Clare Gunner banned

DeVore

If CG can confirm that he is not coming to Boards with the intention of suing us, finding something to sue us over nor creating something we could be sued over then I would be content enough to unban him and leave a month ban on AH in place.

DeV.

Trojan911

You stated in an earlier post started by JohnGalway in the Help Desk section that "We don't require that moderators be sober while on boards. They're volunteers, not employees". I'm surprised at this, I would have thought standards would have been higher.

In my opinion & experience, persons under the influence of alcohol are not capable of making a fair and reasonable judgement & in the case of Moderating a Forum even more reason to remain in a state of sobriety.

You also stated "Terry could have been paralytic, but that's no reason to prevent him posting on boards". There is every reason, especially if he is Moderator mode. One drunken slip and a law suit entails is every reason to remain sober whilst "Volunteering".

Maybe, this rule should be included in the rules for Moderators so we know in the future all Moderators, chosen by Boards.ie, who are on duty and sober and can fulfil their role in a reasonable & fair way.

TJ911...

seamus

Trojan911 wrote:

I'm surprised at this, I would have thought standards would have been higher.

Standards for what? My view on it will always be that moderators are normal posters first and foremost, and then moderators/caretakers second. Even on their own forums. If everyone else is perfectly entitled to post while drunk, then why not moderators too?

In my opinion & experience, persons under the influence of alcohol are not capable of making a fair and reasonable judgement & in the case of Moderating a Forum even more reason to remain in a state of sobriety.

It's not heart surgery. It's moderating an internet forum.

There is every reason, especially if he is Moderator mode. One drunken slip and a law suit entails is every reason to remain sober whilst "Volunteering".

I would half agree, except that Terry wasn't in "moderator mode". He was in moderator mode (and sober) when he returned and apologised. He posted on-topic in a thread. His sobriety is pretty irrelevant. If he had taken some sort of action and gone on a banning spree, this would be a very different discussion. But even at that, if someone does go and apply a ban while drunk, again it's not heart surgery. It can be undone, no harm done.

Maybe, this rule should be included in the rules for Moderators so we know in the future all Moderators, chosen by Boards.ie, who are on duty and sober and can fulfil their role in a reasonable & fair way.

There's no real definition of "on duty" or "off duty" though. If the moderator is online, and sees something that he can & should take action against, then it's asked that he takes that action. If he couldn't be arsed, then it's asked that he hands the reigns to someone else. You can't ask then that they avoid boards.ie if they've drink on board.

Dr Strange

DeVore wrote:

If CG can confirm that he is not coming to Boards with the intention of suing us, finding something to sue us over nor creating something we could be sued over then I would be content enough to unban him and leave a month ban on AH in place.

DeV.

I sent CG an Email with your reply, DeVore. Hopefully, he will be in contact soon.

Giblet

Hey, if I couldn't post on boards pissed, there wouldn't be many times I COULD post on boards.

6th

Giblet wrote:

Hey, if I couldn't post on boards pissed, there wouldn't be many times I COULD post on boards.

Amen!

Trojan911

First off, thank you for the prompt reply.

seamus wrote:

Standards for what? My view on it will always be that moderators are normal posters first and foremost, and then moderators/caretakers second.

Exactly my point, caretakers & caretakers hold a point of responsibility how can they do this under the influence of alcohol?

seamus wrote:

Even on their own forums. If everyone else is perfectly entitled to post while drunk, then why not moderators too?

Again, the responsibility aspect comes into it. You cannot have a Moderator drunk and be expected to act in a responsible & fair manner. Everyone else does not have the “Caretaker” role.

seamus wrote:

It's not heart surgery.

Thank god for that. I don't fancy a sozzled Dr operating on me same as I don't fancy a sozzled Mod dishing out uncalled for remarks .....

seamus wrote:

I would half agree, except that Terry wasn't in "moderator mode".

How do we know that? He was in conversation in a thread with Moderator underlined.

As you state above it's not heart surgery it's moderating an internet forum, you make it sound relaxed and trivial so I was just curious as to why nearly every one jumped up with their "Ooohs & Ahhh's and their "he's overstept the mark" when a poster made a comment which may have been deemed a threat of legal action by some when provoked by a Moderator, irrespective of whether he was in Mod Mode or not but still held the title of Moderator & who also admitted he was drunk at the time.. A comment I would have taken offence to had it been directed at me, the difference being, I would have reported the comment through the correct channel. It, in my opinion, put a slur on the posters character of an unstable mind. I apportion blame on both sides however, more on the Moderator. Thanks again for your response. These are just my curious thoughts.

TJ911...

Manic Moran

Terry wrote:

You have all read the entire thread, right?
Not just my posts.

That's all I will say on the matter for the time being.

OK. I'll give you the bait to say more, then.

After reviewing the thread in its entirity again, I note that whilst the majority of posters who contributed anything of substance (i.e. more than a one-liner) were content to argue principle and logic, two people devolved away from that and started to get into personal territory. CG was one. The other was yourself. Granted, we're talking AH here, not the L&H intervarsity debate, but still some level of maturity should, IMO, be retained. Thus, while the thread should be taken in its entirity, particular attention should be paid to both your posts and CG's.

Now, taking this to Seamus's comment:

The heated exchange between Terry and CG is completely unrelated to CG's siteban

I don't believe it was all that unrelated. See below.

CG got banned for threatening legal action.

That was no more a threat of legal action than my mother saying "I'll kill him" when she found out I had accidently run over her rose-bed with the lawnmower was a death threat. It was pretty obviously an emotional response on a hot-button issue. People may not necessarily agree with the principle, but for some of us, self defense is as fundamental a principle as the right to vote. Indeed, it pre-dates it. Terry had one actual argument of note, that of statistically being highly unlikely to ever be in a position requiring a firearm and barring a repeating of that position as if it were totally self-evident, instead commenced discrediting the arguer, not the argument. You may as well say "You should have no right to vote for the Communist Party because their policies are idiotic and anyone who supports them is an idiot" and expect not to get a heated response.

Yes, CG is guilty of losing his cool and I'm disappointed with him. Not the sort of image most firearms owners like other firearms owners to portray. Yes, he crossed over a line. But much as a frustrated passenger at an airport security line saying "What am I going to do, hijack an airplane with this nail file?" is going to get him brought aside for a little extra attention, it doesn't mean he's going to be barred from getting on an airplane.

Now, please note: I am not advocating that any actions should be taken against Terry: Again, this is After Hours, here, and as others note, the offenses by the two are slightly different. I just think that the ClareGunner issue should be taken in this context. He's had a slap on the wrist. Persuming he has been officially notified as to the reason of his ban, I hope he has learned his lesson about making passing jokes about legal action, just as one shouldn't make passing jokes about bombs on an airplane. With that, I, too, respectfully submit that his ban be lifted.

NTM

Fysh

Trojan911 wrote:

Exactly my point, caretakers & caretakers hold a point of responsibility how can they do this under the influence of alcohol?

It's kind of hard to really explain this to someone who hasn't either seen it in action or done it themselves (and I don't mean that dismissively, incidentally) but being a mod is mostly about cleaning up the mess in your given forum. It's dependent on the forum, but for a lot of fora it's more often cleaning up spam or moving threads to a more suitable location than it is keeping things on track. So the comparison is more like a caretaker picking up a broom drunk. Not a great idea, but hardly likely to lead to a civil war.

Plus, and this probably can't be reiterated enough, we're talking about volunteers putting in their free time on a privately owned website wherein you do not have freedom of speech. A mod, drunk or otherwise, did something out of order? Bring it up with the mod or, if necessary, in Feedback.

Trojan911 wrote:

Again, the responsibility aspect comes into it. You cannot have a Moderator drunk and be expected to act in a responsible & fair manner. Everyone else does not have the “Caretaker” role.

Well, I'd argue it more as "you can't guarantee a mod will be responsible & fair if they're drunk", but then again, you have no rights on boards.ie other than those given to you by the admins. Which are subject to the whims and caprices of the admins. I don't mean to belittle your argument here, but it would carry more weight if boards.ie and its administrator owed you anything. They don't.

Trojan911 wrote:

Thank god for that. I don't fancy a sozzled Dr operating on me same as I don't fancy a sozzled Mod dishing out uncalled for remarks .....

Nobody's making you post here though. And, if drunken posting is allowed for users, it should be allowed for moderators. Drunken moderation will probably end up being questioned, but you seem to be suggesting the exact opposite of the principle of boards - that moderators can still contribute as users. Speaking as a mod (but only for myself, I should add), I'd say get lost. Me cleaning up the mess that accrues in a given corner of boards should not remove my right, should I choose to exercise it, of posting in the same exact way as any other poster on boards. So long as due care is taken to point out when something is being said as moderator, I don't see any benefit of asking mods to be measured up to higher standards.

Trojan911 wrote:

How do we know that? He was in conversation in a thread with Moderator underlined.

This is a fair point and something that has been hotly discussed in other threads. I don't know if a solution is available in vbulletin but it would be nice if the option existed to add or remove the moderator tag to given posts, to differentiate between posts as a user and posts as a moderator.

Trojan911 wrote:

As you state above it's not heart surgery it's moderating an internet forum, I was just curious as to why nearly every one jumped up with their "Ooohs & Ahhh's and their "he's overstept the mark" when a poster made a comment which may have been deemed a threat of legal action by some when provoked by a Moderator, irrespective of whether he was in Mod Mode or not but still held the title of Moderator & who also admitted he was drunk at the time.. Thanks again for your response. These are just my curious thoughts.
TJ911...

I don't think anyone gives a rat's ass if it's provoked or not, a threat of legal action was made when it's a known rule on boards.ie that threatening legal action = ban. The provocation was ill-advised but frankly, that's not the point. It may be resolved by Clare Gunner talking to admins about this, but the admins are wary of legal issues coming up, so bringing up the existing lawsuit and then threatening to add to it was at best poorly-thought-through and at worst downright stupid. If Terry being a mod contributed to Clare Gunner's thinking behind threatening legal action then it was an even dumber move (in that Terry would just have more incentive to enforce or request the enforcement of the "legal threat = ban" rule, as someone who contributes significantly to boards.ie and thus has some form of personal stake in its continued existence), and if it didn't then Terry being a mod is irrelevant.

You'll note that at no point have I said Terry was right to post the way he did in that thread, but while his phrasing was off I don't think he was wrong to suggest that Clare Gunner's stated position of requiring a gun in order to protect himself was not one that the average man could directly relate to and identify with. And, as stated in my previous posts on this, whatever else happened in thread, Clare Gunner broke an important rule and got smacked for it.

Terry

Manic Moran wrote:

With that, I, too, respectfully submit that his ban be lifted.

It has been lifted. It's up to him now. See above for details.

Trojan911, I have no idea what you are trying to achieve here.
All moderating on this board is done on a completely voluntary basis.
If we were paid, then you would probably have an arguement regarding drinking.
That particular night, I wasn't doing any moderating. I was just being a normal user.
Had something of interest arisen (spam and the like), then I would have dealt with it if none of the other mods were available, but nothing did.

Have a look at post #127. Clare gunner suggests I need thorazine, which is an anti-psychotic. He may have been right, but that's not the point here.
The point is that I didn't respond by freaking out and threatening legal action. I just laughed it off.
It's an internet forum. People are going to take the piss.

I went a bit overboard when I was drunk. I apologised. Clare gunner chose not to accept my apology. That's fair enough. I shouldn't be excused just because I apologised. He, in my opinion, just took things a little too seriously.

seamus

Trojan911 wrote:

Exactly my point, caretakers & caretakers hold a point of responsibility how can they do this under the influence of alcohol?

Quite easily imo. It requires little or no fine motor control, and most people can manage reasonable decisions when slightly sozzled.

I'd certainly trust most people to mod with some control even after four or five bottles of beer. People do differ though obviously, so I wouldn't stake my life on such a blanket statement.

Thank god for that. I don't fancy a sozzled Dr operating on me same as I don't fancy a sozzled Mod dishing out uncalled for remarks .....

This is the same issue though as "how involved can a moderator get in a thread?". Sobriety is irrelevant - should a moderator always have to wear their moderator hat when participating in a thread?

when a poster made a comment which may have been deemed a threat of legal action by some when provoked by a Moderator, irrespective of whether he was in Mod Mode or not but still held the title of Moderator & who also admitted he was drunk at the time.

People do seem to have missed though that CG made his "threat" after Terry admitted that his comment was out of order. CG reacted to something that was said by Terry while sober.
So in that respect, while perhaps the initial comment was contributory, I don't feel the fact that Terry had been drinking has any bearing on the resulting drama.

Truth be told, I would consider CG's assertion that Terry has a drinking problem to be far more offensive than what Terry said.

Trojan911

Thank you to for clarifing those points. fysh & seamus. I have been educated & I hear your points of view & I acknowlege both were in the wrong, however, I still stand by my opinion that had those comments had not been made by the Mod the following comments would not have been made by the said poster thus the reason for sobriety when shown as a Moderator. Thanks again...


TJ911...

Manic Moran

Fysh wrote:

but for a lot of fora

Entirely off-topic, but I just would like to say 'thank you' for reaffirming my faith in humanity.

So few people bother with Latin grammar these days.

NTM

Nevyn

Mods have been demoded for behaviour which was unbecoming while drunk.

That being said every poster has to take responsibilty for thier own reactions and what they post. If someone posts inflamatory things about me I can choose to report the post and deal with the matter through channels or I can post telling them to go suck my cock. I have that choice but I have to accept the consquences of that choice no matter how I was provoked.

Moral of the story, take responsiblity for your behaviour in yoru posts.
If you are not happy with a post report it, even if it the post of the mod of that forum as ALL mods/cmods/smods/admin can view the reported post forum
and if you are not happy with any action generated by that reported post start a thread here in feed back.
Do not threathen to sue boards.ie or take legal action as that will get you banned.

Manic Moran

don't know if a solution is available in vbulletin but it would be nice if the option existed to add or remove the moderator tag to given posts, to differentiate between posts as a user and posts as a moderator.

I moderate over on Tank-net, which granted, at 11,500 members is a bit smaller than Boards, but the way we've solved the issue is by having two accounts.

One is the normal 'User' account. i.e. in discussions, I participate under the name Manic Moran. I do no official warning or moderating in that guise, though I do have mod powers to split/lock threads and so on for convenience. There is no indicator that I am a mod.

However, for official warnings, notifications, and whatnot, there is a communal user account named "MODERATOR". All mods can log in under that account, and, indeed, MODERATOR has taken on a persona/personality of his own: A sort of cross between Cthulhu and Darth Vader has evolved!

With this system, is it absolutely clear if someone is speaking for himself, or as a moderator. There is an internal code/moderation by other moderators, whereby anyone engaged in any argument, regardless of sub-forum, does not engage in moderation on that thread, and leaves it to others who are not involved in that discussion.

I feel that this also has the advantage of not having people most likely to participate in a thread moderating it. As a random example, Sparks moderates the Shooting sub-forum, but he also participates in the vast majority of the discussions. He does a good job of it, but the premise does leave in theory the possibility of complaints of conflicts of interest/abuse of power.

Anyway, just a suggestion.

NTM

Stark

So drink moderating is the new thing we're guilty of? Time was, people simply accused us of being drunk with power.

nesf

Trojan911 wrote:

One drunken slip and a law suit entails is every reason to remain sober whilst "Volunteering".

Should we have disclaimers in our sigs saying that our views are not necessarily the views of boards.ie or its shareholders?

copacetic

Stark wrote:

So drink moderating is the new thing we're guilty of? Time was, people simply accused us of being drunk with power.

i'm not sure drinking in moderation is something that any of the mods could be found guilty of..

nesf

Manic Moran wrote:

Entirely off-topic, but I just would like to say 'thank you' for reaffirming my faith in humanity.

So few people bother with Latin grammar these days.

NTM

It's weird. Forums is listed as being correct along with fora while radii is listed as the only plural of radius. It's similar with formulas and formulae.

Manic Moran

nesf wrote:

It's weird. Forums is listed as being correct along with fora while radii is listed as the only plural of radius. It's similar with formulas and formulae.

Conversation which could be overheard on my platoon net one day in Iraq if you happened to be listening.

"Three, stop your tank. I need to climb out and tie down my antennae as we go under these low power lines"
"Your what?"
"My antennae"
"You mean 'antennas'?"
"No, antennae. A-E. It's the plural"
"You're making that up. We'll ask the English teacher. What say you, Four?"
(Four being an English teacher in civilian life)
"Yes, it's true, Three. 'Antennae' is the old English plural for 'antenna'"
"Old English? I still use it, and nobody else has a problem understanding me..."

NTM

nesf

Manic Moran wrote:

Conversation which could be overheard on my platoon net one day in Iraq if you happened to be listening.

"Three, stop your tank. I need to climb out and tie down my antennae as we go under these low power lines"
"Your what?"
"My antennae"
"You mean 'antennas'?"
"No, antennae. A-E. It's the plural"
"You're making that up. We'll ask the English teacher. What say you, Four?"
(Four being an English teacher in civilian life)
"Yes, it's true, Three. 'Antennae' is the old English plural for 'antenna'"
"Old English? I still use it, and nobody else has a problem understanding me..."

NTM

Heh.

Sparks

Manic Moran wrote:

As a random example, Sparks moderates the Shooting sub-forum, but he also participates in the vast majority of the discussions. He does a good job of it, but the premise does leave in theory the possibility of complaints of conflicts of interest/abuse of power.

In theory???
Feck that. Go read some of the old Sparks/FLAG conversations if you have a spare week sometime.
"Theory". Pffffft!

Vegeta

CG has been in contact with me and is looking for an e-mail address so he can get in contact about his ban. So who does he e-mail and at what address?

admin at nospamdiediedie dot boards.ie

Tar.Aldarion

Huh, I thought you were messing but that appears to be it.

Stark

Just give her Cloud's home phone number.

Vegeta

thanks folks, Tar and Original P

Stark you're just naughty

Tar.Aldarion

Stark wrote:

Just give her Cloud's home phone number.

I somehow imagine that this is a man we are dealing with.

Vegeta

Stark wrote:

Just give her Cloud's home phone number.

I hadn't realised Cloud was into 6" 5 very big and scary looking men who like guns.

Why Cloud, you sly devil you

Vegeta

Vegeta wrote:

Clare Gunner, an adonis with guns

Don't forget the tats!

Vegeta

How did this one turn out?

hullaballoo

I think it might be an idea to clear up one or two things mentioned in this thread.

There are separate issues here: (i) moderators' behaviour whilst on-/off-duty, and (ii) threatening legal action. These have been conflated in this thread, and I do not think this is appropriate, irrespective of the fact that here, one led to the other.

(i) Firstly, I personally have a standard where I don't do any moderator-like things when I'm bojangled. However, if others feel they can make reasoned decisions while in that state, then that's their own call. If it transpires that they cannot make such decisions, then they will be found out fairly quickly and dealt with appropriately (usually by simply reversing or amending whatever action they took).

(ii) Secondly, threatening boards.ie with legal action is simply out-of-bounds. Alone, it is enough to warrant a site-ban, independent of the context. This is one case of shoot first, ask questions later for SMods and Admins etc. One reason for this is that threatening people with legal action over something trivial is like threatening to tell the teacher when you're on the losing side of a slagging contest in primary school. Then, if you actually intend to go through with it, why should you have access to any evidence in your favour without going through the proper channels? Finally, if you have any intention to go through with it, you simply aren't welcome to post on this site anymore.

faceman

Manic Moran wrote:

Conversation which could be overheard on my platoon net one day in Iraq if you happened to be listening.

"Three, stop your tank. I need to climb out and tie down my antennae as we go under these low power lines"
"