Over Modding - During a Virginia Tech Massacre Thread

Jesus Wept

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055082451



I made a post (#9) in response to a comment from a previous poster.

A moderator decided to get involved and followed up with a comment (#10)

A number of posts have since been deleted between post #10 and post #11 in which the moderator and I disagreed (through courteous debate/exchange. I believe mods can view these deleted posts, or is it just AH mods?).



The moderator's first post insinuated that I had an attitude problem. In my view, this was the first off-topic post of the thread. I countered with a lighthearted response thinking this would be the last post between us.
The moderator then responded saying my original post was off-topic, and was not helping the thread, and was derailing the thread.

He also added that my writing 'Edit: *thread dies, hopefully.' would annoy. I can see that this was not a great thing to post, I can acknowledge that, it was to
just to show my distaste for the comments of the person I had quoted, and my distaste generally if the thread were to continue along this line.



In reality, he didn't share my viewpoint, this is clear when during our exchange he made a comparison of 1 person dying in a car accident vs 273 people in an airplane disaster. (why debate my post after saying it was 'off-topic and derailing the thread'?).

He also added if I responded I would get a 24 hour ban.

Myself and the moderator then took it to PM, he 'cleaned up the thread'. However, in his doing so left my original post, the one he had said was off topic and derailing the thread and also my 'Edit: *thread dies, hopefully' comment.

In my view, when cleaning up the tread he saw that he could not/should not delete it. I imagine if he were asked now, he may say it was our exchange that was off-topic,
however our debate/exchange only occurred because the moderator incorrectly stated that my original post (#9) was off topic.

My comments and sentiments have since been echoed by subsequent posters, including a different mod (non AH).



In my view, this whole situation occurred because the moderator disagreed with my standpoint, made the first off-topic post of the thread, and then told me my original post was off-topic, then a debate regarding this ensued.
It would make sense to move it rather than mod it badly as occurred, he stepped in and created a problem where there was none, imo.

My best guess is if any modding were to be applied, perhaps the thread should of been moved somewhere more appropriate for sensitive debate than After Hours.



I would appreciate your feedback.

DeVore

You're post seemed a little hysterical and may have triggered a Mod's spidey senses due to recent IceQueenery.

Were you banned? Temp Banned? Had your post removed?


Sorry, what was your objection again? (in a single sentence if possible).

DeV.

copacetic

it looks like there may have been a bit of initial over modding, but then the mod left your post after the clean up. Sounds like it all ended well in the end?

scojones

The-Rigger wrote:

The moderator's first post insinuated that I had an attitude problem.

You have come to your own conclusion all by yourself.

The-Rigger wrote:

In my view, this was the first off-topic post of the thread.

The first off topic post was post number 3:

InFront wrote:

Coca Cola!

The-Rigger wrote:

I countered with a lighthearted response thinking this would be the last post between us.
The moderator then responded saying my original post was off-topic, and was not helping the thread, and was derailing the thread.

Incorrect, I responded with a light hearted post as well. It reads like so:

sjones wrote:

It's not me that's the problem, it's the world, the world damnit! Do you usually shout obscenities at people?

Still in the same post now... I then proceeded to explain why the thread had purpose:

sjones wrote:

I think this thread has a purpose, and that purpose is displaying how inaccurate the media reported the VTech shootings as the worst school shootings in the history of the states. Either that, or someone on Wikipedia is having a lol of a time.

After which I said:

sjones wrote:

It's posts like the one you made above that cause threads to descend into utter cack.

That's an observation I have made during my duration on boards and using After Hours. When someone wants a thread to die, they will start bickering in the hope of bringing it off on a tangent, ala "get a fúcking grip".

The-Rigger wrote:

He also added that my writing 'Edit: *thread dies, hopefully.' would annoy. I can see that this was not a great thing to post, I can acknowledge that, it was to
just to show my distaste for the comments of the person I had quoted, and my distaste generally if the thread were to continue along this line.

No. You did not like the thread because you did not agree with it, and the only reason you were posting in the thread was an attempt to kill it. This is what I had an issue with.

The-Rigger wrote:

In reality, he didn't share my viewpoint, this is clear when during our exchange he made a comparison of 1 person dying in a car accident vs 273 people in an airplane disaster. (why debate my post after saying it was 'off-topic and derailing the thread'?).

It wasn't that I didn't share your view point, it was that you did not share the viewpoint of the OP, or like the idea behind the thread. That comparison I made, was to demonstrate that there are levels of atrocity, and i my opinion 273 people dying in a plane crash is worse than someone dying in a single vehicle incident - because it involves alot more people and does effectively effect alot more people. I wasn't debating your post, I was demonstrating how events can be worse. You wanted the name changed from " Worse than the virginia tech..." to "highest bodycount". My example, the plane crash vs the car crash was to demonstrate how incidents can differ by degree of "worseness".

The-Rigger wrote:

He also added if I responded I would get a 24 hour ban.

I said that, after I warned you multiple times to respond via PM, as arguing with me in the thread was destroying the purpose of the thread. I linked you to the charter, which you read and then decided to start PMing me, which was my aim.

The-Rigger wrote:

Myself and the moderator then took it to PM, he 'cleaned up the thread'. However, in his doing so left my original post, the one he had said was off topic and derailing the thread and also my 'Edit: *thread dies, hopefully' comment.

That was not intentional. When I was dealing with you, I was at the end of a 12 hour night shift, and I simply forgot to click that post for deletion as well.

The-Rigger wrote:

In my view, when cleaning up the tread he saw that he could not/should not delete it. I imagine if he were asked now, he may say it was our exchange that was off-topic

Wrong, see above.

The-Rigger wrote:

however our debate/exchange only occurred because the moderator incorrectly stated that my original post (#9) was off topic.

That's also incorrect.

The-Rigger wrote:

In my view, this whole situation occurred because the moderator disagreed with my standpoint, made the first off-topic post of the thread, and then told me my original post was off-topic, then a debate regarding this ensued.
It would make sense to move it rather than mod it badly as occurred, he stepped in and created a problem where there was none, imo.

I've explained that is not the case at all, above.

The-Rigger wrote:

My best guess is if any modding were to be applied, perhaps the thread should of been moved somewhere more appropriate for sensitive debate than After Hours.

The OP did not want a "sensitive debate".

I hope I have cleared things up for you.

nesf

I fail to see your issue with all this tbh.

The issue I see is that while the rules are a tad looser on AH and people naturally have different "boundaries of taste" etc. So instead of the forum being tightly modded (in that what's allowed is within the vast majority's limits) we have a situation where some people get annoyed and get vocal about it but things haven't really strayed outside the rules, it's just down to the fact that people have different moral boundaries and so on.

Sonnenblumen

nesf wrote:

I fail to see your issue with all this tbh.

The issue I see is that while the rules are a tad looser on AH and people naturally have different "boundaries of taste" etc. So instead of the forum being tightly modded (in that what's allowed is within the vast majority's limits) we have a situation where some people get annoyed and get vocal about it but things haven't really strayed outside the rules, it's just down to the fact that people have different moral boundaries and so on.

So lets be clear then, which doctrine applies?

Jesus Wept

DeV wrote:

Sorry, what was your objection again? (in a single sentence if possible).

DeV.

I didn't appreciate the thread been dragged off topic by a moderator who disagreed with my viewpoint, when the post I made was on-topic. I didn't appreciate been told/everyone within the thread been told that I was the reason the thread had turned into caak. (sorry DeV, 2 sentances )

scojones wrote:

That was not intentional. When I was dealing with you, I was at the end of a 12 hour night shift, and I simply forgot to click that post for deletion as well.

I am *amazed* that you still believe that my original post would warrent been deleted ?!?!?!


Is this viewpoint shared by other mods/people?

Copacetic wrote:

it looks like there may have been a bit of initial over modding, but then the mod left your post after the clean up. Sounds like it all ended well in the end?

As you can see above, the mod states that his intent was to delete my original post, but he left it by accident.
In relation to how it has ended, it left me unsure and unwilling to add anything else to the thread for fear of reprimand, when something perfectly on-topic
could be called off-topic and lead to so much hassle.

scojones wrote:

You have come to your own conclusion all by yourself.

Unhelpful, this implies that I independently agree with your sentiments, instead of it just been a case of me been capable of reading between the lines. (as everyone else was capable of also).

Are you saying your original post in no way was referring to me? You are contradicting yourself.

scojones wrote:

The first off topic post was post number 3:

I did consider this, but post #3 was in reference to post #2. Though post #3 didn't add much.

scojones wrote:

Incorrect, I responded with a light hearted post as well. It reads like so:

It's not me that's the problem, it's the world, the world damnit! Do you usually shout obscenities at people?

And I countered that I had not shouted. Many people CONSIDER THE USE OF CAPS TO BE SHOUTING ONLINE. I did not do this in any of my posts.

scojones wrote:

That's an observation I have made during my duration on boards and using After Hours. When someone wants a thread to die, they will start bickering in the hope of bringing it off on a tangent, ala "get a fúcking grip".

You didn't object to the use of a swear word or tone of the post, I really don't know what the rules on this are regarding the use of swear words as I've seen other people, including mods use them. If you had removed the swear word, or stated I should not use them, it would of been less confusing than claiming it was off-topic.

scojones wrote:

No. You did not like the thread because you did not agree with it, and the only reason you were posting in the thread was an attempt to kill it. This is what I had an issue with.

I didn't dislike the thread, I disliked the sentiments of one of the posters, and I quoted him, this was not the OP. I have already stated that my 'thread dies hopefully' comment was not a great one, it was just to show my distaste for the comment I had quoted.

You did not like my post because you did not agree with it.

scojones wrote:

It wasn't that I didn't share your view point, it was that you did not share the viewpoint of the OP, or like the idea behind the thread.

I didn't quote or refer to the OP.

Secondly, are you saying that nobody is permitted to disagree with an OP? If this is the case, you are breaking your own rules by disagreeing with me in this thread. (yes This does sound silly, but this is akin to what you are saying, no, it doesn't make much sense, does it??).

scojones wrote:

That comparison I made, was to demonstrate that there are levels of atrocity, and i my opinion 273 people dying in a plane crash is worse than someone dying in a single vehicle incident - because it involves alot more people and does effectively effect a lot more people. I wasn't debating your post, I was demonstrating how events can be worse. You wanted the name changed from " Worse than the virginia tech..." to "highest bodycount". My example, the plane crash vs the car crash was to demonstrate how incidents can differ by degree of "worseness".

This is fine, I respect your right to express your opinion. It is not like for like compared to what I was expressing my distaste for, someone,saying Dunblane been 'worse than Virginia', two school shootings/massacres, and the reason been given was that the Dunblane victims were in there early teens instead of their late teens.

scojones wrote:

I said that, after I warned you multiple times to respond via PM, as arguing with me in the thread was destroying the purpose of the thread. I linked you to the charter, which you read and then decided to start PMing me, which was my aim.

I agree that between us the thread went way off-topic. This, however, was initiated by you.

scojones wrote:

The OP did not want a "sensitive debate".

Does the OP dictate future posts by future posters? I don't understand what you are saying. Do you know what the OP wanted? Did he want a heated debate? Did he want to compare death tally's? Did he
want a light hearted debate?

The bottom line is that my original post was on-topic and was in keeping with the general topic. it may of appeared a bit exuberant to some, but I found the attitude and sentiments of this post offense:

Lorax wrote:

Sure Dunblane was worse yet still, they were only primary school students.

If you had purely reprimanded me for using a swear word and/or the 'thread dies' comment, it would be a different debate for a different day.

You told me my post was off-topic.

Multiple posters have since agreed with my comments/sentiments, including a mod.

Also, a number of posters have since started adding Virginia-Tech massacre 'humour', these are on-topic but my original post was not?!


In my view, if you were to continue to mod in this fashion, the threads you mod will reflect more your own viewpoints than the people attempting to post in them.

I would be interested to see the views of other people, as you and I are clearly fairly familiar with each others standpoints.

scojones

I'm sorry The-Rigger, what is the issue again? You're not banned from After Hours, you're free to post on there... what?

I'm not going to disect your post piece by piece and reply showing your lack of understanding of my response to you, because quite frankly I do not feel I need to.

You've told Dev the reason behind this thread is that you don't appreciate a thread being dragged off thread by a moderator. I confronted you when you tried to destroy a thread on a forum I moderate, the thread was dragged off topic by our conversing, so I removed the off topic posts. End of story.

What's the problem again? You're not banned. We conversed over PM, and to be honest you could have continued to discuss this via PM with me, but you chose to tell me "lets agree to disagree", then I see a feedback thread about it. Those moderators/people you have been talking to cannot see the posts I have cleaned up, but DeVore and the other After Hours moderators can. I feel sorry for your friends who are backing you, because they are really being misinformed by you. They have to be, because why on earth would someone be backing you over... nothing? There's no problem here.

nesf

Sonnenblumen wrote:

So lets be clear then, which doctrine applies?

The doctrine in which the best interests of the forum are contained. If a "moderate" comment can spark a massive thread of very heated abuse being slung back and forth (traveller threads, immigration threads and republican threads spring to mind) then moderators will step in quicker. On the vast majority of other threads this will not happen.

As per usual, use your common sense and things will be fine. Contrary to popular belief moderators don't enjoy banning people and giving warnings out. I know this is vague but this really it needs to be. Otherwise we'd have people arguing technicalities constantly and we'd have a right mess in our hands.

Jesus Wept

scojones wrote:

I'm sorry The-Rigger, what is the issue again? You're not banned from After Hours, you're free to post on there... what?

I'm not going to disect your post piece by piece and reply showing your lack of understanding of my response to you, because quite frankly I do not feel I need to.

You've told Dev the reason behind this thread is that you don't appreciate a thread being dragged off thread by a moderator. I confronted you when you tried to destroy a thread on a forum I moderate, the thread was dragged off topic by our conversing, so I removed the off topic posts. End of story.

What's the problem again? You're not banned. We conversed over PM, and to be honest you could have continued to discuss this via PM with me, but you chose to tell me "lets agree to disagree", then I see a feedback thread about it. Those moderators/people you have been talking to cannot see the posts I have cleaned up, but DeVore and the other After Hours moderators can. I feel sorry for your friends who are backing you, because they are really being misinformed by you. They have to be, because why on earth would someone be backing you over... nothing? There's no problem here.

It is this type of attitude you are displaying that is a problem and unhelpful.

I have clearly stated above coherently what the problems are.

I am not getting backing from my friends. I do not know anyone here that has posted. I have not misinformed anyone.

I am surprised at your comments, being as you are a moderator.

I will not be dragged into a personal mud-slinging match with you.

scojones

You haven't answered my question. What is the problem?

Jesus Wept

scojones wrote:

You haven't answered my question. What is the problem?

It really appears like you are trying to derail this feedback thread.

Is this the purpose of feedback? If I wanted a back-n-forth with you I would of continued via PM, but it was unproductive.

We have both clearly in detail stated our points of view.
I would like feedback from other people, this is getting very frustrating. You are making this personal, not me. You have a number of insulting inaccurate personal comments.

I would be happy if this was the last word between either of us on this thread, and that other people were allowed to offer their views, however, I feel your constant badgering will lead to people losing interest in responding or offering a viewpoint.

Can we please allow feedback to serve it purpose?

scojones

You have had feedback from several other people already, and they all seem to want to know what the issue is. It's not very clear. If there is a problem with my modding, or with how After Hours is run I'd like to hear it. If you have an issue with me personally, it would be better if we talked over PM -- which we did until you decided to stop talking to me and create this thread instead.

I'm confused, and you still haven't answered my question. What is the probem? Are you going to go on this charade without addressing me?

InFront

The-Rigger wrote:

I did consider this, but post #3 was in reference to post #2. Though post #3 didn't add much.

Hmmm, post 3 was my coca cola answer, and it did have a point to it so I take issue with that.
The media will pick on the nearest excuse to hand when a massacre happens; be it religion, videogames, or possibly, in 1930, Coca Cola. There has to be a social scapegoat, because being just plain crazy is too boring. I think that's a valid point.

Attol

I feel you are being very disrespectful and are dismissing everything that has been said to you. You weren't banned so what's the problem? Posts get edited all the time. It is up to the moderator's discretion to edit posts in a way they deem fit if they believe it will cause problems for the forum. Understandably you'd obviously prefer your post to have stayed as you made it but that's not always the best move.

Mr Magnolia

The-Rigger wrote:

I didn't appreciate the thread been dragged off topic by a moderator who disagreed with my viewpoint, when the post I made was on-topic. I didn't appreciate been told/everyone within the thread been told that I was the reason the thread had turned into caak. (sorry DeV, 2 sentances )




I am *amazed* that you still believe that my original post would warrent been deleted ?!?!?!


Is this viewpoint shared by other mods/people?

I'm still not sure what the problem is..

The-Rigger wrote:

I agree that between us the thread went way off-topic. This, however, was initiated by you.

posts #9 & 10 were on-topic IMO, the subsequent debate between you and scojones* was deleted as it was off-topic and was done to keep the thread on-topic and remove any debate that should have been taken to PM. Don't know why post #9 would/should be deleted but that's up to AH mods

You made a comment about peoples attitude/viewpoint #9, scojones made a comment about peoples attitude/viewpoint #10, scojones cleaned up the debate

*I'm assuming it was just a debate that was deleted

therigger wrote:

I will not be dragged into a personal mud-slinging match with you.

therigger wrote:

I feel your constant badgering .....

Where do you see this? I don't see any mud-slinging or badgering, scojones is trying to find out where the problem is - I'm sure he doesn't want to be mis-represented.

/my 2 cents

WhiteWashMan

The-Rigger wrote:

I didn't appreciate the thread been dragged off topic by a moderator who disagreed with my viewpoint, when the post I made was on-topic. I didn't appreciate been told/everyone within the thread been told that I was the reason the thread had turned into caak. (sorry DeV, 2 sentances )

ok, so this is the problem as you see it?


you received some feedback from people who thought your point was crap?

what do you want to happen now?

Jesus Wept

Attol wrote:

I feel you are being very disrespectful and are dismissing everything that has been said to you.

I find this statement baffling and misleading to anyone who decides to take what you have stated at face value. I have not been disrespectful to anyone here. I believe all my comments are weighted, and I have not resorted to petty insults.

sparks400 wrote:

Where do you see this? I don't see any mud-slinging or badgering, scojones is trying to find out where the problem is - I'm sure he doesn't want to be mis-represented.

On mudslinging: I purely said this was something I did not want to get drawn into.

I do believe Scojones has been disrespectful, he questioned my ability to understand/comprehend, and he stated that I have rallied friends to come here and support me, This is completely untrue and a counter productive thing to say.

Attol wrote:

Posts get edited all the time. It is up to the moderator's discretion to edit posts in a way they deem fit if they believe it will cause problems for the forum. Understandably you'd obviously prefer your post to have stayed as you made it but that's not always the best move.

Actually, my post was not edited.

Attol wrote:

You weren't banned so what's the problem

Here is a quote from 'How this Forum Works' (Feedback Charter?)

DeVore wrote:

Its the place where you feedback to us what you like (or dislike) about the site.
Dont be afraid to criticise, if you are civil and backup your point with a reasonable argument you'll find us reasonable people.

Just because I wasn't banned, does not mean I haven't a right to post here, criticise, and get feedback.

I was not banned because when the mod made such a threat, along the lines of 'if you respond, you will get a ban', I did not respond. I complied by taking it to PM.

sparks400 wrote:

I'm still not sure what the problem is..

My issue is that the mod initiated the argument based on a false belief he held, that my post was off-topic.
This led us to have a disagreement about it (and here we are, still going).
It is the moderator who derailed the thread.



In essence, my issue is if he continues to mod in such a manner as in this instance, the threads he mods will reflect his own personal views and opinions as opposed to the views and opinions of those who post there. The only reason he says he didn't delete my original post, is that he forgot too.

Beruthiel

The-Rigger wrote:

A moderator decided to get involved and followed up with a comment (#10)

"decided to get involved"
As mod of that forum, he has every right to get involved. That comment was not directed towards you, but to everyone on the thread.
In your next comment you decided to take his comment personally and dragged the thread further off topic by commenting on his "perception problem"

I would appreciate your feedback

My feedback would be, get over yourself and stop bringing such pettiness to the feedback forum. You're not even banned for science sake, so, like everyone else on this thread, I'd also like to know what exactly your problem is?

Jesus Wept

WhiteWashMan wrote:

ok, so this is the problem as you see it?


you received some feedback from people who thought your point was crap?

what do you want to happen now?

I also have received feedback from people who agree with me in that my original post was on-topic.

I find your post really really unhelpful, not because you disagree with me, but just the manner in which it is delivered.

You are really adding nothing with that post and purely been confrontational.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me for the sake of it, but I also didn't expect posts as unhelpful as yours........

I don't really understand the point in a feedback section if this is the manner in which you respond. Even if you disagree with what I have said,
I have tried to deliver it all with thought, and an even keel.

Beruthiel

The-Rigger wrote:

I also have received feedback from people who agree with me in that original post was on-topic.

Which is why your first post is still there.
It was your, now deleted, subsequent off topic comments that the Mod deleted, seems to me your not getting that.
Still not getting what your problem actually is and what you want from this thread?

WhiteWashMan

The-Rigger wrote:

I also have received feedback from people who agree with me in that original post was on-topic..

so what?
do you want a medal for having the same opinion as some other people?
is this supposed to validate your opinions or your arguments?

The-Rigger wrote:

II find your post really really unhelpful, not because you disagree with me, but just the manner in which it is delivered.
.

dont be stupid now.
i asked you to verfy your issue, i asked you if you were actually talking about the fact that some other people thought your point was off topic, and i asked yo uwhatyou wanted to happen next.
its not rocket science.

and im not worried about the delivery of my post. if you can get over yourself for just a minute, we might actually get to the root of the problem and be able to help you out, but you appear to be too busy playing the martyr at the moment to notice.

i cmod the forum, and im asking you what your problem is so that i can fix it.

The-Rigger wrote:

You are really adding nothing with that post and purely been confrontational..

i asked you 3 simple questions, and you havent managed to answer one of them to me.
my post wasnt meant to 'add' anything. it was to get you to be specific about what your issue is.

The-Rigger wrote:

I don't expect anyone to agree with me for the sake of it, but I also didn't expect posts as unhelpful as yours........

you managfed to get all that our of three questions?

truely, you do manage to read some strange things into others posts. how about you just read what i wrote and answer?

and to be honest, i also didnt expect a post back as unhelpful as yours. 3 questions. try answering them instead of being a smartass.

The-Rigger wrote:

I don't really understand the point in a feedback section if this is the manner in which you respond. Even if you disagree with what I have said,
I have tried to deliver it all with thought, and an even keel.

\are you retarded?

you just said the same thing, in three different ways, in three seperate paragraphs.

why dont you just tell me what you want.

youve made your complaint somewhere. youve managed to just tell us that your issue is that youre afraid the moderator is going to make boards.ie into a replica of his opinions.

now, the only thing left to get some closure is to find out what it is you want to happen.

can you answer that without throwing yourself on your sword.

seriously, is that ****ing difficult to answer question these days?

WhiteWashMan

The-Rigger wrote:

:
I was not banned because when the mod made such a threat, along the lines of 'if you respond, you will get a ban', I did not respond. I complied by taking it to PM.

by the way, the forum is called feedback, not 'whinge like a bitch'.

if you have a point to make, make it. if you want something, then say what it is.
but get on with it. im bored already. and if we dont remedy this soon, i may ban you from AH so i dont have to read any more of this crap anyway.

Jesus Wept

Beruthiel wrote:

Which is why your first post is still there.
It was your, now deleted, subsequent off topic comments that the Mod deleted, seems to me your not getting that.
Still not getting what your problem actually is and what you want from this thread?

scojones wrote:

That was not intentional. When I was dealing with you, I was at the end of a 12 hour night shift, and I simply forgot to click that post for deletion as well.

It was his intention to delete my original post also, but he forgot, this is the essence of my arguement.

If he were to delete on topic posts in future, it will be very counter productive.

The-Rigger wrote:

In essence, my issue is if he continues to mod in such a manner as in this instance, the threads he mods will reflect his own personal views and opinions as opposed to the views and opinions of those who post there. The only reason he says he didn't delete my original post, is that he forgot too.

Beruthiel

The-Rigger wrote:

It was his intention to delete my original post also, but he forgot, this is the essence of my arguement.

Fair enough.
However, you still haven't told us what you want?
Me, I'd have probably binned that thread straight away or sent it to Humanities.
I wouldn't be a Mod of AH for all the tea in China, it must be a nightmare of a job and threads like this one only confirm my view on that.
Seriously, if you could just tell us what it is you want?!

Jesus Wept

Beruthiel wrote:

Fair enough.
However, you still haven't told us what you want?
Me, I'd have probably binned that thread straight away or sent it to Humanities.
I wouldn't be a Mod of AH for all the tea in China, it must be a nightmare of a job and threads like this one only confirm my view on that.
Seriously, if you could just tell us what it is you want?!

What I wanted was for this type of modding (this is the 1st of this type I have witnessed) to be prevented in future. Any mod deleting/intending to delete an on-topic post because they disagree with the viewpoint
is counter productive for boards.ie



It is up to whoever mods the mods to take action/speak to said moderator regarding such instances.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

so what?do you want a medal for having the same opinion as some other people?
is this supposed to validate your opinions or your arguments?




dont be stupid now.
i asked you to verfy your issue, i asked you if you were actually talking about the fact that some other people thought your point was off topic, and i asked yo uwhatyou wanted to happen next.
its not rocket science.

and im not worried about the delivery of my post. if you can get over yourself for just a minute, we might actually get to the root of the problem and be able to help you out, but you appear to be too busy playing the martyr at the moment to notice.

i cmod the forum, and im asking you what your problem is so that i can fix it.



i asked you 3 simple questions, and you havent managed to answer one of them to me.
my post wasnt meant to 'add' anything. it was to get you to be specific about what your issue is.



you managfed to get all that our of three questions?

truely, you do manage to read some strange things into others posts. how about you just read what i wrote and answer?

and to be honest, i also didnt expect a post back as unhelpful as yours. 3 questions. try answering them instead of being a smartass.



\are you retarded?

you just said the same thing, in three different ways, in three seperate paragraphs.

why dont you just tell me what you want.

youve made your complaint somewhere. youve managed to just tell us that your issue is that youre afraid the moderator is going to make boards.ie into a replica of his opinions.

now, the only thing left to get some closure is to find out what it is you want to happen.

can you answer that without throwing yourself on your sword.

seriously, is that ****ing difficult to answer question these days?

I'm opting out of this now.

I am absolutely 100% amazed and baffled that this type of abuse is coming at me from a moderator, and in a feedback forum

I can't even begin to quote all the insulting pointless remarks you have made, as it is just one big tirade.

The highlights are probably asking me am I retarded and calling me a whiney b!tch, but there is a lot to choose from.

I am sure you may continue with your 'playing the martyr' line but your posts have frankly been abusive, and I've no desire to read or respond to any questions you deliver in such manner.

So for the time being, I will leave this thread.

Mr Magnolia

The-Rigger wrote:

On mudslinging: I purely said this was something I did not want to get drawn into.

Yes, but by saying this you've insinuated that scojones has started mudslinging, this point is closed.

The-Rigger wrote:

I do believe Scojones has been disrespectful, he questioned my ability to understand/comprehend, and he stated that I have rallied friends to come here and support me, This is completely untrue and a counter productive thing to say.

That's your opinion, which is fine, I don't agree that it's disrespectful you earn respect, is this one of your points?

The-Rigger wrote:

This led us to have a disagreement about it (and here we are, still going).

Grand, should be done via PM

The-Rigger wrote:

It is the moderator who derailed the thread.

Where?

The-Rigger wrote:

In essence, my issue is if he continues to mod in such a manner as in this instance, the threads he mods will reflect his own personal views and opinions as opposed to the views and opinions of those who post there. The only reason he says he didn't delete my original post, is that he forgot too.

I don't agree, is the essence of the argument that both you and scojones commented on peoples attitude, had a debate about off-topicness that should have been done by PM and was deleted from the thread by scojones - all fine

You need to be clear as to what your points are and what you want to achieve.

Sparky

scojones

Ah, I needed a chuckle this morning. Thanks for this The-Rigger.

I'll make sure that I don't delete or edit anyone's posts in the future. I mean, who am I to decide if something is counter productive to a thread on a forum I moderate? You have my deepest apologies. *











Not.

Anti

6th