Politics - EU: Moderation Abuse

krpc

Hello,

I should like to complain about the manner that a moderator uses, or rather, in humble opinion, abuses moderator abilities. The moderator in question is oscarBravo and the forum concerned is Politics.

The complaint originates from numerous factors including oscarBravo's aggressive nature, in particular against those that possess opposite opinions to him, his inclination to ridicule and admonish those people and indeed permit others that hold an opinion similar to his to the conduct themselves in the same fashion, but then moderate those that disagree with him for much less infractions, on a regular basis. It has come to the point that numerous users no longer participate in the Politics forum as a result of this conduct. oscarBravo has also admitted being tired of addressing complaints of intimidation - this should be a clear indication that quite a handful of people have been addressing this same issue with oscarBravo. Surely, all these complaints are not materialising from thin air and do have some substantive merit, however oscarBravo has clearly stated he categorically rejected all these complaints relating to his conduct.

There are a lot examples to the above and are detailed below.

It is clear that oscarBravo's intent in this post is that of ridiculing another user: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57074492&postcount=73.

In this post, a user airs an opinion relating to the topic in question, something that is noted in the charter that users are permitted to do. oscarBravo, not pleased to inform one individual, dresden8, that should s/he have nothing of substance to contribute, not to contribute, but also proceeds to ridicule another person's, Villain, opinion referring to it as paranoid theories and that a dedicated forum exists for such content: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57077511&postcount=137.

A user, Rsaeire makes an observation that certain people on a thread, all of whom are people that possess the same or similar views to oscarBravo, pounce on those that disagree with them. oscarBravo then asserts that should this user have a problem with a post, to report it and to leave the moderating to the moderators. It was, as noted, an observation clearly not in breach of the charter and there was no need for the aggressive stance oscarBravo took on the matter: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57110310&postcount=218. It is another instance that demonstrates over use of moderatorship against individuals that hold an opinion opposite to his.

In this post, the same user as above, Rsaeire, responds in kind to oscarBravo as a user; oscarBravo then responds in kind as a moderator telling the user to read the charter, specifcally the section about commenting on moderation, even though no reference was made to moderating: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57113104&postcount=233.

In the following post, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57200812&postcount=316, oscarBravo moderates an individual for breaching the charter, in particularly complaining about how the user, thehighground, basically dared oscarBravo to moderate him. Funnily enough, oscarBravo, acts in similar fashion daring someone to complain about him by starting a help desk thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57202106&postcount=336, which is not only abrasive, but completely ridicules a valid complaint someone might have. oscarBravo then complains that the help desk thread didn't materialise from the user in question, me: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57220361&postcount=3. I find it surprising, how oscarBravo can then can refute complaints of intimidation when clearly his posts are written for that purpose. Why would any user with a valid complaint feel they can fairly air that complaint when a moderator acts in such a manner?

Once again, oscarBravo moderates a user, auerillo, who has a different opinion to him regarding the topic in question: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57112713&postcount=231. Once again, oscarBravo accuses another user of doing something of which he is guilty of, over and over again.

In addition, to validate the point above that oscarBravo is very much so inclined to moderate those he disagrees with rather than those he agrees with - please view the following posts: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57079128&postcount=142, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57082169&postcount=154, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57110623&postcount=223. In the first and second post, user sink, someone that holds a similar view to oscarBravo on the topic in question (and labelled, by me, as part of a bully pack scenario along with oscarBravo), attacks user ktex2, and in the third post admits to doing so. This attack received absolutely no moderation from oscarBravo, but far lesser infractions, oddly enough from those that disagree with him, have been publicly moderated.

In this post, oscarBravo, demonstrates his aggressive, antagonistic nature: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57214755&postcount=4.

The above complaints are only relevant to one thread, so one could just imagine how much more abuses oscarBravo commits regarding his moderator abilities. oscarBravo is extremely aggressive in expressing any view whatsoever as is clear throughout the thread in question and singlehandedly has made many users not want to participate in the discussion.

I have no wish for oscarBravo to be punished or whatever happens should a complaint be upheld against a moderator - what I truly wish to see happen, is that the numerous complaints that oscarBravo has dismissed/rejected, are given some consideration and that someone that oscarBravo will actually listen to addresses this with him so ultimately he can no longer willfully intimidate, moderate against those he disagrees with and diminish users' enjoyment of the Politics forum here on boards.ie.

seamus

I find it interesting that I cannot remember one single time where a complaint has been made about moderating on the Politics forum where the complainant didn't mention, "Politically motivated".

Whether oscarBravo has a differing opinion to you or not is irrelevant. Your links give no indication to me that his moderating is inconsistent, unfair or otherwise motivated by anything but the charter.

Yes, he can be brash, he can be sarcastic, he can be direct, and sometimes he can be downright arrogant. He'll admit as much himself. oscarBravo doesn't beat around the bush, and this posting style often throws people off and is easily mistaken as "aggressive". I see no aggression in any of the posts you link above.

I'm going to call a spade a spade on this one - in all of the politics forums, the side who is getting their arse handed to them in a debate will 99% of the time attempt to derail the thread by claiming that they're being shouted down or oppressed or there's some other agenda trying to silence them. The fact is, when you're getting your arse handed to you in a discussion, it's not because of some external factor, it's because your argument is crap. Crap arguments get called crap arguments, and just because it's someone's opinion, doesn't mean it has a right to survive.

All I can see here are attempts to dress up oscarBravo's posting style as oppression and aggression from oscarBravo. Perhaps it's just the limitations of this text format that are causing people to read it wrong.

krpc

seamus wrote: »

I find it interesting that I cannot remember one single time where a complaint has been made about moderating on the Politics forum where the complainant didn't mention, "Politically motivated".

Whether oscarBravo has a differing opinion to you or not is irrelevant. Your links give no indication to me that his moderating is inconsistent, unfair or otherwise motivated by anything but the charter.

Yes, he can be brash, he can be sarcastic, he can be direct, and sometimes he can be downright arrogant. He'll admit as much himself. oscarBravo doesn't beat around the bush, and this posting style often throws people off and is easily mistaken as "aggressive". I see no aggression in any of the posts you link above.

I'm going to call a spade a spade on this one - in all of the politics forums, the side who is getting their arse handed to them in a debate will 99% of the time attempt to derail the thread by claiming that they're being shouted down or oppressed or there's some other agenda trying to silence them. The fact is, when you're getting your arse handed to you in a discussion, it's not because of some external factor, it's because your argument is crap. Crap arguments get called crap arguments, and just because it's someone's opinion, doesn't mean it has a right to survive.

All I can see here are attempts to dress up oscarBravo's posting style as oppression and aggression from oscarBravo. Perhaps it's just the limitations of this text format that are causing people to read it wrong.

I respect your opinion, seamus, but necessarily disagree with it; although of course, some observations of yours hold true in certain situations. I do thank you for your thoughts.

I have seen people banned or have posts moderated or deleted for far less than oscarBravo does. I fail to see how it can be one rule for a moderator and another rule for everyone else?

Also, you mention a figure of 99% as the approximate amount you believe that those that are getting their 'ass handed' to them attempt to derail discussion - what in fact, if these complaints are within the 1%? Would it be taken seriously or dismissed so easily? It is easy to categorise all problems into one, but perhaps, just perhaps, this has nothing to do with anyone getting their 'ass handed' to them, but in fact is about the topic that was being addressed; an actual real concern? Plus, contrary to your statement, some are clearly intimidated by oscarBravo's conduct to not want to post an argument in the first place or to engage in any further discussion, so they don't even feel safe in putting forth that "crap argument", as you said. Surely, if I was eager enough and intent to participate in a whingefest, as oscarBravo so eloquently stated in a prior complaint (which clearly conflicts with your comment about him not being aggressive), I would simply do all I could to get oscarBravo removed from discussion - that is something I have clearly said I do not wish to happen. I feel oscarBravo has a lot to offer political discussion, but currently his conduct is diminishing that contribution and in turn spoiling it for others. He should be held to the exact same standards of participating in discussion as everyone else or perhaps, some might say, higher, considering those that are in positions of responsibility or leadership are often the example by which everyone should aspire to follow. I would be concerned for the Politics forum if oscarBravo's unchecked conduct is allowed to continue as that example.

If seamus' response is the decision of the powers that be concerning any complaints (or at least 99% of them) in the Politics forum that relate to moderation, then so be it.

seamus

i-bloodhound wrote: »

Also, you mention a figure of 99% as the approximate amount you believe that those that are getting their 'ass handed' to them attempt to derail discussion - what in fact, if these complaints are within the 1%?

I wasn't referring to 99% of complaints. I was referring to people losing in discussions. The other 1% are people who go, "OK, fair enough, I can see that I was mistaken".

Plus, contrary to your statement, some are clearly intimidated by oscarBravo's conduct to not want to post an argument in the first place or to engage in any further discussion, so they don't even feel safe in putting forth that "crap argument", as you said.

If some people are intimidated by another poster, despite that poster not actually being aggressive or oppressive in any way, then that's their problem. If you can't stand the heat, etc. This is the internet. Some people will be curt and direct. We're not going to require that everyone sugar-coats their posts just to avoid scaring people away.

Some people find it difficult to engage in discussion with another person who is direct. The problem here isn't the direct person, it's the other guy who's afraid of confrontation.

Unlike much of the rest of the site, the politics forums tend to take the format of a debate more than a discussion. For people who are unfamiliar with debates, this can appear very hostile. In a debate, it doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong. What wins the argument is the quality of your points. When you're debating with someone and you know you're 100% right, but they're still running rings around you and making you look like an idiot, this can be very frustrating. I've been there many times on politics.

This is what I'm seeing from all of these complaints, a misunderstanding of the difference between debate and hostility.

I'm not sure what kind of "standards" you're referring to in oscarBravo's case. None of the links you posted show any kind of inconsistency.

krpc

seamus wrote: »

I wasn't referring to 99% of complaints. I was referring to people losing in discussions. The other 1% are people who go, "OK, fair enough, I can see that I was mistaken".

If some people are intimidated by another poster, despite that poster not actually being aggressive or oppressive in any way, then that's their problem. If you can't stand the heat, etc. This is the internet. Some people will be curt and direct. We're not going to require that everyone sugar-coats their posts just to avoid scaring people away.

Some people find it difficult to engage in discussion with another person who is direct. The problem here isn't the direct person, it's the other guy who's afraid of confrontation.

Unlike much of the rest of the site, the politics forums tend to take the format of a debate more than a discussion. For people who are unfamiliar with debates, this can appear very hostile. In a debate, it doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong. What wins the argument is the quality of your points. When you're debating with someone and you know you're 100% right, but they're still running rings around you and making you look like an idiot, this can be very frustrating. I've been there many times on politics.

This is what I'm seeing from all of these complaints, a misunderstanding of the difference between debate and hostility.

I'm not sure what kind of "standards" you're referring to in oscarBravo's case. None of the links you posted show any kind of inconsistency.

Again, I appreciate you point and there are parts, in my opinion, that are very true; but again, you cannot apply one answer to every solution. Perhaps that is the precise problem - the fact that someone wins or loses a debate, discussion, or whatever should not be a factor in the complaint and the complaint itself is taken at face value and is discussed based on it's merits rather than being dismissed outright.

Anyway, as I said, if that's the decision of the powers that be, so be it.

seamus

i-bloodhound wrote: »

Perhaps that is the precise problem - the fact that someone wins or loses a debate, discussion, or whatever should not be a factor in the complaint and the complaint itself is taken at face value and is discussed based on it's merits rather than being dismissed outright.

I thought that I dealt with the actual complaint - the perception of oscarBravo being abusive - external to the discussion(s), but maybe it doesn't come across like that.

In any case, I believe that events leading up to or surrounding a complaint are often relevant because quite often a person would not under other circumstances have made the complaint.

krpc

seamus wrote: »

I thought that I dealt with the actual complaint - the perception of oscarBravo being abusive - external to the discussion(s), but maybe it doesn't come across like that.

In any case, I believe that events leading up to or surrounding a complaint are often relevant because quite often a person would not under other circumstances have made the complaint.

seamus,

I realise that a decision has been made regarding this complaint. I do not agree with that decision, but I shall accept it.

This acceptance should be evidence enough that this complaint, and possibly others like it, had nothing to do with the suggesstion that the motive for it came as a result of sour grapes. I personally have no problem with individuals disagreeing me - that said, the powers that be here on boards.ie should not be so eager to sweepingly tar everyone with the same brush

Thank you for your time and your thoughts on the matter.