Unjustified Ban

Beruthiel

jaggiebunnet wrote: »

Now I will leave it the real little children to run around and continually abuse their users.

I am far from being a child jaggiebunnet and your attitude is making it very difficult for me to take you seriously.

norrie rugger

Fajitas! wrote: »

You do realise that being a moderator does not mean being on boards 24/7?

What do you mean "ensure no one else did the same"? As in abusing members so that everyone else would tell you what you wanted? That's not going to be effective. You asked a public opinion, you got one. I don't see why anyone should be told

In all fairness, he did not ask for a public opinion, he asked for pointers.
I would take that as looking for constructive critisism, not "it does nothing for me".
Why did it do nothing for the poster? What could have improved it?
If that comment had be made with these thought patterns, I imagine that the poster would not have lashed out as he did

seamus

jaggiebunnet wrote: »

a responsibility to it's users as described above.

You didn't describe anything except the requirement to do what you wanted done. Why don't you detail this "responsibility" that you believe this site has?

I did not abuse the moderator. If you want abuse have a look at DesF postings.

Infraction for insulting other members eh Fajitas - what a sad little person you must be - you are right, it is a pity you didn't see this post sooner , you would have given me a good laugh.

Looks like abuse to me.
This is a different forum. A certain amount of abuse (such as what DesF has posted) is tolerated here. Interestingly, you don't seem to be drawing a parallel to the amount of abuse you give and the amount you get in return. Adds a new meaning to "negative feedback". Why don't you post with a little civility, and shock, horror, people will actually respond with civility?

As expected the ranks are closed. But that is fine. I never expected anything less.

The "ranks closing" would mean that we would be defending Fajitas despite overwhelming evidence that he was in the wrong. As I posted above, the evidence shows overwhelmingly that you were in the wrong. Just because you don't get the answers that you want, doesn't mean that there's another agenda. It's a lesson that all of us have to learn in life, often harshly - learn to realise when you're wrong and bow out gracefully.

Mr Magnolia

norrie rugger wrote:

In all fairness, he did not ask for a public opinion, he asked for pointers.
I would take that as looking for constructive critisism, not "it does nothing for me".
Why did it do nothing for the poster? What could have improved it?
If that comment had be made with these thought patterns, I imagine that the poster would not have lashed out as he did.

If the mod warned the posters to adhere to responding as you put it then we'd all be crying oppression. How is this to be regulated? If the mod was to try and inforce this the whole board would become over-moderated would it not?

Fajitas!

norrie rugger wrote: »

I believe he called you "a sad little person"
On the topic of the posting, while maybe I do not agree with the way he said it, I can understand why he said it.

The poster asked for pointers, not a statement of how it made someone feel.
TBH, reading that I actually agreed with the "pompous" comment. If someone asked for a comment on how it evokes emotion in you, then that's a fine comment. If, however, someone askes for help in improving a picture/setting/style then it is not an appropriate comment to leave. It is derisive and insulting (please do not mix this up with constructive critisism) and of course the original poster immediately went on the defensive. The fact that so many people excused the comment, as a valid response to the actual topic being raised, would have made me feel just as frustrated as the OP evidently was.

I sometimes feel that the Mods here are slightly too quick with the infractions, it is just as easy to have a stock PM to warn people that comments like that will result in punishments, especially when taken in context.
Also, basically, telling people to "F**k O** if you don't like it" is not a friendly way to run things and does nothing to enhance the image and reputation of Boards.ie. Which has an, incorrect, image of being "over-modded" anyway

Of course, the first 2 comments could very well have been more in depth. Unfortunatly they weren't, however the correct way to deal with this would quite simply have been to say "Would you mind telling me why" - I'd moreso say the OP went on the offensive than the defensive, he was infracted for this... Now, infractions are not harsh, moreso saying "here,look, don't do that again". The reason I'd use infractions is to record the warning in case it happens again. If I had banned immediatly, it would have been an overreaction. When I posted, I did so quite civilly.

I never said "F**k off", nor would I use that kind of language. I told the Animal Rights to use this forum if he felt he needed to. He had been previously banned from the forum for flaming. If he had such an issue with the site, I'm not going to make him post here by any means - I think that's quite fair.

In all fairness, he did not ask for a public opinion, he asked for pointers.
I would take that as looking for constructive critisism, not "it does nothing for me".
Why did it do nothing for the poster? What could have improved it?
If that comment had be made with these thought patterns, I imagine that the poster would not have lashed out as he did

I can't nor would I want to control peoples responses to a thread like that. It is very much personal opinion. By asking for C&C, you are asking for a public opinion, that's what C&C is.

norrie rugger

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

If the mod warned the posters to adhere to responding as you put it then we'd all be crying oppression. How is this to be regulated? If the mod was to try and inforce this the whole board would become over-moderated would it not?

I know, different forums here means different styles of modding but it works very well elsewhere.

The replies were off topic and snobbish.
Obviously, not being a mod, I can only look at this from a posters point of view. Where as I do not agree with what was said, I can understand why it was said

seamus

Assuming that C&C stands for "Comments and Criticism", then "It does nothing for me", is exactly that, a comment, even if it is low on substance.

It's a bit like putting a sign on your back saying, "Kick me in the arse", then losing the rag when someone kicks you in the arse.

I can understand annoyance or frustration when someone gives you feedback that's not very constructive, but there's no need to turn into a complete arsehole about it.

Fajitas!

seamus wrote: »

Assuming that C&C stands for "Comments and Criticism", then "It does nothing for me", is exactly that, a comment, even if it is low on substance.

It's a bit like putting a sign on your back saying, "Kick me in the arse", then losing the rag when someone kicks you in the arse.

Lol! Indeed.

Mr. Incognito

User put up picture for feedback.

User got honest feedback, i.e. photo is not up to scratch.

User abused other users.

User got banned.

User abused Mods.

Mods abused User.

Dades

norrie rugger wrote: »

In all fairness, he did not ask for a public opinion, he asked for pointers.

In fairness, the OP asked for "C&C" - i.e. comment & critique.

All replies received were either one or the other.

norrie rugger

seamus wrote: »

Assuming that C&C stands for "Comments and Criticism", then "It does nothing for me", is exactly that, a comment, even if it is low on substance.

It's a bit like putting a sign on your back saying, "Kick me in the arse", then losing the rag when someone kicks you in the arse.

I can understand annoyance or frustration when someone gives you feedback that's not very constructive, but there's no need to turn into a complete arsehole about it.

Ha Ha, completely agree with ya. He did indeed become a git.
I just can understand why he did.

OK, I am going to be the pedant. Comments & Criticism not Comments OR Criticism.
TBH the ban was warranted as he did insult the mod but he was evidently getting more riled up throughout the thread.

C&C, again this is only in my opinion, should be treated as a review structure.
I don't post there but i do like to look;) , as i do have an interest in how to frame pictures etc (in a social setting)

OK I don't want to be seen as arguing for the sake as arguing. I just think that if you go to the trouble of posting a reply, you can go to the bother of justifying that reply, especially as that is what was requested

Just my 2c

Lord Nikon

Tbh, I'm surprised the original thread got as far as it did without it being locked. I am furthermore surprised how long this thread has become, without being locked, or for all parties involved to call a spade a spade, and to stop adding fuel to the fire.

norrie rugger

neuromancer wrote: »

Tbh, I'm surprised the original thread got as far as it did without it being locked. I am furthermore surprised how long this thread has become, without being locked, or for all parties involved to call a spade a spade, and to stop adding fuel to the fire.

True.
Ban was justified, just because I understand the OP frustration does not mean I condone his actions

CuLT

Honestly, I think the first couple of replies were a bit snooty, and if it were me and if I was in the wrong mood I might not have bothered posting again.

You've gone about resolving this in entirely the wrong manner though, jaggiebunnet. You got what you deserved for your reaction, and your reactions continue to be unfathomably venemous here.

Fajitas!

C&C is a review structure, but, as mentioned in the thread about giving C&C at the moment, you get what you put into it. If you just post up photos and say "comments and pointers pls", people won't know where you are coming from. If you give background info, if you tell your audience what you were looking for when taking the photograph, that's where you'll find your most constructive C&C.

It takes effort to give C&C aswell. Comments can be just that - I don't always have the time to give indepth C&C, so I might just say "I like 1 & 2, 4 needs more *whatever*". I try to come back to these threads, usually I do.

smashey

Fajitas! wrote: »

C&C is a review structure, but, as mentioned in the thread about giving C&C at the moment, you get what you put into it. If you just post up photos and say "comments and pointers pls", people won't know where you are coming from. If you give background info, if you tell your audience what you were looking for when taking the photograph, that's where you'll find your most constructive C&C.

It takes effort to give C&C aswell. Comments can be just that - I don't always have the time to give indepth C&C, so I might just say "I like 1 & 2, 4 needs more *whatever*". I try to come back to these threads, usually I do.

What do you know about photography anyway?

norrie rugger

Fajitas! wrote: »

C&C is a review structure, but, as mentioned in the thread about giving C&C at the moment, you get what you put into it. If you just post up photos and say "comments and pointers pls", people won't know where you are coming from. If you give background info, if you tell your audience what you were looking for when taking the photograph, that's where you'll find your most constructive C&C.

It takes effort to give C&C aswell. Comments can be just that - I don't always have the time to give indepth C&C, so I might just say "I like 1 & 2, 4 needs more *whatever*". I try to come back to these threads, usually I do.

Did you have that comment under your name before or after this event?
He may have not been insulting you at all:)

You were right to ban him. Maybe a definition of what C&C is, in the charter. It might be there but I have been acused of selective vision when reading charters before. For me posting C&C would mean criticism and qualitative comments

jaggiebunnet

norrie rugger wrote: »

Maybe a definition of what C&C is, in the charter.

and don't forget to add to it that Pompous and Sad are considered abusive terms :pac::pac::pac: - oh and venomous too

Thanks for brightening up a dull morning guys.

Mr Magnolia

AAAaaaargh....

*MUST NOT FEED TROLL*

norrie rugger

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

AAAaaaargh....

*MUST NOT FEED TROLL*

6th

Jaggie ..... have you noticed its not just mods that think you are acting the twat?

Fajitas!

smashey wrote: »

What do you know about photography anyway?

What's there to know about it in the first place

norrie rugger wrote: »

Did you have that comment under your name before or after this event?
He may have not been insulting you at all:)

You were right to ban him. Maybe a definition of what C&C is, in the charter. It might be there but I have been acused of selective vision when reading charters before. For me posting C&C would mean criticism and qualitative comments

After

There's a small section in the charter on C&C,

If you feel you can't handle negative comments on your work, please don't post images.

being the most important part of it for this type of reaction.

LimerickCity

Hey Norrie Rugger Head you big eejit.

TodaysBreadToday here lad.

How's the form biy?

jaggiebunnet

Is calling me a troll liable? I wonder. I guarantee you I am not trolling, however the posts have been entertaining and made me laugh continually while reading. So I am just passing along my thanks - am I still allowed to do that?

aidan_walsh

Is calling me a troll liable? I wonder.

About as accurate as calling your photograph good.

CuLT

jaggiebunnet wrote: »

and don't forget to add to it that Pompous and Sad are considered abusive terms :pac::pac::pac: - oh and venomous too

Thanks for brightening up a dull morning guys.

Glad we could help!