, bring the thread back into line.

However, the moderator using the name "Pythia" decided to close the thread citing she believed that the thread appeared to have turned into a flame war. I believe the use of the word "war" to be quite childish here and negates the real wars that occur in our society today. Furthermore, the moderator in question stated that if users wished the thread to be re-opened they would need to contact her.

I contacted "Pythia" and expressed my wish for the thread to be re-opened. I also communicated to "Pythia" my disgust at the manner she dealt with the situation as it seemed more like her endeavoring to excercise moderator abilities (i.e. show people she was the boss), in which were overkill, rather than doing anything else. I also noted that it was quite pathetic that she was forcing people to ask permission (i.e. literally beg) for her to pretty please re open the thread. I thought and continue to believe this was/is a flagrant abuse of her moderatorship. In response to my message "Pythia" stated that nothing I or other users had said to her would make her want to re-open the thread. This had a complete undertone of a pauper pulling on the robe of their King. "Pythia" also told me that this person should have said this, or done that (i.e. apologise). "Pythia" obviously prefers robots over humans and likes to take a teacher stance with people. This was not the place of a moderator to request someone to apologise. It appears once again that "Pythia" was "power tripping" as one user has so termed it and her attitude was more of a mother telling a child to apologise for something naughty they had done. I explained to "Pythia" that if she had issue with my specific conduct on the thread, then the correct process would have been to contact me and address this with me, not restrict the usage of other users to the thread. That was not fair.

In addition, "Pythia" noted in her message to be that the thread had obviously run it's course and as such was staying closed. I do not believe it was "Pythia's" right to make that assessment considering people were still using the thread so much so it had clearly not run it's course.

Therefore, I ask you, the forum administrator to review the case. I do not believe a thread should be closed as a result of the conduct of one or two individuals as it limits the usage for others. If "Pythia" had contacted me before acting irrationally she would have received a very much cooperative response and I would have gladly informed her that I would keep my conduct in check in future. As a moderator that should have been an avenue she should have explored, but chose not to.

As mentioned, I would appreciate if you would review the matter.

Many thanks,

Telefunktastik

hullaballoo

telefunktastik wrote:

I'm the author of the thread "Unlimited Vodafone to Vodafone Free Calls for Life - Marketing Scam" on the above noted section. The existence of this thread has been discussed with numerous users posing different, unique views on the matter. The views on the issue are quite divided. In the last 48 hours the discussion became heated resulting in some heat of the moment comments which had subsided, bring the thread back into line.

The thread seems to me to be very much out of line at the time of lockage.

However, the moderator using the name "Pythia" decided to close the thread citing she believed that the thread appeared to have turned into a flame war. I believe the use of the word "war" to be quite childish here and negates the real wars that occur in our society today.

Flamewar is the conventional internet term for what happens when people posting in a thread resort to SHOUTING and insulting each other by way of addressing the topic. It's also referred to as handbagging. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war; http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/; http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/showEntry?eid=72.

Furthermore, the moderator in question stated that if users wished the thread to be re-opened they would need to contact her.

I contacted "Pythia" and expressed my wish for the thread to be re-opened. I also communicated to "Pythia" my disgust at the manner she dealt with the situation as it seemed more like her endeavoring to excercise moderator abilities (i.e. show people she was the boss), in which were overkill, rather than doing anything else. I also noted that it was quite pathetic that she was forcing people to ask permission (i.e. literally beg) for her to pretty please re open the thread.

Firstly, Pythia said "this seems to have just turned into a flame war." There isn't too much about that that I could find disgusting, or abusive of powers.

Further, she also left the possibility open that the thread could be re-opened. Without reading too much into that, it seems that she was open to discuss it.

In response to my message "Pythia" stated that nothing I or other users had said to her would make her want to re-open the thread.

You may not have presented her with what she might have seen as a structured and well-reasoned argument when you PMd her to let her know how disgusting and pathetic you thought her actions were. Perhaps in future when you address someone who you want to do something for you, you might consider saying, "please" and even a peremptive "thank you" on the off chance that this will be received in a better manner. I don't mean to preach, though, so apologies if it seems like that.

This had a complete undertone of a pauper pulling on the robe of their King. "Pythia" also told me that this person should have said this, or done that (i.e. apologise).

Is it at all possible that you are reading something into Pythia's PM that she didn't intend you to? Are you and she falling foul of the ambiguity that goes along with reading/writing as opposed to face-to-face conversation?

"Pythia" obviously prefers robots over humans and likes to take a teacher stance with people. This was not the place of a moderator to request someone to apologise.

No, perhaps not. But in modern society, if someone has displays a lack of courtesy, the usually have to apologise in some form or fashion before they are allowed to engage with society again. Here, Pythia might have been suggesting that people who had to read the drivel in that thread might deserve an apology.

"Pythia" noted in her message to be that the thread had obviously run it's course and as such was staying closed. I do not believe it was "Pythia's" right to make that assessment considering people were still using the thread so much so it had clearly not run it's course.

That is a subjective issue, and in these situations, it's generally the moderator's call whether or not they wish for a thread to continue. If it is problematic, as this one was, they may consider that there's no point in trying to get it back on course, and leave it closed. This is solely at the discretion of the forum moderator.

Gordon

If I was the moderator of that forum I would have locked the thread, tbh, "telefunktastic". However, I would probably have given a warning first, although I don't know the forum in question as I never post there.

You, "telefunktastic" initiated a verbal abuse by calling someone a "prat", which is not cool imo. That is a "flame". And then you decide not to argue the topic at hand after post #91 and decide to, "telefunktastic", concentrate on engaging in a tit-for-tat personal argument with buddy. And then your post #96 is completely off topic.

I'm not saying that it's just you to blame, "telefunktastic", but the thread has been completely derailed and you certainly didn't seem to mind it going that way. Hence the mod steps in and closes it which is fair enough imo.

Yes, maybe Pythia should have told you to cop on and quit the verbals, and the chit chat and tell you to get on topic but why should she have to? You are all adults surely? She gave an avenue open to you "telefunktastic" that you could have taken to ask for it to be reopened, but instead (as hullaballoo is touching on) you may have started off "disgusted" at her "abusing" her powers. Seriously, disgusted? You feel physically nautious or something? And maybe this "disgust" was the focus of your PM conversation as opposed to an understanding between the two of you?

If "Pythia" had contacted me before acting irrationally she would have received a very much cooperative response and I would have gladly informed her that I would keep my conduct in check in future. As a moderator that should have been an avenue she should have explored, but chose not to.

So you admit that your conduct was not of the type that you should be conducting on this bulletin board then. Then why did you not explore the avenue of keeping your conduct in check on that thread? Because you, "telefunktastic", actually chose not to keep your conduct in check. Why did you decide to not keep your conduct in check? As a poster - that should be an avenue that you could have explored but chose not to, no?

krpc

Greetings, gents.

I appreciate the responses.

To be honest, I read numerous threads in this "helpdesk" area previous to posting a message to it and had anticipated responses from moderators in a manner as above. In the other threads I read through the moderators appear to have a penchant for defending other moderators rather than investigating issues in quite a thorough manner. It's like going into a store where a retailer or sales representative believes the customer is always wrong regardless of the situation before them. Thus, I am not upset at all nor disappointed. At least I have come to learn that such conduct of the moderators is consistent throughout boards.ie.

In the main points mentioned in the responses to me, the moderator in question did leave a comment citing it was possible that the thread could be re-opened but the PM's from various users resulted in her not wanting to. What was the reason for this? I am sure perhaps one or two users might have given a valid reason or at least touched upon some good points (i.e. the conduct of one user shouldn't result in a whole thread being locked; it's not fair). If not, what was the precise reason this moderator was looking for? As I said, it stinks of someone trying to gain some feeling of superiority, power etc from others begging for something.

I also did not reading "into" anything the moderator stated to me. I possess the PM's and will gladly pass them along to the appropriate administrators should it be required.

Also, I note this to hullaballo - you make a comment about my behaviour, conduct, word usage and suggest I could or should approach a moderator in a well structured and thought out manner that might not be insulting and this might get an outcome I desire. Then in the next paragraph you refer to content users write as "drivel". This is quite disrespectful do you not think? Don't you think as a moderator you should act in a manner that you expect of others rather than one rule for you, and another rule for others?

In relation to gordon's comments, which I also thank you for, it is indeed the responsibility of a user to keep their behaviour in check. This was my responsibility. If I failed, I'm sure there is a warning or complaint process so much so that a moderator might tell a user to watch their conduct if it might conflict the rules of a forum, no? So why wasn't this avenue explored? Are rules etc made up as a moderator goes along and they can entirely act on impulse and when a user questions those decisions all other moderators jump on the bandwagon and defend said behavior? As I mentioned to hullaballo, should a moderator not lead by example an act in a manner they expect of those using the forums?

Gordon, I directly take the following quote you left on a thread: (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055015722)

Tell you what...

Shove that last quote right up your arse.

Then come back when you have washed the anal content from it.

Do you not believe the above is disrespectful? How can you as a moderator expect users to keep their conduct in check when you clearly are unable to? Isn't that contradictory? Hypocritical?

seamus

The thread had deviated from its original purpose into a big pile of ****e. It's really that simple. Threads that turn into a big pile of ****e are locked. Whether you think this is appropriate or not, is irrelevant. Just because you started the thread, that doesn't mean that the thread is "yours" and that you can decide whether it should or shouldn't stay open.

but the PM's from various users resulted in her not wanting to. What was the reason for this.

Ask her.

krpc

seamus wrote:

The thread had deviated from its original purpose into a big pile of ****e. It's really that simple. Threads that turn into a big pile of ****e are locked. Whether you think this is appropriate or not, is irrelevant. Just because you started the thread, that doesn't mean that the thread is "yours" and that you can decide whether it should or shouldn't stay open.

Ask her.

Thank you Seamus. My point has been proven once again. The moderators preach to the crowd about conduct etc .,. but they themselves act how the hell they want with complete disregard to the practices that they are preaching about. As I said, thanks, you have given me great satisfaction.

Talliesin

telefunktastik wrote:

However, the moderator using the name "Pythia" decided to close the thread citing she believed that the thread appeared to have turned into a flame war. I believe the use of the word "war" to be quite childish here and negates the real wars that occur in our society today.

Why are we bothering to read past this point?

telefunktastik, if you have a real problem express your real problem without digressing into discussions about whether commonly used expressions are childish or not.

If you want to discuss that, take it to the English forum.

The thread turned into a flame war. The thread got locked.

If you want to post in a flame war go to The Thunderdome, the only forum where such behaviour is acceptable (indeed mandatory).

seamus

What are you talking about? Curtness doesn't equal misconduct.

I suggest you examine your own issues pertaining to authority, and ask around about the difference between what it is you expect of moderators and what it is that moderators are actually for.

krpc

Talliesin wrote:

Why are we bothering to read past this point?

telefunktastik, if you have a real problem express your real problem without digressing into discussions about whether commonly used expressions are childish or not.

If you want to discuss that, take it to the English forum.

The thread turned into a flame war. The thread got locked.

If you want to post in a flame war go to The Thunderdome, the only forum where such behaviour is acceptable (indeed mandatory).

Talliesin - I believe the real issue has indeed come to the fore. I had hoped that such behaviour of moderators was limited to one, but as seen above it's across the whole of boards.ie

I admitted that my own personal conduct in the thread in question might not have been in line with the rules, but why should other users suffer because of the conduct of one. Surely there are better ways to handle that. Not one of the four moderators (five including Pythia) have answered that question.

You have also proved another point I made correct - no matter the situation, the moderators will jump on the bandwagon to support each other rather than addressing actual issues. Also, 2 different users who wished to reply to this thread are able to view it but both don't have posting privileges? Have posting privileges for this thread been disabled so that only the original author and moderators can reply?

krpc

seamus wrote:

What are you talking about? Curtness doesn't equal misconduct.

I suggest you examine your own issues pertaining to authority, and ask around about the difference between what it is you expect of moderators and what it is that moderators are actually for.

I'm quite up to speed on the responsibilty of moderators, thanks. A couple of you could do with going on a training course though. Reference to the word s h i t e has been screened out intentionally yet you use it. So foul language is now curtness. Very nice.

As I said, point proven. Thanks

Gordon

telefunktastik wrote:

Gordon, I directly take the following quote you left on a thread: (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055015722)

...

Do you not believe the above is disrespectful? How can you as a moderator expect users to keep their conduct in check when you clearly are unable to? Isn't that contradictory? Hypocritical?

You obviously didn't read the thread "telefunktastic". You'll see that the user drunkLeprechaun made some extremely disgusting comments relating to anal retention, penises, f words and a whole load of other profanities. You will then see that I asked him to wash his mouth out, and he did, he went back and edited his previous question to remove much of the profanities. This case has nothing to do with yours, and you will note that I have not told you once to shove anything into your large intestine. So quit it with the blasee generalisations please, and work with the text that you and I are writing to each other, thanks.

Wait a minute, is this just another tirade against moderators sticking up for moderators? Why can't you keep a discussion for the point of the discussion - why do you have to cry foul when people disagree with you?

The moderators preach to the crowd about conduct etc

Prove it.

Also, 2 different users who wished to reply to this thread are able to view it but both don't have posting privileges? Have posting privileges for this thread been disabled so that only the original author and moderators can reply?

Yup, only Admin, Smods and the OP have post privileges here. However, many mods think that this shouldn't be the case, in fact, you could even say that some Mods disagree with some other Mods completely, about the fact that this is the case. Coz, mods disagree with mods, it's what we do.

If you want this moved to Feedback then we can do that. In feedback anyone can reply to this thread - those that agree with you, and those that don't.

A couple of you could go with going on a training course though.

Really? Can you link to the training course that you would like a couple of us to go on? I didn't know they did training courses for being a mod!

krpc

Gordon wrote:

You obviously didn't read the thread "telefunktastic". You'll see that the user drunkLeprechaun made some extremely disgusting comments relating to anal retention, penises, f words and a whole load of other profanities. You will then see that I asked him to wash his mouth out, and he did, he went back and edited his previous question to remove much of the profanities. This case has nothing to do with yours, and you will note that I have not told you once to shove anything into your large intestine. So quit it with the blasee generalisations please, and work with the text that you and I are writing to each other, thanks.

Wait a minute, is this just another tirade against moderators sticking up for moderators? Why can't you keep a discussion for the point of the discussion - why do you have to cry foul when people disagree with you?


Prove it.

Yup, only Admin, Smods and the OP have post privileges here. However, many mods think that this shouldn't be the case, in fact, you could even say that some Mods disagree with some other Mods completely, about the fact that this is the case. Coz, mods disagree with mods, it's what we do.

If you want this moved to Feedback then we can do that. In feedback anyone can reply to this thread - those that agree with you, and those that don't.


Really? Can you link to the training course that you would like a couple of us to go on? I didn't know they did training courses for being a mod!

Oh I have no problem with people disgreeing with me. I deal with each day. It's life. But Gordon, you are now telling me if I read the entire thread you were entitled to write what you wrote? Well if you read the entire thread I am debating here, I consider myself entitled to what I write? What makes you wrong and me right? Simply because you are mod it seems. Let me take another quote from a thread you posted in:

Am I not allowed free speech now? Only you are allowed free speech? Bit hypocritical methinks.

So now you get free speech and can call people what you want, but me, a lowly normal user doesn't? But hypocritical methinks.

Erm about the moderators preaching to the crowd and acting contrary to it - prove it? Er read this thread? Hullaballo insulted users content by calling it "drivel" yet tells me I should be nice about what I write and not to be insulting. You practically preach the same thing but here I quoted you telling someone to shove something up their ass. I've proven it. Actually, in fact you've proven it for me.

The training course was sarcasm. It's like telling a bouncer at a night club to go to bouncer school. It relates to people who have menial jobs trying to be more than they are by acting superior etc .,. (i.e. moderators).

hullaballoo

telefunktastik wrote:

I appreciate the responses.

It seems that you do no such thing.

To be honest, I read numerous threads in this "helpdesk" area previous to posting a message to it and had anticipated responses from moderators in a manner as above. In the other threads I read through the moderators appear to have a penchant for defending other moderators rather than investigating issues in quite a thorough manner. It's like going into a store where a retailer or sales representative believes the customer is always wrong regardless of the situation before them. Thus, I am not upset at all nor disappointed. At least I have come to learn that such conduct of the moderators is consistent throughout boards.ie.

All the users who do things that they're not supposed to do claim this. They never think, "wait a minute, moderators are there to stop people doing things they're not supposed to - maybe they're not all against me, but it just happens that I have done something I'm not supposed to".

As it happens, moderators aren't in league against other users, and if ever a poor decision is made by another moderator (which, thankfully, is rare) you would find that most of us will let them know in no uncertain terms.

In the main points mentioned in the responses to me, the moderator in question did leave a comment citing it was possible that the thread could be re-opened but the PM's from various users resulted in her not wanting to. What was the reason for this? I am sure perhaps one or two users might have given a valid reason or at least touched upon some good points (i.e. the conduct of one user shouldn't result in a whole thread being locked; it's not fair). If not, what was the precise reason this moderator was looking for? As I said, it stinks of someone trying to gain some feeling of superiority, power etc from others begging for something.

This issue has been addressed by both Gordon and me in our previous posts. However, I don't like to leave things hanging in mid air, so I'll tirelessly reiterate what I've already said to ensure there's no equivocacy extant:

No part of Pythia's post, nor any part of what little information you have given us about the PM conversation you had with her subsequent to the locking gives any indication whatsoever that Pythia was power-tripping. Locking a thread in that state is, to my mind, perfectly acceptable. You haven't given any examples of an "abuse of moderatorship", therefore.

I also did not reading "into" anything the moderator stated to me. I possess the PM's and will gladly pass them along to the appropriate administrators should it be required.

Now is as good a time as any.

Also, I note this to hullaballo - you make a comment about my behaviour, conduct, word usage and suggest I could or should approach a moderator in a well structured and thought out manner that might not be insulting and this might get an outcome I desire. Then in the next paragraph you refer to content users write as "drivel". This is quite disrespectful do you not think? Don't you think as a moderator you should act in a manner that you expect of others rather than one rule for you, and another rule for others?

Quite plainly, I do feel that you could have been more polite to Pythia, without knowing exactly what you said. You do have a point insofar as it would be unacceptable for me to take issue with your manners as a user and then turn around, bare-faced, and tell you that users write drivel. However, it's clear enough from my post that I was referring specifically to the nonsense posted in that particular thread. Calling another user a "prat" is an example of such nonsense.

I admitted that my own personal conduct in the thread in question might not have been in line with the rules, but why should other users suffer because of the conduct of one. Surely there are better ways to handle that. Not one of the four moderators (five including Pythia) have answered that question.

This, then, becomes an open-and-shut case.

It was not your conduct alone that led to the locking of the thread, but the conduct of the substantive majority of posters remaining in the thread. Once again, this is logical grounding for locking the thread. Perhaps you can tell me how else Pythia could have dealt with it? Perhaps she should have banned you and the other posters from the forum? What sort of a thread would I now be responding to if she had done such a thing?

I'm quite up to speed on the responsibilty of moderators, thanks. A couple of you could do with going on a training course though.

Given that I've been here for a year and a half, and I'm still broadly considered new to the site, I fail to see how you, in little over one month as a member of the site, could have a vast knowledge of the duties of boards.ie's moderators.

krpc

hullaballoo wrote:

It seems that you do no such thing.


All the users who do things that they're not supposed to do claim this. They never think, "wait a minute, moderators are there to stop people doing things they're not supposed to - maybe they're not all against me, but it just happens that I have done something I'm not supposed to".

As it happens, moderators aren't in league against other users, and if ever a poor decision is made by another moderator (which, thankfully, is rare) you would find that most of us will let them know in no uncertain terms.


This issue has been addressed by both Gordon and me in our previous posts. However, I don't like to leave things hanging in mid air, so I'll tirelessly reiterate what I've already said to ensure there's no equivocacy extant:

No part of Pythia's post, nor any part of what little information you have given us about the PM conversation you had with her subsequent to the locking gives any indication whatsoever that Pythia was power-tripping. Locking a thread in that state is, to my mind, perfectly acceptable. You haven't given any examples of an "abuse of moderatorship", therefore.


Now is as good a time as any.


Quite plainly, I do feel that you could have been more polite to Pythia, without knowing exactly what you said. You do have a point insofar as it would be unacceptable for me to take issue with your manners as a user and then turn around, bare-faced, and tell you that users write drivel. However, it's clear enough from my post that I was referring specifically to the nonsense posted in that particular thread. Calling another user a "prat" is an example of such nonsense.


This, then, becomes an open-and-shut case.

It was not your conduct alone that led to the locking of the thread, but the conduct of the substantive majority of posters remaining in the thread. Once again, this is logical grounding for locking the thread. Perhaps you can tell me how else Pythia could have dealt with it? Perhaps she should have banned you and the other posters from the forum? What sort of a thread would I now be responding to if she had done such a thing?


Given that I've been here for a year and a half, and I'm still broadly considered new to the site, I fail to see how you, in little over one month as a member of the site, could have a vast knowledge of the duties of boards.ie's moderators.

It seems that you do no such thing.

I was being polite, isn't that what you are saying I should do? So I am being berated for being rude, and now being berated again for being nice. It's a no win situation where it concerns you.


I absolutely love how you completely dismissed the comment I made about you not leading by example, how you can say what you please to whom about whatever but expect users to "play nice". Very interesting.

Oh so because I am here less than a month it makes you more knowledgable than me? Really now? You know how I know about moderator responsibilities is because I've actually asked what they are. You as a moderator seem to not know what they are. Perhaps you should ask yourself.

One thing that strikes me also is the fact that only moderators and the original creator of threads can respond here. Is that because moderators fear other users might actually disagree with mods by mass so by restricting access to other users it gives mods the chance to "gang up" on users? It clearly looks like that - just look how many moderators have responded to me, one stating that the thread I contributed contained "drivel", another citing it contained "****e", another that clearly is a hypocrit. Did I leave anyone else out?

Gordon

telefunktastik wrote:

Oh I have no problem with people disgreeing with me. I deal with each day. It's life. But Gordon, you are now telling me if I read the entire thread you were entitled to write what you wrote? Well if you read the entire thread I am debating here, I consider myself entitled to what I write? What makes you wrong and me right?

You are wrong because you admit that your actions were wrong on that thread:

If "Pythia" had contacted me before acting irrationally she would have received a very much cooperative response and I would have gladly informed her that I would keep my conduct in check in future.

"My conduct in check". Hence, your conduct was all over the place. Hence, off topic & mildly abusive, hence - thread locked. Case closed until someone can give a good enough reason to open it. Full stop.

Simply because you are mod it seems. Let me take another quote from a thread you posted in:


So now you get free speech and can call people what you want, but me, a lowly normal user doesn't? But hypocritical methinks.

You should take some quotes from me from a private forum called PTH that I post in, your eyes will be opened a little after them - but still this has nothing to do with your issue.

Erm about the moderators preaching to the crowd and acting contrary to it - prove it? Er read this thread? Hullaballo insulted users content by calling it "drivel" yet tells me I should be nice about what I write and not to be insulting.

I notice that you put Pythia's name in quotes (for pure sarcasm I believe) but you don't quote hullaballoo's "nice" quote. I searched this thread for the word "nice" and I only found your text. Where did he say "nice"? If you are going to quote people, please actually quote them.

You practically preach the same thing but here I quoted you telling someone to shove something up their ass. I've proven it. Actually, in fact you've proven it for me.

As I say, what I posted on that thread was for that thread. Why you can't focus on what your problem is - you have to pick up on what I've said elsewhere that has no bearing on your situation is beyond me. If you think that I'm preaching to the crowd about conduct then I don't see it. I accept that you see it, but I think you are wrong, and that's my prerogative. Imo, you haven't proven that mods preach to the crowd about conduct. And somethiing tells me that you won't show me any proof as you believe you have proven it.

The training course was sarcasm. It's like telling a bouncer at a night club to go to bouncer school. It relates to people who have menial jobs trying to be more than they are by acting superior etc .,. (i.e. moderators).

Lovely, I bet you are a hit with the bouncers then?

One thing that strikes me also is the fact that only moderators and the original creator of threads can respond here. Is that because moderators fear other users might actually disagree with mods by mass so by restricting access to other users it gives mods the chance to "gang up" on users?

No, it's not.

It clearly looks like that

Well, it's not

- just look how many moderators have responded to me, one stating that the thread I contributed contained "drivel", another citing it contained "****e", another that clearly is a hypocrit.

Correct. Well, apart from the "hypocrit" remark, I'm not sure what you mean by that

Here is some drivel:

I see you found the caps lock and are quite fond of it. So you are saying that just because Vodafone offer a half decent service that might save someone money, a customer should be satisfied instead of making sure that they get the full benefits of the service!? Sure that sounds right. Where did you learn that? On the Vodafone training course you went on?

I understand English perfectly well, thanks for your concern. I understand numerous other languages also. In order to assist you it is poor grammar to capitalise each word in a sentence. Capital letters are used at the beginning of a sentence and throughout where such words like "I" may be required.

I'm up in arms? I'm not Michael Collins. Remember him?

You're telling me to go worry about important things, yet you keep responding to my comments? Pot, kettle, black. I'm sure you will respond to this again, and again, and again.

Not a doctor, but clearly I should have been an English teacher. Class dismissed.

Here is some sh*te:

I always loved you Vimes, d'ya know that? Always since the whole 3 customer care escapades!! In a masculine way of course! haha I don't have a maths degree, but apparently I'm a doctor and an English teacher! lol

And here is some verbal abuse:

Oh shut up, you prat (re:buddy).

Talliesin

Flame-wars get locked.

This has been recognised as the only real way to deal with flame wars once they've gotten past a certain point for over 30 years.

This forum is intended for dealing with issues users have, not salving your ego by saying "my god, you are right, you're probably always right, what a swell guy you are".

Now **** off unless you have a problem.

hullaballoo

telefunktastik wrote:

I was being polite, isn't that what you are saying I should do? So I am being berated for being rude, and now being berated again for being nice.

Oh, you were being polite? Wow, and me thinking you were being facetious.

I absolutely love how you completely dismissed the comment I made about you not leading by example, how you can say what you please to whom about whatever but expect users to "play nice". Very interesting.

Where did I dismiss it? I thought I dealt with it quite well.

I explained to you that you had mangled my words to displace my argument. You, by your own admission, posted against the forum charter, and against common civility. I called what you posted drivel, as you correctly point out. Then the moderator locked the thread, and you came here to complain about it. It then transpires that you have an issue with moderators across boards.ie in general and try to point out hypocrisies in what we say ad nauseum.

Oh so because I am here less than a month it makes you more knowledgable than me?

Where did I say that? I said that I am not considered knowledgeable about the intricate workings of boards.ie. How can you be when it is something that necessarily comes with experience.

Really now? You know how I know about moderator responsibilities is because I've actually asked what they are.

Go on, enlighten me.

One thing that strikes me also is the fact that only moderators and the original creator of threads can respond here. Is that because moderators fear other users might actually disagree with mods by mass so by restricting access to other users it gives mods the chance to "gang up" on users? It clearly looks like that - just look how many moderators have responded to me, one stating that the thread I contributed contained "drivel", another citing it contained "****e", another that clearly is a hypocrit. Did I leave anyone else out?

Why did you start the thread here, then, as opposed to Feedback?

If you want any one of us to, we can move it to feedback. That way, anyone who chooses to reply can do so.

Talliesin

hullaballoo wrote:

Why did you start the thread here, then, as opposed to Feedback?

Frankly I doubt he's honest here. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that he knows fine rightly that moderators can't post here either and is only complaining now that his bull**** didn't get lapped up by us s-mods.

There's no forum for yapping because you acted like in a negative way and didn't like the consequences. It's not a problem for the site that acting in a negative way has consequences, so it doesn't belong in feedback either.

"Locking of threads that have turned into flamewars" could be a legitimate discussion in feedback I suppose, but really it'll still just boil down to "over 30 years of internet experiences says lock them".