Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should it be okay to be allowed make unsubstantiated accusations against another team

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    AnimalRights
    Registered Users Posts: 7,067 ✭✭✭AnimalRights


    GuanYin wrote: »
    Two occasions (technically three, but the last was innuendo) you referred to liverpool as murderpool and made a comment about ALL liverpool fans, and it's against the rules. Your comment on others here gave me cause to review your infraction history and you have also received 2 red cards and 4 yellow cards from soccer since the rule change. PHB missed this and you should have been banned for the remainder of the season. Given the amount of instances that you should have been infracted in that thread you are now.
    Oh my f god.
    I've enjoyed this thread while I enjoy my holiday from photography but this def is unbelievable!

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #153
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Genuine question. Are you unaware how petty you look or do you simply not care?
    Genuine question: do you think you didn't deserve the ban?


  • Options
    #154
    AnimalRights
    Registered Users Posts: 7,067 ✭✭✭AnimalRights


    Where I come from we always say do not answer a question with a question. :p


  • Options
    #155
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Genuine question: do you think you didn't deserve the ban?

    No. GY 'found' a clerical error that all the other mods missed only after telling me he didn't think I had the right to question the moderating.

    He then said he would recind it if people defended me. He has dismissed them too.


  • Options
    #156
    jaykay74
    Registered Users Posts: 6,581 ✭✭✭jaykay74


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Even if thats what you said (and its not, I have the Pm) its still entirely unnacceptable for a mod to respond to a complaint, and I know I was not the only person who complained about it, by saying 'you couldn't give a crap'.
    Des wrote: »
    Post the PM.

    If he's telling the truth, and you are lying, you'll be made look a fool.

    If he is telling lies, and you are telling the truth, well then....

    Still no PM :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    No. GY 'found' a clerical error that all the other mods missed only after telling me he didn't think I had the right to question the moderating.
    As I understand the Soccer rules, you had clocked up enough offences to warrant a ban. Are you saying that you shouldn't have been banned in the first place, or that - having dodged a bullet - you shouldn't be banned now, even though you should have been banned at the time?
    He then said he would recind it if people defended me. He has dismissed them too.
    No, she said she'd rescind it if it could be shown to be invalid. I haven't seen that happen. You're complaining about it "looking petty", but I haven't seen you explain how you haven't earned a ban.
    AnimalRights wrote: »
    Where I come from we always say do not answer a question with a question. :p
    I wasn't answering the question. Do you think he shouldn't have been banned?


  • Options
    #158
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    jaykay74 wrote: »
    Still no PM :confused:

    I'm not putting a PM on a public forum. I think thats exceptionally bad form. PHB does not deny he sent the message, just the context. The soccer mods can see it.


  • Options
    #159
    Dub13
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,252 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dub13


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    I'm not putting a PM on a public forum. I think thats exceptionally bad form. PHB does not deny he sent the message, just the context. The soccer mods can see it.

    A PM is fine to put up if you get the permission of both party's.


  • Options
    #160
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    As I understand the Soccer rules, you had clocked up enough offences to warrant a ban. Are you saying that you shouldn't have been banned in the first place, or that - having dodged a bullet - you shouldn't be banned now, even though you should have been banned at the time? No, she said she'd rescind it if it could be shown to be invalid. I haven't seen that happen. You're complaining about it "looking petty", but I haven't seen you explain how you haven't earned a ban.

    As I understand the rules I had not, hence all the mods 'missed it'. GY is doubling up the 4 infractions into yellow cards and has decided that that puts me on 6 'points'.

    But even if I do technically deserve to be sent to the corner, the core point is that I only got the 'audit' of all my posts because it was decided by GY that I didn't have the right to question moderation because I had 'previous'. Thats a very dangerous precedent to set. Thats why I am still here, not that I especially want to have the ban lifted, but to point out that the arbitrary and petty moderating that was the initial complaint is this blatant.

    I don't know GY from Adam, but (s)he appears articulate and intellegent. Surely the irony must be obvious?


  • Options
    #161
    jaykay74
    Registered Users Posts: 6,581 ✭✭✭jaykay74


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    I'm not putting a PM on a public forum. I think thats exceptionally bad form. PHB does not deny he sent the message, just the context. The soccer mods can see it.

    no worries, anyway best of luck but it kinda looks like the tide is against you...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    As I understand the rules I had not, hence all the mods 'missed it'.
    Then you don't understand the rules.
    GY is doubling up the 4 infractions into yellow cards and has decided that that puts me on 6 'points'.
    Since July you have two red cards and two yellow cards, none of which were given by GY and none of which were given since this thread started. According to the rules, the yellow card you received on November 5 brought your tally to (effectively) three red cards, which the forum clearly states earns you a season-long ban.

    If I've misunderstood something, please feel free to correct me.
    But even if I do technically deserve to be sent to the corner, the core point is that I only got the 'audit' of all my posts because it was decided by GY that I didn't have the right to question moderation because I had 'previous'. Thats a very dangerous precedent to set. Thats why I am still here, not that I especially want to have the ban lifted, but to point out that the arbitrary and petty moderating that was the initial complaint is this blatant.
    What you seem to be saying here is "even if I deserved to be banned, I shouldn't have been banned, because I thought I had gotten away with it." I'm not sure how that works.


  • Options
    #163
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If I've misunderstood something, please feel free to correct me. What you seem to be saying here is "even if I deserved to be banned, I shouldn't have been banned, because I thought I had gotten away with it." I'm not sure how that works.

    No, its this simple:

    Is it appropriate for GY to trawl through all my posts on the basis of the complaints made on here about moderation after stating she didn't believe I had the right to complain and ban me on the basis of something everyone else missed?


  • Options
    #164
    AnimalRights
    Registered Users Posts: 7,067 ✭✭✭AnimalRights


    oscarBravo wrote: »

    I wasn't answering the question. Do you think he shouldn't have been banned?
    Of course not.


  • Options
    #165
    stevenmu
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,689 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    No, its this simple:

    Is it appropriate for GY to trawl through all my posts on the basis of the complaints made on here about moderation after stating she didn't believe I had the right to complain and ban me on the basis of something everyone else missed?

    You're making the assumption that GY went searching for reasons to ban you because of the complaints you made here.

    The real question is is it appropriate for GY to ban you on the basis that you broke the rules. The answer is yes.

    If you broke the rules, and you don't seem to deny that you did, why should you not be banned?


  • Options
    #166
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 16,587 ✭✭✭✭copacetic


    stevenmu wrote: »
    You're making the assumption that GY went searching for reasons to ban you because of the complaints you made here.

    Which seems a pretty fair assumption since that appears to be exactly what happened.


  • Options
    #167
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    stevenmu wrote: »
    You're making the assumption that GY went searching for reasons to ban you because of the complaints you made here.

    But GY said thats what she did
    stevenmu wrote: »
    The real question is is it appropriate for GY to ban you on the basis that you broke the rules. The answer is yes.

    If you broke the rules, and you don't seem to deny that you did, why should you not be banned?

    Ok, if I have broken the rules, I go. The point is that GY's response to users complaining about overzealous moderation of some people and no moderation of others was to state that I had no right to complain and then go through my posts and find a 'clerical error' and huckle me for 6 months. Is that an appropriate way to deal with someone who complains? If you think it is, thats up to you. If not, does it not somewhat prove the original complaint about unfair and personalised moderation?


  • Options
    #168
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    The point is that GY's response to users complaining about overzealous moderation of some people and no moderation of others was to state that I had no right to complain and then go through my posts and find a 'clerical error' and huckle me for 6 months. Is that an appropriate way to deal with someone who complains? If you think it is, thats up to you. If not, does it not somewhat prove the original complaint about unfair and personalised moderation?
    Let's have a look at your post that prompted GY to look more closely at you:
    OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »
    Who is asking to be unreproachable? We are asking that the rules be uniformley applied and you have been shown a number of examples of how it has not been done so.
    You were complaining about inconsistent moderation. An inconsistency was found, and dealt with. It doesn't take a trawl through your posting history to determine that you should have been banned; a glance at your profile told me that.

    The real point is that you were complaining about inconsistent moderation, and now you're pissed that an inconsistency was addressed to your detriment. I really don't see what you've got to complain about here.


  • Options
    #169
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I really don't see what you've got to complain about here.

    The fact that the rest of the inconsistant modding has

    1. again been overlooked
    2. is being ignored
    3. the mods are saying there is no other inconsistant modding, and circling the wagons, as usual.

    The facts of ONYD's ban are inconsequential here.


  • Options
    #170
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Des wrote: »
    The fact that the rest of the inconsistant modding has

    1. again been overlooked
    2. is being ignored
    3. the mods are saying there is no other inconsistant modding, and circling the wagons, as usual.
    Is it being overlooked/ignored, or has it been answered, but not to your satisfaction?
    The facts of ONYD's ban are inconsequential here.
    Obviously not to ONYD. Also not to others, who reacted to a consistent application of the rules with condemnation.

    Damned if you do...


  • Options
    #171
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 16,587 ✭✭✭✭copacetic


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You were complaining about inconsistent moderation. An inconsistency was found, and dealt with. It doesn't take a trawl through your posting history to determine that you should have been banned; a glance at your profile told me that.

    The real point is that you were complaining about inconsistent moderation, and now you're pissed that an inconsistency was addressed to your detriment. I really don't see what you've got to complain about here.

    I really can't believe this argument. User complains in feedback, he is targetted based on the complaint and a method is found to ban him. Problem solved.

    Is that really something you think is ok?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Benedict XVI
    Registered Users Posts: 1,377 ✭✭✭Benedict XVI


    This is a shot in the dark but I think ONYD should be un-banned

    I disagree with everything he/she says but I respect his/her 'passion' for his/her stances.

    With Rovers (his/her club) moving to a new ground at the beginning of the season it would be a shame not to have him/her around to comment and offer analysis and insight into the move and all that it means to the club.


  • Options
    #173
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Is it being overlooked/ignored, or has it been answered, but not to your satisfaction?

    Either/or.

    I believe there is inconsistant modding in the Soccer Forum.

    Nothing the mods have said or done in this thread has convinced me otherwise.

    They have failed to address the issues I brought up, and all they have basically said, on repeat at this stage, is that they don't see a problem.

    I don't agree with them, other people don't agree with them.

    How they deal with this disagreement is up to them.


  • Options
    #174
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    copacetic wrote: »
    I really can't believe this argument. User complains in feedback, he is targetted based on the complaint and a method is found to ban him. Problem solved.

    Is that really something you think is ok?
    You're arguing from your conclusion. Look at it this way: this is a thread about alleged inconsistent moderating. The user in question should have been banned, but wasn't. Are you really maintaining that a user, who has clearly broken the rules, should be given a special exemption because he posted in this thread?
    Benedict XVI wrote: »
    This is a shot in the dark but I think ONYD should be un-banned
    You're arguing in favour of inconsistent moderation?


  • Options
    #175
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Des wrote: »
    How they deal with this disagreement is up to them.
    Correct.


  • Options
    #176
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Correct.

    So here we are then.

    Nothing sorted, another user banned, and we wait for the next blow-up.

    I mean "we are looking at these issues".

    What a nice reply to my original PM.

    "we don't see a problem, good day"

    Then start throwing accusations of trolling at me.

    I remain unbanned though.

    "How dare you complain, you're a troll anyway, but we can't find any instances which we deem infractable for trolling, so go away"


  • Options
    #177
    Nerin
    Registered Users Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    Seems that no matter whats done,no one will be happy.


  • Options
    #178
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 16,587 ✭✭✭✭copacetic


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're arguing from your conclusion. Look at it this way: this is a thread about alleged inconsistent moderating. The user in question should have been banned, but wasn't. Are you really maintaining that a user, who has clearly broken the rules, should be given a special exemption because he posted in this thread?

    I'm asking a question that you have ignored.

    I'll ask again.

    Do you think it is fair to target someone for 'investigation' when they make a complaint in feedback?

    i.e only users who can be sure that nothing has been 'missed' in their past should post a query in feedback or helpdesk because it is policy for mods to look for any way they can to ban them for causing trouble.


  • Options
    #179
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    Nerin wrote: »
    Seems that no matter whats done,no one will be happy.

    Nothing has been done, apart from the mods circling the wagons and repeating their mantra

    "There is no problem"

    They won't even accept the possibility that their modding could be construed as biased, or inconsistant.


  • Options
    #180
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    This thread is closed for the following reason:

    It should have been in the Help Desk forum to start with.
    If the OP is looking for some sort of conclusion to this, then it will be at least dealt with there. No Smod or Admin is going to thrawl through 12 pages to try and see the what the hell is going on.
    copacetic wrote:
    Do you think it is fair to target someone for 'investigation' when they make a complaint in feedback?

    To answer this, if someone makes a complaint in Feedback, then yes, it would be pretty normal to investigate the complaint to see if it's valid.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement