Mark Speight thread banning.

Death or Glory

Banned him for a week? thats bullsh*t..... ban the other geezer for being a tw*t

aidan_walsh

Death or Glory wrote: »

Banned him for a week? thats bullsh*t..... ban the other geezer for being a tw*t

He's a well known twat, its a live and let live thing.

Sorry to hear this, tragic end to a tragic story.

Pj!

Death or Glory wrote: »

Banned him for a week? thats bullsh*t..... ban the other geezer for being a tw*t

Agreed.

Some crappy modding right there.

Rb

Death or Glory wrote: »

Banned him for a week? thats bullsh*t..... ban the other geezer for being a tw*t

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=82 tbh.

Arguing a moderators decision in thread, along with personally abusing another poster? You're going to last long.

Rb

Forky wrote: »

Agreed.

Some crappy modding right there.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=82

You're going to be proven wrong though, just thought I'd give you the heads up.

Pj!

:rolleyes:


I just believe in a bit of respect.

AlmightyCushion

Posts moved from this thread. He abused another poster, he got banned. What's the probem?

Dudess

Personal abuse, no matter how seemingly justified, can't be tolerated. Can you imagine if it was...?!

Rb

No personal abuse has to be one of the biggest rules on the whole of boards, it's in every single charter and though I'm aware I've broken it a few times myself, I can't see how people don't "get it".

Tha Gopher

In fairness though throw an infraction for it, it is hardly ban worthy.

Personal abuse, no matter how seemingly justified, can't be tolerated. Can you imagine if it was...?!

God yes.

Feck this, feck that, Ill ram this feckin pitchfork up your hole. Ya bollix, ya bastard, god ya wouldnt be able to move for the amount of bastards.

Ride me sideways was another one.

Sherifu

Tha Gopher wrote: »

In fairness though throw an infraction for it, it is hardly ban worthy.

The charter says otherwise...


Personal Abuse
- Posters who abuse others on here will be banned. Permanent bans will be handed out on a first offence if a moderator feels it is warranted. There is no argument on this one. Abuse someone and you will be banned. Calling someone an idiot is abuse. Don't attack the poster, attack the post. Posting PM's publicly without consent could be met with harsh consequences, especially if they do not have any place in the discussion.

Overheal

Maybe I'm inviting death here, but theres an ages old infraction from AH I got for personal abuse. Basically calling the OP a gob****e for posting a thread saying drink-driving is way over-exaggerated or something like that. In retrospect he knew what he did was wrong.

Maybe Terry agreed with me on that though which is why an infraction was received and not a ban. In fact it was a yellow card: not even a point on my profile.

In fact if anyone can find a method to Terry's madness; let me know.

Kanoe

worst ban ever

Dudess

Please do us the courtesy of explaining why. In the mean time, I'll do a bit of explaining myself. Personal abuse, no matter how seemingly justified, is not permitted on this site. If it was, things would get seriously ugly as there are a lot of nasty bullying types on Boards unfortunately.

Even if someone says: "I think George Bush is a legend, **** the Palestinians, let them rot for all I care" and someone else replies with "stfu you moron" the second person, while totally right, will still get a ban - because that is personal abuse.

Rb

Overheal wrote: »

In fact if anyone can find a method to Terry's madness; let me know.

I don't think there is any tbh, I think it just depends on how much he's had to drink

Although, could be something like
Can #1: Feelin' fiiinne
Can #2: Ooooh yeaaahh
...

Kanoe

Dudess wrote: »

Please do us the courtesy of explaining why. In the mean time, I'll do a bit of explaining myself. Personal abuse, no matter how seemingly justified, is not permitted on this site. If it was, things would get seriously ugly as there are a lot of nasty bullying types on Boards unfortunately.

Even if someone says: "I think George Bush is a legend, **** the Palestinians, let them rot for all I care" and someone else replies with "stfu you moron" the second person, while totally right, will still get a ban - because that is personal abuse.

I didn't respond to this thread to get involved in a personal dispute with you, this is feedback and I am within my right to share my thoughts on the topic, or any topic which comes up here without requesting your consent.

Rb

zxy wrote: »

I didn't respond to this thread to get involved in a personal dispute with you, this is feedback and I am within my right to share my thoughts on the topic, or any topic which comes up here without requesting your consent.

Erm, you can't just go around making statements without backing them up even somewhat and you've commented on the moderation of AH a number of times, negatively, without even explaining why you think AH is badly modded, or in this case, why you think it was the "worst ban ever" so you should explain yourself or GTFO tbh.

Oh and having access to post in any forum on boards is a privilage, not a right, given that it's a privately owned and administrated website.

Charlie

Cool the jets lads, i've accepted the banning and admitted I was wrong to make such a post. But I still stand by what I said, in theory, I just should have kept it to myself and not posted it.

Who's to think I could cause such a fuss :pac::pac::pac:

6th

Its a bit creepy when someone else starts a thread on your behalf isnt it

Charlie

6th wrote: »

Its a bit creepy when someone else starts a thread on your behalf isnt it

Creepy, yet ego-massaging !

I had a wander into Feedback because Boards has been on a crawl all day and I wasn't sure if it was their end or mine here in ucd. Low and behold I see a two page thread about my banning!

If ever I start a civil uprising, i've already profiled a number of Boardsies from that thread who seem willing to be my bebob's and rocksteady's!

Karoma

Overheal wrote: »

Maybe Terry agreed with me on that though which is why an infraction was received and not a ban. In fact it was a yellow card: not even a point on my profile.

In fact if anyone can find a method to Terry's madness; let me know.

Twit, silly beggar, etc. are usually inoffensive to most posters, gob****e (depending on context! Including a previous term is considerably less offensive than making it the entire sum of your post) can be 'mostly harmless'... it's a subjective call by the moderator that gets there first. You will most likely get called on it. Whether it results in a stern PM, an infraction, or a ban depends on the moderator (Although, stuff like this is often discussed because it's borderline.) What we lose in consistency, we gain in flexibility and fairness.

In this case, the post was an attack on a poster and people of a similar mindset. It didn't add much to the discussion, and what little it did was negativity. He didn't create this thread; he posted and most likely knew he'd get a slap for it but went ahead and typed it. Sometimes these things have to be said, and sometimes you have to appreciate that there are consequences. (Sekkrit hint: articulate and attack the post rather than the poster and you generally won't get banned from AH... keep it a sekwet!)

Karoma

Oh, and zxy: you're wrong. You're so wrong that it's laughable.





I don't feel like backing up this opinion. This is fun.

Dudess

zxy wrote: »

I didn't respond to this thread to get involved in a personal dispute with you, this is feedback and I am within my right to share my thoughts on the topic, or any topic which comes up here without requesting your consent.

No personal dispute. I gave you an explanation for the moderator's decision. It's very straightforward - personal abuse can't be tolerated. You are well within your rights to share your thoughts, but you can't expect to be taken seriously if you won't back those views up.

Thrill

It seems like a straight forward, run of the mill ban to me. charlie mchugh doesn't seem to be complaining about it. It's only a week after all. I'm sure he'll survive.

Now, if it was a two week ban...........

Kanoe

Dudess wrote: »

No personal dispute. I gave you an explanation for the moderator's decision. It's very straightforward - personal abuse can't be tolerated. You are well within your rights to share your thoughts, but you can't expect to be taken seriously if you won't back those views up.

I don't expect you would anyway and an explanation would be wasted breath.

Kanoe

Dudess wrote: »

Please do us the courtesy of explaining why. In the mean time, I'll do a bit of explaining myself. Personal abuse, no matter how seemingly justified, is not permitted on this site. If it was, things would get seriously ugly as there are a lot of nasty bullying types on Boards unfortunately.

Even if someone says: "I think George Bush is a legend, **** the Palestinians, let them rot for all I care" and someone else replies with "stfu you moron" the second person, while totally right, will still get a ban - because that is personal abuse.

I dont have issues with moderators tackling personal abuse issues but when the handbook section of what constitutes personal abuse overrides common sense something is missing from the picture. I read the thread which brought up the topic and while I understand AH is more subversive and prone to attack, the member who was banned appeared to have much more integrity than the person who provoked the gesture. He was banned for defending the tragic death of someone, while the poster who degraded the topic was effectively rewarded.

Dudess

But it doesn't matter. Personal abuse is personal abuse is personal abuse. Even when the person doing the personal abusing is correct.

AlmightyCushion

Yes but he could have easily defended that person without resorting to a personal attack. I don't see how not banning someone for doing something that doesn't deserve or warrant a ban is seen as a reward in any sense.

Kanoe

Dudess wrote: »

Right, so you've no explanation. Fair enough. Don't expect people not to ridicule/criticise your posts though.

I don't particularly give a sh*t.

Interesting you've made your mind up about me in the space of a couple of weeks. If you were to read through my posts you'd actually see I'm not that much of a c*nt - I swear. I know it's just assumed I would be, simply because I moderate After Hours.

I dont know you, I dont frequent after hours and I certainly don't connect you with the banning of said member. I just happened to observe what I believe to be decisions based on rule book standards opposed to actual deed done. I suggest you stand back from the topic and stop taking it so personally.

Kanoe

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Yes but he could have easily defended that person without resorting to a personal attack. I don't see how not banning someone for doing something that doesn't deserve or warrant a ban is seen as a reward in any sense.

I have seen more subversive and intimidating attacks on users, which are not so obvious to the eye and are never called. As I already stated, I don't have issue with moderators dealing with personal abuse and a warning would have been necessary.

[edit]it was indirectly rewarding the member who degraded the report by punishing the member who defended it.

Dudess

zxy wrote: »

I don't particularly give a sh*t.

You do really. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting sweeping statements like "worst moderating ever" etc.