Why are all the mods so ridiculously corrupt?

Giblet

Well that depends on exactly what sh*t Mr Hungus is sick of, and of course, what "that" actually is. It's all subjective. Unbeknownst to most average users, is that a lot of the time, users are known by most mods and have discussions about them on the mod board, so we can keep an eye on them. We know more about most users than the rest of you as well as their track records. I agree that sometimes a mod may over step their mark, but a lot of the time, what goes on in the background decides the fate of a user. And of course people are expected to learn their lesson! If they didn't, they'd keep posting the same crap!

Fysh

Peter Collins wrote:

O2 might disagree

I'm hard pressed to see why, perceived oppression at the hands of a privately-owned discussion forum is no more illegal than are editorial columns in newspapers.

And FYI, threatening to scare off advertisers (and thus cost the site money) works a lot better when you're talking about someone charismatic and easy to present to the public as a wronged individual. The Feedback forum alone is full of more than enough abusive posts that will alienate the general public if this were somehow to become a nationally discussed issue, at which point your strategy falls over because if nobody cares, there's no pressure on the advertiser to withdraw funding or, in fact, give a rat's ass.

Irish Wolf

CuLT wrote:

I hope all the non-moderators here appreciate their enviable position of being able to use the "ignore" feature. That's one freedom you give up when you're a moderator.

I really think the people who have nothing to say beyond posting cats should really find another thread to spin.

I was looking for that earlier today for a totally unrelated poster - or has it has turned out to be posters..

Giblet

Peter Collins wrote:

Not entirely true. A thread like "Missing Madeline - aren't you sick of this", as was recently available, might not go down to well with them.

Genuine concern? Or a veiled threat. You can be forthcoming with me.

ecksor

Peter Collins wrote:

Those who blast in with their "one more like that and you're banned" or Karl Mungus's "I'm sick of your sh*t" posts are hardly what a very popular mainstream website like boards needs...you surely agree with that?

I'll have a look at our recruitment procedures and see if we can't get some new members who'll smarten the place up a bit.

BTW, you made a mistake spelling Karl's username.

Peter Collins

Terry wrote:

Oh just STFU please.

How insightful and non-inflammatory

I can see why you're a mod and what a fine job you're doing too

Giblet

Peter Collins wrote:

How insightful and non-inflammatory

I can see why you're a mod and what a fine job you're doing too

Oh, so you've been tracking his moderating decisions on the boards he mods?

Remember, he isn't a mod here.

Peter Collins

Giblet wrote:

Genuine concern? Or a veiled threat. You can be forthcoming with me.

Like I said, I love this website - up to you to clean it up

Giblet

Peter Collins wrote:

Like I said, I love this website - up to you to clean it up

I'd rather you didn't make a mess in the first place.

ecksor

Why is it up to him?

robnubis

CuLT wrote:

I really think the people who have nothing to say beyond posting cats should really find another thread to spin.

You need to relax, and start playing on IOA again!

(ps. cats rawk)

Irish Wolf

Peter Collins wrote:

How insightful and non-inflammatory

I can see why you're a mod and what a fine job you're doing too

Oh please! please, please, please, just button it!

And you'll notice that I am not a mod, and I'm doing a fine job sticking to the charters and reading the stickies - if, and when I get banned from some forum or other, I will accept that ban and not bitch and moan or wheel-in behind everyone that may have a gripe..

:rolleyes:

CuLT

robnubis wrote:

You need to relax, and start playing on IOA again!

(ps. cats rawk)

I think I'm probably one of the few perfectly relaxed people posting here.


Well; not counting the relaxed-of-thought.

Terry

Peter Collins wrote:

How insightful and non-inflammatory

I can see why you're a mod and what a fine job you're doing too

Yes, and your threats are really mature.

You started it. :P

Peter Collins

Giblet wrote:

I'd rather you didn't make a mess in the first place.

True

Giblet, you seem to be one of the good guys....have a word with the others who are bringing shame and embarrassment onto the good name of a moderator.

Maybe give the role to people with a bit of common sense and less pictures of cats. Who knows, there might some more advertising revenue in it. One day you may be able do moderate full-time .

I'm off to bed.

It's been fun as always.

oscarBravo

Rozie wrote:

I didn't really mean that all mods are corrupt, I'm sorry.

Apology accepted.

Rozie wrote:

But a heck of a lot are, and if the rest aren't, why haven't they done something?

As moderator of Archery, News & Media, Open Source and Politics - what would you have me do to address your grievances?

ecksor

I endorse Giblet's clean up boards campaign. Let me know if you need anything.

Giblet

Remind me to post 100 yards away from ecksor

drop table boards.ie

Karl Hungus

Peter Collins wrote:

Yep, similar experience - guy's a joke

Peter Collins wrote:

Those who blast in with their "one more like that and you're banned" or Karl Mungus's "I'm sick of your sh*t" posts are hardly what a very popular mainstream website like boards needs...you surely agree with that?

Hey Peter, what's happenin'? Just popped in to let you know that I've checked my access lists, and you're not banned from any forum I moderate, nor, according to my muppet file, have I had an altercation with you.

What's it like to be a liar, with pants constantly on fire?

I may not have been before, but I am now, officially, sick of your sh*t.

I am glad you like the site though, I absolutely love it myself too, and I will continue to, as you put it, butt in with my tuppenceworth on any god damn thread I feel like, because I have the same privilege as any other user here to offer my opinion, and if you don't like that, then there's nobody forcing you to view this site.

Rozie

Rozie, you are one of the most abusive, self centered people I've ever seen posting on these boards. This has nothing to do with what gender you identify with, rather, it's the over the top way you go about systematically abusing anyone who disagrees with you.

You're talking ****. You can never offer anything to count any of my arguments, nor do you have anything valid against me personally. If you had a case you wouldn't need to sink to "YOU ARE BAD TO EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU."

I am "bad" to people like you, because you do not act or think in a manner that deserves respect.

I'm just sick of this ****. Don't like someone kicking up a fuss, call them selfish and intolerant, don't have to lift a finger to prove it of course. You're lazy in your arguments, as shown earlier by considering "zzzz" to be an appropriate response to a well thought out message. And of course you'd beg to differ with "well thought out" - still providing nothing to back your claim.

Typical fight the power peon. Typical fight the power peon. Typical fight the power peon. Typical fight the power peon. Typical fight the power peon. Typical fight the power peon. Typical fight the power peon. Typical fight the power peon. Typical fight the power peon. Typical fight the power peon. Typical fight the power peon.

Typical fight the peon power.

Stop saying Typical, since you're the most typical of all.

Regarding the politically motivated bands comment : boards.ie is privately owned. Shout all you like, swear all you like, you do not have any rights on this site that the admins don't give you.

What's sad is that I can practically hear your penis becoming more erect as you say that.

Whether or not you can do things within a specific legality does not make them fair or appropriate to do. If you don't understand this(and I don't think you do even though you'll claim otherwise), you shouldn't be a moderator.

And, well, until you're somehow paying for the site's running costs this will remain the case.

That does not make your decisions correct. Someone else paying for the site's running costs could have made much better decisions. That is the standard you are to be held to.

And citing politically-motivated bands who signed to major multinational corporations, and later disbanded after their global status "undermined their own political agendas", as examples of why swearing and shouting until you get your own way are valid approaches to working for change won't get you very far.

None of that counters or disproves anything I said. They STILL were angry, and they STILL had influence. Not to mention you've lost a lot of credence for the "If they hate capitalism why did they sign record deals" BS.

"When you live in a capitalistic society, the currency of the dissemination of information goes through capitalistic channels. Would Noam Chomsky object to his works being sold at Barnes & Noble? No, because that's where people buy their books. We're not interested in preaching to just the converted. It's great to play abandoned squats run by anarchists, but it's also great to be able to reach people with a revolutionary message, people from Granada Hills to Stuttgart. ~ Tom Morrelo"

And he's right, too. How else do they spread a message? Set up everything themselves? That's risky business, and in all likely hood, being "alternative" enough as it is, they wouldn't have reached near so many people.

It comes from the same delusional school of thought as "If you don't like it, make your own board."

Not only that - it's Ad Hominem. My purpose is not to demonstrate how they are fully sound and uncorrupt, it is to demonstrate that you can indeed catch "flies" with "vinegar" - which they did. Regardless of what happened outside of it, they attracted an awful lot of fans by being very angry with people in general - the same with punk.

You're just defending an overly simplistic conservative world view. Give it up.

Probably not, but at the moment you're the only person claiming that the absence of a letter from a forum title is discrimination.

Almost every single other LGBT forum includes it. How do you not see a problem here?

Well, I'd suggest starting by accepting that you might not be able to specifically nag boards into changing this particular policy.

Doesn't matter. Only proves me right that they're idiots if they can't see that it's right to do out of their own merits.

Since it's a privately-owned website,

**** off. I can privately set up God Hates Fags, it doesn't morally or logically justify what I'm doing.

But boards.ie does not owe you anything,

I'm sorry, but as human beings, you owe others a basic respect and understanding of subject matter you claim to cater for. As human beings, if you want to be considered decent, there are certain things you should do, even if the ignorant masses seem to not care either way.

People like you have no care or interest for this, only legalities and technicalities. You don't care about the idea of doing things because they're right - only doing things within supposed "rights".

on topic- Rozie you need to realise some people are sticking in the jibes because they know you will react and go all crazy.. trick is not to go crazy

Trick is for the mods not to be amazingly selective in what they moderate, and deal with the actual trolls and not the people they disagree with.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but are you not from the same country as me?
Does your wish to be recognised as a woman make you more culturally advanced than others?

Get over yourself.
Those in charge have said no. They are not going to change their minds because you are proactively (ha!) insulting pretty much everyone here.

God you really do sound like a backwater piece of ****.

Another bad tactic is to try and make someone who's trying to change someone seem self important. "WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THIS?"

It's still Ad Hominem, it still doesn't change what I have to say. I can say it from blatant observation of logical hiccups, and the way in which people gang up whereas people I am familiar with from other communities would not in the same manner. If groups differ, it's down to group mentality, meaning either one or the other or both are being "sheep" in some regard.

I don't quite expect you to understand this.

But it does allow them to ban whoever they want, without a reason.

Nobody should allow anyone such illogical decisions for any reason - they should be socially unacceptable on a huge scale.

For the same reason Prodigy is marked as metal. There's no section for them, so they throw them with the group that the band won't mind being thrown into, and the group is so diverse they can't deny them entry.

See, this is what bothers me. Do you really think the Irish are right and everyone else is wrong? Do you really think you have it figured out where others do not?

We are hardly the pinnacle of progression. While I'm not one for going by majorities, obviously, it would be counte productive not to try and observe the motives for these defenses versus the ones from elsewhere.

Honestly, Giblet's overall behaviour in this thread has been quite unacceptable. Why has nobody pointed this out? Peter Collins, why are you saying he's one of the good ones? I appreciate someone else more or less on my side for once, but you should take a read back to his posts, or even the ones that I've quoted in this post.

Hey Peter, what's happenin'? Just popped in to let you know that I've checked my access lists, and you're not banned from any forum I moderate, nor, according to my muppet file, have I had an altercation with you.

What's it like to be a liar, with pants constantly on fire?

I may not have been before, but I am now, officially, sick of your sh*t.

Actually - he never once said you banned him, knob-head, he said he was sick of you from reading your posts, presumably dealing with others.

Irish Wolf

Rozie, you are one of the most abusive, self centered people I've ever seen posting on these boards.

Rozie wrote:

You're talking ****.

I really didn't get past this..

Karl Hungus

Does anyone else get the irony of Rozie's ad hominem use of the term ad hominem? I think it's fantastic.

Time Magazine

Peter Collins wrote:

Yep, similar experience - guy's a joke

You're calling a moderator a joke? Go fuck yourself, last week you sent a PM to me with an implicit threat of physical violence. You're in no position to complain about anyone's behaviour on this site.

The Gnome

Karl Hungus wrote:

Does anyone else get the irony of Rozie's ad hominem use of the term ad hominem? I think it's fantastic.

GET OUT OF MY HEAD KARL! Franky it's been bugging me since its inception, as is this whole ST:TNG "Cause and Effect" (Episode 118) style fiasco.










333

Karl Hungus

Ibid wrote:

last week you sent a PM to me with an implicit threat of physical violence.

I'd forward that PM to an admin ASAP.

Fysh

Rozie wrote:

What's sad is that I can practically hear your penis becoming more erect as you say that.

Whether or not you can do things within a specific legality does not make them fair or appropriate to do. If you don't understand this(and I don't think you do even though you'll claim otherwise), you shouldn't be a moderator.

Well done, Rozie. Thus far I'd thought "Hey, maybe this won't descend to a childish personal level". But alas, I'm proven wrong. You're in no position to talk about who should be a moderator since you seem barely able to read an opinion that disagrees with you without resorting to insults, vitriol, bile, and in fact all those things you keep complaining about when they're directed towards you.

Rozie wrote:

That does not make your decisions correct. Someone else paying for the site's running costs could have made much better decisions. That is the standard you are to be held to.

Better decisions in your opinion. Which, since it offers no great benefit to the site, may well be ignored because you don't seem to understand that asking for something isn't always enough reason for you to get it.

Rozie wrote:

None of that counters or disproves anything I said. They STILL were angry, and they STILL had influence. Not to mention you've lost a lot of credence for the "If they hate capitalism why did they sign record deals" BS.

And what makes you think I care if I have "credibility" with someone who behaves like an angsty, trying-to-be-rebellious teenager? Seriously, if RATM are the best example you can think of activists who pushed through changes through their music you're not doing well. This is not a band that signed any old record contract like any number of punk bands who signed to Epitaph back in the day - this is a band who signed to Sony, one of the big bad companies they claimed to not like. Hell, they were accepting and wearing complimentary merch from the likes of Converse (after Converse were bought out by Nike on the sly) and yet didnt see how this might suggest that their stated political aims were little more than window-dressing.

And, perhaps most importantly, I don't think Zach De La Rocha has ever been involved in a succesful petition to change a boards.ie policy.

Rozie wrote:

It comes from the same delusional school of thought as "If you don't like it, make your own board."

This isn't delusional, though. It's a practical solution to your situation; you don't like how boards is run, but the majority opinion is against you. This being a private forum, you have no right to representation, so ultimately you have to cope with the fact that you may not get what you want. In the context of greater issues to be addressed for the Transgender community, I'm surprised that the presence of a letter in a forum name can be so important. But as I've said before, i'm not directly involved.

Rozie wrote:

Almost every single other LGBT forum includes it. How do you not see a problem here?

Awesome. You'll be getting in line when everyone else decides to jump off a bridge then, will you?

If there are strong arguments for the change you want to be made on its own merits, present them. If, as seems to be the case, you've made them and nobody's been convinced, accept it. Why is it in the interest of boards.ie to try and be more like every other forum in this or any other regard? Why would boards want to change something just to make sure it wasn't different from any other forum? And please, answers explained in greater depth than "BECAUSE IT'S WRONG/DISCRIMINATION". The lack of a letter in an acronym is not discrimination.

Rozie wrote:

Doesn't matter. Only proves me right that they're idiots if they can't see that it's right to do out of their own merits.[/qoute]

No, it proves they disagree with you. You'll get nowhere with the attitude that there's your opinion and wrong opinions, at least when you're trying to get something for free.

Rozie wrote:

I'm sorry, but as human beings, you owe others a basic respect and understanding of subject matter you claim to cater for. As human beings, if you want to be considered decent, there are certain things you should do, even if the ignorant masses seem to not care either way.

No. No no no. You can make all the social contact arguments you like. Boards is, fundamentally, a privately run business which provides a set of discussion fora for interested users, funded through a combination of advertising revenue and subscriptions. You are not owed anything, any more than you are owed the friendship of random people you meet in the pub. You can disagree with me here if you want, but it's only going to lead to more upsets.

Rozie wrote:

People like you have no care or interest for this, only legalities and technicalities. You don't care about the idea of doing things because they're right - only doing things within supposed "rights".

And how much do you know about me, exactly, Rozie? Not a great deal, I'd suspect, since you've interacted with me all of about 5 times on boards. I'm not expressing support for any particular stance here, I'm trying to explain as nicely as possible that, within the framework of a private business venture in a capitalist society and economy, only those rules enacted as laws should be considered relevant when you try to discuss what you're entitled to and what the owners of the site should do, on the basis that those laws are the only leverage (other than public opinion) which you can wield against the site owners in the event of a disagreement.

Winters

Rozie, respect is earned. Its generally, PARTICULARLY on the internet, not automatically given. You have not done anything to get respect from anyone so I wouldnt quite expect it.

You are however becoming a joke and keeping many of us entertained with your fruitless reign of ****e

Spyral

*grabs popcorn*

Respect is earned on the internet most definatly.

I'm not even going to go back to page 6 to read what happened her but what I will say is this:

the internet is not the place to argue, it always ends in tears, can you not do it via pm or something ?

Karl Hungus

The Gnome wrote:

GET OUT OF MY HEAD KARL! Franky it's been bugging me since its inception, as is this whole ST:TNG "Cause and Effect" (Episode 118) style fiasco.

Oh, thank god I'm not the only one who noticed it.

Winters wrote:

Rozie, respect is earned. Its generally, PARTICULARLY on the internet, not automatically given. You have not done anything to get respect from anyone so I wouldnt quite expect it.

You are however becoming a joke and keeping many of us entertained with your fruitless reign of ****e

I agree completely. Also:

Giblet

Rozie wrote:

You're talking ****. You can never offer anything to count any of my arguments, nor do you have anything valid against me personally. If you had a case you wouldn't need to sink to "YOU ARE BAD TO EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU."

It's pretty valid if you are abusive to people who simply disagree with you. It isn't an argument, it's you being abusive and no-one should have to put up with it whatever reasons you have for dishing it out. You go on and on about how if you shout the loudest, people will hear you, we don't want people like that here, it's tedious. I seem to remember you thinking yourself a great arguer. You don't have an argument. "You're talking ****" yeah good one, you've shown your skills yet again.

Typical fight the peon power.

Stop saying Typical, since you're the most typical of all.

Yes we're all the same except you, you shining star. I've heard you utter this crap so many times.

Actually - he never once said you banned him, knob-head, he said he was sick of you from reading your posts, presumably dealing with others.

Great argument skills again. Resorting to what you know best, abuse. Oh wait, it's "arguing". Grow up, you are so far removed from the real world it's quite unbelievable. I'm surprised you've last this long, but I feel we won't have to put up with you anymore. Not surprising seeing as you get removed from college societies and a multitude of other forums, but everyone else is wrong, you are the solitary voice of reason. Keep telling yourself that. Peace out.

Find out what Ad Hominem means, the very fact you abuse the poster rather than argue the points should tell you something about your mis-use.