"Hosted" forums and boards.ie

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you please move all of my forums over to hosted and I can get rid of all of the posters I don't like for personal reasons, and then threaten them with sitebans when they complain?

I got this far and felt I had to comment [bold for emphasis].

They are not your fora.
If you are a mod of a non hosted forum,then the forum belongs to boards.ie and not you.
You are a volunteer mod who ultimately has the admins as your overseer.
It is the admins [specefically the shareholder admins I think] who have the ultimate authority over your forum.

Now the next bit of my post is my understanding of the situation and is open to clarification..Hosted fora are autonomous but only to the extent that they are hosted subject to the rules and obligations of boards.ie.If the forum clashes with these,then they are closed/deleted.

The one famous episode of this was iirc some jedi knights forum or other where all sorts of illegal carry on appeared to be discussed/organised on the forum.
Again iirc the forum's mod was demodded[and possibly site banned] and the forum is now hidden deep in the corridoors somewhere.

On another note...Smods don't have access to private hosted fora unless the mod of that forum requests access for them.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I got this far and felt I had to comment [bold for emphasis].

They are not your fora.
If you are a mod of a non hosted forum,then the forum belongs to boards.ie and not you.
You are a volunteer mod who ultimately has the admins as your overseer.
It is the admins [specefically the shareholder admins I think] who have the ultimate authority over your forum.

Now the next bit of my post is my understanding of the situation and is open to clarification..Hosted fora are autonomous but only to the extent that they are hosted subject to the rules and obligations of boards.ie.If the forum clashes with these,then they are closed/deleted.

The one famous episode of this was iirc some jedi knights forum or other where all sorts of illegal carry on appeared to be discussed/organised on the forum.
Again iirc the forum's mod was demodded[and possibly site banned] and the forum is now hidden deep in the corridoors somewhere.

On another note...Smods don't have access to private hosted fora unless the mod of that forum requests access for them.

Looks like I forget to press the sarcasm key.

javaboy

Diogenes wrote: »

While hurling abuse via pm seems to be hunky dory. Sorry the rules seem to shift here with an awful lot of whimsy.

No it's not hunky dory and you know it's not. Nobody said that it is. Are you just wilfully ignoring the explanations given as to why a) you shouldn't post PMs publicly without permission and b) Mahatma's PM isn't being acted on as harshly as you want it to be?

I think the reasons why PMs shouldn't be posted publicly has been explained by me and others well enough on this thread by now. It's also been explained that there are methods of dealing with abusive PMs.

As for why Mahatma's admittedly abusive PM hasn't got too many people calling for his head, that's pretty simple. It's a matter of context. Your original PM wasn't legitimate feedback or a real question to MC about how he felt about his start to his modship. It was imo baiting. You were trying to goad him into responding with a nasty reply so you could post here and maybe get him demodded. Well done it worked. Happy?

Context is the main issue for me. On its own his PM looks terribly abusive but given that you were clearly looking for a reaction and given the witchhunt that MC has been subjected to in the past couple of days, it's not that surprising that you got one.

That's not to say that I condone MC's actions. I don't. I don't spend a whole lot of time in CT but I have posted there before this ****storm kicked off and I would say that MC seems to abuse his status a little bit. I certainly wouldn't be his biggest fan by any means. But this is clearly a case of baiting. If the anti-semitic thing is true then he'll probably be reprimanded far more harshly than for foolishly responding to a trollish PM. All you're doing with this kind of nonsense is making him look like someone who was ganged up on and snapped.

Out of interest, what kind of reply were you expecting to that PM you sent?

Billy the squid

Billy the squid wrote:

By the way, holocaust denial is NOT a crime in this country

You know I find it ironic that you of all people [given that you have told us on this feedback board during the Nally episode that you are from a settled traveller background] that you would find yourself defending a hosted mod that to me and lets call a spade a spade here is being referenced by posters in the CT forum as an anti semite...especially since (a)travellers are looking for a separate ethnic status and (b)Romany gypsies didn't exactly get the VIP suite's at the gas chambers.

Diogenes

javaboy wrote: »

No it's not hunky dory and you know it's not. Nobody said that it is. Are you just wilfully ignoring the explanations given as to why a) you shouldn't post PMs publicly without permission and b) Mahatma's PM isn't being acted on as harshly as you want it to be?

I think the reasons why PMs shouldn't be posted publicly has been explained by me and others well enough on this thread by now. It's also been explained that there are methods of dealing with abusive PMs.

As for why Mahatma's admittedly abusive PM hasn't got too many people calling for his head, that's pretty simple. It's a matter of context.

I'm this attitude is just crap. I'm not singling you out because it's the worst example of this woeful double standard but its a pretty perfect example of this crap.

I'm going to use an analogy. This is akin (and I'm not saying it's similar or of the same level, but it is a metaphor) to the defence council in a rape trial trying to blame the victim. "She wore a short skirt", "she was drunk" "She was coming on to him".

Thats neither here nor there. He's responded to a short request with a litany of abuse, and the reaction of the community appears to be "you were asking for it".

If I sent that pm to another user, I would be looking at a lengthy ban, but because Mahatma is a mod, other mods are falling over themselves to justify his behaviour

That's not to say that I condone MC's actions. I don't. I don't spend a whole lot of time in CT but I have posted there before this ****storm kicked off and I would say that MC seems to abuse his status a little bit. I certainly wouldn't be his biggest fan by any means. But this is clearly a case of baiting. If the anti-semitic thing is true then he'll probably be reprimanded far more harshly than for foolishly responding to a trollish PM. All you're doing with this kind of nonsense is making him look like someone who was ganged up on and snapped.

But if I was to gauge the response from the mods on this thread I pretty much deserve this, and no one cares about Mahatma's behaviour.

Hell the first response in the help desk thread is telling me that I deserve to be banned because I'm complaining about a abusive pm.

Out of interest, what kind of reply were you expecting to that PM you sent?

Again thats really neither here nor there. I asked a civil question, albeit a sarcastic one, I received a torrent of abuse, I complained about it, and like most of Mahatma's actions since he became a mod the person questioning his behaviour is under more scrutiny that him.

It's also fairly damning that we're onto page five and we've not seen word one of the guy who's made wildly racist remarks and tried to cover them up, banned a user without any kind of justification, and sent abusive pms.

billy the squid

Deleted User wrote: »

You know I find it ironic that you of all people [given that you have told us on this feedback board during the Nally episode that you are from a settled traveller background] that you would find yourself defending a hosted mod that to me and lets call a spade a spade here is being referenced by posters in the CT forum as an anti semite...especially since (a)travellers are looking for a separate ethnic status and (b)Romany gypsies didn't exactly get the VIP suite's at the gas chambers.

One can disagree with someone's view without disagreeing with someone having the right to hold that view earthman.

Diogenes

billy the squid wrote: »

One can disagree with someone's view without disagreeing with someone having the right to hold that view earthman.

And someone can stand up and call out a racist on his lies. Mahatma posted a comment on a thread wherein he exposed his own ignorant racist views, and when he realised how deeply offensive his sentiment was, he abused his power to cover up his lies.

But apparently I'm the one who's out of order here.

billy the squid

billy the squid wrote: »

One can disagree with someone's view without disagreeing with someone having the right to hold that view earthman.

Well Francis,
I for one would draw the line if a fellow mod of a forum I modded started posting questionable views and a feedback thread arose.
Going into the thread supporting said mod can be construed as tacit approval.
Thats the essense of what I was saying to you.

Steve

Diogenes wrote: »

But apparently I'm the one who's out of order here.

Respectfully, Diogenes, you need to step back from this a little and let the higher ups come to a decision on the way forward. I think both parties have a share in the responsibility for the PM exchange that went on, you shoundn't have baited and MC shouldn't have responded to it.

You're really not helping things by pushing the issue so hard, I fear it will damage whatever credibility that is left in your arguement.

I'm not taking sides here by any means, I also feel that a short simple apology from MC for the mistaken banning would have been in the best interests of the forum and could have averted this whole trainwreck.

javaboy

Diogenes wrote: »

I'm this attitude is just crap. I'm not singling you out because it's the worst example of this woeful double standard but its a pretty perfect example of this crap.

What double standard did you find in my post? I don't like MC much. Maybe I didn't make that point strongly enough for you to know that there's no bias on my part there (or at least no bias favouring MC anyway). If he was a normal Boards mod and not a HMod, I'd be fully behind the calls for him to be out on his ear. As it is I think he's not doing the site's reputation any favours.

So I really don't see where you're seeing a double standard from my post. I would be as quick to criticise MC if he posted one of your PMs without permission.

I'm going to use an analogy. This is akin (and I'm not saying it's similar or of the same level, but it is a metaphor) to the defence council in a rape trial trying to blame the victim. "She wore a short skirt", "she was drunk" "She was coming on to him".

No. No it isn't. The difference is intent. A woman wearing a skirt may be a contributory factor in getting raped but it is not the reason she decides to wear it. In the case of your PM however, the only intent I can see is to stir shit. Can you honestly tell me I'm wrong?

Thats neither here nor there. He's responded to a short request with a litany of abuse, and the reaction of the community appears to be "you were asking for it".

Well imo you were asking for it. It was exactly the response you wanted so you could start this thread. That's not as I already said to condone MC's response but there are clearly two people to blame for this mess.

If I sent that pm to another user, I would be looking at a lengthy ban, but because Mahatma is a mod, other mods are falling over themselves to justify his behaviour

Really? Do you really want to insist on going down that road? Half the mods on the site will tell you they don't even see MC as a real mod because he mods a hosted forum. There is no pro-mod conspiracy at play here. I'm not a mod. I don't like MC. I haven't justified his behaviour. His PM was abusive plain and simple and I think it should be dealt with. My problem is with you trying to act all pure and innocent about it when it's plain as day that you were flame baiting. You obviously can't differentiate between my criticism of your actions and defence of Mahatma's.

But if I was to gauge the response from the mods on this thread I pretty much deserve this, and no one cares about Mahatma's behaviour.

I'm not a mod once again. I have no vested interest in defending MC. Hell I'd be happy enough to see him go. He is anything but impartial on the CT forum imo. People do care about his behaviour. It's already been said that he'll be spoken to about it. Again you can't seem to see the difference between criticising your behaviour and defending MC's.

Hell the first response in the help desk thread is telling me that I deserve to be banned because I'm complaining about a abusive pm.

Nobody said you deserved to be banned for complaining about an abusive PM. Hullaballu asked why he shouldn't ban you for sending such an abusive PM in the first place.

Again thats really neither here nor there. I asked a civil question, albeit a sarcastic one, I received a torrent of abuse, I complained about it, and like most of Mahatma's actions since he became a mod the person questioning his behaviour is under more scrutiny that him.

It is "here or there". It's relevant because it shows the intent of your PM. In real life if you confront someone and say "Are you not embarassed about .....?" in such a sarcastic manner and he responds with a torrent of abuse, would you consider yourself innocent? I think most impartial bystanders would say you started it even if both of you are at fault.

And again with the mod conspiracy rubbish.

javaboy

javaboy wrote: »

The difference is intent.

Just on that point and leaving aside all the noise in this thread.
Do you think it's MC's intent to be anti semetic in the CS forum ? He's being referenced here making a very unacceptable racist comment.
I'll give my view on that.Someone who carries racism on their sleeve should not be moderating a community board on boards.ie irrespective of whether it is a hosted forum or not.

Furthermore,if I'm not mistaken it was members of the boards.ie community who were already long standing members of this community [the site] who argued for the CT forum in the first place.Some of that arose out of the several CT type threads that appeared in politics previously.

Diogenes

javaboy wrote: »

What double standard did you find in my post? I don't like MC much. Maybe I didn't make that point strongly enough for you to know that there's no bias on my part there (or at least no bias favouring MC anyway). If he was a normal Boards mod and not a HMod, I'd be fully behind the calls for him to be out on his ear. As it is I think he's not doing the site's reputation any favours.

I'm very sorry I didn't make myself clear, the double standard comment was based on the reaction of the forum mods as a whole, not in particular to anything you said.

So I really don't see where you're seeing a double standard from my post. I would be as quick to criticise MC if he posted one of your PMs without permission.

I think the pm posting is a distraction to the legitmate other issues I have with Mahatma's behaviour.

No. No it isn't. The difference is intent. A woman wearing a skirt may be a contributory factor in getting raped but it is not the reason she decides to wear it. In the case of your PM however, the only intent I can see is to stir shit. Can you honestly tell me I'm wrong?

I'm sorry what? What? Do you happen to be a high court judge posting from, I dunno, the 80s? I would really take a long hard look at that sentiment, and then say post it on the LoL or PI. I'm fairly certain the general consensus from the female population of boards would be that your bollocks would be hanging from a masthead if you voiced that opinion.

Unless I am impinging on your rights, you have no right to abuse me. Basically you've no business hitting me, unless I start on you. Similarly if a you use polite (albeit sarcastic) language you have a right not to expect a torrent of abuse.

Well imo you were asking for it.

"I was asking for it". Christ here's hoping you're never near a jury on a rape trial.

You couldn't honestly have come out with more perfect example of the mindset I was referring to.

Thank you.

It was exactly the response you wanted so you could start this thread. That's not as I already said to condone MC's response but there are clearly two people to blame for this mess.

Oh right I'm the one who exposed himself as a racist bully who tries to cover up my lies. Oh no wait....

Really? Do you really want to insist on going down that road? Half the mods on the site will tell you they don't even see MC as a real mod because he mods a hosted forum. There is no pro-mod conspiracy at play here. I'm not a mod. I don't like MC. I haven't justified his behaviour. His PM was abusive plain and simple and I think it should be dealt with. My problem is with you trying to act all pure and innocent about it when it's plain as day that you were flame baiting. You obviously can't differentiate between my criticism of your actions and defence of Mahatma's.

And my point is mahatma's offensive behaviour runs much deeper than the single pm you seem to fixate on.

Nobody said you deserved to be banned for complaining about an abusive PM. Hullaballu asked why he shouldn't ban you for sending such an abusive PM in the first place.

And again if someone can point out how my post breaches any form of acceptable language. Or if someone could point out at which point sarcasm turns into abuse.

And again with the mod conspiracy rubbish.

People keep telling me the "mods are looking into it" meanwhile, I've received site ban threats in the helpdesk forum.

It's really hard not to see a conspiracy when I'm seeing this closing of the ranks as it where.

billy the squid

Diogenes wrote: »

While hurling abuse via pm seems to be hunky dory. Sorry the rules seem to shift here with an awful lot of whimsy.

It's not abusive, it is simply stating a fact. putting private messages in public domain without the concent of the other person is stupid.

Er because they told me?

I'll take your word for it .

While his was just peachy.

It doesn't exonerate you. You said in the help desk thread it should be expected of a mod not to send a private message such as the one you received. while I agree it is also expected of a user not to send a message to someone like the one you sent.

You mean that time I got an indefinite ban because I was mean to muji, had to pm you and him about, you washed your hands of it, and I had to take it to feedback where the general consensus was his behaviour was unacceptable, and the ban was lifted?

If I am not mistaken, anyone who misbhaved at that time on the CT forum received a lengthy if not permenent ban due to the high level of flaming and vitriol going around the place at the time. Also, I agreed to handle all incidents with you as Miju was just plane sick of argueing with you .

Christ I'm an anarchist.

No, you are disruptive. and sometimes disrespectful towards other people.

I provided huge swaths of evidence behind my figures. He just plucked the number of 2 million out of the air.

You accused him of holocaust denial even though the threads you linked to clearly show that he acknowledged a holocaust happened. Where ye differ is in the number of victims.

And I notice you skipped over the bit where he was throwing racist abuse towards jews.

As has been stated a gozillion times in numerous threads, this is under investigation, and to comment on that before an outcome to this has been reached would be premature. I will leave claims of racism to those doing the investigating who may have access to the deleted threads.

It may not be a crime, it's not right though is it?

When you support freedom of expression, you have to take the bitter with the sweet.

[/quote]I did in my OP. Which Seamus deleted. Care to comment on it, now Starn has posted it?[/QUOTE]

Starn's link shows a post joking about something he had heard . It doesn't come accross to me as expressing delight at mutilating animals. You will note from the post that he has never actually done it.

I also see you spoiling for an arguement in that thread also.

seamus

I don't think there's any need to continue *yet another* thread on this topic.

The question that the OP asked has been answered and Diogenes has gone off with his own issue, which is being dealt with.

Aside from your help desk thread, we are discussing your issue in the background, and the other issue(s) surrounding all of this are being considered by Vexorg.

You can consider this a conspiracy if you like, I don't give a sh*t. I know it's not, and everyone else knows it's not.