Is there an clique on boards.ie who are immune to the rules?

Gandalf23

I was going to start a "help desk" thread about this, but I'll post here in "feedback" because I'd genuinely like to hear the community response to this issue.

We've already established that its ok for an Admin to indulge in personal abuse. Fair enough, the site belongs to the Admins and they can do whatever they please and cannot be banned/infracted.

But should others be immune from the general rules of boards.ie? If so, why is this allowed? Should not the rules of the site be applied equally to everyone? I've heard it said many many times on this site that mods are just regular users outside the forms they moderate and are subject to the rules of those forums. But is this really true or are some people here members of a clique to whom the rules do not apply?

An example of this is contained in another active feedback thread. A user called another poster a "****ing moron", and nothing seems to have been done about this (I'm open to correction on this). I've seen others banned and infracted for a LOT LOT less than this.

So, over to the community to discuss.

And just to add, the last time I started a thread like this I got a lot of personal abuse and attacks. I'm asking a genuine question and looking to start a genuine debate/discussion. Please, if you feel like contributing to this thread refrain from personal abuse and try to look at my question objectively. Objective feedback is what makes this community stronger, and sometimes it takes a real friend (not a "yes" man fanboi) to tell someone something they need to hear. This could be a good starting point for the new community manager, and I am genuinely interested in what the community has to say about this.

4zn76tysfajdxp

You can't ban someone who's quitting.

Gandalf23

Rhett Modern Chalk wrote: »

You can't ban someone who's quitting.

You can actually.

Latchy

Yup, he felt strongly enough to leave a parting shot at the poster in question, in that link although he may have being joking .

Mr Magnolia

Those posters are members here a lot longer than you or I so I wouldn't presume to know enough about the situation personally.

If the person 'abused' doesn't report the post then I don't see a problem with those 2 linked examples. Maybe they received the perceived 'abuse' and thought ' you know what, I am a cnut', who knows.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Gandalf23 wrote: »

You can actually.

Well yeah, you can, but it would be pointless.

Sully

Amp wasnt being abusive he was joking about. It wasnt meant to be taken seriously and anybody reading his posts should have got that.

If there is a clique, can somebody send me the details?! Id like to be part of any immunity going around danke.

Sherifu

Support your local clique.

There are people that know each other in RL here and it may change the way things are handled slightly. (imo)

Yavvy

There are exceptions that prove the rule perhaps ?

But I wouldn't question the integrity of the Boards admins and managers. If anything they have proved their integrity time and time again

Ron DMC

Sully wrote: »

If there is a clique, can somebody send me the details?! Id like to be part of any immunity going around danke.

I'm afraid it's a lot more exclusive than that Sully.

No one will PM you details on the clique, it doesn't work that way.

When and if you have shown yourself to be worthy, you will be contacted with details on how to become on of the elite.

Until then, you will need to wait with baited breath.

Kiera

#1 - The first rule of the clique is, you do not talk about the clique.
#2 - The second rule of the clique is, you DO NOT talk about the clique.

Bascially the Admins can do/say what they like. It's their site. Amp doesnt give a crap because he wants out anyway. Do you have anymore examples? Those two were pretty poor.

6th

I'm thinking of starting my own.

Hobart

Sully wrote: »

Well both amp and DeV are admins of the site.. Well amp *was*. Plus he wasnt being abusive he was joking about. It wasnt meant to be taken seriously and anybody reading his posts should have got that.

If there is a clique, can somebody send me the details?! Id like to be part of any immunity going around danke.

amp was never an admin.

Latchy

Once you become part of the clique you wish you had not .You cease to have any individuality ,which makes you unique in the first place

Gandalf23

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

If the person 'abused' doesn't report the post then I don't see a problem with those 2 linked examples. Maybe they received the perceived 'abuse' and thought ' you know what, I am a cnut', who knows.

Sully wrote: »

Well both amp and DeV are admins of the site.. Well amp *was*. Plus he wasnt being abusive he was joking about. It wasnt meant to be taken seriously and anybody reading his posts should have got that.

Are you guys really saying that it isn't personal abuse unless the "abused" person reports it!!???!!!

Thats the first time I've heard that one!

Is that the policy you guys adopt for personal abuse on the forums you mod?

I have seen many mods argue the exact opposite of that. There is a good example in the soccer feedback thread currently in feedback where a poster in receipt of "abuse" stated explicitly that he did not get abused but the abuser was still banned.

R0ot

There is no clique move along... :pac:

Sully

Hobart wrote: »

amp was never an admin.

oops. Dont know why I said that.

seamus

Gandalf23 wrote: »

But should others be immune from the general rules of boards.ie? If so, why is this allowed? Should not the rules of the site be applied equally to everyone?

Mostly. But then at the same time it is justified to take someone's past into account when taking action. If a poster has a long history on a board of being gruff and confrontational and generally stirring **** eventually pisses the mod off enough, they may be banned, without having done anything specific. Another poster, who's been continually helpful and a decent poster, loses the rag at the aforementioned troll and fires an outburst at him on the thread. Yet he gets an infraction.
On the face of it, the latter "offence" is more serious than the former. But the real point of moderation at all is to act in the best interests of the site/board; it's not to punish users and apply rules.

Hence rules should be applied in a way which best serves the interests of discussion, which doesn't mean that every incident must be treated equally.

But is this really true or are some people here members of a clique to whom the rules do not apply?

No. Aside from the admins, there's no-one who doesn't have to stick by the rules. Are more "seasoned" posters able to skirt the rules more than newer posters? I'd say so. But that's because it's a natural function of any kind of community - those with more respect within the community will be forgiven their transgression more readily than those who are unknown, purely because they have served the community well in the past, and will continue to do so.
Can that be amended? I don't know. I don't think it's a problem - people don't become respected posters by acting the tit, so it doesn't come up all that often.

An example of this is contained in another active feedback thread. A user called another poster a "****ing moron", and nothing seems to have been done about this (I'm open to correction on this).

On that particular post, the tone of it is more-or-less light-hearted and the poster it was directed at even thanked the post, indicating that perhaps they knew eachother, or in any case it wasn't taken as an insult or any kind of personal attack. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that there was no malice or offence intended in that post.

Again, looking at the canon of, "What's best for the site/forum", if everyone is laughing about a post and it's clear that there's been no offence or foul, then what purpose would banning or infracting accomplish?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sully

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Are you guys really saying that it isn't personal abuse unless the "abused" person reports it!!???!!!

Thats the first time I've heard that one!

Is that the policy you guys adopt for personal abuse on the forums you mod?

I have seen many mods argue the exact opposite of that. There is a good example in the soccer feedback thread currently in feedback where a poster in receipt of "abuse" stated explicitly that he did not get abused but the abuser was still banned.

No, thats not what I meant. Personally I think anybody who gives personal abuse should be spoken to but it depends entirely on the case.

FlutterinBantam

Of course there is a clique.

Anybody with a modicum of intelligence could see that.

Certain posters had immunity, and the Cuckoo's Nest was rife,I say rife, with cliquery and snide personal remarks from people who mistakenly believed themselves to be on a superior intellectual level to the ordinary user.

The departing incumbent was one of the worst offenders, one has only to read the rant posted and the number of times "idiot" is mentioned to form that opinion.

Then the usual circlejerk formed to defend the indefensible.

Same names same posts.

What they wanted was a showcase for their"talents" and "wit" with real names inserted to discourage the hesitant noob, and give the impression of an inner sanctum and intellectual dexterity which the ordinary Joe could only stare at open mouthed and gawp in "admiration"


Epic epic fail:cool:

Gandalf23

Thank you Seamus.

That was a truly excellent reply as usual.

Gandalf23

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I tend to agree with you there donegalfella. I think there is no excuse for abuse, and tends to have A "lowest common dominator" effect.

I liked the following post from Beru ... sort of sums it all up for me.

cornbb

I think you're right, there is a bit of a clique. Its not official or anything, its just that once someone has been around here for long enough they either tend to

a) get banned cause they can't behave themselves
b) get bored of the place and only drop in occasionally or never come back, or
c) really get into it, learn how things really work around here and get 10,000 posts, a modship and implied clique membership. This means they also tend to get the benefit of the doubt more often than a new member that people don't know very well.

Its not a big conspiracy or anything, its just a natural byproduct of a growing community.

Having said that no-one should be above the rules of the site, everyone should be subject to the same rules re. personal abuse etc. As for DeV, he is above the rules of course but I'm surprised to hear him say that to a user.

Latchy

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Of course there is a clique.

Anybody with a modicum of intelligence could see that.

Certain posters had immunity, and the Cuckoo's Nest was rife,I say rife, with cliquery and snide personal remarks from people who mistakenly believed themselves to be on a superior intellectual level to the ordinary user.

The departing incumbent was one of the worst offenders, one has only to read the rant posted and the number of times "idiot" is mentioned to form that opinion.

Then the usual circlejerk formed to defend the indefensible.

Same names same posts.

What they wanted was a showcase for their"talents" and "wit" with real names inserted to discourage the hesitant noob, and give the impression of an inner sanctum and intellectual dexterity which the ordinary Joe could only stare at open mouthed and gawp in "admiration"


Epic epic fail:cool:

Epic indeed . I am thinking of many other of posters who could have wrote that ,word for word, except the bit for the ordianry joe who wouldnt really be that intrested ( to much) in the inner sanctions or admiration of any cliques ,should they exist .:cool:




Just a humble opinon

Earthhorse

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In theory you are correct but in practise people are human beings. They will occasionally lash out at other users in an abusive manner. If they're a valued member of the community it shouldn't be the end of the world.

Insect Overlord

I just finished reading the Amp thread. Starting a Feedback thread based on another Feedback thread (especially that one) = FAIL.

Yes, there are rules, personal abuse ruins 99.9% of threads, but I think everybody knew that something very different was going on in that particular thread.

Gandalf23

An File wrote: »

Starting a Feedback thread based on another Feedback thread (especially that one) = FAIL.

Your feedback on this feedback thread which is based on another feedback thread = EPIC FAIL

The Recliner

Personally I think DeV as owner of the site is perfectly entitled to give someone who is using the site for free a bollocking if they block revenue generating ads

I am fairly sure in another thread he admitted his regret for flying off the handle a bit

On the Cliuqe thing I don't think one exists and don't care if one does, it is just another aspect of the community and doesn't affect most people one little bit

Gandalf23

Earthhorse wrote: »

In theory you are correct but in practise people are human beings. They will occasionally lash out at other users in an abusive manner.

But then they should be banned/infracted no?

Thats why there is a general "no abuse" rule across boards.ie.

Earthhorse

Gandalf23 wrote: »

But then they should be banned/infracted no?

Thats why there is a general "no abuse" rule across boards.ie.

Not in the example you quoted unless Chong reported the post.