I believe Mahatma coat should resign

javaboy

billy the squid wrote:

I don't believe there was any mal-intent behind this brief ban, and there was no need for the economist to get all snotty about it.

I find it odd that you believe there was no mal-intent on Mahatma's behalf in giving out the ban yet you presume the worst about The Economist's intentions with the original post.

Any particular reason why you believe MC over TE?

billy the squid wrote: »

I would se it as someone telling me how I should moderate when it is not their place to do so.

So you'd ban someone because you inferred a certain meaning from a post that could easily have been meant in a different way altogether? Wouldn't a PM conversation be better to clarify the intentions of the poster?

billy the squid

Deleted User wrote: »

Just a point, Fairfilly is crossposting in Limerick / Equestrian.

You can infract her if you want, she isn't a mod.

Of fairfilly's five posts, none of them are in Limerick. If fairfilly is using duplicate accounts, then that is for the admins or smods to deal with.

Nevyn

Sherifu wrote: »

Boards could recruit a mod trainer.

We have places for mods and hmod to ask questions and stickies in them about how to use the mod and hmod functions.

Wibbs

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Mahatma's moderator status removed.

OK well then is there any other option that you could accept short of that?

billy the squid

I think the following sums up why the economist shouldn't have acted the way he did after his "ban"

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58252584&postcount=59

probably put better than I could.

Gordon

Thaedydal wrote: »

We have places for mods and hmod to ask questions and stickies in them about how to use the mod and hmod functions.

I've duplicated some of the ZatAoM posts into the Hmod forum.

billy the squid

billy the squid wrote: »

Of fairfilly's five posts, none of them are in Limerick. If fairfilly is using duplicate accounts, then that is for the admins or smods to deal with.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58259762#post58259762

billy the squid

Deleted User wrote: »

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58259762#post58259762

Where in that post is infraction justified?

I am just saying that she is cross posting, and that if you feel need to compensate for your inability to infract mods, then you are able to infract that poster.

Of course, doing so (infraction for ego purposes) would put you in the same kind of boat as another mod who has caused some aggro recently, but you seem to support that kind of behaviour.

Me personally? I would just point out that cross posting is a no no on boards.

billy the squid

They asked in a national forum, and then a local forum. the person happens to be from Munster so why should they not be allowed to ask that question in such a forum.

Also bare in mind that the person has only five posts, therefore it could be said that they are not familliar with the site rules. a note to inform them of this is more than adequate in that situation, however, I do not believe what you call "cross-posting" is intentional. ergo an infraction is not required.

Faith

billy the squid wrote: »

I read all the posts economist, you got extremely presious about being banned after goading MC about infractions.

I'm really not sure where you're getting all this nonsense about "goading" from. The Economist simply pointed out that a mod can't infract another mod. There was no goading involved.

Économiste Monétaire

billy the squid wrote: »

I think the following sums up why the economist shouldn't have acted the way he did after his "ban"

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58252584&postcount=59

probably put better than I could.

Actually, I think that further exemplifies the inability to moderate. That comment attempted to perpetuate the situation after all discussion was directed here by Miju. Try reading some other comments, you'll find them to be the inverse of that which you linked. To support Mahatma's actions in the method in which you're doing, by attempting to transfer blame, is only aptly described as retarded. Economist should not have been banned, there was no initial challenge. Also, the irony of saying one user blew their lid, yet you post stating how you ban all is comical. Take your own advice: get over yourself.

Wibbs wrote: »

OK well then is there any other option that you could accept short of that?

No, that boat has passed for me as a sufficient resolution. The last boarding call was when space was given for ample recognition of the error by MC and for MC to accept that, yet he refused to; the error being abusing moderator status by banning Economist, and blatant hypocrisy about what is conducive to discussion.

billy the squid

billy the squid wrote: »

I would se it as someone telling me how I should moderate when it is not their place to do so. I would also see someone with mod status as someone whose been around for a while and should know better, making an infraction insufficient anyway.

With respect that would be just plain overmodding.
TE's original post was just an FYI and not goading.

A mod with a bit of cop on [read: the qualities for the job]would have copped that.

The rest of this is all a load of palava.There are other issues brought to light here such as the anti semiticism by a mod [hmod or not] though that need to be dealt with I think.

Flamed Diving

The term 'back-seat modding' kind of bothers me. Are we not allowed to question the decisions of mods?

muffler

I had a quick read and the conclusions I come to (not that it matters) is that the economist stated he couldnt be infracted which was fair enough but I can see how it could have been read by certain individuals as being done in a "na na na na na you cant infract me" way. But still that is no reason to ban. If you intend to ban someone and you know how to do it then equally you should know how to unban them.

The Economist has made his point now and while its fairly clear that there are 2 strong willed personalities involved in this and without any climbing down involved by either of them perhaps they would agree just to forget about it given the season of goodwill that we are supposed to be in.

billy the squid

Deleted User wrote: »

With respect that would be just plain overmodding.
TE's original post was just an FYI and not goading.

A mod with a bit of cop on [read: the qualities for the job]would have copped that.

The rest of this is all a load of palava.There are other issues brought to light here such as the anti semiticism by a mod [hmod or not] though that need to be dealt with I think.

re the anti - semetism stuff. I think it would be remiss if I were to jump down someones throat over something I have not yet seen, which is why I haven't commented on it.

javaboy

Flamed Diving wrote: »

The term 'back-seat modding' kind of bothers me. Are we not allowed to question the decisions of mods?

That's not what back seat modding means. Back seat modding is a non-mod poster trying to act like a mod on a thread.

Questioning decisions of mods is allowed. It's just not supposed to be done on thread so as not to derail the thread.

The anti semiticism had already been raised to higher authorities anyway prior to it getting a mention in this thread.
I've no comment to make on it either save for what I said that it's now been given a mention via this thread and should be investigated and rightly so.
I've no doubt it's being looked into.
In fact I know it is.

billy the squid

Deleted User wrote: »

The anti semiticism had already been raised to higher authorities anyway prior to it getting a mention in this thread.
I've no comment to make on it either save for what I said that it's now been given a mention via this thread and should be investigated and rightly so.
I've no doubt it's being looked into.
In fact I know it is.

With regard to anti semitism you are preaching to the converted here. I have no time for that sort of thing and it has no place in society. however, dealing strictly with the whole banning issue, it seems to be a whole lot of over reaction.

javaboy

billy the squid wrote: »

however, dealing strictly with the whole banning issue, it seems to be a whole lot of over reaction.

+1. The banning did seem to be an overreaction. :pac:

Sully

I cant believe we are 4 pages in and no conclusion has been drawn? You both ****ed up, get over it. I have never seen something so dramatised. Your a mod OP - you SHOULD know better then to question a ban or a moderators decision in thread. You take it to PM or Help Desk. This is standard to avoid threads turning into a wreck which is exactly what happened because you and a few people questioned the other mods decision. Right or wrong MC did, you were completely in the wrong to act like you did.

Moving slightly on - MC was an idiot to issue a ban for what could be seen as goading or just a general (wtf? Why even bother making the point if you meant nothing by it?) passing comment. Furthermore MC should have known full well how to use modutils and should know when to be posting with a mod hat on and when not to be. That thread is all over the place and MC should sharpen up a bit. If in doubt, ask someone else. Ask an Smod, a fellow HMod, a random Mod, or even in the HMod Forum (it might be dead but people do keep an eye out just in case). Don't go doing things you haven't a clue how to reverse. Abuse of power? Nadda hope. MC was being an idiot. Hopefully he/she has realised how stupid it was and wont let it happen again.

The moral of the story? Both parties were in the wrong. Both should acknowledge, apologise and agree to cop themselves on and move on. Furthermore, MC needs to relax a little and learn how to be a mod. I'm getting the impression he/she has no idea what to do. Some of the posts in that thread were unusual so a bit of a sharpen up would really do you well.

Daysha

Was just about to post something along those lines Sully. Talk about a storm in a teacup.

Red Sleeping Beauty

The Economist wrote: »

Finally, if Mahatma coat refuses to resign, I believe the admins of this site should intervene. Your customers do not differentiate between a forum in the Hosted category or After Hours. The Conspiracy Theories forum is closer to the Paranormal forum than it is to Ireland Offline. You should not permit such abuse of moderation over a technicality.

I said that I was a customer before and it was more or less shot down. I do think users are customers regardless of wether we subscribe or not. Anyway, I agree, I can't make the distinction between Hosted and "normal" boards.ie forums (hence why I started a thread) .

The other "hosted" forums seem fairly small and perhaps unlikely for any tension to arise. A "Conspiracy theorists" forum is bound to lead to some sort of tension or flaming or abuse or whatever. Why can't it be slotted in to the Rec Category and modded properly ?

Sully wrote: »

I cant believe we are 4 pages in and no conclusion has been drawn? You both ****ed up, get over it. I have never seen something so dramatised. Your a mod OP - you SHOULD know better then to question a ban or a moderators decision in thread. You take it to PM or Help Desk. .

They were told that it wasn't an issue for help desk and that the Hosted forum should deal with it in-house. I think this is an issue that deserves a public airing outside of a PM and it seems that this issue has been censored in the Conspiracy Theory forum.


This is a bit more than a storm in a tea cup. Before I joined earlier this year I heard stories about what the modding was like here. Upon joining in the last while I've seen fairness by mods on many forums and these Feedback threads are good. However, what Mc did (not just the banning but his attitude afterwards) is indicitive of that negativity I had heard about.

Nick_oliveri

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Actually, I think that further exemplifies the inability to moderate. That comment attempted to perpetuate the situation after all discussion was directed here by Miju.

I posted that in the relevant CT thread when i seen that the thread in feedback was moved to the helpdesk and was pretty much dead.

Also it was a thread started by a user who had posted two threads that are now locked in the CT forum. With a bit of a/n (obvious) grudge against MC.

I do not agree with most of MC's views on most theories or indeed most events, but i will not stand by when a user gets personal abuse thrown at him from all angles and a mob calls for lynching for stupid reasons. Also this mob contains people who have previously questioned MC's ability as a mod before this bullshiite. And people who constantly argue with him as i have said in the post Billy quoted.

I would have originally thought that MC should have apoligised, but that was until i seen the "post-30 minute ban rant". Both posters should leave it. As a previous poster has suggested, tis the festive season, and calling for a head to roll is way out of order for such a small and isolated incident. It was meant as a joke, for the sake of fooking 30 minutes with the inability to post in the CT forum....

If anything, heads should roll for the personal abuse thrown but that is not my decision. Im delighted that Mahatma played it cool and didnt ban those who gave personal comments, he can take it, has taken it and will continue to take it. And if you quote this paragraph into something sexual ill fooking burst ye!

Edit:

alan dunne wrote:

The other "hosted" forums seem fairly small and perhaps unlikely for any tension to arise. A "Conspiracy theorists" forum is bound to lead to some sort of tension or flaming or abuse or whatever. Why can't it be slotted in to the Rec Category and modded properly ?

Now in all honesty i think between MC and Bonkey, they can mod that forum properly. Although i do agree that it should be moved.

This is a bit more than a storm in a tea cup. Before I joined earlier this year I heard stories about what the modding was like here. Upon joining in the last while I've seen fairness by mods on many forums and these Feedback threads are good. However, what Mc did (not just the banning but his attitude afterwards) is indicitive of that negativity I had heard about.

This was a joke gone wrong, 30 mins of the Economists posting time in the CT forum was lost. Big deal.

Red Sleeping Beauty

aidan dunne ?

Nick_oliveri

Fixed, sorry aidan..:pac:

Red Sleeping Beauty

They're out to get me

Sully

The Economist wrote: »

Finally, if Mahatma coat refuses to resign, I believe the admins of this site should intervene. Your customers do not differentiate between a forum in the Hosted category or After Hours.

I'm sorry, their CUSTOMERS?!?! Are you for real? You call MCs modding into question - I would call yours at this stage tbh.

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

I said that I was a customer before and it was more or less shot down. I do think users are customers regardless of wether we subscribe or not. Anyway, I agree, I can't make the distinction between Hosted and "normal" boards.ie forums (hence why I started a thread) .

Enlighten me, how are you a customer of Boards.ie? Regardless if you subscribe or not.

They were told that it wasn't an issue for help desk and that the Hosted forum should deal with it in-house. I think this is an issue that deserves a public airing outside of a PM and it seems that this issue has been censored in the Conspiracy Theory forum.

Well I am unsure myself as to the main difference or how it works. If its an inside job, then I would have assumed over PM is more appropriate or start a new thread about it if you cant actually come here. But destroying a thread, calling for the mods head, etc. is OTT. Disappointing behaviour from a mod, who should know better. Censorship me eye.

This is a bit more than a storm in a tea cup. Before I joined earlier this year I heard stories about what the modding was like here. Upon joining in the last while I've seen fairness by mods on many forums and these Feedback threads are good. However, what Mc did (not just the banning but his attitude afterwards) is indicitive of that negativity I had heard about.

All I have ever seen from you is winging about this site. Did you come here to just have a go at us or something?

Vexorg

This is a Help Desk issue

Having read the thread my view is that the ban was a foolish thing to do, hardly malicious - posts #41, #42, #43 but in itself is not enough to call for a mod to resign, if it were we would have a much higher mod turnover. I think that that ban would have been reversed quicker had MC known how to do it. Many mods have made similar mistakes and its really the only way to learn.

I think an apology was deserved, but is very difficult to give that apology after it has been demanded and in this instance MC and The Economist appear equally at fault, really guys sort this specific one out yourselves and mark this one down to experience.

If this behavior is a regular occurrence then there is a problem, in isolation it just does not appear to be. Are there other instances?