Bad modding in Emergency Services General 'London siege' thread

Esel

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055288999

In this thread, poster Karlitosway1978 said John Carty (Abbeylara) was shot as he fires at police. I queried this incorrect statement. Another poster called Karlitosway1978 a liar and was warned by the mod, Civdef, about this. Civdef then ruled Abbeylara to be OT.

The effect of this is to leave a very serious misrepresentation of the facts surrounding the death of John Carty on record. Allowing such an incorrect statement to remain is seriously damaging to the dead man's reputation, and very hurtful to his family, who could easily come across this thread.

I pm'ed (14-05-2008, 21:06) Civdef in this regard, asking him to correct the misrepresentation either by amending the post or by posting a clarification himself, with no reply. I sent a reminder ( 16-05-2008, 00:54), no reply. Today @ 02:19 I sent another PM indicating that I would take the issue to Feedback unless I got the courtesy of a reply. After each of these messages, I checked had Civdef been online. He had.

Can a CMod or SMod please look at this?

Sherifu

Did you report the post?

Fwiw, I agree with you.

godtabh

esel wrote: »

Allowing such an incorrect statement to remain is seriously damaging to the dead man's reputation, and very hurtful to his family, who could easily come across this thread.

What reputation? He endangered a lot of lives and thats what I'll always remember him as.

Victor

Did you PM the other mods or Karlitosway1978? You might let them know about this thread. Perhaps a concillatory clarification could be made.

esel wrote: »

In this thread, poster Karlitosway1978 said John Carty (Abbeylara) was shot as he fires at police.

It was a tragic incident, however it is hard to damage the reputation of a dead person. He fired quite a few shots and fired widely and could have hit someone. I don't think it is insinuated that he targeted anyone.

Crash

I think Civdefs decision there was pretty fair - it was a discussion on the incident in London, not yet another discussion on Abbeylara. If i was moderating it, I would deleted/edited the posts relating to Carthy however, to leave the thread as simply one in relation to the London incident.

FruitLover

esel wrote: »

The effect of this is to leave a very serious misrepresentation of the facts surrounding the death of John Carty on record

It's boards, not BBC news. What some guy on the internet posts as part of an informal discussion (generally based on personal opinion) can't be considered as fact.

Evil Phil

esel wrote: »

The effect of this is to leave a very serious misrepresentation of the facts surrounding the death of John Carty on record. Allowing such an incorrect statement to remain is seriously damaging to the dead man's reputation, and very hurtful to his family, who could easily come across this thread.

Which is only in your opinion, and lets face it - feedback isn't here to give your opinion precedence.

Bob the Builder

Boards is a bit like Wikipedia. it's only fact if your stupid enough to believe that it is. Anything thats updated by the public is often unreliable, as there's no accountability. Nothing we can do about that, as there's no solid rule in the book for people who post "unreliable information", as often you find, all discussions, either text or chat, are often full of opinionated information.

It wasn't me!

FruitLover wrote: »

It's boards, not BBC news. What some guy on the internet posts as part of an informal discussion (generally based on personal opinion) can't be considered as fact.

But it can be considered libel.

Crash

I don't think you can actually libel the dead.

watty

Well you can get into trouble. What ever it might be called.

It wasn't me!

Defamation of character or something along those lines anyway.

Raphael

crash_000 wrote: »

I don't think you can actually libel the dead.

While that might be true, there's probably another word for it; If I wrote that Tolkein was a cunt* in a book, his estate would probably have my guts for a fetching hat.


*I by no means believe that Tolkein was a cunt.

Crash

Well I know for instance that David Kellys family in the UK could not sue the government over libellous claims made about him after his death - pretty sure Lawlors family could not pursue libel over the prostitute pieces published by the Sindo.

tbh

if we get the admins to change everyones signature to the following:

"allegedly"


I believe we could solve all these problems at a single stroke.

Nerin

tbh wrote: »

if we get the admins to change everyones signature to the following:

"allegedly"


I believe we could solve all these problems at a single stroke.

i agree...allegedly agree.

Esel

Thanks for the replies. I didn't report the post, because I thought the poster in question would have the guts to admit that what he said was wrong. I did expect some response or action from the mod in question (civdef) though. The whole issue does not reflect well on him, imo.

What people who posted in this thread think of John Carthy is not the issue. Anyway, the thread has now been locked, but still contains the inaccurate statement. I am reminded of Dean Lyons, and also of the institutionalised 'misconduct' in Donegal. We still have a long way to go before all the rotten apples are removed from the barrel.

oscarBravo

esel wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. I didn't report the post, because I thought the poster in question would have the guts to admit that what he said was wrong. I did expect some response or action from the mod in question (civdef) though. The whole issue does not reflect well on him, imo.

Evil Phil wrote: »

Which is only in your opinion, and lets face it - feedback isn't here to give your opinion precedence.

This is a point you seem to have missed.

seamus

1. You can't libel the dead. John Carty's "estate" can't sue boards for posting incorrect information.
2. It's a discussion forum. That someone gave wrong information is irrelevant, it happens all the time. If this website were a formal enquiry or otherwise purported to be an accurate statement of facts, then we should be concerned.

Fact is, one person posted their opinion on the event, and someone posted countering that opinion. So I don't see the problem, the universe is balanced.

shakin

esel wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. I didn't report the post, because I thought the poster in question would have the guts to admit that what he said was wrong. I did expect some response or action from the mod in question (civdef) though. The whole issue does not reflect well on him, imo.

What people who posted in this thread think of John Carthy is not the issue. Anyway, the thread has now been locked, but still contains the inaccurate statement. I am reminded of Dean Lyons, and also of the institutionalised 'misconduct' in Donegal. We still have a long way to go before all the rotten apples are removed from the barrel.

is this another way of getting at your gripe with the gardai?

Sully

Actually iv noticed that the mods in that forum seem to close topics for silly reasons. Every time something goes a bit off topic, its closed. Topics dont seem to have a long life.

Would be more appropriate to clean the topic and remove the users who repeatedly go off topic instead of shutting down every topic that gets a bit off topic.

Crash

seamus wrote: »

1. You can't libel the dead. John Carty's "estate" can't sue boards for posting incorrect information.

I love that rule. when i'm rich and famous, i'm gonna slander the living **** out of groucho marx just for ****s and giggles. hell yeahs.