Moderating in Politics

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GuanYin

Oh dear. For someone who speaks in such a verbose and organized manner, you would expect the content to be of equal standard but it seems you wish to mask your inaccuracies in fine laguage to make your case.

If you don't wish to speak plainly, that is fine, but to use language to mask the dishonesty of your statements is rather low.

I'll address them.

1. The ban was for trolling. The poster was deemed to deliberately confuse immigrants and asylum speakers to issue a xenophobic comment. I didn't apply the ban. Oscarbravo did. Thus your point is both inaccurate and conflicting. Firstly, you claim OB is moderating well and providing a light touch even though the initial complaint in your post is about his actions, (I enjoy how you try and hide this by referring to him as "the moderator".

2. It is funny how you claim that my instructions are on post #38 when the post you initially linked in this thread is post #397, a point, I might add where HollyB was already active in the thread. But hey, by all means tell a lie to make your point sound stronger.

If you can't stick to the facts, I don't think your complaint has much strength.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GuanYin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

OK, so you object to my declaration that the continued use of an inaccurate assumption/statement that is widely to further an argument is forbidden.

You think people should be allowed post inaccuracies or spread ignorance?

Again, the issue has come up at least 3 times, probably far, far more in that one thread alone, forget about the countless threads in politics. If users aren't bothered about aquainting themselves with the facts or indeed reading the thread, then they shouldn't be posting, especially when the same misconception has surfaced so many times.

I'm sorry if you don't like it. But that is how it is.

—When I mentioned post #38, I was talking generically, and just pulling a number out of thin air, so I'm sorry for any confusion that caused. You're right that it was in a later post that you laid down the law; but still we were many posts past #397 when you infracted HollyB. For the record, I still sincerely don't think that HollyB thought she was doing anything wrong.

Well you understand how that looks disingenuous on your part?

As I said before, I checked to make sure that HollB was indeed contributing to the thread at the times of my warnings, and she was. Thus she has no excuse for the timeframe of my warning.

Regarding whether her post was legitimate, her inferrence was quite plainly null and void as sooon as she mentioned the netherlands as a port of call.
I won't argue the specifics of the case as it is not on topic here.

tallaght01

do most people not have an oul friendly word in the ear before infracting someone? Or do most people just dole out infractions straight away?

Infractions are harmless, but they leave a bad taste with the user, which is something to be avoided if possible, I guess.

Xavi6

metrovelvet wrote: »

This is not about the thread, but the larger issue of your ineptitude, although it has recently occureed to me that you may still be under the legal age limit to drink and possibly even vote, and if this is the case maybe you should be cut some slack but you should not be moderating politics.

Any chance you could grind your axe via PM? You're just coming across as a right tool with petty comments like that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The_Minister

oscarBravo wrote: »

The assertion that asylum seekers must apply for asylum in the first country they set foot in has been repeatedly used in the past as vindication for xenophobic sentiment. It's not true, and those who have used it as ammunition for their cause have ignored the fact that it's been repeatedly debunked.

Where has it been conclusively debunked?
/genuine curiousity

metrovelvet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I also have a few in my inbox complaining about GY. And also saying they are too afraid to say anything, even in feedback for fear of being banned.

I logged out and had a look at the charter again, and I cant seem to find anything about a rule which says getting a refugee, asylum seeker and immigrant confused is a bannable offence. It is an easy category to smudge. Why is this so offensive? Immigrants would include both refugees, asylum seekers, and people who migrated from other countries, as a general umbrella term and no clear definitions are offerred in the charter from what I can see. Have I missed something or is this more make the rules up as you go along?

Overheal

metrovelvet wrote: »

I cant seem to find anything about a rule which says getting a refugee, asylum seeker and immigrant confused is a bannable offence.

That might be because nobody has been banned yet..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

>_<

see the part about being obtuse? Yeah.

This whole threads stinks of stupid.You're just arguing semantics. PolMods, I must suggest you reconsider my first post on this.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

^ I read your first post OverHeal. Yes its just an infraction, but often its these minor things which are the straws that break the camel's back and indicative of a larger, widespread complaint.

So, it is more make the rules up as you go along and then complain about people breaking rules which dont exist.

Overheal

No metro, I was speaking of the Thread Part II suggestion.

I mean look at this, we have 100 posts of semantic and legal argument over "Asylum seekers" and you personally attacking a mod. All I'm saying is its a waste of perfectly good electrons. And if you have PMs, get the author's permission to publish those complaints, and take them to help desk where such things belong.

And before you ask, I have been infracted by GY in the past. But like I said, outside of sending her a PM explaining myself, there was no need for fanfare.

And most importantly, does HollyB even care to have this circus orchestrated in her honor? Its not like she's banned from feedback: she's well able to speak for herself. Boards.ie is an equal opportunity oppressor.

and Doneg, Trust me, there is no way you have contributed anything more to this thread than I have.

Nevyn

tallaght01 wrote: »

do most people not have an oul friendly word in the ear before infracting someone? Or do most people just dole out infractions straight away?

Infractions are harmless, but they leave a bad taste with the user, which is something to be avoided if possible, I guess.

Having to given an infraction in the first place leave a bad taste with mods.

metrovelvet

Overheal wrote: »

No metro, I was speaking of the Thread Part II suggestion.

I mean look at this, we have 100 posts of semantic and legal argument over "Asylum seekers" and you personally attacking a mod. All I'm saying is its a waste of perfectly good electrons. And if you have PMs, get the author's permission to publish those complaints, and take them to help desk where such things belong.

I did not personally attack GY in these thread. And the whole issue is over a semantic issue, made an issue by GY threatening to ban people "for not bothering to figure it out" where there is no such rule in the charter. As for publishing PMs, no I am not going to do that because there would be no point. All the mods and admins are just going to protect GY no matter what it does.

Overheal wrote: »

and Doneg, Trust me, there is no way you have contributed anything more to this thread than I have.

^ That is the most comical thing you have said so far.

Overheal

metrovelvet wrote: »

I did not personally attack GY in these thread. All the mods and admins are just going to protect GY no matter what it does.

"the larger issue of your ineptitude, although it has recently occureed to me that you may still be under the legal age limit to drink and possibly even vote, and if this is the case maybe you should be cut some slack but you should not be moderating politics."

"All the mods and admins are just going to protect GY no matter what it does."

That is the most comical thing you have said so far.

That hurts, only because I know I leave Javaboy in stitches on a regular basis.

metrovelvet

If you consider that a personal attack, then you should see some of the things it has said to me.

And given a few of its latest comments towards me about needing beef and getting my tubes tied, I started thinking it maybe a fratboy. It is fratboy material, that kind of language, and thinking GY is a fratboy, contradicts the info I have been given that GY is female. So I do not know what to refer to it as, in the rhird person singular, in case it goes against some rule it decides to make up, so Im sticking to the gender neutral to be on the safe side. Besides which, I didnt know the gender neutral was considered a personal attack.

That hurts, only because I know I leave Javaboy in stitches on a regular basis.

I'm sorry I hurt you. I hope you feel better.

javaboy

Overheal wrote: »

That hurts, only because I know I leave Javaboy in stitches on a regular basis.

Oh no! How did I get dragged in to this? The only way you could leave me in stitches is if you ran over me in that big 5 litre Ford pickup you lot across the pond all seem to drive.


@donegalfella: Overheal made a good point a couple of posts ago about the 'obtuse' part of the warning that you seem to have ignored. It's an important distinction and goes a long way to explaining why there were infractions but not bannings.


Anyway the whole thing is a bit of a storm in a teacup. I wouldn't like to get infracted for something like this especially if I had to read through so many posts to find the warnings. It's quite easy to miss them. And I know it's only an infraction but nobody likes a black mark next to their name especially if it's barely justified.

I think having a clear way of signifying when a thread specific ruling has been laid down would go a long way to cutting out this kind of nonsense.


Even though I might agree with the thrust of the argument that someone who skimmed the first 600 posts before posting would be unfortunate to get infracted for muddling up the terms asylum seeker and immigrant, I find myself siding with the politics mods. Why? Because the whole thread stinks of a hatchet job on GY. It looks like some people have an axe to grind and are jumping at this as an opportunity to grind it.

GuanYin

javaboy wrote: »

Even though I might agree with the thrust of the argument that someone who skimmed the first 600 posts before posting would be unfortunate to get infracted for muddling up the terms asylum seeker and immigrant, I find myself siding with the politics mods. Why? Because the whole thread stinks of a hatchet job on GY. It looks like some people have an axe to grind and are jumping at this as an opportunity to grind it.

If you think this is a hatchet job, don't ever take a modship in politics, or soccer for that matter.

This is an exercise in semantics and pedantry by donegalfella (no offence) and another sterling display by metrovelvet to show why she's one of the least regarded posters on the site (if not the internet - cue moronic comeback that actually makes me weary to even considering replying to - and that says alot in my case).

To be fair to donegalfella, I can kinda see the point he's making. He's asking how we can determine whether it is willful breaking of the rule or an innocent mistake/mis-reading of what the poster says (and even suggesting that this is what has happened here).

The answer is, we can only make the best judgement call available. I may have let HollyB's remark go and punished (for want of a better word) the next person to ignore the warning. In that case, the poster, no matter how malicious the post, would rightly ask, why wasn't HollyB infracted/banned.

You have no idea how many times I get PMs like that (I'm gonna guess it's near 60% of my PMs).

The answer, for me, is to infract HollyB, I can read it either way regarding her intent and in the (and this is the important bit) absence of any complaint or input from her I'm going with her ignoring my comment. She's infracted, she'll either be clearer or won't do it again and the next poster will know not to make the same mistake.

While you have mustered a whole heap of indignation on her behalf, even if I agreed mostly with what you say (and I don't) I'm not going to act without discussing things with HollyB anyway because (and I say this in response to the 60% of PMs mentioned above) infractions and bans of other users, unless they bring the issue to you, are none of your business. No offence intended.

So in summary, HollyB ignored a warning, she got an infraction and not a ban and has not come back to me to complain or discuss the matter.

If she does, I'll discuss the matter privately with her and if she is unsatisfied suggest she come here or more aptly, helpdesk.

If you think this is bad modding, that is entirely your call, but, and you can attribute whatever traits you want to me for this, I've entertained the discussion on the infraction of another user with someone for quite enough, without input from that user.

It must have been a quiet day for me
SMODS, unless you guys have input or HollyB materializes to complain, I suggest you lock this thread, it is only going to turn out to be a metrovelvet circus and a chance for donegalfella to have my make further use of my thesauras

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

tallaght01

Thaedydal wrote: »

Having to given an infraction in the first place leave a bad taste with mods.

Well, if you're going to get annoyed at posters who you have to infract, then you should reconsider doing the job in all honesty.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

.....Go On.....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GuanYin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thank you and I apologize if I was overly dismissive. It is hard to discern the genuine complainees from the bunnyboiling crackpots (both have featured in this thread) and I guess sometimes I automatically assume one or the other.

In any case, while I may sometimes not agree with your views, I certainly respect them and you for the way you post in Politics.

javaboy

That's not supposed to happen. Is it a full moon? :D


All's well that ends well I guess. I still don't understand what horrible sin GY committed in a past life to end up as Politics and Soccer mod.