A discussion about Moderating

Bob the Builder

seamus wrote: »

It might interest you to know that I can see your edit notes (you know the box that says, "Reason for deleting"?). What I said is pretty accurate.

If you had left that box empty I would have said nothing.

This is why they tell you at school not to fight the powwa.

FlutterinBantam

seamus wrote: »

amp (now sadly no longer a moderator), ran what I now see as a very interesting experiment on one forum. The title of the thread was "Post here to get banned". Everyone who posted on the thread (with the exception of Admins and Smods), was banned. amp was consistent, and didn't miss a single one. A massive number of people complained about the banning, citing various reasons why the ban wasn't justified or why it wasn't their fault (they didn't know), and plenty even accused amp of personal biase and bullying for banning them. The concept of the thread couldn't have been simpler, and yet for some reason, some people refused to accept that they got banned purely and completely, 100% through their own actions.

Totally and utterly incorrect Seamus.

I'm really surprised you would come up with this.

Jezza posted several times in that thread and was not banned.

There were others but the facts are there.

Gandalf23

I’m going to contribute to this because I was quoted in the original helpdesk thread. I want to make it clear that I am not accusing anyone of bullying, but I do stand by what I said in the quoted post in the helpdesk thread.

The single most important thing is that serious complaints of bullying must be taken absolutely seriously and be thoroughly investigated, and (even more importantly) be seen to be thoroughly investigated. I’m not saying all complaints should be investigated, but this seems to be a complaint that warrants a deeper look.

Has that happened in this instance?

Anyone who has ever been subject to bullying will know that in most cases bullying is usually denied. It is thus very very difficult to prove … this is something Auerillo is finding out. Just because it is difficult to prove does not mean there is no bullying. Bullying often operates in a cumulative fashion similar to the drip drip approach and individual incidents may, when taken in isolation, seem trivial. But it is still bullying.

I have to admit I am disappointed by Seamas’ reaction to these accusations against OB. I believe there is (at the very least) a case to be investigated against OB. Was there an investigation of the claims made by Auerillo? Were Auerillo’s claims even considered seriously? To quote Seamas directly “The decision (by me) is that a word is not necessary” This answer saddened me, as I would consider Seamus as probably the most fair minded, articulate, and decent mod on boards.ie.

As I said above, the most important thing is that serious complaints of bullying must be taken absolutely seriously and be thoroughly investigated. There must also be the perception of fairness and such cases should be seen to be thoroughly investigated.

People reading this will make up their own minds whether or not this has happened in this case.

Bob the Builder

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Totally and utterly incorrect Seamus.

I'm really surprised you would come up with this.

Jezza posted several times in that thread and was not banned.

There were others but the facts are there.

Yah Seamus, good point, but as for consistency, there was none. Some posted there no problem at all, and were completely allowed to bypass the system.

and yeah, sure amp was a great mod in his day, but towards the end, I didn't find him that great at all.

seamus

Gandalf23 wrote: »

As I said above, the most important thing is that serious complaints of bullying must be taken absolutely seriously and be thoroughly investigated. There must also be the perception of fairness and such cases should be seen to be thoroughly investigated.

There were two threads posted and a whole heap of links supplied in both.

I looked through them all and failed to find anything which would indicate that the claim of "bullying" had grounds. The accusation is equally as serious for the accused as it is for the accuser, so believe me I don't treat it lightly.

I have no idea what else you would expect me to do. Police all of oscarBravo's posts just to make sure he's staying in line, even though he hasn't done anything? Suggest that he be "suspended", just in case?

I have satisfied myself that there's nothing there. With all due respect to the rest of the site, I don't have satisfy anyone else. If someone doesn't regard my investigation as impartial or thorough enough, they can conduct their own. The posts and the links are there for you to read. Go ahead.

I'm not going to go writing a report on the "findings" of any "investigation", even though my responses on the help desk thread were pretty much that anyway.

Seriously, I've done the leg work, I've taken the complaints seriously and I've responded. What else do you want?

Yah Seamus, good point, but as for consistency, there was none. Some posted there no problem at all, and were completely allowed to bypass the system.

Lies.

auerillo

[

Fysh wrote: »

… aurellio hasn't yet pointed to any specific posts of OscarBravo's in which the alleged bullying behaviour has occured, so nobody can really comment in a useful way… if his comments remain generalised and non-specific allegations of bullying, … but in the Helpdesk thread that was created for this I didn't see you actually provide specific posts which you considered to be bullying. You stated that you felt the mod in question was a bully, which is a legitimate…Stating that other people feel they've been bullied out of the forum doesn't help and is irrelevant … You, as the complainant, have to provide the basis of the complaint.

Fysh wrote: »

Speaking only for myself, I'm not taking a stance either way - my post was pointing out that I think any allegation of bullying should be taken seriously and the evidence looked at. As far as I can see, aurellio hasn't yet pointed to any specific posts of OscarBravo's in which the alleged bullying behaviour has occured, so nobody can really comment in a useful way.

That said, if his comments remain generalised and non-specific allegations of bullying,

I am not sure why this isn’t clear, as I’ve corrected it a number of times by now. I am not making a complaint that OB is a bully. While I may, indeed, consider him to be so, that is not what I am complaining about.

For complete clarity I would like to state the following;

The purpose of the thread, which OB moved to the help desk, is to point out that a number of members on this forum have stated, in writing, that they no longer contribute to the politics forum directly due to what they have said they perceive to be OB’s behaviour.

What got my attention was that I, also, had decided this for myself after what I considered to be the rude, aggressive, combatitive behaviour by OB towards me, and I wondered how many others had come to the same conclusion.

humanji wrote: »

Look at all the people you said have complained and are no longer posting in the Politics forum. Look how many of them broke rules and were either warned, infracted or banned for this. Look how many of them refused to admit that they did anything wrong. Look how many of them claim Oscar Bravo is a bully and abusing his position. And finally, look how many of them had been warned, infracted or banned by Oscar Bravo.

Now, can you honestly say that they are ALL complaining for the right reasons?

.

The answer to this is that I really have no idea, and have not looked at any of the above. I’m sure it’s interesting, but it’s not relevant to what I am talking about which is explained above. I can no more honestly say that they were ALL complaining for the right reasons, any more that you can, presumably, say they were ALL complaining for the wrong reasons.

seamus wrote: »

Someone senior can have a word if they wish. The decision (by me) is that a word is not necessary. "Stop being so blunt" isn't something I'm going to say to any moderator any time soon.
Why have all of these people only contacted you in private?. Because regardless of your response, he won't be happy.

“blunt” is, of course , semantics. But it doesn’t take from the evidence, in their own words, that a lot of members consider OB so “blunt” that they have said they will no longer engage with him and no longer participate in the forums where he is involved.

All these people have not all contacted me in private, but stated their views in public forums, on www.boards.ie. A few guys did contact me in private when they saw the thread, and I also reproduced a sample of their opinions, verbatim, in the help desk thread. I did not edit or alter what they said in any way, and copy and pasted directly their opinions.

Seamus, Luckily, I am blessed with a happy disposition and am not waiting for a reply here to make me happy!

What does concern me are the attempts to dismiss all these members opinions by so many different means, (including shooting the messenger!), rather than actually considering if they might have a point, or even having a quiet word with a few of the more reliable of them to enquire further.

In any business, it is thought less than 5% of dissatisfied customers make a complaint, and the remaining 95% don’t bother to complain and just vote with their feet. Why should www.boards.ie be any different?

By any measure, OB seems to generate many more similar opinions to the ones I reproduced, when compared to any moderator I have seen on boards. And this isn’t just in the last few weeks, but seems to be a fairly consistent theme here over time.

If it was one or two troublemakers, then one can understand it not being taken seriously. But to any independent observer, there is a pattern here, and a lot of members complaining, and the common person is OB. As far as I am aware, this happens with no other moderator although is a fairly consistent pattern with members voicing their opinions that OB is rude, etc etc that they no longer post in his threads as a direct result of that.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

The single most important thing is that serious complaints of bullying must be taken absolutely seriously and be thoroughly investigated, and (even more importantly) be seen to be thoroughly investigated..

Again, I am not making a charge of bullying against OB, I am merely bring together statements made by various members that they consider his behaviour to be unacceptable, and that they consider his behaviour to be so unacceptable that they no longer post in the threads or engage with him, and letting everyone else make up their own minds on the matter.

If www.boards.ie considers that the matter should be investigated, then they can contact some or all of these people to investigate further, or not, as they deem fit. Individual members can make up their minds on the evidence.

Karl Hungus

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Bullying often operates in a cumulative fashion similar to the drip drip approach and individual incidents may, when taken in isolation, seem trivial. But it is still bullying.

Now, certainly it's true that individual incidents may seem trivial, but when the person making the accusation is flatting refusing to cite any incident at all, even after repeatedly being asked to, it really does damage their argument. I'm not saying you're wrong, or that this case isn't without merit, but after reading the thread on Help Desk, auerillo just comes across as being evasive.

What exactly is Seamus supposed to do, go through every single one of OscarBravo's posts with careful scrutiny? Investigation needs a starting point, it needs points of reference. You don't tell the police that a murder has happened and demand they solve it, without telling them where to find the body. If anyone is serious about making a complaint then they need to provide links and/or cite incidents, otherwise it's just not feasible to investigate.

People making these kinds of acusations need to get serious, and either provide the required evidence or drop the issue. Repeatedly demanding over and over that something needs to be done, while being completely evasive, is bringing us nowhere.

Bob the Builder

seamus wrote: »

Lies.

Trust you to say that. Amp's friendships with all the SMods and Admins meant that he could do no wrong.

He abused people outright, and nobody ever said anything to him, because he was 'in' with all those people who had a say.

Boston

auerillo: I'm not saying you post a load drivel, I'm just bringing together the opinions of every one else and presenting them in a nice format.

nevf: Your wrong. I'm not going to get into the history of amp but it certainly wasn't the case that he was never reprimanded. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

auerillo

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Now, certainly it's true that individual incidents may seem trivial, but when the person making the accusation is flatting refusing to cite any incident at all, even after repeatedly being asked to, it really does damage their argument. I'm not saying you're wrong, or that this case isn't without merit, but after reading the thread on Help Desk, auerillo just comes across as being evasive.

.

I can refer you to my post above this one where I outline that i am not complaining about bullying, therefore to expect me to produce example of something I am not complaining about is ridiculous. Indeed, i am making no "accusation" at all, despit you claiming I am. Can you read the post above to understand what the point of what i am saying?

"I am not sure why this isn’t clear, as I’ve corrected it a number of times by now. I am not making a complaint that OB is a bully. While I may, indeed, consider him to be so, that is not what I am complaining about.

For complete clarity I would like to state the following;

The purpose of the thread, which OB moved to the help desk, is to point out that a number of members on this forum have stated, in writing, that they no longer contribute to the politics forum directly due to what they have said they perceive to be OB’s behaviour. "

Boston wrote: »

auerillo: I'm not saying you post a load drivel, I'm just bringing together the opinions of every one else and presenting them in a nice format.

The difference bewteen us is that I do not make pejorative comments about you, and I produce the evidence, in the form of quotes of what I claim the other people said.

If you are really saying you consider it drivel that the other poeple didn't say what i claim they said, then I suggest you check the threads where the quotes come from. .

Boston

I'm not saying it, other people are. I'm just the medium through which other peoples opinions flow.

Bob the Builder

Boston wrote: »

nevf: Your wrong. I'm not going to get into the history of amp but it certainly wasn't the case that he was never reprimanded. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Fair enough, but whenever there was a thread about amp in Feedback, I always remember the smods/admins jumping in and defending him to the hilt. I saw another thread about another CMod about a month ago, and when he was being fed to the lions there was no authority to be seen at all.

As for consistency in the cuckoo's nest, i advise Seamus to have a look back over that thread, and he will see that not "every single poster" was reprimanded for banning in the extreme stupidity filter. So in terms of "Lies", whilst I wouldn't call the post that seamus made "Lies", i certainly wouldn't say that all his statements are correct.

seamus

nevf wrote: »

As for consistency in the cuckoo's nest, i advise Seamus to have a look back over that thread, and he will see that not "every single poster" was reprimanded for banning in the extreme stupidity filter. So in terms of "Lies", whilst I wouldn't call the post that seamus made "Lies", i certainly wouldn't say that all his statements are correct.

Tell you what; Go through that thread and find me people who weren't banned and who aren't (or weren't at the time) admins, smods or mods of the cuckoo's nest. Link to their posts. Thx.

Yes, I was probably a bit off in saying he was "consistent", as I'm sure there were times when he managed to miss one or two. He never intentionally banned someone due to that thread just cos he didn't like them though. Even though loads of people claimed he did.

Fysh

auerillo wrote: »

I am not sure why this isn’t clear, as I’ve corrected it a number of times by now. I am not making a complaint that OB is a bully. While I may, indeed, consider him to be so, that is not what I am complaining about.

For complete clarity I would like to state the following;

The purpose of the thread, which OB moved to the help desk, is to point out that a number of members on this forum have stated, in writing, that they no longer contribute to the politics forum directly due to what they have said they perceive to be OB’s behaviour.

What got my attention was that I, also, had decided this for myself after what I considered to be the rude, aggressive, combatitive behaviour by OB towards me, and I wondered how many others had come to the same conclusion.

Thank you for the clarification. I'm going to drop all discussion of OscarBravo being a bully and state that, as per your comments above, OscarBravo is not a bully, nor does auerillo's complaint relate to bullying in any way. Do you agree with this statement? (Yes or no answer please, there are too much handwavey generalisations in this thread as it is)

auerillo wrote: »

“blunt” is, of course , semantics. But it doesn’t take from the evidence, in their own words, that a lot of members consider OB so “blunt” that they have said they will no longer engage with him and no longer participate in the forums where he is involved.

"Blunt" is no more semantics than "I am not making a complaint that OB is a bully. While I may, indeed, consider him to be so, that is not what I am complaining about".

More pertinently, the "evidence" you refer to is that people won't post in Politics because of OscarBravo. There is evidence in the form of various Feedback threads to show that there are quite a lot of people who believe that they should be allowed to flout clearly-delineated rules when they post in Politics. Here are some old examples taken from another thread about the moderation of Politics to give you some idea of what I mean:

"But I thought I was allowed to slag off politicians in here"

"Damnit, I want to say that he's a liar! Change the damn rules so that I can say he's a liar!"

"If I insult a political party publicly and then privately apologise afterwards, that makes it ok, right?"

"Why can't I just quote promotional material from other sites and insult people who disagree with me?"

The above (and they aren't the only examples) threads show that this mentality of making a complaint without necessarily having legitimate grounds is present in enough posters that complaints cannot be simply taken at face value. Thus, we cannot discuss OscarBravo's behaviour as a possible negative influence on the Politics forum without specific examples of the behaviour in question, preferably involving those posters who claim to no longer feel welcome in Politics due to this behaviour.

auerillo wrote: »

In any business, it is thought less than 5% of dissatisfied customers make a complaint, and the remaining 95% don’t bother to complain and just vote with their feet. Why should www.boards.ie be any different?

I repeat: complaints of this kind specifically concerning Politics can't just be taken at face value (and please note I'm saying that as someone who neither posts there nor moderates it, I just have an interest in how often feedback threads on the subject come up). If your complaint is legitimate, then you will be able to show clear examples of the behaviour you are dissatisfied with.

auerillo wrote: »

By any measure, OB seems to generate many more similar opinions to the ones I reproduced, when compared to any moderator I have seen on boards. And this isn’t just in the last few weeks, but seems to be a fairly consistent theme here over time.

My experience as a non-Politics poster is that someone is almost always complaining about at least one of the Politics mods. Aside from which the different sections of boards receive different traffic volumes, and different subjects have differing probabilities of attracting the kind of heated discussions which tend to go hand in hand with moderators stepping in and those moderated subsequently complaining. The fact that OscarBravo gets more complaints than, say, me for his moderation is meaningless - there's no boards-wide standard for moderation, nor could there be.

auerillo wrote: »

Again, I am not making a charge of bullying against OB, I am merely bring together statements made by various members that they consider his behaviour to be unacceptable, and that they consider his behaviour to be so unacceptable that they no longer post in the threads or engage with him, and letting everyone else make up their own minds on the matter.

Can we have some examples please? It's getting really tedious reading posts from you that shout "FIRE!" while then being coy as to the severity and location of the blaze in question, and you're already well past the point of being compared to the boy who cried wolf...

FlutterinBantam

Boston wrote: »

auerillo: I'm not saying you post a load drivel, I'm just bringing together the opinions of every one else and presenting them in a nice format.

nevf: Your wrong. I'm not going to get into the history of amp but it certainly wasn't the case that he was never reprimanded. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Boston ,you seem to have some kind of super modship over the show here.

It may be self appointed or not, I don't know or care

Just answer one question if you can.

Did Jezza post in "Post here and be banned" thread in TCN and not be banned????
Yes or No

humanji

auerillo wrote: »

The answer to this is that I really have no idea, and have not looked at any of the above. I’m sure it’s interesting, but it’s not relevant to what I am talking about which is explained above. I can no more honestly say that they were ALL complaining for the right reasons, any more that you can, presumably, say they were ALL complaining for the wrong reasons.

Eh, it's a list of people you came up with to try and bolster your opinion. Wouldn't that make it relevant to you? Your claim is that OB is the cause of many people leaving the forum. My point is that when you investigate who these people are, you see that they're not all squeeky clean and in the majority of cases will have something against OB, the person and not just OB, the mod.

No evidence has been shown to support the claims of bullying, but links have been provided (by yourself) which have already been investigated by the powers that be and OB has been cleared of wrongdoing. The most that can be said is that OB is like the majority of other politics posters, in that he stands up for his beliefs and questions those who's opinions differ from him. Just like you do. He just doesn't have time for those who don't back up anything they say, hence why he appears rude to you.

Making outrageous claims on the Politics forum and not backing them up is against the Charter. So why should he sit back and let people away with it?

Karl Hungus

auerillo wrote: »

Can you read the post above to understand what the point of what i am saying?

Yes, you're being a weasle.

'Not making a complaint' when it suits, sidetracking the discussion, muddying the waters, and pissing on discourse. If you weren't making a complaint, then why even bother to gather together quotes from other people? You're just stringing together other people's quotes in order to stick it to OscarBravo, making the implication, but not actually saying it directly.

Honestly, you're like someone who'll mumble something snarky at someone, but when they ask what you've just said, you innocently go "hmm? I didn't say anything! " I can see why OscarBravo would be blunt with you...

I'm done, don't have the patience for this.

Gandalf23

seamus wrote: »

There were two threads posted and a whole heap of links supplied in both.

I looked through them all and failed to find anything which would indicate that the claim of "bullying" had grounds. The accusation is equally as serious for the accused as it is for the accuser, so believe me I don't treat it lightly.

I have no idea what else you would expect me to do. Police all of oscarBravo's posts just to make sure he's staying in line, even though he hasn't done anything? Suggest that he be "suspended", just in case?

I have satisfied myself that there's nothing there. With all due respect to the rest of the site, I don't have satisfy anyone else. If someone doesn't regard my investigation as impartial or thorough enough, they can conduct their own. The posts and the links are there for you to read. Go ahead.

I'm not going to go writing a report on the "findings" of any "investigation", even though my responses on the help desk thread were pretty much that anyway.

Seriously, I've done the leg work, I've taken the complaints seriously and I've responded. What else do you want?

Ok, I accept that, and I trust your opinion and judgment because of the immense respect I have for you as a mod.

But you have to accept this is an unsatisfactory outcome for all concerned.

The problem with this current system as highlighted by this and the other threads is that there is now a lingering perception that;
(a) accusations (of bullying or otherwise) are not investigated in a fair and robust manner, and
(b) OB has been accused of fairly serious stuff and has not been fully cleared.

Thats an unfair outcome on two grounds ... neither side is happy. The outcome is very unfair on both OB and auerillo (especially OB imho as his reputation has been dragged through the mud).

I suggest two things;
1. That some formal system be put in place that investigates serious claims/accusations. Perhaps the feedback mods could be given this task. The system should ensure that any investigation is conducted in a fair, robust, consistent, and transparent manner. Only claims that are presented in a clear and courteous way with supporting material should be considered. Examples would be the Pighead feedback thread and the auerillo thread.
2. Anyone considering making an accusation of any type against a mod should have evidence to support their claim. If bullying is happening, the accuser should collect evidence over time and perhaps contact Seamus directly instead of starting a thread about it, or confronting the mod directly.


I for one trust Seamus and his judgment. But the current way accusations like this are treated could definitely be improved. Feedback was changed for the better ... time to change this for the better.

FlutterinBantam

I trust Seamus too, thats why I was so surprised about his comments about Amp, and the lack of answers to my direct questions.

Still trust him as a good guy.

auerillo

Fysh wrote: »

Thank you for the clarification. I'm going to drop all discussion of OscarBravo being a bully and state that, as per your comments above, OscarBravo is not a bully, nor does auerillo's complaint relate to bullying in any way. Do you agree with this statement? (Yes or no answer please, there are too much handwavey generalisations in this thread as it is)..

I don’t agree with it. I have already said I consider him to be a bully, but it’s not something I want to complain about. Does that clarify?

Fysh wrote: »

"Blunt" is no more semantics than "I am not making a complaint that OB is a bully. While I may, indeed, consider him to be so, that is not what I am complaining about".

...

I can’t agree. Blunt is semantics, in that it is often claimed by people who are bullies. It’s a well known irregular verb, I am blunt, he is a bully, etc.

I understand your point although also point out that it is impossible to examine the opinions of a number of people who say they no longer post in the politics threads, due to his behaviour, without coming to that conclusion. However, to come to that conclusion is not to say that’s what I am complaining about.

Fysh wrote: »

More pertinently, the "evidence" you refer to is that people won't post in Politics because of OscarBravo. There is evidence in the form of various Feedback threads to show that there are quite a lot of people who believe that they should be allowed to flout clearly-delineated rules when they post in Politics. Here are some old examples taken from another thread about the moderation of Politics to give you some idea of what I mean:

"But I thought I was allowed to slag off politicians in here"

"Damnit, I want to say that he's a liar! Change the damn rules so that I can say he's a liar!"

"If I insult a political party publicly and then privately apologise afterwards, that makes it ok, right?"

"Why can't I just quote promotional material from other sites and insult people who disagree with me?"

The above (and they aren't the only examples) threads show that this mentality of making a complaint without necessarily having legitimate grounds is present in enough posters that complaints cannot be simply taken at face value. Thus, we cannot discuss OscarBravo's behaviour as a possible negative influence on the Politics forum without specific examples of the behaviour in question, preferably involving those posters who claim to no longer feel welcome in Politics due to this behaviour.



..

I agree, which is why I suggested someone in authority investigate from the more reliable of those who have made the statements that they no longer post in the politics threads due to OB’s behaviour.

If you are expecting me to speak on their behalf, as to why they have come to this decision, then I have to say I really don’t know their reasons. In some cases they have given links, but wouldn’t it be better to have someone in authority to ask them directly, rather than asking me?

Where, perhaps, we differ is that I don’t automatically think their reasons must be illigitimate just because there are some in the politics threads who believe that they should be allowed to flout clearly-delineated rules. That’s why I suggested the more reliable of those who have stated they no longer post in the politics threads might be asked, so www.boards.ie can avoid those who believe that they should be allowed to flout clearly-delineated rules.

Fysh wrote: »

I repeat: complaints of this kind specifically concerning Politics can't just be taken at face value (and please note I'm saying that as someone who neither posts there nor moderates it, I just have an interest in how often feedback threads on the subject come up). If your complaint is legitimate, then you will be able to show clear examples of the behaviour you are dissatisfied with...

Its up to each of the members here, who have followed the threads, to decide for themselves whether or not they can take what other members say at face value.

If, for example, a member like simplesam06, who has contributed more than 3000 posts and, as far as one can tell, seems to be a valued member of www.boards.ie says ““I have to say I was very much surprised when I saw oB's posts in that thread, I've never seen anything like it in any other forum. The mod in question seemed to lead in with complaints about the user not replying to his posts, and then treating the apparently polite and civil responses very shortly indeed, before hinting heavily that the user might be sitebanned”, are you saying you can’t take anything he says at face value?

Or how about dlonfep who, with over 7000 posts, must carry some weight, said “I would also add that OB is not fit to moderate. He labelled me as Xenophobic and a terrorist supporter, when I am neither of which. I addressed him in a private message to discuss it and avoid cluttering the thread, and all he had to say is that he didn't want to talk about it. He is a moderator and if he makes such accusations, then he should at least allow me to discuss it with him.”

Or do you think it worth following up with members like that, especially in light of the sheer number of members who do seem to hold a similar opinion. Even OB himself says he is “tired” responding to those who hold similar opinions?

Fysh wrote: »

Can we have some examples please? It's getting really tedious reading posts from you that shout "FIRE!" while then being coy as to the severity and location of the blaze in question, and you're already well past the point of being compared to the boy who cried wolf...

I can only repeat that I am not qualified to speak on behalf of why others feel OB's behaviour has led them to the conclusions it has, and only they can tell you why.

In the meantime, we all make up their own minds on whether we believe all, or any, of the members who have said that they consider OB's behaviour to be unacceptable are doing so because they genuinely believe it, or because they enjoy making mischief.

Gandalf23

@ Auerillo ... can I make a suggestion please? You have made your point in a very clear and competent manner. Well done. There is no need to keep making/clarifying your point over and over again and answering people here. All further comment from you is now diluting your original point(s). Seamus has spoken and we now need to accept his word and move on from this.

How we move on from this is the question. If you have any suggestions as to how similar matters/complaints can be dealt with in the future please make suggestions. They will be listened to and in my experience all good suggestions are considered.

My advice to you is to go back to Politics and be as useful a contributor as possible. If you feel that you are being bullied or treated unfairly in any way collect the evidence and PM Seamus directly. He is a good guy and wont put up with unfair behavior from a mod or anyone else.

Boards.ie is a great place and a great community ... enjoy it! And you know what else, its going to be sunny for the next few day!!! Its all good :D:D

FlutterinBantam

yeah.... there's a frikken good post.

Nice one.

auerillo

Gandalf23 wrote: »

@ Auerillo ... can I make a suggestion please? You have made your point in a very clear and competent manner. Well done. There is no need to keep making/clarifying your point over and over again and answering people here. All further comment from you is now diluting your original point(s). Seamus has spoken and we now need to accept his word and move on from this.

How we move on from this is the question. If you have any suggestions as to how similar matters/complaints can be dealt with in the future please make suggestions. They will be listened to and in my experience all good suggestions are considered.

My advice to you is to go back to Politics and be as useful a contributor as possible. If you feel that you are being bullied or treated unfairly in any way collect the evidence and PM Seamus directly. He is a good guy and wont put up with unfair behavior from a mod or anyone else.

Boards.ie is a great place and a great community ... enjoy it! And you know what else, its going to be sunny for the next few day!!! Its all good :D:D

I agree completely that I am making the same point over and over again, but when someone asks a question, its rude to just ignore them and not respond. I tend to avoid responding to posts which are pejorative and just name call or try to inflame the thread, but will always try to respond to those who seem genuinely interested in progressing it.

Fysh

auerillo wrote: »

I agree, which is why I suggested someone in authority investigate from the more reliable of those who have made the statements that they no longer post in the politics threads due to OB’s behaviour.

If you are expecting me to speak on their behalf, as to why they have come to this decision, then I have to say I really don’t know their reasons. In some cases they have given links, but wouldn’t it be better to have someone in authority to ask them directly, rather than asking me?

I'm not expecting you to speak on their behalf, but if you're going to bring up that they feel this way you should provide some evidence of it. Not just their statements that they feel this way, but also links of where they have been treated in the manner they complain about. If you don't have those links, either ask the affected posters to provide them or search for them yourself. I repeat : you are the complainant, the onus is on you to prove that there are grounds for investigation into your complaint. Saying that other people feel the same way, then suddenly getting shy about "speaking for them" doesn't cut it.

auerillo wrote: »

If, for example, a member like simplesam06, who has contributed more than 3000 posts and, as far as one can tell, seems to be a valued member of www.boards.ie says ““I have to say I was very much surprised when I saw oB's posts in that thread, I've never seen anything like it in any other forum. The mod in question seemed to lead in with complaints about the user not replying to his posts, and then treating the apparently polite and civil responses very shortly indeed, before hinting heavily that the user might be sitebanned”, are you saying you can’t take anything he says at face value?

Or how about dlonfep who, with over 7000 posts, must carry some weight, said “I would also add that OB is not fit to moderate. He labelled me as Xenophobic and a terrorist supporter, when I am neither of which. I addressed him in a private message to discuss it and avoid cluttering the thread, and all he had to say is that he didn't want to talk about it. He is a moderator and if he makes such accusations, then he should at least allow me to discuss it with him.”

Or do you think it worth following up with members like that, especially in light of the sheer number of members who do seem to hold a similar opinion. Even OB himself says he is “tired” responding to those who hold similar opinions?

1) You are not your post count. It's not unheard of for people with over 10,000 posts to their name to be sitebanned, nor is it impossible for someone with a high post count to fall foul of the rules.
2) You have quoted the grievances of 2 of the 30odd posters you claim feel this way. It's an encouraging step in the right direction, but it still lacks any actual evidence that could be looked at by SMods/admins. If your complaint is valid, there must be some examples of it that you can link to directly. Why won't you tell us where they are, instead of going on about how you'd like the admins/SMods to "look into it"? Bear in mind that someone who doesn't post there regularly would have to invest a lot of time to get a feel for the forum itself, an understanding of how discussions between regulars usually play out, and then find specific examples of abuses of position by a given mod.

auerillo wrote: »

I can only repeat that I am not qualified to speak on behalf of why others feel OB's behaviour has led them to the conclusions it has, and only they can tell you why.

In the meantime, we all make up their own minds on whether we believe all, or any, of the members who have said that they consider OB's behaviour to be unacceptable are doing so because they genuinely believe it, or because they enjoy making mischief.

Thus far, I refuse to have an opinion on the issue because unsubstantiated complaints about a moderator's behaviour are common enough to merit a veritable pillar of salt. I'm not asking you to speak for anyone else here, but if you feel the same way about this issue - i.e. that OscarBravo's behaviour has driven you from the Politics forum - then you should provide evidence of where this unfair behaviour has occured. If you don't feel this way and were flagging the general issue for the attention of someone higher up, why have you repeatedly brought up your own feelings and thoughts on OB's behaviour?

Bob the Builder

seamus wrote: »

Tell you what; Go through that thread and find me people who weren't banned and who aren't (or weren't at the time) admins, smods or mods of the cuckoo's nest. Link to their posts. Thx.

Yes, I was probably a bit off in saying he was "consistent", as I'm sure there were times when he managed to miss one or two. He never intentionally banned someone due to that thread just cos he didn't like them though. Even though loads of people claimed he did.

I had a long post written but i lost it.
Ah well.

Indeed, you were a bit off in saying he was consistent.

Post No. 27 - Jezza
No. 106 - Sarky

No. 209 - Airetam Storm
...didn't get banned from what i can see - immunity. Pffft, are you serious amp?

Posts @ 268,269,270 appear to have missed the boat also.
Between post #272 and #273, amp warns airetam storm not to plead for an unbanning or face the revoking of 'immunity'.

If you call that a 'great', 'consistent' idea, then you really haven't read it.

I also think Boston saying that he wasn't going to discuss it because amp is no longer a mod. As for as I can see Amp is still a mod of those forums, and from what I can see, is still a CMod.

I was never pissed off that be banned me, I was testing the water really. What pissed me off was his ignorance. I never received a PM or otherwise to say that I was banned. I had forgot I had posted in that thread, by the time I went back to tCN, and then, I had to create a second account to use the search features on the site to see my last posts. I had pm'd Amp before that, and not one reply.

Later on, in a feedback thread, (where DeV hopped on the bandwagon to support Amp to the hilt), Amp said that it was his policy not to reply to banned people, making some implication that they were stupid. Very few people of authority stuck up for oB when there was a Feedback thread a couple of pages long bitching about him.

In Feedback, a year later, I asked for my access to be reinstated. Simply asked for forgiveness. I was told to pm the mod, who, of course is Amp, and thats exactly what i did. Another year later, and i still haven't received a reply. Even if he had told me to fúck off, I would have accepted it.

Then at Amp's funeral in Feedback not so long ago, again, DeV shoved the finger in and noted my behaviour as something along the lines of "not classy at all", and I still fail to see what i did wrong.

To be honest, i couldn't give a feck anymore, but the praise Seamus is giving amp now, is only true for the certain few. But of course, Amp loved all the SMods and Admins and so therefore, he got away with everything, and even now, has Seamus calling what i said lies.

And Amp, when he bans someone treats them with such negligence. Not that he hates someone. Thats what everyone thinks when he is too big-headed to even reply to one pm, and yet so ignorant. Sure he wasn't obliged to tell me I was banned, but when I sent a pm to him a week later, I didn't get a pm, and yes, I was expecting a reply to that. Boston, you were another avid supporter of Amp and I don't care if he was reprimanded as a user. As far as I am concerned, I couldn't give a rats arse what he was reprimanded for as a user, but he wasn't reprimanded for the abuse he gave people as a mod. And even his behavior as a mod, was fully supported by Admins, and indeed, even SMods.

In fact, Seamus, I am disappointed, you said that I told Lies, yet you admit that your statement before that "was a bit off". So which statement is/isn't true?

Daithi McGee

nevf wrote: »

I had a long post written but i lost it.
Ah well.

Indeed, you were a bit off in saying he was consistent.

Post No. 27 - Jezza
No. 106 - Sarky

No. 209 - Airetam Storm
...didn't get banned from what i can see - immunity. Pffft, are you serious amp?

Posts @ 268,269,270 appear to have missed the boat also.
Between post #272 and #273, amp warns airetam storm not to plead for an unbanning or face the revoking of 'immunity'.

If you call that a 'great', 'consistent' idea, then you really haven't read it.

I also think Boston saying that he wasn't going to discuss it because amp is no longer a mod. As for as I can see Amp is still a mod of those forums, and from what I can see, is still a CMod.

I was never pissed off that be banned me, I was testing the water really. What pissed me off was his ignorance. I never received a PM or otherwise to say that I was banned. I had forgot I had posted in that thread, by the time I went back to tCN, and then, I had to create a second account to use the search features on the site to see my last posts. I had pm'd Amp before that, and not one reply.

Later on, in a feedback thread, (where DeV hopped on the bandwagon to support Amp to the hilt), Amp said that it was his policy not to reply to banned people, making some implication that they were stupid. Very few people of authority stuck up for oB when there was a Feedback thread a couple of pages long bitching about him.

In Feedback, a year later, I asked for my access to be reinstated. Simply asked for forgiveness. I was told to pm the mod, who, of course is Amp, and thats exactly what i did. Another year later, and i still haven't received a reply. Even if he had told me to fúck off, I would have accepted it.

Then at Amp's funeral in Feedback not so long ago, again, DeV shoved the finger in and noted my behaviour as something along the lines of "not classy at all", and I still fail to see what i did wrong.

To be honest, i couldn't give a feck anymore, but the praise Seamus is giving amp now, is only true for the certain few. But of course, Amp loved all the SMods and Admins and so therefore, he got away with everything, and even now, has Seamus calling what i said lies.

And Amp, when he bans someone treats them with such negligence. Not that he hates someone. Thats what everyone thinks when he is too big-headed to even reply to one pm, and yet so ignorant. Sure he wasn't obliged to tell me I was banned, but when I sent a pm to him a week later, I didn't get a pm, and yes, I was expecting a reply to that. Boston, you were another avid supporter of Amp and I don't care if he was reprimanded as a user. As far as I am concerned, I couldn't give a rats arse what he was reprimanded for as a user, but he wasn't reprimanded for the abuse he gave people as a mod. And even his behavior as a mod, was fully supported by Admins, and indeed, even SMods.

In fact, Seamus, I am disappointed, you said that I told Lies, yet you admit that your statement before that "was a bit off". So which statement is/isn't true?

I'd have hated to have seen the long version

Nice post all the same.

Bob the Builder

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Did Jezza post in "Post here and be banned" thread in TCN and not be banned????
Yes or No

Jezza, Noooo Way!
Post Number(s): # 24,27,32,46,48, 50,54,58,61,64, 68,114,116,126,140, 142,147,149,156,162,165,167, 180,186,206,208,210,212,228, 230,245,258,265,280,281,285,288.

Fysh

I appreciate that there's an issue regarding amp's moderation in tCN but it's effectively irrelevant to the issue that has been raised concerning Politics - any chance it could be split off into a separate thread?

auerillo

Fysh wrote: »

I'm not expecting you to speak on their behalf, but if you're going to bring up that they feel this way you should provide some evidence of it. Not just their statements that they feel this way, but also links of where they have been treated in the manner they complain about. If you don't have those links, either ask the affected posters to provide them or search for them yourself. I repeat : you are the complainant, the onus is on you to prove that there are grounds for investigation into your complaint. Saying that other people feel the same way, then suddenly getting shy about "speaking for them" doesn't cut it.



1) You are not your post count. It's not unheard of for people with over 10,000 posts to their name to be sitebanned, nor is it impossible for someone with a high post count to fall foul of the rules.
2) You have quoted the grievances of 2 of the 30odd posters you claim feel this way. It's an encouraging step in the right direction, but it still lacks any actual evidence that could be looked at by SMods/admins. If your complaint is valid, there must be some examples of it that you can link to directly. Why won't you tell us where they are, instead of going on about how you'd like the admins/SMods to "look into it"? Bear in mind that someone who doesn't post there regularly would have to invest a lot of time to get a feel for the forum itself, an understanding of how discussions between regulars usually play out, and then find specific examples of abuses of position by a given mod.



Thus far, I refuse to have an opinion on the issue because unsubstantiated complaints about a moderator's behaviour are common enough to merit a veritable pillar of salt. I'm not asking you to speak for anyone else here, but if you feel the same way about this issue - i.e. that OscarBravo's behaviour has driven you from the Politics forum - then you should provide evidence of where this unfair behaviour has occured. If you don't feel this way and were flagging the general issue for the attention of someone higher up, why have you repeatedly brought up your own feelings and thoughts on OB's behaviour?

I think we've probably done this to death by now. I suggested that a high post count was probably a reasonable indication that the member was not someone who was likely to be a troublemaker. If you think that's not a good yardstick, thats fair enough, and it was only a suggestion on my part.

Sure, i could go and try to find the "evidence" why I felt OB was rude and bullying to me. Additionally, it was also from observation of the way he has treated others. And maybe I wil go to the effort and try to find it. But, the evidence of me, as one man, is not what this is about. I am not seeking to ahve a complaint which is adjuciated upon by a colleague of OB's.

If I were to do that, there are a number of likely outcomes;

(i) you will agree that OB was rude and bullying
(ii) you will disagree that he is rude and bullying
(iii) you will feel you have to stick up for a moderator and will do as most "employers" ,or work colleagues, invariably stick up for your man int he face of an unknown stranger making a complaint,through thick and thin.

I have looked at various complaints made and, in every single one, numbers (ii) and numbers (iii) win out.

You'll understand that my "evidence" is really only going to me mine, the evidence of one guy, and that still leaves all those other guys, who I have mentioned and quoted, not being asked.

We've seen in all those other threads, all the guys who do consider OB to have been rude and bullying have been told that the moderators do not so consider him to be, and, every time, number (iii) seems to rule the day, and so their opinion is dismissed.

It's unlikely that my evidence will be treated any differently, which is why I am reluctant to go to all teh work of amassing it, only to find out that number (iii) wins out again.

My point is rather different to that, and it is that so many members have made the same complaint so many times, about the same moderator. Not only have they made the complaint, but they have voted with their feet and have refused to engage with OB any more,and have decided to no longer participate in any of the threads where he is moderator. One guys experience is really no longer relevant, as it is the wider experience of many members which is now the issue.

This is evidenced by the threads in the help desk, here in feedback, on the politics boards itself and, by OB himself, saying that he is tired dealing with them.

This isn't a one off trouble maker or two. Its a lot of members, some of whom I have quoted.

As we've seen, its easy to dismiss one guy, but the critical mass of opinions of so many is less easy to ignore, especially as many of the members are respected and well thought of, and their opinons given in a measured and balance way.

Members will always make up their own minds on matters such as this, based on the evidence, and that goes for all members including moderators and administrators. As we have seen, many members have voted with their feet and, until this boil is lanced, there seems no reason this pattern will cease.

seamus

nevf wrote: »

Indeed, you were a bit off in saying he was consistent.

Post No. 27 - Jezza
No. 106 - Sarky

No. 209 - Airetam Storm
...didn't get banned from what i can see - immunity. Pffft, are you serious amp?

Sounds consistent to me in the context of TCN. Some people had immunity, so they didn't get banned. Everyone else did. Consistent
He may not have been consistent elsewhere, but he was vigilant in that thread.

I'm not going to read the whole thread. Despite appearance to the contrary, I do have better things to do.

I was never pissed off that be banned me, I was testing the water really. What pissed me off was his ignorance. I never received a PM or otherwise to say that I was banned. I had forgot I had posted in that thread, by the time I went back to tCN, and then, I had to create a second account to use the search features on the site to see my last posts. I had pm'd Amp before that, and not one reply.

So? amp never PMed people when he banned them. "No mercy for the banned", I think was him motto.

Later on, in a feedback thread, (where DeV hopped on the bandwagon to support Amp to the hilt), Amp said that it was his policy not to reply to banned people, making some implication that they were stupid. Very few people of authority stuck up for oB when there was a Feedback thread a couple of pages long bitching about him.

Victim of circumstance IIRC. The last oB thread appeared during a weekend, or some other time when myself and most of the other smods were offline.

To be honest, i couldn't give a feck anymore, but the praise Seamus is giving amp now, is only true for the certain few. But of course, Amp loved all the SMods and Admins and so therefore, he got away with everything, and even now, has Seamus calling what i said lies.

No, it has me not engaging with you in any meaningful way on the topic. Because I'm pretty sure you're talking the piss. So I'm responding in kind. I don't remember getting involved in an amp feedback thread in a long time. 2 years at least.
amp didn't get away with everything and had no problem complaining about the admins and the smods when we appeared.

And Amp, when he bans someone treats them with such negligence. Not that he hates someone. Thats what everyone thinks when he is too big-headed to even reply to one pm, and yet so ignorant. Sure he wasn't obliged to tell me I was banned, but when I sent a pm to him a week later, I didn't get a pm, and yes, I was expecting a reply to that. Boston, you were another avid supporter of Amp and I don't care if he was reprimanded as a user. As far as I am concerned, I couldn't give a rats arse what he was reprimanded for as a user, but he wasn't reprimanded for the abuse he gave people as a mod.

I suspect this is one of the reasons why amp stepped down. boards changed a lot from his perspective and it became something of a place where his style of moderating didn't fly any more.

I'm closing this thread. As far as I'm concerned, the original issue has been more than dealt with.