Refugee Thread Shutdown on Boards.us

cornbb

kyub wrote: »

Then so what? How is that detrimental to the developement and expansion of a discussion board?

Even if you were starting threads on complete random crap in typical AH fashion it would be better for the development of the community than the refugee-style posting which is confined to a single thread. This doesn't attract new members, it attracts the boards.ie clique who only appear once in a blue moon when the main site is down. If they were contributing to other threads or starting new threads I'm sure they would be more than welcome.

Dyr

I'm not arsed reading the whole lot of this thread, but i also support the view that the refugee thread shutdown and desperate pimpage of the various tumbleweed infested fora that boards.us offers smacked of rookie moderation. I dont go anywhere near boards.us unless i want to know when the latest .ie hamster upgrade etc will be finished.

If using boards.us as a refugee camp in times of downage isnt allowed then sticky it, ban it, and im sure the various boardsies will give boards.us the same wide berth that all the americans do.

Slow Motion

cornbb wrote: »

Even if you were starting threads on complete random crap in typical AH fashion it would be better for the development of the community than the refugee-style posting which is confined to a single thread. This doesn't attract new members, it attracts the boards.ie clique who only appear once in a blue moon when the main site is down. If they were contributing to other threads or starting new threads I'm sure they would be more than welcome.

That's the second time you have referred to the boards.ie clique like it's a bad thing! Everyone who posts in a particular site/forum/thread becomes part of a clique, including you so I don't see why the negative overtones. OT I don't have a problem with an admin locking a thread, but the fact that said thread was open for three years previously makes the timing of the closure look like a fit of pique, personally I missed the blackout but the last time, I did use both .us and .uk sites and there was a sense of welcome and not the kind of "who do they think they are" type of feeling I am getting from the replies in this thread! So there was a refugee thread on the site, so what? If I had used it I would certainly have had a look around the rest of the site, and if I had found anything of interest I would have contributed and possibly stayed, just because this is my main site to post on doesn't mean I would not also post on others. Locking the thread seems me to be sending a fcuk off back where you came from kind of message, why just not leave it be while encouraging the users to look around the rest of the place while they are there?

Dyr

Bambi wrote: »

I'm not arsed reading the whole lot of this thread

update: i have now read the whole lot of this thread, my position on this issue is unchanged.

Kur4mA

cornbb wrote: »

Even if you were starting threads on complete random crap in typical AH fashion it would be better for the development of the community than the refugee-style posting which is confined to a single thread. This doesn't attract new members, it attracts the boards.ie clique who only appear once in a blue moon when the main site is down. If they were contributing to other threads or starting new threads I'm sure they would be more than welcome.

Even if it does attract a "clique" from boards.ie I don't see how it is an issue. They are still having a discussion which is what all of the boards0rz are in place for.

I think what's happening here is the mentality has been put in place that the mods and admins must expand and popularise the site similar to what happened with boards.ie so maybe for some this is overtaking the fact that they are running/administrating/moderating a discussion board and forum. If discussing boards.ie is gonna be treated with such contempt then tbh it's not much of a forum imo.

BuffyBot

faceman wrote: »

thats very true. All these threads do however offer long term value to boards.us

Hungus gets haircut (and looks like a gurrier)
http://www.boards.us/forums/showthread.php?t=2434

Time Travel
http://www.boards.us/forums/showthread.php?t=2174

Dont know what this is about
http://www.boards.us/forums/showthread.php?t=2180

They, at least, have the advantage of being somewhat more original

Hagar

Amz wrote: »

I seriously doubt you would so vehemently question a similar action taken on this site by Regi, Cloud. or Vexorg.

To be fair you don't know me, nor I you except on a very distant level. Our paths rarely cross. I've can't remember seeing you on any of the forums I mod and I have only seen your posts in PTH. So you shouldn't really comment on what I might or might not do in a hypothetical situation.

When I'm wrong I put up my hand and take my lumps. I have done it publicly here more than once. It's good for the soul, a bit of humble pie now and again helps keep the feet on the ground.
When I believe I'm right I have the courage of my convictions.
I call a spade a spade and take the consequences.
If I get a site ban from Boards.us, Boards.ie or the whole group for speaking out so be it.

Amz

So because I don't spam you think I don't read?

Firstly I was referring to "you" plural, not "you" personally. Don't always be so quick to take umbrage.

I don't post on the fourms you mod primarily because they don't interest me. Although that's hardly relevant. I've never seen you post on any of the forums I used to mod either, but that wouldn't cause me to question your comments.

I've never seen you post whinging about an admin decision and I've been subscribed to feedback for years.

RoundyMooney

I was going to go multiquote central on this, but fail to see the point...

First up, someone who has posted five times on .us in the last four years, who has made their first post in two years a +1 in defence of Buffybot's actions, railing against others for not helping to foster and build a community, raises questions about their consistency and impartiality in relation to this issue.

I have never known Hagar back down when he thought he was correct, or felt that something needed to be said. For that matter, neither do I (ask any AMod ). To accuse him otherwise is quite unfair to him, and smacks of semi hysterical ranting for the sake of it.

While I agree with r3nu4l that the second thread should not have been created by unkel, did such action really warrant a siteban?

Of course it fucking didn't.

This "moderation" was conducted in a fit of pique, is in my view inept and misguided, and does not have the interests of the .us community at heart.

smashey has led the way here in fostering a welcoming approach, and I believe that he has done a great service today for .tv, in contrast to BB's actions which, at the least have lost the site one poster, me.

By the way guys, I admire blind optimism, but one or two unique posters in a year and a half is nothing to write home about.

I wouldnt apportion blame to anybody for this, some good ideas never get off the ground, sadly.

Hagar

Amz wrote: »

I've never seen you post whinging about an admin decision and I've been subscribed to feedback for years.

The reason for that is twofold:
Firstly I haven't seen a bad Admin decision before.
Secondly I'm not prone to whinging.

BuffyBot

RoundyMooney wrote: »

did such action really warrant a siteban?

Of course it fucking didn't.

It should be pointed out it was merely a temporary ban. If it happened to be some new person who didn't know the score, I would play it differently. Let's face it though, the person involved should know a little better.

This "moderation" was conducted in a fit of pique

I'm glad you can read my mind

I can assure you it was far away from pique. Un-piquey, even. If I was pique-y, I would have done something to the similar thread on the UK site, in which the poster reverted to making some comments about me being a "shemale" and other similar rather infantile remarks, and gone more rampage like

smashey has led the way here in fostering a welcoming approach, and I believe that he has done a great service today for .tv, in contrast to BB's actions which, at the least have lost the site one poster, me.

I've yet to find anyone pointing out where I've said people are unwelcome. And if one locked thread is enough to make you reluctant to post, well I'm sorry to hear that.

Crash

RoundyMooney wrote: »

By the way guys, I admire blind optimism, but one or two unique posters in a year and a half is nothing to write home about.

I do like the "you guys should be luck to have us" attitude present here. nice.

It's not the same community, its not the same site. The thread in question offered little to no contribution to the site, so thats that. oh well, c'est la vie.

RoundyMooney

BuffyBot wrote: »

It should be pointed out it was merely a temporary ban. If it happened to be some new person who didn't know the score, I would play it differently. Let's face it though, the person involved should know a little better.

Know better than to start a second thread? I can dig that. I don't want to get too deeply embedded in the unkel issue, primarily because he can speak for himself, (as we have seen!) but also because I have strong views on someone being made an example of, due to their actions or position on another site, one whose vagaries have been it seems, deemed off topic, and I would not do either of us the discredit of posting them here, as this is not boards.us feedback, although it seems to have become so. Suffice to say, I feel any form of sitewide ban was extremely excessive.

Know better than to post within a thread topic, one which had been running for an extended period? Can't agree with that. No precedent for closing down such discussion is or was evident in b.us.

BuffyBot wrote: »

I'm glad you can read my mind

Just my opinion on the matter. I was very surprised by your actions in this case, and can't reconcile them personally with an end result of promoting the site in a positive light.

BuffyBot wrote: »

I can assure you it was far away from pique. Un-piquey, even. If I was pique-y, I would have done something to the similar thread on the UK site, in which the poster reverted to making some comments about me being a "shemale" and other similar rather infantile remarks, and gone more rampage like

That too, was excessive, and not a little strange. I couldn't and wouldn't justify such behaviour either.

BuffyBot wrote: »

I've yet to find anyone pointing out where I've said people are unwelcome. And if one locked thread is enough to make you reluctant to post, well I'm sorry to hear that.

I'm sorry to have to express a negative opinion at all, genuinely. Sometimes actions speak louder than words. While I don't think for a second that you intended to make people unwelcome by your actions, I feel that in some cases that has been the end result.

çrash_000 wrote: »

I do like the "you guys should be luck to have us" attitude present here. nice.

It's not the same community, its not the same site. The thread in question offered little to no contribution to the site, so thats that. oh well, c'est la vie.

I didn't say that, nor did I imply it. The fact is that .org and .us draw all their activity from the .ie userbase. To alienate those users, for that is what has happened, is a poor judgement call as far as I'm concerned.

2 stroke

I've lurked over there a few times today. Why not close all the other threads that offer no longterm value? Like any that haven't had a reply since last year.

Boston

Lets all say what we're thinking, those forums are a waist of time. All serving a demand that doesn't exist.

Hagar

BuffyBot wrote: »

I can assure you it was far away from pique. Un-piquey, even. If I was pique-y, I would have done something to the similar thread on the UK site, in which the poster reverted to making some comments about me being a "shemale" and other similar rather infantile remarks, and gone more rampage like

If the thread was wrong on boards.us surely a similar thread on boards.org.uk was equally wrong?
Why close one thread and permit the other? I don't follow the reasoning on that one.

I'll argue my point as strongly as I can but name calling / personal abuse like that is not on.

unkel

RoundyMooney wrote: »

I agree with r3nu4l that the second thread should not have been created by unkel, did such action really warrant a siteban?

Just to clear one thing up. I wasn't banned on org.uk. The second thread referred to by r3nu4l was on .org.uk

r3nu4l wrote: »

Now I do however have a problem with the creation of the thread by unkel on boards.org.uk[/B]...because one already existed as a sticky in the very forum he posted in!!

r3nu4l is of course quite right I should not have started a second refugee thread there as there was alreay a refugee thread. My apologies for that. r3nu4l has already fixed this by merging my thread into the existing sticky

BuffyBot wrote: »

rather infantile remarks, and gone more rampage like

That was on .us and that's where and why I was banned. I apologise for the infantile remarks

Now, 'nuff said about me. This thread is not about me. It's about the shutdown of the refugee thread. On topic!

Boston

Hagar wrote: »

If the thread was wrong on boards.us surely a similar thread on boards.org.uk was equally wrong?
Why close one thread and permit the other? I don't follow the reasoning on that one.

Is boards.org.uk in any way related to buffybot? If not then i fail to see why he should be bound by decisions made on a different site by someone else.

Hagar

Buffybot is the Admin on Boards.us who closed the refugee thread.
Buffybot is the SMod on Boards.org.uk who left open a similar refugee thread.
Go figure.

Boston

So his roles are different. Smods don't get to set policy here or close threads they don't fancy. Admins get to do both.

unkel

Hagar wrote: »

If the thread was wrong on boards.us surely a similar thread on boards.org.uk was equally wrong?

This is core to the issue

.us: refugee thread is closed down
.org.uk: there was already a (stickied!) refugee thread where refugees are welcome
.org.tv: refugees were and are received with more than open arms. A bar has even been opened for them. This is where I will go back to

I could have sworn BuffyBot mentioned somewhere on .us something like "this is not what cloud wants" about the refugee thread and / or boardsies going over there to post. I can't find it though. Can you shed some light on this, BuffyBot? Any admin feedback on this?

On that note, I just spotted that Vexorg actually used .us to make announcements about .ie when .ie was down. How about that?

Hagar

See my post above #47 where I point out that Buffybot decided to allow the thread, which he could have closed as an SMod, to continue.

I believe that SMods do have the authority to close a thread based on their own judgement as to the suitability of said thread. The closure of course can later be appealed to an Admin.

Disclosure of interest:

unkel wrote:

.org.tv: refugees were and are received with more than open arms. A bar has even been opened for them. This is where I will go back to

The thread is hosted in the "Off Topic Forum".
There is a link to it in my sig.
I am now privileged to Mod that Forum.

mike65

What a lot of old tosh - from the .us crowd. You should be bloody glad we're over there at anytime, the place is populated by tumbleweed. None of the country sister sites has shown any signs of growing into healthy children - they sit there and wheeze a little.

boards.tv it is from now on. They value the passing trade.

Mike.

GuanYin

did I miss something?

We have feedback threads about boards.us on boards.ie why now?

2 stroke

unkel wrote: »

I could have sworn BuffyBot mentioned somewhere on .us something like "this is not what cloud wants" about the refugee thread and / or boardsies going over there to post. I can't find it though. Can you shed some light on this, BuffyBot? Any admin feedback on this?

You quote the quote you're looking for on .org post 116.

BuffyBot

If the thread was wrong on boards.us surely a similar thread on boards.org.uk was equally wrong?
Why close one thread and permit the other? I don't follow the reasoning on that one.

and

Hagar wrote: »

Buffybot is the Admin on Boards.us who closed the refugee thread.
Buffybot is the SMod on Boards.org.uk who left open a similar refugee thread.
Go figure.

I am indeed. r3nu4l is the boards.org.uk Admin. It's really up to him the set the policy. I *could* have closed the thread, but generally I prefer to just mop up the spam/abuse on that site. As has been said, policy desicions are not mine to make there. I think there is a fairly obvious distinction.

Can you shed some light on this, BuffyBot? Any admin feedback on this?

I think you may be mixing messages. I think none of the admins would appreciate people pushing the envelope on one of the other sites just because this one was down.

On that note, I just spotted that Vexorg actually used .us to make announcements about .ie when .ie was down. How about that?

That's Vex's call, not mine . Plus I think there is a bit of a difference between that and a multiple page spam thread on AH, if one wants to split ahair.

We have feedback threads about boards.us on boards.ie why now?

Mmm. As someone else said a gazillon posts of so, go figure :eek:

Amz

RoundyMooney wrote: »

I was going to go multiquote central on this, but fail to see the point...

First up, someone who has posted five times on .us in the last four years, who has made their first post in two years a +1 in defence of Buffybot's actions, railing against others for not helping to foster and build a community, raises questions about their consistency and impartiality in relation to this issue.

Ah, so like Hagar you're of the opinion that post count, or a person's visibility is what matter when determining the validity of a user's posts?

Do you apply this attitude to all fora or just feedback?

unkel

2 stroke wrote: »

You quote the quote you're looking for on .org post 116.

Thank you for reminding me! How could I have forgotten that - it was the message that came up when I tried to log on to .us when I was obviously site banned:

"just because boards.ie is down, it doesn't mean you can come and pee over our garden. Cloud doesnt like that"

I've already apologised for my wrongdoings. I did not however pee over boards.us. I doubt BuffyBot referred to my wrongdoings when mentioning that "Cloud doesnt like that". BuffyBot can you confirm what you meant?

And I don't really want to repeat myself, but I feel some admin guidance about .ie members posting in non .ie boards would help

BuffyBot

unkel wrote: »

"just because boards.ie is down, it doesn't mean you can come and pee over our garden. Cloud doesnt like that"

I've already apologised for my wrongdoings. I did not however pee over boards.us. I doubt BuffyBot referred to my wrongdoings when mentioning that "Cloud doesnt like that". BuffyBot can you confirm what you meant?

I think the point I was trying to make is that you weren't quite behaving in the wya you would conduct yourself here either. You opened a duplicate of a closed thread (on .us) and you then started a thread in AH complaining about it (subsequently moved to .us feedback). As I said previously, had it of been someone new come stumbling in and made a mistake, well fine. For someone more experienced, I'd expect a little more in terms of behaviour as I'm sure would the other admins on .us.

If I wasn't clear on that, my bad but I hope it's clarified now.

unkel

BuffyBot wrote: »

If I wasn't clear on that, my bad but I hope it's clarified now.

That doesn't explain you mentioning cloud, does it?